on MacBook install 1.9.6 iVAMP

Main category / Multimedia Design
Sub category / Audio
Developer / Wabbit Wanch Design
Filesize / 13414
Title / iVAMP


macpkg.icu/?id=22807&s=frfrms&kw=iVAMP+version+1.9.6
◉ iVAMP version 1.9.6


Flick_Fishing-v1[1]. (7.03 MB) FYI, the precise build finished cleanly [1]. Cheers, Nico [1] On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Nico Schlömer wrote: >> Did you try to setup a Precise build as well? > > Yup, but failed to compile due an old version of taglib (1.7, [1]). I > read on a mailing list somewhere (can't find the link right now) that > mixxx needs at least 1.9.0. > > Cheers, > Nico > > > [1] > > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Daniel Schürmann wrote: >> Hi Nico, >> >> great! Thank you! >> >> Did you try to setup a Precise build as well? >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Daniel >> >> >> Am 23.01.2015 um 17:58 schrieb Nico Schlömer: >>> Hi Mixxx devs, >>> >>> For the sake of messing around with the Mixxx debian build files, I >>> just created a nightly build PPA [1]. It fires off builds for trusty, >>> utopic, and vivid every night (CET), provided that the sources of the >>> debian build files changed. >>> This may be interesting for anyone who wants nightly builds, given the >>> fact that the actual nightlies [2] aren't updated anymore. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Nico >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> [2] >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. >>> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. >>> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. >>> Higher creased pletely compliant. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Get Mixxx, the [HASH]1 Free MP3 DJ Mixing software Today >>> >>> >>> >>> Mixxx-devel mailing list >>> Mixxx-devel@... >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. >> GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. >> Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. >> Higher creased pletely compliant. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Get Mixxx, the [HASH]1 Free MP3 DJ Mixing software Today >> >> >> >> Mixxx-devel mailing list >> Mixxx-devel@... >> This article provides you two methods (both manually and automatically) to properly and quickly uninstall iVAMP 1.7.3, and either of them works for most of the apps on your Mac. If you confront any difficulty in uninstalling any unwanted application/software, don’t hesitate to apply this automatic tool and resolve your troubles. It’s best to go with a USB 3.0 drive, with a minimum size of 16GB. The Samsung BAR Plus is good overall value for the money; we’ve highlighted the fastest USB 3.0 drives you can buy for more options. Accountr (2.24 MB) becky argyle/Mission Lake-Kitsap CountyOur lake has hired aqua technex for over 10 years to spray-every year to keep the costs down we spend hours posting each property before and remove all signs as required to assure we abide by the requirements. this new purposal would impact the price and I fear many neighbors would no longer be able to afford the spray costs which would then effect the overall use of our lake, right now its in beautiful condition and many fisherman and families do not fear swimming and get tangled in the lilies, please do NOT consider this new rule. mark silberlingWhile I fully support a safe and standard method of treating lakes for noxious weeds, I am not in favor of any further regulation at this time that would incur further cost to the companies doing treatment. Those costs would be directly passed down to property owners, who are struggling to find ways to finance these treatments already. Property owners are already bearing the burden of maintaining lake health of waters owned by the state through no fault of their own. If the DOE wishes to further regulate chemical treatments on state owned bodies of water, perhaps the DOE should consider providing more funding to property owners to maintain these watersTerry McNabbOur first concern is the new requirement that the applicator return to the lake and remove the signed Ecology requires be posted. This is something that will add between $500 and $1,000 to the cost of completing noxious aquatic weed control for the clients that require these services. There should be an exception that the sponsor organization or the homeowners we work for can remove these signs. This permit keeps one of the primary tools we have to fight toxic algae blooms as experimental when it is completely operational world wide. Phoslock is a technology that was developed 25 years ago by the Australian National Science Academy. It sequesters phosphorus with a nontoxic technology and that lowers the carrying capacity for a lake or pond to develop toxic algae blooms. The alternatives that are allowed are Alum buffered with Sodium Aluminate, this blend can be extremely toxic to fish and there have been two major fish kills from the introduction of these technologies to Washington Lakes in the past few years. This has occurred when the buffer Sodium Aluminate is added to the mix. This compound is extremely dangerous to handle. There are over 20 published papers in peer reviewed scientific journals that support the operational use of this technology, it should be considered operational so there are alternatives to the more toxic technologies to turn back phosphorus pollution. In the past decades, Sonar aquatic herbicide has been used to effectively eradicate the invasive aquatic weed Eurasian Milfoil using a whole lake treatment scenario. This practice would effectively be banned by this permit. The laws in Washington State prohibit actions that would impair the control of noxious aquatic weeds and not having access to this technology where appropriate would impair Eurasian Milfoil Control Efforts. In addition, there has been one infestation of Hydrilla in Washington State and that infestation was eradicated using whole lake treatment technology. If Hydrilla returns, and as a Class A noxious weed its eradication is mandated, this permit will limit the ability to attack this plant. Joshua Cheshier1). The removal of posted application signs should be done by the land owner or sponsoring group, such as a home owners association as the additional cost could limit management of nuisance & noxious aquatic plants due to increased operational costs. 