+menu-


  • Category Archives Bang for their buck? Restoration
  • Obama’s Infrastructure “The Fast Act”

    (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ”Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” or the ”FAST Act”.

    TALL ORDERS, this is a 490 page document

    WITH ALL THE  DEMOCRAT’S BELLS AND WHISTLES EMBEDDED

    Elaine Chao sworn in as transportation secretary – The Washington Post

    www.washingtonpost.com/…sworn-in…transportation…/3d12bd26-e80b-11e6-903d-9b…

    Jan 31, 2017 – Elaine Chao was sworn in as transportation secretary by Vice … STORY: Trump transportation secretary pick Elaine Chao confirmed in Senate, …

    ——————————————————————————
    I’m sure somebody in the Trump Administration  is reading it….
    TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT.
    ———————————————————————-
    I did not read the full report.
     BUT, I DID READ ENOUGH TO RED FLAG PARTS! (below)
    ————————————————————————

    Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or the FAST Act – FHWA …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/

    On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) into law

    ——————————————————————————
    THE DEMOCRAT’S FACT SHEET AND THE DEMOCRAT’S  FUNDING
    HOW MANY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS HAVE THEY SPENT SINCE ENACTMENT?
    HOW MUCH HAVE THEY GOT STASHED?

    Sec. 1402. Highway Trust Fund transparency and accountability.

    Sec. 1403. Additional deposits into Highway Trust Fund.

    Apportionment – FAST Act Fact Sheets – FHWA | Federal Highway …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/apportionmentfs.cfm

    Total funding for Federal-aid highway formula programs. 

    THE FAST ACT AUTHORIZES A TOTAL COMBINED AMOUNT ($39.7 BILLION IN FY 2016, $40.5 BILLION IN FY 2017, …

    ———————————————————————

    JUST ASKING? JUST SAYING…

    HOW MANY TIMES HAVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BEEN TAKEN BY THE GRANTED?

    —————————————————————————–

    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – FAST Act Fact Sheets …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm

    [FAST Act § 1109(a)].

    THE STBG PROMOTES FLEXIBILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS AND PROVIDES FLEXIBLE FUNDING TO BEST ADDRESS STATE AND LOCAL …

    —————————————————————————

    RED FLAGS?
    THE  DEMOCRAT’S BELLS AND WHISTLES EMBEDDED
    —————————————————————-
    TAKEN BY THE GRANTED UNDER SEC. 79002?
    ————————————————————

    SEC. 79002. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

    TITLE LXXX—CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 80001. Requests for consumer reports by State or local child support

     enforcement agencies

    TITLE LXXVIII—TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

    Sec. 78001. Reviews of family incomes.

    TITLE LXXIX—HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

    Sec. 79001. Authority to administer rental assistance

    Sec. 32101. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes.

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    Sec. 1409. Milk products.

    Sec. 24303. Vehicle event data recorder study.

    Sec. 1301. Satisfaction of requirements for certain historic sites

    Sec. 1302. Clarification of transportation environmental authorities.

    Sec. 41009. Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental reviews and permits.

    Sec. 1415. Administrative provisions to encourage pollinator habitat and forage on transportation rights-of-way.

    Sec. 5512. Access to National Driver Register.

    Sec. 1413. National electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridors.

    Sec. 1414. Repeat offender criteria.

    TITLE XLIII—PAYMENTS TO CERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

    Sec. 43001. Payments from Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

    ———————————————————————–

    [PDF]FAST Act – Congress.gov

    https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fixing Amer-

    ica’s Surface Transportation Act’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act’’.

    (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

    The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

    1. R. 22 (A 490 page report

    Subtitle C—Acceleration of Project Delivery

    Sec. 1301. Satisfaction of requirements for certain historic sites

    Sec. 1302. Clarification of transportation environmental authorities.

    Sec. 1303. Treatment of certain bridges under preservation requirements.

    Sec. 5512. Access to National Driver Register.

    PART I—DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015

    Sec. 24301. Short title.

    Sec. 24302. Limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event data recorders.

    Sec. 24303. Vehicle event data recorder study.

    TITLE XXXII—OFFSETS

    Subtitle A—Tax Provisions

    Sec. 32101. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes.

    Sec. 41007. Litigation, judicial review, and savings provision.

    Sec. 41008. Reports.

    Sec. 41009. Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental

    reviews and permits.

    TITLE XLIII—PAYMENTS TO CERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

    Sec. 43001. Payments from Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

     

    DIVISION F—ENERGY SECURITY

    Sec. 61001. Emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions.

    Sec. 61002. Resolving environmental and grid reliability conflicts.

    Sec. 61003. Critical electric infrastructure security.

