Please read these important messages from Laurie Caplan, veteran activist, and Sara Meyer, retired business owner and a leader of CRAW (Clatsop Residents Against Walmart), and get your letters in to the appropriate agencies BY JUNE 18 (NEXT MONDAY)!!! The public notice can be downloaded here.
I might add that Ken Leahy, the name on the application, is the owner of the land that was to be Bradwood Landing LNG.
From Laurie
We don’t hear much these days about Walmart or another big box store coming to the coast, but the permitting process is moving forward. If you are concerned about the uglification of Hwy 101, the existing abundance of empty storefronts along the coast, the existing damage to our local wetlands, the inability of local businesses to fairly compete with Walmart and others like it, and more, then please write your three letters to the agencies below, as Sara Meyer of Astoria urges. (emphasis added)
From Sara
We are in need of your abilities to write to 3 agencies opposing a wetland fill permit that if granted makes a Walmart more possible. You need to write before June 18. AND we are grateful for the help!
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS:
I am opposing the granting of permit NWP-2007-1024 requested by Peaksview LLC. (this needs to be part of your letter.) This permit seeks to fill .37 acres of wetland for the stated purpose of making an unnamed big box store more visible to Highway 101.
We oppose the fill because there is no need except greed to fill the area that drains towards the Skipanon.
We oppose the fill because Peaksview rationale is flawed. They state that there are only 3 modern big stores and any others are outdated. There is more than an adequate amount of retail stores to serve the coastal population.
We oppose the fill as the retail already existing in that area is covering wetlands and large animal habitat. There is enough damage to our state waters. The wetland permits are being granted lot by lot and that covers too much of the whole.
Focus on the importance of the wetlands for clean water, flood control, salmon and migratory birds. The wetlands on 101 are linked to the fish bearing Skipanon. There is no need for big box stores; we already have Fred Meyer, Safeway and Costco. Small, locally owned stores are more needed and could be built to avoid wetlands. Permit should be denied.
Public Notice NWP-2007-1024 is available here.
Send your emails to the following (and please bcc: me at s.c.meyer@seasurf.net):
US Army Corps of Engineers: Karla.g.ellis@usace.army.mil
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZA): coast.permits@state.or.us
Department of Environmental Quality: 401publiccomments@deq.state.or.us
Done!
Well, I’ve commented to the three agencies: the Army Corps, DEQ and DLCD. Here are the comments, in that order:
Army Corps of Engineers
Please accept these comments on permit application NWP-2007-1024, and if possible, send a reply to let me know you received this. Thanks.
Let me begin by requesting a public hearing to discuss this permit application. The particular reason for my request, which I know is shared by many residents of this region (the Lower Columbia region of the north coast of Oregon and the south coast of Washington state), is to discuss the costs and benefits to the public of the building of yet another big box store in this region. The public notice mentions that the public interest must be balanced with the project’s benefits. In all previous permit applications for this project, the interests of the public outside the city of Warrenton were not considered. As a federal agency, I think it would be in your jurisdiction and interest to conduct a public hearing where residents of the whole region could be heard, and their interests considered. The accumulated impacts of additional big box stores in the area could have devastating effects not only on local wildlife, climate and recreation, but also on local small businesses, already stressed by the recession. Please grant this request for a public hearing at the earliest possible time in the future.
Factors to be considered at the public hearing and by your agency in making the decision on this permit application include:
Conservation: The proposed mitigation is certainly not in keeping with the 10:1 mitigation ratio required for most wetland fill projects (stated in the application is 0.55 acres in exchange for 0.37 acres). In addition, a trade for area upland would not help the problem of wildlife corridors across and on both sides of Highway 101. As both sides of Highway 101 have been rezoned to commercial in Warrenton, and slowly paved and developed, the former corridors across Highway 101 and on both sides of it have been depleted. There are known elk herds that use these corridors and areas, as well as other typical mammals and birds. Perhaps even more important, the wetland character of Warrenton is being slowly turned into a concrete jungle that is known to have even climatic effects, in addition to the obvious effects on wildlife and recreation. This particular site, being close to the Skipanon River watershed, is even more of a problem of this nature, as fish stocks can be affected.
Economics: As hinted above, economics plays a key role in the concerns of many citizens of the Lower Columbia region, including me. The cumulative effects of expanding retail centers adjacent to Highway 101 in Warrenton, given the nature of the businesses (i.e. chain stores and big boxes), is to squeeze locally-owned, smaller businesses that have been supplying the needs of residents and tourists alike for generations in this area. There are visible consequences already in Astoria, where businesses are always squeezed by the weather in winter, and the current recession. But in addition, the people of Warrenton have to pay extra taxes for support infrastructure for these retail centers, without much benefit from increased business taxes (i.e. there’s no local sales tax, and much of the business tax on these companies has been negotiated away, so that the city of Warrenton is LOSING economically on these centers). Another, even bigger, retail big box store in this area could easily tip the balance and bankrupt local businesses and governments. Certainly, this is grounds for a public hearing that involves the whole region.
