+menu-


  • Category Archives Publishing Public Notice
  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #92 Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can’t legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 We, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • The Dredged Report Nighttime Dumping?

    Public Comment Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    (360) 417-9452

    THIS IS MY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DREDGE REPORT AS PROVIDED ON THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    EFFECTING PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

    THE AREAS IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WHERE THE DUMPING OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DISPOSED OF  BY THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     ——————————————————————-

    186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT AN OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES.

    THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND TO BE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL, UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL,

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    THIS CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    ———————————————————————

    WHO KNEW?

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL

    AND APPROVED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE  CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREAS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA……

    INDEED, WHO KNEW,  CLALLAM COUNTY WA HAS A  DUMPING AREA FOR DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED DREDGING MATERIAL?

     ——————————————————–

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

     DREDGING PLAN:

    A DREDGING PLAN, SUFFICIENT TO ADEQUATELY SEPARATE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL FROM SEDIMENTS SUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL, WILL BE PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT AND SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO DREDGING.

     A PRE-DREDGING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD TO REVIEW QUALITY CONTROL PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR MATERIAL SEPARATION.

     FOR THIS PROJECT, THE DMMP AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT 186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT THE DMMP NONDISPERSIVE (OR DISPERSIVE) OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES AND/OR PLACEMENT IN NEAH BAY FOR INTERTIDAL AND/OR SUBTIDAL BENEFICIAL USE.

     THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL, THIS MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    DREDGED MATERIAL TESTING:

    THE PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State.

    The DMMP EVALUATIONS MAY INCLUDE BOTH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TESTING OF SEDIMENTS.

    AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. THE DESCRIBED DISCHARGE WILL BE EVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES PROMULGATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 404(B)(1) OF THE CWA.

    THESE GUIDELINES REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR ANY PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    ———————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

    Other APPROPRIATE special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

     ———————————————————————-

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered in determining whether authorizing the work would not be contrary to the public interest.

     In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below.

    Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below,

    Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    ———————————————————–

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    ————————————————————————-

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————-

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ——————————————————————-

    PEOPLE SEND ME STUFF…

    I research it, document it, post it and disseminate.

     

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Marquell, Elizabeth E CIV USARMY CENWD (US) <Elizabeth.E.Marquell@usace.army.mil>
    Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM
    Subject: Public Notice for NWS-2016-0826-; Makah Indian Tribe -Request for comments (UNCLASSIFIED)
    To: “Sanguinetti, Pamela A CIV USARMY CENWS (US)” <Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil>, CENWS Cultural Resources <Cultural.Resources@usace.army.mil>

    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
    For comments or questions regarding this Public Notice, please contact the project manager listed below.

    CONTACT INFORMATION:
    PROJECT NUMBER:  NWS-2016-0826-, Clallam County, Makah Indian Tribe
    PROJECT MANAGER: Pam Sanguinetti
    TELEPHONE: (206) 764-6904
    E-MAIL: Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil

    The attached PDF document is a Public Notice for a proposed project where a permit is being requested from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

    To view the attached document, you will need to use the Adobe Acrobat Reader.  For a free copy of the Acrobat Reader please visit: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

    To provide any project specific comments in writing or by e-mail, please visit the link below and follow the instructions outlined in the “How to Submit Comments” section.
    Http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PublicNotices.aspx

    For more Regulatory Program information, please visit http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory.aspx
    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    Joint Public Notice

    Application for a Department of the Army Permit and

    a Makah Indian Tribe Water Quality Certification and

    Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone

    Management Consistency Concurrence

    US ARMY CORPS

    OF ENGINEERS

    Seattle District

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Regulatory Branch

    Post Office Box 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    Telephone (206) 764-6904

    Attn: Pamela Sanguinetti, Project

    Manager

    WA Department of Ecology

    SEA Program

    Post Office Box 47600

    Olympia, WA 98504-7600

    Telephone (360) 407-6076

    Attn: SEA Program, Federal Permit

    Coordinator

    Makah Indian Tribe

    P.O. Box 115

    Neah Bay, WA 98357

    Telephone (360) 645-2201

    Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries

    Water Quality Specialist

    ______________________________

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) AND THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) HAVE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO PERFORM WORK IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AS described below and shown on the enclosed drawings dated March 16, 2017.

    THE CORPS will review the work in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

    THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE will review the work pursuant to water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA.

    ECOLOGY will review the work pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    APPLICANT: Makah Indian Tribe

    Post Office Box 115

    Neah Bay, Washington 98357

    ATTN: William S. Parkin, Jr., Director, Port of Neah Bay

    Telephone: (360) 645-3019

     

    AGENT: Berger ABAM

    33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300

    Federal Way, Washington

    ATTN: Ms. Victoria England

    Telephone: (206) 357-5621

    LOCATION: The project is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca at the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, Clallam County, Washington

    WORK: The project consists of an extension to an existing fishing pier to accommodate an emergency response towing vessel and other associated spill response vessels. The pier extension will be about 563 feet in length extending to the northwest. Two finger piers, respectively about 325-foot and 340-ftoot lengths, will extend to the north from the angled pier extension. Two floating piers, each about 180 feet long, will be located on the north side of the pier extension. The new pier extension will be supported by up to 220 steel piles, which includes eighty-five 24-inch diameter steel piles and one hundred thirty-five 18-inch diameter steel piles. The floating piers will be secured to 18-inch diameter steel piles.

