+menu-


  • Category Archives A BUREAUCRATS AGENDA
  • Something Fishy Going on in WA State

    House Bill 2859: Modifying the management of the state’s fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife

    Introduced in the House on January 18, 2018   Official Text and Analysis.

    View House Bill 2859

    ———————————-

    click on the link below … scroll down through the 226 pages

    Original Bill

    PAGE (4) NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

     IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE TO HAVE….

    226 PAGES OF THIS?

    —————————————————————————–

     I am posting  this on my website,  behindmyback.org,  As  It is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens  of  WA  State to be  “FULLY” informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.

    —————————

    Page (11) This is not just about fish….

    The director may:
    (1) SPEND MONEYS
    to improve natural growing conditions for fish
    by constructing  fishways, installing screens, and removing obstructions to migratory fish

    PAGE (79) AFFECTING CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

     Sec. 1121. RCW 77.55.141and 2010 c 210 s 28 are each amended to 21 read as follows:

    (1)In order to protect the property of marine waterfront shoreline owners it is necessary to facilitate issuance of permits for bulkheads or rockwalls under certain conditions.

    (2)The department shall issue a permit with or without conditions within forty-five days of receipt of a complete and accurate application which authorizes commencement of construction, replacement, or repair of a marine beach front protective bulkhead or rockwall for single-family type residences or property UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

    ——————————

    PAGE ONE (1) OF 226 

    AN ACT Relating to modifying the management of the state’s  fisheries by creating the department of fisheries separate from the department of wildlife;

    Amending RCW’S PAGE (1) OF 226

    77.08.022, 77.08.024, 77.12.010,77.12.275, 77.12.420,

    77.12.455, 77.12.560, 77.12.760, 77.12.850,77.12.858,

    77.12.860, 77.12.865, 77.15.300, 77.15.310, 77.15.320,

    77.15.350, 77.15.370, 77.15.380, 77.15.382, 77.15.390,

    77.15.500,77.15.520, 77.15.522, 77.15.530, 77.15.540,

    77.15.552, 77.15.554,77.15.565, 77.15.570, 77.15.590,

    77.15.620, 77.15.640, 77.15.803,77.15.813, 77.15.805,

    77.15.809,77.15.811, 77.18.050, 77.18.060,77.50.010,

    77.50.020, 77.50.040, 77.50.050, 77.50.070, 77.50.080,

    77.50.090, 77.50.100, 77.50.110, 77.50.120, 77.55.021,

    AND, A FULL PAGE (2) OF 226

    and 79A.80.090; reenacting and amending

    RCW 77.55.011, 77.120.010, 77.15.080, and 77.15.160; adding a new Title to the Revised Code of Washington to be codified as Title 75A RCW; creating new sections; recodifying RCW,77.55.041,77.55.081, 77.55.111, 77.55.121, 77.55.131, 77.55.141, 7.55.151, 77.55.161, 77.55.181, 77.55.191, 77.55.241, 77.55.251, 77.55.261,77.55.291, 77.55.331, 77.57.040, 77.57.060, 77.60.020, 77.60.030,77.60.050, 77.60.100, 77.60.0…….

    AND,  A FULL PAGE (3) OF 226

    AND PAGE (4) OF 226

    77.135.210, 77.135.220, 77.135.230, AND, 77.135.240; repealing RCW 177.15.005, 43.300.005, AND, 77.04.013; prescribing penalties; providing an effective date; and providing an expiration date.

    ——————————————————-

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    PART ONE

    DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES CREATED

    PAGE (4) ….NEW SECTION.  Sec. 1001.

    IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

    TO HAVE 226 PAGES OF THIS?

    ————————————————-

    I am posting this on my website behindmyback.org,  As it is in the “BEST”  interest of the citizens of  WA State to be “FULLY”  informed and have an opportunity to make public comment.


  • Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    As promised, a brief posting on the complicated federal  IRS Estate Death Tax lien laws.

    It has taken nearly 10 years for me to find this 9000 word IRS Estate Death Lien Tax documentation on line.

    Below, is the link to the IRS Estate Death Tax Liens 5.5.8 – 5.5.8.1

    SHOCKING? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary.

    It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit.

    ———————————————————————–

    Indeed, the IRS has gone to to great lengths (9000 words) to protect THEIR DEATH TAX LIEN INTEREST in your family’s Estate.

    OPEN AND TRANSPARENT? WHO KNEW?

    An IRC § 6324(a) lien is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective

    Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    ——————————————————–

    Another 9000 word Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere.

    WHAT LENGTH, DOES A  SMALL BUSINESS OWNING AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE TO GO TO, TO PROTECT HIS HEIRS FROM THE IRS ESTATE DEATH TAX?

    —————————————————-

    Oct 19, 2017 SARCASM FROM THE LEFT

    WASHINGTON ―  Whenever a small business owner dies, a cruel tax man swoops in on his mourning family with a hefty bill, forcing the children of farmers and mom-and-pop shops to sell off the family business to pay the government.

    ————————————————————

    Dec 22, 2017 PARTIAL RELIEF FROM THE RIGHT

    12/22/2017 Became Public Law No: 115-97.

    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act – HR1 – 115th Congress (2017-2018): An Act to …

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1

    Shown Here: Passed House amended (11/16/2017). (This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on November 13, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.) Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, …

    Unfortunately, the complicated IRS Estate death tax liens are still alive online, just the exemptions have been  raised.

    TOO BAD THE IRS DEATH TAX CUTS ARE  NOT RETROACTIVE

    —————————————————————–

    Estate Tax Liens 5.5.8 –  5.5.8.1

    WARNING: An IRS  table briefly describing the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities,

    IS MISLEADING.

    THE LINK BELOW IS ABOUT A 9000 WORD DOCUMENT

    ——————————————————–

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens | Internal Revenue Service – IRS.gov

    https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-005-008

    The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities. … Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien ….. for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter.

    Chapter 5. Decedent Estates and Estate Taxes

    Section 8. Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8 Estate Tax Liens

    5.5.8.1 (06-23-2005)

    Section Overview Characteristics of Estate Tax Liens

    1. This section covers estate tax liens. Before filing a lien on an estate tax case, give careful thought to the advantages and limitations of each type of estate tax lien.
    2. In many cases, the general IRC § 6324(a) lien is the best tool to protect the government’s interest. It is automatically created when any resident of the United States dies. No recorded notice is required for it to become effective. It attaches to all of the assets that are part of the decedent’s gross estate and are required to be reported on Form 706, U.S. Estate Tax Return, and is security for any estate taxes that may be determined to be due. If a probate asset (assets in the name of the decedent at time of death) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, but for the exceptions detailed at IRM 5.5.8.2(2), the lien continues to attach to the asset. If a non-probate asset (property described under IRC § 2034 to § 2042) is transferred or liquidated without payment of the tax, a liability equal to the value of the asset at the time of the decedent’s death becomes due from the transferee. A separate assessment against the transferee is not needed. Assets of the gross estate can be sold or encumbered free of the IRC § 6324(a) lien if the proceeds from the sale or loan are used for the payment of charges against the estate or expenses of its administration that are allowed by any court having jurisdiction.
    3. A limitation of the general estate tax lien is that it has an absolute life of 10 years. It cannot be extended. Estate tax attributable to an estate’s interest in a closely held business may be paid over a 14-year period if an extension of time to pay under IRC § 6166 is in effect which could potentially leave the Service without lien protection for four years if a notice of lien is not recorded before the 10 years have elapsed.
    4. The filing of Form 668-J (the special IRC § 6423A lien for taxes deferred under IRC 6166) will secure the deferred taxes for the duration of the extension. The collection statute of limitations under IRC § 6502 is suspended during the period of the extension.
      1. The lien attaches only the property specified on the recorded lien and in the IRC § 6166 agreement. A lien on property with equivalent value can be substituted for the actual IRC § 6166 property upon agreement between the Service and all parties with an interest in the property.
      2. When estate property is listed on the recorded Form 668-J, it is automatically released from the effects of the general IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      3. The IRC § 6324A lien is a negotiated lien that is created only when both the Service and all persons and/or entities with an ownership interest in the property listed on the notice of lien agree to it’s recording.
    5. The filing of Form 668-H – the special IRC § 6324B lien for special use valuations under IRC § 2032A or qualified family owned business interest property under IRC § 2057 will secure the potential recapture tax during the required 10 year holding period. IRC § 2057 elections may be made only on estates of decedents dying before December 31, 2003.

    5.5.8.1.1 (06-23-2005)

    Comparison Chart Federal Estate Tax Liens

    1. The following table briefly describes the characteristics of Federal tax liens associated with federal estate tax liabilities.

    Code Section

    How Created

    Attributes

    Form Title

    6321

    assessment, balance owed, notice & demand

    ·         attaches to all right, title and interest of the decedent in any probate property undistributed at time lien arises

    ·         10 year life can be extended

    Form 668 Notice of Federal Tax Lien

    6324(a)

    at death

    ·         attaches to estate assets listed on the Form 706 the value of which are the basis of the tax liability

    no form

    ·         recording not required to be choate (their glitch)

    ·         absolute life of 10 years

    ·         follows the probate assets if transferred or liquidated, a lien of comparable value arises upon any property of the party who received proceeds from sale or encumbrance of non-probate property

    6324A

    Upon election by the estate and signed agreement by all parties with an interest in the property on the lien

    ·         attaches the specific property shown on the lien

    ·         must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all parties of interest and the specific property that is subject to the lien

    Form 668J Notice of Estate Tax Lien under Internal Revenue Laws

    6324B

    Upon election by estate of the special use 2032A or qualified family owned business interest 2057

    ·         pertains to farm or business real estate only (2032A) or family owned business property

    ·         notice must be recorded

    ·         recorded notice lists all qualified heirs and has a complete legal description of the subject real property

    Form 668H Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws

    5.5.8.2 (06-23-2005)

    General Estate Tax Lien under IRC § 6324(a)

    1. The estate tax lien provided for by IRC § 6324(a) is similar in character to the lien imposed by IRC § 6321. The general lien imposed by IRC § 6321 and the special lien for estate tax are not necessarily exclusive of each other, but can be cumulative. Whereas the IRC § 6324(a) lien arises upon death and attaches to all probate and non-probate assets comprising the gross estate, after the tax liability has been assessed, notice and demand is given, and there is a neglect or refusal to pay, the IRC § 6321 lien arises and also attaches to all as yet undistributed probate assets. Neglect and refusal to pay is generally inferred from notice and demand and an unpaid balance.
    2. Even though no notice is recorded, the lien has priority over all subsequent interests in the property.

    Except

    Unless

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in probate property at the direction of a court having jurisdiction and proceeds are used to pay charges against the estate

    no exception

    purchaser or holder of a security interest in probate property after executor has been released from personal liability under IRC § 2204 if seller is an heir, legatee, devisee, or distributee

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in non-probate property

    no exception

    purchaser of or holder of a security interest in securities

    knowledge of lien exists

    purchaser of a motor vehicle

    knowledge of lien exists

    retail purchaser of tangible personal property

    purchaser buying with the intent to hinder, evade, or defeat collection

    purchaser of personal property (defined at IRC § 6334(a)) valued at less than $1,000 at a casual sale

    knowledge of lien exists or is one in a series intended to liquidate most of the assets

    local law lien securing the price of repairs or improvements

    lienor gives up possession of property after lien arises

    local real estate tax & special assessment

    local law does not give them priority over other liens that are filed first

    residential property subject to a lien for repairs & improvements

    the contract price is more than $5,000

    attorney’s liens

    fees are unreasonable, the lien is not valid under local law, or is subject to offset

    certain insurance contracts

    knowledge of lien exists

    deposit-secured loans

    knowledge of lien

    1. The IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien attaches at the date of death to every part of the gross estate, even when the property has not yet been placed under the control of the fiduciary. It attaches to the extent of the estate tax shown due on the return, and of any deficiency in estate tax found due upon review and audit. The estate tax lien continues for a maximum period of ten years after the decedent’s death or until the tax is paid.
    2. IRC § 6324(a)(2) provides that when the estate tax is not paid when due, any spouse, transferee, trustee, surviving tenant, person in possession of the property by reason of the exercise, nonexercise, or release of a power of appointment, or beneficiary, is liable for the payment of the estate tax to the extent of the value of any non-probate estate assets held by, or passing to such person.
    3. There is no need to assess the liability against the person liable under IRC § 6324(a)(2). The collection statute under IRC § 6502 applies. IRC § 6324(a)(2) also makes all of the property of such person subject to a lien just like the estate tax lien if their transfer of estate assets divests the assets of the estate tax lien. This ″like-lien″ continues until the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien expires or the estate tax is paid.
      Example: A beneficiary of a decedent’s trust receives real property valued at $100,000 on the Form 706. The beneficiary sells the property for $125,000 and invests the proceeds. Because the property was non-probate property, the purchaser takes title free of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien. However, a like-lien in the amount of $100,000 now attaches to all of the property of the beneficiary as long as the IRC § 6324(a) lien has not expired. A separate assessment against the beneficiary is not necessary.

    5.5.8.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of Unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) Lien

    1. Release – Advisory occasionally receives requests for release of the unrecorded estate tax lien. However, just as there is no provision for recording a notice of the unrecorded estate tax lien, there is no provision for recording a release. Applicants should be instructed to provide documentation to potential purchasers of the decedent’s property that either there was no Form 706 filing requirement, or, if Form 706 was filed and a closing letter has been provided to the estate by Estate & Gift Tax (E&G), a copy of the return, the Estate Tax Closing Letter ( Letter 627, and verification of payment, are evidence that the IRC § 6324(a) lien has been satisfied.
    2. Discharge
      1. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) are usually submitted on Form 4422 , Application for Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien. These applications will be processed by E&G if Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued. If Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(c) will be processed by Advisory. Form 792 , United States Certificate Discharging Property Subject to Estate Tax Lien, is used to discharge property under IRC § 6325(c).
        Example:An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and the reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and reported estate tax has been paid, but a closing letter has not been issued. Because the estate representative believes she has paid the estate tax in full, she proposes to use the proceeds from the sale of the probate property to pay other creditors. Because the final amount of estate tax that may be due has not yet been determined, E&G will process the application.
        Example: An estate submits Form 4422 requesting a discharge under IRC § 6325(c). Form 706 has been filed and a closing letter has been issued, but a balance remains due for which a extension of time to pay has been granted. The estate is selling a parcel of probate real property but needs the proceeds to pay necessary administrative expenses. The estate has provided for the payment of the taxes by listing a second parcel of real property for sale. Because the final amount of the estate tax due is known, Advisory will process the application.
      2. Applications for discharge under IRC § 6325(b) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.
    3. Subordination – Applications for subordination under IRC § 6325(d) will be processed by Advisory. If Form 706 has not been filed or if a closing letter has not been issued, Advisory will consult with E&G in order to determine the government’s lien interest.

