+menu-


  • Category Archives Publishing Public Notice
  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • Due Process for Distracted Drivers Law?

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) DUE PROCESS BY PUBLIC NOTICE?

     WA State Distracted Drivers Law ADOPTED 04/19/2017 

     VETOED by Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  MAY 16, 2017

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) accelerated the law’s effective date to July 23, 2017

    Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue, because a law that is too vague to understand does not provide adequate notice to people that a certain behavior is required or is unacceptable.

    The “void for vagueness” doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the average person could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law.

    ————————————————————————

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing the state over a disputed ticket for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al.

    —————————————————————-

    A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    First, the law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain or state what behavior the law is meant to affect.  If the average citizen cannot figure out from reading the law what he should or should not do, a court may find that the law violates due process. 

    Second, a law may be void for vagueness if it does not adequately explain the procedures that law enforcement officers or courts must follow when enforcing the law or handling cases that deal with certain legal issues. 

    Specifically, a law may be found to be unconstitutionally vague if it gives a judge no idea how to approach or handle a case based on that law.

    —————————————————–

    ADOPTED 04/19/2017  WA State Distracted Drivers Law

    MAY 16, 2017 Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  vetoed a compromise by the Legislature that would have postponed enforcement of the Driving Under the Influence of Electronics (DUIE) Act until 2019.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  surprised even the supporters of a distracted-driving law Tuesday when he accelerated the new crackdown, IN A LETTER TO THE SENATE DATED MAY 16, 2017.

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) vetoed the section that gave drivers until 2019 to acclimate to the changes and instead declared Sunday, July 23, 2017 as the law’s effective date.

    The final version passed Wednesday pushed the proposed start date from Jan. 1, 2018, to Jan. 1, 2019, because several members wanted extra time for the public to adjust, according to prime sponsor Rep. Jessyn Farrell, D-Seattle.

    Farrell justified the wait on Wednesday, saying colleagues in both parties sought more TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION campaign, for the public to adapt, and for motorists to obtain built-in communication systems. The State Patrol is currently understaffed but is striving to boost recruitment, with help from proposed raises this legislative session.

    Understaffed was confirmed yesterday by Kyle at  WSP media center, yesterday.

    ——————————————–

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D)  His abysmal record on TIME FOR A SUSTAINED EDUCATION speaks for it’s self

    ———————————————————————

    Gov. Jay Inslee (D) IS PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THE VETO. period

    It doesn’t take too much effort to imagine a distracted driver suing WA State over a disputed ticket  for failure of DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTICE et al. 

     But why would Gov. Jay Inslee (D) worry about a WA State lawsuit?

    After all  Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has  his nationally spotlighted Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) to defend his VETO.

    After all , A law can be unconstitutionally vague in one of two main ways.

    And after all, Vagueness is generally considered to be a DUE PROCESS issue.

    AND, PUBLIC NOTICE IS A DUE PROCESS ISSUE


  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ————————————————-

    The following PUBLIC NOTICE published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

    WSR 16-09-074 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered:

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016

    All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace

    ——————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Rodriguez, RaChelle (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:05 PM

    Subject: The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016

     

    The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

     

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/09/16-09-074.htm

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    Introduction: In 1994, the Washington state department of ecology (ecology) developed an NPDES general permit to regulate the discharge of wastewater from fresh fruit packing facilities.

    This permit was developed to meet the requirements of chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 RCW as amended, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq.) as amended. All requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference.

    The fruit packing industry is eligible for coverage under a general permit due to: (1) The similar wastewater characteristics among facilities; (2) the uniform discharge conditions to which all facilities would be subject; and (3) the significant reduction of resources necessary for permit handling. However, individual NPDES/state waste discharge permits will still be applied in those instances where ecology determines the general permit is not appropriate for a facility or an individual facility does not wish to be covered by the general permit.

    This general permit establishes treatment/disposal methods, effluent limits, and best management practices for discharges from the fresh fruit packing industry. Compliance with this general permit is anticipated to protect human health and waters of the state.

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered: Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    Documents Available for Review: You may download a copy of the draft permit and fact sheet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/fruit_packers/index.html; or you may request a copy from Cynthia Huwe, (509) 457-7105 or e-mail cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    Public Workshops: Public workshops concerning this draft general permit shall be held on May 18, 2016, in Union Gap and May 19, 2016, in Leavenworth. WebDMR training will also take place on these dates. Please see below for location and exact times.

    DATE Wednesday

    May 18, 2016

    Thursday

    May 19, 2016

    WORKSHOP BEGINS 9:00 a.m. to noon 1:30 to 4:00 p.m.
    WebDMR TRAINING

    BEGINS

    1:30 to 3:30 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to noon
    LOCATION Washington State

    Department of Ecology

    – CRO

    Chelan County Fire District #3 Community Fire Hall
    ADDRESS 1250 West Alder Street 228 Chumstick Highway
    CITY Union Gap, WA 98903 Leavenworth, WA 98826
    ROOM 102 B

    Additional WebDMR Training: An additional WQWebDMR system training (training only, no workshop) will be offered on Thursday, August 18, 2016, from 10 a.m. to noon at the Central Regional Office, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA, in Conference Room 102B.

    When and How to Submit Comments: Comments on the proposed general permit may be given at the public hearings. Interested persons are also invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed general permit. All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    This notice will be published in the legal section of the Yakima Herald-Republic and the Wenatchee Daily World on May 4, 2016. A mailing containing this notice will be sent to all current permittees and other interested parties.

    Final Determination: All comments received at the public hearings or at ecology’s central regional office by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, will be considered before final permit terms, limitations, and conditions are established. A responsive summary of comments received during the comment period will be prepared and available for public review. If the final content of the general permit remains substantially unchanged from the draft permit, a copy of the final determination in the form of a public notice of issuance shall be forwarded to all persons who submitted written comment or gave public testimony regarding the permit. However, if the final determination is substantially changed, another public notice of draft permit shall be published.

    Economic Impact Analysis: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016, on department of ecology’s publications and forms web site located at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/UIPages/Home.aspx.

    Tentative Determination to Issue: After ecology receives and considers all public comments, it will issue the final permit. Ecology expects to issue the general permit in August 2016, with an effective date of September 1, 2016.

    Further Information: Contact Sanjay Barik at sanjay.barik@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-4247; or Marcia Porter at marcia.porter@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-7864; 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA.

    Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran’s status, Vietnam Era veteran’s status or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Cynthia Huwe at (509) 457-7105.

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace


  • WA State Wetland Draft?

    WHAT WA State Wetland Draft?

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

     Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    WHO?  WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS WETLAND PLAN?

    WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED?

    HOW DID ECOLOGY NOTIFY THE PUBLIC?

    —————————————————————

     I signed up for ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

    So I could keep track of what ECOLOGY was up to and participate with public comments.

