+menu-


  • Category Archives Anyone can make a difference
  • Where There’s a Will There’s a Way

    Our U.S. Representative Derek Kilmer is a very busy man.

    On Feb 18, 2016 our  Representative scheduled time for a Clallam County Town Hall meeting in Sequim WA.  He usually gives a slide show presentation first and then provides an opportunity for local citizen, to voice their concerns and ask questions.

    Because, my written posted comment, as a printed statement, was given to Derek Kilmer prior to the meeting. requesting, that as our local  representative, he give ERFO emergency relief work,  on the Elwha River, Olympic Hot Springs Road repair his prompt attention, and priority over non-emergency work.

    Feb 18, 2016 PDN What’s Wrong With These Pictures?

    I was given an opportunity to speak privately with Rep Kilmer and his local Rep Judith Morris.

    If our local Representatives aren’t informed that their local community is  having an ERFO federal emergency problem,  how can they fix them?

    Just saying….

    Emergency Relief for Federally Owned …

    As required in the ERFO guidelines, under the  program, Federal agencies and local government entities have the responsibility to perform emergency repairs, shift project and program priorities, give emergency relief work prompt attention and priority over non-emergency work, and assist the Office of Federal Lands Highway in its stewardship and oversight responsibilities.

    ———————————

    Feb. 20, 2016  I am directing specific questions to Rep. Derek Kilmer, Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray

    The ERFO emergency response  to the Olympic Hot Springs Road repairs is bogged down in a quagmire of federally required prerequisites.

    ———————————————————————-

    What have you done? And, What are you going to do?

    To expedite the ERFO emergency relief work,  on the Elwha River, Olympic Hot Springs Road repair? To restored full public and private access for the tourist season that opens the end of May 2016?

    Where There’s a Will There’s a Way

    Determination will overcome any obstacle.

    To not speak is to say something. To not act is an action.

    ———————————————————

    It is not my intent to embarrass anyone, my intent is simply to inform our representatives at every level of government, educate citizens and business’s of the financial impact that government action or inaction can create for our families.

    ———————————————————————

    DEC. 12, 2015, I requested help from my elected  representatives in WA DC

    Dec 12, 2015  I sent a request to Dear Rep. Derek Kilmer, Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray

    ONP All Access Denied to all citizens – public land – U.S. population 320 million, plus foreign tourists including Inholders, on the Elwha River

    Olympic National Park paying public -tourist and many private property owners, along the Elwha River in WA State need your commitment and support to provide legal certainty of road repairs and continued public access on the Olympic Hot Springs Road, in for and to all public facilities and private property areas located within the Olympic National Park.

    Road Closed – Olympic Hot Springs (Elwha)  (storm damage)

    —————————————————–

    Jan 28, 2016 – Come fix my road? request to my WA DC elected representatives.

    Behind My Back | Go Find Your Park? Come Fix My Road?

     … the full text of this 1430 word comment is on behindmyback.org.
    ——————————————————-
    To not speak is to say something. To not act is an action.

  • Find Your Park Open Doors Remove Barriers

    Find your park. It’s your place, It’s your thing.

    It’s a Fact. The Federal Parks belong to all of us.

    Open Doors,  Remove barriers, Tell your story, Make a difference.

    On Mon Feb 8, 2016 2:30PM there was a meeting  at Olympic National Park Headquarters regarding the closure of the Olympic Hot Springs Road to all public and private access. I told my story, expressed my concerns on the economic impact to the local community and asked my questions.

    Four of my government representatives listened, responded and answered questions

    ——————————————————————

    Clallam County Commissioner  Bill Peach opened the door.

    As required in the ERFO guidelines, under the  program, Federal agencies and local government entities have the responsibility to perform emergency repairs, shift project and program priorities, give emergency relief work prompt attention and priority over non-emergency work, and assist the Office of Federal Lands Highway in its stewardship and oversight responsibilities.

    ———————————

    Three, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Olympic National Park local Representatives  attended the meeting.

    M. Sarah Creachbaum
    Superintendent, of the Olympic National Park

    Lisa Turecek, PE
    Chief of Facilities Management

    Brian Winter
    Elwha River Project Manager

    I was delighted to have the opportunity to meet with them face to face.

    I was delighted at the conclusion of the meeting, strictly based on my understanding of the contents of the meeting, of the expeditious actions that have been taken and will be taken in the future.

    —————————————————————

    This comment is intended to inform others, to share for the record, the information from the notes I took at the Feb 8, 2016 meeting.

    I was delight with the positive response from M. Sarah Creachbaum
    Superintendent, of the Olympic National Park.

    Sarah showed genuine concern for the economic well being of local people, she cares about the local people, they are her people.

    When I suggested that she do a news release to inform we the concerned people

    Using  the  progress reported by Lisa,  the expeditious steps taken with the  ERFO Program for the reopening the Olympic Hot Springs Road to provide access to the ONP public tourist, and private property owners.

    You know, like a message of hope from the Superintendent, of the Olympic National Park, for the economic future of  the local business people, for increased employment… for the the rush of  tourism created by the removal of the dams.

    Sarah agreed to do a press release…

    And I was delighted.

    ——————————————————————–

    However, after hours of more in-depth research, done after the meeting, included  in this comment,  that provides additional documentation……

    Being delighted, and staying delighted with the ONP, are two different things! This is not my first rodeo with the Olympic National Park Service.

    Indeed, if I have made unintentional errors in this comment, I will do an immediate update on this website and  a retraction immediately.

    But for the record here goes… Taken from the notes I took at the Feb 8, 2016 meeting.

    Lisa Turecek, PE
    Chief of Facilities Management

    The expeditious Steps she has taken with the  ERFO Program to reopen the Olympic Hot Springs Road

    Nov. 17, 2015 The Olympic Hot Springs Road (and trails) had a disastrous flooding event

    Nov 2015 file a notice notice of intent for Emergency Relief Program for funding

    Dec 2015 file a formal notice notice for Emergency Relief Program for funding

    Jan 2016 received  recognition of Elwha River disastrous flooding event

    Jan-Feb? completed? damage survey required for ERFO amount of funding?

    Note It was stressed by Lisa and Brian  that the ERFO  was for roads only?

    ———————————————————————-

    Additional  research and documentation on ERFO funding for trails

    To be eligible for ERFO funding under 23 U.S.C. 125(e)(2), trails and transit systems must be included in the inventory of Tribal or Federal Lands Transportation Facilities. Trails included in the inventory should provide access to high-use recreation sites or Federal economic generators.

    ————————————————————–

    Bill asked if the Olympic Hot Springs Road would be open by the 4th of July?

    ——————————————————————–

    Note It was stressed by Lisa and Brian  that the Army Corp of Engineers must, be given time, up to 60 days? Because a 100 foot bridge ( at  undisclosed location?)  must be built.

    When will the road be reopened to  public and private access?

    Lisa’s guesstimated was four months from the time that construction was permitted to start.

    ——————————————

    Brian Winter
    Elwha River Project Manager

    That tentative plans to proceed shall required NOAA consultation under section 7, the endangered species act (ESA) Not necessarily additional restrictions, just consultation?

    ———————————————-

    Which led to my questions to Brian Winter Elwha River Project Manager on the funding and planning for the removal of the Elwha Dams.

