+menu-


  • Category Archives If It’s not broken? Why PAY to fix it?
  • SMP Update Thank you for your comments

    Dec 10, 2017, Many SMP Update public comments of concern have been lost in the arbitrary DCD cut off dates shuffle.

    To insure that these public concerns shall be considered  by the Clallam County BOCC

    I am resubmitting  29 questions and comments for documentation of PUBLIC CONCERN on the Clallam County SMP update from just one Public Forum July 14, 2011

    Unfortunately, many of these public concerns are still valid on  Dec 10, 2017

    SPECIFIC CONCERN  July 14, 2011 and Dec 10, 2017

    1. Competency and reliability of ESA reports on, inventories, flood plains, critical areas, buffers and setbacks?
    2. Will owners of the property be required, at their own expense, to prove the ESA data is inaccurate? when ESA has a disclaimer on the maps and “May be up to 100 feet off”?

    Actual SMP map disclaimer ESA states:

    Map data shown here are property of the listed sources, inaccuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.

    Answer, Yes, property owner will have to disprove inaccurate data at their own expense.

    And…. 12. An additional question on property will be required, at their own expense? to prove the ESA Map data is inaccurate?

    —————————————–

    IF YOU ARE  CONCERNED ABOUT THE SMP UPDATE  THERE IS STILL TIME TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOCC smp@co.clallam.wa.us

    ——————————————————————

    Back in the day, we received email notification…

    AND THEY SAID….

    Thank you for your comments.

    These will be considered and included in the SMP comment file, as per requirements.

    Hannah Merrill

    DCD Natural Resources Planner
    Clallam County Dept. of Community Development
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5; Port Angeles, WA  98362-3015
    T:  360-417-2563  W:  http://www.clallam.net/RealEstate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    —————————————————————————

    You have received this message as a member of the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Interested Parties Email Distribution List.    All emails sent to this address will be received by the Clallam County email system and may be subject to Public Disclosure under Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.

    From: pearl hewett [mailto:phew@wavecable.com]
    Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 9:24 AM
    To: zSMP
    Cc: earnest spees; Jo Anne Estes
    Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011

    I submit this documentation of PUBLIC CONCERNS on the Clallam County SMP update.

    As a  general public Comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Invited SMP Citizens Advisory Committee Member

    Thursday:  July 14, 2011 – SMP Public Forum, John Wayne Marina, 2577 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, 1:00-3:30 p.m.

    With about 35 people in attendance The following questions were asked of Department of Community Development Steve Grey, Consultant Jim Kramer and ESA Nathan.

    1. The purpose for the Shoreline inventory and characteristic report is?
    2. The purpose for the SMP update is?
    3. Mandate deadline for SMP update ?
    4. What is the 200 foot set back?

    Answer, the 200 foot set back is WA State law, development can occur within the 200 foot set back, with special permitting.

    1. City, County SMP compliancy who’s jurisdiction?
    2. Request for slides of maps?
    3. Where to send written comments?
    4. Competency and reliability of ESA reports on, inventories, flood plains, critical areas, buffers and setbacks?
    5. Will owners of the property be required, at their own expense, to prove the ESA data is inaccurate? when ESA has a disclaimer on the maps and “May be up to 100 feet off”?

    Actual SMP map disclaimer ESA states:

    Map data shown here are property of the listed sources, inaccuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.

    Answer, Yes, property owner will have to disprove inaccurate data at their own expense.

    1. What is the concept of law, regarding “NO NET LOSS?”
    2. Is the shoreline inventory and characteristic report to determine the base line for loss and consequences with regard to “NO NET LOSS?
    3. An additional question on property will be required, at their own expense? to prove the ESA Map data is inaccurate?
    4. Comment, SPM, good information, good access and good to have public involvement at meetings.
    5. Many web sites, which one do I use?
    6. Development, with regard to loss of wildlife habitat?
    7. Do you use any of the things learned by Jefferson County SMP guidelines? Reports related to It created levels of public anxiety?
    8. Will Clallam County just rubber stamp other SMP’s information and just do it any way?
    9. Is the SMP udate just cut and dried?
    10. Will we have input, considering that the impaired water quality on the lower Dungeness has been proven to be 75% bird poop and 25% people related?

    Answer, we can’t control the birds and can just focus on what can be controlled.

    As, Pearl Rains Hewett  I had a problem being recognized by Steve Grey and Jim Kramer to be allowed to speak.