    5.5.8.4 (06-23-2005)

    Special Valuation Estate Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324B

    1. IRM § 2032A provides for special valuation for certain farms and closely held family business real property if the qualified heirs decide to continue operating the farm or business for at least 10 years. Because the property is valued at less then its fair market value, less estate tax is due. IRM § 2057 provides for a special valuation for certain qualified family owned business interests and also results in less estate tax being due. If the criteria for the IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057 valuations do not continue during the required holding period, the savings in tax attributable to the special valuation is “recaptured” and must be repaid by the heirs who inherited the property.
    2. IRC § 6324B imposes a lien attaching to the specific property valued under IRC § 2032A. IRC § 2057(h)(3)(p) imposes a lien identical to the IRC § 6324B lien to the specific property valued under IRC § 2057.

    5.5.8.4.1 (06-01-2010)

    IRC § 6324B Form 668-H (Advisory Actions)

    1. When the executor elects the special valuation under IRC § 2032A or IRC § 2057, and secures an agreement to the election signed by all parties having an interest in the specially valued property, Estate & Gift Exam (E&G) will complete and forward Form 6111, Notice of Election Under IRC § 2032A and/or IRC § 2057, to Advisory with copies of the following documents:
      1. First 3 pages of Form 706
      2. Schedule A-1 and/or Schedule T
      3. Agreement to special valuation signed by all parties with an interest in the property to be shown on the lien. Only the decedent’s interest in the property is shown on the lien. If the decedent co-owned the property, the co-owner’s interest is not shown on the lien and the co-owner is not required to sign the agreement.
      4. Complete legal descriptions of property to be shown on the lien
      5. Any power of attorney
    2. Verify that each Form 6111 includes a copy of the agreement signed by all ″qualified heirs″ and all other parties having an interest in the property covered by the election. The agreement must designate:
      1. an agent for dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, and
      2. a complete legal description of the property to be shown on the lien
    3. Contact the E&G group manager to resolve any inconsistencies.
    4. Prepare and file Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws, (see Exhibit 5.5.8-1) in the name of the estate and all qualified heirs as shown on Form 6111. Only one Form 668-H will be used unless a local jurisdiction requires separate forms. Recording a copy of the agreement to Form 668-H is not necessary. If the qualifying property consists of the decedent’s interest in a closely held corporation, partnership, LLC, etc., consult with Area Counsel to determine if evidence of ownership, such as a stock certificate, must be held as collateral in order for the lien to be effective under local law.

    Note:

    When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.

    1. If elections were made under both IRC § 2032A and IRC § 2057, one Form 668-H reflecting the combined maximum tax subject to recapture may be used.
    2. Form 668-H must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html
    3. Mail the completed Form 668-H to the Centralized Case Processing Lien Operation (CLU) for recording on a Form 3210.
    4. All documents sent with the lien to the recording office will be returned to CLU. The CLU will be responsible for inputting lien indicators; applicable lien fees and forwarding the recorded lien document back to the originating advisor on Form 3210, Document Transmittal, to maintain with the lien file. If a lien is returned to the Advisor due to insufficient funds, return it to the CLU for corrective action. All liens will be sent to:

    Internal Revenue Service
    Attn: Manager Team 208 – Stop 8420G
    P.O. Box 145595
    Cincinnati, OH 45250-5595

    1. This CLU FORT has responsibility for logging in receipt of the estate tax liens; monitoring the recording process and forwarding the recorded liens to the advisor on a Form 3210. CLU FORT will send acknowledgement of receipt of the lien by returning the Form 3210.
    2. Within 7 business days of receipt, the CLU FORT will mail the lien to the recording office for filing. See IRM 5.19.12.10.2 , for CLU FORT processing procedures and lost lien research procedures.
    3. Advisory is responsible for sending the lien to the lien unit on Form 3210, including the estate name, complete SSN, lien type and request for input of TC 582, TC 583 and TC 360 as applicable. Advisory is also responsible for determining if there is an open module on IDRS and will instruct CLU to input applicable lien indicator/fees. In the case of Form 668-H liens, if there is no open module on IDRS, do not request input of lien indicator/fees on the Form 3210.
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. At local option, after coordinating payment of recording fees with the CLU, advisors may mail liens for recording directly to recording offices. However, except for exigent circumstances, advisors may not issue OI’s requesting that a revenue officer deliver an estate tax lien to a recording agency for filing.
    6. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate until the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies with Form 6111 and associated documentation.

    5.5.8.4.2 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release of IRC § 6324B Form 668-H

    1. Requests for release of Forms 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. If the qualified heir(s) is requesting a release of lien because the 10 year special use period has elapsed, and assuming no recapture tax is due, instruct the designated agent to submit a written request that the lien be released, including a statement that during the 10 year period no events occurred that would cause recapture of any portion of the tax. The letter should be signed under penalty of perjury. Advisory will consult with the Estate & Gift Tax group manager to determine if any further verification should be secured prior to releasing the lien.
    3. The qualified heir(s) may also request a release of lien because all of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use. In order to receive a release of the lien, the qualified heir(s) must report the recapture event by filing Form 706-A, United States Additional Estate Tax Return (if the section 2032A election was made), or Form 706-D, United States Estate Tax Return Under Code Section 2057, and all tax and interest due must be paid in full. Interest on the Form 706-A begins to accrue at the regular underpayment rate on the date the return is due. Interest on the Form 706-D at the regular underpayment rate is computed from the original due date of the Form 706, not taking into account any extensions of time to file that may have been granted, until the date the recapture tax is paid. Each qualified heir must file a Form 706-A or Form 706-D reporting and paying the tax and interest due that is attributable to their share of the inherited property.
    4. Secured Forms 706-A or 706-D, with any payments and or approved extensions, are forwarded via Form 3210 , overnight mail, to: IRS, Cincinnati Submission Processing Center, 201 W. Rivercenter Blvd., Covington, KY, 41011, Attn: Mail Stop 31. Preparation of a posting voucher is not necessary unless penalties are applicable and being paid. Ensure that the return and check are identified as belonging to the heir and indicate NMF by placing “N” behind the heir’s SSN on the return and the check. Enter the tax period in YYYYMM format at the top of the return. The period ended is the earliest date shown on schedule A, column C. For example, if the property disposition date is 3/10/2005, the tax period would be 200503.
    5. Releases of estate tax liens are prepared by advisors and the procedures for recording described in IRM 5.5.8.4.1. However, follow up to obtain a copy of a recorded release is not necessary.

    Note:

    Whenever contact is made with an estate representative who is requesting a release of an estate tax lien, the advisor should give the representative the option of recording the release, making the representative aware that if they choose to do so, it is their responsibility to pay the recording fees.

    5.5.8.4.3 (06-23-2005)

    Processing Requests for Discharge of Property from IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for discharge of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. A discharge is necessary if part of the property described on the lien is being sold or removed from special use.
    3. If issuance of a conditional commitment to discharge property from the effects of the lien is necessary, Advisory should request a draft of Form 706-A or Form 706-D from each heir who owns a share of the property being sold or removed from special use. Upon review and approval of the draft(s) by the Estate & Gift Tax (E&G) group manager, Advisory will conditionally commit to the discharge. Upon filing of the Form 706-A or Form 706-D, with full payment of any tax and interest due, the discharge certificate will be provided.
    4. See IRM 5.5.8.4.2(4) for instructions on processing the returns and payments.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 4 heirs. The property listed on the lien consists of 6 parcels of real property for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2032A. The heirs want to convert 1 of the parcels to a non-qualified use and submit an application for discharge under IRC § 6325(b)(2)(A), along with draft copies of each of their required Forms 706-A showing the recapture tax that will be due. E&G reviews the returns and advises that they reflect the correct amount of recapture tax. Advisory issues a commitment to discharge conditioned upon the receipt of original Forms 706-A and payment of the tax and interest due.

    5.5.8.4.4 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Subordination of IRC § 6324B Lien, Form 668-H

    1. Requests for subordination of property described on Form 668-H will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Although it is possible that the qualified heir(s) may apply for a certificate of subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(2), almost all requests for subordination will be made under IRC § 6325(d)(3) which directly addresses IRC § 6324B, and provides for the issuance of a certificate of subordination if it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured.
    3. Instructions for applying for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3), are contained in Publication 1153, How to Apply for a Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Section 6325(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
    4. If it is determined that the lien interest of the United States will continue to be adequately secured, issue Form 669-F , Certificate of Subordination of Federal Estate Tax Lien.
      Example: A Form 668-H has been recorded in the names of an estate and 2 heirs securing potential recapture tax of $200,000. The property shown on the lien is an apartment building for which special valuation was elected under IRC § 2057. The fair market value of the property is $1.5 million, and it is unencumbered but for the Form 668-H. The heirs want to borrow $250,000 in order to make renovations to the building and use the property as security for the loan. They apply for a subordination under IRC § 6325(d)(3). Since the United States will be adequately secured after the subordination, Advisory may issue Form 669-F.

    5.5.8.5 (06-01-2010)

    Special Lien Under IRC § 6324A for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. IRC § 6166 provides that the executor of an estate may make an election to pay in as many as 10 annual installments, that portion of the estate tax attributable to assets used in a qualifying closely held business. Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam personnel or E&G Campus personnel make the determination if the estate qualifies for this special election. If property qualifies for installments, only interest on the unpaid balance is due on the first four anniversary dates after the due date. The first tax payment along with interest is due on the fifth anniversary of the due date of the return. This election to pay in installments must be made at the time the Form 706 is filed. Late filing of the return invalidates the election. If the deferred tax due is the result of an examination deficiency, the estate must make the election within 60 days after issuance of notice and demand.
    2. Under IRC § 6503(d) the Collection Statute Expiration Date is suspended for the period during which payment of the tax is deferred. However, running of the IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien is not suspended.
    3. Collection field function will utilize Form 668(Y) when recording liens on balance due accounts. Advisory has the responsibility of securing a lien using Form 668-J, which is typically secured during the installment period.
    4. Key elements of the lien include:
      1. A lien describing the agreed upon property is recorded using Form 668-J, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws (see Exhibit 5.5.8-2).
      2. An agreement to the lien under IRC § 6324A is filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Form 13925, IRC Section 6324A Lien Agreement Form. The agreement must be signed by all of the persons having an interest in the designated property (whether or not in possession) described on the lien.
      3. Although real property is preferred, any property, either real or personal, with equity equal to the deferred taxes plus interest, and that can be expected to survive the deferral period, may be designated in the agreement. Property, other than property that was part of the gross estate, may be used to secure the lien. If at any time the value of the property covered by the agreement becomes less than the deferred taxes plus interest, the IRS can require the addition of property to the agreement.

    Note:

    Even though the property offered by the estate as security for the lien may be, if necessary, difficult to enforce against (such as stock in a closely held corporation), distrainability is not a factor in determining the adequacy of the value of the property offered. As long as the requirements under IRC § 6166A(b) as to the value of the property are met, and there are no indications that the property will not survive the deferral period, whatever property the estate offers as security for the lien is acceptable.

      1. Any property that is part of the decedent’s gross estate that is part of the agreement and described on the recorded lien is no longer subject to the unrecorded IRC § 6324(a) estate tax lien.
      2. Recording of the lien acts as a discharge of the executor and/or or fiduciary under IRC § 2204. See Treas. Reg. 20.2204-3.