    I was just asking? Just saying? In particular…

    The ONP budget $$$ and plans for removal of the Elwha dams in the Elwha district included flood barriers and restoration (among other things)

    The ONP budget and plans for removal of the Elwha dams in the Elwha district included
    flood barriers for the tribes?

    I asked Flood barriers? only to protect the Elwha tribe? Flood barriers? only protect tribal land?

    I asked Brian to correct me if I was wrong.

    He did. emphatically…

    Flood barriers were provided for  the tribes and private property on the West side of the mouth of the Elwha River and And, flood barriers were provided for private homes down stream from the dam removals.

    —————————————————–

    I am certain, that…
    Flood barriers were in place to protect all tribal historic heritage sites and
    to all protect tribal access, roads and trails
    ————————————————————————-

    Feb 9, 2016 I’m asking for a response from  Brian on the following unanswered questions?

    In particular…Funding and planning for the dams removal provided?
    No flood barriers in the Elwha district to protect the best interest of citizens?
    the, over 300,000 million national park visitors
    No flood barriers? to protect citizens public and private access to roads and trails?
    No flood barriers? to protect citizens public and private property?

    ——————————————————————

    I repeat for clarification, Brian’s emphatic answer…

    In addition to the tribes protection, some private property and homes were given flood barriers in the funding and planning of the Elwha dam removals

    Flood barriers were provided for  the tribes and private property on the West side of the mouth of the Elwha River and And, flood barriers were provided for private homes down stream from the dam removals.

    ———————————————————————-

    I’m asking for a response from  Brian on the following unanswered questions?

    Funding and planning for the dams removal provided?
    No flood barriers? to protect citizens public and private land, trails, campgrounds campsites and facilities?
    No flood barriers? to protect citizens historic heritage sites?
    No flood barriers? to protect private property owners property?
    ——————————————————————————–

    I directed additional questions to Brian Winter, as the  Elwha River Project Manager on the funding and planning for the removal of the Elwha Dams.

    The ONP budget $$$ and plans for removal of the Elwha dams in the Elwha district included restoration (among other things)

    I received no response to these questions from Brian.

    Elwha River restoration? Just restoration and planting of native plants?

    No restoration $$$ for public and private roads and trails?
    No restoration $$$ for access into Elwha district the Olympic National Park?
    No restoration $$$ for public and private campgrounds campsites and facilities?
    No restoration for citizens Elwha district historic heritage sites?
    ————————————————————–
    Did the ONP budget and plans for removal of the Elwha dams in the Elwha district included or require mitigation and compensation $$$ for the flood damage caused to the private landowner campsite’s, inside the park, downstream from the dam removal?
    —————————-

    FLH > Programs > Emergency Relief for Federally Owned …

    flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/
    Federal Highway Administration

    Dec 4, 2015 – Funds for the ERFO Program are provided from the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund through the Emergency Relief Program for …

    snippet full text below

    Applicants are expected to prioritize the repair of ERFO projects that are in the public’s best interest, based on available funds. Federal agencies and local government entities have the responsibility to perform emergency repairs, shift project and program priorities, give emergency relief work prompt attention and priority over non-emergency work, and assist the Office of Federal Lands Highway in its stewardship and oversight responsibilities.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Guidance – Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/…/guideflerfo
    Federal Highway Administration

    Dec 11, 2012 – Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) MAP-21 … To be eligible for ERFO funding under 23 U.S.C. 125(e)(2), trails and transit …

    snippet full text below

    To be eligible for ERFO funding under 23 U.S.C. 125(e)(2), trails and transit systems must be included in the inventory of Tribal or Federal Lands Transportation Facilities. Trails included in the inventory should provide access to high-use recreation sites or Federal economic generators.

    ——————————————————————-

    full text Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO)

    On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (the “FAST Act” or “Highway Funding Act”) was signed into law replacing MAP-21. We are in the process of revising the information on this page to address this new legislation.

    The Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program, or ERFO Program, was established to assist federal agencies with the repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to public travel, which are found to have suffered serious damage by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure.

    The intent of the ERFO program is to pay the unusually heavy expenses for the repair and reconstruction of eligible facilities.

    The ERFO program is not intended to cover all repair costs but rather supplement Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) repair programs. Repairs are classified as either emergency or permanent repairs.

    Emergency repairs are those repairs undertaken during or immediately after a disaster to restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent of damage, or to protect the remaining facilities. Prior approval is not required, however all other eligibility requirements of the program still apply.

    Permanent repairs are those repairs undertaken after the occurrence of the disaster to restore facilities to their pre-disaster conditions. Prior approval is required.

    The ERFO program provides assistance to other federal agencies whose roads meet the definition of “open to public travel” such as: Bureau of Reclamation; Department of Energy (previously under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, i.e., owned by the Western Area Power Association); Department of Defense (Military Installation roads); and Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (Defense Access roads).

    The Federal share payable for the repair of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and public roads on federal lands is 100 percent under the ERFO Program. Funds for the ERFO Program are provided from the Highway Trust Fund and the General Fund through the Emergency Relief Program for Federal-aid Highways. ERFO funds are not to duplicate assistance under another Federal program or compensation from insurance, cost share, or any other source.

    The Office of Federal Lands Highway is responsible for efficient and effective management of public funds entrusted by Congress and for ensuring that the ERFO Program is administered consistent with laws, regulations, and policies.

    Applicants are expected to prioritize the repair of ERFO projects that are in the public’s best interest, based on available funds. Federal agencies and local government entities have the responsibility to perform emergency repairs, shift project and program priorities, give emergency relief work prompt attention and priority over non-emergency work, and assist the Office of Federal Lands Highway in its stewardship and oversight responsibilities.

    Contact Information listed below

    ——————————————————————-

    full text

    Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

    (ERFO) MAP-21 Program Guidance

    DOT Logo
    U.S. Department of
    Transportation
    Federal Highway
    Administration

    Memorandum

    Subject: Information: Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) MAP-21 Program Guidance Date: December 11, 2012
    From: Joyce A. Curtis
    Associate Administrator for Office of Federal Lands Highway
    In Reply Refer To: HFL-1
    To: Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers

    This purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance for changes to the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program.

    Section 1107 of the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act” (MAP-21), enactedJuly 6, 2012, amended 23 U.S.C. 125 “Emergency Relief” as follows:

    • (e) TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, AND PUBLIC ROADS ON FEDERAL LANDS.-
      • (1) DEFINITION OF OPEN TO PUBLIC TRAVEL.-In this subsection, the term ‘open to public travel’ means, with respect to a road, that, except during scheduled periods, extreme weather conditions, or emergencies, the road is open to the general public for use with a standard passenger vehicle, without restrictive gates or prohibitive signs or regulations, other than for general traffic control or restrictions based on size, weight, or class of registration.
      • (2) EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.-Notwithstanding subsection (d)(1), the Secretary may expend funds from the emergency fund authorized by this section, independently or in cooperation with any other branch of the Federal Government, a State agency, a tribal government, an organization, or a person, for the repair or reconstruction of tribal transportation facilities, Federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally owned roads that are open to public travel, whether or not those facilities are Federal-aid highways.
      • (3) REIMBURSEMENT.-
        • (A) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may reimburse Federal and State agencies (including political subdivisions) for expenditures made for projects determined eligible under this section, including expenditures for emergency repairs made before a determination of eligibility.
        • (B) TRANSFERS.-With respect to reimbursements described in subparagraph (A)-
          • (i) those reimbursements to Federal agencies and Indian tribal governments shall be transferred to the account from which the expenditure was made, or to a similar account that remains available for obligation; and
          • (ii) the budget authority associated with the expenditure shall be restored to the agency from which the authority was derived and shall be available for obligation until the end of the fiscal year following the year in which the transfer occurs.