    Sec. 61004. Strategic Transformer Reserve.

    Sec. 61005. Energy security valuation

    TITLE LXXV—ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    TITLE LXXVIII—TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

    Sec. 78001. Reviews of family incomes.

    TITLE LXXIX—HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

    Sec. 79001. Authority to administer rental assistance

    1. R. 22—10

    Sec. 79002. Reallocation of funds.

    TITLE LXXX—CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 80001. Requests for consumer reports by State or local child support

     enforcement agencies

    Subtitle E—General Provisions

    Sec. 5501. Delays in goods movement.

    Sec. 5502. Emergency route working group.

     Subtitle D—Miscellaneous

    Sec. 1401. Prohibition on the use of funds for automated traffic enforcement.

    Sec. 1402. Highway Trust Fund transparency and accountability.

    Sec. 1403. Additional deposits into Highway Trust Fund.

    Sec. 1404. Design standards.

    Sec. 1405. Justification reports for access points on the Interstate System.

    Sec. 1406. Performance period adjustment.

    Sec. 1407. Vehicle-to-infrastructure equipment.

    Sec. 1408. Federal share payable.

    Sec. 1409. Milk products.

    Sec. 1410. Interstate weight limits.

    Sec. 1411. Tolling; HOV facilities; Interstate reconstruction and rehabilitation.

    Sec. 1412. Projects for public safety relating to idling trains.

    Sec. 1413. National electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridors.

    Sec. 1414. Repeat offender criteria.

    Sec. 1415. Administrative provisions to encourage pollinator habitat and forage on transportation rights-of-way.

    Sec. 1416. High priority corridors on National Highway System.

    Sec. 1417. Work zone and guard rail safety training.

    Sec. 1418. Consolidation of programs.

    Sec. 1419. Elimination or modification of certain reporting requirements.

    Sec. 1420. Flexibility for projects.

    Sec. 1421. Productive and timely expenditure of funds.

    Sec. 1422. Study on performance of bridges.

    ———————————————————–

    TITLE LXXV—ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    SO WHAT’S NEW ON WIKI LEAK?

    “YEAR ZERO”… 8000 PAGES

    IN 1954 THOSE IN POWER KNEW IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.


  • Comments-Objections to PSNERP

    Comments-Objections to (PSNERP)

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem “RESTORATION” Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    IT’S FEDERAL, IT’S STATE, IT’S OUR MONEY

    AND,  IT’S THE ENTIRE PUGET SOUND

    THE FOLLOWING ARE WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS ON PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT (PSNERP)

    ————————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    ——————————————————

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ——————————————————————————

    Subject: FW: submittal For Clallam County of PSNERP written objection

    From: Pearl Rains Hewett
    Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2015
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP Clallam County written objection

    ————————————————————————————————-

    My PSNERP written public comments and objections PLUS…..

    The fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise.

    —————————————————————————-

    My written comment on the SHADY? history of the Puget Sound Partnership

    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    scroll down for more

    ——————————————————————-

    My written comments on RESTORATION….. period

    Behind My Back | RED FLAG WARNING Page 2

    www.behindmyback.org/category/red-flag-warning/page/2/

    Apr 9, 2014 – EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND … the cost of an unfunded WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND? ….. Goggle behindmyback.org for the full text of “Sue and Settle Sucks”

    —————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted GAME OF RESTORATION that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    ———————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/10/14-8-billion-for-restoration/

    Jun 10, 2014 – http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf … The “RESTORATION” Shell Game In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 …. The “RESTORATIONShell Game.

    ———————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Bang for their buck? Restoration

    www.behindmyback.org/category/bang-for-their-buck-restoration/

    Dec 3, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/ …… for planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ————————————————————————-

    INDEED, while we’re RESTORING

    While we’re in the “RESTORATION” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    Behind My Back | American Restoration of Law and Order

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/…/american-restoration-of-law-and-order/

    Jun 11, 2014 – American Restoration of Law and Order? OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY IN AMERICA?

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Senate Hearings on EPA

    www.behindmyback.org/category/senate-hearings-on-epa/

    Sep 1, 2014 – GIVE “STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY” BACK TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! … http://heartland.org/policy-documents/replacing-environmental-protection- ….. Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and …

    ————————————————————————–

    THE HISTORY OF PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2007-2010

    read the complete text at

    Behind My Back | The Bad News On Kilmer

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/08/31/the-badnews-on-kilmer/

    Aug 31, 2013 – US. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of WETLANDS, SHORELINES By ROB CARSON — Staff writer …

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP,” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.

    ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” May 2010
    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    ———————————————————————————

    I Pearl Rains Hewett, submit and concur, with the following PSNERP Projects comments. ——————————————————————————————————

    From: Kathy Mitchell
    Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 6:13 PM
    To: <nearshore@usace.army.mil>
    Subject: PSNERP Projects Comment

    C/O: Nancy C. Gleason

    USACOE

    CENWS-EN-ER

    POB 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    nearshore@usace.army.mil

    The PSNERP projects, especially those for Skagit County, must be abandoned; the enormous waste of tax dollars for these ill-conceived and harmful projects to precious farmland under the guise of flimsy reasoning and faulty assumptions is wrong.

    The fact that the concept for these unneeded and unnecessary projects got this far, especially with such an outrageous price tag, is a disgrace. These proposed projects would necessarily cause ruination of thousands of acres farmland, and more than likely cause unforeseen and unintended consequences to those and adjacent lands.

    Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that these ideas were churned out by the Puget Sound Partnership and by the Envisioning people at OSU, is no surprise; both groups are well known for their inferior, ideology-based recommendations rather than sound work based on pertinent, fact-based science, on appropriate field work, and on site-specific work.  Since when do they ‘know all’ and ‘see all’ about what restoration really means for areas they really know nothing about?  As a classically trained geologist, I do know that the land is in a constant state of flux and that these people’s notions of exactly what ‘snapshot in time’ to use as this golden state of restoration is laughable.  Do we go back 30 years?  Go back 300 years?  Go back 3,000 years?  Go back 3 Million years? Erosion, sedimentation, and associated processes are dynamic – the land will change over time.

    Finally, I am appalled and quite dismayed that the Army Corps of Engineers has had anything to do with this wasteful boondoggle.

    Sincerely,

    Kathy Mitchell

    1155 Chuckanut Ridge Drive

    Bow, WA 98232

    ——————————————————————————-

    From: Roger Mitchell
    Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 2:56 PM
    To: Nearshore@usace.army.mil
    Subject: submittal of PSNERP written comment

     

    Written Comment on Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)

    Roger H. Mitchell, Bow, Washington

    I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

    Opinion:

    The entire premise for PSNERP is scientifically flawed, ideologically driven, and just another veiled attempt to socially engineer and control the lives of private property owners. At it’s best, PSNERP is a government make-work program; at it’s worst PSNERP is merely another chapter in irresponsible environmentalism run amok.

    Procedurally, this proposed project has been seriously flawed. There are significant inconsistencies and discrepancies between pugetsoundnearshore.org’s website and the website at nws.usace.army.mil. Discrepancies include different numbers of affected acres and in cost projections. If the goal was to confuse the public then, for once, government has succeeded. Why are we just getting to comment now on something that has been proceeding for years ? Why and how are we now being “steamrollered” into supporting this proposal in what appears to be a predetermined outcome that, once gain, bears little resemblance to the “consent of the governed?

    The proposed project is at odds with RCW 36.70A – the Growth Management Act (GMA). PSNERP will cause destruction and loss of farmland and rural business that is contrary to GMA mandates.  Some ideologues have relentlessly made it more and more difficult for farmers to grow the crops that feed the rest of us. Why let PSNERP add to the decline of farmland, farming, and farmers ? Any PSNERP proposed project must show, in detail, how it complies with the GMA. Thus far, that demonstration of compliance has been disregarded, overlooked, or intentionally omitted in PSNERP proposals.

    Among the many problems with PSNERP and its many clones is that the instigators are never held accountable for their mistakes and failures. They play with other people’s money or, in this case, other people’s properties. Essentially they have no “skin in the game”. Ten years from now, when PSNERP has failed to do anything positive, and has had numerous, negative, unintended consequences, do you think the current PSNERPers are going to say, “Gee; I’m sorry ‘bout that PSNERP thing and wasting that Billion dollars. Do you want your refund in cash or a check ?”

    Actions:

    The EIS should be withdrawn. My preference would be to abandon this proposal and not waste another taxpayer dollar on it.

    There needs to be a true cost/benefit analysis. We’re talking about potential misappropriation and misapplication of taxpayer dollars. Without an honest cost benefit study, the public cannot properly determine whether the proposed project is acceptable or worthy of full funding, partial funding, or, my personal favorite, no funding at all.

    Let’s have a little chat about “restoration” and unanswered questions:

    re·store

    rəˈstôr/

    verb:  return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position.

    res·to·ra·tion

    ˌrestəˈrāSH(ə)n/

    noun:  the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition

    So, I ask you, where are the answers to the following “restoration” questions ?

    1.       Apparently there is a specific time and condition to which we should presumptively “restore”. How do we know that that chosen time and condition was, in fact, optimal or better in any way relative to the current time and condition ?

