Ladies & Gentlemen

So you see any science in Longenbaugh's
letter?? It is opinion, and it is not the NMFS who are entitled to manage water
in Jefferson County. I am not even convinced that the State is entitled to do
this. BUT, if the state does manage the water, it can only be done based on
Best Available Science (BAS) - that leaves out Longenbaugh's
letter!!

Longenbaugh is a putz, he wrote a letter totally
out of the submission sequence, regarding the reconstruction of the Dosewallips Road. That letter was more an emotional
diatribe, than it was science. HOWEVER, the greenies jumped on that letter like
it was gospel, and they used it to stuff up the Dosewallips
Rd repair planning by USNFS. I do not have an electronic copy of that letter to
email you, but it was posted for a couple years on Mark Rose's web site. My
view is that Longenbaugh conspired with the greenies
and the letter was deliberately submitted abnormally early in the process - for
their benefit. He is still at it though, scroll down:

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/trt_documents/ritt_agenda_notes6_080821final.doc

I called Longenbaugh about that letter
right after he submitted it. I am a Physicist, I know
how science should be done and how it needs to be substantiated by experimant and evidence. I had made a list of questions
based on his letter - it was along list. Matt Longenbaugh became very nervous after the first few
minutes, of what turned out to be a thirty minute conversation. He was nervous
because he was NOT ABLE to verify the science, or answer the questions. He is
incompetent in my view !!!!!!!!!!

I am recommending that you do the same, not just one of you -
all of you. Make a list of questions, demand the science, call him and record
the conversation (ask Radio Shack what you need - I have one right here). You
cannot use this as evidence in court, but your lawyer will be VERY happy to
have the information. This SOB is playing hardball, and you need to be doing
the very same thing. Go outside the rules, that is
what he is doing.

Matt Longenbaugh : 36-753-7761

You might want to ask him why the salmon runs were so great
right up until the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Boldt
decision. NEITHER OF THESE FEDERAL ACTIONS PROVIDED MEASURES TO PROTECT THE
SALMON RESOURCE. Demand that he act to correct these 30 years of Federal
intervention that were/are disasterous, before making
demands on rural land owners. Ask him why Summer Chum are protected at all,
when they are turned into dog food ? Why doesn't the
Federal government just give the tribes the money for all the
chum the seals ate?? Demand that DOE disregard his letter due to no science,
and no juristiction. Make a big fracus
over his involvement, steal the headlines away from
him and his WEC buddies.

Jefferson County does not have road access to OUR National Park
because of this ONE PERSON, and soon what is left of our prosperity will be
GONE - declate war on him !!!!!!!!!!! Start a civil
class action against him personally - for the economic damages to Jefferson
County and it's
citizens........now that would get headlines.

Ken Shock

http://brinnonprosperity.org

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:29 AM,
Norman MacLeod <[email-masked]>
wrote:

The Peninsula Daily news had an
article on Friday outlining some of the news concerning the WRIA 17 instream flow rule, now called a "water management
rule".  The article has been posted on the WRIA 17 web log, which is
now coming back into a more active phase of life.

You can see the article (which is
also included in this message, after the commentary) at:

http://wria17.blogspot.com/2009/02/state-water-proposal-growing-fears.html

One of the things that we really
need to do here is to form an active conversation toward developing a local
water resource management program that features something called "flow
from flexibility", where all interests work together to build a
methodology for actually putting water into streams to support fish habitat in
times of need.  The long and short of this is that if we can put
additional water into the streams when they need it, we can have more water
available for farming and other uses.

The key to this is that everyone
in the watershed has to work together to make this happen.  Without
community buy-in from all interests, we will not be able to have the option for
our future.

There's sure to be a lot more
conversation about this new wrinkle, one of the first that actually swings in
the direction that those who live in our watershed need.  We need to give
it a shot.

. . . And, oh yeah . . . the
National Marine Fisheries Service has thrown a new spanner into the works that
we all need to know about.  More on that in a bit . . .

State water proposal growing fears

By Jeff Chew

Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND -- A National Marine Fisheries official has recommended to the
state that no additional water allocations from the Big Quilcene
River or Chimacum Creek be permitted.

If
the recommendation -- one of many comments sent to the state Department of
Ecology on its proposed Jefferson County in-stream rule -- were adopted, it
would mean that while present allocations would be preserved, no more water
allocations would be allowed for new homeowners or farmers from those two
waterways.

That
prospect has stirred fears for the future of agriculture in the Chimacum Valley.

'We
can't produce'

"If
we regulate to that point, we can't produce our own food because of the water
situation," said Roger Short, a longtime Chimacum
Valley farmer.

"I
don't know what's going to end up for the final rule," said Matt Longenbaugh, Central Puget Sound branch chief with National
Marine Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division Washington State Habitat Office,
on Thursday.

Ecology
is accepting public comments on its in-stream flow rule proposal through Feb.
13.

