+menu-


  • Category Archives Clallam County SMP
  • WA State Ecology is Back to WAC Us

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, PUBLIC RECORDS

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Why it matters?

    SIMPLY PUT…..

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

    APR 15, 2013 – “Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news … citizenreviewonline.org/ecologys-qa-session-in-sequim-about-… Jan 17, 2013 …

     How much will PUBLIC RECORDS cost us?

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/24/wa-state-doe-emergency-fee-rule/

    JUL 24, 2017 – July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E CALCULATION OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS DECLARED …

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY finds that it is in the general welfare and the public interest, and benefits requesters and the agency, to adopt the emergency rule in order to preserve AND UPDATE FEES in accordance with the legislatively adopted schedule.

    WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION, THIS WOULD CREATE A PERIOD OF MONTHS DURING WHICH NO STATEMENT OR RULE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING PRA (PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) COSTS

    OR THE METHODS OF CALCULATING THEM, CREATING CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY REGARDING ECOLOGY’S FEE STRUCTURE AND ITS (WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY’S) ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    ———————————————————————–

    EINSTEIN SAID, “IF YOU CAN’T PUT IT SIMPLY, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL”

    JAN 17, 2013  “IT’S A MONEY DEAL,” I said, adding, “ECOLOGY SUCKS”,  (which prompted a flurry of applause)

    SIMPLY PUT:  THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!

    —————————————————————

    This is the 994th posting on behindmyback.org since Jan 29, 2013

    This posting is over 3000 words.

    —————————————————————————–

    Complete unedited text

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:52 AM

    Subject: The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: September 15, 2017

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac17303/1614ov.html

    ——————————————————————

    Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Overview

    Introduction

    The Department of Ecology is proposing amendments to Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of the Public Records Act including the process the agency uses for disclosing records.

    This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes. On 7/20/17 we filed an emergency rule amendment to implement changes passed by the legislature during the 2017 legislative session.  This emergency rule will be in place until 11/17/2017.  The content of this emergency rule will be included in the permanent rulemaking we are conducting.

    Why it matters

    The rule has not been updated since 1998 and needs to reflect current law, technology, and processes. The rule also contains outdated information about Ecology programs and staff, which will be made current and will reflect changes made in the 2017 legislative session.

    Scope of rule development

    Ecology is proposing to amend Chapter 173-03 WAC. This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes.

    Process of development

    Please refer to the Timeline and Public Involvement information to stay informed about the rulemaking.

    —————————————————————————

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-03 WAC

    PUBLIC RECORDS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003?

    WAC 173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 relating to public records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-010, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-010, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-010, filed 1/17/78.]

    —————————————————————————

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    (1) The terms “person,” “public record,” and “writing” shall have the meanings as stated in RCW 42.17.020.

    (2) “Department” means the department of ecology.

    (3) “Director” means the director of the department.

    (4) “Public records officer” means the employee designated as such by the department.

    (5) “Designee” means the employee of the department designated by the director or the public records officer to serve as the public records coordinator at the headquarters offices or at each of the regional offices in the absence of the officer.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-020, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-020, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-020, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    (1) Headquarters office.

    (a) The headquarters office is located at 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington. The mailing address for the headquarters office is:

    Department of Ecology

    P.O. Box 47600

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

    The mailing address for the nuclear waste management program’s Hanford project is:

    Nuclear Waste Management

    1315 W. 4th Ave.

    Kennewick, WA 99336

    (b) The offices of the director, deputy director(s), program managers and other agency officials are located in the headquarters office.

    (c) The titles of the executive staff are as follows:

    Chief financial officer for financial services.

    Administrative services manager for administrative services.

    Director for intergovernmental relations.

    Director for employee services.

    Director for communications and education.

    Assistant administrator for spills prevention, preparedness and response.

    (2) The program offices located in the headquarters office are:

    (a) Air quality;

    (b) Water resources;

    (c) Water quality;

    (d) Toxics cleanup;

    (e) Nuclear waste;

    (f) Solid waste and financial assistance;

    (g) Hazardous waste and toxics reductions;

    (h) Environmental investigations and laboratory services; and

    (i) Shorelands and environmental assistance.

    (3) Regional offices and their geographical jurisdictions are as follows:

    (a) Northwest regional office (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, San Juan, Island, King, and Kitsap counties):

    3190 – 160th Avenue S.E.

    Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

    (b) Southwest regional office (Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Lewis, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Clark, and Skamania counties):

    300 Desmond Drive

    Lacey, WA 98503

    Mailing address:

    P.O. Box 47775

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7775

    (c) Central regional office (Okanogan, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Klickitat counties):

    15 West Yakima, Suite 200

    Yakima, WA 98902-3401

    (d) Eastern regional office (Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Grant, Lincoln, Spokane, Adams, Whitman, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties):

    1. 4601 Monroe, Suite 100

    Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-030, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-030, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    (1) All public records of the department are available for public inspection and copying under these rules subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.

    (2) Availability of public records is subject to the exemptions and prohibitions against disclosure contained in RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.130, 42.17.255, 42.17.260, and 90.52.020. In addition, individuals may request, and ecology may grant, confidentiality of documents from disclosure under RCW 43.21A.160 and 70.105.170.

    (3) When a public record includes information which, if disclosed, would lead to an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, and the department becomes aware of this fact, the department shall delete such information before making the record available.

    (4) Public records requested may not be readily available for immediate inspection. If the requested records are not readily available, the department shall notify the requester when and where those records will be available.

    (5) Public records of the department are kept by the department or state archives until scheduled for destruction by the records retention schedule in accordance with chapter 40.14 RCW. Public records subject to a request for disclosure when scheduled for destruction shall be retained by the department and may not be erased or destroyed until the request is resolved.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-040, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-040, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-040, filed 1/17/78.]

    ——————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    The records retention schedule established by the division of state archives of the office of the secretary of state serves as an index for the identification and location of the following records:

    (1) All records issued before July 1, 1990, for which the department has maintained an index;

    (2) Final orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued in adjudicative proceedings as defined in RCW 34.05.010(1) and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties;

    (3) Declaratory orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued pursuant to RCW 34.05.240 and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties; and

    (4) Interpretive statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(8) that were entered after June 30, 1990.

    The records retention schedule indexes records according to the originating program or section, and then the record series title. Each title is further identified by a statement of function or purpose, and the retention period. The records retention schedule is available to the public for inspection and copying. With the assistance of the public records officer or designee, any person can obtain access to public records of the department using the records retention schedule.

    A separate index of policy statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(4) entered after June 30, 1990, shall be maintained by the department’s policy manual coordinator or designees.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-050, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-050, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-050, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    (1) All requests for inspection or copying made in person at a department office shall be made on a form substantially as follows:

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

    Date of Request . . . .

    Time of Request . . . .

    Name . . . .

    Address . . . .

    . . . .

    Description of Records:

    . . . .

    . . . .

    . . . .

    I understand that if a list of individuals is provided me by the Department of Ecology, it will neither be used to promote the election of an official nor promote nor oppose a ballot proposition as prohibited by RCW 42.17.130 nor for commercial purposes nor give or provide access to material to others for commercial purposes as prohibited by RCW 42.17.260(9).

    I understand that I will be charged the amount necessary to reimburse the department’s cost for copying.

    . . . .

    Signature

    Number of pages to be copied

    . . . .

    Number of copies per page

    . . . .

    Charge per copy

    $

    . . . .

    Special copy work charge

    $

    . . . .

    Staff time charge

    $

    . . . .

    Total charge

    $

    . . . .

    (2) You may request records in person at a department of ecology office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    (3) If you make your request by mail, your request must contain the following information:

    (a) The name and address of the person making the request and the organization the person represents;

    (b) The time of day and calendar date on which the person wishes to inspect the public records;

    (c) A description of the public records requested;

    (d) A statement whether access to copying equipment is desired;

    (e) A phone number where the person can be reached in case the public records officer or designate needs to contact the person for further description of the material or any other reason.

    (f) A statement that the record will not be used for commercial purposes.

    (4) The department must receive all requests at least five business days before the requested date of inspection to allow the public records officer or designee to make certain the requested records are available and not exempt and, if necessary, to contact the person requesting inspection. The department will process all requests in a timely manner. However, large requests or requests for public records maintained offsite may require more than five business days to prepare. The department will respond to your request within five business days of receiving it, by either:

    (a) Providing the record;

    (b) Acknowledging that the department has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the department will require to respond to the request; or

    (c) Denying the public record request.

    Additional time required to respond to a request may be based upon the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and assemble the information requested, to notify third persons or agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the information requested is exempt and that a denial should be made as to all or part of the request. In acknowledging receipt of a public record request that is unclear, the department may ask the requestor to clarify what information the requestor is seeking. If the requestor fails to clarify the request, the agency need not respond to it.

    (5) The department may in its discretion fill requests made by telephone or facsimile copy (fax).

