+menu-


  • Category Archives Clallam County SMP
  • 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

     


  • SMP Public Comment #164

    I resubmit this SMP Public Comment as  #164

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

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

    Why not help the 3300 shoreline private property owners?

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    You, Clallam County DCD have not responded to their posted question? YET?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —– Original Message —– Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM

    Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM
    Subject: FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    • snippets
    •  Some documentation is from MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • ·         1. FEMA  flood specific
    • ·         2. Earthquake specific
    • ·         3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    • ·         4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

     

    1. FEMA  flood specific

    The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) manages the NFIP.

    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    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.

    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.

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

    My comment is, the wider the DOE SMP Clallam County flood plains,  the more private property owners will be required  to pay for this.

     If MITIGATION is your middle name? You are probably a government agency.

    Of course, CLALLAM COUNTY HOMEOWNERS can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and FLOOD ZONES  for CHEAPER places to live.

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

     2. Earthquake specific

     Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi.

    —————————————————————————-

     Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    snippet

    Home policies typically don’t cover quakes

    While insurance policies with earthquake coverage are fairly easy to obtain, they have extremely high deductibles, high premiums and offer relatively little coverage, leaving some to wonder whether earthquake insurance is actually worth the price.

    “There is widespread belief among homeowners that earthquake insurance is included in their policy, but it almost never is. It’s an add-on that you have to buy. Most homeowners are just not covered,” says Rich Roesler to Insurancequote.com. Roesler is a spokesman for the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    ———————————————————————

    snippet

    California Earthquake Authority (CEA)

    CEA Premiums based on science, not profit.

    Per my research consultant, earth quakes are policy specific insurance.

     Earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water or erosion, or your home sliding off of a Clallam County priority feeder bluff (PFB), are NOT Covered.

    See DIC insurance below.

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

    3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    (Difference in Conditions Coverage)

    Per my research consultant, DIC insurance covers devastating, catastrophic damage to your private property. DIC gives you insurance coverage, that is not  covered on any of your other policy specific insurance policies.

    AN EXAMPLE OF DIC INSURANCE POLICY COVERAGE ON A CLALLAM COUNTY PRIORITY FEEDER BLUFF

    The insured house is on a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff

    The house is valued at $700,000.00

    The yearly premium for DIC insurance coverage on that property is $2600.00

    This DIC insurance policy DOES cover earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water and/or erosion, AND it DOES insure your home if  it slides off of a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff (PFB)

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

    4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

    My research consultant , advises you to read your homeowners policy, you will never know what is covered if you don’t read your policy.

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

     

    • MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • Do You Need Disaster Insurance?

    By ANNAMARIA ANDRIOTIS

    The earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan has prompted homeowners everywhere to double-check their coverage. But those who decide that more coverage will help them sleep better may find an unpleasant surprise: Premiums are expected to spike.

    The costs of earthquake insurance and flood coverage were already climbing, even before the disaster in Japan (and that, analysts say, won’t help pricing either). Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi. They now costs anywhere from $100 to $3,000 annually depending on where you live. 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.

    What’s driving the uptick? Insurance premiums move up after more claims are filed, and over the past few years U.S. homeowners have filed thousands of claims related to the series of hurricanes in the South and Midwest, says Chaney. Another jump in claims is expected next year if more devastating hurricanes and other natural disasters occur. 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 underwater by $18 billion.

    These higher premiums come just as natural disasters are happening more frequently, says David Neal, director at Oklahoma State University’s Center for the Study of Disasters and Extreme Events. There is now a 50% chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the East Coast this year, up from 31% historically, according to a study from Colorado State University. Earthquakes are also becoming more common: On average, 15 magnitude-7 earthquakes occur worldwide each year, says Dr. Harley Benz, a seismologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. But in 2010, that number spiked to 21, and already this year there have been seven, according to the USGS.

    Not every homeowner needs the extra coverage. But while basic homeowners’ insurance usually protects again fire and lighting, it often doesn’t cover floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Consumers instead need to purchase additional policies. One thing to consider, say experts: Do you stand to lose more paying premiums every year or saving that money to possibly pay for repairs should a disaster occur? 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, which runs the National Flood Insurance Program. The typical cost to repair a basement after a flood of six inches is about $25,000, not including the cost of replacing furniture, appliances or belongings, according to FEMA.

    Of course, homeowners can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and flood zones for safer places to live. Also, before moving, check with a lender; most will tell borrowers they’re moving into a high-risk flood zone and make sure they sign up for flood insurance.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)  the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

    INTERFERENCE  BY DEFINITION to come into opposition, as one thing with another, ESPECIALLY with the effect of hampering action or procedure involvement in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted.

    The Planning Commission extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015.

    This SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior shall be included in consideration by the Planning Commission.

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

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  comment #162  dated Feb. 28, 2015

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    We the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    snippet

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    DO THE FED’S RECOGNIZE THE FACT that that they have PROFILED AND TARGETED ONLY THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY?