Ecology's
rule proposal targets the Chimacum sub-basin's low
summer-fall creek flows, limiting new individual permit-exempt well uses, such
as for individual homes, to 500 gallons per day per new household and setting a
water reserve supply for 109 homes in the Chimacum
Creek sub-basin.

The
Quilcene-Snow watershed, known as Watershed Source
Inventory Area 17, is facing increasing water demand for new residents and
local agriculture, Ecology officials have said.

Threaten
wildlife

Streams
in the watershed have chronic low flows in the late summer and early fall, and
increases in water use can affect already threatened salmon and other fish and
wildlife, according to the state agency.

After
years of working closely with local and state governments and the local
community, Ecology proposed a rule that will help manage water to meet the
current and future needs of people, farms and fish, officials said.

Longenbaugh said that the National Marine
Fisheries' focus is on protecting fish.

In
a Jan. 23 e-mail to Ann Wessel, Ecology's in-stream flow rules coordinator, Longenbaugh recommended that proposals for additional,
capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene
River and Chimacum Creek "be revised to O."

"Any
withdrawals that contribute to summer base flows are contrary to conservation
of summer chum," Longenbaugh said in the e-mail.

"Ecology
has asked for a reserve amount dedicated to endangered species. What we're
concerned about are those fish with [Endangered Species Act] listings,
especially summer chum. We focus on the federally protected fish."

Longenbaugh also recommended that additional
water proposed for withdrawal, or reserves, be reduced to zero for Chimacum, the Little Quilcene
River and Salmon and Snow creeks.

Ecology
officials have revised an in-stream flow rule presented in 2005, when several
Jefferson County residents objected to the original proposal, saying they were
not given notice or adequate time to comment.

Late
last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.

In
the revised plan, 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek
sub-basin would be allocated a total of 1,940 gallons per day, with no outdoor
use.

Short
said that, while he has adequate water rights on his property, he is concerned
about others who might need water for agriculture in the future.

"At
the moment, I feel that personally I am OK, but I am going to fight like hell
for my neighbors," he said.

He
said there was plenty of water in the Quilcene River,
with 2 million gallons a day flowing to Quilcene Bay.

PUD
concerns

Jefferson
County Public Utility District Commissioners Dana Roberts and Wayne King said
they were surprised by Longenbaugh's recommendation.

"I
think it really almost has to hurt" agriculture, Roberts said, adding that
he believed the state will probably review the in-stream flow rule in light of Longenbaugh's comments.

King
said National Marine Fisheries has never been this detailed in its
recommendations to Ecology in the past.

"Zero
is zero. What are we going to do?" King said, adding that PUD is studying
possible alternative water sources such as Peterson Lake, which the utility
bought two years ago, and reverse osmosis of seawater.

He
said the PUD commissioners would be willing to discuss the future of water
supplies with Jefferson County and city of Port Townsend leaders.

Bill
Graham, PUD water resource manager, said he hopes that the recommendation is
not adopted, because it would make "us the last game in town and in the Chimacum basin for new connections.

"Our
concern is, there will be a run on water" before the rule is put into
effect.

The
proposed Ecology's in-stream flow rule for 13 Jefferson County streams sets a
conservation standard for new permit-exempt well uses in all WRIA 17 reserves
-- except Chimacum.

Some
elements of the proposal are:

·
New individual permit-exempt well uses, typically single-family homes, would be
allotted a maximum of 500 gallons per day and an average of 350 gallons per
day.

·
Water use on all new withdrawals would be metered, but the measurement would
not be used to charge a fee for water use.

·
Rooftop rainwater collection would be allowed.

·
Those living within a public water system would be ineligible to draw from
reserve supplies.

·
Seasonal withdrawals, authorized by new water rights, would be possible on the
Big Quilcene River and Chimacum
Creek during high flow months only.

Approximate
number of new households the reserve could supply under the present proposed
rule: Big Quilcene River, 756; Chimacum
Creek, 109; Donavan Creek, 8; Little Quilcene River,
Leland and Howe creeks, 146; Ludlow Creek, 73; Piddling Creek, 7; Salmon Creek,
34; Snow Creek, 34; Spencer Creek, 8; Tarboo Creek,
26; Thorndyke Creek, 119.

Miller
Peninsula in Jefferson County, Quimper Peninsula and Oak Bay would be allowed
5,000 gallons per day for commercial agriculture uses in certain withdrawal
locations, and the number of households would not be limited by a reserve
quantity.

Mats
Mats Bay, Squamish Harbor, Toandos
Peninsula, Bolton Peninsula, Devils Lake, Marple, Marrowstone and other islands would not be limited by a
reserve, and the number of new households would not be limited by a reserve
quantity.

Comments
can be e-mailed to [email-masked]
or mailed to Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator,
Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O.
Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

______

Port
Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at
[email-masked].