    5.5.8.5.1 (06-01-2010)

    Advisory Bond/Lien Determinations for Estate Tax Deferred Under IRC § 6166

    1. Advisory will receive a lien package, as described below, and set up an ICS case control.
      1. Pages 1, 2 and 3 of Form 706 and schedules A, B, F & G and any attachments thereto (but not appraisals unless specifically requested by an Advisor) including other pertinent schedules listing assets.
      2. Form 4349, Computation of Estate Tax Due With Return and Annual Installment.
      3. Form 1273, Report of Estate Tax Examination Changes, and Form 3228, Adjustments to Taxable Estate or Form 6180, Line Adjustments – Estate Tax. (These forms will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      4. The examiner’s narrative report of examination changes. (e.g. Form 886A, Explanation of Items, or similar documentation.) (This form will not be provided if the case is surveyed or accepted as filed.)
      5. Any Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative.
      6. IRC § 6166 election and attachments to the election.
      7. Listing of all businesses listed on the Estate tax return including name and EIN. This information may be listed separately or on the related schedule.
    2. The Estate & Gift (E&G) Exam group will be responsible for sending lien packages to Advisory when the case has been assigned to the group for examination. When returns are accepted as filed or surveyed during classification, Campus will be responsible for preparing and forwarding the lien package to Advisory. E&G Campus will hold the original tax return for 90 days once the lien package is sent to Advisory, in case additional information is needed.
    3. Advisory shall contact the estate’s executor or representative within 60 days of receipt of lien package and request the estate voluntarily provide a bond, or in the alternative an IRC § 6324A lien, to secure the deferred estate tax. If the executor or representative agrees to provide the bond or lien, proceed with processing procedures to get the bond or lien recorded. Send a copy of the lien agreement to E&G Campus for association with the IRC § 6166 file. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances. It may be necessary to request the estate representative provide encumbrance information. Document the above action in the case history.
    4. If the estate declines to provide a bond or lien, Advisory shall review all information available to it before requesting any information from the taxpayer. Advisory shall review the following:
      1. The lien package provided by E&G Exam,
      2. Any information that the IRS may have such as extension requests (Form 4768), compliance with current installment/interest payments, tax returns or tax compliance information with respect to the decedent (1040), the estate or trust (1041) and closely held business (1040, 1041, 1120, 1120s, 1065, 941’s),
      3. Any information available by public record or on the Internet, such as filings with the Secretary of State.
    5. Advisory will determine what additional information is required to make a determination regarding whether security is required in that case.
    6. Advisory shall send a letter to request any additional information needed to determine whether security should be required. The deadline for additional document request shall be kept to 30 days. If within the 30 day period, the estate requests an extension of time, the Advisor may grant an extension for up to 30 days. Any additional extension must be approved by the Advisory Group Manager. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    7. Advisory shall determine whether a bond or lien should be required in a case based on a review and analysis of applicable factors listed below and any other pertinent information. This is not an exclusive list and no single factor will be determinative of whether to require security in any particular case.
      1. Duration and stability of the business: This factor considers the nature of the closely held business and of the assets of that business, the relevant market factors that will impact the business’s future success, its recent financial history, and the experience of its management, in an effort to predict likelihood of its success and survival through the deferred payment period. This information may be found in the appraisal, financial statements, and SEC filings. Facts relevant to this factor are information regarding any outstanding liens, judgments, or pending or anticipated lawsuits or other claims against the business, if any; age of business; and continuity and stability of management. The estate may use a sworn affidavit or other probative documents to provide this information. When considering this factor, determine whether the decedent owned a majority interest in the business. If the decedent owned a minority interest, the financial information pertaining to the business may not be as relevant because the estate may not force distributions to pay the estate tax. In this case, consider whether other assets in the estate or other income are available to pay the estate tax.
      2. Ability to pay the installments of tax and interest timely: This factor considers how the estate expects to be able to make the annual payments of tax and interest as due, and the objective likelihood of realizing that expectation. Facts relevant to this factor may include the nature of the business’s significant assets and liabilities, type of debts (subordinated, related party, guaranteed, payment terms), and the business’s cash flow (both historical and anticipated). An appraisal, the business’ tax return, or SEC filings may provide this information.
      3. Compliance history: This factor addresses the business’s, estate’s and decedent’s history regarding compliance with all federal tax payment and tax filing requirements, in an effort to determine whether the business, its management and the executor respect and comply with all tax requirements on a regular basis. The relevance of the closely held business’s filing and payment compliance is proportional to the estate’s ownership interest and control of the business. This factor also addresses the estate’s compliance history with respect to federal tax payment and filing requirements. Review frequency of requests for extension of time to pay, amount, and ultimate payment.
    8. Advisory shall fully document in the case file history:
      1. The factors and information considered in making the determination,
      2. A brief history outlining taxpayer’s response to request for bond or lien, and;
      3. A detailed explanation regarding why a bond or a lien was required in this case in order to protect the government’s interest, and the amount of bond or lien required.
    9. After Advisory has made its determination, Advisory will send the estateLetter 4283, Notification Regarding Internal Revenue Code Section 6166 Security Requirement. When preparing the letter, select the optional paragraph (1) to notify the estate that no bond is required; optional paragraph (2) to notify the estate that a bond is required after reviewing the information provided by the estate; or optional paragraph (3) to notify the estate that a bond is required when the estate did not provide the requested information within 30 days. If option (2) or (3) is selected, include the IRC § 6324A Lien Agreement, Form 13925, and Form 8821. If the estate provides a lien form other than Form 13925, Advisory will consult Area Counsel for the state of the decedent’s domicile for approval of the lien form. If the designated agent on the Form 13295 or lien agreement is someone other than the executor, ensure Form 8821 is received. Fax a copy of the lien agreement and Form 8821, if applicable, to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    10. Maintain a copy of the Letter 4283 in the case file and schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    11. In the case of any proposed bond, Advisory will consult with Area Counsel for drafting, if needed, and review of the bond agreement.
    12. Area Counsel will also be consulted when unusual assets are pledged on the lien agreement, such as art or collectibles.
    13. The Letter 4283 allows 30 days from the date of the letter to negotiate the bond or lien property. If the estate refuses to provide a bond or lien after Advisory sends Letter 4283 notifying the estate that a bond or lien is required, the Advisor will send the case to the Advisory Group Manager for preparation, selection of the appropriate optional paragraph, and issuance of a Letter 950-I – Preliminary Internal Revenue Code § 6166 Determination Letter. The Letter 950-I is the letter that notifies the estate of its right to appeal the preliminary determination. If the estate does not appeal within the time period, the IRC § 6166 election terminates. Send Letter 950-I by certified mail and maintain one copy in the case file, notating the date it is sent, also schedule a follow up date in ICS.
    14. If decedent died before August 6, 1997, the estate should not be sent the 950-I letter because the estate does not have the right to appeal or go to Tax Court. Provide a narrative to the E&G Campus stating the reason for proposed termination and request the Letter 6335-F be sent.
    15. Advisory will send a copy of the Letter 950-I to E&G Campus to associate with the file.
    16. After the Letter 950-I is issued, the case will be controlled and monitored for expiration of the 30-day period by the Advisory Group Manager.
    17. If within the 30 day period allowed in Letter 950-I the estate requests an extension of time to request Appeals consideration, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an extension for up to 30 days. In unusual cases if circumstances warrant, the Advisory Group Manager may grant an additional extension of time. Such approval and the reason for granting the additional extension must be documented in the case history.
    18. If the estate does not appeal the preliminary determination within the 30-day period allowed in Letter 950-I, or as extended, or if the estate sends an untimely post-marked protest, Advisory shall terminate the election 15 days (to allow for mail time) after the expiration of the 30-day period or the extended period. Advisory must send to the E&G Campus a narrative indicating that the time for appeal has expired and that the account should be accelerated. Advisory shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F to the estate, certified mail, return receipt requested. E&G Campus will compute interest on the Letter 6335-F, 30 days from the date of the Letter 950-I, and will prepare the Letter 6335-F showing the total balance on the account and all additional interest.
    19. If the estate requests Appeals consideration, Advisory will date stamp the protest and document in the case file history that the protest was received and forward the protest letter and the following to Appeals 30 days from the postmark date of the protest letter:
      1. Letter 4283,
      2. Documentation considered in analyzing whether the bond or lien was required,
      3. Letter 950-I,
      4. Case file history, and;
      5. Any pertinent correspondence with the Taxpayer.
    20. If the estate submits a protest containing new IRC § 6166 related issues with its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory shall determine the validity of the new issue. If Advisory disagrees with the estate on the new issue, it shall prepare a response to the protest which includes the determination reached on the new issue. Advisory shall send the response to the protest to the estate and include it in the package to be transmitted to Appeals.
    21. Prepare Form 3210 forwarding case to Appeals notating “Type of Case IRC § 6166 – Termination Case, Lien Determination – This is an emerging issue. Please check the Appeals Technical Guidance issue locator on the Appeals webpage for further information” . Advisory will route their protest cases based on the state in which the decedent was last domiciled using the case routing list on the Appeal’s website, http://appeals.web.irs.gov/APS/bystate2.htm, with the understanding the case may be transferred to another Appeals Officer based on inventory needs. Notify E&G Campus by secure e-mail that a protest has been forwarded to Appeals so that the Letter 6335-F is not sent prematurely.
    22. If no new issues are raised by the estate in its request for Appeals consideration, Advisory will not prepare a response to the protest. Appeals will consider the documentation in the case file history containing all prior analysis.
    23. The Appeals Office will send the case file with the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) to Advisory once a decision is final, so that Advisory can proceed. Advisory shall notify E&G Campus if the election under IRC § 6166 is terminated, and shall instruct E&G Campus to send Letter 6335-F certified mail, return receipt requested. If Appeals allows the election to continue, notify E&G Campus that Appeals has determined the estate is entitled to the election. If no response is received, Advisory will follow-up with Appeals in 90 days. Advisory may contact the Appeals’ Account Resolution Specialist at (559) 456-5931 to locate case or update status.

    5.5.8.5.2 (06-01-2010)

    Miscellaneous Documentation From Campus or Appeals

    1. Advisory will receive documentation from E&G Campus concerning IRC § 6166 payments or installment payments that have not been paid. E&G Campus is sending this information to be associated with the case file. E&G Campus will forward for informational purposes copies of billings and/or protest letters that are sent to Appeals. OI’s will be maintained in ICS on accounts where informational documents are sent to Advisory from the E&G Campus.
    2. This information should be used in considering creditworthiness of estate, necessity for a bond or lien, and/or necessary enforcement action.
    3. Advisory may receive a courtesy investigation from the E&G Campus to collect non-deferred tax, penalties and interest. The following actions should be taken:
      1. Contact the estate representative and demand payment of the non-deferred tax. Provide a deadline for payment and document the ICS history.
      2. If payment is not made send final demand letter (Letter 1058) for only the non-deferred portion of tax due plus penalties and interest.
      3. After expiration of the 30 day final demand letter the advisor will issue a courtesy investigation to initiate enforced collection (such as levy or suit referral) as necessary against assets or initiate such action themselves, as appropriate. The Advisor will coordinate collection action with the revenue officer involved.
      4. If full payment is still not made, the IRC § 6321 lien should be recorded by the field revenue officer to attach to the remaining undistributed probate property for the non-deferred portion of the estate tax due. Document the ICS history concerning your action to protect the Government’s interest. Revenue Officers must comply with collection due process rights in IRM 5.1.9.3 when utilizing the IRC § 6321 lien.
      5. If estate is unable to pay the non-deferred tax this is an indicator/factor that the estate may be financially unstable. At this time the advisor will conduct an evaluation of the current assets, review time remaining on the IRC § 6324(a) lien (or any other lien in effect such as the IRC § 6324A lien) and determine if the Government is adequately secured for the remaining tax due during the duration of the deferral period.
      6. If the advisor determines the Government is not adequately secured for the remaining portion of deferred estate tax, Letter 4283 will be sent to the executor/designated agent. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9).
      7. If estate still does not pay non-deferred portion of tax and refuses to provide a lien or bond on the IRC § 6166 portion, issue letter 950-I and proceed with acceleration of the deferred portion of tax.
      8. Revenue Officers may continue collection actions on the non-deferred portion of estate tax while the deferred portion is being accelerated.
    4. Advisory will also receive documentation (copies of Letter 6335 or 6335(T)) from the E&G Campus when estates are delinquent in paying installments timely, Advisory should review the account to determine if a lien or bond has been secured. If a lien or bond has not been secured a re-evaluation of collection risk is appropriate action to ensure the Government is adequately protected. This information and advisor actions must be documented in the ICS history because a pattern of delinquency is a factor in determining credit risk.
    5. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation (copies of Letter 6335(F)) indicating installment payments have not been made and the acceleration of the tax due is in process. Advisory must upon receipt review the account and determine if a lien or bond has been secured. Advisory should review, recommend and document the ICS history regarding the most appropriate collection action based on information in their lien file. Considerations to be addressed:
      1. what assets remain that are encumbered by the IRC § 6324(a) lien
      2. are there specific assets pledged on the IRC § 6324A lien,
      3. equity in assets
      4. is there a bond,
      5. does a seizure or levy need to be done on pledged assets, and
      6. should a suit referral be completed.
    6. Advisory shall take such action or coordinate enforced collection action.
    7. Advisory will receive from the E&G Campus documentation indicating the case is in litigation contesting the termination of the election. The collection statute is not suspended during the time the case is in litigation. Advisory should determine based on the facts and circumstances of the case whether collection should be pursued during litigation and handle the case accordingly. If Advisory determines collection should be pursued during litigation, before collecting Advisory must contact the Chief Counsel attorney assigned to the case.
    8. When Appeals makes a determination that an estate may continue to elect an IRC § 6166 installment election, the entire case file, including the original return shall be sent to Advisory to copy information necessary for bond or lien determination. This file should be copied within 30 days, and the return should be sent to E&G Campus to complete the installment account set-up.
    9. Advisory will be responsible to set follow-ups through ICS to check status of cases that were sent to Appeals for resolution either by utilizing the Appeals Account Specialist or contacting the E&G Campus to determine if they have received the Appeals Case Memorandum (ACM) from Appeals.

    5.5.8.5.3 (06-01-2010)

    Monitoring Accounts During The Deferral Period (Advisory)

    1. Informational documents received from the E&G Campus should be reviewed within 30 days of receipt. The advisor’s evaluation of impact or harm to the Government’s interest should be documented in the ICS history. This documentation may dictate frequency of monitoring an account.
    2. Notice of late installment payments, preliminary IRC § 6166 election terminations or extensions to pay on IRC § 6166 installment payments should be considered as a factor in lien determination and monitoring. Accounts should be re-evaluated if any of the above actions occur.
    3. Encumbrances must be checked to determine adequacy of collateral. The advisor may utilize sources such as Accurint, Secretary of State, UCC filings, etc. to verify encumbrances.
    4. (4) All IRC § 6166 accounts will be re-evaluated six years into the deferral period. Schedule a follow up through the ICS system. Advisors will consider the factors described in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(7) and should also look at subsequent actions below to determine if additional action should be taken to protect the Government’s interest:
      1. What assets have been distributed?
      2. Has the estate distributed, sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of 50 percent or more of the value of the estate’s interest in the closely held business?
      3. What assets have been discharged or subordinated?
      4. Has the estate made installment payments timely and in the full amount due?
      5. Has the estate requested extensions to pay installments?
      6. Has the estate defaulted on other financing?
      7. Has the estate made additional payments toward the tax liability?
      8. Does the closely held business appear to be financially stable and able to make future installment payments?
      9. Is the estate in compliance with filing and paying requirements?
    5. Annual monitoring, considering the above factors should be conducted as the Service nears expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Each year that Advisory conducts a review, the Advisor must document their analysis and recommendations to adequately protect the Government’s interest. As the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    6. Advisory must be aware that if a determination is made that the Government is at risk of not collecting the remaining tax due, appropriate action (for example, a bond or lien or enforced collection action) must be taken and completed prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien. Consideration must be given to allow time for the executor to exhaust any allowable appeals and potential litigation time if the estate petitions the Tax Court under IRC § 7479. If the account is accelerated, this process generally requires a minimum of six months to be completed. Timeframes of acceleration, appeals and litigation must be considered in order to complete collection actions prior to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien.
    7. If the advisor determines that a lien is required the advisor will send the executor Letter 4283. Follow procedures in IRM 5.5.8.5.1(9) .
    8. In consideration of accounts where the estate has been in compliance with timely payment of installments, as the Service gets closer to expiration of the IRC § 6324(a) lien, the advisor must consider securing a “replacement lien” (IRC § 6324A lien or bond) to cover the additional deferral period and the amount of deferred tax due in order to protect the Government’s interest.
    9. Advisory must ensure annually that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. In accordance with the Form 13925, the designated agent is required to send current valuation information annually with respect to the pledged property listed in the agreement. If the executor has provided an IRC § 6324A lien, Advisory must review the annual valuation information report from the designated agent to confirm that the value of the collateral securing the lien is equal to the outstanding IRC § 6166 balance on the account. If the financial information is not received from the designated agent, the Advisor may contact the designated agent to request that information.

