+menu-


  • Category Archives Clallam County SMP
  • 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

    Snippet…

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

    ————————————————————

    My quote,

    2017- Hello Country Bumpkins…

    ————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

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

    I’M A CONCERNED CITIZEN… JUST ASKING

    DOE ABUSE? COLLUSION?  OR JUST BEING GOOD SHEPHERDS?

    —————————————————————————

    IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO RAKE IN THE DOUGH

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

    INCLUDING  PIERCE COUNTY,

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

     REDISCOVERING, DOCUMENTING, EXPOSING AND DISSEMINATING

    Full unedited text

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

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

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

    April 21, 2014

    Glen Morgan
    Adjunct Fellow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Rabble”

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

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

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

    What will happen who knows?

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

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

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

    MUST NOT BE…..

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


  • Clallam Co SMP Update Cathy Lear-DOE-ESA

    Clallam Co SMP Update Cathy Lear, Ecology et al. and ESA Margaret Clancy

    NOV 14, 2017 After researching the  SMP Update from 2009,  Discovery is in its infancy with a multitude of unanswered questions.

    2017 SMP Update Draft Discovery, public information documents, laying down the evidence, laying down the laws, Public notice and participation, laying down Ecology’s unscientific evidence, and in furtherance of the discover and due process of law, demanding answers to ten (10) unanswered questions from Ecology’s and nineteen (19) unanswered questions from Clallam County DCD Planning Dept Director Mary Ellen Winborn.

    Discovery: Cathy Lear, ia a Clallam County employee,  she was identified as the Project Manager for the Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft on public request documents.

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioners  BOCC must question, Cathy Lear at a Public meeting and demand all documents relevant to the SMP Update from day one.

    Specifically, When, how and why ESA Adolfson  was awarded the SMP Update contract? Was there and open bid process by the BOCC for the contract?

    Or? Were the citizens of Clallam County, and our pristine private shoreline property,  just sucked into the contract with ESA Adolfson , by a process of coordination, linked to Jefferson County, Port Townsend and Sequim for consistency and compliance?

    ESA Adolfson has been document as the compliance experts, consultants, facilitators  in 25 WA State city  and county SMP Updates.

    Interestingly enough, as  Contractors, ESA Adolfson never gets sued

    The BOCC  must Question ESA Adolfson’s Margaret Clancy on her Whatcom County SMP Update, and the ten year legal battle (LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY)  paid for by the citizens of Whatcom County.

    As the consultant for Whatcom County SMP Update, Margaret Clancy did not get sued.

    FIRST, LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE

    LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY

    A DOCUMENT OR OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH ASSURES THE COURT OF  THE TALENT AND EXPERIENCE OF A WITNESS OR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT OR ARTICLE.

    Victoria Luhrs wins 10-year battle to protect her Lummi Island home …

    https://pacificlegal.org/victoria-luhrs-wins-10-year-battle-to-protect-her-lummi-island-…

    Earlier this year, Whatcom County ended its decade-long legal battle to prevent Lummi Island resident Victoria Luhrs from building a shore defense work that is …

    ————————————————————————-

    LAYING DOWN THE LAW  RCW 90.58.100 IN EVIDENCE

     (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.

    AND IN LAYING DOWN THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IN WHATCOM COUNTY

    ESA ADOLFSON AND MARGARET CLANCY DID NOT GET  SUED.

    LAHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY WAS A DECADE LONG LEGAL BATTLE

    —————————————————————————————-

    LEGAL ISSUES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT

    Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013)
    The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to all property owners by ruling in favor of Coy Koontz Jr., represented by PLF attorneys, in his constitutional challenge to the heavy, unjustified demands that his family faced as a condition for a building permit. The 5-4 ruling affirms that the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the extortion is for money or any other form of property.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To Thwart the Constructional rights of Clallam County Shoreline Private Property owners…

    The Clallam County 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft does place  heavy, unjustified demands  as a condition for a building permit.

    Indeed, the Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the extortion is for money or any other form of property.

    AND IN LAYING DOWN THE LAW…

    ESA ADOLFSON IS NEVER  MENTIONED

    AND ESA ADOLFSON NEVER GETS SUED.

    —————————————————————————

    Why am I making a Federal Case out of this?

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to all property owners

    EPA  granted the Clallam County SMP Update funding

    Because we have a top down government of paid experts, the professionals et al.,

    And, after all these years , I am still in DISCOVERY.

