Bunker Appeal Denial, Response

December 29, 1997


To: Mark C. Scheibmeir
      Lewis County Hearings Examiner
      299 NW Center
      Chehalis WA 98532

From: Merrily Knutsen
          Party of Record
          Hearing No. 97-2-008
          3414 Centralia Alpha Rd
          Onalaska WA 98570

Dear Sir:

As a party of record, I have many concerns in regard to your decision to 
deny the appeal of the Chehalis Indian Tribe, Department of Natural 
Resources, and the Chehalis River Council.  They are:

1.  The appellants were not concerned so much that a Determination of 
Non-Significance, Mitigated, was made, but rather that the process used 
by the County in making the determination was flawed. The appellants 
requested that the determination be "withdrawn and returned to the 
environmental review officer" for completion, definition and information 
"reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a 
proposal".  If the determination had been made following consideration 
of a completed environmental checklist, if the full information required 
by the application form had been provided to the environmental review 
officer, and, if mitigations had been constructed and required of the 
applicant based upon these sources of information, there most likely 
would not have been a reason to appeal the determination.  Barring 
accidents or a disregard for regulations by the applicant, this 
individual sludge site may not have an adverse environmental impact upon 
the environment.  However, any sludge site, with poorly constructed 
plans based upon incomplete information, without the consideration of 
fully informed responses from other agencies with jurisdiction, without 
the benefit of full disclosure to the public, and in conjunction with 
other sites in the same watershed, could have a significant impact upon 
our public health and the environment.  If the determination itself was 
not "erroneous", the fact that it was made prematurely was.

 2.  Much of the information needed to make an informed decision 
concerning "the environmental factors raised by the Appellants" was not 
available at the time the decision was made.  Therefore, these factors 
could not have been "carefully considered" prior to the determination by 
the responsible official.  This lack of information was the main point 
of the appeal as testified to at the hearing.  As far as I know, the 
County has not, to date, communicated to the Appellants the fact that it 
has "specifically acknowledged each concern raised by the Appellants".  
I hope that such a delineation will be forthcoming.

3.  The County notes that before the Applicant can proceed he must first 
obtain a solid waste permit and, that " in the course of obtaining this 
permit the County will address in much greater detail many of the 
concerns expressed by the Appellants ".  I do not have access to a copy 
of the County s sludge permitting process and rules at this time.  I have 
to assume that there will be provisions for legal notice, public 
participation and commenting, a public hearing, and an appeal process.  
If not, then these further concerns, and the County s requirements for 
the performance of all mitigations and a monitoring plan by the 
applicant, will not be made available in a public process as should have 
happened previously in the commenting period.  The statement: "In 
response to these concerns the County explains that all of the 
Appellants  concerns have been recognized and will somehow be addressed" 
is an insult to the public s intelligence and an assault on the public 
trust.

4.  The hearing examiner has noted that "neither the Appellants, the 
County, nor the Applicant have appeared through legal counsel, nor have 
any of the parties submitted legal briefing on the issues presented for 
decision".  In many environmental appeals such as this one, the 
Appellants are members of the public at large, often representing 
nonprofit organizations staffed by volunteers and without the financial 
support necessary for obtaining legal consultation and representation.  
The County, although not represented at this hearing by legal staff, has 
the (tax supported) Civil Deputy Prosecutor s office available to it for 
consultation as needed.  This places the public participants at a 
disadvantage which, it is hoped, may some day be addressed by lawmakers. 
 It is this disadvantage that limits this response to one simple letter 
from one frustrated member of the public.

I wish to restate my most urgent concern: Will the rest of the process 
on this application be made in a public forum as intended by the State 
Environmental Policy Act?  Or, once again, will a mockery be made of the 
public s right to know and to be heard?



Merrily Knutsen


cc: Commissioner Russ Wigley
      Commissioner Richard Graham
      Commissioner Glenn Aldrich
      Jim Goode, Manager, Environmental Services Division
      Mike Zengel, Planning Manager
      Chris Cooper, Environmental Services
      Mike McGinnis, Director of Fisheries, Chehalis Indian Tribe
      Dave Palmer, Chairman, Chehalis River Council