+menu-


  • Category Archives PUBLIC POLICY? Wihout the PUBLIC?
  • Coerced by Federal Bathroom Laws?

    Basic Federal Education and Bathroom Laws

    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a (self identified?) female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.

    COERCED BY FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS?

    THE FEDS CAN WITHHOLD SIGNIFICANT CASH FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS IF THEY DON’T. THE FEDS HAVE GIVEN THE PALATINE, ILL., HIGH SCHOOL 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL BATHROOM LAWS, OR FACE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.

    ———————————————————–

    My comment….
    Jan 10,  2015 THE FEDERAL ACT OF COERCEMENT.
    TO MAKE PUBLIC AMERICAN SCHOOLS, DO SOMETHING BY USING FORCE OR THREATS, FORCE OR THE POWER TO USE FORCE IN GAINING COMPLIANCE, AS BY A GOVERNMENT OR POLICE FORCE.

    “WE THE PEOPLE” MUST HOLD OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL AND WA STATE BATHROOM LAWS AND RULES

    AS, NO AMERICAN CITIZEN COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE THE U.S. CONGRESS OR THE WA STATE LEGISLATORS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM

    ————————————————————

    Behind My Back | A WA State Bathroom Rule

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wastatebathroom-rule/

    2 days ago – … on wood burning. Category Archives A WA State Bathroom Rule … by Joseph Backholm, FPIW.org | January 6, 2016. Last week, news broke …

    ———————————————————-

    Dec 26, 2015….

    Washington Quietly Adopts New Transgender Policies

    dailysignal.com/…/washingtonquietly-adopts-new-transgender-bathroo…

    6 days ago – The House passed a reconciliation bill rolling back key provisions of Obamacare. … One day after Christmas, Washington state quietly adopted a set of new … The rules, adopted by the state Human Rights Commission, make it … to use the restroom that is consistent with their gender identity” and in most …

    JANUARY 8, 2016 WA STATE

    Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule …

    www.fpiw.org/…/govinsleewontanswerquestion-about-bathroomrule

    3 days ago – FPIW communications director Zach Freeman talked with Gov. Jay Inslee

    —————————————————————————————-
    NOVEMBER 3, 2015 THE FEDS — specifically, THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT’S Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of THE BASIC FEDERAL EDUCATION LAW. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.

    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, AND NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY BELIEVE CONGRESS EVER INTENDED TO CREATE THEM.

    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — BUT NOT TO THE POINT OF PRETENDING SEXUAL ORGANS DON’T EXIST.

    ——————————————————————–

    Uncle Sam’s insane push for transgender rights in school locker rooms

    By Post Editorial Board
    November 3, 2015 | 8:41pm
    Talk about lunatic overreach: The federal Education Department is bullying high schools across America to treat “trans” teens exactly as the sex they “identify” as — all the way up to using the same locker rooms and showers.
    Many schools have knuckled under, since the feds can withhold significant cash if they don’t. But one Illinois district is refusing to go along.
    Mind you, the Palatine, Ill., high school already lets the teen in question play on a girls’ sports team and even change in the same room, but in a curtained-off area. Staff refer to the student as “she,” and so on.
    The feds — specifically, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — insist that drawing any distinction is sexual discrimination banned by Title IX of the basic federal education law. “The district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room,” charges Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon.
    The feds have given the school 30 days to comply, or face enforcement action.
    Insanity squared:
    This railroads over other students’ privacy rights. However the kid in question “identifies,” that doesn’t change the reality of what others see in that locker room.
    Federal bureaucrats have no business rewriting the law to deny that reality. Nothing in US law suggests these “trans” rights, and no one could possibly believe Congress ever intended to create them.
    Cultural “progressives” have embraced the transgender-rights agenda, but the public hasn’t. Yes, Americans today are more willing to play along with “I identify as” — but not to the point of pretending sexual organs don’t exist.
    Look: The school has gone the extra mile to be accepting. (Is it fair to other players to let a biological male compete in a woman’s sport?) It’s just showing some respect for the views of other students — and their parents.
    The real offender here is the feds, by sending a strong and demeaning message to the rest of those girl athletes: Your privacy and your opinions don’t matter at all.


  • Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (2) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    WHO’S  CONTROLLING OUR  WATER?

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

    ——————————————————————————-

    DO YOU HAVE VESTED WATER RIGHTS?

    ARE YOU VESTED  IN THE WATER FUTURES MARKET?

    CONCERNED?

    READ THIS UPDATE ON WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE FUTURE OF OUR WATER

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

     ——————————————————————————————–

    H.R. 1732—Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 …

    https://rules.house.gov/bill/…/hr1

    United States House of Representatives

    Apr 28, 2015 – H.R. 1732Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 … Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 1732, H.J.Res. 43, and Conference Report to …

    ——————————————————————————————

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS

    ———————————————————————————————-

    H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection …

    www.nlc.org/…/Regulatory/WOTUS%20Fact%…

    National League of Cities

    Page 1 of 2. Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732, “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”. Background Information. • In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency ..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Fact Sheet: H.R. 1732

    “The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act”

    Background Information

    · In April 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) proposed a rule that would redefine “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agencies assert this rule merely “clarifies” the scope of federal CWA jurisdiction over waters in the United States. In reality, however, this rule goes beyond merely clarifying the scope of federal jurisdiction under CWA programs; it  increases the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction over more waters, and undermines the role of the states as partners and co-regulators of the Nation’s waters.

    · The federal-state partnership Congress intended to establish under the CWA has been successful for the past four decades because of the recognition that not all waters need to be subject to federal jurisdiction and that states should have the primary responsibility of regulating waters within their individual boundaries.

    · Twice, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this federal-state partnership when it told the Agencies that there are limits to federal jurisdiction under the CWA, and that they had gone too far in asserting their authority.

    · Nevertheless, the Agencies have proposed the rule that would redefine the scope of waters subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA.

    · Substantial flaws in the process to develop the rule have plagued the rulemaking from the beginning. The sequence and timing of the actions that the federal Agencies have taken to develop this rule undermine the credibility of the rule and the process to develop it. Among other things, state and local governments and the regulated community all have expressed concern that the Agencies have failed to consult with them in the development of the rule.

    · There is concern that the Agencies’ push to unilaterally broaden the scope of the CWA threatens to undermine the federal-state partnership and erode state authority by granting sweeping new federal jurisdiction to waters never intended for federal regulation under the CWA.

    · This expansion of federal regulatory power will have serious consequences for the Nation’s economy, threaten jobs, invite costly litigation, and significantly restrict the ability of landowners to make decisions about their property and the rights of state and local governments to plan for their own development.

     

    Summary

    .· When developing the new proposed rule the Agencies must take into consideration all of the comments received on the rule, the economic analysis of the rule, and the connectivity study which was used as the basis for the rule. They must also

    solicit recommendations from and consult with state and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how to define “Waters of the United States” and prepare a new regulatory proposal that is consistent with Supreme Court rulings, the feedback from the public comments and recommendations from the state and local officials, stakeholders, and others.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The bill requires that the Agencies engage in outreach to stakeholders, including holding a federalism consultation with the states and local governments. The Agencies are instructed to seek to reach consensus with the states and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States,” maintain the Federal–

    State partnership in implementing the Clean Water Act, and take into consideration state and local input regarding geography, hydrology, and legal frameworks.

    · The Agencies are also to consult with and solicit recommendations from stakeholders that represent a broad range of perspectives who could be impacted either directly or indirectly by the new rule. The Agencies are to promote transparency in these processes by making all of the communications, records and documents available to the public, and prepare a report that responds to the comments received and provides a detailed explanation of how the Agencies have used the comments and stakeholder processes in the new rule.

    #####

    ————————————————————————————————-

    history snippet

    Congress (2013-2014) H.R. 5078 addresses what is yet another example of a disturbing pattern of an imperial presidency that seeks to use brute force and executive action while ignoring Congress.

    The bill also requires the EPA and the Corps to engage in a federalism consultation with the states and local governments by

    Jointly consulting with relevant state and local officials to formulate recommendations for a consensus regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters to be covered under the Clean Water Act, and those waters to be reserved for the states to determine how to regulate.  The proposal would need to be consistent with the applicable rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————————————–

    H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1732

    Apr 13, 2015 – Summary of H.R.1732 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015.

    H.R.1732 – Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015114th Congress (2015-2016) | Get alerts

    Bill

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] (Introduced 04/13/2015)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    H. Rept. 114-93

    Latest Action:

    04/29/2015 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 231 Reported to House. Resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1732, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and H.J. Res. 43.

    Tracker:

    Summary: H.R.1732 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

    All Bill Information

    A SUMMARY IS IN PROGRESS.

    ———————————————————————————————

    Now, through a new rule proposed in April, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has sought to bypass the legislative process and achieve the same expansionist agenda through agency guidance and the executive branch’s regulatory process

    ———————————————————————————————

     H.R.5078 – Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    Sponsor:

    Rep. Southerland, Steve II [R-FL-2] (Introduced 07/11/2014)

    Committees:

    House – Transportation and Infrastructure

    Committee Reports:

    House Report 113-568; House Report 113-568,Part 2

    Latest Action:

    09/11/2014 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 559.