    5.5.8.5.4 (06-01-2010)

    Processing of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J (Advisory Actions)

    1. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.1 for recording of estate tax liens.
    2. When preparing estate tax liens, the SSN of the decedent and any qualified heirs whose names are shown on the lien will be redacted using the format XXX-XX-1234. Do not redact EINs.
    3. Actual lien fees will be manually posted by CLU FORT when the lien is received back from the recording office, see IRM 5.19.12.10.2 .
    4. Advisors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the recorded lien from CLU and that lien fees have been input, if applicable.
    5. Advisory will maintain an ICS case in the name of the estate for which the Form 668-J was recorded until such time as the lien is released. Advisory will also maintain a file of retained lien copies and associated documentation.
    6. The Cincinnati Campus Estate & Gift Tax Department, will, upon receipt of full payment of the liability secured by Form 668-J, coordinate with the Advisory Estate Tax Group to ensure that the 668-J lien is released in a timely manner. Campus will notify the Advisory, Estate Tax Group within 10 working days after receiving notification of payment, through secure e-mail, to release any Form 668-J that may have been recorded.
    7. Form 669-J must be prepared manually. However, a PDF version of the form is available on the intranet at http://publish.no.irs.gov/catlg.html.
    8. If the estate representative chooses to post a bond rather than consent to the recording of a lien, follow the procedures for processing bonds found at IRM 5.6.1.2.1, Bonds and IRM 5.6.1.2.3, Estate Tax Bonds and Other Collateral.
    9. If stock certificates are pledged as collateral, the advisor will secure the actual stock certificate. This would prevent the sale of such certificates to third parties.
    10. Prepare Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record classifying the stock certificates as ″safekeeping″ and reflecting a zero value for revenue accounting system (RACS) purposes. The certificates must be stored in an approved safe. Follow procedures in IRM 5.6.1.8, Preparing Form 2276, Collateral Deposit Record.
    11. Stock, in most instances, will be considered personal property by most state law. With respect to personal property, a lien must be filed in the office designated by state law in which the property subject to the lien is situated.

    5.5.8.5.5 (03-01-2006)

    Processing Requests for Release, Discharge of Property From, or Subordination of IRC § 6324A Form 668-J

    1. Requests for release of Form 668-J, and discharge and subordination applications will be processed by Advisory.
    2. Releases– The criteria under IRC § 6325(a) for issuance of a certificate of lien release – liability satisfied or unenforceable or bond accepted – are applicable to Form 668-J. Follow the procedures found at IRM 5.5.8.4.2 for processing estate tax lien releases.
    3. Discharge – Requests for discharge will normally be made under IRC § 6325(c). Provided property equal to the amount of the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest will remain subject to the lien, a certificate may be issued discharging a portion of the property listed on Form 668-J from the lien. As an alternative, under IRC § 6324A(d)(5), the estate representatives may substitute other property in order to obtain a discharge of all or part of the property listed on the lien. If the disposition of property will result in accelerated payment of all or part of the deferred tax, or if the equity in the remaining property will not equal the remaining deferred balance of tax and interest, the application should be made under IRC § 6325(b)(2).
    4. Subordination – Requests for subordination will normally be made under IRC § 6325(d)(2). Provided it is determined that the amount realizable by the United States from the property will ultimately be increased, or that the ultimate collection of the tax liability will be facilitated by the subordination, a certificate may be issued.

    5.5.8.6 (06-23-2005)

    Gift Tax Lien Under IRC § 6324(b)

    1. The provisions of the gift tax lien are also delineated in IRC § 6324 and parallel those for the general estate tax lien.
    2. The special gift tax lien imposed by IRC § 6324(b) attaches to all gifts made during the calendar year for the amount of the gift tax imposed upon the gifts made during such year. If the gift tax is not paid by the donor when due, the donee of any gift becomes personally liable for the tax to the extent of the value of the gift. The gift tax lien extends for a period of ten years from the time the gifts were made or until or the tax is paid, whichever date is sooner.

    Exhibit 5.5.8-1

    Form 668-H, Notice of Federal Estate Tax Lien Under Internal Revenue Laws


  • Clallam Co SMP Contaminated Sites 1972-2017

    Clallam Co SMP 303(d) Contaminated Sites 1972-2017

    The SMP (ICR) is a misleading distraction and cover-up of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) evaluation for waterbodies on the 303(d) list,  thousands of migratory birds and other wild mammals  have been continuously contaminating Clallam County fresh water river reaches Public Marine Beaches,  in and  on the Straits of Juan De Fuca.

    DISCOVERY July 22, 2016  DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMAL POOP DON’T COUNT

    WATERS SHOWING APPARENT EXCEEDANCES OF 303(d) (TMDL) CRITERIA

    DUE TO DOCUMENTED NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS, (DNA DOCUMENTED AND  IDENTIFIED 75% OF THE CONTAMINATION, AS PREDOMINATELY BIRD POOP, INCLUDING 34 WILD MAMMAL SPECIES)

    AND WITH NO SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CONTRIBUTION, WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5.

    SOME IMPAIRED WATERS  (TRIBAL?) WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5 BECAUSE A TMDL IS NOT REQUIRED

     The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) ARE INTENDED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE KNOWN CONDITION OF THE STATE’S WATERS.

    —————————————————————————————

    DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT

    July 22, 2016  THE  EPA Approved WA STATE’S  DOE 303(d) NATURALLY CONTAMINATED POOP LOOP HOLE

    Current EPA-approved Washington State Water Quality Assessment …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › Water Quality › Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List

    Current EPA Approved Assessment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016. This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for the state of …

     This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired (CONTAMINATED) waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    ————————————————————————————-

    NO DUH…. BASED ON THE ABOVE…. NO WONDER WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) HAS REFUSED TO ANSWER MY SMP UPDATE QUESTIONS…..

    Indeed, The WA State Department of Ecology (DOE) has continuously and repeatedly refused to answer my 10 questions on the  2017 SMP Update, including the ICR identified contaminated waterbodies on the 303(d) list, on both fresh and saltwater reaches  in Clallam County.

     March 29, 2012  SMP Public Comment DOE is incapable or unwilling

    TO PROVIDE THE NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF THE CONTAMINATOR AND IMPAIRERS.

     WERE ANY OF THE UNSCIENTIFIC, UNKNOWN LOCATIONS AND UNIDENTIFIED CONTAMINATORS  DOCUMENTED NUMBER OF SEVERAL CONTAMINATED OR IMPAIRED SITES CAUSED BY? OR A RESULT OF?  CLALLAM COUNTY 1976-2012 SMP FAILURE TO PROTECT NNL OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION?

     HOW MANY OF THE UNIDENTIFIED SEVERAL CONTAMINATED SITES WERE EVEN A REQUIRED PART OF THE SMP UPDATE?

     —————————————————————————————

     2011-2017 I HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND  REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS ON THE CONTAMINATED SITES IN AND ON CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINES…

    Original Message —–  From: pearl hewett To: earnest spees

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

    Karl,

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

    FRESHWATER AND MARINE CONTAMINATED REACHES FOR WRIA 17-19  HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE 2017 SMP UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS  DOCUMENT.

    On the 18 Marine reaches they identified (3) Contaminated sites

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches they identified  (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several Contaminated sites on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)  (2) Contaminated sites on the R2 on the Hoko.

    ———————————————————————————-

    September 10, 2011 9:24 AM

    To: zSMP
    Cc: earnest spees;
    Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011

    1. Will we have input, considering that the impaired water quality on the lower Dungeness has been proven to be 75% bird poop and 25% people related?

    —————————————————————————————–

     DUNGENESS FRESH WATER AND MARINE fecal coliform (FC) bacteria 303(d)

    1996-2003 Documented public health issues in Clallam County.

    QAPP- Dungeness River/Matriotti Creek Fecal Coliform …

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0003080.pdf

    FOR DUNGENESS RIVER/MATRIOTTI CREEK FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA … • SIGNIFICANT BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION AND NUTRIENT … FECAL COLIFORM FECAL COLIFORM DUNGENESS RIVER

    In 1996 Matriotti Creek, a tributary to the DUNGENESS RIVER, was placed on Washington’s 303(d) list of impaired waters because of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria violations. THE 303(D) LIST (REQUIRED BY SECTION 303(D) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT) is a list of water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards.

    ————————————————————————————

    In 2000, Washington Department of Health closed some areas of Dungeness Bay to shellfish harvest, also due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The closure area was expanded in 2001, and again in 2003.

    ——————————————————————————

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY’S (DOE)  LOOP HOLES ON TMDL CLALLAM COUNTY CONTAMINATED MARINE AND FRESH WATER SITES (known as the 303(d) list)

    WATERS SHOWING APPARENT EXCEEDANCES OF 303(d) (TMDL) CRITERIA

    DUE TO DOCUMENTED NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS, DNA DOCUMENTED AND  IDENTIFIED 75% OF THE CONTAMINATION, AS PREDOMINATELY BIRD POOP, INCLUDING 34 WILD MAMMAL SPECIES.

     AND WITH NO SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CONTRIBUTION, WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5.

     SOME IMPAIRED WATERS  (TRIBAL?) WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5 BECAUSE A TMDL IS NOT REQUIRED

    The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) are intended to inform the public about the known condition of the State’s waters.

    ——————————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY INDEED… WHO KEW?

    July 22, 2016  THE  EPA Approved WA STATE’S  DOE LOOP HOLE

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016.

     This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired (CONTAMINATED) waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    —————————————————————————————

    Sequim WA is on the (TMDL) evaluation for waterbodies on the 303(d) list) in the Sequim Clallam County SMP Update

     

    ———————————————————————

    1972 Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List

    The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be “fishable and swimmable.” Washington’s Water Quality Assessment lists the water quality status for water bodies in the state. This assessment meets the federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.

    The assessed waters are grouped into categories that describe the status of water quality. The 303(d) list comprises those waters that are in the polluted water category, for which beneficial uses– such as drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollution.

    ————————————————————————–

    Genetic Markers for Rapid PCR-Based Identification of Gull …

    aem.asm.org/content/78/2/503.full

    Genetic Markers for Rapid PCR-Based Identification … from gull feces, all three occurred in fecal DNA from … for bird fecal contamination with …

    INTRODUCTION

    Contamination from gulls, Canada geese, ducks, and other birds negatively impacts water quality (5, 16, 24, 33a, 49, 56). Their feces are sources of fecal coliforms, enterococci, and Escherichia coli, and their presence is correlated with elevated fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and beach closures (2, 22, 23, 38). Pathogenic E. coli and Campylobacter, Salmonella, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium spp. occur in bird feces (11, 18, 19, 42) and can infect domestic poultry and humans (27, 41) and contaminate shellfish (1). Bird feces are also a source of antibiotic resistance genes (34, 39, 50). Recently, because of avian influenza, concerns have risen about pathogen movement due to bird migration (8, 10, 17, 28, 30).

    ————————————————————————————

    HISTORY DUNGENESS BAY????

     has been classified as “Approved” for commercial shellfish harvest by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH). The DOH Office of Shellfish Programs is charged with classifying commercial shellfish beds in Washington State. They conduct ambient water quality monitoring to ensure that all commercial shellfish areas meet National Shellfish Sanitation Requirements for water quality.

     In 1996 Matriotti Creek, a tributary to the Dungeness River, was placed on Washington’s 303(d) list of impaired waters because of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria violations. THE 303(D) LIST (REQUIRED BY SECTION 303(D) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT) is a list of water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards.

     ECOLOGY IS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT TO CONDUCT A TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) EVALUATION FOR WATERBODIES ON THE 303(D) LIST.

    ————————————————————————————

    SO….. from November 1999 through October 2000.

    TO PROTECT SHELLFISH HARVESTING USE IN DUNGENESS BAY

    TO HELP LOCATE SOURCES OF BACTERIAL POLLUTION

    Ecology, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and Clallam County staff sampled 35 to 40 stream sites from November 1999 through October 2000.

    Study results confirmed violations of water quality standards for fecal coliform in Matriotti Creek and Dungeness Bay, Meadowbrook and Cooper creeks, and Golden Sands Slough.

    The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) conducted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study for fecal coliform bacteria in Matriotti Creek, the lower Dungeness River, and tributaries to Dungeness Bay. Due to nonpoint pollution sources, fecal coliform levels were not meeting freshwater quality standards in Matriotti Creek and not meeting marine water quality standards in Dungeness Bay.

    ———————————————————–

    Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the Lower Dungeness …

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0210015.pdf

    Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the … County Clallam County DOH Washington State Department of Health … Section 303(d) of the federal …

    —————————————————————————————-

    Water Quality Improvement Project
    Dungeness Area:
    FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA

    Introduction

    The Dungeness River flows out of the Olympic Mountains into Dungeness Bay. Located at the north end of the Olympic Peninsula, the area’s natural beauty and quality of life have attracted many newcomers during the last decade. Much of that growth happened in the lower river valley, in the rural, unincorporated areas of Clallam County. (See Study Area Map)

    Water quality issues

    The population growth ( MY FOOT) is impacting water quality. Numerous on-site septic systems, some of which are failing or improperly maintained; a proliferation of hobby farms where management practices may be less that optimal; and accumulated waste from many pets (MY FOOT) are contributing to increasing fecal coliform bacteria levels in local water bodies. Johnson, Bell, Cassalery, Matriotti, and Bagley Creeks have been placed on the state’s Water Quality Assessment (303[d]) List of impaired waters due to unacceptable levels of fecal coliform. In 2000, Washington Department of Health closed some areas of Dungeness Bay to shellfish harvest, also due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The closure area was expanded in 2001, and again in 2003.