    Section 1508 of MAP-21 amended 23 U.S.C. 120 “Federal share payable” as follows:

    • (e) EMERGENCY RELIEF.-The Federal share payable for any repair or reconstruction provided for by funds made available under section 125 for any project on a Federal-aid highway, including the Interstate System, shall not exceed the Federal share payable on a project on the system as provided in subsections (a) and (b), except that-
      • (1) the Federal share payable for eligible emergency repairs to minimize damage, protect facilities, or restore essential traffic accomplished within 180 days after the actual occurrence of the natural disaster or catastrophic failure may amount to 100 percent of the cost of the repairs;
      • (2) the Federal share payable for any repair or reconstruction of Federal land transportation facilities, Federal land access transportation facilities, and tribal transportation facilities may amount to 100 percent of the cost of the repair or reconstruction;

    Effective October 1, these provisions will be implemented as follows:

    • In addition to tribal transportation facilities and Federal lands transportation facilities, other Federally owned roads that are “open to public travel”, whether or not those facilities are Federal-aid highways, are eligible for ERFO funds. This provides ERFO eligibility to Federally owned roads that may not meet the definition of a tribal transportation facility or a Federal lands transportation facility. The intent of this provision is to focus the limited ERFO funds on those facilities that are surfaced and maintained for standard passenger vehicles. Therefore, roads passable ONLY by high-clearance vehicles are not eligible for ERFO under this provision. High clearance roads no longer eligible for ERFO may be eligible for assistance under FEMA or other programs.
    • To be eligible for ERFO funding under 23 U.S.C. 125(e)(2), trails and transit systems must be included in the inventory of Tribal or Federal Lands Transportation Facilities. Trails included in the inventory should provide access to high-use recreation sites or Federal economic generators.
    • Section 125(e)(3) of title 23, United States Code, was amended to add language affecting the reimbursement to Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMAs). When FLMAs use their own funds for emergency and permanent repairs, ERFO funds can go back to the FLMAs original account or a similar account and remains available for obligation. Additionally, the budget authority shall be restored to the agency from which the authority was derived and shall be available for obligation until the end of the following fiscal year.
    • The Forest Highway program is repealed at the end of FY12. Forest Highways are no longer eligible for ERFO funding, unless they are Federally-owned roads that meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 125(e). Other State and local roads that do not meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 125(e) may be eligible under the Federal-aid Emergency Relief program or FEMA.
    • For eligible ERFO repairs accomplished more than 180 days after the occurrence of the natural disaster or catastrophic failure on facilities other than those meeting the definition of a Federal land transportation facility or tribal transportation facility, the Federal share payable shall be in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120, including the sliding scale provision of 23 U.S.C. 120(b).
    • Federal land access transportation facilities are not eligible for ERFO funding under 23 U.S.C. 125.

    Repairs for Program of Projects (POPs) approved prior to and after October 1 will proceed under MAP-21 provisions. See FHWA Treatment of Carryover Highway Program Funding table. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Sergio Mayorga at 202-366-9491.

    Sergio Mayorga
    ERFO Program Manager
    Office of Federal Lands Highway
    Location: Washington, DC
    Phone: (202) 366-9491
    Email: sergio.mayorga@dot.gov

    J. “Eric” Wright
    ERFO Coordinator
    Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFL)
    Location: Sterling, Virginia
    Phone: (571) 434-1547
    Email: john.wright@dot.gov

    Lorell Duteil
    ERFO Coordinator
    Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFL)
    Location: Lakewood, Colorado
    Phone: (720) 963-3425
    Email: lorell.duteil@dot.gov

    David Hilgendorf
    ERFO Coordinator
    Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFL)
    Location: Vancouver, Washington
    Phone: (360) 619-7620
    Email: david.hilgendorf@dot.gov


  • This Guy Says a “Lot”

    This Guy Says a “LOT”

    This is an unedited opinion of an American citizen. It is worth reading, Democratic or Republican, and it is worth sharing.

    I had hoped that setting up a website would give “We the people” a condensed running forum, a day by day, blow by blow account from ANY American, State, County, city citizens that had knowledge or concerns?

    Where anyone could go, read, find out, relate, expose, share and comment on anything.

    ———————————————————–

    I received this email

    re: “This Guy Says It All”

    I am the Democratic and the Republican Liberal-Progressive’s worst nightmare. I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, American Veteran, Gun Owning Biker. I am a Master leatherworker. I work hard and long hours with my hands to earn a living.

    I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don’t push it on others. I ride Harley Davidson Motorcycles, drive American made cars, and I believe in American products and buy them whenever I can.

    I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some liberal governmental functionary, Democratic or Republican, that wants to share it with others who don’t work!

    I’m in touch with my feelings and I like it that way!

    I think owning a gun doesn’t make you a killer; it makes you a smart American.

    I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!

    I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English.

    I believe there should be no other language option.

    I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

    My heroes are Malcolm Forbes, Bill Gates, John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson, who makes the awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

    I don’t hate the rich. I don’t pity the poor.

    I know wrestling is fake and I don’t waste my time watching or arguing about it.

    I’ve never owned a slave, nor was I a slave. I haven’t burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!

    I believe if you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

    This is AMERICA …We like it the way it is and more so the way it was…so stop trying to change it to look like Russia, China, or some other socialist country!

    If you were born here and don’t like it…you are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the White House, the seat of our biggest problems.

    I want to know which church is it, exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution? Can I get an AMEN on that one?

    I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you’re breaking the law, regardless of what color you are, but not just because you happen to ride a bike.

    And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my driver’s license. I think it’s good. And I’m proud that ‘God’ is written on my money.

    I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don’t want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

    I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making ‘donations’ to their cause. Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family!

    I believe that it doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

    I believe ‘illegal’ is illegal no matter what the lawyers think!

    I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA!

    If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I’m a BAD American.

    If you are a BAD American too, please forward this to everyone you know.

    We want our country back! My Country. I hope this offends all illegal aliens.

    My great, great, great, great grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the Revolution and the War of 1812. My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Mexican American War. My great, great grandfather watched as his friends and brothers died in the Civil War. My great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Spanish-American War. My grandfather watched, as his friends died in WW I. My father watched as his friends died in WW II.

    I watched as my friends died in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm. My son watched and bled as his friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of them died for the Mexican Flag. Everyone died for the American flag.

    Texas high school students raised a Mexican flag on a school flagpole and other students took it down. Guess who was expelled? The students who took it down.

    California High School students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo, because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.

    Enough is enough

    This message needs to be viewed by every American; and every American needs to stand up for America.

    We’ve bent over to appease the America-haters long enough. I’m taking a stand.

    I’m standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the American flag.

    If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.

    And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

    AMERICANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS!

    Let me make this clear! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! This statement DOES NOT mean I’m against immigration!

    YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN OUR COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

    1. Get a sponsor!

    2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

    3. Live by OUR rules!

    4. Get a job!

    5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

    6. No Social Security until you have earned it and Paid for it!

    7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

    If you don’t want to forward this for fear of offending someone, then YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

    We’ve gone so far the other way . . . bent over backwards not to offend anyone.