2) Fluridone treatments need to remain a viable option for managers & agencies to use to combat Myriophyllum spicatum. Limiting its use could prove detrimental in terms of stopping the spread of M. spicatum as well as hinder eradication efforts of Hydrilla verticillata. Fluridone is also very effective at managing duckweed (Lemna spp., Spirodella spp.), water meal (Wollfia spp.) & Egeria densa. The main benefit to using Fluridone is that it kills plants slowly, limiting the chances of removing a significant amount of dissolved oxygen from the water column and contributing to a fish kill. As one can still purchase these plants through ornamental plant gardens, their establishment & subsequent management and eradication need to be considered. There are a limited number of effective management tools that systemically attack noxious aquatic vegetation and contribute to long term control, it would severely hinder managers by eliminating the use of Fluridone as it is currently ard SampsonWe are on a 10 acre private lake. (Lake Leota) In the past we have removed all posted signs after any treatment. We feel that it is unnecessary to have the applicator return to remove the signs. It is an extra cost that can be eliminated. John InselmanA requirement for the company to remove the notices from individual properties after the application of the herbicide is unnecessary and an additional cost comming out of limited home/land owners resources. Many properties are not frequently visited. The notices are often reminders that the herbicide application was completed and that their dollars were in fact put to use. Thomas MoehlmanI support the increased requirement of the permit process. Permitting chemical discharge into to waters feeding into the Puget Sound can effect its entire ecosystem. I feel the discharge of lawn chemicals should also be LewisThe Draft Permit states that WDFW may periodically update the timing windows as new information presents itself, and yet there is no process for initiating this update. The current timing windows are very salmon and steelhead centric and scientific literature is replete with information to modify the current timing windows. For example, current information points to conducting in-water work in the Columbia River once bull trout have migrated to their spawning grounds, but not after they return to the Columbia River. Secondly, there appears to be no consideration for Pacific lamprey timing windows. Depending on the scope and location )of a proposed in-water project in the Columbia River, please consider truncating the timing windows to minimize effects to all applicable life history stages of Pacific lamprey. Lastly, please delineate the process for updating the timing windows in subsequent drafts of the HollidayMy comments are on the attached papgeAndrew ChangCraig RiceBetty MastropaoloOur names are Don and Betty Mastropaolo and we have been lakefront residents on Meydenbauer Bay for a number of years. We have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction We as property owners and maintenance representatives at the Bayshore East Condominium remove the posted signs along the shore after the swimming and irrigation restrictions expire since they are written on the signs. We do this every year. Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program, so we do not feel this requirement is necessary. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately owned lakes with no public access. By demanding that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. We find this could lead to an invasion of our privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not received. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection We are against Ecology entering our property without first contacting our management company and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment takes place in the water and not on our property, we are not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting us for approval. Name: Don and Betty Mastropaolo Address: 341 101st Ave SE, Bayshore East Condominiums Email: Michael PearcePage 24; Table 4. Add: Lanthanum Modified Clay - to the list of Products for Inactivation of Phosphorous. Not subject to timing, restrictions/advisories, treatment limitations, or any other specific restrictions. Lynn GeorgesPlease add Brandt Magnify to the list of adjuvants in Table 2. It was registered by WSDA on December 9 for aquatic Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Marcie Steinmetz Water Resoures SpecialistPlease consider adding animals, both aquatic and terrestrial, to Section consider adding Rare and/or Threatened and Endangered Animals to Section V., with Rare Plants. Please update the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife timing window to include the Columbia River in appropriate Counties (Benton, Chelan, Clark, Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Okanogan, Pacific, Stevens, Walla Walla, and Yakima). Within the County listings, please include the priority fish species for the Columbia River. Peter Beaton, Department of HealthRobert CollettIt is unnecessary to require that the contractor remove all signs after treatment. The homeowners can do this just fine. Also, I oppose requiring that the addresses receiving the notice be made public. This is an invasion of a private matter. Thank you, Robert Collett Paul Noges My name is Paul Noges and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Steilacoom for 26 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement serves little purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. G. Lenore FaulkKyle Anderson My name is Kyle Anderson and have been a lakefront owner on Lake Washington for 34 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Sincerely, Kyle Anderson Owner of slip B102 and B103 at Newport Yacht Basin Association, Bellevue, WA Larry Cline My name is Larry Cline and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Susan for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Patrick Mahoney My name is Patrick Mahoney and I am a lakefront resident on Spanaway Lake. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property ownersshortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their ownagenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. I hope you will consider my comments and concerns when finalizing this proposal. Thank you, Patrick Mahoney Wendy Schwartznau My name is Wendy Schwartznau and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Debra Jane for over 25 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Thank you Wendy Schwartznau Mark J Snell My name is Mark J Snell and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Jane for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Sincerely, Mark J Snell, MD, FACS President, Lake Jane Estates Donald Masters My name is Donald Masters and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Debra Jane for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Anita Neil To Dept of Ecology: My name is Anita Neil and I have been a lakefront resident on Meydenbauer Bay for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions, I typically remove them. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately owned lakes with no public access. By demanding that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. I find this could lead to an invasion of my privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not received. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Name: Anita Neil Doug DorlingNathan, Please note Don Russell's response to the iron issue. I copy Don's comments and believe this material needs to be added to the Ecology list for phosphorous inactivation products. Gary Darcy president of the Twin Lakes Homeowners Association is out of the country for the next few months but before leaving requested that I make sure his group also is on record in supporting the addition of iron to the list. Gary Darcy I believe represents over 500 homeowners. Thanks, Doug Dorling Northwest Aquatic Ecosystems Gary Darcy President twin lakes Homeowners Assoc. ________________________________________ Nathan, Finely granulated elemental (zero valent) iron has a remarkable ability to inactivate soluble reactive phosphorus (orthophosphate) by a process of adsorption of the phosphate ion to the reactive surface of zero valent iron and its subsequent conversion to an insoluble iron phosphate coating on the surface of the iron particle. Zero valent iron has been used for a number of years now for the removal of pollutants (including phosphate) from groundwater by passing the pollutant bearing groundwater through a zero valent iron and sand barrier. Several years ago I imagined that passing finely granulated zero valent iron particles through a column of lake water would accomplish the same thing as passing groundwater through a bed of zero valent iron and began to conduct a series of bench tests to validate the concept and perfect the application technique. The first full scale field experimental application was conducted this past summer in phosphorus polluted Lake Lorene located in Federal Way. The experimental application involved injecting two hundred pounds (two five gallon pails) of zero valent iron as a thin slurry just below the surface of the 54 acre feet of phosphorus polluted water in Lake Lorene. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentration prior to treatment in Lake Lorene was approximately 35 ppb. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentration post treatment was below phosphorus concentration test detection limits as determined by an Ecology certified test laboratory. This below phosphorus detection limit condition lasted for two months after the application of zero valent iron in spite of continual external phosphorus loading of Lake Lorene from Joe's Creek's inflowing water that contains very high concentrations (up to 75 ppb) of soluble reactive phosphorus. There was no adverse impact on pH or aquatic life as a result of the zero valent iron application. The iron phosphate coated iron particles settled to the bottom of the lake and became incorporated into its sediment. Because Lake Lorene is shallow and aerated there is little likelihood that the iron bound phosphorus will be released back into the water column. Even if phosphorus was released from sediment under anoxic conditions so too would some of the iron become soluble (as ferrous ions). When orthophosphate ions and ferrous ions are exposed to oxygenated near surface (photic zone) water the reduced iron (ferrous ions) and orthophosphate ions will react to form insoluble iron phosphate thus inactivating the phosphorus as a nutrient source for cyanobacteria. Iron is Mother Nature's natural orthophosphate inactivation chemical. Aluminum is not. Furthermore the sulfate ions released during an aluminum sulfate treatment are alien to the natural composition of lake water and harmful to aquatic life. Under anoxic conditions sulfate ions are reduced to sulfide ions that combine with iron to form insoluble iron sulfide thus rendering iron ineffective as a phosphorus inactivator. For all the above stated reasons zero valent iron should be included as an Ecology approved phosphorus inactivation chemical. Zero valent iron is compatible with and augments natural lake chemistry, is environmentally friendly, and relatively simple and inexpensive to apply. Don Russell Richard KnightNathan, Thank you for your time. Richard Knight Mike Jiang Hi Mr. Lubliner My name is Mike Jiang and I have been a lakefront resident on Meydenbauer Bay for over ten years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions, I typically remove them. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately owned lakes with no public access. By demanding that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. I find this could lead to an invasion of my privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not received. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Thank you for your time to review my comments and I really appreciate your considerations for addressing my concerns. Sincerely, Mike Jiang Stephanie Greer My name is Stephanie Greer and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Killarney in Federal Way, WA for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Stephanie Steve Heller Dear Mr. Lubliner, Doug Dorling has treated our pond for 30 years, and has done an outstanding job!! It is on a flyway for 11 or 12 species of birds. I see no point requiring him to remove signs as we do it are not very attractive. It will also add to our cost. I also object to releasing the names of the home owners. This is an invasion of our privacy . Thing are just fine. Very truly, Steve Heller Pat Berger I am Pat Berger and I have lived on Sylvia Lake(a small private lake in Pierce County) at the same address for 45 years. With my board I have been through the process of our lake study and IVAMP as required by government