    ———————————————————————–

    The DOI are the experts on Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    So, I sent the following inquiry to the Dear DOI, our BOCC and other concerned citizens.

    Dear DOI,

    RE: Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Specifically my inquiry, is how are the DOI Natural Hazards relate to the black line restrictions on our private shoreline property in the Clallam County WA, 2017 SMP Update?

    Contact Us | US Department of the Interior – DOI.gov

    https://www.doi.gov/strategicsciences/contact-us

    Contact Us. SSG logo-small. The Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) is co-led by the U.S. Geological Survey Associate Director for Natural Hazards. In addition, a …

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: ssg@ios.doi.gov

    Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 8:06 AM

    Subject: DOI Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Dear DOI,

    RE: Natural Hazards and black line restrictions

    Specifically my inquiry, is how are the DOI Natural Hazards relate to the black line restrictions on our private shoreline property in the Clallam County WA, 2017 SMP Update?

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

    Exactly, what are the DOI black line Natural Hazards federal regulations and restrictions? (documents please)

    How are Channel Meander Zones legally defined by the DOI?  (documents please)

    How are critical shoreline (Natural Hazards)  area’s legally defined by the DOI? (documents please)

    There is NO LIDAR in Clallam County WRIA 20? Did someone just make up the Black Lines based on someones opinion or theory?  (please respond to this question)

    Nov 9, 2017, I was told, by our elected DCD Director, Mary Ellen Winborn, that the black lines restrictions (on map #41) placed on 20 acres of a 40 acre parcel of private shoreline property on the Sol Duc River were for our own protection.

    Which led to this posting on my blog behindmyback.org….

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purplewww.behindmyback.org/2017/11/10/7347

    • Nov 10, 2017 · THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft is a very expensive, very complicated environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines

    Posted on November 10, 2017 12:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

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

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

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

    ————————————————————————–

    Which led to this posting on my blog behindmyback.org….

    Behind My Back | Clallam Co SMP Update Laying Down the Law

    • www.behindmyback.org/…/11/clallam-co-smp-update-laying-down-the-law

      Nov 11, 2017 · first, lay a foundation in evidence a document or other piece of evidence which assures the court of the talent and experience of a witness or the …

    Posted on November 11, 2017 8:57 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    FIRST, LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE

    A DOCUMENT OR OTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHICH ASSURES THE COURT OF  THE TALENT AND EXPERIENCE OF A WITNESS OR THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT OR ARTICLE.

    LAY A FOUNDATION IN EVIDENCE, TO PROVIDE TO THE JUDGE THE QUALIFICATION OF A WITNESS (PARTICULARLY AN EXPERT WITNESS)

    AND NOW, YOU KNOW WHY I AM INSISTING ON DOCUMENTATION FROM THE DOI, WITH YOU AS MY EXPERT WITNESS

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    (360) 417-9452

    ————————————————————————————–

    NOV 14, 2017 How can the Clallam County BOCC get it, when they never even got it until Oct 30, 2017?

    How can the BOCC  move forward on the DCD approved 2017 SMP Update Draft,  infused with ESA compliance, ECOLOGY’s  questionable science,  with Discovery in its infancy and a multitude of  unanswered  questions?

    ————————————————————————

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

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

    What will happen who knows?

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

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

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

    MUST NOT BE…..

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


  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

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

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

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

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

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

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

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

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

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

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

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

    ——————————————————–

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

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

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

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

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

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

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

    ——————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

    We spoke for about an hour…

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

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

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

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

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

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    ——————————————————————————–

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

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

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

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

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

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

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

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

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

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

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

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

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

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

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

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

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

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

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

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

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

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

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

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

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

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

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

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

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

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

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

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

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

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

    100FEET X400FEET

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

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Did Clallam Co need an SMP Update in 2010?

    THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S  2010 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

    DID CLALLAM COUNTY  NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

    I THINK NOT.

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

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

    Subject: MY STATISTICS ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

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

     I have addressed the Public Access to Private Property issue based on their own statistics.

    Freshwater and the Marine for WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    (29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

    (34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

    As far as I can figure out, the water in Clallam County is impaired because it is not cold enough.

    COLD ENOUGH?

     Based on the data in their reports, the amount of tree canopy, public access  and development are NOT factors in the water temperature?

    Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    Do they really think that throwing logs in the water and removing barriers  will change the temperature of the water?