Aesthetics: The plans as shown on the maps attached to the public notice indicate another monolithic store-back on the highway. Very little attempt has been made by many of the developers, or the local government, to shield these ugly sights from the public as they drive on Highway 101, a federal and state scenic highway! It should be well known that visual exposure is unnecessary these days, since everyone living in the area knows where everything is and how to get there, and visitors can be steered to this development with aesthetically pleasing signs along the roadside. The value to many of us in this area is as an aesthetically beautiful place that attracts tourists because of this. Many of those who come to our area are drawn by the scenic beauty of the place (such was the case with me and by family), and certainly do not want to see what they can see in almost any suburban area in the country. There are many businesses here that cater to the people that visit for the unique scenic features of the area, and again, the cumulative effect of yet another big box and huge parking area are directly affecting their existence.
General Environmental Concerns: Loss of forested wetlands in the area, and forest in general, has been high since the mid-2000s. A storm in 2007 blew down a significant chunk of the local forest, and it will be many decades before we recover the tree cover we had prior to that. In addition, residential and commercial development took off just prior to the recession, and many areas of Warrenton have been converted to asphalt and concrete surfaces, taking valuable wildlife habitat, and reducing the CO2 absorption rate. In addition, it is obvious that additional parking area and paving of wetlands, forests and grassy areas will create runoff problems and threaten water quality. The anticipated increase in traffic volumes will increase idling and thereby air pollution in the area, and increase runoff of toxics into local surface waters from the road, and increase environmental impacts in general. And construction, both on the project itself and the anticipated “improvements” in local infrastructure necessary to go along with it, will increase environmental impacts as well.
Land Use: Repeated attempts to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian trails through this area have been rebuffed by the developers, and not supported by the Warrenton city council. The rezoning of the land adjacent to Highway 101 in Warrenton to commercial/retail from residential and natural area has been done to directly help developers seeking these rezonings. No efforts have been made to work with other local governments on land use in this area, though it’s obvious that the land use patterns in Warrenton affect all of us here on the coast. Certainly, at the very least, the way this land is used as a retail property could be discussed at a public hearing. An example can be found elsewhere in Warrenton, where a local stream was preserved in the middle of retail development by the Fred Meyer and the adjacent strip mall.
Recreation: Mentioned above are the bicycle and pedestrian trails planned for this area, but never implemented. I would add that I (and all others) must drive through this area on our way to recreation activities in the area (i.e. the beach and parks), and increased traffic, pollution, and the bad aesthetics have limited my opportunities to partake in these activities.
Property ownership: This property is evidently owned by someone who has previously tried to develop his property into something the public opposed. In addition, there has been concern from the public, including me, that the name of the anticipated big box has not been disclosed, thereby making it difficult for the public to make a decision on the relative benefit of the development of this property. A public hearing could address these issues. It is important for the public to know as much as possible about the property owner, the potential leasee or owner of the business that will operate there, and the developer. Again, these issues help us, and you, make the right decision that is in the interests of the public at large.
General needs and welfare of the people: Here is the bottom line — we don’t need another big box of any kind in our area. Demand is adequately met (I would argue already overmet) by the existing mix of businesses, as shown by sales volumes over time and business starts and stops. (As an example, I do no shopping whatsoever in the Highway 101 corridor of Warrenton, and I’ve got all I need.) Any job growth would be offset and more by job losses in other areas of our economy, and even in the same segment of the economy (i.e. retail), but in different geographic areas in the region. The welfare of the local population would be increased mainly by a diversity of industrial and commercial enterprises with jobs at the higher end of the wage spectrum. There has been tremendous retrenchment in the local education system and local government, both relatively high-paying institutions, and not much small industry has located here recently. More minimum-wage jobs with no benefits will just keep the local residents poor, a chronic problem in Clatsop County. In addition, most chain big boxes export most of their profits out of the community, thereby decreasing the general welfare of the locals.
Summing up, I am opposed to granting this permit (NWP-2007-1024) to build a big box store in Warrenton for the above reasons, and request that you schedule a series of public hearings at various venues in the region for the public to discuss the detriments and benefits of the proposed project BEFORE making any decision to grant the application.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and again, please let me know you received this message, and that it will be part of the public record for this permit application (NWP-2007-1024).
DEQ
Please accept these comments on Water Quality 401 Certification for Corp of Engineers No. NWP-2007-1024, a project that would fill 0.33 acre of wetlands in Warrenton, Oregon to build a big box store and associated parking lot adjacent to Highway 101. I am attaching below comments I sent to the Army Corps of Engineers earlier today.