agencies(DOE and others) several years ago to allow us to be permitted for treatment of vegetation. There are proposals for changes to the permit that concern me: One is S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements Our lake is only 12 acres(really a pond by State definition) and a requirement to leave the postings up and have the contractor return to take them down would be another expense to us---and most of us, including myself, take the postings down after the required amount of time listed on the poster. Trust the citizens, we can handle this. There is no public access and we do leave the posting up at the community area for a longer period of time. Two is G2 Right of Entry and Inspection No one should be entering private property without permission of the owner without a warrant with specification of reason(unless of course law enforcement sees a crime being committed) Our HOA can grant permission to DOE reps and allow them to enter the lake at our community property if there is a need. There may be a constitutional question here. Lake Serene DevelopmentDavid Bingham My name is David Bingham and I have been a lakefront resident on Meydenbauer Bay for over 30 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions, I typically remove them. By demanding that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. I find this could lead to an invasion of my privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not received. I am totally against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. David S. Bingham John and Karen CulverOur names are John and Karen Culver and we have been a lakefront resident on Meydenbauer Bay for a number of years. We have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions, I typically remove them. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately owned lakes with no public access. By demanding that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. We find this could lead to an invasion of my privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not received. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection We are against Ecology entering my property without first contacting us and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property we am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting us for approval. Name: John and Karen Culver Bruce Wilson My name is Bruce Wilson and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Killarney for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Robert S. DeLaneyTo: Nathan Lubliner and to all to whom it may concern: WA State Department of Ecology Olympia, WA Reference: Draft NPDES Permit The Board of Trustees of Lake Minterwood Beach Club INC., (LMBC, PO Box 311, Vaughn, WA 98394) represents all homeowners within Lake Minterwood, a private development, including all lakefront residents and jointly held community property that completely surround Lake Minterwood. The trustees have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and herewith submit our comments and concerns related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements "e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction." The current filing costs and permitting fees already exceed the actual labor costs to treat the lake. This added requirement will serve no purpose. We have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment. Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once our members are aware of the restrictions, they typically remove them anyway. None have asked us to have the signs removed, and our board of trustees has the enforcement authority to ask our members to remove unsightly signs in a timely manner. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification "6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. Our board of trustees finds this proposed change to be an intrusion of our members' privacy. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be more appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection "Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state." LMBC regards the lake as the key component of our community properties. We maintain a diligent watch over its maintenance. As the lake itself resides upon, and is entirely surrounded by private property, we are against Ecology entering our community-owned properties and private properties without first contacting us and receiving permission. Ecology already has visual access from a roadway, and we could provide access through our private park on request. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on land, we are not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting the Trustees of LMBC for approval. Sincerely, /S/ Robert S. DeLaney Secretary Lake Minterwood Beach Club FOR THE LAKE MINTERWOOD BEACH CLUB BOARD OF TRUSTEES Dennis StrohMy name is Dennis Stroh and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Killarney for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments relatedto this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property ownersshortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their ownagenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Wen-Ling Tseng Dear Mr. Nathan Lubliner, My name is Wen-Ling Tseng and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Killarney for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Wen-Ling Tseng Don RussellNathan, Finely granulated elemental (zero valent) iron has a remarkable ability to inactivate soluble reactive phosphorus (orthophosphate) by a process of adsorption of the phosphate ion to the reactive surface of zero valent iron and its subsequent conversion to an insoluble iron phosphate coating on the surface of the iron particle. Zero valent iron has been used for a number of years now for the removal of pollutants (including phosphate) from groundwater by passing the pollutant bearing groundwater through a zero valent iron and sand barrier. Several years ago I imagined that passing finely granulated zero valent iron particles through a column of lake water would accomplish the same thing as passing groundwater through a bed of zero valent iron and began to conduct a series of bench tests to validate the concept and perfect the application technique. The first full scale field experimental application was conducted this past summer in phosphorus polluted Lake Lorene located in Federal Way. The experimental application involved injecting two hundred pounds (two five gallon pails) of zero valent iron as a thin slurry just below the surface of the 54 acre feet of phosphorus polluted water in Lake Lorene. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentration prior to treatment in Lake Lorene was approximately 35 ppb. The soluble reactive phosphorus concentration post treatment was below phosphorus concentration test detection limits as determined by an Ecology certified test laboratory. This below phosphorus detection limit condition lasted for two months after the application of zero valent iron in spite of continual external phosphorus loading of Lake Lorene from Joe's Creek's inflowing water that contains very high concentrations (up to 75 ppb) of soluble reactive phosphorus. There was no adverse impact on pH or aquatic life as a result of the zero valent iron application. The iron phosphate coated iron particles settled to the bottom of the lake and became incorporated into its sediment. Because Lake Lorene is shallow and aerated there is little likelihood that the iron bound phosphorus will be released back into the water column. Even if phosphorus was released from sediment under anoxic conditions so too would some of the iron become soluble (as ferrous ions). When orthophosphate ions and ferrous ions are exposed to oxygenated near surface (photic zone) water the reduced iron (ferrous ions) and orthophosphate ions will react to form insoluble iron phosphate thus inactivating the phosphorus as a nutrient source for cyanobacteria. Iron is Mother Nature's natural orthophosphate inactivation chemical. Aluminum is not. Furthermore the sulfate ions released during an aluminum sulfate treatment are alien to the natural composition of lake water and harmful to aquatic life. Under anoxic conditions sulfate ions are reduced to sulfide ions that combine with iron to form insoluble iron sulfide thus rendering iron ineffective as a phosphorus inactivator. For all the above stated reasons zero valent iron should be included as an Ecology approved phosphorus inactivation chemical. Zero valent iron is compatible with and augments natural lake chemistry, is environmentally friendly, and relatively simple and inexpensive to apply. Don Russell Mike Ficker Nathan, My name is Mike Ficker and have been a lakefront resident on Lake Killarney for 18 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. I have noticed that most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. All of the water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once my family is aware of the restrictions I typically remove them anyway. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks Mike Ficker Patricia FlugMichael Felt My name is Michael Felt and I have been a lakefront resident on Lake Erie for 35 years. I have reviewed your agency's draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 - SSE1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. This requirement will serve no purpose. All or most of the sinage is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment. There is no reason for the contractor to come back to do this. The posting identifies all the water restrictions. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. I find this to be an intrusion of my personal space. By demanding the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property, I am not in favor of allowing any access without first contacting me for approval. Michael J. Felt Lake Erie Property Owner Jeff BrainNathan: The attached document shows my comments on the proposed changes for the NPDES permit process for 2016. Thank you in advance for reviewing my comments. Jeff Brain Marvin PetersonMaryanne ZukowskiNathan: I was forwarded a request to comment on the new NPDES permit requirements Statewide. I own lake front property on Lake Debra Jane. I live at 18716 McGhee Dr E Bonney Lake WA 98391 my phone is 425.765.7459. I completely disagree with the responses forwarded to me to concur. As a licensed PE in the State of Washington I support NPDES requirements for the hired contractor to remove the notices upon a the notification postings. The non response of this in the past leaves the safety of the public at risk and prohibits knowledge of the restrictions. I also know you need the addresses of the affected. I agree the contractor hired shall submit those to ecology. Right of entry is granted to my property at all times to inspect as part of the permit requirements with a notice ahead for entry as required by law, the blanket right of entry does not follow the RCWs and requires advanced notice to the property owner to inspect and the proper legal agreements on record. This requirement I agree with those conditions since the contractor should have a QA QC check on issues. I have seen several non compliance issues with this contractor and posted complaints. I understand and implement NPDES permit requirements for my living and am aware of all the non compliance issues and complaints for this contractor as well as the fines and penalties and believe that the HOA should get bids on a qualified contractor not bending the rules. ________________________________________ From: WILLIAM C FAULK Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 12:20 PM To: ; Chris Mayfield; Dan Beebe; Gary Leaf; Jeff Brain; Kelly McClimans; Mark Snell; Marny Weber; maryanne zukowski; Melissa Gubbe; Todd Offner; Wendy Schwartznau Subject: 2016 NPDESaft Permit Since we only have until Dec.l8 to give our feedback on this new permit I am forwarding it to the homeowners who have lakefront property that I have e-mail addresses for. I pretty much agree with Doug Dorling's comments to the Department of Ecology on this issue. Doug is our lake biologist who treats our lake when we have problems that need treatment. If you have neighbors who's names are not on this e-mail please share this e-mail with them. Lenore ________________________________________ Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 19:43:22 +0000 From: To: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Subject: 2016 NPDESaft Permit Attached is our response. At the end of the document in a generic format is a typical response a homeowner may use to reply. This is a WORD document that can be edited to meet the specific feelings of the property owner. Please forward this on to your neighbors so they may also respond. Thanks, Doug William Sternoff Letter attached. December 12, 2015 Nathan Lubliner Washington State Department of Ecology PO Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 My name is William Sternoff and I have been a property owner and lakefront resident on Meydenbauer Bay for more 35 years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction • This requirement will serve no purpose and it adds unnecessary cost. Most of the signage lake-wide is removed by the property owners shortly after treatment Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after all of the restrictions have expired to remove the few remaining signs will only add additional costs to our treatment program. Water use restrictions are identified on the postings. Once I am aware of the restrictions, I typically remove them. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately owned lakes with no public access. • By requiring that the Permittee submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for its own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. I find this could lead to an invasion of my privacy. There should be other appropriate means for Ecology to determine if such notifications were posted. Perhaps instead, the Permittee could send the DOE a copy of the posted sign and a statement that in the specific areas treated, this sign was posted on each property. Any personal information should only be submitted to the DOE after a complaint has been documented that such notice was not posted . Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection • I am against Ecology entering my property without first contacting me and receiving permission. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. Since treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property, I am not in favor of allowing ay access without first contacting me for approval. William Sternoff 9824 SE Shoreland Drive, Bellevue, WA 98005 Richard SeegerMy name is Richard Seeger, and I have been a lakefront resident on Sylvia Lake for a number of years. I have reviewed your agency’s draft NPDES permit and have a few comments related to this draft permit. Page 26 -S5E1e Shoreline Posting Requirements e. Remove all old signs at the end of the period of water use restriction. On our lake, this requirement is counter-productive. Lakeside residents routinely remove such signage themselves shortly after treatment is completed. Requiring the contractor to come back to the lake after restriction signs have already been removed is simply a waste of time and effort., and will result in needless additional expense to lakeside residents. Page 27 S5 C6 Notification 6. The Permittee must email to Ecology, at , a copy of the notice, the date of distribution, and a list of addresses that the notice was delivered to, no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee must email a copy of the notice, including the date of distribution, to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR at no later than one business day following public distribution. The Permittee need not notify DNR for treatments occurring on privately-owned lakes with no public access. This os an intrusion into my personal space. Bydemanding that I submit this list to your agency, you are allowing this information to be available to any person or environmental group, locally and nationally, for their own agenda, through the Freedom of Information Act. Other means would appear to be appropriate for Ecology to determine if such notifications have been made. Perhaps such personal information should only be submitted after a complaint of not receiving such notice has been documented to be true. Page 39 G2 Right of Entry and Inspection Representatives of Ecology must have the right to enter at all reasonable times in or upon any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution or the possible pollution of any waters of the state. Ecology already has such access through public boat launches. I do not want anyone entering my property with my prior consent. Since the treatment activity typically takes place in the water and not on my property I see no reason to allow access through my property without my prior consent. Tom and Crystal MoehlmanNathan, We received an email document from NWAE regarding making comments about the new NPDES requirements. The following paragraphs from the document are issues that NWAE considers should not be included in the new permitting process. We strongly disagree with NWAE and believe these changes should be included. Our concern is that many private companies do not comply with the permit once it is issued. We live on Lake Lorene, a private lake and a designated wetland in the City of Federal Way. This lake is part of the Joe’s Creek watershed and feeds directly into the Puget Sound. What happens on this lake directly affects the ecosystem of Puget Sound. Department of Ecology should have the right to access lakes, public or private, for the purpose of protecting the environment. Without this change private lake owners could violate the provisions of a permit and the Department of Ecology could be denied access to time critical measurements associated with treatment monitoring. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any assistance. Tom and Crystal Moehlman Norm Fiess Christine Devine Mr. Lubliner, Please read the attached file for my response to the plans of the Ecology Dept. which will unnecessarily impact homeowners on lakes. Sincerely, Christine Devine Chris O'ConnerDoug DorlingSee Attached Doug Dorling Monica HarleHi Nathan, I'm sending once again with all 7 attachments - the last email was missing the 7th. The [HASH]1 attachments is my current on the 2016 draft permit. Thanks, Monica Harle Monica HarleHi Nathan, I'm sending once again with all 7 attachments - the last email was missing the 7th. The [HASH]1 attachments is my current on the 2016 draft permit. Thanks, Monica Harle Monica HarleHi Nathan, I'm sending once again with all 7 attachments - the last email was missing the 7th. The [HASH]1 attachments is my current on the 2016 draft permit. Thanks, Monica Harle Monica HarleHi Nathan, I'm sending once again with all 7 attachments - the last email was missing the 7th. The [HASH]1 attachments is my current on the 2016 draft permit. Thanks, Monica Harle Nathan LublinerThe attached audio file is from the public workshop and hearing held on December 7th, 2015. There were no attendees through the webinar or at the Lacey, WA Ecology headquarters building. There were no public comments provided on the draft permit.