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-060, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-060, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    The department does not charge a fee for the inspection of public records. The department will charge an amount necessary to reimburse its costs for providing copies of records. This amount shall be reviewed from time to time by the department, and shall represent the costs of providing copies of public records and for use of the department’s copy equipment, including staff time spent copying records, preparing records for copying, and restoring files. This charge is the amount necessary to reimburse the department for its actual costs for copying and is payable at the time copies are furnished. The charge for special copy work of nonstandard public records shall reflect the total cost, including the staff time necessary to safeguard the integrity of these records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-070, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-070, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    When the department refuses, in whole or part, a request for inspection of any public record, it must include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the refusal and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-080, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-080, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    (1) Any person who objects to the refusal of a request for a public record may petition for prompt review of that decision by submitting a written request for review. The written request shall specifically refer to the written statement by the public records officer or designee which constituted or accompanied the refusal.

    (2) Immediately after receiving a written request for review of a decision denying a public record, the public records officer or other staff member denying the request shall refer it to the director or the director’s delegate. The director or delegate shall immediately consider the matter and either affirm or reverse the refusal. The final decision shall be sent to the objecting person within two business days following receipt of the petition for review.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-090, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-090, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

    In order to adequately protect the public records of the department, you must comply with the following guidelines while inspecting public records:

    (1) You may not remove any public record from the department’s premises.

    (2) You must have a designated department employee present while you are inspecting a public record.

    (3) You may not mark or deface a public record in any manner during inspection.

    (4) You may not dismantle public records which are maintained in a file or jacket, or in chronological or other filing order, or those records which, if lost or destroyed, would constitute excessive interference with the department’s essential functions.

    (5) Access to file cabinets, shelves, vaults, or other storage areas is restricted to department personnel, unless other arrangements are made with the public records officer or designee.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-100, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-100, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————-

    The bottom line…..

    THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!


  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • Ecology’s Agenda July-Dec. 2017

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    WSR 17-16-063 [Filed July 25, 2017, 2:12 p.m.]

    Rule-Making Agenda July – December 2017

    —————————————————–

    FROM JAN 26, 2011…..

    WA STATE (DOE) ECOLOGY THE WE’S WHO ALWAYS WANT MORE

    Behind My Back | WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/12/6854/

    Jul 12, 2017Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of …. www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/.

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Are You A Normal Person?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/05/18/are-you-a-normal-person/

    May 18, 2015If you‘re a normal person, you‘d answer “yes, people usually are more important … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    —————————————————————-

    WA State DOE | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/category/wa-state-doe/page/2/

    Jan 25, 2013from Behind My Back.org. DEPRIVED OF … (previously posted behindmyback.org.) …. “It’s a money deal,” she said, adding, “Ecology sucks.

    ————————————————

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news … citizenreviewonline.org/ecologys-qa-session-in-sequim-about-… Jan 17, 2013 …

    —————————————————————————

    Dungeness Water Rule: Control of the water – control of the people …

    citizenreviewonline.org/dungeness-water-rule-control-of-the-water-control-of-the-peo…

    Apr 16, 2013 – visit my website behindmyback.org for more educational WATER posts …. Yes, I did say “ECOLOGY SUCKS” that is my position and I am …

    ——————————————————————

    YES, I DID SAY ECOLOGY SUCKS ON Jan 17, 2013.

    THAT IS MY PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON AUG 16, 2017,  I’M STICKING WITH IT!

    WSR 17-16-063

    AGENDA

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed July 25, 2017, 2:12 p.m.]

    Pursuant to RCW 34.05.314, following is the department of ecology’s rule[s] agenda for July – December 2017.

    If you have any questions please contact Bari Schreiner by phone (360) 407-6998 or email Bari.Schreiner@ecy.wa.gov.

    Rule-Making Agenda

    July – December 2017

    Where “est.” appears before a date that means the date is an estimate.

    AO Number

    WAC Chapter

    Date of

    Filing

    CR-101

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 102

    Hearing Date(s)

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 103

    Rule-Making

    Lead

    Administration

    16-14

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public records

    2/28/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

    emergency rule 7/20/17 permanent rule adoption est. December 2017

    Linda Anderson

    16-10

    Chapter 173-323 WAC, Grants and loans

    7/25/17

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017

    Bari Schreiner

    Air Quality

    16-12

    Chapter 173-407 WAC, Carbon dioxide mitigation program, greenhouse gases emissions performance standard and sequestration plans and programs for thermal electric generating facilities

    2/7/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Caroline Sun

    16-09

    Chapter 173-455 WAC, Air quality fee rule and chapter 173-400 WAC, General regulations for air pollution sources

    2/6/17

    est.

    August 2017

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Joanna Ekrem

    15-07

    Chapter 173-400 WAC, General regulations for air pollution sources and chapter 173-401 WAC, Operating permit regulations

    7/21/15 Revised CR-101 12/16/16

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    winter 2018

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    16-03

    Chapter 173-303 WAC, Dangerous waste regulations

    original CR-101 2/17/16 withdrawal of pervious [previous] CR-101 and filing of new CR-101 2/21/17

    est.

    July 2018

    est.

    August 2018

    est.

    November 2017

    Rob Rieck

    16-08

    Chapter 173-334 WAC, Children’s safe products—Reporting rule

    8/9/16

    3/22/17

    4/25/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kara Steward

    Shorelines and Environmental Assistance

    15-06

    Shoreline Management Act implementation rules: Chapters 173-18, 173-20,173-22,173-26, and 173-27 WAC

    9/2/15

    2/28/17

    4/5/17, 4/6/17, 4/11/17 and 4/13/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Fran Sant

    Toxics Cleanup Program

    16-02

    Chapter 173-360 WAC Underground storage tank regulations

    3/23/16

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017 or January 2018

    est.

    May 2018

    Kris Grinnell

    Waste 2 Resources

    13-08

    Chapter 173-350 WAC, Solid waste handling standards

    11/5/13

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017/January 2018

    est.

    March 2018

    Kyle Dorsey

    15-15

    Chapter 173-312 WAC, Coordinated prevention grants and chapter 173-313 WAC, Local solid waste enforcement grant regulation

    12/22/15

    5/24/17

    6/27/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kyle Dorsey

    Water Quality

    17-02

    Chapter 173-228 WAC, Vessel sewage no discharge zone

    7/5/17

    est.

    October 2017

    TBD

    est.

    February 2018

    Amy Jankowiak and Becca Conklin

    06-12

    Chapter 173-219 WAC, Reclaimed water

    11/7/06 withdrawn 6/4/14 new CR-101 6/4/14

    6/16/15 continuance filed 8/17/15

    withdrawal 12/23/15

    new CR-102 anticipated August 2017

    first round held in July 2015 second round est. September

    est.

    January 2018

    Jocelyn Jones

    16-04

    Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and limitations of the centennial clean water program and chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and limitations of the water pollution control revolving fund

    7/19/16

    4/19/17

    5/31/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Daniel Thompson

     Open – On Hold

    Air Quality

    13-04

    Chapter 173-491 WAC, Emission standards and controls for sources emitting gasoline gas vapors, chapter 173-400 WAC, general regulations for air pollution sources, and chapter 173-455 WAC, Air quality fee rule

    7/2/13

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    15-12

    Chapter 173-333 WAC, Chemical action plans (formerly PBT)

    10/12/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kara Steward and Rob Rieck

    Water Resources

    05-03

    Chapter 173-525 WAC, Grays Elochoman instream resources protection and water management program WRIA 25

    3/2/05

    4/19/10 continuance filed 6/16/10 expired 11/1/10

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-04

    Chapter 173-526 WAC, Cowlitz instream resources protection and water management program WRIA 26

    3/2/05

    4/19/10 continuance filed 6/16/10 expired 11/1/10

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-02

    Chapter 173-503A WAC, Samish River subbasin instream resources protection program, lower and upper Skagit water resources inventory area (WRIAs 3 and 4)

    2/15/05

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    Ann Wessel

    Waste 2 Resources

    15-11

    Chapter 173-331 WAC, Vehicle battery recycling program

    12/2/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kyle Dorsey


  • June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    My public comment

    Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011.

    INDEED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING SHORE LANDS, WETLANDS, ANIMALS OR RIVERS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WAKE UP TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND COUNTY  WITH REGARDS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING LAND AND IMPOSING HEAVY REGULATIONS ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    I received a phone call from a concerned (fearful) Clallam County citizen last night.

    “Pearl, have you read the new SMP Update Draft? Do you know how Steve Grey and (ESA Consultant) Margaret Clancy have changed it? Do you know what’s in it?”

    We talked for over an hour. My understanding of the most outrageous concerns.

    There shall be 200 foot setbacks based on a concocted 100 year plan?  Clallam County SMP Update Requirements prior to any permitted use of private shoreline property shall include, but not limited to,  up to $20,000.00 in …….