    It was not mentioned that I was a member of the Invited SMP update committee.

    I made (2) comments and asked (1) question during the 2 1/2 hour meeting.

    My comment, Per HB 1478 after receiving a grant for the SMP, a county has 2 years to complete their update.

    My comment, shrinking open space habitat has forced animals to use freshwater reaches for travel, causing further non- people related impairment of water quality.

    1. My question, How is permitting usage done on the 200′ set back required by WA State law? By the County? Shoreline exemption Permit? Or running the full gauntlet with the DOE?

    21.Questioning the validity of the predicted 18,000 increase in population growth?

    1. How does the SMP setback affect our out buildings? rebuild, improve, maintenance?

    Answer, non-conforming improve, maintenance, no problem. If over 50% of a non-conforming structure burns down, no rebuilding is permitted.

    1. Does the same apply to bulkheads?

    Answer, maintain, repair ok, but eventually DOE wants all removed. There is protection for single family dwellings. The DOE wants soft bulkheads.

    1. Where do you expect the population increase?
    2. Flexibility of shellfish protection, shoreline uses, setbacks?
    3. How will the merging of the Shoreline inventory and Characteristics with zoning be handled?

    Answer, fairly, East to West. Forest land is not the same as conservative.

    1. Suspicious of DOE/ SMP pattern of control, start with minimum impact, go to NO NET LOSS, go to enhance, end up with restoration?

    Answer, our duty is to protect, restoration is not required by law.

    1. “IF NOT YET? Then when?

    Answer, Priorities for restoration, Elwha, remove homes, Success of restoration of Jimmy Come Lately Creek, Elwha move levees back.

    1. Comment and Question, only a 200 foot set back? Shouldn’t it be more like 300 feet?

    Answer, Sometimes it is, take the flood plain add the wet land and it can be more.

    The questions are for documentation of PUBLIC CONCERN on the SMP update.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Invited SMP Citizens Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

     

    DEC 10, 2017 SPECIFICALLY THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE

    Thank you for your comments.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS

    These will be considered and included in the SMP comment file, as per requirements. (NOT)

     SMP Committee – Clallam County, Washington

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/smp_advcomm.html

    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE FOR YOUR TIME, … Clallam County SMP Update: … Welcome Letter; Meeting Agenda – April 11, …

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Committee

    THANK YOU SMP COMMITTEE

    FOR YOUR TIME, DEDICATION And

    ATTENTION TO DETAIL,

    COMPREHENSIVE COMMENTS,

    EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS,

    EXTENSIVE INPUT,

    and HARD WORK!

    SMP Update  the so called Citizens Advisory Committee  Welcome Letter


  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

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

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

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

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

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

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

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

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Gene Farr

     


  • The Weather Phenomena?

    NOV. 12, 2014 THE WEATHER PHENOMENA

    Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

    THIS IS A NATURAL WEATHER PHENOMENON

    IT IS  NOT A MAN-MADE EVENT.

    ————————————————————————-

     PHENOMENA by definition

     A fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

     something that is impressive or extraordinary.

     

    A NATURAL PHENOMENON

     A fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

     something that is impressive or extraordinary.

     

    NOV. 12, 2014 THE WEATHER PHENOMENA

    Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

    www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/…/36890008

    AccuWeather

     Arctic chill spreads across Upper Midwest, Rockies | Fox News

    www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/11/…/arctic-chill-m…

    Fox News Channel

    10 hours ago – The Arctic chill that has gripped the Upper Midwest and Rockies is … November 11, 2014

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE CLIMATE CHANGE PHENOMENA?

    IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON

    A NATURAL PHENOMENON IS NOT A MAN-MADE EVENT

     A fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

     something that is impressive or extraordinary.

    THE NEXT BIG PANIC? PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE?

    HOW MUCH WARNING DID WE GET TO PREPARE FOR THIS POLAR BLAST?

    ————————————————————————-

    Global Climate Scam

    www.globalclimatescam.com/

    2 days ago – November 10, 2014 Putting aside the fact that there is no globalwarming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in …

    (complete text below)

    ————————————————————–

    THE CLIMATE CHANGE PHENOMENA?

    Ten facts about climate change

    1.     Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

    2.    Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

    3.    Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

    4.    Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

         Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

    5.    On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

    6.    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

    Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
    7.    The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

    The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

    8.    Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
    9.    Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
    10.   The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

    The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

    ——————————————————————————–

    GLOBAL WARMING  PHENOMENA?

    LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

    Myth 1     Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

    Fact 1       Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995. 

    Myth 2     During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

    Facts 2      The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past. 

    Myth 3     AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

    Facts 3      The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

    Myth 4     Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

    Facts 4      Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling. 

    Myth 5     Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

    Facts 5      A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

    Myth 6     Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

    Facts 6      No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration. 

    Myth 7     Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

    Facts 7      The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change. 

    Myth 8     Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

    Facts 8      Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

    Myth 9     Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

    Facts 9      SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase. 

    Myth 10   The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

    Facts 10    Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

    (remember the ice age?)

    Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Global Climate Scam

    www.globalclimatescam.com/

    2 days ago – November 10, 2014 Putting aside the fact that there is no globalwarming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in …

    Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

    By Neilio on November 10, 2014 in Bad Policy, Climate History, Corruption, Extreme weather, Failed predictions, Global Cooling, Global Warming ‘Solutions’, IPCC, James Hansen, John Holdren, Junk Science, Loonies, Media Bias, Misguided Leaders, Mythical Consensus, Public Policy, Sea Levels

    By: Alex Newman.

    It is often said that non-scientists must rely on “expert opinion” to determine whether claims on alleged “catastrophic man-made global warming” are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.

    Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman’s forecasts are?

    Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE  GLOBAL WARMING  PHENOMENA?

    Ten facts about climate change

    6.    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

    ——————————————————————————————

    THE  GLOBAL WARMING  PHENOMENA?

    LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

    Myth 5     Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

    Facts 5      A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

    Scholarly articles for global warming phenomena
    Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and …‎Root – Cited by 2836Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige …‎Boykoff – Cited by 741Some economics of global warming‎Schelling – Cited by 459

    Global Warming – BioCab

    www.biocab.org/Discrepancies.html

    Global Warming refers to any cyclical positive trend of the variability of the … that the Climate Change and the Global Warming are NATURAL phenomena and …

    ————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    NOV. 12, 2014 THE NATURAL WEATHER PHENOMENA

    Winter Storm Astro Becomes The 1st Winter Storm Of The …

    investmentwatchblog.com/winter-storm-astro-becomes-the-1st-winter-sto…

    Winter Storm Astro Becomes The 1st Winter Storm Of The Season, Arctic Blast via Polar Vortex to Chill 42 US States. November 10th, 2014. Winter Storm #Astro …

     A NATURAL PHENOMENON IS NOT A MAN-MADE EVENT.

     A fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable

     something that is impressive or extraordinary.

     

    Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

    www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/…/36890008

    AccuWeather

     

     NWS – National Weather Service Watch Warning Advisory …

    www.srh.noaa.gov/…/…

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    .AN ARCTIC FRONT CONTINUES TO MOVE SOUTH THROUGH WEST TEXAS … PINE SPRINGS 622 AM CST TUE NOV 11 2014 /522 AM MST TUE NOV 11 2014/ . … A FREEZE WARNING MEANS SUB-FREEZING TEMPERATURES ARE …

    Forecast Discussion – NOAA’s National Weather Service

    www.nws.noaa.gov/…/…

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    FREEZE WARNING UNTIL 10 AM WEDNESDAY FOR OKZ053. … /ISSUED 538 PM CST TUE NOV 11 2014/ DISCUSSION. … COLDER WEDNESDAY INTO FRIDAY AS THE ARCTIC HIGH SLIDES INTO THE PLAINS AND EVENTUALLY THE …

     

    THIS IS NOT A MAN-MADE EVENT

     

     

     

     

     


  • SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

     

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

     

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of

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

     

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

     

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

     

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

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

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

     

    Attachment B.

    3.

    Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

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

    The fixed elevation would be

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

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

     

    Attachment C.

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

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

     

    5.Residential Moorage.

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

     

    City Council

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

    Planning Commission

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

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

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

     

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since 2008

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013  

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

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

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

    Public access

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

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

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

    Park development options

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

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

    High water mark

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

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

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

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

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

    • BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer 

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

     

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

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

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

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

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

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    Related Stories

     

     

     


  • The Economic Costs of Wilderness

    END NOTES AKA BOTTOM LINE

    Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk, and Randy Simmons
    Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University

    4 Ibid., p. 1. It is interesting to note that these types of studies almost never account for the opportunity costs of Wilderness Designations. They evaluate the potential benefits of Wilderness without accounting for the lost uses of the land including the value of timber, minerals, and recreation use that are lost because of the Wilderness designation.