     SOWhen did WA State Department of Ecology NOTIFY THE PUBLIC (that would be me) about THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN, WHAT METHOD OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DID ECOLOGY USE?   ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

     —————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    IF PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND  SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

    I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | We Need a New Public Notice Act

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/12/…/weneed-a-new-a-publicnotice-act/

    Dec 8, 2014 – WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN … to create a more stringent public notification and participation process by …

    ———————————————————————-

    My after the fact comment (Jan. 1, 2015)

    “That any WA State  property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    My comment on Feb. 1, 2011

    “That any type of property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/news/…/clallam-c…

    Feb 1, 2011 Peninsula Daily News

    ———————————————————————————–

    SO…. In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state.

     SO… The WA State Department of Ecology received taxpayers money to spend on this wetland draft?

    INDEED, WE THE VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN ... to create a more stringent PUBLIC NOTIFICATION and participation process by …

    —————————————————————————————–

    WOW…. State agencies involved in WETLAND MANAGEMENT collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    SO…. EXACTLY HOW MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, FROM VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS,  DID WA State Department of Ecology receive ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    WA State Department of Ecology also received input from local governments?

    What input did WA State Department of Ecology receive from our elected Clallam County Commissioners’ ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    ——————————————————-

    AFTER THE FACT CONTACT INFORMATION

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology

    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for PUBLIC REVIEW

    Thank you for your willingness TO REVIEW AND COMMENT on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    Background

    In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state. A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for public review.

    The WPP outlines what the state strives to accomplish regarding core elements of a wetland program.  It is a comprehensive plan and, as a result, not all of it can be accomplished in the near future.  Therefore, AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD, decisions will be made regarding which actions identified in the WPP should receive the state’s focus over the next six years. 

    State agencies involved in wetland management collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    More information about the plan can be found within the document itself or on the Wetland Program Plan webpage.

    Informational webinar

    Ecology will be hosting a webinar on December 10, 2014 at 6:30pm to answer any questions you may have about the Wetland Program Plan. To sign up for the webinar, contact Susan Buis (contact information below).

    How to Comment

    You do not have to edit the document for grammar or punctuation. We are asking you to provide feedback on content and your understanding of the document. If you are not able to review the entire document, please focus on the section of most interest to you or provide comments on the action tables at the end of each section. Please let us know if there are any sections that are unclear. We would also appreciate any ideas or suggestions you have to improve the content.

    You can provide comments in several ways:

    1. Download a copy of the document and use track changes.
    2. Request the document in Word 2007 and then provide comments and edits using track changes.
    3. Write comments on a printed paper copy of the document.
    4. Write a separate Word document in which you provide detailed comments or suggestions. Please indicate the section or page and paragraph to which your comment or suggestion applies.
    5. Provide feedback on the Core Element Action Tables (PDF) by taking this Survey Monkey survey.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis via email or postal mail at:

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    P.O. Box 47600
    Olympia, WA 98504
    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    Thank you for your willingness to review and comment on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    ————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    IF? PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

     I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON

    THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

     

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     

     


  • 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


  • Are You Voting In 2014?

    Are You Voting In 2014?

    Was that a “YES?”

    NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE VOTING

    Ask yourself the following questions

    1. Have you fought, worked or agreed with the candidate on a local issue?

    2. Have you gone to candidates meet and greets? debates? etc.?

    3. Listened to candidates speak?

    4. Questioned the candidates during and after?

    5. Have you asked them about and discussed the problems in your area?

    6. Where their answers Credible? Specific? Generalized? Evasive? Misleading?

    7. Have you asked them how they can help?

    8. Are they local? Qualified? Experienced? Informed? Knowledgeable?

    9. Have you researched their voting record?

    10. Do you know the sources of their campaign funding?

    Too often the MOST SERIOUS problems we face in OUR County ARE NOT CREATED IN OUR COUNTY, OR by our County elected and appointed representatives.

    THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE ALL FACE ARE CREATED BY FEDERAL ACTS  AND STATE MANDATED WAC AND RCW TRICKLE DOWN.

    ———————————————————————————-

    If it is of interest to you? Many of YOUR LOCAL issues and MINE may be similar.

    For my website I do  in-depth investigation and  research.

    I have done research from the top (WA DC) to the bottom (my county)

    I am voting in 2014 like American Lives depend on it.

    —————————————————————————

    THE WHO’S, WHAT’S, WHEN, WHERE AND WHY’S

    I have four campaign poster in my front yard.

    —————————————————————–

    MY  VOTE IS FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER.

    For director of Clallam County Department of Community Development.

    Sheila Roark Miller appointed me to be on the Clallam County SMP Citizens Advisory Committee for the Shoreline Management Plan Update (she enabled me)

    WHY VOTE  FOR SHEILA ROARK MILLER?

    IN SPITE OF ECOLOGY’S 500 POUND GORILLA  TIPPING THE SCALE AND CREATING  THEIR  APPOINTED IMBALANCE OF STEWARDSHIP ON CLALLAM COUNTY’S SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) UPDATE AND THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE.

    She has been working for BALANCED STEWARDSHIP  on the SMP Update through the entire process with ECOLOGY. AND, on the mitigation for water rights in the Dungeness Water Rule area since the beginning.

    Sheila is absolutely the most qualified and experienced.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MY VOTE IS FOR JUDGE PORTER.

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The problem of  “No funding” that contributes to the catch and release of criminals back into our neighborhood to become repeat offender. “No funding” would include the lack of compensation for the victims of crime.

    He established the pay or appear program and increased gross revenue for the county by $800,000 dollars a year. He provides incentive programs for GED.

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

    MY VOTE IS FOR MARK NICHOLS FOR PROSECUTOR

    A man that cares enough about the community, to go door to door and talk with us individually about our local concerns and solutions. we spent nearly a half an hour talking on my front porch. He know the names of our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County.

    The failure to resolve drug problems in the entire State of Washington have become an American family tragedy

    Mark is the most experienced and qualified for the HOME RULE CHARTER.

    He was involved in the last election of the freeholders eight years ago  and has been the legal advisor for the Clallam County Home Rule Charter fifteen elected freeholders. HOW IMPORTANT IS  IT? The Charter is a county constitution designed to give the control of county affairs to the people of the county rather than requiring legislation from Olympia. In addition to the election  of our public officials, specific powers reserved to the people are initiative, referendum, mini-initiative and recall

     Mark is also the Hearing Examiner for Clallam County.

    He really “HEARS” from a lot of people in our community!

    Incidentally, I did attend the meet and greet for Mark at the Sheriff Benedict’s home.

    The Sheriff Benedict, Deb Kelly and I talked about our local kids and families that have suffered because of the drug problems in Clallam County. We spoke of the failure to resolve drug problems in our county that have become local family tragedies.

    MARK NICHOLS has been endorsed by Sheriff Benedict.