    Status of the project

    In June 2002 Ecology submitted a water quality improvement report, also known as a total maximum daily load (TMDL), to EPA for approval. The TMDL included the results and recommendations of a technical study done on the water in the watershed, and an implementation strategy that briefly outlined how the recommendations would be addressed. EPA approved the TMDL in July 2002.

    There is a strong local commitment to recovering and protecting water quality in the Dungeness watershed, and a variety of activities are ongoing or planned to deal with the water quality issues.

    ————————————————————————————–

    REDUNDANT… ADDED FOR EMPHASIS

    July 22, 2016. Current EPA Approved Assessment

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016.

    This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    ————————————————————

    Only one category, Category 5, represents the 303(d)-listed waters.

    The criteria for the 303(d) list were developed to identify only those waters for which there is valid documentation of impairment. These waters require the preparation of water quality improvement projects, also known as TMDLs, in accordance with the CWA.

    Waters showing apparent exceedances of criteria due to documented natural background conditions, and with no significant human contribution,

    will not be listed in Category 5 but will be placed in Category 1.

    Some impaired waters will not be listed in Category 5 because a TMDL is not required (see Category 4). As part of the listing process, waters placed in Category 5 will be prioritized and scheduled for TMDL studies in accordance with the watershed schedule out lined in Section 9. The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) are intended to inform other water quality efforts in the State,

    AND TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE KNOWN CONDITION OF THE STATE’S WATERS.

    ————————————————————————————–

    INDEED, WE MUST SHARE THIS WITH THE 300,000 TOURISTS THAT COME TO PLAY ON OUR PRISTEEN SHORELINE BEACHES…

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT  HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION, ON THE SHORELAND BEACHES IN WA STATE, DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMEL POOP DON’T COUNT

     AND LOTS OF PEOPLE  LOVE ORGANIC STUFF…   

    ————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | For the Protection of Whose Life?

    For the Protection of Whose Life?

    Posted on January 30, 2013 2:11 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    FOR THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE AND RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC USE
    TO PROTECT THE EPA CLEAN WATER ACT,  DOE SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,  TO RESTORE PRISTINE CONDITIONS ON OUR BEACHES, PROVIDE NNL OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION BY HUMAN CONTAMINATION, and restrict the public use of public land,
    Our Federally appointed, WDFW, elected WA State officials Van De Wege, TharInger, etc. and Audubon Society member Ken Wiersema have decreed the following.

    DUNGENESS SPIT “The jogging is something that is very disturbing to wildlife when it’s done along the sand spit when birds are feeding and nesting and potentially breeding in those areas,” Audubon Society member Ken Wiersema “Thousands of birds use this DUNGENESS SPIT as a migratory stop.”

    DUNGENESS RIVER “Thousands of birds use 700 acres of wetland habitat on the second reach of the Dungeness River as a migratory stop.” and have created a foul/fowl contaminated mess at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    DNA identified 75% of the contamination, as predominately bird poop, including 34 wild mammal species.

    THREE CRABS SITE
    North Olympic Wildlife Area Addition: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) completed the purchase of 51.57 acres as part of the Dungeness Basin project to conserve and restore coastal wetlands properties. The property is located in Clallam County, approximately five miles north of Sequim fronting on Dungeness Bay. The property consists of 49.42 acres of tidelands and 2.15 acres of uplands containing the historic 3-Crabs restaurant. This purchase was funded by grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The property will be managed within the Wildlife Program as part of the Lower Dungeness North Olympic Wildlife Area.

    PUBLIC $$$$ TO BUY PUBLIC LAND, TO PROVIDE MORE WHAT?

    More bird habitat, more bird poop, more wildlife fowl/foul contamination

    spreading from Dungeness Spit to Three Crabs area to connect  to the mouth of the Dungeness River wildlife fowl/foul contamination.

    INDEED, this is “VERY DISTURBING” to the taxpayers.

    This entry was posted in EPA Clean Water Act, Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Shoreline Management Plan, West Nile Virus, Wetlands.

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT  HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION, ON THE SHORELAND BEACHES et al. IN WA STATE, DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMAL POOP DON’T COUNT.


  • Cl. Co. SMP No Thanks to the SMP Committee

    2017 Clallam County SMP Update With  No Thanks to the SMP Committee

    Dec 12, 2017 BOCC Clallam Co. SMP Update Public Forum

    Steve Gray spoke for 40 minutes – With No Thanks to The SMP Committee

    Email Dec 12, 2017 10:48 AM  from the BOCC Forum (after Steve spoke)

    YOU’RE COMMITTEE WAS JUST A SOUNDING BOARD FOR THE DCD AND CONSULTANT

    MY COMMITTEE WHAT COMMITTEE?

    OH YES, NOW I REMEMBER THE SO CALLED SMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHAT  I KNOW AND  CAN DOCUMENT ABOUT THE SO CALLED SMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    With 29 members INCLUDE SOME (5) VESTED PRIVATE CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS, but most (24) members of the committee represent environmental and other advocacy groups or are PAID staff of Clallam County, the Department of Ecology (DOE), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and Puget Sound Partnership. The Tribes, The Serra club, and NGO special interest groups.

    SOME (5) VESTED PRIVATE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, CITIZENS WERE DEDICATED,  UNPAID, CIVIC MINDED VOLUNTEERS

    In 2011 As An Unpaid Volunteer I was sucked in to be part of a civic minded event called  the Citizens SMP Advisory Committee.

    Four Months later, In 2011 I was insulted  and absolutely furious when the committee was demoted to JUST  an important work group (by Steve Gray)

    Nov 18, 2014 THE 2012 SMP DRAFT PREPARED BY THE SO CALLED  CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAD BEEN COMPLETELY REWRITTEN, REVISED, ALTERED, EDITED, EXPANDED, REWORDED, AND RE-DRAFTED AND RENAMED

    By, Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager the  Clallam County Shoreline Management Update, by his own admission to me. with no help from ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, and renamed THE NEW November 2014 draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update

     Dec. 12, 2017  adding insult to injury, The SMP Committee was called just a sounding board and as one of the unpaid volunteers, that attended every meeting, and many SMP public forums, And made many public comment,  I was publicly humiliated by being called JUST  PART OF A SOUNDING BOARD at the BOCC Clallam County 2017 SMP Update Public Forum.

    EXCLUDING THE PAID MEMBERS OF THE SMP COMMITTEE,   HOW MUCH DID THE 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE BENEFIT FROM FIVE (5) DEDICATED CIVIC MINDED, UNPAID VOLUNTEERS?

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    The SMP Advisory Committee was under the direction of,  E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants, Margaret Clancy  and Jim Kramer. How could anyone forget to mention the Facilitators?

    The first Meeting of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee was

    Monday, April 11, 2011:

    The Official NOTE taker was Hannah Merrill DCD Natural Resources Planner
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development. Comments from the committee were not recorded, not published and were arbitrarily edited for content.

    Dec 12, 2017 Clallam Co. SMP Update Public Forum No Thanks to the SMP Committee

    EXCLUDING THE PAID MEMBERS OF THE SMP COMMITTEE,   HOW MUCH DID THE 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE BENEFIT FROM THE TIME AND WORK OF FIVE (5) UNPAID COMMITTED VOLUNTEERS.

    CLICK ON THE LINKS, READ THE 727 PUBLIC COMMENTS (ORAL COMMENT?)

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Monday, April 11, 2011:

    The last meeting of the so called Advisory Committed was July 10, 2012

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 10, 2012:

    ———————————————————————

    2013 SMP Committee Meetings:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 9, 2013:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 materials pending:

    ______________________________________________________________

    2012 SMP Committee Meetings:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, December 11, 2012:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 10, 2012:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, April 24, 2012:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 27, 2012:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, March 6, 2012:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, February 28, 2012:

     2011 SMP Committee Meetings:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, November 15, 2011:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, October 18, 2011:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, September 27, 2011:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Tuesday, July 11, 2011:

    SMP Committee Meeting Materials for Monday, April 11, 2011:

    Reference Documents:

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/11/18/smp-cumulative-impact-on-people/

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection comment code CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report directed to Deputy Director Steve Gray and Planning Commission on the Nov.

    —————————————————————————————-

    I have been researching documenting and commenting on the Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update since Jan.26, 2011.

    I  have 156 SMP Public Comments posted on the SMP website on the CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE SMP UPDATE ON THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE WEBSITE?

    The vast majority of my “CUMULATIVE IMPACT” SMP Public Comments on “We The People” have been posted  and coded as “GENERAL COMMENTS?”.

    How could a thing like that happen?

    ————————————————————-

    The  Nov. 2014 Clallam County SMP Updated Draft?

    By his own admission to me, with no help from ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager has completely rewritten, revised, altered, edited, expanded, reworded, and RE-DRAFTED the the Clallam County Shoreline Management Update.

    Steve Gray has presented two meetings of his Updated SMP RE-DRAFTED SMP  to The Clallam County Planning Commission, ESA facilitator, Margaret Clancy, is assisting him.

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten RE-DRAFTED SMP Update presentations of maps and language. Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon,

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    The  SMP GOBBLEDYGOOK being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person. (why Lake Sutherland has a 35 foot setback)

    THE OVERLAPPING MAPS? UNUSUALLY  hard to understand THE SHALL AND MUST PROTECT  of , 200 foot setback, the critical areas set- backs, plus the exceptional feeder bluffs, plus the flood plain, plus the rivers meander line, PLUS THE ASSOCIATED WETLANDS, plus the protected wetland habitat,  and the mention of SEASONAL STREAMS…

    UNUSUALLY, HARD TO UNDERSTAND HARD TO SWALLOW.

    ———————————————-

    Obama Administration Is Writing Huge “Rule Change” to Take Private Land

    —————————————————————————————–

    The new rules and wording added to our Nov. 2014   Shoreline Management Update by Steve Gray indicate that it is a done deal… plus the associated wetlands, plus seasonal streams.

    ————————————————————————

    The changed suggested by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency is being protested by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a group which has challenged water-related regulation before the Supreme Court — and won.

    “On its face, the proposed rule covers virtually every water in the nation,” PLF told the government in public comments, according to WND.

    ———————————————————————————-

    The understanding of a reasonable man? The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.

    —————————————————————————————

    Why call it GOBBLEDYGOOK? in an SMP Update in ESA and ECOLOGY language characterized by circumlocution and the use of more words than necessary to express something, especially to avoid saying it directly.

     And saying the word water, and more water, Indicates water, the movement of water, standing still water, the high water mark, failed to mention the difference between an SMP shoreline and the SMP shorelines of Statewide significance, past the  taking of  private property value, somebody, vested private property owners… 

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  mitigation process, so a vested Clallam County private property owner can use and develop his own private property.

    Using  the ESA consultants and ECOLOGY’S SUSTAINABILITY NO NET LOSS jargon

    Sometimes including a brief stop to mention the  Advisory Committee

    And THIS IS  really, really hard to swallow after spending over two years as a vested private shoreline property owner on the …….

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Advisory Committee

     MEMBER FROM  first meeting April 11, 2011 to last July 10, 2012

    But? Then?  WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    With 29 members include some (5) vested private Clallam County citizens, but most (24) members of the committee represent environmental and other advocacy groups or are paid staff of the Department of Ecology (DOE), Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and Puget Sound Partnership. The Tribes, The Serra club, and NGO special interest groups.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    The SMP Advisory Committee was under the direction of,  E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants, Margaret Clancy  and Jim Kramer. How could anyone forget to mention the Facilitators?

     ———————————————————–

    E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants had already COOKIE CUT  24 SMP UPDATES ACROSS WA STATE by the time they got down to their $599,930 grant from Ecology’s business on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————

    COOKIE CUTTING   24 WA STATE SMP UPDATES?

    ONE PREDETERMINED SMP  PATTERN DOES NOT FIT ALL SHORELINES

    SMP E.S.A. Adfolson Consultants Public Participation Meeting Jan. 26, 2011

    The OXYMORON Public Participation Meeting by invitation only?

    —————————————————————————

    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE  FOR YOUR TIME, DEDICATION and ATTENTION TO DETAIL,COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTS, EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS,EXTENSIVE INPUT, and HARD WORK!

    THE NEW November 2014 draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE has been hastily completely rewritten, revised, modified, altered, expanded, reworded,  SMP Update

     Nov.18,2014

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    I strenuously object to the hastily rewritten SMP Update presentation of maps and language. The  SMP gobbledygook being presented, using more words than necessary, especially to avoid expressing it directly,  to an ill-prepared Planning Commission, goes far beyond the understanding of a reasonable person.

    BUT THEN? WHAT DO I KNOW ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE?

    November 2014 … THE NEW draft Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update :

    Prepared by The CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE?

    With Assistance?  by the CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION.

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East Fourth Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015
    Phone: (360)417-2520; Fax: (360)417-2443
    sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    BACK TO THE TOP

    Dec 12, 2017 BOCC Clallam Co. SMP Update Public Forum

    Steve Gray spoke for 40 minutes – With No Thanks to The SMP Committee 


  • 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry

    INDEED, DISCOVERY, PUBLIC RECORDS, REDISCOVERY, DOCUMENTING AND EXPOSING

    Dec 5, 2009 to Nov 15, 2017 Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry on the 2012-2014- 2017 DCD SMP Update Drafts in Clallam County WA.

    2011- 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s AND ESA ADOLFSON’s Abuse of Citizenry and the project manager.