    1 Although mining claims were allowed for the first 20 years after the Wilderness Act passed, mining and mineral exploration are now prohibited within Wilderness. Although logging is not expressly proscribed by statutory language of the Act, the restrictions on mechanized travel, mechanized equipment, and road construction generally preclude large-scale logging activity (Coggins 1993). Grazing is expressly allowed in Wilderness Areas, but administrators may make “reasonable regulations” including the reduction of grazing to improve range conditions (see generally H.R. 96-617). In addition to the prohibitory language found in the Wilderness Act, courts have aggressively blocked a variety of activities in Wilderness and areas adjacent to Wilderness. Uses of land surrounding Wilderness often receive more stringent review. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, in 1972 upheld an injunction of logging in an area that approached a Wilderness Area (Parker v. United States 448 F.2d 793 cert. denied 405 U.S. 989). Wilderness Areas also often raise review standards under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, land uses near Wilderness Areas may be found to have a more “significant” impact than actions near lands not under federal protection. This may increase the costs associated with county or state activities occurring near Wilderness areas and may change the cost calculus in making governance decisions.

    2 The Wilderness Society, “The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Focus on Property Value Enhancement,” Wilderness Society Science and Policy Brief, no. 2, March 2004, p. 1.

    3 R. Rasker, B. Alexander, J. van den Noort, and R. Carter, Prosperity in the21st Century West: The Role of Protected Lands, The Sonoran Institute, 2004, p. ii.

    4 Ibid., p. 1. It is interesting to note that these types of studies almost never account for the opportunity costs of Wilderness Designations. They evaluate the potential benefits of Wilderness without accounting for the lost uses of the land including the value of timber, minerals, and recreation use that are lost because of the Wilderness designation.

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

    The Economic Costs of Wilderness

    READ THE ENTIRE BRIEF AT http://www.environmentaltrends.org/single/article/the-economic-costs-of-wilderness.html

     

    Brief

    June 16, 2011

    by Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk, and Randy Simmons

     

    Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk, and Randy Simmons
    Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University

    Summary

    Wilderness is one of the most contentious issues in American public lands management. Local officials often bemoan Wilderness designations as creating economic hardships by limiting extractive industries, outdoor recreation, and the siting of transportation corridors, water and power lines, and telecommunication facilities. In direct contrast, many environmentalists allege that Wilderness creates economic benefits for local communities through increasing property values and from benefitting the tourism industry. This study explores the economic claims by examining empirical evidence of identifiable differences in the economic conditions of Wilderness and Non-Wilderness Counties.

    Some Wilderness can have positive economic impacts but our findings indicate that this is not the general rule. We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions. Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income. By working together with local communities to address their concerns, environmentalists can help develop balanced policy that genuinely acknowledges the local economic costs associated with Wilderness.

    Introduction to Wilderness

    Wilderness, so designated pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964, is the most restrictive of all federal land-use designations. The Wilderness Act protects areas “untrammeled by man” that have not been developed for other human uses. To preserve wild characteristics, the Wilderness designation prohibits roads, road construction, mechanized travel, and the use of mechanized equipment. Wilderness also impacts extractive industries such as mining, logging, and grazing.1 The stringent requirements of the Wilderness Act also disallow the construction of telecommunication towers, facilities for power generation, transmission lines, and energy pipelines.

    Due to these restrictions, local officials frequently complain that Wilderness harms local economies by limiting the opportunities for economic development. The State of Utah, for instance, recently passed House Joint Resolution 10 which requested that the U.S. Congress not designate any additional Wilderness in Utah. Through a vote by a supermajority of members, the state legislature asserted that Wilderness’ limitation of multiple uses causes substantial economic hardship for the state.