    ———————————————————————————————

    MY VOTE IS FOR SHERIFF BENEDICT (even if he is running unopposed)

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

    Last but certainly NOT LEAST

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH

    COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20.

    A qualified Local Representative like “Bill Peach” is LONG OVERDUE

    For as long as I have been involved with Clallam County issues, the West End, District 3,  has been treated like an ILLEGITIMATE  part of our county.

    ILLEGITIMATE  by definition  not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHY DOES DISTRICT THREE THE WEST END NEED A LOCAL COMMISSIONER LIKE BILL PEACH?

    ————————————————————

    BECAUSE OF THE  EXCLUSION AND OMISSION OF DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END, WRIA 20. IN THE DUE PROCESS.

    —————————————————————-

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION from the SMP Update

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

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

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION THE DRONES

    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    Behind My Back | Drones Why the Secrecy?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/06/22/drones-why-the-secrecy/‎
    Jun 22, 2013 – THE DRONES WERE NO SECRET TO THE LOCAL TRIBES. WHY WAS THERE ADVANCE OUT REACH to the INDIAN TRIBES?

    ——————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION Broadband
    The Rest of The Story
    Posted on September 16, 2013 3:19 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Broadband Access and More
    Clallam County THE PDN reports to we the people (after the fact)

    ———————————————————————————–

    EXCLUSION AND/OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    Behind My Back | “Why Bother With Us?”
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/17/why-bother-with-us/‎
    Sep 16, 2013 – “WE THE PEOPLE” ARE JUST AMERICAN CITIZENS, VOTERS, TAXPAYERS,VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, SMALL BUSINESS …

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

    AND THE LATEST EXCLUSION AND/ OR OMISSION OF WE THE PEOPLE

    IN THE  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS

     THE ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT FOR USFS OLYMPIC PENINSULA

    www.behindmyback.org  Sep 29, 2014 – Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula land? EVASIVE AT THE VERY LEAST. IF THIS “PROJECT” IS NOT A COVER -UP?

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

    MY VOTE IS FOR BILL PEACH COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT 3, THE WEST END.

    A qualified “LOCAL  CITIZEN” Representative COMMISSIONER like “Bill Peach” is LONG, LONG, LONG, OVERDUE …….

    BILL PEACH  has the courage to tell you what you may not want to hear: OUR COUNTY HAS A PROBLEM WITH UNEMPLOYMENT, HOMELESSNESS AND DRUGS. HE  RECOGNIZE THIS REALITY AND SUPPORT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO CHANGE IT, INCLUDING COUNTY GOVERNMENT.

     

     


  • Navy to Face Public on Warfare

    Navy  to Face Public  on Electronic Warfare

    Update Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula

    Oct.8, 2014  Kilmer responds (full text below)

    Oct 8, 2014 PDN Navy to Face Forks Public

    Oct, 9, 2014 PDN  We are going to extend comment through the end of October

    I did demand answers on Sept 3, 2014 and make Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his  personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Rep. Kilmer’s Response Oct. 8, 2014 (snippet, full text below)

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible FOR THE NAVY TO RE-OPEN THE COMMENT PERIOD and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    ——————————————————————————————

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    NAVY TO FACE PUBLIC NEXT WEEK ON PROPOSED WEST END …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/20141008/…/nav

    20 hours ago – FORKS — Community concerns over the Navy’s electronic warfare training proposal have prompted a meeting next week to … “We asked that the comment period be extended to [Oct. 31]

    ————————————————————————-

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    Thursday 9th October, 2014

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare Peninsula Daily News DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

     WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday.

    —————————————————————————————

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare program; DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

    Peninsula Daily News Thursday 9th October, 2014

    FORKS — The deadline has been EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT on the U.S. Navy’s environmental assessment for an electronic warfare training proposal. The development comes as the U.S. Forest Service considers issuing a special-use permit for the Navy to use its roads during the exercises.’; WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday. Comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range project’s environmental assessment was set to end Friday, but with a community meeting on the topic coming next week, …

    ——————————————————————————————

    FULL TEXT  of Derek Kilmer’s response

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Representative Derek Kilmer

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:37 PM

    Subject: Responding to Your Message

    Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    As you know, the Navy is interested in developing an electronic warfare range to assist Navy pilots practice their skills. The range would consist of one permanent structure, located near Whidbey Island, and three mobile vehicles outfitted with electronics. All four components would be capable of emitting signals that would be observed by the pilots while conducting training missions.

    In accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted to determine the effects the range would have on the local environment. The draft study was made available to the public for comment between August 1 and August 15th. The comment period is now closed.

    I heard a few concerns from constituents about the EIS and reached out to the Navy to understand what kind of outreach had been conducted prior to alert individuals of the comment period and the proposed project.

    Based on information I have received thus far, I am concerned that the steps the Navy took did not adequately inform the community of the public comment period. Folks should have an opportunity to be briefed on activities that may affect their community and should also have the chance to weigh in with questions and concerns.

    I am working with the Navy to expand their outreach to the Olympic Peninsula and the West End to communicate planned infrastructure and capability investments that may affect our community. To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible for the Navy to re-open the comment period and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    Please know, that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind, as I work with the Navy to further understand this project and ensure that they improve their communications throughout our region.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Kilmer
    Member of Congress

     

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

    How could Representative Derek Kilmer  ignore and fail to respond on TO MY SEPT. 3, 2014 EMAIL, questions and concerns on Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

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

    NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP

    ATTITUDE IS A SMALL THING, BUT IT IS EVERYTHING WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

    No matter what kind of shape OUR COUNTRY  is in, if  OUR ATTITUDE is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP, WE will stand a much better chance of succeeding. The folks in cyberspace  with will pick up on OUR  investigations, facts, documentation,,  credibility, sincerity and conviction, and they’ll begin to operate the same way. AND IT WILL ENABLE ALL OF US to take the difficult steps necessary.

    I did continue to post comments on my website, demanding answers and making Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula?

    Posted on September 29, 2014 6:54 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    To Comment on Environmental Warfare?

    Posted on October 1, 2014 1:49 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————-

    Update on EW Public Comment

    Posted on October 1, 2014 2:40 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————————–

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Posted on October 4, 2014 5:16 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

    We have exposed the fatal error in the Due Process Law

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    The Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula,is no longer JUST a Local Issue.  The power of cyberspace has made it an AMERICA ISSUE.

     

     


  • More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Don’t kill the messenger, look at the picture, read the article and  the 106 unedited pro and con comments. There are more Questions then Answers.

    Navy wants to conduct war games on Wash. coast | Local …

    www.komonews.com/…/Navy-wants-to-conduct-war-games-…

    KOMO‑TV Sep 27, 2014 – Environmental Assessment for the Electronic Warfare Range. …. encourage everyone who cares about preservation of human life and health to …

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Navy-wants-to-conduct-war-games-on-coast-277325531.html

    By Associated Press Published: Sep 27, 2014 at 11:23 AM PDT Last Updated: Sep 27, 2014 at 1:54 PM PDT

    FORKS, Wash. (AP) – The U.S. Navy hopes to post three camper-sized trucks with electromagnetic-radiation equipment on the Olympic Peninsula to conduct war exercises with military aircraft from 15 sites.