    Major Recorded Votes:

    09/09/2014 : Passed House

    Summary: H.R.5078 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

    There are 3 summaries for this bill.

    Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

    Shown Here:
    Passed House without amendment (09/09/2014)

    (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)

    Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 – Prohibits the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from:

    • developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed rule entitled, “Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ Under the Clean Water Act,” issued on April 21, 2014, or the proposed guidance entitled, “Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected By the Clean Water Act,” dated February 17, 2012; or
    • using the proposed rule or proposed guidance, any successor document, or any substantially similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis for any rulemaking or decision regarding the scope or enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act).

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to withdraw the interpretive rule entitled, “Notice of Availability Regarding the Exemption from Permitting Under Section 404(f)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act to Certain Agricultural Conservation Practices,” issued on April 21, 2014.

    Requires the Army Corps and the EPA to: (1) consult with relevant state and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal that would identify the scope of waters covered under the Clean Water Act and the scope of waters not covered; (2) provide for the public review and comment of a draft report that includes a recommendation only if consensus has been reached with regard to the recommendation among the Army Corps, the EPA, and state and local officials; (3) publish a final report; and (4) report to Congress on the recommendation

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5078

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    History , Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014

    Legislation to Prevent Federal Overreach in Regulation of Nation’s Waters Introduced by Committee Leaders

    http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=387572

    Bill to be Considered at Committee Markup Next Week

    Washington, DC, Jul 11, 2014 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Bipartisan legislation to uphold the federal-state partnership to regulate the Nation’s waters and prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing a rule that broadens the scope of the Clean Water Act and expands the federal government’s regulatory power was introduced in the House today by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leaders.

     

    The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act (H.R. 5078) is sponsored by U.S. Rep. Steve Southerland, and is cosponsored by Transportation Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA), Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and a bipartisan group of additional Members of the House.  A Committee markup scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 16, 2014 will include H.R. 5078.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    Shuster & Gibbs Statement on Regulatory Integrity Protection Act

    VETO THREAT

    Washington, DC, Apr 30 | Jim Billimoria, Justin Harclerode (202) 225-9446

    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) released the following joint statement in response to the Administration’s veto threat of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, a bill that stops the Administration’s flawed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) proposed rule that would give the federal government unprecedented authority to regulate virtually any place that water flows in the United States:

    “The Administration’s proposed rule is opposed by at least 32 states.  The rule is opposed by the Nation’s large cities, smaller cities, counties, towns, and townships.  The rule is opposed by the majority of the regulated community – our farmers, homebuilders, businesses, manufacturers, and many others.  More than one million comments have been filed on this proposed rule, with approximately 70% of the substantive comments requesting the rule be withdrawn or significantly modified.  It’s important for the House to stand up for and recognize the concerns and rights of state and local governments, business owners and farmers, and landowners and private citizens.  The Administration’s veto threat is just the latest example of its determination to seize more power, federalize all waters, and regulate land use around the country.”

    H.R. 1732 requires the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to restart the rulemaking process, this time consulting with state and local governments and other stakeholders and taking into account their concerns.  The House may vote on the bill as soon as tomorrow.

     

    The bottom line

    What’s happening in WA DC… Read the updates APR 28, 2015  from Congress, get the facts, GET informed and contact your federal ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

     


  • Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    NOT ONE SINGLE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/people-partners

    PEOPLE INVOLVED IN ROSS?  American Citizens? Not so much

    Who’s Paying for ROSS? American taxpayers, pretty much

    Where are they doing ROSS?  From Washington DC to Washington State

    APPOINTED GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN ROSS? Up to their  eyeballs

    WHO’S INVESTING IN THE GREEN FUTURES MARKET?

    NON GOVERNMENT TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS?

    SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    GLOBAL INVOLVEMENT? WATER INVOLVED? NATURAL RESOURCES?

    WHO’S 100-YEAR PLAN FOR  GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE?

    WHO’S REGIONAL PLAN TO ADVANCE GREEN URBANISM?

    ———————————————————–

    Part (1) Who’s Planning Our Future?

    NOT ONE SINGLE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF “WE THE PEOPLE”

    MENTIONED IN THE ROSS PLAN?

    Read it and weep.Of the People? By the People? For the People?

    Draw your own conclusions, Good? Bad? Ugly? Outrageous?

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/people-partners

    ————————–

    WHO IS ROSS?

    ————————————————-

    PEOPLE INVOLVED

    ROSS Project Team

    Nancy Rottle, ROSS Co-Director

    Director, Green Futures Research + Design Lab, University of Washington

    Nancy is a registered landscape architect with over fifteen years of leadership roles in professional practice and eight years teaching at the University of Washington. She has a wide range of practice experience including large scale GIS-based planning and has won numerous awards for research, planning and design. In 2005 she co-directed Open Space Seattle 2100, a planning process to develop a 100-year plan for Seattle’s green infrastructure.

    The University of Washington’s Green Futures Research + Design Lab is the organizational home to the ROSS.

    John Owen, ROSS Co-Director

    AIA, Partner, Makers Architecture, Planning and Urban Design

    John’s experience in urban design, regional and statewide planning spans decades. in that time he has helped the State prepare a new WAC for the Shoreline Management Act, and worked with the Puget Sound Regional Council to develop environmental management in addition to implementing numerous urban design strategies. In addition to his work at Makers, John provides leadership on the Watershed Open Space Strategies work of the ROSS

    Jeff Raker, ROSS Senior Planner

    Jeff has ten years of expertise in regional growth, transportation, and economic development planning. He has provided technical analysis; decision support; and policy development guidance on issues ranging from smart growth in rural areas and transit-oriented development to workforce development and “social capital” initiatives to improve access to cultural organizations. His Masters in Urban & Regional Planning from University of Greenwich & Saxion Universities of Applied Sciences explored the role of regional planning in advancing Green Urbanism. Jeff has led the development and coordination of the ROSS for the past three years

    Ginger Daniel, ROSS Planner – Regional Initiatives

    Ginger has over fifteen years of experience working for governments and non-governmental advocacy organizations to advance large-scale social and environmental change on international, national and local levels. With a Masters in Landscape Architecture from the University of Washington, she also brings green infrastructure planning and design expertise with a focus on social equity. Ginger oversees the ROSS’ open space services approach, regional task forces and communications work.

    Steve Whitney, ROSS Leadership

    As a Program Officer with the Bullitt Foundation, Steve focuses on the protection of natural capital and associated ecosystem services in the major metropolitan regions of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Prior to joining the Foundation, he spent fourteen years with The Wilderness Society first as director of its National Parks Program in Washington D.C., and later as Northwest Regional Director and Deputy Vice President. Under his direction, the Bullitt Foundation had been an anchor funder for the ROSS.

    Sue Abbott, ROSS Leadership

    Sue has worked with the National Park Service’s Rivers, Trails and Conservation (RTCA) program for over 20 years. Her work specializes in building coalitions and partnerships, designing public outreach strategies, facilitation, organizational development, community visioning, resource assessment, plan development and environmental education and stewardship. The National Park Service generously provides technical assistance to the ROSS project.

    Executive Committee

    Executive Committee Chair

    • Ron Sims, Puget Sound Partnership, Executive Committee

    Committee Members

    • Dave  Somers , Snohomish County, Councilmember
    • Elizabeth Babcock, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resource Specialist
    • Steve Whitney, The Bullitt Foundation, Program Officer
    • Michael Linde, National Park Service, RTCA Program Manager
    • Ron Shultz, Washington State Conservation Commission, Director of Policy
    • Barb Chamberlain, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Executive Director
    • Kelly Mann, Urban Land Institute Northwest, Executive Director
    • Howard Frumkin, University of Washington School of Public Health, Dean
    • Kaleen Cottingham, Washington Recreation & Conservation Office, Director
    • Thatcher Bailey, Seattle Parks Foundation, Executive Director
    • Marc Daily, Puget Sound Partnership, Deputy Director
    • Jennifer Eberlien, United States Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Supervisor
    • Charlotte Garrido, Kitsap County, County Commissioner
    • Cynthia Welti, Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, Executive Director
    • Joanna Grist, Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition, Executive Director
    • Joe Kane, Washington Association of Land Trusts, Vice President (Executive Director, Nisqually Land Trust)
    • Paul Kundtz, The Trust for Public Land, Washington State Director
    • Christie TRUE, King County Department of Natural Resources &Parks, Director
    • Dennis Canty, American Farmland Trust, Pacific Northwest Regional Director
    • Gene Duvernoy, Forterra, President
    • Brian Boyle, UW School of Forest Resources, NW Environmental Forum Leader
    • Terry Williams, Tulalip Tribes, Fisheries & Natural Resources Commissioner
    • Josh Baldi, WA Department of Ecology, Special Assistant to Director
    • David Fleming, Public Health Seattle-King County, Director
    • Ken Konigsmark, , Rural Resident & Conservation Specialist
    • Andrew Hayes, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Alternate to Peter Goldmark
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County, Alternate to Pat McCarthy
    • Lisa Dulude, Snohomish County, Office of Energy & Sustainability
    • Tracy Stanton, Earth Economics, Policy Director & Program Leader

    Technical Advisory Committees (TACs)

    Role: Work Sessions & Targeted Strategy Development for Preliminary Comprehensive Strategy.