    2.       Who actually knows the details and dynamics of that presumptively chosen optimal time and condition to which PSNERPers would have us restore to from current conditions ?

    3.    Who gets to make the determination of what time and condition we are restoring to ?

    4.       Even if the PSNERP proposal could be determined to be either good or bad, who has decreed who has the authority to decide for all of the rest of us whether the proposal is good?

    5.       The issue is “restoration” projects; these projects do not exist in a vacuum — they affect other people, locations, and conditions as well. Worldviews, movements, and projects — these things all have consequences. What are PSNERP’s costs in resources (time & taxpayer dollars) and what other possible projects and programs will PSNERP preclude ?

    6.       What are the unintended consequences of the proposed PSNERP projects ? Forces result from interactions. The proposed PSNERP projects are interactive forces. Newton’s Third Law of Motions reminds us that For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. When you poke the balloon in one place it pops out in another. When PSNERP projects “poke” the balloon of status quo, what is going to pop out elsewhere as a result ?

    7.       Does anyone at PSNERP realize that the earth’s geology, biology, and ecology have been in a constant state of change since their very inceptions and will continue to change for infinity ? How incredibly arrogant, condescending, and egocentric of some to think they can determine exactly what is “best” in terms of time or condition for any of these dynamic, natural processes.

    8.       By what criteria has someone determined that current conditions are not “best” and has chosen the particular, proposed, “restore to” slice of time and conditions as better or optimal?

    9.       Purportedly, PSNERP is, like detrimental instream flow rules, all about salmon. Why are some people so wrapped up in attempting to “protect” one particular species (salmonids) to the detriment of others ? Who chose salmonids over other worthy species (including humans) who are left to compete, unassisted and unprotected, in the Darwinian battle with the rest of us ? We call it, “life”.

    PSNERP proposals have not provided good or acceptable answers to any of the above questions.

    Fallacies:

    PSNERP is yet another exercise in governmental fallacious reasoning. Fallacies can be divided into categories according to the epistemological factors that cause the error:

    The reasoning is invalid but is presented as if it were a valid argument

    • The argument has an unjustified premise
    • Some relevant evidence has been ignored or suppressed

     

    The PSNERP proposal has all of these fallacies. But, just be sure, PSNERP also has the types of fallacies listed below:

    False Dilemma

    A proposal that unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices

    False Cause

    Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another.

    Reversing Causation

    Drawing an improper conclusion about causation due to a causal assumption that reverses cause and effect.

    Unfalsifiability (Untestability)

    This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false. There is no null hypothesis.

    And the environmentalist ideologue’s perennial favorite:

    Scare Tactic

    Terrorizing people in order to give them a reason for believing that you are correct.

    By the way, while we’re “restoring”:

    While we’re in the “restoration” business I’d like a few things restored, too:

    I’d like my inherent, natural property rights restored.

    • I’d like my pursuit of happiness restored by not being constantly barraged with yet another manic, trumped up, Chicken Little environmental “crisis” that needs to be “mitigated”.
    • I’d like my Washington State government restored to what the state’s founders intended in

    that calls for “consent of the governed”.

    Will it help if I ask nicely ?

    Please ! Stop wasting our time, money, and goodwill. PSNERP is wrong for many, may reasons; it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From:

    Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 12:37 PM

    Subject: FW: Skagit CAPR Chapter: FW: submittal of PSNERP written comment

    ———————————————————————————–


     


  • The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    Funding for this work is provided by SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, PATAGONIA, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN Living on the Edge  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    WHY ARE THEY HERE?

    Big meeting? Landowner Update and Discussion?

    ———————————————————–

    WHO INVITED THEM? Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    http://www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/earthEconomics.pdf

    NATURE’S VALUE IN CLALLAM COUNTY: THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FEEDER BLUFFS and 12 Other Ecosystems. Earth Economics: Tacoma, Washington (a 146 page document)

    EARTH ECONOMICS would like to thank all who contributed valuable information to this project: Anne Shaffer and Nicole Harris from the Coastal Watershed Institute, CATHY LEAR AND STEVE GRAY FROM CLALLAM COUNTY, Dave Parks from Department of Natural Resources, George Kaminsky and Heather Barron from Department of Ecology, Kathryn Neal from the City of Port Angeles, Clea Rome from the WSU Extension, Ian Miller from WA Seagrant and Helle Andersen, formerly of CWI

    We deeply appreciate those who helped review and edit this document, Donna J. Nickerson, Aaron Schwartz, CATHY LEAR, Anne Shaffer and Dave Parks

    ——————————————————————

    COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE CWI IS A 501C3 NON-PROFIT

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/

    Jul 14, 2013 – The WE’S WHO WANT OUR WA STATE WAVES? THE WE’S WHO … ENTER Surfrider Foundation ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Surfrider …

    THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

    ———————————————————————

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    Why are THEY being given  an special SMP UPDATE before the first notification, publication, workshop, has been sent or given to the 3300 affected private shoreline property owners in Clallam County?

    WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    Why is Clallam County paying A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, our Taxpayer Dollars, TO GIVE THEM AN SPECIAL SMP UPDATE BEFORE NOTIFICATION OF THE AFFECTED CITIZENS?

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)

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

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    Living on the Edge? OR ARE THEY LIVING ON THE FRINGE OF AGENDA 21?

    Landowner Update and Discussion?

    How much land do THEY own CLALLAM COUNTY?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Why do THEY keep showing up in OUR back yard? THEY Pretend to be living on the edge?

    THEY Pretend they represent, “US”  the 3300  VESTED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS  AFFECTED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    THEY ARE NOT MY REPRESENTATIVES.

    THEY ARE THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, ECOLOGY, THE TRIBES, AND a plethora of PAID GOVERNMENT (including Clallam County) EMPLOYEES AND NGO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS GLOBAL, AND OTHER, AND FOR-PROFIT CONSULTING GROUPS.

    ———————————————————————–

    And, Clallam County employees are in collaboration with THEM?

    —————————————————————————-

    AND? THEY ARE GOING ALL WORKING TOGETHER?  THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINE THE BEST STEWARDSHIP? AND? THEY ARE GOING PROVIDE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS? THEY ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE DUNGENESS FEEDER BLUFFS?

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

    OUR FAMILY HAS PROVIDED OVER 60 YEARS OF PRISTINE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    OUR PRIVATE PRISTINE  SHORELINE FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

    —————————————————————————————————

    BUT WOW, IF I GO TO THEIR MEETING?

    THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A LANDOWNER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

    THE CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, North Olympic Land Trust, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    ——————————————————————————————

    THESE OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE ALL  coming here, to CLALLAM COUNTY WITH THEIR NGO AGENDA.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI)

    CWI IS A SMALL 501C3 NON-PROFIT FIRST FORMED IN 1996. CWI’s goal is to advance protection of intact and critical natural ecosystems thru long-term wise ecosystem management, nearshore restoration at the ecosystem level, and mentoring our next generation of scientists and managers, and citizen partnerships. Over our careers we at CWI have learned that -without exception- what is good for the environment is good for community. CWI has also learned that saving what we have is best for the ecosystem and economy- so CWI emphasizes protection,. We also know that when we are restoring, true restoration must occur at the ecosystem level to be successful.. Our experience is also that the majority of the community – which is growing rapidly – wants to be wise stewards but need the tools to do so. Our work is extremely challenging. Preservation and restoration can take decades-and that bureaucratic and political challenges (sometimes significant) are not reasons to quit. In total our work is to link senior scientists, managers, and citizens to motivate for the best, not just the easiest, management actions and solutions. Our work is never ending and crosses generations. Collectively CWI senior scientists have hundreds of years of experience managing and researching the natural history of this region CWI engages these scientists with college students, citizens, and landowners on the ground to understand how our natural ecosystems function and how to protect them while training the next generation of managers and scientists. We bring science to management in a rural, and sometimes extremely conservative, but ecologically critical region of the Pacific Northwest. Top priority work for CWI include coordinating the Elwha Nearshore Consortium, a group of scientists, citizens, and managers dedicated to understanding and promoting the nearshore restoration associated with the Elwha dam removals, and conduct unique and critical research to understand and promote nearshore habitat function, and define how to protect the nearshore functions, including cross regional fish use of nearshore habitats, and the importance of Dungeness and Elwha feeder bluffs for surf smelt. CWI also regularly sponsor’s community forums on emerging and ongoing topics including Elwha nearshore science, management, and restoration, and net pen aquaculture. Nearshore ecosystem services are complex, compelling, and integral element of CWI’s work. We are honored to be a partner in this new frontier of ecosystem management

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Earth Economics

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION located in Tacoma, Washington, dedicated to researching and applying the economic

    solutions of tomorrow, today.Earth Economics provides robust, science-based, ecologically sound economic analysis, policy recommendations and tools to

    positively transform regional, national and international economics, and asset accounting systems. Working with leading ecologists, economists and modelers, we serve a large circle of businesses, non-profits, government agencies, policy makers and media channels with research, reports, presentations, workshops and investigations. Our goal is to help communities shift away from the failed

    economic policies of the past, towards an approach that is both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.Mission Statement: Earth Economics applies new economic tools and principles to meet challenges of the 21st century: achieving the

    need for just and equitable communities, healthy ecosystems, and sustainable economies.