    Only AMERICANS seems to care when American Citizens are being offended!

    WAKE UP America!

    If you do not pass this on, may your fingers cramp!

    Made in the U S A and PROUD OF IT!

    By an unknown American Author


  • BCC? The Blind leading the Blind?

    BLIND LEADING THE BLIND definition.An expression applied to leaders who know as little as their followers and are therefore likely to lead them astray:

    I submit this, as my comment and question?

    The huge  NGO email lists, with email address and names I received were, an INSPIRATION to me. These huge special interest global NGO entities know exactly how to promote their green agenda. One NGO bragged on their website that they had sent over 20,000 EMAILS to WA DC legislators, they brag about how they are able to influence our elected representatives voting.

    If these  HUGE NGO email lists, with email address and names, gives NGO’s  the POLITICAL CLOUT to create legislated laws of our land?

    What do we have to fight back with, they are organized, their agenda is “21”?  We have hundreds, thousands, of splinter groups, we have so many with different causes,  beliefs and ideas?

    We all fight back in our own way. I am certainly not an authority on how anyone should  fight back.

    ———————————————

    I am simply fighting back in my own way

    I NEVER BLIND COPY (BCC) for my own  purpose and intent.

    HOW STUPID OR WHATEVER, WOULD I BE?

    IF AFTER,  I  RESEARCHED, DOCUMENTED, DOCUMENTED, DOCUMENTED, COPIED, CUT, PASTED, COMMENTED, POSTED, AND THEN EMAILED BCC?

    WHAT PURPOSE WOULD I SERVE, IF I BBC? IF I FAILED TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT,

    “LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IS A HUGE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE,” “AND BASICALLY, CALL IT THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER OR WHATEVER, BUT BASICALLY THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY, CRITICAL FOR THE THING TO PASS.”- JONATHAN GRUBER, THE MIT HEALTH ECONOMIST FOR OBAMACARE

    ————————————————————————————————

    IF I FAILED TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY  THE What? Who? Where? When? How? Why?

     I WOULD SIMPLY BE PROMOTING THE CRITICAL STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER OR WHATEVER  AND PERPETUATING THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA  OF leaders who know as little as their followers, THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, and  are therefore likely to lead them astray:

    ———————————————————–

    IT WAS JUST ONE MORE DOCUMENTED EXAMPLE, JUST MORE PROOF THAT HUGE GREEN NGO GROUPS ARE MORE ORGANIZED, MORE INFORMED, SENDING MORE INFORMATION TO MORE GREEN PEOPLE AND CONTROLLING MORE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.

    One NGO bragged on their website that they had sent over 20,000 EMAILS to WA DC legislators

    ——————————————————————–

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    Huge NGO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS ARE Political Game Changers

    The power of cyberspace reflected on Face book, twitter, tweet, blogs, EMAILS and websites have become HUGE POLITICAL GAME CHANGERS.

    ———————————————————————

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    (BCC) Blind listed?  Blindsided? or Black listed?

     (BCC) Blind listed, blind carbon copy in Technology Expand. messaging. (BCC) An electronic mail header which lists addresses to which a message should be sent, but which will not be seen by the recipients. Bcc is defined in RFC 822 and supported by most e-mail systems.

    Blindsided by definition catch (someone) unprepared; attack from an unexpected position. hit or attack (someone) on the blind side.

    Black listed  by definition, (or black list) is a list or register of entities or people who, for one reason or another, ARE BEING DENIED a particular privilege, service, mobility, ACCESS or recognition.

    ————————————————————-

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    WHY I NEVER BLIND COPY?

    I explained it to Lois, I send my emails to concerned people and groups in about 10 to 15 counties in WA State. Most of the concerned people and groups have been involved in litigation and or appeals with WA State government.

    I send my POSTED COMMENTS AND EMAILS to the “servants of the people”  federal, state and local government ELECTED representative, the anointed appointed etc.

    It is my intention to let these “servants of the people” know, by using the very old journalistic cliché that stories, documented POSTINGS, EMAILS, COMMENTS should always contain answers to these six questions:

    What? Who? Where? When? How? Why?

    What the hell  these  “servants of the people”  doing?

    Who are these “servants of the people”?

    Where are these “servants of the people”?

    When are these “servants of the people”?

    How are these people “servants of the people”?

    AND WHY ARE THESE “servants of the people”?

    How STUPID, would I be,  to identify “servants of the people” as  UNKNOWN SOMEBODY’S?

    —————————————————————————————————

    REPEATED FOR EMPHASIS

    “LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IS A HUGE POLITICAL ADVANTAGE,” “AND BASICALLY, CALL IT THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER OR WHATEVER, BUT BASICALLY THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY, CRITICAL FOR THE THING TO PASS.”- JONATHAN GRUBER, THE MIT HEALTH ECONOMIST FOR OBAMACARE

    HOW STUPID OR WHATEVER, WOULD I BE? HOW STUPID IF AFTER,  I  RESEARCHED, DOCUMENTED, DOCUMENTED, DOCUMENTED, COPIED, CUT, PASTED, COMMENTED, POSTED, AND EMAILED AS BBC?

    WHAT PURPOSE WOULD I SERVE, IF I BBC? IF I FAIL TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, IF I FAIL TO SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY  THE What? Who? Where? When? How? Why?

    I WOULD SIMPLY BE PROMOTING THE CRITICAL STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER OR WHATEVER  AND PERPETUATE THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA  OF THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.

    AS, applied to leaders who know as little as their followers and are therefore likely to lead them astray.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    ASTRAY?

    Behind My Back | Living in Law-Law Land?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/16/3245/

    5 days ago – LIVING IN WA STATE LAWLAW, LA-LA LAND? Definition of LA-LA … www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/. Oct 16, 2013 …

    ——————————————————————–

    LEGISLATORS LAWS OF WA STATE LAND?

    April 24, 2011  Welcome to the Washington State Law Library

    OVER 55,000 TITLES AND OVER 330,000, YES, THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND VOLUMES OF LAW. Our Tax dollars, elected officials and their legislation have provides us with the Washington State Law Library and “Welcomes? us to it”

    FEB, 21,  2015 they have changed the name?

    Hmmm… Go figure?  REALLY? WELCOME TO GEORGE?

    The State Law Library’s primary mission is to serve the Supreme Court, the Legislature, the … The State Law Library’s On-Line Public Access Catalog GEORGE ? The State Law Library’s On-Line Public Access Catalog

    —————————————————————————————–

    Hmmm…  WELCOME TO GEORGE?  “BY GEORGE”

    I DIGRESS TO LONG BEFORE THE YEAR 1598, BUT “BY GEORGE” YOU WILL ENJOY THIS

    The reference is British. St. George is the patron saint of English. HE ALLEGEDLY “SLEW DRAGONS.” “By George” is considered to be a very mild oath. It was originally “Before George.” It also appears as “For George” and “Fore George.”
    The first record of its appearance in WRITTEN English was in the year 1598, by Ben Jonson. The “by George” version was first used by Fielding in 1731. Gradually, the “for and fore and before” were dropped AND THE “BY GEORGE” REMAINED.
    IT WAS USED, ORALLY, AS A BATTLE CRY LONG BEFORE 1598, but no one knows exactly when. The dictionary traces only the first WRITTEN use of words and phrases.