Official:



for El Captan macpkg.icu/?id=22807&kw=3KXCB-VERS.1.9.10-IVAMP.TAR.GZ {15962 KB}

New! version macpkg.icu/?id=22807&kw=JIA-VER-1.9.9-IVAMP.PKG {14218 KB}

Featured for MacBook Pro macpkg.icu/?id=22807&kw=SKqcZ_iVAMP_ver._1.11.6.zip {13414 KB}


(380.67 KB) [NEW] You can now run the app in any folder, not only under Applications. (27.40 MB) Asphalt_4_Elite_Racing_(v1.2.0) (92.30 MB) macOS Mojave is slightly different, as it opens up your System Preferences to download the installer. This is because one of the changes in Mojave is a new way of installing updates. Connect your Mac to the internet via Wi-Fi or Ethernet Reply to this review (9.43 MB)



[13682 kb] Update vers.3.9.6 iVAMP qPH 1.9.10 Japanese version

[15694 kb] Download iVAMP vers 1.9.8 X85 3.9.6 Chinese version

[15291 kb] Torrent K4A9 iVAMP version 1.9.8 2.9.6 Updated! version

[11938 kb] Free BxZ ver. 3.9.6 iVAMP 1.9.8 Featured! version

[11536 kb] Free Xvnf version 2.9.6 iVAMP 3.9.6 Updated 10.14.2

[13682 kb] Download SXU iVAMP ver 1.9.7 1.10.6 Language Chinese

[13145 kb] Get fJkBT vers.1.12.6 iVAMP 1.9.7 French version



Registration Code Feeder.version.3.6.9.pscS.pkg [9710 kbytes] 3.5.4

Best Mojave 3.1.10-English&Fun-55jZ.zip [6023 kbytes] 3.1.12