Exh A

Port of Seatae's Duwamish River Restoration Plan - Sent - Yahoo! Mail                                                       5 ,5 [09 1:24 PM

Yahoo!  My Yahoo!  Mail  More         Make Y! My Homepage       Hi, m.c.   Sign Out  AllNew Mail  Help
351115-100! MAIL        Se...
Classrc
exclusive online offer          Exhibiti
buy one Blackberry' Pearlm                Port Commission 553%"
or Hue ll") get a                             MeetingMW
second one FREE!
I ' Contacts  Calendar  Notepad
Check Mail I  Compose I                                            acdlul mall   accru- u": "an
I                      I
[8'1 Oprah's IQ = 118         Previous | Next | Back to Messages                           Mark as Unread |   Print
4 Beat Her Score!
Delete I  Reply  I  Forward I  Move...  I
7
Folders      [ Add - Edit 1
. _ _
Port of Seattle's Duwamish River Restoration Plan
lnbox (2)                                                   Tuesday, February 10, 2009 3:06 PM
m.c. halvorsen 
Drafts (1)
gellings.j@portseattle.org
Sent
bill.bryant@portseattle.org, john.creighton@portseattle.org,
Spam (3)    [Empty]       patricia.davis@portseattle.org, Iloyd.hara@portseattle.org,
gael.tarleton@portseattle.org, Yoshitani.T@portseattle.org,
Trash       l Empty l        Blomberg.G@portseattle.org

Search Shortcuts           Dear Mr. Gellings:
My Photos
After reading the above subject document, I tried to call you to discuss it with you, but since
My Attachments        you did not return my call, I decided to send this email. I will comment generally rst and
then specically.
ADVERTISEMENT
.                This plan rst appeared about ten years ago and was discarded as unworkable.  i do not
DOM Pay for Wh'te Teeth.
know if you were at the Port ten years ago, but there are those around you that were and
The Secret Teeth Whitening       they should have so informed you.
Combo Discovered byA Mom
WM Spe'gldgg
The Duwamish is a working industrial, commercial, federal watenivay, not a country stream.
howl ,
' It was straightened between 1911 and 1916 as were many other rivers across the country.                                                      '
-
.           The other states appreciate their watewvays while unfortunately the State of Washington in
,
t   general and Seattle and the Egrt_9_f_S_e_a_tt_l_e_ in particular do not. When the straightening
Idol-H ' Mar    occurred, the articial banks were ll, not dirt, approximately ten feet deep. Fill is like
.m cement; nothing will grow in it. The Port of Seattle's proposal to plant native species will
come to naught because they will not grow in the banks of the river. It would be like trying
to grow owers in cement. It is impossible. This proposal is a waste of time and money.

The Chinook salmon return in greater numbers to the Duwamishiyer than any other river
in Puget Sound. Maybe what the other rivers need is industry because the Chinook
certainly like it.  In any case, the chinook like the river the way it is. Your are proposing to
change the river. What effect will that have on the Chinook? If you change it and the sh
do not like it, they will stop returning to the Duwamish. If the changes are a detriment to
the river, then the Port of Seattle has not only wiped out the chinook run, the Port has done
more harm than good.

As l pointed out to you in a previous letter, the United States Supreme Court, the nal
arbiter of what is the law in the United States, in United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water

httpzl /us.mc546.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?d=Sent&sort=da...AAAdXSZDK4QE96232WIbSqM, 1-106039_ALExvs4AAShaSY9NKweb22H962Fd08,    Page 1 of 4

Port of Seattle's Duwamish River Restoration Plan  Sent  Yahoo! Mail                                                        5/5/09 124 pM

Power Co., 33 S.Ct. 667, at p. 672 the Court said that the primary purpose of the use of the
waters and the lands under them (the riverbed) (not just the channel) is for purposes of
navigation. It is not sh. The Port of Seattle's proposal will interfere with naivgation not in
the channel, interfere with industrial shipping and interfere with interstate commerce, all of
which is illegal.

In the same case and in United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company, 46 US.
144 the US. Supreme Court stated that it did not matter who owned the bed of the river.
The riparian rights accrued to the property owners.  Riparian rights are the rights of upland
owners of rivers, lakes and streams to freely use the water in front of their properties. They
can be traced back to the Middle Ages. They came to this country from England and are in
all fty states. The Port of Seattle would be directly defying the United States Supreme
Court because the Ports plan interferes, in fact, abolishes the uplands' owners' riparian
rights. This is unconstitutional.

To summarize, the Port of Seattle's plan is unworkable because the banks of the Duwamish
River are ll and nothing will grow in them. It would waste money and time. The Port of
Seattle's plan could destroy the Chinook salmon run, which would do more harm than good.
The Port of Seattle' 5 plan would interfere with navigation outside the channel, would
interfere with shipping, would interfere with interstate commerce, all of which is illegal. The
Port of Seattle's plan is unconstitutional as it would abolish the upland owners' riparian
rights.

The priorities of the Port of Seattle are awry when sh become more important than people
and the Maritime industry; when the Port is willing to risk mining the Chinook run in the
Duwamish River, when the Port of Seattle is willing to proceed in an illegal and
unconstitutional manner.

Specically, my comments are as follows:

On Page 22the 500'swath that the Port of Seattie claims is in error. The original lines from
which to measure were base lines which are measuring lines. They are not property lines.
The Duwamish Waterway at its enhance to Elliott Bay is 500' wide but narrows as it
proceeds up the river. The Port of Seattle does not own beyond mean high water at any
point along the Waterway. This is the way it is in Chmpeake Bay and all the other
commercial waterways in the country.