    Source: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Mea…

    This type of word/phrase usage is called an “expletive attributive”.

    OLD LADY answered 6 years ago

    “BY GEORGE” The actual origin is in sixteenth century England, when the church was in turmoil and was ATTEMPTING TO EXERT ITSELF AND GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE. Swearing was blasphemy — and brought either a fine or a penance. So instead of saying, ‘by God,’ people started saying ‘by George’ AND THE CHURCH PEOPLE COULDN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

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

    BY GEORGE, BY GOD

     Feb 21, 2015 WA STATE CITIZENS ARE LIVING IN WA STATES LAW-LAW, LA-LA-LAND

     ————————————————————

    BY GEORGE, BY GOD

    HOW MUCH WORSE CAN LIVING IN WA STATE IT GET?

    ———————————————————

    WA STATE CITIZENS HAVE BEEN, ARE BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE ON ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK

    BY GEORGE? BY GOD? HOW BAD IS ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

     ARE WA STATE LEGISLATORS ON THE WRONG TRACK? OR DERAILED?

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/ …… have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    Feb 21, 2015  BY GEORGE? BY GOD?  WA STATE LEGISLATORS  ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK

    ——————————————————————-

     Feb. 21, 2015  OLD AMERICAN LADY’S SOLUTION

    BY GEORGE, BY GOD,  A BATTLE CRY BY “WE THE PEOPLE”

    AGAINST  A GOVERNMENT, ATTEMPTING TO EXERT ITSELF AND GAIN MORE CONTROL OVER THE LIVES OF “WE THE PEOPLE”

    AND, THE GOVERNMENT PUBLIC SERVANTS CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE ARE GUARANTEED FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY THE UNITED STATE CONSTITUTION

     BY GOD,  BY GEORGE, WE MUST USE IT OR LOSE IT

    to be continued….


  • SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Moving forward, this documented,  SMP Public Comment on Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives is crucial to  future decision making by our newly elected Department of Community Development (DCD) Director, Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, the two (2) Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach, that were not in office  during the following documented events.

    CW 90.58.130 is the law on SMP Public Participation (full text below)

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    Commissioners approved a “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY” for the SMP Update in March of 2010 a 16 page document (Who? Where citizens involved in creating this document?)

    PDN Article published Dec 14, 2010
    Clallam shoreline update could bring new curbs to development, commissioners told

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

    Clallam County PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY approved March 2010

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    Clallam County recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update

    —————————————————-

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE.

    Approved March of 2010? TEN months later? Jan 26, 2011 Clallam County SMP,  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————————————————–

    I was invited Jan 26, 2011 and did attend as Trustee of the George C. Rains Sr. Estate.

    Prior to the meeting, I did a background check on ESA Adolfson, consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    It was presented by ESA  Adolfson paid Consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer

    No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.

    Word got around and sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

     SMP Public Comment #30  011811 – DJones – G

    —————————————————————————

    From: Darlene Jones

    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM

    To: Recipient list suppressed

    Cc: Merrill, Hannah

    Subject: Shoreline Master Program

    I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    There will be a SMP Focus Group Discussion on Wednesday, January 26, 2011

    from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. at Vern Burton Community Center. The meeting will be facilitated by the County’s consultants on this project, Jim Kramer and Carol MacIlroy.

    Last week I received a flyer in the mail from Clallam County announcing the meeting.

    Contact info:Hannah Merrill, Clallam County Planner SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    The flyer states, “We want to get some early input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    At this point I have no opinion of the process or expected outcome. This email is merely to be sure you know about the meeting and where to get more information. …

    ———————————————————————————————

    Who are these ESA Adolfson, paid consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer?

    The background check, I did prior to the January 26, 2011 meeting, on ESA Adolfson consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer disclosed the following.

    “Opportunities to improve shoreline management in Puget Sound”

    Jun 2, 2010 – Jim Kramer. Carol MacIlroy. Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson). Prepared for: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

    MARGARET CLANCY, ESA project manager, has helped other jurisdictions, INCLUDING JEFFERSON COUNTY, update their own plans. CLANCY WAS JOINED BY FELLOW CONSULTANTS JIM KRAMER AND ANN SEITER

    ———————————————————————————–

    During the  Jan 26, 2011 meeting a question was asked of the ESA consultants.

    How long have you been working on this?

    Jim Kramer’s answer was

    “A couple of months”

    After the meeting, I confronted ESA SMP Facilitator Jim Kramer in the hall,  and asked him why he didn’t tell the truth?

    He just shrugged and basically said… What difference does it make… and walked away.

    ————————————————————————————-

     Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.Word got around, No doubt From: The email Darlene Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM To: Recipient list suppressed.

    About sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

    Eight or ten uninvited property owners  from Lake Sutherland showed up and made comments and asked questions of concern about how the 200′ SMP setbacks would affect their lake front property. (there are 300 privately owned shoreline homes Lake Sutherland)

    ————————————————————–

     Later, I asked the county for, and received the sign in sheet for the Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    There was not one Lake Sutherland property owner on the sign in sheet.

    After that, I asked for and received the summary of the Jan 26, 2011 meeting, prepared by the ESA facilitators /consultants. THERE WAS NOT ONE WORD OR REFERENCE TO THE LAKE SUTHERLAND PROPERTY OWNER THAT ATTENDED THE MEETING OR THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

     Snippet, Question/topic of the ESA facilitators /consultants Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    *WHAT WOULD INSPIRE YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN CLALLAM COUNTY’S EFFORT TO PROTECT PRIVATE USE OF LAND?

    —————————————————————————————–

    WHAT WOULD INSPIRE ME?

     In fact, I was so inspired, I went to a Clallam County Commissioners meeting and made a comment. Documented below.

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/…/30202999…

    Peninsula Daily News

    Feb 1, 2011 – About PDN … Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism; … Shoreline Master Program update, e-mail SMP@co.clallam.wa.us, …

    Pearl Rains Hewett, who attended a Jan. 26 forum, said some citizens were fearful over what the update will mean to them.

    ————————————————————————-

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County public participation process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    AND, TO DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?

    —————————————————————————————

    Clallam County Shoreline PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY March 2010

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that PUBLIC INPUT is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

     3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. all public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

     7. EVALUATE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROGRAM. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    A 16 page document

    3.0 Public Participation Goals ..

    4.1 Phase I – Public Participation Program ..

    6.0 Public Involvement Strategies ……………..

    6.1 Technical and Policy Advisor Groups ………..

    6.2 Shoreline Property Owners …………………

    6.3 Speaker Bureau …………………………..

    6.4 Written Comments …………………………

    6.5 Other Public Involvement Strategies ………..

    7.0 Public Notices and Information Dissemination ..

     

    Page 3 of 16

    This Public Participation Strategy

    describes the steps that Clallam County will take to involve the community in decisions regarding the SMP update. The goal is to provide the public with timely information, an understanding of the process, and opportunities to review and comment on update decisions before they are made. Clallam County views this Public Participation Strategy  as establishing the basic public involvement processes that will be utilized during the SMP Update Program. Other public participation activities may be put into practice without changing the plan.

    Page 5 of 16

    Update of the shoreline master program will include several steps, each of which will

    require providing the public with information and receiving their input.