    ——————————————————————————-

    State Senators Hold Hearing Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry …

    dev.myfreedomfoundation.com/…/state-senators-hold-hearing-exposing-doe’s-abuse-…

    SMP Messaging guide for bureaucrats and pro-SMP 2012 … Unfortunately, when it comes to the SMP updates, it is clear the Department of … Quinn lying down.

    Snippet…

    2014 Another sample DOE email shared by various DOE employees – citizens are at “homer simpson” level of intelligence: DOE employee Zink says citizens are like homer simpson level

    ————————————————————

    My quote,

    2017- Hello Country Bumpkins…

    ————————————————————

    ev.myfreedomfoundation.com/blogs/liberty-live/state-senators-hold-hearing-exposing-doe’s-abuse-citizenry-and-local-government

    Instead of these decisions being made by local elected officials, the Department of Ecology uses its position of authority to bully local jurisdictions and dominate the process — despite what Gordon White, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager for DOE (current salary $102,767) stated at the hearing (see 14:38).

    In my testimony (at 1:03:00), I highlighted examples (obtained through public records requests) of Ecology’s negative attitude towards citizens and the dismissive attitude they have towards those who disagree with them.  Here they are, as promised:

    1)  DOE Water Quality Program Manager Bill Moore (current salary $92,592referring to property owners who participated in the public process at a public hearing in Asotin County in 2011 with contempt, specifically calling them  “rable” (the misspelling is his). Citizens are rable according to DOE Bill Moore

    ————————————————————————

    2011- 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s AND ESA ADOLFSON’s Abuse of Citizenry

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

    My comment on a social media  post Posted on March 30, 2014 by Al B.

    AFTER EIGHT YEARS TOGETHER ON THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SMP UPDATE, ESA MARGARET CLANCY AND DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL ARE TOGETHER AGAIN, ANOTHER EXTREMELY HARD JOB, SHEPHERDING THE CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING DEPT THRU THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT.

    I’M A CONCERNED CITIZEN… JUST ASKING

    DOE ABUSE? COLLUSION?  OR JUST BEING GOOD SHEPHERDS?

    —————————————————————————

    IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO RAKE IN THE DOUGH

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

    2011 THE TIP OF THE ESA ADOLFSON COOKIE CUTTING IN WA STATE SMP UPDATES. YOU WILL FIND THEM  ASSOCIATED WITH  24 COOKIE CUTTING SMP UPDATES IN WA STATE.  

    INCLUDING  PIERCE COUNTY,

    CITY OF TACOMA, CLALLAM COUNTY, CITY OF SAMMISH, KENMORE, ISSAQUAH, WOODWAY, MASON COUNTY, ISLAND COUNTY,CITY OF SHORELINE, WHATCOM COUNTY, VANCOUVER, TUKWILLA, DUVALL, CLARK COUNTY, LACEY, GIG HARBOR, MULKITO, RENTON, JEFFERSON COUNTY, CITY OF RIDGEFIELD, EATONVILLE, PUYALLUP, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PLACE AND THE CITY OF LOWELL IN OREGON. 

    What the ELECTED WA State Senators did in Pierce County about the Pierce County  SMP Update, should be happening on the DCD 2017 Clallam County SMP Update Draft.

    Well, except for the fact that Clallam County only has three elected representatives and they are all UNRESPONSIVE DEMOCRATS.

    —————————————————————————–

     REDISCOVERING, DOCUMENTING, EXPOSING AND DISSEMINATING

    Full unedited text

    State Senators Hold Hearing Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry …

    dev.myfreedomfoundation.com/…/state-senators-hold-hearing-exposing-doe’s-abuse-…

    SMP Messaging guide for bureaucrats and pro-SMP 2012 … Unfortunately, when it comes to the SMP updates, it is clear the Department of … Quinn lying down.

    April 21, 2014

    Glen Morgan
    Adjunct Fellow

    Last Thursday, members of the Washington State Senate convened in Sumner to discuss the damaging effects of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) on property rights.  We referenced this hearing here. Of particular interest in this discussion was the role the Department of Ecology plays in the SMP update process.

    Legislators in attendance were Sen. Pam Roach (R-31st), Sen. Bruce Dammeir (R-25th), Sen. Jan Angel (R-26th), Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-42nd), Sen. Bob Hasegawa (D-11th), and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-2nd).

    Pierce County Councilmembers Dan Roach, Jim McCune and Joyce McDonald also came to ask questions and listen to public comment.

    Fortunately, for all those unable to attend, you can see the complete TVW coverage of this hearing here, and I would strongly recommend anyone who cares about property rights, or who wants to see citizens point out the many problems with the Department of Ecology, to watch and share this video.

    Approximately 150 residents attended the hearing.  Many of them also testified.

    The meeting was initiated due to the concerns raised by many residents of Pierce County about the Department of Ecology imposing significant changes to the current Pierce County Shoreline Master Plan that are not supported by the public.

    The required seven-year update is taking place right now in Pierce County, and the façade of the SMP update being a “locally driven process” is quickly fading away. Nobody really believes there is much local control over the process. The public had a big laugh at the Department of Ecology during the hearing when its representatives made this claim.

    Instead of these decisions being made by local elected officials, the Department of Ecology uses its position of authority to bully local jurisdictions and dominate the process — despite what Gordon White, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager for DOE (current salary $102,767) stated at the hearing (see 14:38).

    In my testimony (at 1:03:00), I highlighted examples (obtained through public records requests) of Ecology’s negative attitude towards citizens and the dismissive attitude they have towards those who disagree with them.  Here they are, as promised:

    1)  DOE Water Quality Program Manager Bill Moore (current salary $92,592)  referring to property owners who participated in the public process at a public hearing in Asotin County in 2011 with contempt, specifically calling them  “rable” (the misspelling is his). Citizens are rable according to DOE Bill Moore

    2)  DOE Supervisor Erik Stockdale (current salary $69,588) refusing to recognize scientific studies that disprove long-held Ecology dogma and suggesting other Ecology employees hide e-mail records from the public by deleting them. See this classic Youtube video from the San Juans.  It is unknown how successful Stockdale and other DOE employees have been at violating state law by deleting other public records. DOE Erik Stockdale lets delete these public records

    3) Creating “messaging-guides” that recommend government officials avoid talking about the impacts the SMP has on property values, property rights and personal freedom. Instead, the guide says, they should appeal to fear. The guide goes on to recommend local government officials create a “compelling SMP story,” which includes “villains” (we can safely assume this means shoreline property owners).  “Opponents” are defined as people who support “freedom and prosperity” (page 4) and the Freedom Foundation as an example of an opponent (page 5).  Our tax dollars funded this.  SMP Messaging guide for bureaucrats and pro-SMP 2012

    4)  Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant (salary was $138,523 before he went to work in Gov. Jay Inslee’s administration as executive director of the Legislative and Policy Office) referring to arguments against proposed Ecology rules as “right-wing propaganda b******t,” and calling Republican politicians who disagree with his agency’s position: “f******s.”  DOE director Sturdevant calls Republicans fkrs DOE director Sturdevant calls WPC rwbullsht DOE director Sturdevant oddly attacks tea party

    Of the various attendees from all over Washington state who attended and testified at this hearing, nobody wants to see the health of the shorelines be degraded. However, there was clearly no confidence that DOE is an honest player in this process.

    This was certainly the case for residents of Lake Tapps, where Ecology is trying to force Pierce County to apply a 50-foot buffer around the shoreline of this manmade lake.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to the SMP updates, it is clear the Department of Ecology is not an honest participant in the process. Unfortunately, the evidence shows the Department of Ecology doesn’t regulate the environment, but it clearly does attempt to regulate people, dissenters and the message.

    We are thankful that some of our elected officials are starting to look into this situation, and last Thursday’s hearing was a great start towards exposing the truth about the abuse by state government agencies.

    “Rabble”

    Another sample DOE email shared by various DOE employees – citizens are at “homer simpson” level of intelligence: DOE employee Zink says citizens are like homer simpson level

    Still a little confused about how the Dept. of Ecology is organized at the top level?  That’s okay, most of these state agencies are set up to be a little confusing.  Here is a brief upper management org chart.  A more detailed and complete org chart can be obtained directly from the DOE via an information request.  The 1500+ emloyee positions are pretty well connected on that chart, but it will take you some time to sort it out.

    Update:  Here is a podcast from Seattle’s KTTH David Boze’s show.

    Liberty Live SEIU Up To Its Old ‘Tricks,’ Trying To Suppress The Truth Predictably, SEIU 775 isn’t taking the Freedom Foundation’s efforts to expose its reluctance to comply with Harris v. Quinn lying down.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    What will happen who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending them around in cyberspace.

    THE BOTTOM LINE  ON THE 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE ……

    MUST NOT BE…..

    P.S.  I EXPECT TO HAVE SOME MORON TRY TO MAKE US MOVE OUR HOUSE BACK ANOTHER 500 FEET FROM THE BEACH.


  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

    Answer:  “Color Books have been in the news  a lot since Nov 8, 2016”

     Hello Clallam County Country Bumpkins et al. Who knew what on Jan 26, 2011?

    And, what have we discovered …. Nov 10, 2017?

    The Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft is a 273 page color book, It  cost American taxpayers $1,329,915.00 dollars. A US Environmental  Protection  Assistance Grant  to Clallam County WA  for Project No  PO-00J08801-1-2- 3.

    Total Project cost, one million three hundred twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars.

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

    I’m requesting an answer from  Jim Jones, Jr.  the Clallam County Administrator..

    ——————————————————–

    NOV 3, 2017 TO NOV 8, 2017 all links are below.

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    What started as a $599,000.00 pass through grant from the EPA to Clallam County  for ESA Adolfson  facilitators/ consultants/ compliance experts, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, we were told,  to regulate 3300 vested  private shoreline turned into $1,329,915.00 dollar project.

    DISCOVERY  Jan 26, 2011 to Nov 10, 2017 continued….

    WHO KNEW, A PERSON THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEE, IN OR AT, OR QUESTIONED AT ANY PUBLIC 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DISCUSSIONS, IS CLALLAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE CATHY LEAR THE PROJECT MANAGER.

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

    Doubtless, everyone with an advanced degree in forestry would understand these references.

    This way of writing is distracting, however, for those who do not customarily speak in these terms. I think it should be made more “speaks for itself to anyone” wherever possible. A shoreline inventory should be a tool useful to anyone interested, but especially to land use planners and citizens with property they want to develop.

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

    NOV 9, 2017   MORE DISCOVERY  on the 2017 DCD SMP Draft Update 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK . People send me stuff, people tell me stuff, I have a researched and documented history of the Clallam County SMP Update stuff.

    NOV 9, 2017  A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ——————————————————–

    I am very familiar with the color purple on maps used for the SMP Update. I did attended the 2012 SMP Update Forks Public Forum.

    WHO KNEW ABOUT THE “NEW”  EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS COLOR BOOK?  NOT ONLY DID THEY COLOR  OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY PURPLE,

    WHO KNEW?  AND, WHO KNOWS THAT THEY DREW “NEW” EVIL  BLACK LINES ON OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY?

    NOV 9, 2017 3:30PM I COULD DOCUMENT ON MAP #41 IN THE COLOR BOOK,  THE “NEW” EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS, THE BLACK LINES “TOOK”  20 ACRES OF A GEORGE C. RAINS SR TRUST PROPERTY FROM  A 40 ACRE PARCEL ON THE SOL DUC RIVER.

    I WAS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY COURT HOUSE.

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    We spoke for about an hour…

    RE: THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE AND THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR.

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “We have to leave this to the professionals”…..

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

    After a seven years fight.. The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, finally gave up..

    “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS”…..

    THE PAID PROFESSIONALS? THAT WROTE THE DCD 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT AND PROVIDED THE NEW 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK…….

    DCD DIRECTOR MARY ELLEN WINBORN AND SR. PLANNER STEVE GRAY, IN COLLABORATION WITH ECOLOGY’S LOCAL COORDINATOR DOE MICHELLE MCCONNEL AND ESA ADOLFSON OVERPAID FACILITATOR MARGARET CLANCY (THAT INCLUDING JIM KRAMER)

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT 273 PAGE $1,329,915.00 DOLLAR COLOR BOOK. As the concerned trustee for over 800 acres of designated forest land, seriously affected by the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft…. I requested a paper copy of their color book .

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

    Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:35 AM

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    ——————————————————————————–

    WE THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY CAN LEAVE THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT UPDATE UP TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS AND ECOLOGY OR WE CAN CHALLENGE IT….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:18 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004353-102417
    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:21 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

    Attachments:
    PO-00J08801-1_Add_$499957__Signed_10-5-10.pdf
    PO-00J08801-2_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-14__Signed_10-16-12.pdf
    PO-00J08801-3_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-16__Signed_12-15-14_.pdf
    PO-00J08801-0_$1329915_Exp__12-31-12__Signed_8-3-10.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

    IT APPEARS ABOVE, THAT THE PO-JOO8801  #3  REBUDGET  WAS ONLY EXTENDED TO DEC 31, 2016?

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

    I met with Commissioner Bill Peach for an hour on Oct 20, 2017

    I met with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nicholas for one hour (follow the law)

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

    I met  with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn Nov 9, 2017

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending around in cyberspace.

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    ———————————————————————
    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012
    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/247_SMP041812.pdf

    Merrill, Hannah From: pearl hewett … Subject: SMP GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILEhave any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft …

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

    The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site. (the number was staggering)

    PER CATHY LEAR, they are waiting to compile the historic statistics to show the number of how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings were non-conforming on the old SMP marine setbacks. (hindsight is 20/20)

    How have the DOE restrictions, regulations and definitions on/of non-conforming property changed since 1976?

    I wrote the following as a tongue in cheek comment on the 2012 SMP Update.

    After seeing the statistics on non-conforming private marine property at the last SMP meeting, it is not funny, it is frightening.

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

    FOR SALE VIEW   LOT ON THE BEAUTIFUL STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA

    100FEET X400FEET

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

    The buyer is left with 25% of his private property purchase, a 100X100 foot piece of private property (with a 75% loss of his usable private land where the buyer is free to put his 1700 sq foot home, his drain field, his parking and his deck and his garden.