    Geotechnical Engineering

    www.whatisgeotech.org/

    IT INCLUDES, WITHOUT BEING LIMITED TO, the analysis, design and construction of foundations, slopes, retaining structures, embankments, roadways, tunnels, levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Geotechnical Societies by Country.

    ———————————————————-

    The concerned citizen said, Pearl, what are you going to do about this? You have private shoreline property that will be seriously affected.

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA, THERE ARE 3300 VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY  OWNERS THAT SHALL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTRAGEOUS RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SMP UPDATE, I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

    THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    THEY HAVE VOTERS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE SMP UPDATE, THAT FEEL VIOLATED BY THE RESTRICTED USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CLALLAM COUNTY.

    ———————————————————————–

    INDEED, BUT EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    —————————————————————

    Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine for… Plowing His Field! – Freedom …

    freedomoutpost.com/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-for-plowing-his-field/

    May 26, 2017 – A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit. John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is …

    Tim BrownMay 26, 2017

    A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit.

    John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is David going up against Goliath, just like ranchers, farmers and natural health product makers.  His case could set a dangerous precedent that would require farmers to obtain expensive and time-consuming permits from the US Army of Corps Engineers before planting crops.

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations.”

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sided with the Army Corps last June, in which the US Attorney’s Office is asking for $2.8 million in civil penalties.

    Why?  Who was harmed?  What real and actual crime took place?

    USA Today has the background of the story that began in 2012 when Mr. Duarte planted wheat on land that he bought with his own money, some 450 acres.

    Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

    Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

    The Army Corps did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

    This particular freshwater species is unique to California and southern Oregon and has been classified as a threatened species since 1994 because much of its wetlands in California’s Central Valley were converted to cropland or became urban.

    Duarte’s wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site. The agencies claimed Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

    Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery tto enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

    Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

    The government claims that Duarte did not plow but rather used a ripper, which dug 10 inches into the soil and they allege that it disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas.

    “Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

    Francois claims the penalties are unfair because his client believed the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

    “A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says?”

    Indeed, but even more to the point, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    ——————

    The bottom line…

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Just saying, To Local Elected Representatives..

    Changes are taking place in WA DC.

    Don’t lock yourself up by imposing restricted use on Private Property that you can’t defend and uphold in a court of law.


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    SOME MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES MAY NOT BE FULLY ATTAINABLE BY REGULATORY MEANS DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County

    Southwest

    Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Ecology shoreline planner in your region or contact Bev Huether at bev.huether@ecy.wa.gov.

     

     

     

     

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015 – SMP Public Comment (159) Clallam County Planning Commission Public … WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas–warped-data/.

    I did attend the last 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

    ———————————————————————

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    WAC WAC WAC

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    Elected Director Mary Ellen Winborn, 

    Department of Community Development

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    AFTER OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION UNDER DOE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS.

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58, specifically:

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

     ——————————————

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/02/ecologys-back-amended-plus-smp-wacs/SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 (Sep 2, 2015) – Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND …
    MARCH 1, 2015
    ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”
    —————————————————————-

    Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

    Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature … The Act applies to all 39 counties and more than 200 towns and cities that have …

    ————————————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Updates

    Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. For the complete schedules, see DOE’s Shoreline Master Program Update Schedule page. For the status of individual jurisdictions, see Status of Local Shoreline Master Plans: Comprehensive Updates.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update in 2010, 2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    On March 30, 2015 I called it a good read “FALSE NEWS”

    Behind My Back | Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/30/3370/

    Mar 30, 2015 – Clallam County SMP Update CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS MARCH …

    ———————————————————

    AFTER THE FACT CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS WERE INFORMED

    Any comments received after February 27 2015 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners

    The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    SMP Comments received after the Planning Commission deadline:

    NOTE:

    Any comments received after the February 27, 2015 Planning Commission deadline will still be part of the record, but will only go to the Board of County Commissioners. They are linked in this set below.

    ~~ SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION FOR COMMENTS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~

    2017 Comments

    2016 Comments

    2015 Comments

    2015 Comments

    011017-EBowen 021716-PHewett 040215 – EBowen 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 040816-PHewett 041615 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 040816-BMcGonigel 041915- PHwewtt 030115 – PHewett
    040816-PHewett 042015 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    051616-PHewett 052815 _ EBowen 031315 – KSpees
    081016-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    090916-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    091016-LPerry 070315 – PHewett 031515 – KSpees
    092716-EBowen 070415 – PHewett 031815 – KSpees
    100716-EBowen 070415 – LPerry 031815 – PHewett
    101616-EBowen 080215 – PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090215-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090815-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    033015 – PHewett
    033115 – KSpees

     

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    MARCH 30, 2015 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDE, CLALLAM COUNTY AFFECTED VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS, LOCAL BUSINESS,  THE TIMBER INDUSTRY,

    IN PART, OTHERS HAVE THEIR VOICE TOO, PAID  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES  NGO OUT OF TOWNERS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY  AND THE TRIBES.

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Public Comments (pre- 2014 )

     The comment codes are as follows:

      • A = Aquaculture
      • B = Buffers
      • CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report
      • CR = Consistency Review Report – Straits
      • G = General SMP Comment
      • G20 = General SMP Comment – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • ICR = Inventory & Characterization Report – Straits
      • ICR20 = Inventory & Characterization Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • NNL = No Net Loss
      • PPS = Public Participation Strategy
      • SED = Shoreline Environmental Designation
      • SRP – Shoreline Restoration Plan
      • SMP = Shoreline Master Prgram secondary draft (11/2012)
      • SMPdraft = Shoreline Master Program preliminary draft (3/2012)
      • V = Visioning Statement Report – Straits
      • V20 = Visioning Statement Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20

    To include your comments:

    Email Us

    Email Us
    To receive SMP related emails, click “Email Us” above and type “Add to Contact List” in the subject line and send.

    SMP Comments (pre 2014)

    date (mmddyy)- name/agency (first initial & last name ex. JDoe)
    comment code (G; ICR; etc., see above).

    The SMP Update comments below are listed in reverse chronological order.

    2013 Comments

    October 2013

    September 2013:

    August 2013:

    July 2013:

    June 2013:

    May 2013:

    April 2013:

    March 2013:

    February 2013:

    January 2013

     

    2012 Comments

    December 2012:

    November 2012:

    October 2012:

    September 2012:

    August 2012:

    July 2012:

    June 2012:

    May 2012:

    April 2012:

    March 2012:

    February 2012:

    January 2012:

     

    2009-2011 Comments

    December 2011:

    November 2011:

    October 2011:

    September 2011:

    August 2011:

    July 2011:

    June 2011:

    May 2011:

    April 2011:

    March 2011:

    February 2011:

    January 2011:

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2010:

    2009:

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

     CLICK ON CLALLAM COUNTY LINK….

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    Department of Community Development

    Photo - Mary Ellen Winborn

    Mary Ellen Winborn,
    Director

    The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive planning, zoning, and processing of development and building permits.

    Our mission is to promote public safety, a healthy environment, and a strong local economy, and to provide courteous, timely, and efficient service to the public.

    Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.

    Courthouse Hours and Holidays.

    Contact Us

     

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update

    Shorelines in Clallam County are protected by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and by the Clallam County SMP (see links below).  This website provides SMP Update information and links to local and state shoreline-related materials.

    Shoreline Permits are issued by the Clallam County Department of Community Development Planning Division.
    For information regarding shoreline permits or shoreline exemptions, please call 360-565-2616.

    Many of our documents are in portable document format (PDF), and some are very large.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update : November 2014 NEW draft

    Current SMP Comments

    Comments under review by Planning Commission

    Comments

    Click above to send us your comment~

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)
    NOTE:  The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    Final steps:

    The Planning Commission will submit a recommended Final Draft SMP to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption.

    The BOCC will hold a public hearing(s) on the PC recommendation.

    The County adopted SMP will be submitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for additional public review and state approval.

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    Email Us MailGuy

    To receive information regarding the SMP Update,
    click “Email Us“to the left.
    Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line.Or call:  360-417-2563

    Shoreline Master Program
    SMP

    SMP Presentations &

    Related Events:

     

    Upcoming Planning Commission Worksessions and meeting minutes

     

    Living with the Coast Workshop

    backArrow Back to SMP Home Page  

    Content Updated May 5, 2015

     

    ————————————————————————-

    It was hell for private shoreline property owners that sat as members of the SMP Advisory Committee. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT STILL IS.

    PDF]Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Please read this … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/636_LPerry.pdf
    Jul 4, 2015 – The SMP Advisory Committee that represent the 3300 Clallam .... Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the … as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities ….. Trouve à http://www.clallam.net/. … ePub(iPone/iPad/iPod) FB2(Android,PC) PDF MOBI(Kindle) …
    ————————————————————————–

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update

    Sep 2, 2015?

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/638_PHewett.pdf
    Sep 2, 2015 – Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State … Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and …

    ————————————————————-

    And, March 1, 2017 ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58,

     specifically:

    ————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:34 PM

    Subject: The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser

    The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    March 1, 2017 Ecology is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58, specifically:

     

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/1506ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!