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY RECOGNIZES THAT EARLY AND CONTINUOUS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS CRITICAL TO THE UPDATE and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. All public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    1. Be transparent and inclusive. To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    2. Identify the most effective opportunities for public participation Provide public input opportunities at project milestones, prior to decision-making To ensure the optimum use of the public’s time on issues of greatest concern

    3. Actively involve and encourage participation of all persons and entities having interest and means (RCW 90.58.103) early in the process, with continued communication and feedback

    throughout the process. Make a special effort to reach the under-represented

    communities/stakeholders

    Broadly and regularly disseminate SMP materials and meetings notices, and seek written and verbal input at the same intervals (RCW 36.70A.140; WAC 365-195-600) Use tools that enable people with different learning styles to be informed and participate Provide the public with a range of input opportunities.

    4. Coordinate the SMP Update Program with cities (Port Angeles; Sequim; Forks) efforts. Identify opportunities to coordinate messages and materials. Share Program schedules, meeting agendas, and feedback received with cities.

    5. Consult and consider recommendations from state-wide agencies and tribes, particularly with regard to resources and/or shorelines of statewide-significance. Provide special briefings and review opportunities to these “KEY” parties (WAC 173-26-251).

    6. Promote an understanding about the SMP Update requirements. ESTABLISH A STRATEGY TO EDUCATE KEY PARTIES about the SMP Update process and requirements

    DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    7. Evaluate the public participation process throughout the life of the Program. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    8. Coordinate and consolidate public participation requirements with the SEPA environmental review process. Implement a public participation plan that expands upon SEPA requirements.

    —————————————————————————

    JAN 26, 2011  Clallam County SMP  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————–

    MARCH OF 2010 Rememberthat date? Commissioners approved a PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY for the update

    Jan 2011, The ESA flyer states, “We want to get some ‘EARLY’ input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    ————————————————–

    DECEMBER 5, 2009

    HOW COULD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAVE AN SMP  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/1_SMP120509.pdf

    SMP Update Public Comment #1

    CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county ofthe concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WHO IN CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT DETERMINED THE “EARLY” NOTIFICATION PRIORITIES FOR THE SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    WHO WAS NOTIFIED EARLY? AND WHO DECIDED TO EDUCATE “KEY” PARTIES AND PROVIDE SPECIAL BRIEFINGS?

    DECEMBER 5, 2009 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAD AN SMP STRATEGY?

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2009:

    2010:

     

    ————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW FULL TEXT RCW 90.58.130

    the law on SMP Public Participation

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest, means

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments SHALL:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ————————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County Public Participation and Strategy process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?


  • No Trespass on Private Property

    Criminal Trespass on Private Property?

    House Bill 1375: Concerning criminal trespass on private property
    Introduced by Rep. David Taylor (Moxee) (R) on January 19, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.

    It is the intent of the legislature to eliminate special immunities from prosecution for trespass, whether those immunities have been legislatively granted to the government or to private persons or entities.

     Keep reading, you’ll love it…

    —————————————————————————————

    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166654

    HOUSE BILL 1375(A 76 page document)

    State of Washington

    64th Legislature

    2015 Regular Session

    By Representatives Taylor, Scott, Young, G. Hunt, Shea, and Buys

    Read first time 01/19/15. Referred to Committee on State Government

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

    NEW SECTION.

    Sec. 1.

    The legislature declares that the people of this state have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy on their private property.

    ——————————–

    snippet from

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    Posted on October 21, 2014 7:57 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

     (read more at behindmyback.org)

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    ———————————————

    House Bill 1375

    The legislature finds, however, that over time statutory authority for entry onto private property HAS EXPANDED TO THE POINT WHERE THE PEOPLE NO LONGER FEEL SECURE from the unreasonable intrusion of government officials and others who have been granted special immunity from prosecution for trespass.

    ———————————–

    snippet from Presumed to be Constitutional

    These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    THINK ABOUT THIS?

    When They Came In WA. State

    This is  PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ————————————————–

    House Bill 1375

    The legislature further finds that this unnecessary erosion of the right of privacy creates dangerous tension between the people of the state and their government and jeopardizes the orderly resolution of issues.

    The legislature intends, with certain limited and necessary exceptions, that all persons, whether government employees or private persons, be made subject to the same restrictions with regard to entering upon the property of another. It is the intent of the legislature to eliminate special immunities from prosecution for trespass, whether those immunities have been legislatively granted to the government or to private persons or entities.

    —————————————-

    (5) “Enters or remains unlawfully.” A person “enters or remains unlawfully” in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

    ———————————-

    A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, IS NOT A LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TO ENTER OR REMAIN ON THE LAND

     read the complete text at..

    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166654

    HOUSE BILL 1375 (A 76 page document)

     


  • SMP Public Comment (159)

    SMP Public Comment (159)

    Clallam County Planning Commission

    Public Forums

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clallam County Planning Commission, for recognizing the need for this additional  step in the SMP Update  process, and voting to provide the public forums  for us.

    I have appreciation and  respect for the dedicated members of Planning Commission that made the (4) regional, informal, public forums a reality. The choice of evening forums, and  having the presenters go to meeting at the four locations, allowed working people to attend.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I did attend two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ————————————————————————–

    Jan. 8, 2015 Public Forum at the PA Senior Center

    It was very encouraging to see our New County Commissioner Bill Peach, our new DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, members of the Clallam County Planning Commission and Home Rule Charter Commission  in attendance. It is vital to have our local representative, Involved in, listening to public questions, comments and the many concerns of our local citizens on the SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WE HAVE LOTS OF CONCERNS

    OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS  LOTS OF OPTIONS

    ———————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER THE LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    SMP handbook chapter 5

    ———————————————————

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     ——————————————————————————————–

    The  SMP Update  OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANY OPTIONS

    My suggestions and SMP comment Jan 16, 2015

    That, Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners EXERCISE  THEIR LOCAL OPTIONS and ACT on the OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, from the November SMP Draft Update

    That they act in the best interest of Clallam County taxpaying citizens

    Nothing to lose out of towner’s and members of  special interest group, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DUMP, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED vested private shoreline property owners and taxpaying citizens.

    —————————————————————————————–

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    Shoreline Jurisdiction – Washington State Department of …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/chapter5.pdf

    Considering local options for shoreland areas ….. body is then regulated under the local SMP, even if it is not yet listed or mapped in the SMP [WAC. 173-20-046] …

     Options shown below ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL OR PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN, in addition to the minimum shoreline jurisdiction noted above, when determining shoreline jurisdiction along streams and rivers. When making this decision, consider:

    The LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPTION of selecting road or railroad corridors, or other features or distances within the flood plain, that provide a suitable upland boundary for the shorelands associated with the river.

    Ecology RECOMMENDS the SMP include the following definition if FEMA maps are used to define the floodway.”Floodway” means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ———————————————————————————–

    CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS

    The shoreline property owners, attending the Port Angeles Forum, were well informed on the SMP Update.  The PA questions and comments were detailed and pointedly skeptical.

    1. PA How much did this cost and who’s paying for it?

    2. PA What will I have to do to, to vest  my permits,  to allow me time to complete my home building project before the new SMP is in force?

    3.PA If this SMP was in place in Louisiana or Texas there would be no more development

    4.PA  Does this SMP ever get any better?