    Ecosystems Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Bob  Feurstenberg, King County, Co-lead
    • Critter Thompson, Independent, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • George Blomberg, Port of Seattle
    • Gordon Bradley, University of Washington, School of Forest Resources
    • Taylor Carroll, Forterra
    • Dave Cook, Geoengineers
    • Nicole Faghin, Faghin Consulting
    • Keith Folkerts, Kitsap County Natural Resources Division
    • Abby Hook, Hook Knauer LLP
    • Peter Hummel, Anchor QEA
    • Mark Isaacson, King County Water and Land Resources Division
    • Gino Luchetti, King County Department of Natural Resources
    • Tom Murdoch, Adopt-a-Street Foundation
    • Susan O’Neil, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Doug Osterman, Puget Sound Partnership
    • James Rasmussen, Duwmamish River Cleanup Coalition
    • Elaine Somers, USEPA Region 10
    • Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jennifer  Thomas, Parametrix
    • Chris  Townsend, Puget Sound Partnership

    Rural and Resource Lands Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Lauren  Smith, King County Executive’s Office, Co-lead
    • Skip  Swenson, Forterra, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • Melissa Campbell, PCC Farmland Trust
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County
    • Mary Embleton, Cascade Harvest Coalition
    • Leif Fixen, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Joy Garitone, Kistap Conservation District
    • Brock Howell, Futurewise
    • Joe Kane, Nisqually Land Trust
    • Kirk Kirkland, Pierce County Open Space Taskforce
    • Joan Lee, King County Rural and Regional Services Section
    • Bobbi Lindemulder, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Doug McClelland, Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Mountains to Sound Greenway
    • Jay Mirro, King Conservation District
    • Linda  Neunzig, Snohomish County Agricultural Services
    • Rene Skaggs, Pierce Conservation District
    • Sandra Staples-Bortner, Great Peninsula Conservancy
    • Dan Stonington, Northwest Natural Resource Group

    Recreation and Trails Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads

    • Jennifer  Knauer, Hook Knauer LLP, Co-lead
    • Amy  Shumann, Public Health – Seattle + King County, Co-lead

    Committee Members

      • Kevin Brown, King County Parks Division
      • Karen Daubert, Washington Trails Association
      • Martha Droge, National Park Service Pacific West Region
      • Jessica Emerson, King County DNRP
      • Robert Foxworthy, King County DNRP
      • Deborah Hinchey, University of Washington School for Public Health
      • John  Hoey, Trust for Public Land
      • Amalia Leighton, SVR Design
      • Ian  Macek, Washington Department of Transportation
      • Josh Miller, Bicycle Alliance of Washington
      • Jane  Moore, Washington Coalition of Promoting Physical Activity
      • Thomas O’Keefe, American Whitewater
      • Dennis Oost, Kitsap County
      • Chris Overdorf, Elm
      • Lisa  Quinn, Feet First
      • Kimberly Scrivner, Puget Sound Regional Council
      • Tom Teigen, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation
      • Diane Wiatr, City of Tacoma
      • Don Willot, North Kitsap Trails Association
      • James Yap, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation

    Urban and Community Technical Advisory Committee

    Committee Co-Leads Chair

    • Ben Bakkenta, Puget Sound Regional Council, Co-lead
    • Joe  Tovar, TovarPlanning, Co-lead

    Committee Members

    • Gordon  Bradley, University of Washington School of Envirionment and Forest Resources
    • Vicky Clarke, Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council
    • Dan Dewald, City of Bellevue
    • Leif Fixen, Snohomish Conservation District
    • Eric Hanson, Port of Seattle
    • Gwendolyn High, Washington Wildlife & Recreation Coalition
    • John  Hoey, Trust for Public Land
    • Mark  Hoppen, Snohomish Health District
    • Amalia Leighton, SVR Design
    • Joshua Monaghan, King County Conservation District
    • Chip Nevins, City of Seattle Parks Division
    • Rocky Piro, Puget Sound Regional Council
    • Andrea Platt-Dwyer, Seattle Tilth
    • Lauren  Smith, King County Executive’s Office
    • Sean Sykes, NAIOP Sustainable Development Committee
    • Chris Townsend, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Tim  Trohimovich, Futurewise
    • Alison VanGorp, Forterra
    • Julie West, Seattle and King County Public Health

    Regional Challenges Task Forces

    Climate Change Mitigation + Adaptation

    Task Force Chair

    • Rachel Gregg, EcoAdapt

    Task Force Members

    • Paul Fleming, Seattle Public Utilities
    • Hilary Franz, Futurewise
    • Bob Freitag, UW Institute of Hazards Mitigation Planning and Research
    • Lara Hansen, EcoAdapt
    • Lyn Keenan, GeoEngineers
    • Meade Krosby, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group
    • Keith Maw, Independent
    • Eileen Quigley, Climate Solutions
    • Jeff Rice, Puget Sound Institute
    • Nancy Rottle, University of Washington, Green Futures Research and Design Lab
    • Amy Snover, UW Climate Impacts Group
    • Tracy Stanton, Earth Economics
    • Jill Sterett, Sterett Consulting, LLC

    Biodiversity

    Task Force Co-chairs

    • Fred Koontz, Woodland Park Zoo, Co-chair
    • Abby Hook, Hook Knauer, Co-chair

    Task Force Members

    • Kitty Craig, The Wilderness Society
    • Keith Folkerts, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
    • Josh Lawler, University of Washington
    • Lorna Smith, Western Wildlife Outreach
    • Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jennifer van der Hoof, King County
    • Jen Watkins, Conservation NW
    • Cynthia Wilkerson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Human Health

    • Brian Saelens, Seattle Childrens Research Institute, Co-Chair
    • Leann Andrews, University of Washington, Coordinator

    Task Force Members

    • Kathleen Wolf, UW School of Environmental & Forest Sciences Co-Chair
    • Branden Born, UW Department of Urban Design & Planning
    • Andrew Dannenberg, UW Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences
    • Barbara Wright, Public Health Seattle-King County

    Social Equity

    • Richard Gelb, King County Department of Natural Resources, Co-chair
    • Ginger Daniel, Regional Open Space Strategy, Staff Coordinator

    Contributors to date

    • Steve Hamai, Seattle Public Utilities,  Contributor
    • Rashad Morris, The Bullitt Foundation,  Contributor
    • Skye Schell, Forterra,  Contributor
    • Ben Bakenta, Puget Sound Regional Council,  Contributor

    Economic Development

    • Jeff Raker, Regional Open Space Strategy, Staff Coordinator

    Contributors to date

    • Henry Izumizaki, The Russelll Family Foundation, Contributor
    • Ken Konigsmark,  Contributor
    • Sarah Lee, Puget Sound Regional Council, Contributor
    • Doug Peters, WA Department of Commerce,  Contributor
    • Vikram Sahney, REI,  Contributor
    • Jason Thibideau, Puget Sound Regional Council,  Contributor

    Ecosystem Services and Regional Prioritization

    Committee Chair

    • Tracy Stanton, USFS Urban Waters Partnership, Committee Chair

    Committee Members

    • Dale Blahna, US Forest Service
    • Josh Baldi, WA Department of Ecology
    • David Batker, Earth Economics
    • Fletcher Beaudoin, PSU Institute for Sustainable Solutions & Cascadia Ecosystem Partnership
    • Mark Buckley, ECONorthwest
    • Ginger Daniel, Regional Open Space Strategy
    • Brent Davies, EcoTrust
    • Tom DeLuca, University of Washington
    • Zach Ferdana, The Nature Conservancy
    • Ricahrd Gelb, King County Department of Natural Resources
    • Anne Guerry, University of Washington
    • Kevin Halsey, EcoMetrix Solutions
    • William Labiosa, US Geological Survey
    • Josh Lawler, University of Washington
    • Sara O’Brien, Willamette Partnership
    • Jeff Raker, Regional Open Space Strategy
    • Scott Redman, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Elaine Somers, US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 10
    • Stephanie Suter, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Paula Swedeen, Swedeen Consulting
    • Brian Walsh, Puget Sound Partnership

    Governance and Finance

    Committee Listing, Coming Soon

    Puyallup-White Watershed Advisory Group

    • Leslie Ann Rose, Citizens for a Healthy Bay
    • Jennifer Arnold, Bonneville Environmental Foundation
    • Bryan Bowden, National Park Service
    • Dennis Canty, American Farmland Trust
    • Ryan Dicks, Pierce County Dept. of Sustainability
    • Kimberly Freeman, Pierce County
    • John Garner, Metro Parks & PC Biodiversity Network
    • Andrew  Hayes, Washington Department of Natural Resources
    • Colin Hume, WA Department of Ecology
    • Tom Kantz, Pierce County Surface Water Management
    • Kirk; Kirkland, Forever Green Council
    • Krystal Kyer, Tahoma Audubon
    • Russ; Ladley, Puyallup Tribe
    • Teresa Lewis, Pierce County
    • Ryan Mello, Pierce Conservation District
    • Jane Moore, Forever Green Council
    • Tristan Peter-Contesse, Puget Sound Partnership
    • Jordan Rash, Forterra
    • Lorin Reinelt, King Co. River & Floodplain Mgmt.
    • Dave Seabrook, Puyallup River Watershed Coalition
    • Marianne Seifert, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Dept.
    • Lisa Spurrier, Pierce County Watershed Services
    • Jeffrey; Thomas, Puyallup Tribe
    • Michelle Tirhi, Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
    • Robert Warren, Bonneville Environmental Foundation
    • Sarah Wilcox, Pierce Conservation District

  • New Zealand’s Logging History

    New Zealand’s  History of Logging

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    HMMM… THIS REVIEW COVERS THE EVOLUTION OF THE COUNTRY’S LOGGING BAN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, when the Government decided to phase out the last logging operations on State-owned natural forests in the WEST COAST REGION. the role of Government in forestry and the future use of natural forests during the last three decades. THE EVENTS THAT PLAYED MAJOR ROLES IN THE WAY LOGGING RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED.

