+menu-


Did Clallam Co need an SMP Update in 2010?

THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

BASED ON ECOLOGY’S  2010 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

DID CLALLAM COUNTY  NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

I THINK NOT.

————————————————————————-

—– Original Message —–

From: pearl hewett

To: earnest spees

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 9:00 PM

Subject: MY STATISTICS ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

I have finally finished reading all 7 ESA Adolfson chapters for WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS on line.

 I have addressed the Public Access to Private Property issue based on their own statistics.

Freshwater and the Marine for WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

On the 18 Marine reaches

Contaminated sites they found (3)

Impaired water quality sites (12)

Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

On the 64 Freshwater reaches

Contaminated sites

(1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

(2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

(29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

(34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

As far as I can figure out, the water in Clallam County is impaired because it is not cold enough.

COLD ENOUGH?

 Based on the data in their reports, the amount of tree canopy, public access  and development are NOT factors in the water temperature?

Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

Do they really think that throwing logs in the water and removing barriers  will change the temperature of the water?

Changing Climate is a scientific fact. (NOT GLOBAL WARMING)

THEY ARE DREAMING….

 NOW, NO NET LOSS

 (10) CONTAMINATED SITES, AT THE MOST, ALL BEING CLEANED UP AS I WRITE THIS.

IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FISH… and the dams… and the endangered species and not a damn word about the damn fishing nets.

GET BETTER

Pearl

—————————————————————

DID CLALLAM COUNTY  REALLY NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

FEB 24, 2015 DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior       

snippet

“UNLIKE MANY OTHER AREAS OF PUGET SOUND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS PRISTINE  AQUATIC  AREAS AND SHORELINES THAT ARE IN GREAT CONDITION OR HAVE BEEN RESTORED AND PROVIDE MANY BENEFITS TO THE PEOPLE AND THE WILDLIFE IN THE AREA

RECOGNIZING THIS FACT, WE SUGGEST THAT THE SMP FOLLOW A HIGHER STANDARD  THAN IS REQUIRED BY THE WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT’S MINIMUM PROTECTION REQUIREMENT”

THEY WHO?  THERE IS NO SIGNATURE ON THE COMMENT?

THEY, GO ON TO SAY….

THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IS A VAGUE TERM…

AND THEY? EVEN PROVIDED THEIR OWN FWS FORM 3-2319 O2-06 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW FOR THE 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT.

————————————————————————

DOE JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

—————————————————————————————

From: pearl hewett

To: smp@co.clallam.wa.us

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:01 AM

Subject: Fw: SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

On the 18 Marine reaches

Contaminated sites

they found (3) 

 ———————————————

On the 64 Freshwater reaches

Contaminated sites

 (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

 (Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

 (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

 With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

These are the FACTS

 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

 We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and  the full  identity of EVERY contaminator.

 Pearl Rains Hewett

 ————————————————————-

THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

———————————————————————————–

The   DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), public comment above shall be included for the Planning Dept SMP Update.

My comment below shall not.

SMP Public Comment #162

Posted on February 28, 2015 10:41 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

Based on ECOLOGY’S own  2010 Characterization and Inventory  report

Based on the  best available science from 1992?

I THINK NOT.

WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

SMP PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

ON THE 18 MARINE REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES THEY FOUND (3)

ON THE 64 FRESHWATER REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES

(1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

(Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

(2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

These are the incomplete, censored scientific facts

Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

(10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact

location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

Pearl Rains Hewett

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:30 AM

Subject: COMMENT ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

COMMENT ON

WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

On the 18 Marine reaches CONTAMINATED sites they found (3)

Impaired water quality sites (12) (based on how many factors?)

Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

—————————————————————-

On the 64 Freshwater reaches CONTAMINATED sites

(1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness, DNA testing determined bird poop and mammals

Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

(2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

(29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

On the 64 Freshwater reaches

(34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

SMP PUBLIC COMMENT Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

Pearl Rains Hewett

Member SMP Advisory Committee

—————————————————————————

ECOLOGYS 10 Unanswered questions  from July 12, 2012

 (1) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify, the cause of marine and freshwater contamination?

(2) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify what caused the marine and freshwater contamination? People, development or industry or by birds, wild mammals or naturally present in the environment?

(3) I am requesting a copy of the scientific papers on the DNA testing for impairment and contamination at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

(4) Were ANY of the contaminated or impaired sites caused by? or as a result of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP failure to protect NNL of ecological function?

(5) Please provide scientific papers on how the Clallam County SMP from 1976-2012 has failed to protect NNL of ecological function?

(6) Please provide scientific papers on why DOE is demanding wider setbacks and buffer zones to protect NNL of ecological function?