    Changing Climate is a scientific fact. (NOT GLOBAL WARMING)

    THEY ARE DREAMING….

     NOW, NO NET LOSS

     (10) CONTAMINATED SITES, AT THE MOST, ALL BEING CLEANED UP AS I WRITE THIS.

    IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FISH… and the dams… and the endangered species and not a damn word about the damn fishing nets.

    GET BETTER

    Pearl

    —————————————————————

    DID CLALLAM COUNTY  REALLY NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

    FEB 24, 2015 DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior       

    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 MINIMUM PROTECTION REQUIREMENT”

    THEY WHO?  THERE IS NO SIGNATURE ON THE COMMENT?

    THEY, GO ON TO SAY….

    THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IS A VAGUE TERM…

    AND THEY? EVEN PROVIDED THEIR OWN FWS FORM 3-2319 O2-06 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW FOR THE 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT.

    ————————————————————————

    DOE JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

    —————————————————————————————

    From: pearl hewett

    To: smp@co.clallam.wa.us

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:01 AM

    Subject: Fw: SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites

    they found (3) 

     ———————————————

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

     (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

     (Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

     (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

     With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the FACTS

     Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

     We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and  the full  identity of EVERY contaminator.

     Pearl Rains Hewett

     ————————————————————-

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    ———————————————————————————–

    The   DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), public comment above shall be included for the Planning Dept SMP Update.

    My comment below shall not.

    SMP Public Comment #162

    Posted on February 28, 2015 10:41 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

    Based on ECOLOGY’S own  2010 Characterization and Inventory  report

    Based on the  best available science from 1992?

    I THINK NOT.

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    ON THE 18 MARINE REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES THEY FOUND (3)

    ON THE 64 FRESHWATER REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    (Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the incomplete, censored scientific facts

    Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

    (10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact

    location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:30 AM

    Subject: COMMENT ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    COMMENT ON

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches CONTAMINATED sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12) (based on how many factors?)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    —————————————————————-

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches CONTAMINATED sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness, DNA testing determined bird poop and mammals

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    (29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    (34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    —————————————————————————

    ECOLOGYS 10 Unanswered questions  from July 12, 2012

     (1) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify, the cause of marine and freshwater contamination?

    (2) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify what caused the marine and freshwater contamination? People, development or industry or by birds, wild mammals or naturally present in the environment?

    (3) I am requesting a copy of the scientific papers on the DNA testing for impairment and contamination at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    (4) Were ANY of the contaminated or impaired sites caused by? or as a result of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP failure to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (5) Please provide scientific papers on how the Clallam County SMP from 1976-2012 has failed to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (6) Please provide scientific papers on why DOE is demanding wider setbacks and buffer zones to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (7) Please provide scientific papers on how many single family residence were destroyed on Clallam County marine and freshwater shorelines, by rivers or tidal action as a result of? or caused by? or a failure? of Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

    (8) Please provide scientific papers on how many ecological disasters occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

    (9)Please provide scientific papers on how many injuries or deaths occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

     (10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    UNTIL the DOE can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2012 has caused any loss of ecological function, the current setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or reduced.

    ——————————————————————————–

    SMP Handbook: Chapter 7, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/Chapter7.pdf

    Last updated 3/23/2010. 1 … The inventory and characterization of your jurisdiction’s shoreline … must also be included in your Inventory and Characterization report. …. A draft list of inventory data sources (digital copy) for Ecology review and comment ….. plans – http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html ) or your own …

    THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY DID PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    —————————————————————————-

    HOW MANY OF MY TEN SMP UPDATE  SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS DID DOE JEFFREE STEWARD ANSWER WITH THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE?

    NONE period.

    JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

    If you are interested in reading his full text July 12, 2012 response..  Welcome to it… it’s a bunch of bureaucratic blah… blah… blah…

     

    Merrill, Hannah

    From: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) [jste461@ECY.WA.GOV]

    Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:06 PM

    To: ‘pearl hewett’; zSMP; Ehlers, Paula (ECY); Skowlund

    , Peter (ECY); White, Gordon (ECY)

    Cc: Karl Spees; Jay Petersen; harry bell; Katie Krueger

    ; robert crittendend; Lois Perry; Sue Forde

    Subject: RE: JEFEREE STEWARD legal WRITTEN request for DOE WRITTEN answers

    Dear Ms. Hewett:

    Thanks for your reminder about several questions raised via email which are in the message below. As I indicated during Tuesday’s (7/10/12) Advisory Group meeting, in an effort to understand concerns you and others have expressed, Ecology representatives drove to Port Angeles in June, meeting with you and several Clallam County concerned citizens

    whom you had invited. That meeting was meant to address some of your concerns directly, and I thought we had a pretty good and frank exchange. Evidently, based on statements made since, you found our meeting somewhat less satisfactory.