    AFTER FORESTS WITHIN CATCHMENT PROTECTION AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND OTHER KEY RESERVE AREAS ARE REMOVED FROM THE AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA, AN ESTIMATED 930 000 HA OF LOGGED AND UNLOGGED FORESTS ON STATE LANDS REMAIN DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE LOGGING BAN.

    snippet Social implications

    The impacts on employment and income generation from logging restrictions have been felt most in the smaller milling-dependant communities. The pre-1987 restrictions especially affected people living in communities in the central North Island, South Island West Coast, and Southland, which served older mills cutting natural timber. Some smaller isolated towns, notably those serving larger mills, lost substantial populations or closed completely. Some regional communities also supported farming and other activities, or alternative employment was available in the planted forest operations.

    DOES THIS SOUND VAGUELY FAMILIAR? OR ALL TO FAMILIAR?

     OH, YES, BUT, THAT’S  NOT ABOUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

     THAT’S ABOUT NEW ZEALAND

    Indeed, there is a difference.

    NEW ZEALAND DIDN’T HAVE THE ENDANGERED SPOTTED OWL

    AND NEW ZEALAND BANNED THE EXPORT OF TIMBER.

    Of course, in the United States of America, IT’S JUST THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL

    IN NEW ZEALAND IT IS THE FEDERAL STATE LAW.

    PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    ——————————————————————————

    If the U.S. congress is first allowed to legislate “WILD” and “VOTE”  to make all public trust and National Park land “WILD FIRST “?  Shall THE U.S. FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT, by due process, automatically  remove the legal entitlement of income we the people have from The Enabling Act?

      Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Way back then, the Federal Government and the elected representative gave to and enabled American citizens, they made donations of public …

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    NEW ZEALAND’S  HISTORY OF LOGGING

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2.nEW+ZELAND+Impacts+and+effectiveness+of+logging+bans+in+natural+…

    2. Impacts and effectiveness of logging bans in natural …

    www.fao.org/docrep/…/x6967e05.ht…

    Food and Agriculture Organization

    New Zealand’s natural forests have been the subject of protracted public and … which eventually became the main source of timber in New Zealand. Another was the reorganization of the Government natural resources … However, much of the natural forests in all ownerships cover steep land and other protection areas. New Zealand’s renewable plantation forests.

    http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6967e/x6967e05.htm

    2. IMPACTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LOGGING BANS IN NATURAL FORESTS: NEW ZEALAND

     ALAN REID

    INTRODUCTION

    New Zealand’s natural forests have been the subject of protracted public and political debate regarding the role of Government in forestry and the future use of natural forests during the last three decades. THIS REVIEW COVERS THE EVOLUTION OF THE COUNTRY’S LOGGING BAN SINCE THE EARLY 1970S, when public interest and disquiet over natural forest management became prominent, through late 1999 when the Government decided to phase out the last logging operations on State-owned natural forests in the West Coast region.

    Some events played major roles in the way logging restrictions have been implemented. One was the development of planted forests of introduced species, which eventually became the main source of timber in New Zealand. Another was the reorganization of the Government natural resources administration in the mid-1980s, which resulted in the separation of commercial planted forests and natural forests.

    Prior to these events, large areas of natural forests covering New Zealand’s rugged and erosion-prone terrain were also set aside for water and soil protection. Such reservation became a feature of forest management when the first Government policy on natural forest management and timber sales was formulated.

    The exclusion of timber harvests from other natural forests, as a matter of national policy for conservation reasons, is a relatively recent development in New Zealand. Logging restrictions followed growing public interest in natural forest management in the 1970s, and subsequent political changes affecting forestry administration. The Government reorganized the natural forest administration in 1987. Maturing planted forests provide alternative raw material in many parts of the country, cushioning the effect of these changes in the forest industry.

    After 1987, new policies and legislation focused on private forests. Timber harvests have not been banned in these forests. Commercial timber harvests are, however, restricted by export, sawmilling, and sustainable forest management constraints.

    NATURAL FOREST AREAS AFFECTED BY LOGGING BANS

    Logging restrictions eventually will apply to about 5.1 million ha of New Zealand’s State-owned natural forests. An additional 142 000 ha of State-owned natural forests and about 1.3 million ha of private forests are subject to restrictions that limit commercial timber harvest according to sustainable forest management guidelines. However, much of the natural forests in all ownerships cover steep land and other protection areas. AFTER FORESTS WITHIN CATCHMENT PROTECTION AREAS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND OTHER KEY RESERVE AREAS ARE REMOVED FROM THE AVAILABLE HARVEST AREA, AN ESTIMATED 930 000 HA OF LOGGED AND UNLOGGED FORESTS ON STATE LANDS REMAIN DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE LOGGING BAN. Similarly, about 670 000 ha of private forests are potentially available for commercial management, although only about 124 000 ha of this area are currently of commercial interest.

    snippet, Social implications

    The impacts on employment and income generation from logging restrictions have been felt most in the smaller milling-dependant communities. The pre-1987 restrictions especially affected people living in communities in the central North Island, South Island West Coast, and Southland, which served older mills cutting natural timber. Some smaller isolated towns, notably those serving larger mills, lost substantial populations or closed completely. Some regional communities also supported farming and other activities, or alternative employment was available in the planted forest operations.

    ————————————————————————————-

    The Outrage of WA DNR Logging? I posted it on my website.

    As usual, one thing led to another, connecting the dots.

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust Land  and  the entire private forest land industry has a very serious impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    As usual, one thing led to another, dot to dot.

    (instant visual identification of a tree farm, for the tourists)

     PHOTOS OF TREE FARMS IN NEW ZEALAND

    George C. Rains Sr. my Dad, as a private property owner of 3000 acres of timberland in Clallam County WA.  made a trip to New Zealand.  I have his photo album of that New Zealand trip. He took pictures of tree farms. They were beautiful, they looked exactly like a farm, the trees were lined up like corn rows, evenly spaced,  no under growth, and easily identifiable from a distance as a  renewable tree farm.

     RESEARCHING THE  FOLLOWING WAS WHY GEORGE C. RAINS SR.  FLEW TO NEW ZEALAND

    ——————————————————————————————————

    WHAT CAN AMERICAN CITIZENS  LEARN FROM  NEW ZEALAND’S LOGGING  HISTORY?

    LOOKING BACK AND MOVING FORWARD?

    —————————————————————–

    NEW ZEALAND’S RENEWABLE PLANTATION FORESTS.

    Jenkin’s range of timber products are made from radiata pine grown in NEW ZEALAND’S RENEWABLE PLANTATION FORESTS.

    http://jenkin.co.nz/why-wood

    Why Wood | Jenkin Timber Ltd

    jenkin.co.nz/why-wood

    Wood is also a most renewable and sustainable building material. The cycle of planting and … For further information on finger-jointing visit www.nzwood.co.nz.

    Wood has long been a popular choice for building. It is an attractive natural product that offers design flexibility, durability, and thermal, acoustic, and fire performance. Wood is also a most renewable and sustainable building material. The cycle of planting and harvesting of plantation forests results in the removal and storage of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This helps make timber an environmentally friendly choice for anyone concerned about their carbon footprint.

    Jenkin’s range of timber products are made from radiata pine grown in New Zealand’s renewable plantation forests.

    AS A RESULT OF DECADES OF INVESTMENT IN FORESTRY RESEARCH, New Zealand’s radiata pine forests produce timber of uniform density and colour. This timber is finger-jointed which improves on the original physical and structural characteristics of radiata pine by over 400%.

    Jenkin exclusively uses timber produced in New Zealand’s radiata pine plantation forests. The timber from these forests meets the standards set by the international Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC) for environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable forest management. This means Jenkin can supply product that carries the prized FSC® certification.

    When you choose a New Zealand manufactured pine product made from timber sourced from one of our sustainably managed forests you are making a responsible choice.

    ——————————————————————–

    New Zealand

    www.fao.org/…/003/…/Y1720E19.H…

    Food and Agriculture Organization

    (Note: New Zealand’s domestic market for forest products is estimated at … Annual new plantation development in 2000 was 37 440 ha plus around 30 000 ha …. Many New Zealand exporters use the themes of environmental friendly, renewable … Employment statistics: The New Zealand forest industry employs around 25 …

    —————————————————–

    r6Killerby.doc – unece

    www.unece.org/…/tim

    United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    The New Zealand timber industry has responded with User Guides and Design … The country currently has 1.8 million hectares of commercial plantation forest, with … New Zealand producers tend to often emphasise the versatile, reliable, renewable ….. OWNERS ASSOCIATION 2002a: Forestry Facts and Figures 2002/03.