    The pier extension will have concrete decking that will be paved with an asphalt overlay. The pier extension is sloped to drain stormwater to a central utility corridor with a grated cover. The bottom of the corridor will be sealed so that stormwater will drain into the trench and be collected. The collected water will be routed to a vault with cartridges to treat the stormwater prior to discharge into Neah Bay.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED to increase the depths to elevations ranging from -15 to -25 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) plus one foot allowable overdepth (-16 to -25 feet MLLW). Material would be dredged using either mechanical (clamshell) or hydraulic dredging equipment. Material suitable for in-water use would be placed using hydraulic pipeline or clamshell dredging equipment on the beneficial use site. Material not suitable for in-water disposal would be placed at an upland facility in accordance with state and federal waste and disposal regulations.

    PURPOSE: The project purpose is to provide secure, reliable support for enhanced oil spill response capability in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of Neah Bay.

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    Dredged Material Testing: The proposed dredged material has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State. The DMMP evaluations may include both chemical and biological testing of sediments. For this project, the DMMP agencies determined that 186,761 cubic yards were suitable for unconfined disposal at the DMMP nondispersive (or dispersive) open-water disposal site in Port Angeles and/or placement in Neah Bay for intertidal and/or subtidal beneficial use.

     The remaining 21,270 cubic yards were found unsuitable for open-water disposal. After mechanical removal, this material will be loaded onto trucks and transported to an upland disposal area, approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Clallam County Department of Health.

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    DREDGING PLAN: A dredging plan, sufficient to adequately separate contaminated material from sediments suitable for open-water disposal, will be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the regulatory agencies for review prior to dredging. A pre-dredging conference will be held to review quality control plans and procedures for material separation.

    DISPOSAL SITE USE CONDITIONS: The following standard site-use conditions will be specified by the Corps and the Washington Department of Natural Resources as part of the Federal/State permitting processes if a permit is issued:

    (1) DISPOSAL OPERATIONS MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH INDIAN TREATY FISHING AT THE DISPOSAL SITE, INCLUDING GILL NETS AND OTHER FISHING GEAR;

    (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     Other appropriate special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

    THE WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD.

     The line of Mean High Water/ Mean Higher High Water shown on the project drawings have not yet been verified by the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS). If the Corps determines the boundaries of the wetland/waters ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INACCURATE a new public notice may be published.

    MITIGATION: The applicant MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE is evaluating a number of sites within Neah Bay where derelict structures could be removed to mitigate the increased overwater coverage of the replacement structure. The PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT would return a section of shoreline to its historical conditions based on historic photographs of the area.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES:

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on all actions that may affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) under the ESA as threatened or endangered or any designated critical habitat.

    After receipt of comments from this public notice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate the potential impacts to proposed and/or listed species and their designated critical habitat.

    ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on ALL ACTIONS, OR PROPOSED ACTIONS, PERMITTED, FUNDED, OR UNDERTAKEN by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The proposed action would impact EFH in the project area.

    If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines that the proposed action may adversely affect EFH for federally managed fisheries in Washington waters, the Corps will initiate EFH consultation with the NMFS. The Corps’ final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the NMFS.

    CULTURAL RESOURCES:

    The Corps has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data and other sources of information. The Corps invites responses to this public notice from Native American Tribes or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies; historical and archeological societies; AND OTHER PARTIES likely to have knowledge of or concerns regarding historic properties and sites of religious and cultural significance at or

    near the project area. After receipt of comments from this public notice, the Corps will evaluate potential impacts and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate.

    PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

    EVALUATION – CORPS – The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

     That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST ITS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DETRIMENTS.

    ALL FACTORS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS THEREOF; AMONG THOSE ARE CONSERVATION, ECONOMICS, AESTHETICS, GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, WETLANDS, HISTORIC PROPERTIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES, FLOOD HAZARDS, FLOODPLAIN VALUES, LAND USE, NAVIGATION, SHORELINE EROSION AND ACCRETION, RECREATION, WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION, WATER QUALITY, ENERGY NEEDS, SAFETY, FOOD AND FIBER PRODUCTION, MINERAL NEEDS,CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND, IN GENERAL, THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.

     The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Native American Nations or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate THE IMPACTS OF THIS ACTIVITY. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for the work. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,

    historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above.

    Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. The described discharge will be evaluated for compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. These guidelines require an alternatives analysis for any proposed discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

    —————————————-

    EVALUATION – ECOLOGY:

     ECOLOGY is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. ECOLOGY will be considering all comments to determine whether to concur or object that the project is consistent with Ecology’s Coastal Zone Management program.

    ——————————————–

    EVALUATION

    Makah Indian Tribe: The Makah Indian Tribe is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,

    Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES  in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. The Makah Indian Tribe will be considering all comments to determine whether to certify or deny certification for the proposed project.

    ———————————————————-

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered IN DETERMINING WHETHER AUTHORIZING THE WORK WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below. Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below, and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Copies of this public notice which have been mailed or otherwise physically distributed feature project drawings in black and white. The electronic version features those drawings in color, which we think more accurately communicates the scope of project impacts.

    TO ACCESS THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, GO TO THE SEATTLE

    DISTRICT’S WEB PAGE AT http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ AND UNDER THE HEADING OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS SELECT REGULATORY PUBLIC NOTICES. RECENTLY-ISSUED PUBLIC NOTICES ARE LISTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.

    SELECT AND VIEW THE LISTING FOR THIS PROJECT.

    —————————————————

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    Conventional mail comments should be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch,

    Attention: Ms. Pamela Sanguinetti, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. All comments received will  become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses.

     —————————————————–

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ———————————————————–

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ———————————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    The bottom line….

    IF NIGHTTIME DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED AND OTHER DREDGED MATERIAL IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA,  AND THE APPROVAL OF THE  CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. CONCERNS YOU

    SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS


  • 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.