  • The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    OUR WATER AND TIMBER

     THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

     http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    LOCAL PRIORITIES IN PUGET SOUND

    At the heart of the ROSS are WATERSHED Open Space Strategies, engaging local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately?  Skagit and Clallam County.

    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 …

    —————————————————————————–

    REGIONAL ANALYSIS IN PUGET SOUND

    Together, we will analyze and SYNTHESIZE local priorities and regional challenges to plan across traditional jurisdictional and watershed boundary lines for our shared future.

    ——————————————————————–

    THE ROSS APPROACH ON MANAGED  TIMBER  PRODUCTION

     GOT TIMBER?  WANT DNR TO GIVE CLALLAM COUNTY’S TIMBER BACK?

     THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.

     BETTER CHECK IT OUT…

    ———————————————————————-

    I Signed up for the ROSS Newsletter!

    I will receive monthly project updates and opportunities to get engaged in the Regional Open Space Strategy.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Managed  timber  production PAGE 9

    In  the  context  of the  ROSS,  we  ATTEMPTED  to  use  the  MODEL  to  assess  general  habitat  rarity  and  quality  within  our  focus  area.

    All  types  of  land  covers  that  were  open  space habitat.

    THREATS  CONSIDERED  IN  THE  MODEL  WERE  ROADS,  HIGHWAY,  TRAILS,  AND  DEVELOPED  LAND.  The  relative  sensitivities  of  land  cover  to  these  THREATS  used  in  the  model  WERE  PLACEHOLDERS  SINCE  CONCLUSIVE  DATA  FOR  THESE  VALUES  COULD  NOT  BE  FOUND.

    Ultimately, we  could  not  run  the  model, even  as  a  trial,  because  of  technical  issues.  The  InVEST software  displayed  an  error  that  the  GIS  data  used  did  not  cover  the  same  geographic  space.

    While  this  was  not  the  case,  our  team  did  not  resolve  the  issue in  time  for  this  report.  Managed  timber  production  model  The  InVEST  timber  model  has  been  developed  to  measure  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  time  period  and  to  calculate  the  net  present  value  of  that.

    The  amount  of  timber  harvests  from  both  natural  forests  and  managed  plantations  can  be  estimated  by  using  this  model.    The  model  requires vector  GIS  data,  information  about  harvest  levels,  frequency  of  harvest,  costs  of  harvesting  and  management  practices for  each  timber  harvest  parcel.  The  model  can  make  two  types  of  calculations  in  terms  of  the  selected  time  period:  the  timber  parcel  map  can  be  related  either  to  a  current  map  or  to  a  future  scenario  map.

    The  TIMBER  MODEL  can  be  especially  useful  for  ONE  OF  THE ROSS’  KEY  AREAS: “Rural  and  Resource  Lands”.    Since  the  model  gives  as  output  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  period  of  time  and  that  harvest’s  net  present  value,  it  can  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  calculating the  OPPORTUNITY  costs  of  preserving  a  forestland  or  opening  it  up  for  development.  

    THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.  The  information  about  the  volume  of  timber  produced  is  available  too.

    HOWEVER,  in  order  to  be  able  to  run  the  model  other  data  needs  (such  as  frequency  of  harvesting,  percentage  of harvesting,  maintenance  cost,  and  harvesting  cost)  need  to  be  collected  from  the  timber  parcel  owners.

    While  running  trial  of  this  model  we  discovered  that  in  order to  find  the  necessary  data  mentioned  above  to  run  the  model  we  would  need  to  conduct  a  field  study  and  collect  the  information  from  each  parcel  owner.  As  our  time  to  complete  the  study  was  limited, we  could  not  conduct  a  field  study.  It  may  be  POSSIBLE  in  the  future  to use  sustainable  forest  practices  information  to  estimate  for  example  the  frequency  of  timber  harvesting  in  Pierce  County.

    HOWEVER,  we learned  that the  definition  of  sustainable  forest  practices  may  vary  from  one  landowner  to  another  and  that  we  cannot  generalize  one  model  for  each  timber  harvest.

    THUS,  as  a  result  we  could  not  run  the  model.  Figure  6  provides  an  example  for how  the  model  output  can  be  used  in  VISUALIZATION  of  different  scenarios.

    The  last  column  in  the  figure  entitled  “MARKET  VALUE  OF  COMMODITY  PRODUCTION”  includes  the  value  of  the  timber  produced  in  that  area.  The  greenest  color  represents  the  highest  production  of  ecosystem  services  and  the  pinkest  color  represents  the  lowest  value  of  them.  For  example, in  the  conservation  scenario  it  can  be  seen  that  the  market  value  of  the  commodity  produced is  lowest  whereas  carbon  sequestration  has  the  highest  value  in  that  scenario……

    ———————————————————————————-

    OUR WATER And OUR TIMBER, WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

    Ask a Silly Question?

    The Butterfly has landed?
    What does the expansion of a military base  have to do with designating 150 acres of Clallam County property to a WA State conservancy group as OPEN SPACE FOR AN ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY?

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

    THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    DRAFT

    Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Executive Committee

    Role: Project Guidance & Endorsement of ROSS

    Lead: Ron Sims (PSP Leadership Council)

    Oct 12, 2011 – … Executive Ron Sims to the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council.

    Members: PSRC; Decision-Makers in King, Kitsap,

    Pierce, & Snohomish; Land & Resource Conservation

    Agency & Association Directors; MAJOR AGRICULTURE &

    FORESTRY INTERESTS, Large Community Organizations;

    and Supporting Financial Institutions

    ———————————————-

    ROSS Project Team

    Role: Staffing & Coordination

    Lead: Green Futures Lab

    Members: NCLC, National Park

    Service RTCA Program, & The

    Bullitt Foundation.

    ————————————————-

    Steering Committee

    Role: Oversight, Integrated ROSS Development

    Lead: TBD Members:

    Land Trusts; Key National, State, PSRC,

    County, City, Tribe, & Port Staff; Environmental

    Management Orgs.; Advocacy & Community Interests;

    Economic/Workforce Interests; Design & Planning

    Professionals, and Research Institutions

    ———————————————————

    Technical Advisory Committees

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Bob Feurstenberg

    & TBD Members:, USFS, NPS, TPL, TNC,

    Earth Economics, PSP, Forterra

    PSRC, Research Institutes, etc

    ——————————————————

    Recreation & Trails Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Amy Shumann (PHSKC) & Jennifer Knauer(PSP)

    Members:  WSDOT, BAW, CBC, NPS, TPL, SPF, Parks/Recreation &

    Health Depts., Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————–

    Rural & Resource Lands Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Lauren Smith (King County) & Skip Swenson (Forterra)

    Members: TPL, TNC, Land Trusts, Farm/Forestry Orgs., Labor, Property Rights, Cons.

    Dists., etc.

    —————————————————–

    Urban & Community Plan Advisory Committee

     Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Joe Tovar (Inova) & Ben Bakkenta( PSRC)

    Members: Forterra, ULI, Impact Capital, Great City,

    Tilth, SPF, Groundswell NW, Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————————–

    WATERSHED OPEN SPACE TASKFORCES

    Role: Watershed Open Space Studies.

    Leads:  Associated Watershed Councils & Conservation Districts

    ————————————————————–

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS BELOW

    It’s an extensive partnership of governments and non-profits.

    Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in $$$$$$ And, the power

    They have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition

    Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Prepared for the Regional Open Space Strategy of Central Puget Sound

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    The ROSS approach brings together decision makers, planners, businesses, and individuals with the power to make smart, regional-based, and coordinated decisions to support open space and our future quality of life in the Puget Sound Region. This collaborative effort is stewarded by the University of Washington’s award-winning Green Futures Lab.

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

    I found above plan/strategy in the MRSC publication.  This has to be a part of the desired ARL sweep.  The article says they have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition (haven’t found them yet).  Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in from an informed citizenry and the support of the regions leaders from both public and private sectors.

    IT’S AN EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS.

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Introduction to the Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    A Collective Vision

    PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

    Researching and Analyzing Governance Models for UW Green Futures Research + Design Lab

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————————

    This is part of  my comment on the Clallam County New SMP Matrix

    THE NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS, PILING ONE NGO NON-TAXPAYING  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPIES COMMENTS,  on top of another NGO non-taxpaying  special interest group comment, all in collusion with, in cahoots with, in partnership,affiliated with, paid for by and with grants and with our tax dollars, from  local, county, state and federal government agencies.

    AND, WITH ALL OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  ELECTED, APPOINTED AND PAID EMPLOYEES IN ALL AGENCIES, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH, IN COLLUSION WITH, IN CAHOOTS WITH, AFFILIATED WITH AND COORDINATING WITH THE GLOBAL, OUT OF TOWNERS, NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS NON-TAXPAYING  OPPORTUNISTIC SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    Sound familiar?