    The Navy plans to post warning signs and barriers near the trucks when the machines are operating because getting exposed at close range to the radiation could be dangerous, according to The Peninsula Daily News. The machines that emit the radiation would let the Navy simulate modern electronic warfare, according to a draft environmental assessment for the project posted on a U.S. Forest Service website.

    Officials hope to begin the war games next year in Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor counties. The exercises would be conducted at 12 sites in the Olympic National Forest and three sites on state Department of Natural Resources land. The proposal would be part of the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range and would involve aircraft from the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

    Greg Wahl, an environmental coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service who is leading the project, said it will have no significant impact, which would eliminate the need for a study on the environmental effect of the war games, the newspaper said.

    “Human tissue is directly susceptible to shock or burns when metallic objects, which have absorbed high electromagnetic radiation, are touched,” according to the assessment. “This type of burn would be similar to the type of burn produced inside a microwave oven. There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.”

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,” the assessment said.

    The deadline to comment on the draft environmental assessment for the Forest Service permit is Oct. 10.

    Figure 3.5-3: Visual Sensitive Receptors – Area 1 and Area 2. Environmental Assessment for the Electronic Warfare Range. (USDA Forest Service – JUNE 2014)

    ——————————————————————————————-

    106 unedited comments (Selfie’s deleted)

    Carol Hiltner 4 days ago

    Here is the address for submitting comments to the Forest Service:

    gtwahl@fs.fed.us

    The web site is: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=42759

    Here is a summary, from the Navy, of the damage microwaves do to humans:

    http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf

    It’s absurd to assert that microwaves being used AS A WEAPON are not damaging to humans.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Christopher Earle 5 days ago

    Where do we comment on the environmental issues?? Nice to say that the deadline for comments on the assessment is 10/10, but why not tell us where to comment??

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    BillyBob 6 days ago

    completely unacceptable to do this in our forests.  They know the dangers to humans being close, what about wildlife?  Take this nonsense to a desert somewhere.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    MajorSkeptic 6 days ago

    @BillyBob You have to be REALLY, REALLY close.  In fact he old technology megawatt radar transmitters from the cold were a lot more dangerous and the wildlife seemed to to survive the cold war better then the rest of us..

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    oldkentguy 6 days ago

    Why not just do it in Syria?

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Semolina Pilchard 6 days ago

    woohoo let the games begin !!!

    blup blup blup… blup blup blup… that ship’s a goner : (

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Father Krampus 6 days ago

    I suggest peninsula residents stock up on tin foil — double-layering the foil will help protect your brain from the mind-control waves.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Tech Translplant 6 days ago

    Lots of ignorance and fear on display by posters here.  Articles like this always bring out the anti-scientific wackos, who all make scientific-sounding claims, but never seem to have evidence to back up their accusations.

    Chances are excellent that if you’ve learned everything you know about radiation by reading random internet websites or listening to your friends tell you stories, then you don’t know enough about the subject to comment intelligently.

    If you’re afraid of reasonable levels of upper-RF and microwave frequency radiation, then you should literally put on your aluminum-foil hats, throw away your cell phones, and move tens of miles away from the nearest cell phone tower.  More power to you.  It’s a free country.

    For the rest of us, the dangers of microwave radiation are well-established at this point, and the conveniences far outweigh the fringe undocumented health concerns.

    As far as this equipment is concerned: 1) it’s temporary, 2) the antennas are not pointed at terrestrial targets, and 3) the dangerous power densities are located within feet of the antenna arrays, so roping or fencing off with big danger signs seems sufficient as a precaution to avoid people wandering in front of the transmitters.

    FlagShare

    2ikeReply

     

    Mary 6 days ago

    @Tech Translplant  You contradict your vague premise.  You first refer to “dangers of microwave radiation” as being “well-established at this point” and then confirm those dangerous power densities by stating “the dangerous power densities are located within feet of the antenna arrays.”  You deny danger and then confirm danger with your incoherent reasoning.  While it’s true that danger from EMF radiation increases with proximity and decreases with distance, the “feet” to which you nebulously refer encompass an area of as much as a half mile to a mile.  In one Swedish study of the effect of standard 60 cycles per second EMF’s, children who lived in close proximity to power lines with diffuse energy dispersal had a 20 percent higher cancer rate than children living a mile or more away.  Low frequency radiation is less dangerous than the high frequency of cell phones, cell towers, and probably the level proposed for this military operation. I agree that there are many scientific “wackos” out there, and those who contradict their own statements and use incomplete information to prove their points are among the scientific “wackos.”

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Tech Translplant 3 days ago

    @Mary @Tech Translplant

    1) The frequency of the equipment in question here isn’t even in the same frequency band as the power lines you’re now discussing, making the two completely invalid for comparison, especially because the mechanism by which the two different sources are “dangerous” is completely and utterly different;

    2) The antenna configuration of the equipment in the above article (highly directional) has no comparison whatsoever to the “antenna” configuration of a nearby power line (which is effectively omnidirectional for the purposes of your claims);

    3) You once again referred to a nebulous “Swedish” study without linking to it or citing it more appropriately, expecting everyone to just accept your summary of their research as unquestioned “fact”;

    4) I could cite many more mainstream sources which contradict your claims, the simplest of which is the Wikipedia article on electromagnetic radiation and health:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health

    I could cite many other on-point studies, including one of my college professors who carried out long-term studies of cell phone tissue interaction which were unable to demonstrate any conclusive findings;

    5) I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering with several graduate-level classes in electromagnetic fields and their applications (including in biological interaction), which I suspect makes me more qualified than you to appreciate the likely impact of the technologies involved here.  I don’t toss around credentials lightly, but I would love to know where you received your education which bases your claims.

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    BillyBob 6 days ago

    @Tech Translplant Lack of ignorance from those who actually believe this will not have an impact is far more concerning.  At least it should be.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Fairlane500 7 days ago

    Next on KOMO: The hidden danger of radio towers. Why staying outside the fence is in your best interest…

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

    Reality Control 7 days ago

    Today the “China” sea, tommorow the world (courtesy of Wal Mart).

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Reality Control Just as with drugs, if there was no demand there’s be no supply.  You’re putting the blame in the wrong place.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Reality Control 7 days ago

    @Chris @Reality Control They all sink.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Orangulo 7 days ago

    inb4 people assume that this kind of electromagnetic radiation is ionizing radiation.