On Page 4: This particular site is in the middle of a busy industrial area where large trucks
are turning. In addition, the steps to the river are steps to a turning basin. When boats
tum, there is a strong sucon created. The Port of Seattle has failed to replace a sign that
was there but was taken down for construction, warning people and small boats to stay
away from the area as it would be dangerous for them. Not only that, but in heavy
rainstonns raw sewage is dumped into the river and swimming and shing there is
prohibited. The sign prohibiting these activities was taken down for construction and the
Port of Seattle has failed to replace it The Port of Seattle has created a hazard at this
location but will never be held responsible for the consequences.

To open up South Riverside Drive, which George Blomberg promised that the Port would
not do, a very compliant Seattle Planning department cancelled leases businesses had had
with the city for years and made them take down fences that protected their property. The
Port of Seattie imposed greater safety and security concerns on the adjacent businesses
without compensation to them, and again gets off scottt free from any responsibility for the
harm done. This is an example of what not to do.

On Page 7: Federal Law Context
I am not one of the polluters so this does not affect me. However, the Duwamish River was
straightened beginning in 1911. No original natural resources are left It would be
impossible for NCAA to determine natural resources damage since no record was taken in
1916 and there are no standards to comparetoday's resources with 1916.

http:/ /us.mc546.mail.yahoo.comlmclshowMessage?d=Sent&sort=da...AAAdXSZDK4QEXZBZWIbSqM,l_106039_ALExvs4AAShaSY9NKweb22l-l%2Fd08,    Page 2 of 4

Port of Seattle's Duwamish River Restoration Plan  Sent  Yahoo! Mail                                                        5 / 5 [09 124 pM

On Pages 8-9: Natural History
It should be noted that the Chinook salmon return in greater numbers to the Duwamish
River than any other river in Puget Sound. Maybe what the other rivers need is a little
industry. The Chinook certainly like it. No study has been done, possibly none can be
done, to see if the Port of Seattle's plan to change the river will negatively affect the
Chinook. The Port is making assumptions that could very well hurt the Chinook. Then the
Port of Seattle has done more harm than good.

On page 17: Working Waterfront
Policy: Sites which impose signicant constraints from current or expected future water
dependent business operations should be prohibited, not just avoided. This encompasses
the whole watenrvay. This plan should be abandoned as it is unworkable.

On page 20: Shoreline zones and Habitats
This is very misleading. There are only seven "spots" along the Duwamish river that have
natural vegetation. the rest of the bank is 10' ll that nothing will grow in. As the Area
Habitat Biologist from Washington State Fish and Vildlife said, when i repaired my bulkhead
and wondered about putting plants there, "It won't work. it would be like trying to grow
owers in cement!" This illustration gives the impression that any shurbbery can be planted
anywhere along the bank when that is not the case.

On page 21: Note
1 have owned property on the Duwamish River since 1967 and have never seen the
organisms described here. l don't believe that these communities exist on the river and am
surprised that the Port of Seattle thinks they will magically appear.

On pages 22-23: Marsh Habitat
This would involve re-doing the complete river and would drive industry out of the river, but
that is probably what the Port of Seattle has in mind.

On page 22: Riparian Buffers
Only seven unconnected spots on the river are capable of this and may be on private
property.

On page 24:
Turning Basin 3 is there for boats to turn around. It is in the middle because that is the
safest place for people. what exactly kind of expansion did the Port of Seattle have in
mind?

On page 35:
i own property at Second Avenue South that the Port of Seattle announces that it intends to
put plantings from the top of the bank. The Port of Seattle specically does not have my
permission to come upon the property for any reason and any attempt to do so will be
trespassing. furthermore, any plantings in front of the property will interfere with my riparian
rights, which is unconstitutional. I would be forced to take appropriate steps.

On Page 37: Opportunities Overview
I own property that adjoins the S. Southern Streetend. That is ll, 10' deep.
The Port of Seattle does not have my permission to go upon my property at S. Southern
Street and again, any attempt to do so will be trespassing. Any plantings in the river would
interfere with my riparian rights, which is unconstitutional. I would be forced to take
appropriate steps.

On page 38
The Port of Seattle owns to mean high water.

On page 42: Project 15
This is an industrial area with tugs and barges. The Port of Seattle's plan is unworkable.

http:Ilus.mc546.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?d=Sent&sort=da...AAAdXSZDK4QE96282WIbSqM,1_106039_ALExvs4AAShaSY9NKweb22H962Fd08,    Page 3 of 4

Port of Seattle's Duwamish River Restoration Plan  Sent - Yahoo! Mail                                                        5 / 5 mg 124 pM

On page 44:
See above at page 37.

M. C. Halvorsen

P.S. Part of this reply while I was still typing, suddenly was sent. I do not know why. This
email is the complete reply. l intend to forward this to the Seattle City Council, members of
the State Legislature whose district encompasses the Duwamish River, and businesses
along the Duwamish River.




Delete I  Reply  I  Forward I  Move...  I

"LENS. I MEXt I BaCk t0 M9553 es       I Select Message Encoding : I I New

Check Mail I  Compose I                                            Search Mail I  Search the Web I

Copyright  1994-2009 Yahoo! inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Service - CopyrigthlP Policy - Guidelines
NOTICE: We collect personal information on this site.
To learn more about how we use your information, see our Privacy Policy


















http: / / us.mc546.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?fid=Sent&sort=da. ..AAAdXSZDK4QE%2B2WIb5qM.L106039_ALExvs4AAShaSY9NKweb22H%2Fd08,    Page 4 of 4

Limitations of Translatable Documents

PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.