    You have raised a number of pointed questions and asked for written responses. You have asked for “scientific papers” on a variety of subjects. You say my agency (and me specifically) has been “ignoring” your request. That is not my intent. Please understand, my job is to help Clallam County as well as several other jurisdictions to make progress in meeting legislatively required comprehensive updates to their Shoreline Master Programs. This various and complex work has to be done within limited timelines and budgets.

    I do appreciate the passionate engagement you demonstrate by active participation in the Advisory Committee. Ecology has limited resources and lots of responsibilities- we have to make choices that keep our focus on the work we have to do.

    Please remember that Ecology’s SEA Program leadership team did make an extra effort, driving to and from Port Angeles, listening to you and your colleagues, and sharing perspectives directly, face to face. We found that exchange helpful. We hope you and your colleagues also gained some understanding about the state’s perspective. At least that was our intention-and we had hoped it would be better received than just writing back and forth on details best addressed in other venues.

    I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976.

    And it is clear you believe the Department of Ecology is required to prove otherwise, point by point as noted. I did forward your message to Paula Ehlers. She and I discussed the request,

    and we both agree that, from what we have seen, Clallam County and their consultants are doing very competent and conscientious work in addressing the necessary scientific underpinnings that a shoreline program has to based on. We also recognize the County has been actively listening to and recording the concerns of all interested citizens and organizations, yours among them, and working those concerns in as the SMP update proceeds. We see our proper role as helping and encouraging the County in doing that work. We will proceed in doing that work.

    Again, thanks for your focus and engagement with Clallam County shoreline master program concerns.

    I hope we can continue to communicate as the work proceeds, showing mutual respect, and allowing for differences in perspective about what needs to be done.

    Sincerely,

    Jeffree Stewart

    Shoreline Specialist

    Washington Department of Ecology

    360-407-6521

    ————————————————————————————–

    YES. INDEED I DO BELIEVE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS HAVE “IMPROVED” IN CLALLAM COUNTY SINCE 1976.

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S 2010 DOCUMENTED CHARACTERIZATION AND INVENTORY  REPORT

    WITH FURTHER  DOCUMENTATION FROM FEB 24, 2015  FROM DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE  MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX (NWRC)

    IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

    I THINK NOT.

    —————————————————————–

    HAVE MY TEN SCIENCE BASED QUESTION, FROM JULY 12, 2012,  TO ECOLOGY BEEN ANSWERED

     ABSOLUTELY NOT

    DOE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE IGNORED WRITTEN QUESTIONS, FROM JULY 12, 2012  TO NOV 7, 017 ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS REPORT, AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE, ASKED AND REQUESTED ON THE SMP PUBLIC  COMMENT SECTION ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE WEBSITE.

    The bottom line

    WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOV 7, 2017

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    UNLESS  ECOLOGY can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2017 has caused any loss of ecological function, the previous setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or be reduced, on the 2017 SMP Update Draft by Clallam County BOCC


  • Discovery Clallam Co SMP Update 2009-2017

    Discovery on the Clallam County SMP Update 2009-2017

    My DISCOVERY on the 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft  IS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, It is the cumulative documents I have uncovered  and DISCOVERED over an eight year period of time. And includes recent public information requests.

    My first public meeting on the SMP Update, Jan 26, 2011 went something like this.

    Hello Country Bumpkins,  my name is Margaret Clancy, this is Jim Kramer, we are from ESA Adolfson, and we’re here to help you.

    UNFORTUNATELY, none of THE 2017 BOCC were in office in 2011, and the ones that were  in office BOCC did not attend that meeting.

    Lois, Sue and Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nichols did attend that Jan 26, 2011  meeting.

    Feb 1, 2011 my PDN published opinion “If the Clallam County SMP Update is anything like the one in Port Townsend, anybody that lives within 150 feet of a mud puddle should be concerned”

    ESA Adolfson Margaret Clancy did the SMP Update for Jefferson County.