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

    SO HERE IS YOUR  BIG INVITE

    (I called Jamie Michel 206-282-3025 no response)

    Press Release

    Date: December 5, 2014

    **For Immediate Release**

    FROM: COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE, PO box 2263, Port Angeles www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 360.461.0799

    Contact: Jamie Michel, jamie.michel@coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 206-282-3025

    Living on the Edge

    Landowner Update and Discussion

    Tuesday January 27th, 2015

    6:00-8:00 pm at Dungeness Schoolhouse 2781 Towne Road, Sequim

    The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) and partners invite the community to a bluff management workshop the evening of 27 January 2015 at the historical Dungeness Schoolhouse from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

    This workshop will provide an update to our ongoing work to understand and promote wise stewardship of this important region of the nearshore. CWI will provide an update on efforts including the development of a realtor funding pool for distressed landowners (see photo), and protection grants.

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and Washington Department of Natural Resources will present findings long term bluff erosion study just published. Staff from the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge will provide details on their upcoming anniversary celebration in May.

    CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, AND THE NORTH OLYMPIC LAND TRUST,

    —————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE

    The Land Trust has completed its largest land conservation project ever! We are pleased to announce that we have purchased a 280-acre property just east of the Lyre River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This stunning property features the estuary at the mouth of the Lyre River, streams, wetlands, tidelands, kelp beds and bluff-backed beaches.   It also includes a large upland area with a diverse forest at various ages of growth,  Learn more ›  “The Land Trust has been working with community partners for years to conserve this property,” Planning is underway for the use of the property.  VISITORS WILL BE ABLE TO PARK ABOUT A MILE FROM THE BEACH and walk in from there. Visitors can enjoy DAY-USE activities such as birdwatching, wildlife viewing, surfing, picnicking, and beach walking. The area will be closed to all motor vehicles.

    THE USUAL? NO HORSES? NO RUNNING? NO JOGGING? NO BARKING?

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

    AND, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    The January 27th workshop will continue this dialogue between scientists, managers and bluff landowners on next steps for all of us to the benefit of our community and the environment. Join us!

    —————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHO INVITED THEM?

    Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS MEETINGS SMP PRESENTATION?

    Funding for this work is provided by Surfrider Foundation, Patagonia, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.


  • SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

     

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

    FROM Aug 23, 2008  TO Aug. 2014 – SIX YEARS

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

     

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of

    a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

     

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

     

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

     

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

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

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

     

    Attachment B.

    3.

    Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

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

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the

    location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

     

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback

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

     

    5.Residential Moorage.

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

     

    City Council

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

    Planning Commission

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

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

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

     

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since 2008

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013  

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 Bellevue council members had more questions than answers by the end of Monday’s third round of informational sessions provided by staff about the progress of creating a shoreline master plan the city hopes will pass state muster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

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

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

    Public access

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

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

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

    Park development options

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

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

    High water mark

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

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations. Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, but the plan may not be accepted.

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

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

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    • BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer 

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

     

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

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2011. (2010?)

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

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

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    Related Stories

     

     

     


  • American Restoration of Law and Order

    American Restoration of Law and Order?

    OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY  IN AMERICA?

    HELLO CONGRESS IS ANYBODY HOME? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, OF “WE THE PEOPLE”,

    READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

    ——————————————————————————————

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     

    ————————————————-

    DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY?  IN 2014 America?  AN EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENT CRIME THAT INCLUDES, CRIME SPREES BY THE MENTALLY ILL, MASS MURDERS HOME INVASIONS,  KILLING, RAPE,  KIDNAPPING, CARJACKING, DRIVE BY SHOOTINGS, GANG WARS, DRUNKS, DRUGS  AND MORE.

    ————————————————————————————

    While in 2014 the streets AMERICA  run red with the blood of the victims?

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY?  “WE THE PEOPLE” are AFRAID to go out of our homes, “WE THE PEOPLE” are even AFRAID inside our  homes, AFRAID, while driving our  car, AFRAID, while playing at a park with our children, AFRAID to walk alone, AFRAID when we are walking on public streets after dark and even AFRAID when we are walking on public streets in daylight.

     And,  “WE THE PEOPLE” are AFRAID of the FUTURE for our children, grand children, and great grand children, As we are now being forced to  live in THIS EVER ESCULATING OUT OF CONTROL CRIMINALLY DICTATED SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT UNDER A DELUGE of violence, murder and mayhem IN 2014 AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————

    While in 2014 the streets AMERICA  run red with the blood of the victims?