    5. PA Will this power point presentation be available online?

    6. PA How will the value of my shoreline property be effected?

    7.  PA My comment and question during the forum

    There has been county discussion that would REQUIRE critical areas information be recorded on shoreline property owners deeds. How is it proceeding?

    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Buyers are protected by RCW 64.06.020 –

    Critical areas information being recorded on shoreline property owners deeds, to alert and protect buyers,  is not an SMP requirement. Including this SMP requirement, by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be  redundant and place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline vested private property owners and all other taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The  County proposed requirement, to place critical areas property shoreline property owners deeds should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update.

    RCW 64.06.020 – Access Washington

    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 64 › Chapter 64.06

    Washington State Senate

    Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement … For your protection you must date and sign each page of this disclosure .

    RCW 64.06.020Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement — Minimum information.

    (1) In a transaction for the sale of improved residential real property, the seller shall, unless the buyer has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement under RCW 64.06.010, or unless the transfer is otherwise exempt under RCW 64.06.010, deliver to the buyer a completed seller disclosure statement in the following format and that contains, at a minimum, the following information:
    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    NOT REQUIRED BY SMP LAW

    The SMP update includes MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS on development of nine (9) or more units

    RCW 90.58.020 SPECIFICALLY STATES

     (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES

    The Clallam County SMP Update does not require the taking of any private shoreline property to provide public access to the public.     

    This  SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be a local legal prerogative, imposed solely by Clallam County  and  place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline property owners and the all taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The burden of expense and paperwork required to MUST provide proof of EXEMPTION from the  MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) must not be dumped on the backs of the already beleaguered vested private shoreline property owners.

    Commentary: WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner – commentary by Pearl Rains Hewett

    8/26/2011 If WA State WDFW and DNR can demand access fees for the EXPENSE of allowing public access on public land?

    How can private property owners be required, by the SMP (Shoreline Management Plan) Update, to provide public access on their private property without compensation for land management capital, operational, maintenance renovation, development of new facilities, trails, enforcement needs and allow them to seek restitution from those who damage their private property?

    The SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update

    ————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.020Legislative findings — State policy enunciated — Use preference.

    snippet
    The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
    (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
    (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
    (3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
    (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
    (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES


         (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

    Clallam County has  51% public access, the highest public access in WA State (per Steve Grey)

    November 2014  Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update – Clallam County

    SIGNS indicating the public’s right to access public shoreline recreation areas/facilities SHALL be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at points of access and entry.

    If people KNOW where it is and can find it,  It will certainly increase recreational opportunities for the public

    (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Sequim and PA PUBLIC FORUMS PROVIDED

    1. An introduction by Steve Gray

    2. A SMP presentation by ESA Consultant Margaret Clancy

    3. An opportunity for the audience to make comments ask questions as a group and get a response.

    4. The informal part,  mix and mingle, the opportunity for one on one personalized attention, staff and a shoreline property owner.

    First by finding the right map, identifying their piece of shoreline property.

    Then the challenging  part..

    Staff decoding the maps and explaining what all of those overlapping colored patches and lines meant?

    —————————————————-

    The reality part

    Wetland? Critical area? flood plain? associated wetland? zoning? setback? Buffer? Conservation? natural? hundred year flood?

    Why is my buffer? setback wider? Why is that patch so big? You mean? I can’t do anything within 100 feet  of that area? FEMA flood plain? I’ll have to get FEMA insurance?

    ———————————————————

    The unbelievable parts

    River meander line? floodplain? What the hell? I live on top of a hill? how can a river meander up to the top of a hill? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    ————————————————————-

    Remember this part?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ——————————————

    The reality part

    FEMAS HAS WARPED FLOOD PLAINS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarped-data/

    Mar 22, 2014 – Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes. Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office …

    ————————————————————-

    The unbelievable parts Sequim Forum

    Grand fathered in? everything you have, no matter where it is, no matter what it is, is just fine,  it is an acceptable use. No worries, be happy. (read the fine print, unless?)

    ——————————————————

    Sequim Forum

    Adopting Clallam County SMP by Ordinance? OR WHAT OTHER?

    What does this mean? Please explain  and clarify, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make?

    Shoreline Master Program – City of Kirkland

    www.kirklandwa.gov/Assets/City…/10c_UnfinishedBusiness.pdf

    Kirkland

    Jul 26, 2010 – Adopt Ordinance 4251 approving the Shoreline Master Program …. of the new provisions found in the State Guidelines are “no net loss” of …

    (Ordinance 4251 over a 600 page document)

    —————————————————————————

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Something has been added A NEW ONE TIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT on the SMP Update?

    Is this another of the County’s  unnecessary restriction on Shoreline property owners?

    snippet

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    SMP Rude Comments and Conduct

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    A nothing to lose member of a special interest group,
    And, a member of the SMP Committee, that wanted to know who would MONITOR county building permits to private property owners,

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    This comment was NOT included in the summary of that meeting. Nor, was my response to that comment.

    Disgust, Indeed…. We all know that every private property owner, that wants to add a bedroom or bathroom to his private home on his private property within the SMP jurisdiction is suspect.

    Now? we are confronted with A NEW ONETIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT? What happens when your mother-in law has to move  in,   or you have twins? and you want a second 10% build out?

    We all know that we will have to keep an eye on them, because they’ll be trying to get away with anything that they can.”  (they’ll get one 10% and then come back for another second 10%  to avoid the 25%)

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

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    The SMP mini presentation provided more questions then answers

    Comments and Questions (wait until after the presentation)

    1.  During the ESA presentation, a man raised his had three times, he was shut down two times. The third time, he managed to get in this comment. You are covering too much, I want answers and won’t be able to remember what I wanted to ask.

    2.  Where can I get a copy? (no access SMP online) Answer, go to the library.

    Can I get a copy from you? (aka the county) Answer, yes, but you will have to pay for it.

    How big is it? About two hundred pages plus, 30 plus maps.

    3. There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about AQUACULTURE

    —————————————————————–

    snippets of email comments I received Jan. 12, 2015

    Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands from Dungeness Farms (the duck hunting club just west of the old Three Crabs Restaurant).  The lease runs until 2028.  They propose farming geoduck on 30 acres.  Nothing has been said what will be done with the other 67 acres, but Taylor Shellfish leases in the south Puget Sound and they farm geoduck off shore and clams and oysters near shore.  The implication during the presentation was that some aqua farming would happen on the other 67 acres.  The land is at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    To plant the geoduck seed, Taylor Shellfish will scrape the seabed with heavy equipment.  In the South Puget Sound, they would gather the starfish in a pile and pour lime on them kill them.  Sand dollars are shoveled onto the shore where they die.  They remove any crabs from the area……..

    There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands (and fish pens)

    Steve Grey appeared to be stressed? When he had to respond several times?

    It went something like this?

    Emphatically stating that  TAYLOR SHELLFISH had not even  applied for a permit from the county.

    and, that TAYLOR SHELLFISH would be  required to  “run the gantlet” (my words) of fed? state? ecology? impact? before the county could/would approve a permit,

    Even if TAYLOR SHELLFISH HAD applied for a county permit,  and the county had received the application permit, which they do not, the county would have to receive before it could be considered, to be approved

    ————————————————————————————–

    My comment

    Some people just got up and walked out of the Sequim Forum.

    There was NO Applause.