     


  • AG Request on Instream Flow

    NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION  (complete text below)

     QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    Obligate,  by definition, bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

    The full text of is below, RCW 98.82.080 INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    —————————————————————————————————

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES  THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD

    snippet 3.The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

    ——————————————————————————-

    This is my comment

    It’s not complicated, it’s just another WA State legal conundrum on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULES

    And, it appears to me, that the Attorney General is on a fishing expedition so he can advise the Governor and state agencies on legal matters (like lawsuits)

    ———————————————————————————————–

     THE WORDING IN RCW 90.82.080 IS CONFUSING.

     (it only address’s the “SHALL NOT BE” modified)

    THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  IS  ON “SHALL  BE” obligated, to be MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    THE INSTREAMFLOW, ON THE SKAGIT and DUNGENESS RIVERS, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE.

     IS THE  The AG’s question POINTLESS? …  UNTIL WHEN? SOME  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote “REQUEST” the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    Then legal question then  becomes,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

    IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED,UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

    Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS  ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS SHALL BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    THE is DOE obligate to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     ———————————————————————-

    The legal question is still,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

     Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

    ——————————————————————————————-

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED  to “DENY THE REQUEST” ?

     WHO IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  TO DENY THE TRIBAL REQUEST?

    Washington State/Tribal Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelines

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES,  snippet

    2. State Agency Directors: THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD calls for each state agency to develop a plan to implement the government-to-government policy. “Each agency will establish a documented plan of accountability and may establish more detailed implementation procedures in subsequent agreements between tribes and the particular agency.” Some agency directors report directly to the Governor’s office, while some report to an appointed board or commission.

    3. Attorneys General Office: The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

     ———————————————————————————————-

    complete text of


     NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 


                                       WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When it appears that individuals outside the Attorney General’s Office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register.  If you are interested in commenting on this opinion request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 11, 2015.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on this opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received.  You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, PO Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100.  When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

    The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

                                                      Opinion Docket No. 15-02-03-Ericksen 

    Request by Doug Ericksen, Senator, District 42

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a local planning unit votes to recommend amendments to an existing instream flow rule? 

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF RCW 98.82.080

    INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    (1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it shall be accomplished in the following manner:

    THE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE

    (i) If minimum instream flows HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE for a stream within the management area,

    “UNLESS” the members of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote REQUEST the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows

    and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS NOT ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    —————————————————————————–

    THIS SECTION OF RCW 90.82.080 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE  NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    (But it is VERY interesting read)

    THE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY minimum streamflows RULE

    (ii) If minimum streamflows HAVE NOT been adopted by rule for a stream within the management area, setting the minimum instream flows

    SHALL BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT.

    The department must attempt to achieve consensus and approval among the members of the planning unit regarding the minimum flows to be adopted by the department.

    APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED IF ALL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND TRIBES THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED AND ACCEPTED on the planning unit present for a recorded vote UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS,

    AND

     ALL NONGOVERNMENTAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT PRESENT FOR THE RECORDED VOTE, “BY A MAJORITY”, VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS.

    (b) The department shall undertake rule making to adopt flows under (a) of this subsection. The department MAY adopt the rules either by the regular rules adoption process provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, the expedited rules adoption process as set forth in RCW 34.05.353,

    OR THROUGH A RULES ADOPTION PROCESS THAT USES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

     Such rules do not constitute significant legislative rules as defined in RCW 34.05.328,

    and do not require the preparation of small business economic impact statements.

    (c) If approval is not achieved within four years of the date the planning unit first receives funds from the department for conducting watershed assessments under RCW 90.82.040,

    the department may promptly initiate rule making under chapter 34.05 RCW to establish flows for those streams and shall have two additional years to establish the instream flows for those streams for which approval is not achieved.

    (2)(a) Notwithstanding RCW 90.03.345, minimum instream flows set under this section for rivers or streams that do not have existing minimum instream flow levels set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received from the department under RCW 90.82.040, unless determined otherwise by a unanimous vote of the members of the planning unit but in no instance may it be later than the effective date of the rule adopting such flow.

    (b) Any increase to an existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received for planning in the WRIA or multi-WRIA area from the department under RCW 90.82.040 and the priority date of the portion of the minimum instream flow previously established by rule shall retain its priority date as established under RCW 90.03.345.

    (c) Any existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department that is reduced shall retain its original date of priority as established by RCW 90.03.345 for the revised amount of the minimum instream flow level.

    (3) Before setting minimum instream flows under this section, the department shall engage in government-to-government consultation with affected tribes in the management area regarding the setting of such flows.

    (4) Nothing in this chapter either: (a) Affects the department’s authority to establish flow requirements or other conditions under RCW 90.48.260 or the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) for the licensing or relicensing of a hydroelectric power project under the federal power act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq.); or (b) affects or impairs existing instream flow requirements and other conditions in a current license for a hydroelectric power project licensed under the federal power act.

    (5) If the planning unit is unable to obtain unanimity under subsection (1) of this section, the department MAY adopt rules setting such flows.

    (6) The department shall report annually to the appropriate legislative standing committees on the progress of instream flows being set under this chapter, as well as progress toward setting instream flows in those watersheds not being planned under this chapter. The report shall be made by December 1, 2003, and by December 1st of each subsequent year.

    [2003 1st sp.s. c 4 § 4; 1998 c 247 § 4.]

    Notes:

         Findings — 2003 1st sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 90.82.040.

     


  • The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    Funding for this work is provided by SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, PATAGONIA, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN Living on the Edge  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    WHY ARE THEY HERE?

    Big meeting? Landowner Update and Discussion?

    ———————————————————–

    WHO INVITED THEM? Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    http://www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/earthEconomics.pdf

    NATURE’S VALUE IN CLALLAM COUNTY: THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FEEDER BLUFFS and 12 Other Ecosystems. Earth Economics: Tacoma, Washington (a 146 page document)

    EARTH ECONOMICS would like to thank all who contributed valuable information to this project: Anne Shaffer and Nicole Harris from the Coastal Watershed Institute, CATHY LEAR AND STEVE GRAY FROM CLALLAM COUNTY, Dave Parks from Department of Natural Resources, George Kaminsky and Heather Barron from Department of Ecology, Kathryn Neal from the City of Port Angeles, Clea Rome from the WSU Extension, Ian Miller from WA Seagrant and Helle Andersen, formerly of CWI

    We deeply appreciate those who helped review and edit this document, Donna J. Nickerson, Aaron Schwartz, CATHY LEAR, Anne Shaffer and Dave Parks

    ——————————————————————

    COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE CWI IS A 501C3 NON-PROFIT

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/

    Jul 14, 2013 – The WE’S WHO WANT OUR WA STATE WAVES? THE WE’S WHO … ENTER Surfrider Foundation ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Surfrider …

    THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

    ———————————————————————

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    Why are THEY being given  an special SMP UPDATE before the first notification, publication, workshop, has been sent or given to the 3300 affected private shoreline property owners in Clallam County?

    WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    Why is Clallam County paying A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, our Taxpayer Dollars, TO GIVE THEM AN SPECIAL SMP UPDATE BEFORE NOTIFICATION OF THE AFFECTED CITIZENS?

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    Living on the Edge? OR ARE THEY LIVING ON THE FRINGE OF AGENDA 21?

    Landowner Update and Discussion?

    How much land do THEY own CLALLAM COUNTY?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Why do THEY keep showing up in OUR back yard? THEY Pretend to be living on the edge?

    THEY Pretend they represent, “US”  the 3300  VESTED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS  AFFECTED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    THEY ARE NOT MY REPRESENTATIVES.

    THEY ARE THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, ECOLOGY, THE TRIBES, AND a plethora of PAID GOVERNMENT (including Clallam County) EMPLOYEES AND NGO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS GLOBAL, AND OTHER, AND FOR-PROFIT CONSULTING GROUPS.

    ———————————————————————–

    And, Clallam County employees are in collaboration with THEM?

    —————————————————————————-

    AND? THEY ARE GOING ALL WORKING TOGETHER?  THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINE THE BEST STEWARDSHIP? AND? THEY ARE GOING PROVIDE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS? THEY ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE DUNGENESS FEEDER BLUFFS?

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    OUR FAMILY HAS PROVIDED OVER 60 YEARS OF PRISTINE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    OUR PRIVATE PRISTINE  SHORELINE FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

    —————————————————————————————————

    BUT WOW, IF I GO TO THEIR MEETING?

    THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A LANDOWNER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

    THE CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, North Olympic Land Trust, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    ——————————————————————————————

    THESE OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE ALL  coming here, to CLALLAM COUNTY WITH THEIR NGO AGENDA.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI)

    CWI IS A SMALL 501C3 NON-PROFIT FIRST FORMED IN 1996. CWI’s goal is to advance protection of intact and critical natural ecosystems thru long-term wise ecosystem management, nearshore restoration at the ecosystem level, and mentoring our next generation of scientists and managers, and citizen partnerships. Over our careers we at CWI have learned that -without exception- what is good for the environment is good for community. CWI has also learned that saving what we have is best for the ecosystem and economy- so CWI emphasizes protection,. We also know that when we are restoring, true restoration must occur at the ecosystem level to be successful.. Our experience is also that the majority of the community – which is growing rapidly – wants to be wise stewards but need the tools to do so. Our work is extremely challenging. Preservation and restoration can take decades-and that bureaucratic and political challenges (sometimes significant) are not reasons to quit. In total our work is to link senior scientists, managers, and citizens to motivate for the best, not just the easiest, management actions and solutions. Our work is never ending and crosses generations. Collectively CWI senior scientists have hundreds of years of experience managing and researching the natural history of this region CWI engages these scientists with college students, citizens, and landowners on the ground to understand how our natural ecosystems function and how to protect them while training the next generation of managers and scientists. We bring science to management in a rural, and sometimes extremely conservative, but ecologically critical region of the Pacific Northwest. Top priority work for CWI include coordinating the Elwha Nearshore Consortium, a group of scientists, citizens, and managers dedicated to understanding and promoting the nearshore restoration associated with the Elwha dam removals, and conduct unique and critical research to understand and promote nearshore habitat function, and define how to protect the nearshore functions, including cross regional fish use of nearshore habitats, and the importance of Dungeness and Elwha feeder bluffs for surf smelt. CWI also regularly sponsor’s community forums on emerging and ongoing topics including Elwha nearshore science, management, and restoration, and net pen aquaculture. Nearshore ecosystem services are complex, compelling, and integral element of CWI’s work. We are honored to be a partner in this new frontier of ecosystem management

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Earth Economics

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION located in Tacoma, Washington, dedicated to researching and applying the economic

    solutions of tomorrow, today.Earth Economics provides robust, science-based, ecologically sound economic analysis, policy recommendations and tools to

    positively transform regional, national and international economics, and asset accounting systems. Working with leading ecologists, economists and modelers, we serve a large circle of businesses, non-profits, government agencies, policy makers and media channels with research, reports, presentations, workshops and investigations. Our goal is to help communities shift away from the failed

    economic policies of the past, towards an approach that is both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.Mission Statement: Earth Economics applies new economic tools and principles to meet challenges of the 21st century: achieving the

    need for just and equitable communities, healthy ecosystems, and sustainable economies.

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    SO HERE IS YOUR  BIG INVITE

    (I called Jamie Michel 206-282-3025 no response)

    Press Release

    Date: December 5, 2014

    **For Immediate Release**

    FROM: COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE, PO box 2263, Port Angeles www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 360.461.0799

    Contact: Jamie Michel, jamie.michel@coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 206-282-3025

    Living on the Edge

    Landowner Update and Discussion

    Tuesday January 27th, 2015

    6:00-8:00 pm at Dungeness Schoolhouse 2781 Towne Road, Sequim

    The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) and partners invite the community to a bluff management workshop the evening of 27 January 2015 at the historical Dungeness Schoolhouse from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

    This workshop will provide an update to our ongoing work to understand and promote wise stewardship of this important region of the nearshore. CWI will provide an update on efforts including the development of a realtor funding pool for distressed landowners (see photo), and protection grants.

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and Washington Department of Natural Resources will present findings long term bluff erosion study just published. Staff from the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge will provide details on their upcoming anniversary celebration in May.

    CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, AND THE NORTH OLYMPIC LAND TRUST,

    —————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE

    The Land Trust has completed its largest land conservation project ever! We are pleased to announce that we have purchased a 280-acre property just east of the Lyre River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This stunning property features the estuary at the mouth of the Lyre River, streams, wetlands, tidelands, kelp beds and bluff-backed beaches.   It also includes a large upland area with a diverse forest at various ages of growth,  Learn more ›  “The Land Trust has been working with community partners for years to conserve this property,” Planning is underway for the use of the property.  VISITORS WILL BE ABLE TO PARK ABOUT A MILE FROM THE BEACH and walk in from there. Visitors can enjoy DAY-USE activities such as birdwatching, wildlife viewing, surfing, picnicking, and beach walking. The area will be closed to all motor vehicles.

    THE USUAL? NO HORSES? NO RUNNING? NO JOGGING? NO BARKING?

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    AND, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    The January 27th workshop will continue this dialogue between scientists, managers and bluff landowners on next steps for all of us to the benefit of our community and the environment. Join us!

    —————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHO INVITED THEM?

    Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS MEETINGS SMP PRESENTATION?

    Funding for this work is provided by Surfrider Foundation, Patagonia, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.


  • A Comment on Electronic Warfare

    She was there..
    This is her comment
    —————————-
    Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:27 AM
    Subject: Olympic peninsula electronic warfare
    —————————————————————–

    Hey Gang

    Great turn out in Pacific Beach. I’d say a good 90% were no more convinced by the meetings end, that the health and safety for human, wildlife or the natural environment, the NAVY EA claims to be safe, really AREN’T proven to be. But who are we to question the Navy?

    Or is it even the Navy we should be questioning?
    Two highly qualified guests on both National Defense and the Environment were present speaking on behalf of the Public concerns as well as opinions of their own.

    PB was happy to welcome Craig B Hulet who has 35 years experience in International Relations,

    Military, Terrorism, Business and Security under his belt. He has been a consultant to Federal law enforcement DEA, ATF&E on Justice and Homeland Security for over 25 years and has written many books on the Geopolitical climate in these areas.

    Karen Sullivan biologist and environmental Science professional was also welcomed and shared the suspected/known dangers of this type of EW technology on ALL life itself.

    The technology that has never been proven safe but only assumed safe and

    still not properly tested. I can’t thank them enough for the informative comments and questions addressed to the Navy. You can view the 139 page PDF of Mr. Hulets scope 

    on the Navy’s 228 page EW Warfare PDF on his website. Just google Craig B Hulet or Karen Sullivan for websites and information pertaining to EW warfare on the Olympic Peninsula. READ these informative PDF’s.

    These contain points from some of the issues discussed at the meeting. I tried to forward the PDF’s but ran into All kinds

    of problems and a clogged up mail box that I can’t delete the sending process from.

    I hope I didn’t pass the mail problem on to all you too.

    Nothing in my outbox, no mail, but it just keeps sending and failing and sending and failing????????? geesh!

    Any way. The outcome of this meeting? I can only give my opinion.

    DOG and PONY SHOW by the Navy? YES. They did what they were

    sent out to do. Read from parts of the 228 page EA assessment and try to verify it’s solidity.
    The Navy stated,  they are up in the skies now! They have been there since the 1940’s. (what’s new?).  They’ve increased their air traffic and flight patterns since 2008 when they started talking about implementing these War plans here,

    with the USFS and the Committee of Armed Forces (that would be Ex-Dicks and

    currently Kilmer?). Yep mister wild lands man himself under the “green mask” was

    here to take land for the federal government in more ways then one, apparently 

    The green groups who secured his position in the House (for his push on Federal

    takeover of PUBLIC lands for locked up wilderness), got their wish. 2 days or so

    after the elections WILD OLYMPICS RE-surfaced.

    Waste no time Kilmer did his part! just days before the Navy’s Warfare Plans

    surfaced, with little to no public knowledge of it’s existence. Has the green party’s

    spiritual environmental plans been crushed?

     WOAH…. Nellie! Right in the thick of it! Gordon and his tam wearing team were

    there just like little statues in a row, as always.  Lining up with panic stricken faces.

    We warned green parties this was not about wilderness or the future of our forests,

    our natural resources or our children and grandchildren.

    It was about occupation and federal control to do ANYTHING and everything

    they deem fit. I think some are catching the clue.

    They must have forgotten  Wa. State has an “Obama Congress”.

    Starry eyed, the green parties believed they were the “chosen ones”. SURPRISE?

    Look who’s pushed them off their table? Their own congressman? 

    What? Never mentioning PUBLICLY EW warfare was already in the making long

    before choking out the worthless, Wild Olympics debacle? Does it matter in which way

    the Federal Government takes our PUBLIC, PRIVATE or RESOURCE lands away? I’m sure they will be very curious to ask congressman Wild Kid bilkhawk what the deal is. Never know when things will come back to kick ones ass (heehaw).
    By the end of the meeting. It was pretty much written in plain black and white.
    Done Deal – To Bad – We’re already here AND DON’T PLAN ON GOING ELSEWHERE

    nor did they give the impression they would be forced to. The Military will

    basically trump the wilderness laws and up their flight activity a said 10%.
    Since 2008 we’ve seen it take a 10% or more leap in air activity already.

    The Military would not discuss the current chemtrailing.

    Their response to that was “we’re here to address the EW only”.

    They were not qualified to speak on anything but the EW presentation.

    They brushed that off their shoulders quite easily. So perhaps another day,

    with another dollar we’ll have to ask for PUBLIC transparency on the military activity

    that is currently spraying our skies and manipulating the natural environment

    in our atmosphere.
    The Military reasoning for moving here was, to save government costs and

    to bring military families closer together with their servicemen.
    (REALLY? I thought that was part of what a military family was geared to compensate for? 