    —————————————————————————————-

    Indeed, THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    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.

    Who knew about this? Who knew about ROSS?

    (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.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    ——————————————————————————–

    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?

     


  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    MARCH 30, 2015 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDE, CLALLAM COUNTY AFFECTED VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS, LOCAL BUSINESS,  THE TIMBER INDUSTRY,

    IN PART, OTHERS HAVE THEIR VOICE TOO, PAID  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES  NGO OUT OF TOWNERS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY  AND THE TRIBES.

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

    SMP Update fight moves forward – Great Pen Voice Letter by Gene Farr
    To: Karl Spees <76ccap@gmail.com>

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

    It is the same imposed govt taking without due process we are having in Clallam County. It will be the same in Grays Harbor County and over the whole state.

    I read the letter in the Peninsula Daily News. It was a little hard to follow.  This version is very clear and easy to follow.

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Hope you all saw a slightly modified version this in the PDN today.  They added in Hood Canal Sand & Gravel as one of the litigants and changed the title to Shoreline program:

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

    The PDN reported last week that the State Growth Management Hearing Board rejected appeals by the Olympic Stewardship Foundation, the local chapter of Citizen Alliance for Property Rights and others. These legal actions had been launched when Jefferson County adopted and the State Dept of Ecology approved a highly flawed and onerous update to the County’s Shoreline Master Program.

    You read that right. A county can’t adopt its own regulations to suit its local conditions. It must do what the State Department of Ecology wants in order to get the required approval.  Is that Constitutional?

    These legal appeals noted numerous constitutional, legal and procedural issues. The total was over 200 items, yet this Board of political appointees chose to not validate even one issue.  Now the legal action will move on to a real court of law.

    This SMP Update devalues shoreline property by making it less desirable.  It is now harder to develop, improve, repair or replace damaged shoreline property.  With the lower total value of county property as a tax base, the county then must increase property tax rates on all property to raise the same amount of funds.  This affects all property owners.

    CAPR and OSF are working on behalf of all property owners.  OSF is a local organization that believes “The best stewards of the land are the people who live on the land and care for their homes and property.”  We all should support these organizations.

    Gene Farr

     


  • SMP What has Your County got to Lose?

    SMP What has Your  County got to Lose?

    For the record this is my Clallam County

    SMP Public Comment

    What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

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

    AND, ONE MUST CONSIDER THE VALUE OF PROPERTY  LEFT “HIGH DRY AND DESTITUTE”  BY THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    HOW MUCH MORE CRITICAL LAND MASS CAN CLALLAM COUNTY AFFORD TO LOSE AND STILL BE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE COUNTY?

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED AD VALOREM TAX IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    AN AD VALOREM TAX (Latin for “according to value”) IS A TAX BASED ON THE VALUE OF REAL ESTATE or personal property.

    An ad valorem tax is typically imposed at the time of a transaction(s) (a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT)), BUT IT MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS (real or personal property tax) or in connection with another significant event (inheritance tax)
    ———————————————————————————-
    The VALUE OF REAL ESTATE (private property)  WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.
    ———————————————————————————-
    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with “ZERO” WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with ONLY 150 GALLONS OF INDOOR WATER USE A DAY?
    ———————————————————————————-
    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED IT IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    1. DEVALUATE THE REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER

    2. RAISE THE VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE WITH WATER

    3. CHOOSING BOTH #1 one AND #2 two UNSATISFACTORY alternatives

    4. NOW WITH THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST WA STATE AND FOR THE TRIBES?

    5. More DILEMMA? LEGAL ARGUMENTS LEADING TO more UNDESIRABLE CHOICES, in logic, a form of reasoning that, , though valid,

    6. Leads AGAIN to ONE? TWO? OR more? undesirable alternatives.
    —————————————————————————-
    The Bottom line

    The ” VALUE OF REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.

    Highest and best use

    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process.
    1. The appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property? Of the uses
    2. Which are legally permissible?
    3. which ones are physically possible? Of those,
    4. Which ones are financially feasible?
    (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    AND, To say nothing of the MAN MADE ECONOMIC DISASTERS for Clallam and Skagit County and the private property owners in those counties?

    THE DOE WATER RULES, SETTING THE INSTREAM FLOW, THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE AND THE WA WATER TRUST.

    ————————————————————————————-

    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”.

    —————————————————————————————

    Research and documentation, YOU MAY continue reading, OR NOT,  for
    AD VALOREM TO AD NAUSEAM ….(is a latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued “to [the point of] nausea”.) on my website behindmyback.org.

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————————–

     

     

     

    AD VALOREM
    (tax (latin for “according to value”) is a tax based on the value of real estate or personal property.)

    Property tax
    Main article: Property tax
    A property tax, millage tax is an ad valorem tax that an owner of real estate or other property pays on the value of the property being taxed. There are three species or types of property: Land, Improvements to Land (immovable man made things), and Personal (movable man made things). REAL ESTATE, REAL PROPERTY OR REALTY ARE ALL TERMS FOR THE COMBINATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS. The taxing authority requires and/or performs an appraisal of the monetary value of the property, and tax is assessed in proportion to that value. Forms of property tax used vary between countries and jurisdictions.

    Real estate appraisal

    Real estate appraisal, property valuation or land valuation is the process of valuing real property. The value usually sought is the property’s market value. Appraisals are needed because compared to, say, corporate stock, real estate transactions occur very infrequently. Not only that, but every property is different from the next, a factor that doesn’t affect assets like corporate stock.

    Furthermore, all properties differ from each other in their location – which is an important factor in their value. So a centralized Walrasian auction setting can’t exist for the trading of property assets, such as exists to trade corporate stock (i.e. a stock market/exchange).

    This product differentiation and lack of frequent trading, unlike stocks, means that specialist qualified appraisers are needed to advise on the value of a property.

    The appraiser usually provides a written report on this value to his or her client. These reports are used as the basis for mortgage loans, for settling estates and divorces, for tax matters, and so on. Sometimes the appraisal report is used by both parties to set the sale price of the property appraised.

    In some areas, an appraiser doesn’t need a license or any certification to appraise property. Usually, however, most countries or regions require that appraisals be done by a licensed or certified appraiser (in many countries known as a Property Valuer or Land Valuer and in British English as a “valuation surveyor”).

    If the appraiser’s opinion is based on Market Value, then it must also be based on the Highest and Best Use of the real property.

    For mortgage valuations of improved residential property in the US, the appraisal is most often reported on a standardized form, such as the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report.[1] Appraisals of more complex property (e.g. — income producing, raw land) are usually reported in a narrative appraisal report.

    Types of value

    There are several types and definitions of value sought by a real estate appraisal. Some of the most common are:

    •Market value – The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive Walrasian auction setting.

    Market value is usually interchangeable with open market value or fair value. International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Market value – the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

    •Value-in-use, or use value[3] – The net present value (NPV)[4] of a cash flow that an asset generates for a specific owner under a specific use. Value-in-use is the value to one particular user, and may be above or below the market value of a property.

    •Investment value – is the value to one particular investor, and may or may not be higher than the market value of a property. Differences between the investment value of an asset and its market value provide the motivation for buyers or sellers to enter the marketplace.

    International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Investment value – the value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner for individual investment or operational objectives.

    •Insurable value – is the value of real property covered by an insurance policy. Generally it does not include the site value.

    •Liquidation value – may be analyzed as either a forced liquidation or an orderly liquidation and is a commonly sought standard of value in bankruptcy proceedings. It assumes a seller who is compelled to sell after an exposure period which is less than the market-normal time-frame.

    Price versus value
    There can be differences between what the property is really worth (market value) and what it cost to buy it (price).

    A price paid might not represent that property’s market value. Sometimes, special considerations may have been present, such as a special relationship between the buyer and the seller where one party had control or significant influence over the other party.
    In other cases, the transaction may have been just one of several properties sold or traded between two parties. In such cases, the price paid for any particular piece isn’t its market ‘value’ (with the idea usually being, though, that all the pieces and prices add up to market value of all the parts) but rather its market ‘price’.

    At other times, a buyer may willingly pay a premium price, above the generally-accepted market value, if his subjective valuation of the property (its investment value for him) was higher than the market value. One specific example of this is an owner of a neighboring property who, by combining his own property with the subject property, could obtain economies-of-scale.

    Similar situations sometimes happen in corporate finance. For example, this can occur when a merger or acquisition happens at a price which is higher than the value represented by the price of the underlying stock. The usual explanation for these types of mergers and acquisitions is that ‘the sum is greater than its parts’, since full ownership of a company provides full control of it. This is something that purchasers will sometimes pay a high price for. This situation can happen in real estate purchases too.

    But the most common reason for value differing from price is that either the buyer or the seller is uninformed as to what a property’s market value is but nevertheless agrees on a contract at a certain price which is either too expensive or too cheap. This is unfortunate for one of the two parties. It is the obligation of a Real Property Appraiser to estimate the true market value of a property and not its market price.