    FlagShare

    1ikeReply

     

    Norma J Todd 7 days ago

    Are we suppose to believe them? Would this be allowed in downtown Seattle? Tell me it is safe enough to use in downtown Seattle and  I will believe that it is safe enough to use in small towns. Use it in Seattle first.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    gscott 6 days ago

    @Norma J Todd

    I think if you put on your tin foil hat you will be ok.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    KOMOdo-dragon 7 days ago

    “The machines that emit the radiation would let the Navy simulate modern electronic warfare, according to a draft environmental assessment for the project posted on a U.S. Forest Service website.”

     

    Interpretation:  These trucks are equipped with radar and microwave frequency transmitters that are designed to emulate fire-control radar, and/or communications emission profiles that closely resemble various surface-to-air missile systems or command and control platforms in use by our global neighbors (think of recent events in a certain Balkan state).  Put a fence around them at a safe distance, some warning signs and be done with it.  No need for any hand-wringing or worrying.  Since its non-ionizing radiation, and the inverse-square law is still in effect (as well as other laws of physical nature), there is no need to worry.

     

    This is just another attempt to “create” news.

    FlagShare

    14LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon Ukraine is an eastern European state, not a Balkan one.  Other than that, you’re technically correct – the best kind of correct.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Aviano 7 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon   “This is just another attempt to “create” news.”

    Exactly; and create fear in people who don’t understand. Better to be proactive than have fluster cluck that requires emergency, or unorganized actions and training to protect America.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Phlipfone 7 days ago

    @Aviano

    The greatest worry of the hand-wringers, here, is that this type of radiation may have an effect on vampires and werewolves.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    barkleydog 6 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon And you are an expert or do you just believe everything you read?

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    KOMOdo-dragon 6 days ago

    @barkleydog   I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😉

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    Oh how i love reading some of these posts. How the left leaning libs are afraid that OMG the government can’t be trusted to do military training at one of their bases! Yet out of the other side of their mouth. They put the most important thing they have their health over to government and be oh we can trust the government! Yet won’t trust them with this little thing. What a bunch of hypocrits. The lefts hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    FlagShare

    9LikeReply

     

    oldster70 7 days ago

    Does this mean targeting Bayliner and Tollycraft owners as known domestic terrorists?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Jessica the Phippster 7 days ago

    @oldster70 I bet at their Frequencies, we’d Never Notice a thing, Even on my Boat Radar….   I think it’s More of a FYI…..   FYI Folks, Microwaves Coming At Ya…    No Biggie, the radio Waves and Microwaves are all around anyway….    It would be hard to hide from them all,….  relax, and Start to Fold that Tin Foil….   you will Look right at Home For Halloween

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    oldster70 7 days ago

    @Jessica the Phippster @oldster70  Yes, I would guess my Radar is using WWII frequencies.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    FZR 7 days ago

    If you need radiation as a requirement for these war games, why not play in hanford radioactive waste land area?

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @FZR Wrong type of radiation.  Please get your technical facts straight.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    I think this is a great idea.

    We need to train our armed forces for when the bad guys eventually start to try to take us on.  That includes arming the police – but they need to be trained and disciplined to use the weapons they’re getting.

    FlagShare

    3ikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @White KittyI     I must be losing my mind…..I thought we were already training our armed forces.   Is it just a government coverup and we really have no trained forces at all?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    PacMan 7 days ago

    @TazZen @White Kitty

    Training is an ongoing thing. You have to constantly refresh that information in the minds of the people living through the exercise.  You probably don’t respond to situations at work now exactly as you did five or ten years ago.

    Things change and so must we.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @PacMan @TazZen @White Kitty My post was sarcastic, damn, where is that font when I need it most?

    FlagShare

    2ikeReply

     

    PacMan 4 days ago

    @TazZen @PacMan @White Kitty

    Sorry, my sarcasm filter  broke when they fired Schram.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    rjsupersonic 7 days ago

    why is everyone whining?  We need a strong military to protect our freedom. If people don’t like it they can move to North Korea then  you have something to complain about!!!

    FlagShare

    4ikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @rjsupersonic Oh FFS!  Is that the best you can do?  No one is complaining about a strong military to protect our freedom.  I personally support our military; but I also support a healthy living environment where we can bring our families up without having to worry about my relatives and friends dying young because of cancer causing impositions that are unnecessary and useless.  We have proven time and time again that we can live in tandem with the elements necessary to protect our freedom, and we have ALSO proven, time and time again, that there are those who would impose upon us (HANFORD and THREE MILE ISLAND are just two examples) unnecessary dangers in haste in the name of freedom.

    And please, try more original material than the tired, lame, ‘move to North Korea’ crap.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @TazZen @rjsupersonic No member of the public has ever been exposed to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation as a result of anything that has ever gone on at Hanford or TMI.  If you’re going to level accusations, please learn the technical facts and try more original material than the tired, lame, unscientific “unnecessary dangers” crap.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @Chris @TazZen @rjsupersonic In response to your first sentence, I did not imply that at all.  MY POINT is, in the past the government has built facilities and implemented processes where they assured the public they were completely safe from any major adverse effects in order to appease them and gain their trust.  You cannot deny that, and if you do, please learn the facts, because otherwise your statement comes across as unscientific crap.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.”

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,”

     

    Does anyone know WHY information about “DNA fragmentation and cancer due to EMF radiation exposure is inconsistent and insufficient at this time?  The government and the high priests of the electronic tech industry WANT effects of electromagnetic radiation to be unknown to the public.  The information has been found and well-hidden.  Research results have been suppressed and held secret in exchange for big bucks.  Or such results are ignored by the public because acknowledging that EMF’s can cause DNA and cancer effects is inconvenient and could remove the fun from that constant cell phone usage or the omnipresence of those cell towers.  For example, in the early 1990’s, a researcher at the UW did a study which revealed damaging effects of EMF radiation exposure in the 900 mega hertz range of cell phones on the DNA in the human brain.  That information was rapidly downplayed by U.S. West and other mobile technology companies at that time.

     

    Then when my neighborhood challenged the installation of a cell tower on top of an apartment building, U.S. West hired a professor emeritus from the UW to allay our fears by assuring our community that the high frequency EMF radiation could have no possible effects on our health.  I had difficulty in believing his assertions since I had previously read in a well-known scientific publication an article by this same professor, now a paid employee of U.S. West, in which he described an EMF radiation experiment he had performed on laboratory mice.  That study showed that in the control group, five percent of the mice developed cancer.  In the group of mice exposed to EMF radiation, 20 percent of the exposed mice developed cancer.  Apparently this professor conveniently forgot the results of his study when U.S. West offered him something he valued more than scientific truth: money.  I learned from that experience that it’s nearly impossible for even whole communities to fight the whims of the huge mobile technology companies, but at least in offering a fight there is a remote chance of stopping the increasing radiation of humans.