    —————————————————

    the bottom line

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    Where do we go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     


  • My 158th SMP Comment

    November Draft SMP Update 

    My 158th Public SMP Comment

    For the protection of the affected 3300

    From Jan. 26, 2011 to Jan. 11, 2015

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    It is the legal obligation/responsibility of the Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners,  to FERRET OUT the illegal, unconstitutional, frivolous, capricious and redundant permitting regulations, restrictions and abuses  that are included in the November SMP Draft Update

     Full Definition of FERRET OUT  to find or uncover with keen, DILIGENT, crafty, or shrewd search.  FERRET  the facts out after hours of painstaking examination of records.

     Legal Protection for Clallam County 3300 shoreline private property and  all taxpayers, should not be limited to  “A CATCH AS CATCH CAN”  by the “DUE DILIGENCE” and PERSISTENCE of vested Private property owners.

    ———————————————————————————————

     EXAMPLES OF THE SMP CHANGES in the SMP Draft Update CAUSED by   the “DUE DILIGENCE” and PERSISTENCE of vested Private property owners?

    Example… the failure of DCD and ESA consultant to competently review and use the Clallam County SMP Shoreline Inventory and Characteristic report to protect and  keep “the 35 foot setbacks on Lake Sutherland”

     Example… The SMP rule that would have prohibited the 100% rebuilding of damaged property in buffer zones.

     Example… having to fight ESA Margaret Clancy, repeatedly for the LEGAL protection, LEGAL wording  and LEGAL intent of WA State law in and for the PROTECTION of single family residence and appurtenances’ on the SMP Update.

    The only LEGAL PROTECTION on the SMP Update, that vested private property have against the SMP’s  violation of their constitutional rights,  private property use and enjoyment, is the PROTECTION provided to us by our Elected Public Officials.

     —————————————————-

    ESA consultants, over reach for compliance, but are they ever sued for SMP content? The county is held legally liable and they are the ones that get sued.

    Please review Clallam County’s contract with ESA Adolfson?

    Do they have a NO LIABILITY CLAUSE in their contract?

     How much skin does ESA have in the Game?

     ——————————————————————————————-

     Lawsuits are expensive for taxpayers

    Back in the day, my father George C. Rains Sr. filed a lawsuit against Clallam County over SMP restricted signage.

    I gave a copy to our previous DCD Director, Sheila Rourk Miller

    This is a cautionary LEGAL tale to be heeded.

    After a long legal battle, my father prevailed in court.  The finding was based on his constitutional right to free speech.

    He was allowed reasonable attorney fees by the court. The reasonable attorney fees were $27,000.00 (a lot of money back then) Clallam County objected to the large fee.

    The court responded with the following. $27,000 was a reasonable amount because, my father had to hire two of the top constitutional attorney’s in the United States of America, to fight Clallam County SMP for his constitutional right to free speech.

    —————————————————————————–

    Jan. 12, 2015,  Today is my “ONE RIGHT” day with WA State DOE!

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/09/17/2757/

    Sep 17, 2014 – OK, so what’s WRONG with that? We the people, have every RIGHT to make a THOUSAND public objections and comments. So what’s …

    —————————————————

    Google “A thousand wrongs and one right”

    About 346,000,000 results (0.37 seconds) 



  • WA State Wetland Draft?

    WHAT WA State Wetland Draft?

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

     Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    WHO?  WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS WETLAND PLAN?

    WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC NOTIFIED?

    HOW DID ECOLOGY NOTIFY THE PUBLIC?

    —————————————————————

     I signed up for ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

    So I could keep track of what ECOLOGY was up to and participate with public comments.

     SOWhen did WA State Department of Ecology NOTIFY THE PUBLIC (that would be me) about THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN, WHAT METHOD OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION DID ECOLOGY USE?   ECOLOGY’S WAC TRACK?

     —————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    IF PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND  SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

    I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | We Need a New Public Notice Act

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/12/…/weneed-a-new-a-publicnotice-act/

    Dec 8, 2014 – WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN … to create a more stringent public notification and participation process by …

    ———————————————————————-

    My after the fact comment (Jan. 1, 2015)

    “That any WA State  property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    My comment on Feb. 1, 2011

    “That any type of property owner that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle has a reason to be concerned,”…

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/news/…/clallam-c…

    Feb 1, 2011 Peninsula Daily News

    ———————————————————————————–

    SO…. In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state.

     SO… The WA State Department of Ecology received taxpayers money to spend on this wetland draft?

    INDEED, WE THE VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY CASES IN ... to create a more stringent PUBLIC NOTIFICATION and participation process by …

    —————————————————————————————–

    WOW…. State agencies involved in WETLAND MANAGEMENT collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    SO…. EXACTLY HOW MANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, FROM VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS,  DID WA State Department of Ecology receive ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    WA State Department of Ecology also received input from local governments?

    What input did WA State Department of Ecology receive from our elected Clallam County Commissioners’ ON THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN?

    ——————————————————-

    AFTER THE FACT CONTACT INFORMATION

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology

    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for PUBLIC REVIEW

    Thank you for your willingness TO REVIEW AND COMMENT on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis

    —————————————————————

    DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN

    Background

    In 2013, the Department of Ecology received a Wetland Program Development Grant (WPDG), from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to develop a statewide plan for wetlands of the state. A draft of the Wetland Program Plan is now available for public review.

    The WPP outlines what the state strives to accomplish regarding core elements of a wetland program.  It is a comprehensive plan and, as a result, not all of it can be accomplished in the near future.  Therefore, AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD, decisions will be made regarding which actions identified in the WPP should receive the state’s focus over the next six years. 

    State agencies involved in wetland management collaborated on developing the plan.  They also received input from tribal governments, local governments, and federal agencies.

    More information about the plan can be found within the document itself or on the Wetland Program Plan webpage.

    Informational webinar

    Ecology will be hosting a webinar on December 10, 2014 at 6:30pm to answer any questions you may have about the Wetland Program Plan. To sign up for the webinar, contact Susan Buis (contact information below).

    How to Comment

    You do not have to edit the document for grammar or punctuation. We are asking you to provide feedback on content and your understanding of the document. If you are not able to review the entire document, please focus on the section of most interest to you or provide comments on the action tables at the end of each section. Please let us know if there are any sections that are unclear. We would also appreciate any ideas or suggestions you have to improve the content.

    You can provide comments in several ways:

    1. Download a copy of the document and use track changes.
    2. Request the document in Word 2007 and then provide comments and edits using track changes.
    3. Write comments on a printed paper copy of the document.
    4. Write a separate Word document in which you provide detailed comments or suggestions. Please indicate the section or page and paragraph to which your comment or suggestion applies.
    5. Provide feedback on the Core Element Action Tables (PDF) by taking this Survey Monkey survey.

    Please send comments by December 31, 2014 to Susan Buis via email or postal mail at:

    Susan Buis
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    P.O. Box 47600
    Olympia, WA 98504
    360-407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    Thank you for your willingness to review and comment on this draft.

    PUBLIC REVIEW is an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State.

    ————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    IF? PUBLIC REVIEW is ACTUALLY an important step in improving this strategic wetland program plan for Washington State?

    As a WA State vested private property owner, I am requesting an extension on the Public Comment period for THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

    GIVEN ADDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT,

     I would be delighted TO REVIEW AND MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON

    THE DRAFT WASHINGTON STATE WETLAND PROGRAM PLAN.

     

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..