(7) Please provide scientific papers on how many single family residence were destroyed on Clallam County marine and freshwater shorelines, by rivers or tidal action as a result of? or caused by? or a failure? of Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

(8) Please provide scientific papers on how many ecological disasters occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

(9)Please provide scientific papers on how many injuries or deaths occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

 (10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

UNTIL the DOE can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2012 has caused any loss of ecological function, the current setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or reduced.

——————————————————————————–

SMP Handbook: Chapter 7, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/Chapter7.pdf

Last updated 3/23/2010. 1 … The inventory and characterization of your jurisdiction’s shoreline … must also be included in your Inventory and Characterization report. …. A draft list of inventory data sources (digital copy) for Ecology review and comment ….. plans – http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html ) or your own …

THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY DID PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

—————————————————————————-

HOW MANY OF MY TEN SMP UPDATE  SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS DID DOE JEFFREE STEWARD ANSWER WITH THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE?

NONE period.

JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

If you are interested in reading his full text July 12, 2012 response..  Welcome to it… it’s a bunch of bureaucratic blah… blah… blah…

 

Merrill, Hannah

From: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) [jste461@ECY.WA.GOV]

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:06 PM

To: ‘pearl hewett’; zSMP; Ehlers, Paula (ECY); Skowlund

, Peter (ECY); White, Gordon (ECY)

Cc: Karl Spees; Jay Petersen; harry bell; Katie Krueger

; robert crittendend; Lois Perry; Sue Forde

Subject: RE: JEFEREE STEWARD legal WRITTEN request for DOE WRITTEN answers

Dear Ms. Hewett:

Thanks for your reminder about several questions raised via email which are in the message below. As I indicated during Tuesday’s (7/10/12) Advisory Group meeting, in an effort to understand concerns you and others have expressed, Ecology representatives drove to Port Angeles in June, meeting with you and several Clallam County concerned citizens

whom you had invited. That meeting was meant to address some of your concerns directly, and I thought we had a pretty good and frank exchange. Evidently, based on statements made since, you found our meeting somewhat less satisfactory.

You have raised a number of pointed questions and asked for written responses. You have asked for “scientific papers” on a variety of subjects. You say my agency (and me specifically) has been “ignoring” your request. That is not my intent. Please understand, my job is to help Clallam County as well as several other jurisdictions to make progress in meeting legislatively required comprehensive updates to their Shoreline Master Programs. This various and complex work has to be done within limited timelines and budgets.

I do appreciate the passionate engagement you demonstrate by active participation in the Advisory Committee. Ecology has limited resources and lots of responsibilities- we have to make choices that keep our focus on the work we have to do.

Please remember that Ecology’s SEA Program leadership team did make an extra effort, driving to and from Port Angeles, listening to you and your colleagues, and sharing perspectives directly, face to face. We found that exchange helpful. We hope you and your colleagues also gained some understanding about the state’s perspective. At least that was our intention-and we had hoped it would be better received than just writing back and forth on details best addressed in other venues.

I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976.

And it is clear you believe the Department of Ecology is required to prove otherwise, point by point as noted. I did forward your message to Paula Ehlers. She and I discussed the request,

and we both agree that, from what we have seen, Clallam County and their consultants are doing very competent and conscientious work in addressing the necessary scientific underpinnings that a shoreline program has to based on. We also recognize the County has been actively listening to and recording the concerns of all interested citizens and organizations, yours among them, and working those concerns in as the SMP update proceeds. We see our proper role as helping and encouraging the County in doing that work. We will proceed in doing that work.

Again, thanks for your focus and engagement with Clallam County shoreline master program concerns.

I hope we can continue to communicate as the work proceeds, showing mutual respect, and allowing for differences in perspective about what needs to be done.

Sincerely,

Jeffree Stewart

Shoreline Specialist

Washington Department of Ecology

360-407-6521

————————————————————————————–

YES. INDEED I DO BELIEVE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS HAVE “IMPROVED” IN CLALLAM COUNTY SINCE 1976.

BASED ON ECOLOGY’S 2010 DOCUMENTED CHARACTERIZATION AND INVENTORY  REPORT

WITH FURTHER  DOCUMENTATION FROM FEB 24, 2015  FROM DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE  MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX (NWRC)

IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

I THINK NOT.

—————————————————————–

HAVE MY TEN SCIENCE BASED QUESTION, FROM JULY 12, 2012,  TO ECOLOGY BEEN ANSWERED

 ABSOLUTELY NOT

DOE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE IGNORED WRITTEN QUESTIONS, FROM JULY 12, 2012  TO NOV 7, 017 ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS REPORT, AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE, ASKED AND REQUESTED ON THE SMP PUBLIC  COMMENT SECTION ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE WEBSITE.

The bottom line

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOV 7, 2017

THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

UNLESS  ECOLOGY can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2017 has caused any loss of ecological function, the previous setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or be reduced, on the 2017 SMP Update Draft by Clallam County BOCC