    The buyer will be allowed a 20 foot view corridor (20’X300′) through the 300 feet of restricted use area of his private property. (leaving 80% of his view blocked)

    The buyer will be allowed to limb up and remove 30% of the vegetation blocking his view every 10 years on the 100 X 300 foot restricted use area of his private property.

    The buyer will be allowed a 6 foot wide foot path through the 300 foot restricted use area (in the view corridor) of his private property and home to the beach. (a full city block from beach)

    Using a variance and a geological study you may be able to reduce the setbacks and buffer zones.

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.


  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – EIGHT YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County 2017 SMP Update Public Comment Nov 2, 2017  Pearl Rains Hewett, previous member of the 2011 so called Clallam County Advisory Committee, still a Concerned Citizen of Clallam County WA

    And  to think Clallam County has been working on the SMP Update for eight years 2009-2017.

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology has still not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov  2, 2017 it is listed as Underway.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Indeed,  Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Nov 2, 2017,  Update on Bellevue WA SMP Update four years later

    State Review and Approval

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology still has not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov 1, 2017, it is listed as Underway.

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

    Who is Bellevue’s Joe Burcar? I’ll call him later today.

    WHAT IS CLALLAM COUNTY’S STATUS  ON THE DOE SMP UPDATE ON NOV 2, 2017?

    Click on the link below to find out.

    Status of Local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) | Washington State …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › … › Shoreline Management home › SMP home

    Most local programs have not been fully updated in over 30 years. Local governments … All counties must update their Shoreline Master Programs. Some towns …

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE (ELECTED) COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    BELLEVUE COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN WALLACE EXPRESSED HIS IRRITATION that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said.

    “SO, I JUST WANT TO LODGE MY PERSONAL FRUSTRATION. I’M JUST STUNNED THAT EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DO THIS AND IN 2014 THE STATE OF THE LAW ON THIS IS SO UNCLEAR. … WHAT WE’RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT IS SOMEONE’S OPINION,” HE SAID.

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    NOV 1, 2017, BELLEVUE’S SMP UPDATED IT IS LISTED AS UNDERWAY. PENDING DOE APPROVAL.

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/08/19/smp-update-six-years-of-frustration

    SMP UPDATE SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment August 18, 2014 Pearl Rains Hewett Member of the Clallam County SMP …

    Posted on August 19, 2014 9:39 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    FROM MAR 12, 2008 TO AUG. 2014 – SIX YEARS

    This is a applicable, cautionary, documented historical  summary and it is,  my PUBLIC Clallam County SMP COMMENT on the pitfalls and frustration that ONE WA State  city council  and PLANNING COMMISSION has been experiencing for OVER 6 YEARS in attempting to update their DOE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Jul 16, 2014 BELLEVUE Shoreline plan set for August 2014  public hearing

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history (Mar 12, 2008)

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    WHO IS ATTORNEY RICHARD SETTLE ? (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC  HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

    During the July 14, 2014  Study Session, staff presented additional information requested by the Council during the course of its in-depth review. This additional information was Council to identify variations to the  Planning Commission Recommendation that they wished to be considered during the second Public Hearing, and prior to development of the Final SMP Update package for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Variations requested by the Council for consideration by the public are described below.

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would require public access (either physical or visual) to be provided as a component of new or expanded private recreation uses (such as yacht clubs, marinas and community clubs). This variation would build on the Planning Commission recommended requirement to provide public access to public uses (including parks, and transportation and utility infrastructure). A description of the Public Access variation under consideration by the City Council is included in

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would permit all beach parks to be developed through an administrative permit approval process when a Master Plan had been previously adopted by the City Council.

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

    permitted in the same manner as other parks with Master Plans. A

    description of the Park Development variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission recommendation would allow for the measurement of setbacks from a fixed elevation as a default, with the ability for applicants to obtain a site-specific determination if desired.

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback recommendation would include a 50-foot  structure setback with the flexibility to reduce the setback and move toward the water through a series of menu options(or incentives). Existing structures on the site receive the benefit of a footprint exception to legally retain setbacks established by existing residential structures. A string test, allowing for setbacks to be reduced based on the location of structures on abutting properties, would also be included. Mitigation for potential loss of vegetation and vegetation retention would also be required. A description of the Setback and Vegetation Conservation variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in Attachment D.

    5.Residential Moorage.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission residential moorage recommendation would increase the allowed moorage walkway width from four feet to five feet in the first 30 feet waterward of OHWM. Variations to the balance of the Planning Commission recommendation on this topic were not considered.

     City Council

    The City Council has held study sessions to consider the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program. Refer to the links below for council agenda materials and minutes on the topic.

    Planning Commission

    Residents and other stakeholders had multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the shoreline management update through Bellevue’s Planning Commission, residents who served as an advisory panel for the City Council.  The Planning Commission reviewed work products, provided input and guidance related to the development of goals, policies and regulations, and served as a preliminary approval board. Agendas for Planning Commission meetings in which the shoreline management update was addressed are available below.

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

    Responses to questions & requests collected between May & December of 2009

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act. by 2010.

    As a consequence, Bellevue has to update its shoreline regulations by 2010.

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since March 12, 2008

    Aug 23, 2008  Boat tour to focus on shoreline issues The boat will sail promptly from Newport Shores Yacht Club (81 Skagit Key) at 1 p.m. on

    Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008,  with boarding beginning at 12:30. Members of the Bellevue City Council, city boards and commissions and staff from permitting agencies and local Indian tribes are also expected to attend.

    The three-hour tour is open to the public, but space is limited. (To inquire about the tour or to RSVP, please call 425-452-4392 or e-mail sltaylor@bellevuewa.gov.)

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

    Jul 20, 2013  The Bellevue City Council agreed on a two-prong strategy for updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and, ultimately, forwarding the plan to the state Department of Ecology for final review and approval.

    The shoreline plan is required by state law and provides a regulatory framework for managing shorelines in Washington. Local plans must be consistent with Ecology guidelines.

    THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    In May, the commission recommended that the council consider several components of the plan update that had been completed and posted online for review.

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    On Monday, the council directed city staff to work with Ecology on the content of the commission’s recommendations and possibly narrow the range of issues that need to be resolved. COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN WORK TO FINALIZE THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE SHORELINE PLAN UPDATE PRIOR TO FORMALLY SUBMITTING IT TO ECOLOGY. The council plans to review and discuss the plan update during a study session later this year.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

    WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    The City Council was updated Monday on the cumulative impact analysis and HOW BELLEVUE’S PLAN WILL ATTEMPT TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT THAT NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS occur during future development and redevelopment along the city’s jurisdictional shorelines. THIS CAME AHEAD OF A MAY 5 PUBLIC HEARING for the city’s shoreline master plan, which will eventually go to the Washington Department of Ecology for final approval.

    Sarah Sandstrom, fisheries biologist for the Watershed Company, told council members “NO NET LOSS” goes further than just ecological functions of a shoreline, and includes also preserving shoreline views for residents and assessing the amount of reasonable development that could occur in the next 20 years along Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.

    With a majority of Bellevue’s shorelines already developed, Sandstrom said residential redevelopment will likely be the most common occurrence and some new single-family development.

    The plan involves taking a qualitative look at the issue of NET LOSS, she said, as it’s hard to quantify restoration when a dock, for example, requires a certain amount of native vegetation to offset its impact as part of an “ECOLOGICAL TRADEOFF.”

    “Shoreline residential development falls under an exemption,” said Sandstrom of the no net loss requirement. “So, individual demonstration of no net loss is not required for shoreline residential development or for most permits that are issued as shoreline substantial development permits.”

    That does not mean the city will not need to ensure there is no net loss of ecological function, she told council, but that it will not need to be proven independently by the permit applicant. The project would be checked against current regulations that should result in no net loss.

    Bulkheads — vertical concrete barriers along shorelines — will not be allowed to be replaced under the shoreline plan, which instead favors a rocky slope. Bulkheads, said Sandstrom, negatively affects wave reflection. Bulkheads would need to be determined the only feasible option to be used.

    Sandstrom said another concern is that the plan proposes residential setbacks of 25 feet, which is less than the existing median setback of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.

    “The potential for houses moving closer to the shoreline has potential impacts in terms of water quality, moving pollutant generating surfaces closer to the shoreline,” she said.

    Should redevelopment of properties occur using a 25-foot setback, Sandstrom said there is also the potential of obstructing the views from other properties than are 50 feet from the shoreline.

    One option proposed to prevent this is a common line or streamline setback, which would require a new or redeveloped property to use the average setback of the two properties adjacent to it.

    Whether all of the effort being put into the plan will satisfy how the DOE defines “NO NET LOSS” may only be known once the shoreline master plan is submitted. According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    “It’s definitely not pre-European discovery,” he said.

    Councilmember Kevin Wallace expressed his irritation that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said. “So, I just want to lodge my personal frustration. I’m just stunned that every jurisdiction in the state has to go through this and do this and in 2014 the state of the law on this is so unclear. … What we’re basically looking at is someone’s opinion,” he said.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

    Jul 16, 2014 at 3:10PM Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci made it clear to City Council on Monday they had precious little time left to approve options for a draft shoreline management plan AHEAD OF AN AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING.

    COUNCIL MEMBERS PASSED IT BACK TO STAFF, CONFIDENT PUBLIC OPINION WILL CHANGE IT AGAIN.

    Public access

    The council passed forward direction to have the SMP expand public access to commercial shoreline properties that expand more than 20 percent, such as marinas and yacht clubs.

    LAND USE DIRECTOR CAROL HELLAND TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS — CAUTIOUS OF VIOLATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS — access can be limited if security risks are present, and may also only apply to visual access in some cases.

    Siding with yacht clubs and marinas, Councilmember Jennifer Robertson pointed out they do offer public access — as long as people pay for it.

    Park development options

    Council members have heard public comment asking them to side with the city’s planning commission’s recommendation that Meydenbauer Beach Park — slated to be Bellevue’s most expensive park redeveloped at more than $40 million — REQUIRE a conditional use permit ahead of construction. The Meydenbauer Bay Neighborhood Association argues it would require a public hearing and allow residents to be more involved in its development.

    The City Council decided since a master plan exists for Meydenbauer Bay Park, future construction would be dealt with through administrative permitting and does not require a CUP.

    High water mark

    Robertson told council members they were making the wrong decision when they voted to set the high-water mark at a static elevation using the Bellevue Lake Study, which sets it at 31.8 feet, but allows for individualized assessment.

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations.

    Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, BUT THE PLAN MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED.

    “It is the latest study that has been done, and it is consistent, at least with what Sammamish set,” Chelminiak said.”I’m ready to vote,”

    ROBERTSON SAID. “I’M GOING TO BE AN EMPHATIC ‘NO’ “

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

    Council members passed through an option to allow flexible setbacks of 50 feet, which property owners can buy down to 25 feet if they follow a string test and provide adequate vegetation conservation using set menu options.

    Balducci said the planning commission recommendation for 50-foot setbacks with greenscape options would result in net loss of native vegetation, and that replacing it with lawns is not what SMP regulations should encourage.

    Robertson said the commission’s option should be considered, but require greenscape only be allowed for two-thirds of the area required for vegetative conservation. She said string tests and menu options requiring unsightly native vegetation goes too far.

    Council members agreed to move forward with the 50-foot setbacks, string test and menu options, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MODIFY THOSE OPTIONS to lessen vegetation requirements and allow greenscape where appropriate.

    “I would agree, this goes overboard,” Chelminiak said.

    A draft of the SMP will be developed by city staff ahead of an Aug. 4 public hearing, after which the council WILL DIRECT STAFF AGAIN on Sept. 8, 2014 on what regulations should be submitted to the DOE for review.

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

     Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

     Mar 13, 2014  WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    and review of the cumulative impact analysis and light rail component on April 28 2014 .

    —————————————————————————————

    April 30, 2014 Updating the SMP plan — mainly unchanged since 1974 — also has been an

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

    April 30, 2014 Monday’s City Council study session laid out the progress of the planning commission,

     including fixes to a number of COMPLIANCY ISSUES within the SMP’s May 2013 draft FOLLOWING AN UNSOLICITED REVIEW BY the (DOE) Washington Department of Ecology, which has final say on approving the program.

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Related Stories

     

    This entry was posted in A Man-made Disaster, Bang for their buck? Restoration, Clallam County SMP, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Demand Accountability, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, FACTS are troublesome things, Follow the Money, For The Record, If It’s not broken? Why PAY to fix it?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Man-Made Disasters, Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), POLITICAL MANIPULATION, Politically Ignored, Politically Motivated, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, Public Comments, Public Meetings, Public Servants, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Ignorant Disruptive Public?, The Ignorant Uninformed Act?, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology

     


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • behindmyback.org WA State DOE SMA 1971

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
    Based on this 1971 premise

    1971 Rod Mack:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,

    MY OBSERVATION IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME
    CONSIDERATION—

    IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—

    THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

    Rod Mack  My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines.

     Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    —————————————————————-

    2017 Pearl Rains Hewett:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    MY OBSERVATIONS FROM JAN 26, 2011 TO OCT 22, 2017  IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME CONSIDERATION—IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    ———————————————————————-

    President Trump was elected Nov 8, 2016 because

    FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS, THE VOTERS, IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS WAS A PRIME CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX BASE  FOR HARD WORKING MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS IN THE USA,THAN THERE WAS A PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    INDEED, TRUMP’S PRIORITY ONE WAS ROLLING BACK THE FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS, AND RETURNING POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

    WHAT HAPPENED TO US BETWEEN 1971 AND OCT 22, 2017 ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    TRICKLE DOWN FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. period

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    ———————————————————————————–

    Aug 13, 2013 I POSTED “SMP and Water 1970-2013” on behindmyback.org on and sent it to ZSMP as a public comment.

    SMP and Water 1970-2013

    Posted on August 13, 2013 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    ———————————————————

    NOV 17, 2014 I POSTED IT AGAIN…..