    The possibility of a family serviceman or woman being called upon at any time

    to go preform their duties? That’s what they sign up for. Has the military become

    whiners now too under Obama-man? 

    Perhaps obama feels our military should be

    equal to the same room and board the foreign invaders are receiving with every illegals,

    father, brothers, sons, mothers, daughters cousins and their strings of children

    are now getting for busting over our borders. Closer family accommodations.

    450 Jose’s a day? Pick your family we will pay)

    Sorry everybody I couldn’t help myself).

    Saving on Government costs?

     
    FYI – One growler jet burns up to 1000 gal of fuel per hour. 8 hours of exercises

    (cut down from their original 12) per day and estimated 11 exercises per week.

    88,000 Gal. of fuel per week? HELLO EMISSIONS!

    The Olympic pristine environment?

    MOVE IT ON OVER!

    Human carbon emissions? Stop breathing or pay a higher price for your airspace!

    The US Navy is here.
    Violations were found by the USFS failures

    to go through necessary approval processes including Nepa assessment. 

    The Navy had the Nepa EA permit processing guidelines approved only.

    No sound testing for using this technology just guidelines they must follow.

    Of coruse they said they would follow. But no proof can be presented, without production,

    so to speak.
    Last but not least a question asked to the Navy: What are the health and safety

    concerns you have taken to protect the officers that will be operating inside of

    these emitter trucks at very close range and doesn’t this present a greater danger

    to them?

    The Navy stated under the their strict frequency guidelines and airspace,

    where these mobile emitters will be directing these waves (away from the truck),

    they foresee no problem or danger. Now here’s the “Tell all”.
    Also these won’t be Navy officers, they will be CIVILIANS who will be inside

     

     

    the emitter trucks!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT DIANNE????

    I heard C-I-V-I-L-I-A-N-S.

    Correct me if I’m wrong
    So in other words,  if there are any guinea pigs out there, will you please raise your hands?

    Put the young boys on the front lines and civilians in the electromagnetic emitter trucks.

    Sound about right? What difference does it make? They are just numbers on paper,

    no special significance, just numbers similar to the young Viet-Nam war casualties.


    Lots of Reading to do on this highly controversial Warfare training.

    Both Craig B Hulet’s PDF and Karen Sullivens PDF are well worth your time

    in understanding the issues on all sides of the spectrum.
    A BIG thanks to Grays Harbor Commissioner Wes Cormier

    for arranging the Meeting in Grays Harbor County that Congressman Kilmer

    had no time for and felt it insignificant.

    Very poor representation on Kilmers part, our fine member on the board of

    The Committee Of Armed Forces. Ever hear him mention EW during his

    “visiting the naval base” back patting appearances?
    Lots of Quinault Residents showed up! NICE TO SEE.
    Only so much can be accomplished at an “informational” public meeting.

    From my observation this “informational” meeting proved only, that much

    more discussion needs to take place, more knowledge brought forward from all

    sides and many undocumented legal processes need to be thoroughly applied for

    and also studied before this plan should be allowed to move forward and be fully

    implemented. The comment period needs to be extended through next year I feel.

    BIG issues should not be allowed to offer the general public only a LITTLE time frame

    in order to bring all the necessary agencies and proper channels together to provide

    honest factual representation of this “proposed action. If you catch the scent of dead fish

    in the air you’ll know where it’s coming from.

    I personally see a Military coupe over U.S. Citizens coming in and taking the coast

    and half of Washington State with it. As Craig Hulet said (in so many words) he has never

    known the Military to stop in growth, once boots are on the ground.

    Move it on over the big bad dogs moving in. Remember,  the Military takes it’s orders

    from who ????????
    I believe this goes far deeper than Dean the Bean Millett.

    He’s the stoolie. I do believe most all of the Peninsula and half the Seattle and Tacoma

    and beyond have big issues with Dean.
    FYI – The USFS was not their to represent their case on their permit proposal.

    Dodging tomatoes can be exhilarating. Dean must be hiding under Mother May I’s apron strings.


    Who controls the USFS?
    Who controls the DEPT of INTERIOR and DEFENSE.

    Do we even know anymore? for sure?

    This has all the signs pointing to Agenda 21 full speed ahead and I do believe

    the military is here to begin it’s UN implementation. The Navy is extending their

    presence here to do this under orders, to do the job they are assigned to do. 

    I can respect that. But BY WHO’S IRON FIST? and for WHO’S real purpose.

    Does the military even know anymore?

    I guess it’s not their job to know. They are our Armed Forces and take

    the orders from the (choke) commander in chief by way of DHS/DOD, when the commander

    himself is out at a golf game and unavailable to take responsibility for action on anything. 

    No questions are supposed to be asked, they just serve.


    I love our Military and do genuinely thank them for their service and dedication. What would

    we have done in the past without them? I myself haven’t enough guts that come anywhere

    near the courage and dedication it takes to put their lives on the line everyday during

    training or actual combat missions. I appreciate what they do but I don’t feel this is the

    place to do it.

    Who can we trust anymore during a time when the American people seem to be under siege

    by their own U.S. President? to be turned over into hands of the United Nations warlord

    banking cartel?

    My instincts tell me to DUCK! cause we are under fire

    Well Doug and Dianne were there and may have absorbed things a bit differently.

    I know Dianne’s not shy so if I’ve crossed my wires, she will correct me.

    So Dianne please share how you comprehended what was revealed from this meeting and where you foresee this all going.
    My next Digest will follow the Grays Harbor SMP  Dec 17 also at Pacific Beach.
    Cheers!

     


  • SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    SMP  Cumulative Impact on People

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    comment code CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report

    directed to Deputy Director Steve Gray and Planning Commission

    on the  Nov. 2014 Clallam County SMP Updated Draft

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————

    I have been researching documenting and commenting on the Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update since Jan.26, 2011.

    I  have 156 SMP Public Comments posted on the SMP website on the CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE SMP UPDATE ON THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE WEBSITE?

    The vast majority of my “CUMULATIVE IMPACT” SMP Public Comments on “We The People” have been posted  and coded as “GENERAL COMMENTS?”.

    How could a thing like that happen?

    ————————————————————-

    The  Nov. 2014 Clallam County SMP Updated Draft?

    By his own admission to me, with no help from ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager has completely rewritten, revised, altered, edited, expanded, reworded, and RE-DRAFTED the the Clallam County Shoreline Management Update.

    Steve Gray has presented two meetings of his Updated SMP RE-DRAFTED SMP  to The Clallam County Planning Commission, ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, is assisting him.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten RE-DRAFTED SMP Update presentations of maps and language. Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon,

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    The  SMP GOBBLEDYGOOK being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person. (why Lake Sutherland has a 35 foot setback)

    THE OVERLAPPING MAPS? UNUSUALLY  hard to understand THE SHALL AND MUST PROTECT  of , 200 foot setback, the critical areas set- backs, plus the exceptional feeder bluffs, plus the flood plain, plus the rivers meander line, PLUS THE ASSOCIATED WETLANDS, plus the protected wetland habitat,  and the mention of SEASONAL STREAMS…

    UNUSUALLY, HARD TO UNDERSTAND HARD TO SWALLOW.

    ———————————————-

    Obama Administration Is Writing Huge “Rule Change” to Take Private Land

    —————————————————————————————–

    The new rules and wording added to our Nov. 2014   Shoreline Management Update by Steve Gray indicate that it is a done deal… plus the associated wetlands, plus seasonal streams.

    ————————————————————————

    The changed suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency is being protested by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group which has challenged water-related regulation before the Supreme Court — and won.

    “On its face, the proposed rule covers virtually every water in the nation,” PLF told the government in public comments, according to WND.

    ———————————————————————————-

    The understanding of a reasonable man? The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.

    —————————————————————————————

    Why call it GOBBLEDYGOOK? in an SMP Update in ESA and ECOLOGY language characterized by circumlocution and the use of more words than necessary to express something, especially to avoid saying it directly.

     And saying the word water, and more water, Indicates water, the movement of water, standing still water, the high water mark, failed to mention the difference between an SMP shoreline and the SMP shorelines of Statewide significance, past the  taking of  private property value, somebody, vested private property owners… 

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  mitigation process, so a vested Clallam County private property owner can use and develop his own private property.

    Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    And THIS IS  really, really hard to swallow after spending over two years as a vested private shoreline property owner on the …….

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Advisory Committee

     MEMBER FROM  first meeting April 11, 2011 to last April 9, 2013

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    With 29 members include some (5) vested private Clallam County citizens, but most (24) members of the committee represent environmental and other advocacy groups or are paid staff of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and Puget Sound Partnership. The Tribes, The Serra club, and NGO special interest groups.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    The SMP Advisory Committee was under the direction of,  E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants, Margaret Clancy  and Jim Kramer. How could anyone forget to mention the Facilitators?

     ———————————————————–

    E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants had already COOKIE CUT  24 SMP UPDATES ACROSS WA STATE by the time they got down to their $599,930 grant from Ecology’s business on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————

    COOKIE CUTTING   24 WA STATE SMP UPDATES?