    That was my published opinion in Feb 1, 2011  and I’m sticking with it Nov 4, 2017

    City Slickers should never underestimate the intelligence and tenacity of  Clallam County  Country Bumpkins et al.

    I researched ESA Adolfson Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, online,  prior to the Jan 26, 2011 meeting

    My trail of DISCOVERY on Nov 5, 2017, extends back to Dec 5, of 2009 and is documented.

    My DISCOVERY on the 2017 DCD SMP Update Draft  IS NOT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, It is the cumulative documents I have uncovered  and DISCOVERED over an eight year period of time. And includes recent public information requests.

    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    The Clallam County 2017 SMP Update has reached a critical point, the Planning Dept under the direction of elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, in collaboration with Ecology’s local coordinator DOE Michelle McConnel, ESA paid Facilitator Margaret Clancy and Steve Gray have approved “THEIR” 2017 SMP  Update Draft.

    The SMP Update Draft is now being examined by our ELECTED Board of Commissioners, Bill Peach (R), Randy Johnson (I) and Mark Ozias (D).

    ———————————————————————————————

    October 21, 2017 A Concerned member of the planning commission sent me the following

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    Fromxxxx

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 5:12 PM

    I made as many changes as I could to the SMP, insisting that “grandfathering” stay in (it kept disappearing), not developing in tsunami zones be completely removed,  and a hundred other things.  Couldn’t make any progress on buffers, setbacks, and floodplain.  After 7 years it was time to move it off our table and let the county commissioners weigh in.  Bill Peach and I have had many conversations about SMP.

    It’s good to hear from you Pearl

    ———————————————————————————-

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    April 12, 2011 DISCOVERY on Nov 2, 2017

    April 12, 2011 The Adolfson woman told the group they are going to completely rewrite our SMP and we won’t even recognize it when they are done?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    Subject: Re: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    I did go to the Public Meeting at the Senior Center last night (April 11, 2011) 5:30 to 8:30. It was where people where broken into groups based on their interest.

    Private property owner’s on the Elwha are being washed out and very concerned.

    Lakes were not on Adolfson’s /Jim Kramer’s agenda, but due to popular demand, Lake Sutherland people finally got a chance to be heard. 

    I sat in on their lake meeting. It was run by an Adolfson woman and documented by Jim from the Planning Dept. They came to a consensus regarding the 35 foot setback, repairing existing structures and public access.

    They want clarification and specific requirements on the revised SMP.

    The Adolfson woman told the group they are going to completely rewrite our SMP and we won’t even recognize it when they are done?

    FYI

    Pearl

    —————————————————————————

    Re: Nov 5, 2017 for my DISCOVERY on the DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    As a responsible member of the so called SMP Update Advisory Committee, to verify that the 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT  has indeed, been completely rewritten by ESA Adolfson, and we (I)  won’t even recognize it when they are done.

    I am requesting a paper copy of the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

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

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    To DCD Director Mary Ellen Winbourn

     I am requesting a paper copy of the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    I can pick it up at the court house when it’s ready.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    RE: SMP Update Advisory Committee

    (360) 417-9452

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    ———————————————————————

    I requested a paper copy of the 2012 SMP Draft Update, received it and read the whole thing.

    —————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY April 17, 2011

    ESA ADOLFSON WA STATE SMP COOKIE CUTTERS

    SMP COOKIE CUTTING April 17, 2011

     Interestingly enough the name Kramer and co. (Adolfson?) was mentioned.

    ESA Margaret Clancy and Kramer  did Jefferson County and Port Townsend? SMP

    Someone said that Jefferson County just let a cookie cutter SMP be done?

     April 17, 2011

    THE TIP OF THE ESA ADOLFSON COOKIE CUTTING IN WA STATE SMP UPDATES

     IF YOU LOOK ON LINE FOR ESA ADOLFSON CONSULTANTS MARGARET CLANCY AND JIM KRAMER YOU WON’T FIND THEM UNDER COOKIE CUTTERS,

    HOWEVER YOU WILL FIND THEM  ASSOCIATED WITH  24 COOKIE CUTTING SMP UPDATES IN WA STATE.  

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

    WHATCOM COUNTY WA PLANNERS AND ESA ADOLFSON PAID  CONSULTANTS/ FACILITATORS  MADE UP THEIR OWN RULES ON THE WHATCOM COUNTY SMP UPDATE? AND THEIR COMMISSIONERS LEGISLATED THOSE RULES INTO LAW?

    AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED …..

    THE CASE IS LUHRS V. WHATCOM COUNTY,  A 10 YEAR LEGAL BATTLE, , WITH WHATCOM COUNTY TAXPAYERS PAYING TO FIGHT AGAINST A SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNER  LEGAL RIGHT, WA STATE LAW ( RCW 90.58.100 ) THAT SPECIFICALLY GIVES COASTAL LANDOWNERS THE RIGHT TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES FROM EROSION.

    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CLALLAM COUNTY NOW THAT THE  DCD PLANNERS AND ESA ADOLFSON  FACITITATORS MADE UP THEIR OWN RULES ON CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    ——-

    DISCOVERY  Jefferson County – Michelle McConnell leaves for Ecology

    Posted on March 30, 2014 by Al B.

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

    Michelle McConnell, who has been a stalwart at the Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development for many years, has chosen to leave and work for the Department of Ecology.

    Michelle has had the extremely hard job of shepherding the Shoreline Master Program through over the last 8 years.

    She has always been a steady hand and been a sea of calm in the midst of turbulent public meetings over the SMP. We will miss her guidance on these issues. No word on a replacement yet. Best of luck to Michelle in future endeavors.

    I’m pleased to announce I have accepted a new job and will be leaving DCD the week of April 7, 2014  my new position will be as a Shoreline Planner with WA Department of Ecology.

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY  By May 5, 2011, I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ——————————————————————-

    MY DISCOVERY on the DCD SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jim Kramer

    Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:35 PM

    Subject: Re: Taking of Private Property for Public Access

    Jim,

    Eight months ago, I knew nothing about the DOE, EPA, MAB, the UN, ICLEI, HB 1478, Agenda 21, Dept. of the Interior, Water Rights, Federal Reserved water rights, SMP, WAC’s, RCW’s, Unresponsive Elected Officials, ESA Adolfson, World Historic Site, DNR, WFDW, WRIA’s 18,19,20, Wetlands, endangered species, wetland habitats, three RCW’s that protect private property owners, noxious weeds, shall I go on?

    Did you know that of 1700 acres of land on three Dungeness River reaches are over 700 acres are wetland habitat?

    Eight months ago, I had no voice.

    Read my Dad’s “Conspiracy Exposed” and the “Rest of the story.” Goggle “George C. Rains Sr.”

    My documented comments on the internet are well received and distributed.

    What will happen in eight months?  Do you read the SMP Public Comments?

    I’ll just keep sending my SMP Public Comments around and who knows?

    Pearl

    ————————————————————————————

    Hmmm… What will happen in THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS?  Do you read the SMP Public Comments? I’ll just keep sending my SMP Public Comments around and who knows?

    EIGHT YEARS  ago, I had no voice.

    Jan 29, 2013 my website/blog behindmyback.org went online

    WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST  EIGHT YEARS? 

    DISCOVERY AND MORE DISCOVERY AND MORE….

    Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

    SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

    Posted on November 2, 2017 5:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

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

    ————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? 

    November 03, 2017 8:02 AM

    Subject: Educate the BOCC

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

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

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

    I have a meeting with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    Does the BOCC have enough to make a good decision about the 2017 SMP Update?  Oct 30th, 2017 was their first worksession to figure it out.  The presentation by the DCD staff is posted to the SMP website and the worksession video can be viewed at the BOCC web page.

    Great question, Will the BOCC have enough to make a good decision about the 2017 SMP Update based on presentations provided by the DCD staff? 

     I THINK NOT!

    It is my intention to provide the BOCC with enough document information on the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft to make an informed decision for, and in the best of  all citizens of Clallam County.

    What was I doing on October 30, 2017 Re: the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft?

    A Public Records Request  ESA  full contract – 22 pgs.pdf

    What am I doing on Nov 3, 2017?

    Sending these documents to the  BOCC 

    And, meeting with Commissioner Mark Ozias, Re: the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft.

    —————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

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

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

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission V the paid Professionals,  DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn and Sr. Planner Steve Gray, in collaboration with Ecology’s local coordinator DOE Michelle McConnel and ESA Adolfson overpaid Facilitator Margaret Clancy

     


  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

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

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

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

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

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

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

    State Review and Approval

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

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

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

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

    Click on the link below to find out.