    ————————————————————————-

    HELLO CONGRESS IS ANYBODY HOME? WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE, OF “WE THE PEOPLE”, READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

    YOUR DERELICTION  OF CONGRESSIONAL DUTY, YOUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE US  MOST BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS has turned “We the People” into the most “ENDANGERED SPECIES” IN AMERICA.

    ————————————————————————————–

    “We the People” are not only AFRAID of what our government (congress) is doing to us,

    “We the People” are AFRAID because of

    what our Government (congress) HAS NOT DONE FOR “We the People”.

    UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

    (1)  ESTABLISH JUSTICE

    (2)  INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

     (3) PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    (4)  PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    (5)  SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES

    (6)  AND OUR POSTERITY

     


  • $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    Sent to Representative Derek Kilmer,

    The bottom line?

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO  LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and Order” to stop the 2014 epidemic of violent crimes against People across the United States Of America?

    Please ask CONGRESS to legislate  American RESTORATION tax  dollars wisely, in a country of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    Just a concerned American Grandmother

    ————————————————————

    $14.8 Billion for Restoration
    Posted on June 10, 2014 9:12 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

    100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

    for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

    ——————————————————-

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    This entry was posted in Bang for their buck? Restoration, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Cut Federal Funding, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA Clean Water Act, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, Follow the Money, Goliath’s Restoration Consortium, Government Accountability, If it’s Federal IT’S LOCAL, Learning From History?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Politically Motivated, Senate Hearings on EPA, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology. Bookmark the permalink.Edit
    The “RESTORATION” Shell GameIn the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

     100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

     

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

     

     

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

     for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

     

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

     

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

     

    ——————————————————-

     

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

     Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     


  • The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

     

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER,

    designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” says Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    In response to this growing environmental crisis, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND. Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    ——————————————————————————————

    No doubt with MORE THAN 600 RESTORATION PARTNERS the following is a true statement

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.

    Even the government is clueless, when it comes to how many nuts are responsible for  planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ———————————————————————————————–

    A DECEPTIVE? AND EVASIVE? NGO OR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PLOY, ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL “GAME OF RESTORATION”  ONE.

    Who knew about this?

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND.

    THIS IS NOT A CASUAL REPORT OF RESTORATION FOR THE SMP UPDATE

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

     ————————————————————————————————

    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    ———————————————————-
    A FEDERAL Part of the PUGET SOUND restoration plan
    FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

    This is not a casual report of RESTORATION for SMP mitigation.
    ——————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and APPROVAL for incorporation into
    Washington’s FEDERALLY APPROVED coastal zone management program
    Under the 1972 CONGRESS ENACTED FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
    ——————————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.
    ————————————————-
    Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎

    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎

     


  • EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    IF THE EPA CALCULATES AND MANDATES THE COST OF AN UNFUNDED WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND?

    AT THE GOING EPA RATE OF $3,304,309.00 @ SQ MI FOR THE EPA MANDATED UNFUNDED RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY, for the clean-up of 4479 sq mi of Chesapeake Bay.

    NO PROBLEM, PUGET SOUND (PER) PSP HAS ONLY 2500 SQ MI,

    IT WOULD ONLY BE $8,260,772,500.00  OVER  EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS

    FOR AN EPA UNFUNDED MANDATE “RAIN TAX” RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    SIGN ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

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

    Mar 21, 2014 – The people in Maryland are PROTESTING THE $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” AN UNFUNDED AND MANDATED BY THE EPA FOR THE RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY

    IN MARYLAND, CITIZENS HAVE, ONLY THREE THINGS ARE CERTAIN — DEATH, TAXES AND RAIN

    IN WASHINGTON STATE, CITIZENS HAVE, THINGS THAT ARE CERTAIN  DEATH,TAXES AND RAIN

    AND…  WOW,  

    922,000 acres of restricted public use and access in the WILD Olympic National Park, ONP UN Man and the Biosphere, ONP UN World Heritage Site, taxes, RAIN, fish, the Boldt decision, tribes, instream flows, $2.4 BILLION Dollar Federal Judgment for culverts for fish, 37 rivers in Washington  state designated as National Wild and Scenic, manipulated balding, breeding and seeding of endangered butterflies, reintroduction of endangered species, reintroduction of the sage grouse, critical areas for endangered species, (3) national monuments,San Juan Islands National Monument, Thanks to the Washington state house and senate for uniting to provide $65 million for the WWRP grant program AND ESRP has received and invested $26.5 million in state capital funds and an additional $2.5 million in federal partnership funds in restoration or protection projects.

    PATTY MURRAY WILL BE BACK FOR MORE WILDING IN WA STATE

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

    April 22, 2013 by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING NOW?

    INDEED, TODAY IS APRIL 9, 2014

    WHEN SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING?

