+menu-


  • Category Archives Ecology’s Questions and Answers
  • Ecology’s Agenda July-Dec. 2017

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

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

    Rule-Making Agenda July – December 2017

    —————————————————–

    FROM JAN 26, 2011…..

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Are You A Normal Person?

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

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

    —————————————————————-

    WA State DOE | Citizen Review Online

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

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

    ————————————————

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————

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

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

    WSR 17-16-063

    AGENDA

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

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

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

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

    Rule-Making Agenda

    July – December 2017

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

    AO Number

    WAC Chapter

    Date of

    Filing

    CR-101

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 102

    Hearing Date(s)

    Date of

    Filing

    CR 103

    Rule-Making

    Lead

    Administration

    16-14

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public records

    2/28/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

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

    Linda Anderson

    16-10

    Chapter 173-323 WAC, Grants and loans

    7/25/17

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017

    Bari Schreiner

    Air Quality

    16-12

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

    2/7/17

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    October 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Caroline Sun

    16-09

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

    2/6/17

    est.

    August 2017

    est.

    September 2017

    est.

    February 2018

    Joanna Ekrem

    15-07

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

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

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    fall 2017

    est.

    winter 2018

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    16-03

    Chapter 173-303 WAC, Dangerous waste regulations

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

    est.

    July 2018

    est.

    August 2018

    est.

    November 2017

    Rob Rieck

    16-08

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

    8/9/16

    3/22/17

    4/25/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kara Steward

    Shorelines and Environmental Assistance

    15-06

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

    9/2/15

    2/28/17

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

    est.

    August 2017

    Fran Sant

    Toxics Cleanup Program

    16-02

    Chapter 173-360 WAC Underground storage tank regulations

    3/23/16

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017 or January 2018

    est.

    May 2018

    Kris Grinnell

    Waste 2 Resources

    13-08

    Chapter 173-350 WAC, Solid waste handling standards

    11/5/13

    est.

    November 2017

    est.

    December 2017/January 2018

    est.

    March 2018

    Kyle Dorsey

    15-15

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

    12/22/15

    5/24/17

    6/27/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Kyle Dorsey

    Water Quality

    17-02

    Chapter 173-228 WAC, Vessel sewage no discharge zone

    7/5/17

    est.

    October 2017

    TBD

    est.

    February 2018

    Amy Jankowiak and Becca Conklin

    06-12

    Chapter 173-219 WAC, Reclaimed water

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

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

    withdrawal 12/23/15

    new CR-102 anticipated August 2017

    first round held in July 2015 second round est. September

    est.

    January 2018

    Jocelyn Jones

    16-04

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

    7/19/16

    4/19/17

    5/31/17

    est.

    August 2017

    Daniel Thompson

     Open – On Hold

    Air Quality

    13-04

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

    7/2/13

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Elena Guilfoil

    Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction

    15-12

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

    10/12/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kara Steward and Rob Rieck

    Water Resources

    05-03

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

    3/2/05

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

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-04

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

    3/2/05

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

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Ann Wessel

    05-02

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

    2/15/05

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    on hold

    indefinitely

    Ann Wessel

    Waste 2 Resources

    15-11

    Chapter 173-331 WAC, Vehicle battery recycling program

    12/2/15

    on hold

    on hold

    on hold

    Kyle Dorsey


  • WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

     SO? THE DOE?  SOMEBODY DECLARED AN EMERGENCY DOE RULE?

     WAC… WAC… WAC…

    WHY BOTHER WITH THE ACTUAL COST FOR PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS FOR THE PUBLIC?

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,

    AND AN AGENCY MUST HAVE IN PLACE EITHER A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    AND THAT WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME FOR THE DOE?

    SO, THE DOE WILL ADOPT THE STATUTORY FEE SCHEDULE.

    —————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:44 PM

    Subject: The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-

    The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    July 20, 2016

    Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

    For more information:

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

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

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

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ———————————————————————————-

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) and Representative Joan McBride (D-Kirkland) introduced the bills.  They would update the 1972 Public Records Act, INCLUDING FEES contained in the original law

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    HB 1595 BECAME LAW ON JULY 23, 2017

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,  

    THE PROVISION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) THAT GOVERNS AGENCY CHARGES TO REQUESTERS FOR PROVIDING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS.