     

    As a member of a neighborhood group that tirelessly fought imposition of EMF radiation on our neighborhood, I know exactly how futile and difficult it seems to fight the increasing radiation of our society.  Our input to the government entities in this increasingly undemocratic society is having less impact than ever and may be pointless.  But I still encourage everyone who cares about preservation of human life and health to give input to the increasingly uncaring government by sending comments about this newest threat to the Forest Service by Oct. 10.  Maybe KOMO could save us some research and give us a link? Thanks to KOMO for bringing this to our attention!

    FlagShare

    3ikeReply

     

    Cindertang 7 days ago

    @Mary Your reply reminds me of my fathers story he used to tell us back in the sixties about an article that was in the popular mechanics magazine, It was about this guy who sent in a carburetor that ran off of chicken poop, he had a real working one sent in pictures and diagrams the works, now you would think some thing like that would be the greatest thing ever since chicken poop is so abundant and available. This thing really worked, it also disappeared. So yes I think some one bought it diagrams and all ( namely some big oil company) and are sitting on it waiting for what you might ask, well for the next big money making moment in history I think.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Mary One study does not a scientific principle make.  If you believe (vice think) 900 MHz EMR does appreciable physiological damage, then learn the science and dig up the proof instead of blaming some massive government and corporate coverup.

    I once worked for the Feds.  There aren’t enough smart people there to conduct a successful conspiracy.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Aviano 7 days ago

    @Chris @Mary  “I once worked for the Feds.  There aren’t enough smart people there to conduct a successful conspiracy.”

    You just made my day! Too funny.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Mary 6 days ago

    @Chris @Mary  Your reading comprehension level would benefit from giving more attention and focus to what you are reading.  If you again read my comments more carefully, you will see that I have mentioned several different studies here, not just one study, which have suggested that exposure to EMF’s at any frequency can have physical effects.  It’s difficult to “dig up” the absolute proof because results that indicate harm from EMF exposure have indeed been suppressed by corporate and government entities.  We may be seeing yet another example of government disregard for possible harm from EMF’s in this newest proposal to expose humans to EMF radiation.

     

    And if YOU believe that 900 megahertz radiation cannot “do appreciable physiological damage,” you must not be familiar with the operation of microwave ovens.  Microwave ovens generate between 915 megahertz and 2450 megahertz frequency bands, and I think anyone who uses a microwave knows what happens to that pizza or chicken when exposed to microwave radiation!  It’s called “cooking!”  If you want to see the effect of EMF’s on your brain, just look at that microwaved chicken! :-)  But while it’s true that 900 megahertz probably would not successfully cook a chicken, some of the older cell phones (and maybe newer ones, too) could actually cause a warming sensation when held to the ear for more than a few minutes.  More research is needed in this area, but it won’t happen because corporate interests and now the  government have too much at stake to allow that research.  But you may not understand this because, after all, you did work for the federal government which, by your own admission, does not hire smart people. :-)

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    None 7 days ago

    No, no, NO!  “Officials hope to begin the war games next year in Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor counties.”  So, Forks is simply the beginning of something far more extensive and “The Navy plans to post warning signs and barriers near the trucks when the machines are operating because getting exposed at close range to the radiation could be dangerous.”  Oh, dandy.  So, in addition to the Hanford nuclear leakage (that is extant and which is still a very serious problem) as well as whatever the Pacific Ocean currents are bringing over from the Fukushima plant (that is ALSO still leaking directly into the ocean), we are supposed to accept that this is perfectly safe because our government officials tell us not to worry.  (???)

    Anybody in the market for a bridge that is positioned on a nice parcel of swampland?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    SeattleJoe 7 days ago

    @None You are clearly not a physics student. You do have the uneducated paranoia part down however.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    @SeattleJoe @None  What are you talking about?  You may be a physics student, but you clearly have not studied long enough!  Can you more specifically state the scientific basis on which you are discounting the very valid questions raised by “None?”  The current lack of concern about the contamination by Hanford nuclear waste is due to LACK of understanding of the nature and consequences of that radioactive pollution.  And that lack of understanding has been fostered by the government attempts to withhold and downplay frightening information. People have died because of Hanford nuclear contamination. Now this newest EMF radiation experiment is being downplayed by those government entities who just want us to sit passively back and allow them to perform this latest experiment on human health.  “You do have the uneducated” arrogance part down quite well.  Do some reading and educate yourself before you deride others who are more highly informed!

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Mary @SeattleJoe @None Here is the scientific basis: the physiological effects of ionizing radiation have been studied and investigated more than any other threat to human health except smoking.  (Saying that there is a lack of understanding of the nature and consequences of radioactive pollution is very disingenuous.)  The entire Hanford Reservation area is monitored, sampled, and tested more thoroughly than any piece of Federally-owned real estate in the US.  Yes, it is a problem that liquid is leaking from underground tanks at Hanford.  But the radioactive elements in the leakage from those tanks are not water-soluble, ergo they have not come anywhere near the Columbia.

    Please learn the scientific facts before succumbing to scare-mongering.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    SeattleJoe 6 days ago

    @Mary @SeattleJoe @None Sigh. Ok, where do we begin?

    “What are you talking about? ”

    I think I was pretty clear.

     

    ” You may be a physics student, but you clearly have not studied long enough!  ”

    I’m not a physics student, though I had to take a lot of it for my engineering degrees. I never said I was a physics student, try to read what I say and nothing more.

     

    “Can you more specifically state the scientific basis on which you are discounting the very valid questions raised by “None?” ”

    “None” posted this question: “we are supposed to accept that this is perfectly safe because our government officials tell us not to worry.  (???)”  I don’t trust the government any more than the next rational person but “None” gave nothing more than a couple uninformed and vague examples as the basis of his/her thinking and that soundly put him in the uneducated paranoia category.

     

    “The current lack of concern about the contamination by Hanford nuclear waste is due to LACK of understanding of the nature and consequences of that radioactive pollution.  And that lack of understanding has been fostered by the government attempts to withhold and downplay frightening information. People have died because of Hanford nuclear contamination. ”

    Yes people have died and that is bad. But the danger is currently minimal. Most “frightening information” is irrational speculation touted as fact. If you have some post it otherwise it is only speculation.

     

    “Now this newest EMF radiation experiment is being downplayed by those government entities who just want us to sit passively back and allow them to perform this latest experiment on human health. ”

    OK. So the government is experimenting on human health by telling people to stay away. OK. Interesting experiment. Is it one where they see how people react to not going near EMF radiation? It seems to me if the govt was nefariously experimenting they wouldn’t be telling people to stay away and putting up barricades to prevent people from getting close. You see this is how we differ. I rationally look at the situation, evaluate it and determine possible outcomes. You see something that you think is scary and go off shouting govt conspiracy theories.

     

    “You do have the uneducated” arrogance part down quite well.  Do some reading and educate yourself before you deride others who are more highly informed!”

    No arrogance intended. I simply called out someone who is acting irrational. Also, might I suggest you not make claims about someone’s knowledge on a subject when you don’t know the first think about them. Things like that tend to cause people to look unfavorably upon you.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    workingman 7 days ago

    Liberals, as it appears from these comments, don’t know how we maintain our freedom.  Clue: it’s not always being opposed to our military’s needs.