    Market value definitions in the USA
    In the US, appraisals are for a certain type of value (e.g., foreclosure value, fair market value, distressed sale value, investment value). The most commonly used definition of value is Market Value. While Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) does not define Market Value, it provides general guidance for how Market Value should be defined:
    a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer or sale of a property as of a certain date, under specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.

    Thus, the definition of value used in an appraisal or CMA (Current Market Analysis) analysis and report is a set of assumptions about the market in which the subject property may transact. It affects the choice of comparable data for use in the analysis. It can also affect the method used to value the property. For example, tree value can contribute up to 27% of property value.[5][6]

    Three approaches to value
    There are three traditional groups of methodologies for determining value. These are usually referred to as the “three approaches to value” which are generally independent of each other:

    •The cost approach (the buyer will not pay more for a property than it would cost to purchase an equivalent).

    •The sales comparison approach (comparing a property’s characteristics with those of comparable properties that have recently sold in similar transactions).

    •The income approach (similar to the methods used for financial valuation, securities analysis or bond pricing).

    However, the recent trend of the business tends to be toward the use of a scientific methodology of appraisal which relies on the foundation of quantitative-data,[7] risk, and geographical based approaches.[8][9] Pagourtzi et al. have provided a review on the methods used in the industry by comparison between conventional approaches and advanced ones.[10]

    As mentioned before, an appraiser can generally choose from three approaches to determine value. One or two of these approaches will usually be most applicable, with the other approach or approaches usually being less useful. The appraiser has to think about the “scope of work”, the type of value, the property itself, and the quality and quantity of data available for each approach. No overarching statement can be made that one approach or another is always better than one of the other approaches.

    The appraiser has to think about the way that most buyers usually buy a given type of property. What appraisal method do most buyers use for the type of property being valued? This generally guides the appraiser’s thinking on the best valuation method, in conjunction with the available data. For instance, appraisals of properties that are typically purchased by investors (e.g., skyscrapers, office buildings) may give greater weight to the Income Approach. Buyers interested in purchasing single family residential property would rather compare price, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach (market analysis approach) would be more applicable. The third and final approach to value is the Cost Approach to value. The Cost Approach to value is most useful in determining insurable value, and cost to construct a new structure or building.

    For example, single apartment buildings of a given quality tend to sell at a particular price per apartment. In many of those cases, the sales comparison approach may be more applicable. On the other hand, a multiple-building apartment complex would usually be valued by the income approach, as that would follow how most buyers would value it. As another example, single-family houses are most commonly valued with greatest weighting to the sales comparison approach. However, if a single-family dwelling is in a neighborhood where all or most of the dwellings are rental units, then some variant of the income approach may be more useful. So the choice of valuation method can change depending upon the circumstances, even if the property being valued doesn’t change much.

    The cost approach
    The cost approach was once called the summation approach. The theory is that the value of a property can be estimated by summing the land value and the depreciated value of any improvements. The value of the improvements is often referred to by the abbreviation RCNLD (reproduction cost new less depreciation or replacement cost new less depreciation). Reproduction refers to reproducing an exact replica. Replacement cost refers to the cost of building a house or other improvement which has the same utility, but using modern design, workmanship and materials. In practice, appraisers almost always use replacement cost and then deduct a factor for any functional dis-utility associated with the age of the subject property. An exception to the general rule of using the replacement cost, is for some insurance value appraisals. In those cases, reproduction of the exact asset after the destructive event (fire, etc.) is the goal.
    In most instances when the cost approach is involved, the overall methodology is a hybrid of the cost and sales comparison approaches (representing both the suppliers’ costs and the prices that customers are seeking). For example, the replacement cost to construct a building can be determined by adding the labor, material, and other costs. On the other hand, land values and depreciation must be derived from an analysis of comparable sales data.
    The cost approach is considered most reliable when used on newer structures, but the method tends to become less reliable for older properties. The cost approach is often the only reliable approach when dealing with special use properties (e.g., public assembly, marinas).

    The sales comparison approach
    The sales comparison approach is based primarily on the principle of substitution. This approach assumes a prudent (or rational) individual will pay no more for a property than it would cost to purchase a comparable substitute property. The approach recognizes that a typical buyer will compare asking prices and seek to purchase the property that meets his or her wants and needs for the lowest cost. In developing the sales comparison approach, the appraiser attempts to interpret and measure the actions of parties involved in the marketplace, including buyers, sellers, and investors.
    Data collection methods and valuation process Data is collected on recent sales of properties similar to the subject being valued, called “comparables”. Only SOLD properties may be used in an appraisal and determination of a property’s value, as they represent amounts actually paid or agreed upon for properties. Sources of comparable data include real estate publications, public records, buyers, sellers, real estate brokers and/or agents, appraisers, and so on. Important details of each comparable sale are described in the appraisal report. Since comparable sales aren’t identical to the subject property, adjustments may be made for date of sale, location, style, amenities, square footage, site size, etc. The main idea is to simulate the price that would have been paid if each comparable sale were identical to the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject in a factor or aspect, then a downward adjustment is needed for that factor.[clarification needed] Likewise, if the comparable is inferior to the subject in an aspect, then an upward adjustment for that aspect is needed.[clarification needed] The adjustment is somewhat subjective and relies on the Appraiser’s training and experience. From the analysis of the group of adjusted sales prices of the comparable sales, the appraiser selects an indicator of value that is representative of the subject property. It is possible for various Appraisers to chose different indicator of value which ultimately will provide different property value.

    Steps in the sales comparison approach 1. Research the market to obtain information pertaining to sales, and pending sales that are similar to the subject property. 2. Investigate the market data to determine whether they are factually correct and accurate. 3. Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., sales price per square foot), and develop a comparative analysis for each. 4. Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of comparison and adjust as appropriate. 5. Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the adjustment (upward or downward) of the comparable sales into a single value indication.
    The income capitalization approach
    Main article: Income approach
    The income capitalization approach (often referred to simply as the “income approach”) is used to value commercial and investment properties. Because it is intended to directly reflect or model the expectations and behaviors of typical market participants, this approach is generally considered the most applicable valuation technique for income-producing properties, where sufficient market data exists.
    In a commercial income-producing property this approach capitalizes an income stream into a value indication. This can be done using revenue multipliers or capitalization rates applied to a Net Operating Income (NOI). Usually, an NOI has been stabilized so as not to place too much weight on a very recent event. An example of this is an unleased building which, technically, has no NOI. A stabilized NOI would assume that the building is leased at a normal rate, and to usual occupancy levels. The Net Operating Income (NOI) is gross potential income (GPI), less vacancy and collection loss (= Effective Gross Income) less operating expenses (but excluding debt service, income taxes, and/or depreciation charges applied by accountants).
    Alternatively, multiple years of net operating income can be valued by a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) model. The DCF model is widely used to value larger and more expensive income-producing properties, such as large office towers or major shopping centres. This technique applies market-supported yields (or discount rates) to projected future cash flows (such as annual income figures and typically a lump reversion from the eventual sale of the property) to arrive at a present value indication.

    Scope of work
    While USPAP has always required appraisers to identify the scope of work needed to produce credible results, it became clear in recent years that appraisers did not fully understand the process for developing this adequately. In formulating the scope of work for a credible appraisal, the concept of a limited versus complete appraisal and the use of the Departure Rule caused confusion to clients, appraisers, and appraisal reviewers. In order to deal with this, USPAP was updated in 2006 with what came to be known as the Scope of Work project.

    Following this, USPAP eliminated both the Departure Rule and the concept of a limited appraisal, and a new Scope of Work rule was created. In this, appraisers were to identify six key parts of the appraisal problem at the beginning of each assignment:
    • Client and other intended users
    • Intended use of the appraisal and appraisal report
    • Definition of value (e.g., market, foreclosure, investment)
    • Any hypothetical conditions or extraordinary assumptions
    • The effective date of the appraisal analysis
    • The salient features of the subject property
    Based on these factors, the appraiser must identify the scope of work needed, including the methodologies to be used, the extent of investigation, and the applicable approaches to value.

    Currently, minimum standards for scope of work are:
    • Expectations of the client and other users
    • The actions of the appraiser’s peers who carry out similar assignments
    The Scope of Work is the first step in any appraisal process. Without a strictly defined Scope of Work an appraisal’s conclusions may not be viable. By defining the Scope of Work, an appraiser can properly develop a value for a given property for the intended user, and for the intended use of the appraisal. The whole idea of “Scope of Work” is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for all parties as to what the appraisal report does, and doesn’t, cover; and how much work has gone into it.