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

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

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

    —————————————————————–

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

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

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

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

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

    The fixed elevation would be

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

    Attachment C.

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

    5.Residential Moorage.

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

     City Council

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

    Planning Commission

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

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

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

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

    Public access

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

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

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

    Park development options

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

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

    High water mark

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

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

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

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

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

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

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

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

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    Related Stories

     

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

     


  • behindmyback.org WA State DOE SMA 1971

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

    1971 Rod Mack:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,

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

    IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—

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

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

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

    —————————————————————-

    2017 Pearl Rains Hewett:

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

    ———————————————————————-

    President Trump was elected Nov 8, 2016 because

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

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

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

    TRICKLE DOWN FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. period

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

    SMP and Water 1970-2013

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

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

    ———————————————————

    NOV 17, 2014 I POSTED IT AGAIN…..

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

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

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT…

    THE USUAL…

    ———————————————————–

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: zSMP

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

    Subject: SMP and Water 1970-2013

     

    This is my public comment on the

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

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

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

    IN 1971….

    In 1972 the SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT PASSED

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

    AND HOW MUCH FEDERAL MONEY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A much lesser role of STATE AND LOCAL government?

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    shoreline development 259, 262, 264

    WA STATE WATER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    OCT 22, 2017


  • It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT’S BUREAUCRATS THAT INSTILLED FEAR IN THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS, in WA DC, in Clallam County, WA State, Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and their globalist entourage etal. Paid, environmentalists’ Facilitators, including the United Nations Agenda.

    When the fearful citizens came forward  on Jan 26, 2011

    I said something.

    “When American citizen fear what their own government  is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.”

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017 why bother with the FEAR the Clallam County SMP Update caused, and became a matter of public record on Jan 26, 2011?

    ——————————————————————

    UPDATE JUNE 19, 2017

    IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A CONCERNED (FEARFUL) CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZEN LAST NIGHT….

    “PEARL, HAVE YOU READ THE NEW SMP UPDATE DRAFT?

    DO YOU KNOW HOW STEVE GREY AND (ESA CONSULTANT) MARGARET CLANCY HAVE CHANGED IT?

    DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S IN IT?”

    THE CONCERNED CITIZEN SAID,

    “PEARL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?”

    SO I DID THIS ABOUT THAT

      Behind My Back | June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/06/20/6755

    My public comment Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011. INDEED, THIS IS …

    ————————————————————————-

     WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ABOUT THAT? 2011-2017

    OVER 170 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SMP UPDATE

    This is post # 1005 on my blog/website

      Behind My Back

    www.behindmyback.org

    Informing U.S. Citizens of how various government agencies are violating the Constitution, taking away private property rights, and infringing on American liberties …

    ——————————————————————–          

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS REPUTATION PRECEDES THEM.

    ———————————————————————

    Progressive Economics: The Rise Of Bureaucracy In America – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/…/progressive-economics-two-americas-bureaucratic-arrogati…

    Oct 27, 2015 – Unelected bureaucrats promulgate more than ten times as many of the rules that Americans must obey as do our elected representatives.

    Regulation’s Stranglehold On Millennials’ Futures – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/…/05/…/regulations-stranglehold-on-millennials-futures/

    May 25, 2015 – Americans are moving from obeying laws passed by elected bodies to REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS. These pages of …

    ————————————————————————–

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    Make this post # 1005 on my blog/website

    And make another SMP Update Public Comment.

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2017 8:57 AM

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)

    INTERESTED PARTIES,

    You are receiving this notice because you are on the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list. The County Planning Commission recommended to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners a Draft SMP (September 2017) to update and replace: (1) the existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992); and (2) procedures for administration (e.g., permit process) of the SMP in Chapter 35.01, Shoreline Management, of the Clallam County Code (CCC).

    PUBLIC HEARING:  A public hearing on the recommended SMP before the Clallam County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 12, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room of the Clallam County Courthouse, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington. All persons wishing to comment are welcome to either submit their written comments before the hearing is commenced or present written and/or oral comments in person during the public hearing. Written comments should be sent to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, 223 East 4th Street, Suite 4, Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015, or emailed to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    REGIONAL PUBLIC FORUMS:  Prior to the public hearing, the County Dept. of Community Development will host 4 public forums to provide information on the SMP:

    Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Sekiu Community Center, 42 Rice St., Sekiu WA

    Monday, November 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Rainforest Arts Center, 35 N. Forks Ave., Forks WA

    Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Clallam County Courthouse, 223 E. 4th St., Port Angeles WA

    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Rd., Sequim WA

    SUMMARY:  The SMP addresses compliance with the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58, and state SMP Update Guidelines (WAC 173-26).  It includes goals and policies, regulations for new development and uses, and administrative procedures (e.g., permit process).

    AREAS SUBJECT TO SMP:  The SMP applies to all marine waters, reaches of rivers and streams where the mean annual flow is more than 20 cubic feet per second, and lakes and reservoirs 20 acres or greater in size that are under the jurisdiction of Clallam County and to lands adjacent to these water bodies (together with lands underlying them) extending landward 200 feet in all directions from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and associated wetlands and river deltas.  To consolidate regulations, the proposed SMP also includes the full extent of the mapped 100-year floodplain and land necessary for buffers to protect critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A that are overlapping or otherwise coincident with the shoreline jurisdiction as allowed pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(i,ii). The City of Forks is also considering the SMP for rivers inside the city limits. Maps showing the approximate lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction and proposed shoreline environmental designations are found in Exhibit A-Shoreline Maps of the proposed SMP.

    SMP DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION: The Draft SMP—Planning Commission Recommendation (September 2017) is available for review at the Department of Community Development in the Clallam County Courthouse and on the County‘s SMP Update web page at:  http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/SMP.html

    The existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992) and related administrative procedures in Chapter 35.01 CCC, Shoreline Management; supporting SMP Update documents including, but not limited to Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Reports, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis and No Net Loss Report, and Consistency Review Report; and other information are also available at the Department and on the County SMP Update website.  For questions, contact the Department at 360-417-2420.

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager

    Clallam County Department of Community Development

    ————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    AND, IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    To be continued….


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    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 of the 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.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “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.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  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.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 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% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 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?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  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.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 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.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    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 of the 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.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • WA State Ecology is Back to WAC Us

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, PUBLIC RECORDS

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

    Why it matters?

    SIMPLY PUT…..

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

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

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

     How much will PUBLIC RECORDS cost us?

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————

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

    This posting is over 3000 words.

    —————————————————————————–

    Complete unedited text

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records

    For more information:

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

    ——————————————————————

    Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records

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

    Overview

    Introduction

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

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

    Why it matters

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

    Scope of rule development

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

    Process of development

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

    —————————————————————————

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-03 WAC

    PUBLIC RECORDS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    173-03-040

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

    173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    173-03-070

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

    173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    173-03-090

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

    173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003?

    WAC 173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

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

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

    —————————————————————————

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    (1) Headquarters office.

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

    Department of Ecology

    P.O. Box 47600

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

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

    Nuclear Waste Management

    1315 W. 4th Ave.

    Kennewick, WA 99336

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

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

    Chief financial officer for financial services.

    Administrative services manager for administrative services.

    Director for intergovernmental relations.

    Director for employee services.

    Director for communications and education.

    Assistant administrator for spills prevention, preparedness and response.

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

    (a) Air quality;

    (b) Water resources;

    (c) Water quality;

    (d) Toxics cleanup;

    (e) Nuclear waste;

    (f) Solid waste and financial assistance;

    (g) Hazardous waste and toxics reductions;

    (h) Environmental investigations and laboratory services; and

    (i) Shorelands and environmental assistance.

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

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

    3190 – 160th Avenue S.E.

    Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

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

    300 Desmond Drive

    Lacey, WA 98503

    Mailing address:

    P.O. Box 47775

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7775

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

    15 West Yakima, Suite 200

    Yakima, WA 98902-3401

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

    1. 4601 Monroe, Suite 100

    Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

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

    ———————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-040

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

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

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

    Date of Request . . . .

    Time of Request . . . .

    Name . . . .

    Address . . . .

    . . . .

    Description of Records:

    . . . .

    . . . .

    . . . .

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

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

    . . . .

    Signature

    Number of pages to be copied

    . . . .

    Number of copies per page

    . . . .

    Charge per copy

    $

    . . . .

    Special copy work charge

    $

    . . . .

    Staff time charge

    $

    . . . .

    Total charge

    $

    . . . .

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

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

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

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

    (c) A description of the public records requested;

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

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

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

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

    (a) Providing the record;

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

    (c) Denying the public record request.

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-070

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-090

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

    The bottom line…..

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

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