    Behind My Back | SMP a Good Idea? 1971-2014?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/11/17/smp-a-good-idea-1971-2014/

    NOV 17, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/06/ad–valorem–tax-dilemma/ … permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. … The FEDERAL road to WA State ECOLOGY’S SMP and WATER HELL was … it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once …

    ——————————————————————-

    NOW, WE ARE FACED WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT…

    THE USUAL…

    ———————————————————–

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:09 PM

    Subject: SMP and Water 1970-2013

     

    This is my public comment on the

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    1971 Rod Mack: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    my observation is that in areas where ECONOMICS is a prime
    consideration—in the smaller, less affluent
    communities—there is a higher priority for jobs and tax
    base than there is priority for environmental concerns

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    Rod Mack: My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Both by premise and legislative intent

    IN 1971….

    In 1972 the SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT PASSED

    The FEDERAL road to SMP and WATER HELL was PAVED with good intentions?

    AND HOW MUCH FEDERAL MONEY?

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some MORE MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL  MONEY
    ————————————————————–
    BAIT AND SWITCHED TO FEDERAL CONTROL

    When? and how did we lose our right to local government?
    When? and how were the appointed given state RULE by WAC?
    When? and how were federally appointed agencies given ultimate power?

    WHEN INDEED..
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

    ———————————————————
    HISTORY Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    Ecology Publication #05-01-006
    A 570 page report the first 35 years, 1970 – 2005
    ———————————————————-
    UPDATE 2013 STATE? SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT?
    HAS BECOME FEDERALLY ENACTED
    SHORELINE MANAGEMENT BY APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES.
    ———————————————————–
    Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005

    1971 The ENVIRONMENTALISTS proposed the state’s jurisdiction would include 500 feet back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet wide, that would be the jurisdiction of their bill.

    1971 They, the ENVIRONMENTALISTS also placed primary, almost exclusive, planning and REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, instead of LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Resulting in a very STRONG ROLE by the STATE and a much lesser role by LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    That initiative got enough signatures to go on to the ballot at the next general election. Seeing that, THE LEGISLATURE THEN DECIDED, as is allowed and provided for under the state’s constitution, to enact their version to put on the ballot, which was the 1972 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT, which ultimately passed. The basic difference between the initiative and the act was that the act named a strip 200 feet from the water’s edge as the area of jurisdiction, and then set up the joint state/local approach.
    ——————————————-
    2013 WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT? AND WATER?

    A much lesser role of STATE AND LOCAL government?

    FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES EDICTS MANDATING TO THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S WAC’S, EDITICS, RULING, REGULATING AND ENFORCING OF LOCAL COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENT

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    RESULTING IN A VERY STRONG ROLE BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS and AMENDMENTS TO THOSE ACTS and DELIGATING ALL POWER TO APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

    IF WILD OLYMPICS WAS FEDERALLY ENACTED jurisdiction would include 500 feet (or more) back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet (or more) wide, that would be the FEDERAL jurisdiction of that ACT.

    ————————————————————-

    Chapter Seven – Saving the Shorelines 2005
    The Plan to Protect the Coastlines
    An interview with Rodney Mack
    February 2, 2005
    Position held at time of interview:
    Retired, formerly Program Manager for the Shorelands and
    Environmental Assistance Program,
    Washington State Department of Ecology, 1983-1994

    From an environmental standpoint, given the two versions of the shorelines legislation, the environmentalist version talked about a jurisdictional area. In other words, what areas, what pieces of geography, the act applied to.

    Our Shoreline Management Act was probably, with maybe the exception of California, the strongest law of its kind in the country at the time. This was right at the beginning of the ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, and what we were doing was groundbreaking. It wasn’t a case where we could pick up the phone and call some other state and say, hey, what did you guys
    do in dealing with this? Other states were calling us.

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some more MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    ———————————————————–
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?

    shoreline development 259, 262, 264

    WA STATE WATER

    There’s an old saying, “In the Eastern United States, we take water forgranted. In the WEST, we take water from each other.

    My comment WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING; WATER IS FOR FIGHTING OVER
    ————————————————————-
    Chapter 4, Troubled Waters: Rivers, Streams, and Salmon Recovery
    ……….117
    Habitat, Hydropower, Hatcheries and Harvest, Dick Wallace
    ………….117
    Protecting In-stream Flows, Ken Slattery
    ………………………..129
    The Problem of Pollutants in the Watershed, Dave Peeler
    ……………139
    Devising a Plan for the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers, Cynthia Nelson
    …..149

    Chapter 5, Shifting Standards:
    Treating Wastewater Discharges to Puget Sound
    ………………………165

    Chapter 7, Saving the Shorelines
    ………………………………….259
    A Plan to Protect the Coastlines, Rod Mack
    ………………………259
    Chapter 8, Dividing the Waters: Determining Yakima River Water Rights
    …..295

    Chapter 9, Environment 2010
    RANKING AIR AT THE TOP, Stu Clark
    ……………………………..344
    AT THE TABLE FOR EPA, Randy Smith
    …………………………….390
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?
    WA STATE ON WATER
    ————————————-
    Water Code of 1917 298
    water pollution 9, 41-42, 117
    Water Pollution Control Commission 6, 8-9, 11, 25,
    27, 92, 166, 180, 464
    Water Pollution Hearings Board 25
    Water Quality 11, 16, 18, 58, 60, 80, 113, 118, 122, 139,
    141, 160
    Water Quality Investigation Section 508
    Water Quality Program 11, 18, 80, 118, 139, 165-166,
    451, 494, 503, 508
    WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1971 18, 131, 317
    Water Resources Program 18, 92, 118, 126, 129, 134,
    149, 295, 303, 305, 309, 318
    WATER RIGHT CLAIMS REGISTRATION ACT 310
    water rights 9, 14, 122, 124, 129-130, 132, 137, 143,
    146, 149-150, 152-153, 155-157, 160, 163, 186,
    295-304, 306-311, 313-314, 317-326
    Water rights 296
    Water Rights Claims Registration Act 300
    WATER STRATEGY 124
    water-dependent industrial uses 285
    Watershed Management Act 143, 145, 147
    Watershed planning 121, 159
    Watershed Planning 117, 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    Watershed Planning Act 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    watershed planning units 132, 14
    ———————————————————–
    2005 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS
    —————————————————————-
    CONGRESS 2, 6, 70, 125, 130, 133, 186-187, 193,
    356-359, 372-373, 376, 378-379, 382, 387-388,
    391-392, 400, 462, 505, 524
    ————————————————————
    2013 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS

    CONGRESS PASSED THE ESA AS PART OF THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    1966 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Endangered Species Act
    Congress passed the ESA as part of the explosion of federal … – Gale
    www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp657497.pdf‎
    by ES ACT – ‎Related articles

    Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, … Congress enacted significant MORE amendments in 1978, AND MORE 1982, and MORE 1988,

    1969 The National Environmental Policy Act of | Department of Energy
    energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969‎

    Full text of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, available as a download. NEPA established a national policy for the environment …
    ————————————————-
    1972 Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎
    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎
    —————————————————
    Congress passed the ESA as part of
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    This entry was posted in APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES, Clallam County SMP, Economic Impact, Intro to Deprived Of Our Water, Politically Motivated, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, The We’s who WANT, Tribal Right issues?, WA State Water Laws, WHAT A CONCEPT?, Wild Olympics.

    OCT 22, 2017


  • 6/6/2012 Private Meeting with DOE Bureaucrats

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Behind My Back | DOE Private meeting 6/6/2012

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/doe-private-meeting-662012/

    Jan 30, 2013 – THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County Department of Community Development for my …

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

    ——————————————————————-

      Behind My Back | It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/10/17/itswho-theyare-that-concernsme

    Oct 17, 2017 · Behind My Back … AND, IT’S WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US. To be continued…. This entry was posted in A Fearful Reminder, …

    INDEED, THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF APPOINTED BUREAUCRATS IN  WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY (DOE).

    —————————————————————————

    PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING WITH THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE (THE BUREAUCRATS)

    I made a list of my concerns  as red flag warnings from Pearl Revere

    —————————————————-

    RED FLAG #1

    When American citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me. Jan. 26, 2011 DOE SMP Public Forum.

    ——————————————–

    RED FLAG #2

    When ELECTED OFFICIAL IGNORE THE  FEARS AND CONCERNS of  American citizens , that is unacceptable to me

    1. Senator Hargrove
    2. Rep. Van DeWege
    3. Rep. Tharinger
    4. Clallam County Sheriff Benedict
    5. Clallam County Commissioner Tharinger
    6. Commissioner Mike Chapman
    7. Commissioner Mike Doherty
    8. WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna

    —————————–

    RED FLAG #3

    FEAR AND CONCERNS  WA STATE AND  APPOINTED AGENCIES

    1. WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
    2. AND OTHER UNKNOWN agencies?
    3. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as for the DOE SMP)?
    4. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as from the state)?
    5. Ariel surveillance of all Lake Sutherland homes, property and docks?
    6. DNR?
    7. WSDOT (inter agency contract with DFW) inspecting 101 culverts.
    8. DFW illegal trespass on all Lake Sutherland private property.

    —————————

    RED FLAG #4

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

     —————————

    RED FLAG #5

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    1. 1. DOE SMP WAC’S (Over stepping WA State SMP LAW)
    2. Failure to provide an SMP ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLALLAM COUNTY.
    3. DOE WAC directs Clallam County on how to deny permits to private property owners until they submit to regulations and/or restrictions that may be illegal or unconstitutional at State level.
    4. Page 88 DOE WA State Public Trust Doctrine (DOE unconstitutional creation of law without due process). They admit in writing they have done it once?
    5. DOE approval of Shoreline Management Updates that are in conflict with RCW ______ in the protection of single family residence?
    6. DOE excessive setbacks, taking of private property, non-conforming, loss of value, use and enjoyment.
    7. DOE WAC, denies permitted development of private property and requires the taking of private property for public access.

    ————————————————————————–

    JUNE 6, 2012  MY PRIVATE MEETING WITH WA STATE DOE BUREAUCRATS

    Posted as  DOE PRIVATE MEETING 6/6/12 cont.

    The WA State DOE, state policy people asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County
    Department of Community Development for my contact information, by name as an individual, Pearl Rains Hewett.

    Regional Director Paula Ehlers called me at home and requested a private meeting with me.

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Paula Ehlers told me I was allowed to invite 2-3 people. I invited (7).

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Dr.Robert Crittenden, biologist, expert witness and paid consultant.
    Dick Piling, Realtor, Republican Chairman of Clallam County
    Harry Bell, Business men’s assoc. He is Green Crow, the company owns a lot of WA State forestland, he is well know at state level SMP Advisory Committee
    Connie Beauvais, Manager of Crescent Water District, informed, active Member of the Appointed Planning Dept.
    MD retired, Karl Spees, SMP Advisory Committee, CAPR 13, very active private property owner
    Attorney Mary Pfaff, Member of the SMP Advisory Committee, had a Dr. appointment and did not attend.

    The WA State DOE Team, was a lot more interested in my guests, than they were in me.
    None of the invited (6) that attended were asked to leave.
    Interesting to note, we had the meeting at the courthouse (Steve Gray reserved the room) On the way into the DOE meeting, we ran into several interesting? interested? people. Sheila Rourke Miller, Jim McEntire and Mike Chapman.

    WHAT WAS THE MEETING AGENDA? Intel?
    DOE? I have no idea?
    I asked all of my invited guests to independently, based on their area of expertise and concerns, to prepare (5) questions for the DOE meeting.

    I personally, showed them the map, graphically demonstrating the SMP TAKING affected of the 175′, 150 plus 10′ setback on Burt Reid’s 7 acre priority feeder bluff private property. I spoke of the other property owners, all 474 of them, up to 88% would become totally non-conforming.

    I asked them, as I pointed to the map, as the US Supreme Court Justices asked an EPA witness in the 9 to zero ruling against the EPA, on the Sackett Case, “If this was your investment property? How happy would you be? What would you do? Just plant a few bushes and walk away?

    I did not take notes, I did listened and made an occasional indignant comment.
    By definition, “indignant” Angry at unfairness angry or annoyed at the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness of something.

    We did agreed that we were all American’s first and we do recognize private property rights.
    WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH – LEARN?

    Gordon White told us that, the appointed WA State Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant, (ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT)  is aware of the concerns of the Clallam County private property owners (all 3300 of us)

    WA State DOE is not required to provide an economic impact statement for Clallam County.

    My personal conclusion,
    The DOE is aware of the SMP economic impact on Clallam County government.
    The DOE is aware that they are TAKING private property value without compensation.
    The DOE is aware, that If private property owners keep fighting, we can reduce the setbacks, through our local government.

    My conclusions are based on the following
    18 months of research on line,
    WA State Law, protection of private property
    WAC’S, DOE proposed budget 2010-2013
    WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Lawsuits, WA State Supreme Court Rulings
    United States Supreme Court Rulings
    Pacific Legal Foundation battles and BIG WINS
    documented information on many other WA State SMP’S,
    “Conspiracy Exposed” George C. Rains Sr.
    “Access Denied to inholder property”,
    Attending county meetings, public forums,
    Reading every word of the Clallam County DOE SMP Update and every SMP Public Comment,
    Clallam County Chapter 35,
    Water rights, reserved water rights,
    60 years of recorded history from George C. Rains Sr.
    To name just a FEW areas I have researched, questioning, challenging, communicating and disseminating all of it. (can what I know hurt them?)

    I have great things going for me.
    I AM AN AMERICAN
    I AM NOT AFRAID OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO ME.
    I freely play, the one card I have, guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    American’s working together to protect Constitutional and private property rights, they (light candles) by disseminating, research, keep us informed, reform us, post emails, encourage and support our FREEDOM.
    Karl Spees, CAPR 13
    Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online.
    Sue Forde Citizen Review Online
    Marv Chastin

    This entry was posted in Private Property Rights, Shoreline Management Plan, WA State Dept. of Ecology.

    ——————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  OCT 19, 2017

    WHAT ARE “YOU” GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    WHAT AM I GOING TO ABOUT IT?

    THE USUAL……

    Post this 2017 SMP Update comment on behindmyback.org

    Then, email it to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, at:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  and others.

    To be continued…