    THE FEDS  WANT A  HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE 3300 AFFECTED?  THAN IS REQUIRED BY WA STATE LAW? Ch. 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

    I have been consistently protecting private property rights. Hence,  my #162 Public SMP comment, as a taxpaying American citizen, born in and a  resident of Clallam County and the trustee of 800 acres of PRIVATE pristine forest land that has been owned by and under the stewardship of our family for over 65 years. Indeed, I have been consistently protecting private property rights in Clallam County since Jan. 26,2011.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    DOES THE FEDERAL DOI RECOGNIZE THE FACT  that 89% of Clallam County land is public and tribal land?  that those OTHER 89% of property owners are  exempt from and not affected, by the SMP Update?

    WHAT FACTS ABOUT CLALLAM COUNTY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE  DOI, RECOGNIZE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    (DOI) RECOGNIZES THE FACT? That Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners have maintained, protected and kept their  private pristine  aquatic  areas and shorelines in great condition at their own expense forever?

    ————————————————————————————

    We  the Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners RECOGNIZING THESE FACTS, including but not limited to all of the above….

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    The primary RESPONSIBILITY for administering this regulatory program is assigned to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have done so through the mechanism of shoreline master programs, adopted under rules established by the Department of Ecology (DOE)

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    With all due respect, may I suggest that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC) ETC.

    take their big federal noses and stick them  into their own government federal public business, that being, the other 89% of public land and tribal land in Clallam County.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    And, an additional comment and suggestion for the DOI, by a Clallam County taxpaying citizen.  the federal government, the Department Of the Interior etc. HAS FAILED TO MANAGE THE CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TIMBER LAND, in the best interest of the people in Clallam County.

    INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, the tribes sued the federal government for failing to manage their tribal trust land and they won.

    Indian Trust Fund Mess – Salazar class-action lawsuit. The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the … 1 Early Federal Indian trust law; 2 Fruit of a failed policy;

    Vol. 37, No. 1 – Native American Rights Fund

    www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr37-1.pdf

    Native American Rights Fund

    (and why are some tribes still) suing the govern- ment over … almost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes. Hundreds of … government’s management of tribal trust assets date back to …. hadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do in the past.”.

    —————————————————————————————

    The Planning Commission has extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015. To ensure consideration by the Planning Commission, comments should be received by February 27, 2015. 

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  #162 dated Feb. 28, 2015

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

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

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

    Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can not legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    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.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 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.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

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

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

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

    Clallam County PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY approved March 2010

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

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

    —————————————————-

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE.

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting.

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

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

     SMP Public Comment #30  011811 – DJones – G

    —————————————————————————

    From: Darlene Jones

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

    To: Recipient list suppressed

    Cc: Merrill, Hannah

    Subject: Shoreline Master Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————

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

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

    “Opportunities to improve shoreline management in Puget Sound”

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

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

    How long have you been working on this?

    Jim Kramer’s answer was

    “A couple of months”

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

     Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————–

    WHAT WOULD INSPIRE ME?

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

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

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

    Peninsula Daily News

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Clallam County Shoreline PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY March 2010

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

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

     3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    A 16 page document

    3.0 Public Participation Goals ..

    4.1 Phase I – Public Participation Program ..

    6.0 Public Involvement Strategies ……………..

    6.1 Technical and Policy Advisor Groups ………..

    6.2 Shoreline Property Owners …………………

    6.3 Speaker Bureau …………………………..

    6.4 Written Comments …………………………

    6.5 Other Public Involvement Strategies ………..

    7.0 Public Notices and Information Dissemination ..

     

    Page 3 of 16

    This Public Participation Strategy

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

    Page 5 of 16

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

    require providing the public with information and receiving their input.

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

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

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

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

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

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

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

    communities/stakeholders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

    ———————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————–

    DECEMBER 5, 2009

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

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

    SMP Update Public Comment #1

    CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2009:

    2010:

     

    ————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW FULL TEXT RCW 90.58.130

    the law on SMP Public Participation

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest, means

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

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ————————————————————————————

    The bottom line

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

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

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


  • The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

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

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

    WHY ARE THEY HERE?

    Big meeting? Landowner Update and Discussion?

    ———————————————————–

    WHO INVITED THEM? Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————

    COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE CWI IS A 501C3 NON-PROFIT

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?

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

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

    THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

    ———————————————————————

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

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

    WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

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

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

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

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

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

    Landowner Update and Discussion?

    How much land do THEY own CLALLAM COUNTY?

    —————————————————————————————–

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    THEY ARE NOT MY REPRESENTATIVES.

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

    ———————————————————————–

    And, Clallam County employees are in collaboration with THEM?

    —————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————————

    BUT WOW, IF I GO TO THEIR MEETING?

    THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A LANDOWNER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

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

    ——————————————————————————————

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

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

    —————————————————————————————–

    Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI)

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

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Earth Economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SO HERE IS YOUR  BIG INVITE

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

    Press Release

    Date: December 5, 2014

    **For Immediate Release**

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

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

    Living on the Edge

    Landowner Update and Discussion

    Tuesday January 27th, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHO INVITED THEM?

    Who’s collaborating with them?

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

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