    Highest and best use
    Main article: Highest and best use
    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process. First, the appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property. Second, of the uses which are legally permissible, which ones are physically possible. Of those, which ones are financially feasible (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    In more complex appraisal assignments (e.g., contract disputes, litigation, brownfield or contaminated property valuation), the determination of highest and best use may be much more complex, and may need to take into account the various intermediate or temporary uses of the site, the contamination remediation process, and the timing of various legal issues.[12]
    —————————————————————

    HISTORY
    The VAT was invented by a French economist in 1954. Maurice Lauré, joint director of the French tax authority, the Direction générale des impôts, as taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA in French) was first to introduce VAT with effect from 10 April 1954 for large businesses, and extended over time to all business sectors. IN FRANCE, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF STATE FINANCE, ACCOUNTING FOR APPROXIMATELY 45% OF STATE REVENUES.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #165

    SMP Public Comment #165

    To and for the 3300 Private Shoreline Property home owners in Clallam County

    THAT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FEMA MANDATORY HOMEOWNER FLOOD INSURANCE

    Jan 16, 2015 SMP public comment #159 – If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarpeddata/.

    In answer to posted SMP Public Comment “so many questions”

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    I submit  this as an update for SMP Public Comment #165

    Clallam County DCD has not responded to SMP posted question?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    (As one of the Clallam County 3300)

    ————————————————————————

    For the understanding of a reasonable person.

    THAT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FEMA MANDATORY HOME OWNERS FLOOD INSURANCE

    1, (FEMA) IS THE FEDERAL INSURANCE AND MITIGATION ADMINISTRATION

    2. (NFIP) IS THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    3. (WYO) Write Your Own, are private insurers and agencies for servicing flood policies PRIVATE INSURANCE AGENCIES SELL FLOOD PROTECTION THROUGH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP).

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

    FEMA HISTORY June 25, 2012  MANDATORY COVERAGE AREAS.  (MANDATORY COVERAGE) PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT in  4 years = 100% increase.

    June 25, 2012 – (full text below) Shall be phased in over a 4-year period, at the rate of 40 percent for the first year following such effective date and 20 percent for each of the second, third, and fourth years following such effective date.

    2013 raise the rate 40%

    2014 raise the rate 20%

    2015 raise the rate 20%

    2016 raise the rate 20%

    ————————————————————————————————–

    (c) Mandatory Participation in National Flood Insurance Program-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Any area described in subsection (b) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO the MANDATORY PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS of sections 102 and 202 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106).

    And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THE REALITY OF FEMA

    PURPLE FLAG WARNING TO THE  3300 PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY HOMEOWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY and in fact  to all private shoreline property owners across  the entire United States of America

    FEMA HAS designated FLOOD PLAIN MAPS WITH mandatory coverage areas with  FEMA mandatory HOMEOWNERS insurance coverage

    CHECK THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN MAPS FOR YOUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY. FEMA has a little PURPLE flood plain marker. FEMA may color your private SHORELINE property on a their  FLOOD PLAIN MAP PURPLE.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    THE CREDIBILITY OF FEMA?

    Tim Leeds

    Published: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

     Montana’s senior U. S. senator, Democrat Max Baucus, When the town of Livingston was forced to pay $270,000 dollars to have a private engineering firm certify its flood wall, the results showed FEMA errors had misplaced the majority of the town within the flood plain, when in fact it was not.

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarpeddata/

    Mar 22, 2014 – From Maine to Oregon 2014 FEMA FLOOD MAPS have often been built using outdated, inaccurate data. Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the …

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarpeddata/.

    Below Feb 20, 2015 – MORE CONFIRMATION ON  FEMA’S  INACCURATE MAPS

    —————————————————————————-

    THE REALITY OF FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS.

    Updated February 24, 2013  If flood claims exhaust the fund, CONGRESS MAY HAVE TO STEP IN WITH ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER MONEY. That will add to the already bloated national deficit, and anger fiscally-conservative members of Congress.

    ———————————————————————————–

    AS USUAL… CONGRESS KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD…

    IN MARCH 2014, CONGRESS passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA),

    Feb 20, 2015…….

    FEMA Shows Some Progress Implementing Flood …

    www.insurancejournal.com/news/…/2015/…/358147.ht…

    Insurance Journal

    snippet (full text below)

    Feb 20, 2015 – In February and September 2015, the National Academy of … in the debt, Biggert-Waters required that FEMA create a reserve fund that …

    The Biggert-Waters Act, enacted in July 2012, was an attempt by Congress to strengthen the finances and administration of the NFIP, which has had its share of challenges and critics over the years. Biggert-Waters required FEMA to phase-out almost all discounted insurance premiums and establish a reserve fund.

    However as these changes were being implemented, a number of communities and interests complained about unaffordable premiums, lost home sales, INACCURATE MAPS, lack of community input and other issues. In response, IN MARCH 2014, CONGRESS passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA), which restored premium subsidies and rolled back increases while altering other Biggert-Waters requirements.

    http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/02/20/358147.htm

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Hmmm.. 2009

    Flood coverage costs an average of $570 a year, up 4% from 2009. And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

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

    June 25, 2012  (my insert)

    FEMA HISTORY June 25, 2012  MANDATORY COVERAGE AREAS.  (MANDATORY COVERAGE) PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT in  4 years = 100% increase.

    Over 10 years, flood insurance premiums could cost up to $27,340, for a high-risk home with $250,000 in coverage to rebuild the house and $100,000 to cover the contents, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar. On top of that, a proposal in Congress could also boost annual premiums by as much as 20% as part of a plan to overhaul the federal government’s flood insurance program, itself (FEMA) underwater by $18 billion.

    —————————————————————————-

    June 25, 2012  STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

    S. 1940–Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2011

    (Sen. Johnson, D- (Senate)

    SD)The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1940 to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).By requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to move to full risk-based premium rates for certain properties, the bill would strengthen the NFIP’s financial position and increase its ability to fund future claims. The bill would also reduce flood risk and increase the resiliency of communities to flooding. The Administration is pleased that the bill supports transitioning to actuarially sound rates to enable policyholders and communities to adjust to risk-based premiums.

    In addition, the Administration supports the bill’s measures to strengthen and streamline mitigation programs. As the bill moves through the legislative process, the Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on additional reforms to strengthen the NFIP and help economically distressed homeowners in a manner that is consistent with the President’s Budget.

    SEC. 107. MANDATORY COVERAGE AREAS.  (MANDATORY COVERAGE)

    SEC. 108. PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT. Any increase in the risk premium rate charged for flood insurance on any property that is covered by a flood insurance policy on the effective date of such an update that is a result of such updating shall be phased in over a 4-year period, at the rate of 40 percent for the first year following such effective date and 20 percent for each of the second, third, and fourth years following such effective date.


    SEC. 107. MANDATORY COVERAGE AREAS.

    (A) SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS- NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, THE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL ISSUE FINAL REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A REVISED DEFINITION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS FOR PURPOSES OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (b) Residual Risk Areas- The regulations required by subsection (a) SHALL REQUIRE THE EXPANSION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS TO INCLUDE AREAS OF RESIDUAL RISK THAT ARE LOCATED BEHIND LEVEES OR NEAR DAMS OR OTHER FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES, AS DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

    (c) Mandatory Participation in National Flood Insurance Program-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Any area described in subsection (b) SHALL BE SUBJECT TO the MANDATORY PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS of sections 102 and 202 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4106).

    (2) LIMITATION- The mandatory purchase requirement under paragraph (1) SHALL HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT UNTIL THE MAPPING OF ALL RESIDUAL RISK AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES that the Administrator determines essential in order to administer the National Flood Insurance Program, as required under section 118, are in the maintenance phase.

    (3) ACCURATE PRICING- In carrying out the mandatory purchase requirement under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall ensure that the price of flood insurance policies in areas of residual risk accurately reflects the level of flood protection provided by any levee, dam, or other flood control structure in such area, regardless of the certification status of the flood control structure.

    (d) Decertification- Upon decertification of any levee, dam, or flood control structure under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Corps shall immediately provide notice to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program.

    SEC. 108. PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by section 106(c), is further amended by adding at the end the following:

    `(h) Premium Adjustment To Reflect Current Risk of Flood- Notwithstanding subsection (f), upon the effective date of any revised or updated flood insurance rate map under this Act, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, or the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2011, any property located in an area that is participating in the national flood insurance program shall have the risk premium rate charged for flood insurance on such property adjusted to accurately reflect the current risk of flood to such property, subject to any other provision of this Act. Any increase in the risk premium rate charged for flood insurance on any property that is covered by a flood insurance policy on the effective date of such an update that is a result of such updating shall be phased in over a 4-year period, at the rate of 40 percent for the first year following such effective date and 20 percent for each of the second, third, and fourth years following such effective date. In the case of any area that was not previously designated as an area having special flood hazards and that, pursuant to any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in a flood insurance map, becomes designated as such an area, the chargeable risk premium rate for flood insurance under this title that is purchased on or after the date of enactment of this subsection with respect to any property that is located within such area shall be phased in over a 4-year period, at the rate of 40 percent for the first year following the effective date of such issuance, revision, updating, or change and 20 percent for each of the second, third, and fourth years following such effective date.’.