    Liberals are afflicted with a serious lack of common sense.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    rockguy 7 days ago

    @workingman You forgot those Socialists, Commies, and the Pinko’s, what ever they are.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @workingman You are SO predictable.  And apparently an easily brainwashed far right shill. If you would back up your contributions here, even on occasion . instead of spewing your ridiculous hate of everything liberal, you MIGHT find more people taking you seriously.  Instead, the only ones who do, for the most part, are far right blatherers themselves.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Sanctuary 7 days ago

    @workingman Looking at the amount of personal freedoms that conservatives want to or have already banned, I’m pretty sure you cons don’t give a rip about our freedom.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    So what freedoms have been banned? Name a few. Now your going to spout off the patriot act. Well news flash. Joe Biden wrote that bill while he was in the senate. Then you will name the NADA signed in to law by Berry Obama. Seems to me that the Dems love to take your freedom.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Sanctuary 7 days ago

    @truth_be_told Abortion, same sex marriage, same sex adoption, early voting, birth control access, marijuana – medical or recreational, to name a few.  The republican war on personal freedom continues.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @truth_be_told Exactly which freedoms have your so called ‘Dems’ taken?

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @truth_be_told Ah, the usual sound of crickets.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Mr. Roman lions 5 days ago

    @workingman

    So have you ever served your country or have you just been self serving?

    Agent Smith 7 days ago

    Next thing you know, that mega-spaceship from “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” is going to show up.

    And right after it, the other one, from “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.

    Keep asking for it. You’re going to get it.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Agent Smith  That will be so cool!

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @Agent Smith Actually, have you read Communion, and the follow up book by Whitley Strieber?  He talks about the possibility of extra terrestrials visiting us, and abducting some (including him) and that those visitations may be subtle warnings about how we as a species are slowly destroying our planet.   He speaks to environmental issues as well.   He writes credibly, intellectually, and poises several different scenarios on why these visitations may be happening.

    Interesting stuff!

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Furd 6 days ago

    @TazZen @Agent Smith I’m about 60-70 pages into Communion and I find it hard to read any more.  Too fantastic for me and I TRY to keep an open mind.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @Furd @TazZen @Agent Smith It is not an easy read, that’s for sure.  I liked the sequel better, as Strieber is more scientific, but
    you may find that even harder to read than Communion.  His writing is not for everyone.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Furd 6 days ago

    @TazZen @Furd @Agent Smith  Although I have set it aside for now I have not given up entirely.  I also have Confirmation.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    jocko_homo 7 days ago

    Maybe conduct your war games near the ebola outbreak as an alternative? Why risk the coast of WA where so much sea life and people exist in a relatively healthy environment. We have plenty pollution to deal with as it is.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    F**** that!  It’s all fun & games, until they kill us.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    garden 7 days ago

    I’m not necessarily for or against this but is there some reason these things need to be positioned in a residential area?  I mean, we have the whole Puget Sound to choose from.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    ddeaves 7 days ago

    So we’ll have radiation coming at us from Fukishima and Pacific Beach.

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Klondiko 7 days ago

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative”

    Are you kidding me?

     

    Guess they got tired of killing dolphins. Find another place. Antartica works for me.

    Where is the link to comment KOMO?

    FlagShare

    8LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    @Klondiko I hope they don’t kill our orca’s.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    imright 7 days ago

    Here comes your EMP False Flag folks………………………….

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    rotups435 7 days ago

    @imright

     

    Trolling AboveTopSecret or BeforeItsNew much?

     

    Maybe bring a little John Titor in as well.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Grumpa 7 days ago

    This is Forks people, all you are going to radiate is vampires and werewolves…

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    Don’t forget about all the seafood that they could destroy.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    Oh HELL no! Simulated war games calls for *simulated* radiation!

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Jubilee 7 days ago

    Conduct these tests in Northern Syria, a win-win situation.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    I really like the way a photo shows exactly where some of the trucks would be located, especially being that they’ll be in residential neighborhoods. Also, I totally trust  a government ‘environmental coordinator’ to alleviate any public fear of negative environmental impacts.  Though they will post signs warning people, plus DNA studies are inconclusive as to the danger.   Nope no worries about human guinea pig experiments there.    You know, because it worked so well at Hanford.

    I also have no concerns as to ‘why now’, as the West Coast has been vulnerable for decades, and I was under the impression our government already had it covered.

    Probably just a diversionary tactic……hey!  Look over there!   It’s a squirrel!

     

    FlagShare

    8LikeReply

     

    Opus8no5 7 days ago

    Recent encounters with Russian nuclear bombers and strike aircraft near Alaska.  The West Coast is vulnerable and training is a logical tactical move as the Naval submarine base at Bangor would be a primary target.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    usnrbb 7 days ago

    @Opus8no5:  So would Joint Base Lewis McChord.  A major tactical army fort co-joined with a logistics air base, you gotta be kidding me.  That would be an attack  planner’s wet dream!

    Let’s face it  with two aircraft carrier bases, the west coast’s ballistic submarine base, two logistical air bases, a major army base, a naval air station, and who knows what else stuffed in here and there, Washington State is one big target center.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    ffej 7 days ago

    @usnrbb @Opus8no5 I would rather burn up in the initial attack than suffer in the aftermath.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Opus8no5  Yup, don’t forget Lewis-McChord, Bremerton, or Everett.  Bangor always has a couple of subs on patrol.  Bremerton and Everett could have two aircraft carriers and small boys sitting there, and L-M has all kinds of targets.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Opus8no5 7 days ago

    @White Kitty @Opus8no5

    You are quite correct.  Also, there is the main North-South transport artery (I-5).

    I’m encouraged by this defensive training.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Cindertang 7 days ago

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,” the assessment said.     Like every thing else these days sure why not, might be harmful might not, who is to say? so go a head and do it, its only life  well maybe.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Pest Outwest 7 days ago

    What’s wrong with going local?  They could maybe use White Center or the U District . . .

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Pest Outwest Lake Washington near Rainier Beach maybe?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    DMT 7 days ago

    “SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?”

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    lifesux 7 days ago

    go for it!! they need the training from those areas.

     

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    They have a Navy Base at Pacific Beach Big Whoop!

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    missyk 7 days ago

    Sounds like more high drama.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TylerDurdenforpres 7 days ago

    I’m sure it will be fine, what could possibly go wrong?

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    dardena 7 days ago

    @TylerDurdenforpres

    “…just a little software patch, won’t hurt a thing…”

    Terry

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    @TylerDurdenforpres Haven’t we heard that in a million scifi/horror movies?