    ONE PREDETERMINED SMP  PATTERN DOES NOT FIT ALL SHORELINES

    SMP E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants Public Participation Meeting Jan. 26, 2011

    The OXYMORON Public Participation Meeting by invitation only?

    —————————————————————————

    THEN ON TO THE MAIN EVENT

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 9, 2013:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Draft Agenda – April 9, 2013
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – April 9, 2013
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – April 9, 2013 pending
    • Memo RE: Cumulative Impacts Analysis (CIA) & No Net Loss Report (2-2013)
    • DRAFT Clallam Co. Cumulative Impacts Analysis and No Net Loss Report (2-2013)
    • Memo RE: Clallam Co. SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan February 2013 (2-2013)
    • DRAFT Clallam Co. SMP Shoreline Restoration Plan February 2013 (2-2013)

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 materials pending:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – January 15, 2013
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – January 15, 2013
    • SMP CMZ Implications – January 15, 2013
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – January 15, 2013

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    2012 SMP Committee Meetings:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, December 11, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – December 11, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – December 11, 2012
    • Clallam County Feeder Bluff Mapping for SMP Update Presentation by Jim Johannessen – December 11, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting draft Notes – December 11, 2012
    • Memo RE: Explanantion of proposed shoreline buffer widths – December 11, 2012

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 10, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – July 10, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – July 10, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – July 10, 2012
    • Clallam SMP Revised Buffer Strategy Outline
    • SMP Work Activities Completed/In Progress Since April 24, 2012
    • Preliminary Working draft SMP comments summary (since Feb. 2012)

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 24, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – April 24, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – April 24, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – April 24, 2012
    • WDOE Handbook Chapter 11:  Vegetation Conservation, Buffers and Setbacks
    • WDOE Handbook Section:  Existing Development

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 27, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee Clallam County Public Access Presentation – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Shoreline Environmental Decision Tree – 4-20-2012
    • Matrix of Issues – March 27, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – March 27, 2012

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 6, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – March 6, 2012
    • SMP Committee PowerPoint Presentation – March 6, 2012
    • SMP Committee draft Meeting Notes – March 6, 2012
    • Memo RE:  Basis of proposed shoreline buffer width recommendations
    • Introduction to the Preliminary Draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, February 28, 2012:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Commitee Meeting Notes – February 28, 2012 – REVISED
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – February 28, 2012
    • SMP Summary Comparison Matrix
    • Clallam County SMP Preliminary Working Draft Document
    • Clallam County SMP Draft Shoreline Environmental Designation Maps
    • Clallam County SMP Update:  Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft Memo)
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps
    • FINAL WRIA 17-19 Clallam County SMP Update Vision Report
    • WDOE Statutory Basis for SMP

     

    2011 SMP Committee Meetings:

     

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, November 15, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2011
    • SMP Committeee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – November 15, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes Appended – November 15, 2011
    • Clallam County SMP Update: Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft)
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, October 18, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Agenda – October 18, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – October 18, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Notes – October 18, 2011
    • Clallam County Shoreline Draft Designation Maps
    • Clallam County SMP Update: Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) (Working Draft)
    • Final Consistency Review Report
    • 1976 Clallam County SMP
    • WAC 173-26-211

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, September 27, 2011:

    • SMP Committee  Agenda – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting PowerPoint Presentation – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee Notes – September 27, 2011
    • SMP Committee  Meeting Materials Packet – September 27, 2011

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 11, 2011:

    • SMP Committee Meeting Memo – July 12, 2011
    • SMP Committee Meeting Agenda – July 12, 2011
    • SMP Committe Notes – July 12, 2011
    • Draft Clallam County SMP Update Vision Report – June 27, 2011
    • Draft WRIA 17-19 (Straits) Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
    • Draft WRIA 17-19 (Straits) Shoreline Maps

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Monday, April 11, 2011:

    • Welcome Letter
    • Meeting Agenda – April 11, 2011
    • Meeting Presentation – April 11, 2011
    • Meeting Notes – April 11, 2011
    • General Operating Procedures & Ground Rules
    • Draft CC-SMP Consistency Report

    Reference Documents:

    • SMP Committee Work Plan & Structure for Committee Meetings
    • General Operating Procedures & Ground Rules
    • CC-SMP Process Overview Timeline – February 2011
    • SMP Committee List as of 1-2012
    • Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (1992)
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC Shoreline Master Program Guidelines
    • Introduction to WA´s SMP (WDOE)
    • SMP:  Making Sense of Tough Issues (WDOE)
    • SMP:  Frequently Asked Questions (WDOE)
    • WRIA 20 (Pacific Coast) Visioning Forum Report (October 2010)
    • CC-SMP Summary of Focus Group Meetings (January 2011)
    • CC-SMP Revised Public Participation Strategy (March 2011)
    • Summary – SMP Public Forums (April 2011)
    • WRIA 20 (Pacific Coast) Revised Draft Inventory and Characterization Report (June 2011)
    • Comments – Consistency Review Report (June 2011)


    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE  FOR YOUR TIME, DEDICATION and ATTENTION TO DETAIL,COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTS, EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS,EXTENSIVE INPUT, and HARD WORK!

    THE NEW November 2014 draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE has been hastily completely rewritten, revised, modified, altered, expanded, reworded,  SMP Update

     

    Nov.18,2014

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten SMP Update presentation of maps and language.The  SMP gobbledygook being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person.

    BUT THEN? WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    November 2014 … THE NEW draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE?

    With Assistance?  by the CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION.

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East Fourth Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015
    Phone: (360)417-2520; Fax: (360)417-2443
    sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

     

     


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014


  • Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned THE FORUM was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED, FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE….. What difference does it make?

    Electronic Warfare is FEDERAL.  Don’t waste your time sending comments through the formal comment process.

    SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO YOUR FEDERAL ELECTED CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES,

    (1) THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING US

    (2)  THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING OUR BEST INTERESTS

     (3)  AND, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO US  FOR THE NAVY ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    I have three, Rep. Kilmer, Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DO THEY  MAKE?

    ———————————————————————————-

    ARE LOCAL PUBLIC FORUMS? PUBLIC MEETING? EFFECTIVE?

    PUBLIC FORUM

     Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

     Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. WHEN PEOPLE ARE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE, they are effectively DENIED ACCESS TO A PUBLIC FORUM.

    —————————————————————————————

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC FORUMS OR PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING? DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC ATTENDEES have to sit down and shut up… or they will KICK YOU OUT

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED,  WOW FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S  “NEW”  (2006) LISTENING SESSIONS?

    An increasing trend in PUBLIC PARTICIPATION is for agencies, elected officials, and non-governmental organizations to hold listening sessions. While there is a wide degree of variation depending on the issue and the host, LISTENING SESSIONS generally are an opportunity for citizens to exchange ideas and provide recommendations on programs and policies. SIMILAR TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, many listening sessions begin with the agency or official giving a brief presentation on the issue and then allowing time for citizens to offer comments or recommendations.

     (after the 2014 election results?) HELLO CONGRESS…  CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?

    ————————————————————————————————

    WHAT ELSE IS   “NEW” WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS?  WITH PUBLIC OBSERVERS? WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    OBSERVER by definition

     (1) A PERSON WHO FOLLOWS EVENTS, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL ONES, CLOSELY

     AND COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something.

    (3) A fly on the wall

    (4) A fly on the wall who watches or notices something.

    WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ALLOWED.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

    If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    WHAT THE DIFFERENCE? PUBLIC FORUM? PUBLIC MEETING?

    Meeting Face to Face: Public Meetings, Hearings, and Open …

    rlch.org/…/meeting-face-face-public-meetings-hearings-open-houses-and…

    Apr 8, 2010 – A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share … are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum. ….. of the differences between public hearings and public meetings, …

    In addition to providing notice and requesting written comments, part of the federal public participation process often involves public meetings, hearings, and/or open houses as another way for agencies to obtain public input on an issue. But there are other opportunities to meet face-to-face with decision-makers at all levels of government, from the U.S. Congress to your local planning commission. In this edition of the Problem-Solving Tools Series, we highlight some of the various opportunities to voice your comments and concerns, describe what you can expect, and provide links to other resources and “how-to guides” for more information.

    What are the Forums?  What Should I Expect?

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

    A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share information, exchange ideas, introduce new services and ways of working, or to develop relationships and contacts.  The purpose of a public meeting is to discuss issues, not to make decisions.  By allowing for a two-way flow of information, meetings provide an opportunity for people to share their concerns, hear other points of view, and identify areas of conflict.  The term “public meeting” is used rather loosely to describe anything from community members gathering to informally discuss an issue to more formal events used to obtain comment on an agency decision or action.

    PUBLIC FORUM

    Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given the highest level of First Amendment protection when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”[8] Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.[9]

    Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. When people are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum.

    ———————————————————-

    Documented Research “behindmyback.org”

    WA. STATE PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Posted on May 28, 2014 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED this OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE power point presentation,  under  PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    ———————————————————————-

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    The Public Meeting “Observer”

    Posted on May 29, 2014 9:14 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    ————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Posted on July 6, 2014 9:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ——————————————————

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?