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

    Jun 27, 2012 BEFORE HURRICANE SANDY

    The last documented information I have Wed, Jun 27, 2012, FEMA was $18 billion dollars underwater

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

    February 24, 2013 AFTER HURRICANE SANDY

    By Ed Beeson/The Star-Ledger
    Updated February 24, 2013 at 10:04 AM Polling data that the NFIP collects from Write Your Own carriers show that claims payouts are speeding up. As of Wednesday, nearly $4.8 billion in payments have been made, up from $3.7 billion at the start of the month. In early January, it was $1.9 billion But FEMA ALREADY OWES $18 BILLION TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, thanks to Hurricane Katrina. Currently, insurance experts say FEMA’s flood insurance program has access to funds totaling $3.8 billion, much of it in loans.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    AS OF THE END OF 2014, NFIP’S DEBT TO TREASURY TOTALED $23 BILLION.

    If flood claims exhaust the fund, CONGRESS MAY HAVE TO STEP IN WITH ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER MONEY. That will add to the already bloated national deficit, and anger fiscally-conservative members of Congress.

    IF FEMA exhausts the fund?

    WHEN FEMA ALREADY OWED $18 BILLION TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT BEFORE HURRICANE SANDY?

    INDEED THE  CONGRESS MUST STEP IN WITH ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER MONEY  TO RESTORE THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE FUND, and for other purposes.

    —————————————————————————————–

     There is no report online regarding FEMAS DEBT ON MARCH 14, 2013.

    AS OF THE END OF 2014, NFIP’S DEBT TO TREASURY TOTALED $23 BILLION.

    ———————————————————————————–

    It could happen to you…

    Clallam County WA, in WRIA 20, on the Sol Duc River 40 acres of private SHORELINE property is was colored  purple by FEMA? And  AFTER 60 YEARS, with no notification from any government agency, our families 40 acres of private UNDEVELOPED SHORELINE property become a PURPLE MARKED FEMA identified Flood Plain?

    When we say our 40 acre property is NOT a flood plain? What happens next?  Then, we as a private shoreline property owners  have to fight FEMA, at our own expense, to prove our private shoreline property  is not a Flood plain.

    ————————————————————————

    February 20, 2015 FEMA Shows Some Progress Implementing Flood Insurance Changes: GAO

    By Andrew G. Simpson | February 20, 2015

    THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM has made progress in carrying out key changes mandated by Congress in two recent laws but lacks resources and data to completely implement others, a government report says. [See copy of report at end of story.]

    For instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) repealed certain rate increases and got premiums refunds to policyholders of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as promised under the law. Refunds began in October 2014 and, according to FEMA, almost all refunds were issued by December 2014.

    But FEMA said has been unable to make insurance rate changes for business properties because it cannot distinguish among policies for businesses, NONPROFITS, and other nonresidential properties.

    According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, FEMA has improved its mapping process but still has along way to go in this area. FEMA estimates that mapping requirements are about 30 percent complete and that it will take several years to finish. The study cites inadequate data and funding.

    Progress has been mixed in the area of reserves also. While FEMA has set up a required reserve fund intended to keep the NFIP’s $23 billion debt to the federal government from growing, it has not met the yearly target for reserve fund contributions, according to GAO. IT HAS, HOWEVER, BEGUN RAISING ASSESSMENTS AND SURCHARGES TO BOOST THE FUND.

    Also, the report says the government has made little progress in a key expense area: how it compensates Write Your Own (WYO) private insurers and agencies for servicing flood policies so that the cost is more in line with the private industry’s actual expenses. Citing data quality and reporting issues, FEMA told GAO it expects it to be years before it can better evaluate these WYO expenses. It has, however, reduced the expenses on certain very high-risk policies.

    On the other hand, the agency has almost fully implemented mitigation assistance requirements and has established an interim consumer advocate office, despite no funding for this office, according to the GAO.

    FEMA has taken some action on an affordability study that the law requires, but says data challenges have delayed that also. In February and September 2015, the National Academy of Sciences is to deliver two reports that identify approaches for both an NFIP affordability framework and nationwide affordability study.

    Amended Law

    The Biggert-Waters Act, enacted in July 2012, was an attempt by Congress to strengthen the finances and administration of the NFIP, which has had its share of challenges and critics over the years. Biggert-Waters required FEMA to phase-out almost all discounted insurance premiums and establish a reserve fund. However as these changes were being implemented, a number of communities and interests complained about unaffordable premiums, lost home sales, inaccurate maps, lack of community input and other issues. In response, in March 2014, Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA), which restored premium subsidies and rolled back increases while altering other Biggert-Waters requirements.

    Members of the House Financial Services Committee asked GAO to assess FEMA’s implementation of the laws.

    Progress Report

    FEMA estimated that it has completed almost half of Biggert-Waters Act sections and about one-third of HFIAA sections as of December 2014, and said it is taking action on others, including required studies.

    However, FEMA and representatives of organizations with flood insurance expertise told GAO that the agency also faces challenges related to resources, the complexity of the legislation, and the need to balance NFIP’s financial solvency goal with its affordability goals.

    FEMA was implementing the Biggert-Waters Act when HFIAA was passed and had to undo some of its previous actions. FEMA was operating within the budget for fiscal year 2014 that was approved prior to HFIAA and while HFIAA made funding available for certain requirements, it did not do so for others such as the flood insurance advocate position.

    Reserve Fund

    As of the end of 2014, NFIP’s debt to Treasury totaled $23 billion. To avoid large increases in the debt, Biggert-Waters required that FEMA create a reserve fund that maintained at least one percent of total annual potential loss exposure.

    FEMA is supposed to phase-in the reserve fund over time, with at least 7.5 percent of the total added yearly, but it is not permitted to exceed annual rate increase caps to build up the reserve fund. GAO’s report says THE NFIP’S CURRENT EXPOSURE IS $1.3 TRILLION, meaning the reserve fund eventually would need to hold $13 billion, and FEMA would have to collect approximately $975 million annually (7.5 percent of $13 billion) in order to meet statutory targets.

    FEMA says the reserve fund has been created. However, FEMA has not yet met the yearly statutory target for reserve fund contributions, according to GAO. FEMA has plans in place to implement a reserve fund assessment and a reserve fund surcharge.

    Effective April 2015, policies that had been charged a 5 percent reserve fund assessment will be charged an additional 10 percent. For preferred-risk policies, the reserve fund assessment will increase from 0 percent to 10 percent. FEMA has issued guidance to the WYOs and will begin charging a reserve fund surcharge that is separate from the reserve assessment beginning in April 2015. Primary residential properties are subject to a $25 surcharge, while all nonprimary residential and nonresidential properties are subject to a $250 surcharge.

    FEMA officials estimate that reserve fund contributions will total approximately $500 million in fiscal year 2015 and that ABOUT $1 BILLION will be contributed to the reserve fund in fiscal year 2016.

    Write-Your-Own

    Biggert-Waters required FEMA to develop a methodology for compensating WYOs using actual flood insurance expense data. FEMA currently provides approximately 13 percent of collected premiums to the WYOs carriers to cover operating expenses.

    FEMA said it is still developing a final methodology based on actual expenses but it has reduced the operating expense charge on the highest-risk policies effective this coming April.

    Other than the change on highest-risk policies, WYO carriers are continuing to receive approximately 30 percent of premiums for expense and commissions,  a percentage that was written into the agreements between WYOs and FEMA, according to GAO.

    FEMA OFFICIALS TOLD GAO THAT ONCE THE WYO COMPENSATION METHODOLOGY WAS COMPLETE, THE RULEMAKING PROCESS WOULD TAKE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL YEARS.

    Grandfathered Policies

    FEMA never initiated rate increases to phase-out grandfathered policies as required by Biggert-Waters because the HFIAA nixed this requirement. Grandfathered properties are those that had been re-mapped into higher flood-risk zones but continued paying lower-risk premium rates.

    However, FEMA says it would have faced challenges in phasing-out grandfathered policies as it does not have the elevation data necessary to determine full risk rates for all of these policies. Not all policyholders have elevation certificates that show this information in part because certificates are not required for all properties, FEMA told the GAO.

    Meanwhile, Washington continues to explore ways to shrink the government’s role in flood insurance program and bring more private insurers into the mix.

    Private insurance carriers do currently provide some flood coverage but typically only for commercial properties and excess homeowners flood coverage above the maximum $350,000 of building and contents coverage provided by the NFIP. According to various experts and studies, the major obstacle to private sector flood insurance is that private carriers can’t compete with the subsidized premiums offered by the NFIP. Private (re)insurers will only write significant flood business if they are allowed to charge actuarially sound rates, industry experts say.

    Related:

    With Premium Refunds in Process, Washington Criticism of Flood Insurance Ebbs

    With Fix for Flood Insurance Program Deficit Delayed, Now What?

    How to Encourage Private Flood Insurance; Why Delaying Biggert-Waters Is Not the Answer