    According to a 2016 report from the Washington State Auditor’s Office, the number of requests increased by 36% from 2011 to 2015, and last year, state and local governments spent more than $60 million to fulfill 285,000 requests – a portion of which were automated “bot” requests from computers. Only 1% of the costs were recovered by the original law’s fee structure.

    These amendments in HB 1595 were designed to modernize this provision to reflect changes in the way agencies PROVIDE copies of records to requesters.

    and an agency must have in place either a statement following notice and public hearing that establishes the ACTUAL COSTS of producing records,

     or a rule that declares the calculation of actual costs would be “unduly burdensome.” Otherwise, an agency would not be able to impose copy fees on PRA requestors.

    HB 1595  IS A NEW WA STATE LAW EFFECTIVE  JULY 23, 2017

    WITH FEES BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton)  said actual costs could also be based upon a SEATTLE CITY DETAILED COST STUDY.

    “The city of Seattle estimates it will spend as much as $3 million this year for PRA request fulfilment, including electronic requests, but expects less than $10,000 in cost recovery,”

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) added. “Our legislation would enable an agency to study its actual costs of making and preparing for delivery electronic copies of documents for a requestor,

    AND THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON COPYING COSTS.

    WE THINK THIS WILL REDUCE VEXATIOUS REQUESTS WHILE PRESERVING ACCESS WITH AN UPDATED FEE SYSTEM.”

    ——————————————————————————–

    AND, THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    ————————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – “Feefifofum” is the first line of a historical quatrain famous for its use in the classic English fairy … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foefum.

     ——————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY is taking the latter approach, declaring by rule that it will be “unduly burdensome” to calculate actual costs, and has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    ECOLOGY will conduct this permanent rulemaking according to normal rulemaking procedures, but cannot complete it until some months after the requirements of HB 1595 take effect on July 23, 2017.

    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 costs or the methods of calculating them, creating confusion and uncertainty regarding Ecology’s fee structure and ITS ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    Because this appears to be contrary to the intent of HB 1595 and the PRA,

    ECOLOGY intends to adopt its declaration initially by emergency rule, to avoid confusion and to remain in compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    This declaration will allow Ecology to utilize the statutory default fee schedule created by the Legislature in the 2017 amendments starting on July 23, 2017, the date the legislation goes into effect, and to be in full compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    ————————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY WILL CONDUCT THIS PERMANENT RULEMAKING ACCORDING TO NORMAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES, BUT CANNOT COMPLETE IT UNTIL SOME MONTHS AFTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 1595 TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 23, 2017.

     ECOLOGY has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    ——————————————————-

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

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

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ——————————————————————

    Has anyone received a definitive legal  answer to this question?

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

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

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


  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

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

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

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————–

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

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

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

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

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

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

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

    —– Original Message —–

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

    Interested Parties,

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

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

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

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

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

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

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

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

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

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

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

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

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

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

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

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

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

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

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

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

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

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

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

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

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

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

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

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

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

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

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

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

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

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

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

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

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

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

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

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

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

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

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

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

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

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

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

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


  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    I received email notification because I am an interested party (since Jan 26, 2011).  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017).

    Clallam County Commissioners, Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach, You are receiving this email because you are elected Clallam County representatives and you SHALL be deciding the fate of vested, voting, taxpaying, Shoreline private property owners on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

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

    LET’S START WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP REVISED REVISIONS

    2014-2017

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    ————————————————————————————-

    A complete list of Clallam County DOE SMP UPDATE PUBLIC  comments 2010-2012

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…Jul 3, 2012TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected on the block to step up to the plate.

    PLEASE SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know how the 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall  impacted  you and your property. Below is their contact information:

    ——————————————————————————

    Indeed, elected in 2014, DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn,. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive …

    Director of Community Development

    Mary Ellen Winborn
    mwinborn@co.clallam.wa.us
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles Washington 98362
    360-417-2321

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/03/wa-doe-amending-the-smasmp/

    Mar 3, 2017 – Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S … Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

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

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

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

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

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

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

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

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    PLEASE SEND YOU COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know the impacts that this 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall have on you and your property.

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

    Mark Ozias, District 1
    mozias@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Randy Johnson, District 2
    rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Bill Peach, District 3
    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Not one of the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How many of the 624 SMP  public comments have Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach actually read?

    And, how many of the 624 SMP Public comments have been shoved under the rug, through the combined efforts of ESAAdolfson  SMP Consultant Margaret Clancy (between 2012 and 2017)  and Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Clallam County Dept. of Community Development using after the fact cut off dates for public comment et al,  and  a matrix system?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected commissioners, participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected, on the block, to step up to the plate.

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…

    Jul 3, 2012 – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012. Available on Clallam County …

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

    http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

    I will complete the comments on #1 to #99 and document the pros and cons.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 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 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    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 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 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 Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The 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 Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors 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 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 MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 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 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM 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 SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 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.
    ·    041712 – Port of PA – G
    ·    #246 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 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 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 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
    ·    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 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment 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

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 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
    ·    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 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
    ·    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 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
    ·    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 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 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 intended 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
    ·    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?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

    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: None – in 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
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • WA State DOE Environmental Justice WAC

    WA State DOE Environmental Justice WAC

    Regarding proposed WA State  Chapter 173-321 WAC

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH?

    RELATED TO THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE IS THE DOCTRINE OF VAGUENESS. THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE, AN ASPECT OF THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE, HOLDS THAT A LAW IS FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION.”

    —————————————–

    SO WHAT ABOUT THIS WA STATE WAC?

     IS IT FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION?

     AS USUAL YOU HAVE TO READ 173-321 WAC, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT!

    MISLEADING TO SAY THE LEAST” I read it, the full text is below.

     For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/rules/wac173321/1613ov.html

    ECOLOGY’S Introduction

    Under Chapter 70.105D RCW, Ecology administers a program for GRANTS TO

     “PERSONS WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A RELEASE OR THREATENED RELEASE OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS”.

    Grants are used to “facilitate public participation in the investigation and remediation of a release OR THREATENED RELEASE OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE and to implement the state’s solid and hazardous waste management priorities.”

    Scope of rulemaking
    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) PROPOSES TO:

    • REVISE PROGRAM PRIORITIES TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
    • Revise eligibility requirements
    • Clarify the criteria used to evaluate applications
    • Revise eligible costs
    • Develop a method for renewing grants annually per Chapter 70.105D RCW
    • Streamline the grant application and evaluation process to increase consistency, transparency, objectivity, and efficiency
    • Revise the grant application process to authorize electronic submittals
    • Update grant administration requirements
    • Align Chapter 173-321 WAC to current program needs.

    Added for clarity…

    CHAPTER 173-321 WAC

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-321-010

    Purpose and authority.

    173-321-020

    Definitions.

    173-321-030

    Relationship to other legislation and administrative rules.

    173-321-040

    Applicant eligibility.

    173-321-050

    Application evaluation criteria.

    173-321-060

    Eligible project costs.

    173-321-070

    Grant funding.

    173-321-080

    Grant administration.

    WAC 173-321-060

    Eligible project costs.

    (1) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS FOR SUBSTANCE RELEASE GRANTS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:

    (A) HIRING TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS TO REVIEW AND INTERPRET DOCUMENTS;

    (b) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT and public education activities;

    (C) REVIEWING SPECIFIC PLANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS, REVIEWING REPORTS SUMMARIZING THE RESULTS OF SUCH PLANS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO SUCH PLANS.

    (D) EXPENDABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY;

    (E) OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

    (2) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

     PRIORITY GRANTS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:

    (a) Assisting in DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS that promote or improve state or local solid or hazardous waste management plans;

    (b) Assisting in developing programs or activities that promote and are consistent with the state solid or hazardous waste management priorities;

    (C) EXPENDABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY;

    (D) OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

    (3) Ineligible projects and grant costs shall include but not be limited to:

    (a) Independently collecting or analyzing samples at facility sites;

    (B) HIRING ATTORNEYS FOR LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST POTENTIALLY LIABLE PERSONS, FACILITY OWNERS, OR THE DEPARTMENT. APPLICANTS WHO RECEIVE A GRANT AWARD SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF LEGAL ACTION IS INTENDED OR TAKEN ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GRANT PROJECT OR APPLICATION;

    (C) LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES;

    (d) Real property;

    (e) Nonexpendable personal property.

    [Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.105D RCW. WSR 01-05-024 (Order 97-09A), § 173-321-060, filed 2/12/01, effective 3/15/01. Statutory Authority: 1989 c 2. WSR 89-21-072 (Order 89-26), § 173-321-060, filed 10/17/89, effective 11/17/89.]

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

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

    ————————————————————————

    Why does WA State DOE need an Environmental Justice WAC?

    WAC, WAC, WAC, ECOLOGY’S HISTORIC POLICY OF REDUNDANT DUPLICITY

    Environmental Justice | US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

    Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES.

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-321 WAC
    Public Participation Grants

    Overview

    Introduction

    Under Chapter 70.105D RCW, Ecology administers a program for grants to “persons who may be adversely affected by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance and not-for-profit public interest groups”. Grants are used to “facilitate public participation in the investigation and remediation of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance and to implement the state’s solid and hazardous waste management priorities.”

    Why are we doing this rulemaking?
    In 2016, Ecology obtained an independent audit of our Public Participation Grants program. The current application process for the grants requires a significant amount of time and agency resources to establish applicant eligibility and award the grants. Changes Ecology is proposing are either specific audit recommendations or based on the agency’s experiences implementing the program.

    Input from past grant recipients and other stakeholders also indicated a need to increase the emphasis the PPG program places in reaching disadvantaged communities adversely affected by toxic contamination and cleanup work. Updating the rule now will allow us to apply these changes to grants awarded in the 2017-19 biennium.

    Scope of rulemaking
    Ecology proposes to:

    • Revise program priorities to include environmental justice
    • Revise eligibility requirements
    • Clarify the criteria used to evaluate applications
    • Revise eligible costs
    • Develop a method for renewing grants annually per Chapter 70.105D RCW
    • Streamline the grant application and evaluation process to increase consistency, transparency, objectivity, and efficiency
    • Revise the grant application process to authorize electronic submittals
    • Update grant administration requirements
    • Align Chapter 173-321 WAC to current program needs.

    Ecology will periodically update these web pages to provide up-to-date information about this rulemaking. We will notify interested parties through the agency email listserv (WAC Track), a Waste 2 Resources ListServ specifically established for the Public Participation Grants program. We will e-mail contacts identified in our grants-related database and those identified by grants staff. We will publish notice in the Washington State Register as we move through the process. To learn more about how to contact Ecology and participate in the process, please visit our public involvement page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

     

     

    Regarding 173-321 WAC, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS

    Granted, I have been publicly participating, criticizing, objecting, commenting and tracking Ecology’s, WA State DOE Environmental WAC-ING for years.  I do investigative documentation and reporting on my website. I have been signed up for Ecology’s WAC Track for years, receiving, reading hundreds of pages,  investigating and documenting, posting, commenting and disseminating information on  one proposed WAC after another WAC….

    This was my published opinion on Apr 15, 2013,  and I’m sticking with it. period

    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 papers did report that I said it. WHAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS DID NOT REPORT …

    ———————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/26/ecologys-expedited-rule-making/

    JUN 26, 2014 – Washington Department of Ecology AO #14-01 NOTICE THIS RULE REPEAL IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING …

    —————————————————————————-

    MY ONE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO ECOLOGY’S EXPEDITED RULE MAKING

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

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

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

     “One right doesn’t remedy a thousand wrongs.’

    —————————————————————————-

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH?

     BEST GUESS OBAMACARE….

     RELATED TO THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE IS THE DOCTRINE OF VAGUENESS. THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE, AN ASPECT OF THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE, HOLDS THAT A LAW IS FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION.”

    The bottom line….

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH, deserves another posting on my website.


  • Calif. Farmers High Dry and Destitute

    Calif. Farmers HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE

    Obama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves …

    m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/obam
    The Washington Times

    Logo: The Washington Times · Home · NewsObama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves California farmers high and dry … Wednesday, February 24, 2016 … some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water … “We’ve got to not only take a look at providing project [water] yield, we’ve also got …

    Washington State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    SO WHAT’S NEW? ENDANGERED FISH BEFORE FARMERS, FOOD AND THE ECONOMY.

    YEP… AGAIN AND STILL, FLUSHING TRILLIONS OF GALLONS PEOPLE WATER DOWN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES TOILET.

    ——————————————————-

    New post on Pie N Politics

    Feds allocate water for endangered fish, leave Calif. farmers high and dry
    by Liz Bowen
    By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times
    Wednesday, February 24, 2016
    Despite wetter-than-average weather in California, some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water allocation even as the billions of gallons of water continue to be dumped into the ocean in order to save a three-inch fish.
    The worst part for many lawmakers at Wednesday’s House subcommittee hearing is that the Delta smelt remains as vulnerable as ever after the loss of 1.4 trillion gallons of water since 2008 under the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ———————————————————–

    PLEASE CLICK ON  AND LISTEN TO THE

    subcommittee hearing

    ———————————————————-

    High, Dry and Destitute

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    California’s worst drought in 1200 years in pictures – BBC.com

    FARMERS BEFORE FISH?

    Pacific Legal Foundation, CHALLENGED, sought Supreme Court review, but the High Court denied, it set up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s  ruling…..

    the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014. The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–Pacific Legal Foundation, a bit of unedited text..

    Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Issue: Representing several California farmers, PLF attorneys are challenging the biological opinion (BiOp) by federal agencies used to restrict water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, PLF previously sought Supreme Court review of the case on a Commerce Clause challenge because smelt are in intrastate species, but the High Court denied cert. With a recent adverse ruling at the Ninth Circuit on the biological opinion, it sets up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s TVA v. Hill decision, relied on by the Ninth Circuit to uphold the smelt BiOp. In TVA v. Hill, the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014.

    The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

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

    Complex and contradictory laws, and court decisions, and regulations have made it nearly impossible for water to flow and our communities to grow

    Indeed, a  growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions,

    Washington State Declares Drought Emergency

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/washingtondrought-e
    The Huffington Post

    May 15, 2015 – Drought isn’t just a California problem, folks. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency on Friday

    ————————————————————————————————–

    How complex is this?

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

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

     As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy explained, “California is enduring its worst drought in 1,200 years, and a growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions.”

    This week, the House will consider a bill to address water policies in California and the West:

    What happened to this?

    Western Water and American Food Security Act (HR 2898)

    Pie N Politics In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
    Liz Bowen | February 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Categories: CA. Congressman Tom McClintock, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, Water, Resources & Quality | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6xm
    Comment See all comments

    ——————————————————-

    Dec 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/12/04/congressmust-act-on-water-issues/

    Dec 4, 2015Congress Must Act on Water Issues May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    Comment


  • Drought Forums for Tribes and Citizens

    Drought Forums for Tribes and Citizens

    Question on Drought by Keith “I asked Jeff Marti  HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO TRIBES HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.  Jeff Marti  said, “ABSOLUTELY NONE”!

    ————————————————————————————————

    A Question  for ECOLOGY  

    HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO TRIBES HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS?

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

    [PDF]Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    Tribal Consultation and COORDINATION Policy of the U.S. Department

    of Commerce

    The Department’s mission encompasses many complex issues where cooperation

    and MUTUAL CONSIDERATION AMONG GOVERNMENTS (FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND

    LOCAL) are essential. The Department and operating units will promote intradepartmental and interagency COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

    to assist Tribal governments in resolving issues requiring mutual effort.

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

    Jeff Marti  email THE FORUM WE, ECOLOGY, RECENTLY ATTENDED IN SEQUIM WAS ORGANIZED BY THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE” in “COOPERATION” with the DUNGENESS WATER USERS MANAGEMENT GROUP and included participation by LOCAL GOVERNMENTS as well.

    A Questions for ECOLOGY

    If?  Ecology attends and participates  IN  “COOPERATION” WITH THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE?

    Why can’t Ecology attend and participate   IN  “COOPERATION” WITH THE CITIZENS of WA State?

    OR? did ECOLOGY ACTUALLY attend and participate  IN THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM AS  REQUIRED BY THECOORDINATION” Policy of the U.S.?

    ————————————————————————————————-

    A Question for ECOLOGY

    HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO CITIZENS HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC DROUGHT FORUMS?

    Should ECOLOGY attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS?

    ————————————————————————-

    Jeff Marti, “We are still considering whether additional forums elsewhere would be APPROPRIATE” 

    —————————————————————–

    A Question for ECOLOGY

     WOULD THE ONLY “APPROPRIATE”  COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS,

    FOR WA STATE CITIZENS, IN EMERGENCY DROUGHT AREAS

     BE REQUIRED TO BE ORGANIZED AND REQUESTED BY GOVERNMENTS?

     FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL  USING INTRADEPARTMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION?

    ——————————————————————–

    A question for ECOLOGY  

    Would it be APPROPRIATE for  ECOLOGY to attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES,  USUALLY it Would  be APPROPRIATE for  ECOLOGY to attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS FOR TRIBES VS. COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS FOR CITIZENS  ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A “VALUE JUDGMENT” OF WHAT WE WANT OUR WORLD TO LOOK LIKE.

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

    [PDF]Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    ORGANIZED BY ELECTED GOVERNMENT and TRIBES?  FEDERAL, STATE , TRIBAL, AND LOCAL USING INTRADEPARTMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION?

    ————————————————————————————————

    Question for ECOLOGY?

     ARE CITIZENS EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS TRIBES?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMALPERSON, YOU’D ANSWER , YES, CITIZENS USUALLY ARE EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS TRIBES .

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE OF TRIBES VS. THE IMPORTANCE OF CITIZENS  ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A “VALUE JUDGMENT” OF WHAT WE WANT OUR WORLD TO LOOK LIKE.

    Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    ————————————————————————————–

    A CITIZENS REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

    WE CAN HOST YOUR MEETING! I’LL HANDLE EVERYTHING; DOE JUST HAS TO SHOW UP.

    The best location for a future drought meeting is Quinault. We are exactly in the middle of the west side of the Olympics; one hour for Forks citizens to drive and one hour for Aberdeen/Hoquiam citizens to drive. To hold a meeting in either Forks or Aberdeen/Hoquiam requires the other citizens to drive two hours, one way, for such a meeting.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    LAST Response from Ecology on Citizen’s  request for a Community Drought Forum

    Jeff Marti

    I hope that gives you some background on our drought process.  I also appreciate your request to hold a drought forum in the Quinault area.   I can’t confirm at this point whether a forum will be scheduled for the Quinault area, but we are considering your request.

    —————————————————————————

    JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBAL COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

    May 21, 2015 6:00-8:30PM Guy Cole Convention Center Sequim, WA 98382

     

    OBJECTIVES:

    • To provide information about the current drought and how it is impacting water supplies (for humans and wildlife).
    • To describe drought response to date by various entities.
    • To answer questions and hear concerns people have about the drought.
    • To let people know what they can do to try to lessen the impacts of drought.

     

    —————————————————————————–

    ANOTHER CITIZENS REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM ….

    Citizens are human, please  provide information about the current emergency drought and how is it  going to impact citizens water supplies?

    What is the worst case scenario? For farmers, loggers, fishermen and the tourist industry?

    What is WA State drought emergency preparedness plan for wildfires?

    Is WA State, DNR, Ecology etc. prepared for the worst?

    Citizens  want specific answers on how the drought emergency will affect their lives in the areas where they live and the local economy?

    ———————————————————————

     

    FORMAT Agenda JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBAL COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

     

     

    TIME

    TOPIC

    SPEAKER

    6:00 – 6:25 1.   Welcome and Introductions

    • Drought Overview
    • Status and Response
    Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology
    6:25 – 6:45 2.   Water 101 and Water Supply Outlook(Snowpack, Precipitation, Streamflow) Scott PatteeNatural Resources Conservation Service
    6:45 – 7:05 3.    Fish and Wildlife Impacts/Needs During Drought Teresa ScottWA Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Scott Chitwood

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    7:05 – 7:45 4.   Wildfire Preparation/Weather Forecasts Julie Knobel and Bryan Suslick WA Department of Natural Resources

    Andrew Haner

    National Weather Service

    7:45 – 8:25 5.   PANEL DISCUSSION           Local Actions Related to Water Supplies/Drought

    • Water Users Association
    • Washington Water Trust
    • City of Sequim
    • Clallam PUD
    • Washington Department of Health
    MODERATOR:  Mike Gallagher, WADOE 

    Ben Smith

    Amanda Cronin

    David Garlington

    Tom Martin

    Ginnie Stern

    8:25 – 8:30 6.   Closing Remarks Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology

     

     

     


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

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

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

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

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634