    Environmentalists counter that the presence of Wilderness actually attracts residents and businesses to nearby communities. Wilderness is claimed to increase property values and create a higher quality of life in those communities. Environmentalists also claim that Wilderness contributes to a healthy tourism industry. The Wilderness Society notes “[d]esignated wilderness areas on public lands generate a range of economic benefits for individuals, communities, and the nation—among them, the attraction and retention of residents and businesses.”2 The Sonoran Institute similarly finds, “protected natural places are vital economic assets for those local economies in the West that are prospering the most.”3 The Sonoran Institute further notes, “Wilderness, National Parks, National Monuments, and other protected public lands, set aside for their wild land characteristics, can and do play an important role in stimulating economic growth—and the more protected, the better.”4

    Despite these differing views, Congress has continued creating Wilderness Areas. There are 759 Wilderness Areas currently in the United States, totaling 109,663,992 Acres (Gorte 2010). Wilderness is managed by four federal agencies: the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. Wilderness Areas dramatically vary in size from the Pelican Island Wilderness in Florida, which occupies a mere six acres, to the 9,078,675-acre Wrangle Island Wilderness in Alaska. Due to the stringent requirements laying out Wilderness characteristics, the majority of Wilderness Areas are found within largely rural and lightly populated counties within Alaska, California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Only six states contain no Wilderness: Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode Island.

    Understanding the Economic Impact of Wilderness

    To provide better evidence of economic impacts, we use longitudinal statistical analysis over every county in the United States dating back to 1995. The panels each contain measurements of economic conditions taken every five years.5 We selected three uniformly applicable variables as proxies for county economic conditions: average household income, total payroll, and total tax receipts. Average household income and total tax receipts are gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau. Total payroll figures are gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    READ THE ENTIRE BRIEF AT http://www.environmentaltrends.org/single/article/the-economic-costs-of-wilderness.html

     


  • Legal Alternative on Wilderness Plan

    MY PUBLIC COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO

     ‘Olympic National Park Wilderness Stewardship Plan Public Scoping Comment Report’ on the list, right above the link for the ‘Preliminary Draft Alternatives — ONP Wilderness Stewardship Plan’

    Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum, SAID IN THE RELEASE. “MOREOVER, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ACCURATELY HEARD AND ADDRESSED THE PUBLIC’S COMMENTS

    Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/03/16/3099865/comment-period-olympic-develops.html#storylink=cpy

    ———————————————————

    Superintendent Sarah Creachbaum

    NOW HEAR THIS PUBLIC COMMENT!AND ADDRESS IT

    THERE IS ONLY ONE ACCEPTABLE ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE ONE DRAFT ALTERNATIVE THAT CALLS FOR NO ACTION

    ————————————————————————————————-

    THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964 ESTABLISHED A SYSTEM AND A POLICY FOR PROTECTION FOR 95% OF THE PARK’S 922,651 ACRES

    IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 50 YEARS. PROTECTING 875,900 ACRES OF OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK) OF WILDERNESS RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC USE AND ENJOYMENT.

    THE 50 YEAR SYSTEM AND POLICY FOR PROTECTION OF WILDERNESS IS NOT BROKEN.

    IT IS AN OUTRAGE THAT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL TO PAY FOR SCOPING AND ALTERNATIVES TO FIX?

     A FEDERAL SYSTEM AND POLICY THAT IS NOT BROKEN!

    ——————————————————————

    WHAT ARE THE REPREHENSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR?

    THE 2014 ONP ALTERNATIVES? MORE CONTROL? AND MORE RESTRICTIONS? A NEW PLAN ON 875,900 ACRES OF ALREADY FEDERALLY PROTECTED WILDERNESS?

    DESIGNATING MORE WILDERNESS POLICY? FOR MORE APPLIED MICRO-MANAGEMENT RESTRICTION AND PROTECTION? ZONE BY ZONE SPECIFIC AREAS? FOR 875,900 ACRES OF THE PARK’S  WILDERNESS PROTECTION?

    INDEED, EXACTLY WHAT ARE THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK ADDITIONAL MICRO-MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND RESTRICTIONS FOR PROTECTION?

    WHAT TYPES OF TRAILS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC AREAS AND WHAT KIND OF CAMPING WOULD BE PERMITTED.

    HOW MUCH USE WOULD BE ALLOWED, INCLUDING POSSIBLE LIMITS ON OVERNIGHT AND DAY USE, HOW MANY NEW FACILITIES SUCH AS BRIDGES AND TRAILS WOULD BE ALLOWED AND CHANGES IN PERMITTING.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    THERE IS ONLY ONE ACCEPTABLE ACTION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, THE ONE DRAFT ALTERNATIVE THAT CALLS FOR NO ACTION

    Thank God for freedom of speech!

    Pearl Rains Hewett