I am requesting a public hearing on the 401 certification recommendation by DEQ, as it has been impossible to obtain all the technical documents and background for many residents to do this research and comment appropriately. According to the public notice, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-48-0032 (2) states that “The Corps provides public notice of and opportunity to comment on the applications, including the application for certification, provided that the department (DEQ), in its discretion, may provide additional opportunity for public comment, including public hearing.” The requested public hearing would allow the public to get this information and gather any other data to support their comments. As a state agency, DEQ can take into account the cumulative and regional impacts to water quality caused by this project. This is an important addition to the local permit process that has gone on to this point.
Water quality impacts from the project include: runoff from additional traffic and paved surface; reduced wetland area near the Skipanon River lowlands; and a continuation of the reduction of biological surface area, which has effects on the climate and thus indirectly on the water quality in the area.
Let me stress that even though the water quality impacts of this project are typical for a project this size, and may be tolerable in a less sensitive area, the combination of the cumulative impacts of this project, when added to the large amount of development in this area over the last few years, and the sensitive nature of the Warrenton area, being a largely wetland environment, adjacent to the Columbia River estuary, one of the most productive, and sensitive, biological areas on the planet, makes it necessary for your agency, and the public it represents, to have additional time and opportunity to comment via a public hearing process.
I’m requesting that DEQ provide for a public hearing process to take place in various venues in the region (north coast), to consider the cumulative impacts to water quality of development, including this project (Corp of Engineers No. NWP-2007-1024).
Please reply and let me know that my comments have been received and have been added to the public record. Thanks.
DLCD
Please accept these comments concerning the CZMA consistency certification for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No. NWP-2007-1024 permit application to fill wetlands to build a big box store adjacent to Highway 101 in Warrenton, Oregon. I am attaching comments I made to Karla Ellis of the Army Corps earlier today. I also commented on the 401 water quality certification necessary for this permit application.
As I commented to the Army Corps and DEQ, I feel it is necessary that DLCD hold public hearings on this permit application, in order to consider the cumulative and regional impacts of this development proposal. In addition, the public hearing process will give the public, including myself, more information and time to use that information to provide useful comments to you, in order that you are able to determine if the proposed application is consistent with the CZMA.
Below, I’ll briefly comment on the areas delineated in the public notice:
Acknowledged Local Comprehensive Plans & Implementing Ordinances — Warrenton’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances have been amended recently to accommodate development along the Highway 101 corridor in that city. However, no coordination with adjoining communities that I’m aware of has gone on about this development, and the effects are regional. The comprehensive plans of other cities in the county and region are definitely not supportive of this kind of development. A public hearing conducted by a state agency would help nearby towns and cities, and unincorporated county residents, to exchange their views on the project, and the accumulation of development, that definitely impacts them, and our use of the land in the coastal management area.
Statewide Planning Goals — I’m not familiar enough with the details of the statewide planning goals to comment specifically on each goal, but I know that the general planning goal of concentrating development in areas already developed is the overall goal of the Oregon land use planning laws. The whole idea is to prevent the exact type of sprawl that is taking place in Warrenton today. Relevant to the CZMA, this development is taking place in the coastal zone, in an area that is over 70% wetlands, and adjacent to the Columbia River estuary. Again, a series of public hearings would be the proper venue for discussion of the statewide planning goals and the impact of this obvious violation of at least the spirit of those goals in Warrenton, where further sprawl-type development is planned in sensitive and wetland areas.
Applicable State Authorities incorporated into the Oregon Coastal Management Program (e.g. Removal-Fill Law, Water Quality Standards, Beach Bill, etc.) as applicable — I have sent comments to the Department of State Lands (Removal-Fill Law), the DEQ (401 Water Quality Standards) and the Army Corps (attached below) about this permit application (NWP-2007-1024).
My comments specifically related to the coastal management program are that the cumulative impacts from paving a vast area of land adjacent to Highway 101 are equivalent or greater than the impacts one would expect from a large industrial facility that would definitely be scrutinized closely by the Oregon Coastal Management Program. When considering the cumulative and regional impacts from this continuing development, the Oregon Coastal Management Program must be ready to impose restrictions in order to preserve the ecological and environmental functions of the coastal and estuarine region here. Whereas one particular project, such as this one, has some impacts, it is really the continuing and cumulative impacts of development in this area that are more important. And the impacts of this one addition could be quite severe by themselves. With additional potential traffic, and the impetus for further development, this area could be covered in considerably more asphalt and concrete, with further impacts to the environment.
I request public hearings on this application (NWP-2007-1024), in order to give the regional public a chance to discuss and comment on this application, and the cumulative and regional impacts deriving out of it. Please reply and let me know you received these comments, and that they have been entered into the public record. Thanks.