    INDEED,SIGNS ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

    ———————————————————————-

    MARYLAND LAWMAKERS FINALLY CONSIDER REPEALING

    THE SO-CALLED “RAIN TAX”

    www.theblaze.com/…/maryland-lawmakers-finally-consider-rep…

    TheBlaze

    Jan 22, 2014 – Maryland lawmakers in 2012 passed a bill to levy a fine on anything that prevented … meaning many state residents had no choice but to literally pay a tax on rain. … of the STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WATERSHED AND RESTORATION PROGRAM. … THE EPA ESTIMATED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD COST ROUGHLY $14.8 BILLION.


  • The $14.8 Billion Dollar Rain Tax

     

    Sorry, the environment comes first.

    In life, only three things are certain — death, taxes and RAIN.

    Don’t you just love a guy with a sense of humor, attitude and documentation?

    —————————————————————————-

    Let’s examine a preview? of WA STATES future stormwater runoff tax


    Consider all the ways we’re taxed. When we’re born (birth certificate), when we die (death certificate), when we make money (income tax), when we spend money (sales tax), when we own property (property tax), when we sell property (capital gains tax), when we go to a concert or ball game (amusement tax), when we own a vehicle (license, registration, tolls, gas tax) and special taxes on cell phones, tobacco, alcohol, energy, etc. Then, when we die, they tax our income all over again (death tax). Heck, they even tax our bowel movements (flush tax).

    But if you thought they ran out of ways to tax us you badly misjudged our lawmakers’ creativity. Get ready for their newest invention, the rain tax. Here’s what’s going on:

    In 2010 the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

    And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called “impervious surfaces,” anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

    And who levies this new rain tax? Witness how taxation, like rain, trickles down through the various pervious levels of government until it reaches the impervious level — me and you.

    The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

    So, if you live in Montgomery, Prince George’s, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties or Baltimore city, you’ll be paying a rain tax on your next property tax bill.

    Well, you ask, “How on earth can the government know how much impervious surface I own?” Answer: It’s not on earth, it’s in the sky. Thanks to satellite imagery and geographic information systems, Big Brother can measure your roof and driveway (and you thought drones were only used for killing terrorists).

    OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to “monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces.” In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

    It can also be spent on “public education and outreach” (whatever that means) and on “grants to nonprofit organizations” (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

    If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you’d correctly answer “Montgomery,” the “more taxes, please” jurisdiction that collected a $17 million rain tax last year. So, since Montgomery County already has a rain tax in place (but only on residences) let’s take a peek at the future. Here’s how Montgomery County is spending some of its rain tax:

    “(The county) holds workshops and training events to help residents understand how various projects work. Projects such as rain gardens, conservation landscaping, rain barrels and cisterns, drywells and tree planting are then offered to be installed on properties that qualify, based on the County’s assessment.”

    So, I’m supposed to pay a rain tax so the county can train me how to plant a tree, which they’ll give me if, in its view, I qualify?

    Have we all gone mad?

    According to state officials, the 10 rain tax counties must raise $482 million a year to finance the $14.8 billion stormwater cleanup bonds by 2025. About 75 percent will come from homeowners and about 25 percent will come from non-residential property owners.

    Credits and exemptions must be granted to property owners who already meet stormwater “best practices” standards. And the county governments can phase-in the rain tax levels (to get them past the next election). Most homeowners will pay around $100 a year (less if you live in an apartment or condo). But the rates may double or triple later.

    It’s the nonresidential owners who are getting hit, annually, with five- and six-figure amounts because they own such large rooftops and parking lots (car dealerships, shopping centers, malls, office buildings, warehouses, etc.). Disclosure: My house has a driveway and a (sometimes) impervious roof, and I work for, and partly own, a commercial real estate company.

    But homeowners are going to pay the rain tax three times. Once, on their homes. A second time because commercial leases force tenants pay the landlord’s property taxes, which the tenants will, then, pass on to their customers. And a third time as church members or supporters of nonprofit hospitals, private schools and charities.

    You see, state lawmakers exempted government-owned property from the rain tax but imposed it on religions and nonprofits (which own big roofs and parking lots).

    “What we are waking up to is that a number of counties are moving in the direction of a significant and very unexpected financial impact on organizations that ordinarily are not taxed because they’re nonprofit organizations that provide services to the community and work on very limited budgets,” says Mary Ellen Russell of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

    Sorry, the environment comes first. In life, only three things are certain — death, taxes and rain.

    Blair Lee – My Maryland Friday, April 05, 2013

    Blair Lee is CEO of the Lee Development Group in Silver Spring and a regular commentator for WBAL radio. His column appears Fridays in Business Gazette. His email address is blair@leedg.com.