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    flipperjack 7 days ago

    Who the hell are they kidding?  I live on the coast and they have been doing war games on the coast all summer.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    Ankle Biter 7 days ago

    Why doesn’t the Navy just practice on Bellevue? With all these “Your Speed” signs around town there’s lots of electromagnetic radiation. There’s nothing like K-Band bathing the front of your house 24/7.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Zoso 7 days ago

    @Ankle Biter Think Skyway would be better.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    King Leer 7 days ago

    Start with Hoquiam. It is desperately in need of a Megaton Makeover.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Ankle Biter 7 days ago

    @King Leer What an awesome idea for a TV show.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    @King Leer NO!

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Megan 7 days ago

    According to the photo, Areas 1 and 2 are in Pacifc Beach, WA. They are private residences across the street from the old navy base/MWR resort.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Vince 7 days ago

    So I guess we are looking forward to kids born with three to four eyes…

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    oldanintheway 7 days ago

    @Vince   But think of the advantages:

    Redundancy, in case of loss.

    Better ability to see what’s going on at busy intersections.

    Making eye contact with the opposite sex……..

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    dardena 7 days ago

    @oldanintheway @Vince

    Hey, you forgot cornea transplant donors…just saying.

    Terry

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    TrT 7 days ago

    @Vince Seriously though.. the Puget Sound area already leads in the category of childhood cancers, MS, breast and pancreatic cancer, and more.  I don’t know if it’s the toxic stew people call the Sound, or the lack of sun… or perhaps all the radiation from the military bases. This is NOT a healthy place.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Klondiko 7 days ago

    @TrT @Vince  People actually eat things from Puget Sound. Ughhh.

     

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Bacteria-causes-shellfish-harvesting-closure-277327041.html

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    @TrT @Vince  And don’t forget that radiation at Magnuson Park in the heart of the city.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Jessica the Phippster 7 days ago

    I think that sounds cool…… I will stay away with the Ham radio Equipment…

    FlagShare

     

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

    KOMO News is happy to provide a forum for commenting and discussion. Please respect and abide by the house rules:

    Keep it clean, keep it civil, keep it truthful, stay on topic, be responsible. Share your knowledge and please suggest removal of comments that violate these standards.

    See full commenting rules

     


  • To Comment on Environmental Warfare?

     Feel Free? Digital ID  Required?
    I’ve not had the experience of a citizen being required to provide their digital id before, and wouldn’t expect a citizen to have one.

    Really?  I can’t send this email comment to Yuenger, Leslie A CIV NAVFAC NW, PAO leslie.yuenger@navy.mil without first obtaining a digital ID number for MY account…..

    So, I sent the following to my email list

    Leslie wrote…. Please FEEL FREE  to provide me with your comments regarding the Environmental Warfare (EW).

     FEEL FREE?

    OK, SO WHAT “FREE” OUTFIT SHOULD I SIGN UP ON?

    TO  ” FEEL FREE” TO SEND THIS PUBLIC COMMENT?

    IS THIS A NEW RULE? REQUIRED FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

    WHAT PUBLIC COMMENTS  REQUIRE  A DIGITAL ID NUMBER?

    Are they trying to “SHOO” me off? Or what?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————-

    From Leslie…

    Thank you very much for contacting me this morning.
    >
    > Please feel free to provide me with your comments regarding the EW.
    >
    > Very Respectfully,
    > Leslie Yuenger
    > Public Affairs Officer
    > Protocol Officer
    > Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest
    > 1101 Tautog Circle
    > Silverdale, WA 98315
    > 360-396-6387 O
    > 360-340-5592 C
    > 360-315-0088 F

    ———————————————————————–

    My PUBLIC COMMENT to Leslie,

     Thank you for speaking with me on the phone this am.

     Yuenger, Leslie A CIV NAVFAC NW, PAO <leslie.yuenger@navy.mil>

     Please submit this complete document, as my public comment on the Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS, ONP and all other public land on the Olympic Peninsula affected by this Navy Project.

     Please forward this public comment to our elected leadership at the county, state and federal level.

     My word document  is below.

    ————————————————————————————–

    I would appreciate an answer to the following question. (you have connections)

    How many thousand acres of OLYMPIC PENINSULA PUBLIC land is in the EW mapped area?

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

    I would appreciate answers to the following questions. (you have connections)

    Re: Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    PUBLIC NOTICE  AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW

    Who was informed by LEGAL public notification?  Who was informed and or notified privately?

    When were they actually, given “LEGAL” public notice?

    Who ONLY, found out about the PROJECT,  after they read it in newspaper report?

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

    Who was informed? REP. DEREK KILMER  As member of the House Armed Services Committee

    What are the chances that REP. DEREK KILMER  only found out about this PROJECT after “HE” read it in newspaper report?

     REP. KILMER HAS BEEN EVERY WHERE ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA?

    REP. KILMER HAS SPOKEN WITH EVERYONE OLYMPIC PENINSULA?

     When and where did Rep.Derek Kilmer speak about this Electronic Warfare Project?

    REP. DEREK KILMER IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION (bad timing for this to be exposed?)

    May 22, 2014 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – A major defense bill that includes measures championed by Representative Derek Kilmer passed the House of Representatives today. … Kilmer, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, …
    Provisions by Kilmer Included in National Defense …
    kilmer.house.gov/…/provisions-by…
    United States House of Representatives

    ———————————————————

     National Security – Congressman Derek Kilmer – House of …
    kilmer.house.gov/…/national-secu…
    United States House of Representatives
    Representative Derek Kilmer is committed to ensuring the security of the United … Service Committee considered the FY15 National Defense Authorization Act, …
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Major Defense Bill Passes House, Includes Kilmer-backed …
    kilmer.house.gov/…/major-defens…
    United States House of Representatives

    —————————————————–
    Jun 14, 2013 – Representative Derek Kilmer, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, successfully fought for projects and priorities included in the …
    Key Draft of Major Defense Bill Includes Kilmer-backed …
    kilmer.house.gov/…/key-draft-of-…
    United States House of Representatives
    ——————————————————————-

    May 6, 2014 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – A key draft of a major defense bill released yesterday includes many initiatives pushed for by Representative Derek Kilmer (WA-06). … Kilmer, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, …
    —————————————————————————-

    INSIDE INFORMATION? PRIVATE NOTIFICATION?

    Did Clallam County Commissioner Mike Doherty know?

    Did the Tribes Know?

    Did  WA State governor Jay Inslee know?

    Did the Sierra Club know?

    Did Senator Patty Murray Know?

    Did Senator Maria Cantwell know?

    ———————————————————

    READ complete text at behindmyback.org

     Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

     EVASIVE AT THE VERY LEAST, IF THIS “PROJECT” IS  NOT  A COVER -UP?

    WHAT IS IT?

    SIMPLY A COUPLE OF ROADS AND TRUCKS FOR  HARMLESS WHIDBEY ISLAND  WAR GAMES?

    OR? IS IT PART OF THE LONG RANGE ELECTRONIC WARFARE PLAN  FOR  THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA?