+menu-


  • Category Archives INDECIPHERABLE RULES
  • SMP 19 Unresolved Issues 2012-2017

    Another 2017 SMP Update concern to Clallam County Commissioner

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY AND LEAVE 19 UNRESOLVED SMP ISSUES ON 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.

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

    ———————————————————————-

    Part two, What happened to us? the 3000 and the 19 unresolved issues behind our back, behind closed doors by the SMP Update bureaucrats and the paid facilitators ?

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee—– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lois Perry ; Sue Forde ; zSMP

    Cc: Karl Spees ; Jo Anne Estes ; Katie Krueger ; connie beauviasMarv Chastain ; Jay Petersen ; harry bell ; Steve Gray ; notac; ; jim McEntire ; smiller@co.clallam.wa.us

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

    Subject: SMP COMMENT ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my comment

    on the SMP Advisory Committee

    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?

     ——————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    Jul 4, 2015 THREE YEARS LATER SECOND SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

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

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

    —————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT continued…

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? Jay Pedersen 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,  Jay’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   Ed Bowen 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) ED BOWEN 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) NOT DISCUSSED, MENTIONED 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.

    —————————————————————————–

    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.

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property,

    may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government

    ————————————————————————–

    Oct 14, 2017 added information on Clallam County SMP Update, paid facilitators MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAME .

    No Net Loss of Ecological Function?

    This work was funded through a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

    Prepared by MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAMER and Carol MacIlroy

    prohibit new building lots from being created in the 100-year floodplain limit new roads in the floodplain that unregulated development or illegal activities will not occur at a level significant enough to affect flood storage. It will not be possible to fully avoid all impacts from the development of these lots through SMP policies and regulations.

    ————————————————————————–

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property, may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government?

    Through, an administrative process established by the Clallam County DCD Planning Dept?

    ———————————————————————-

    (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.

    ——————————————————————————-

    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, prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————–

    WHO WERE THE SMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    THAT 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?

    ———————————————————————————-

    PDF]

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Committee …

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/…/ClCoSMPC2013.pdf

    Clallam County

    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?

    *Chris Byrnes: WA Department of Fish & Wildlife

    … *Darlene Schanfald: Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park …

    *Jeffree Stewart: WA Department of Ecology …

    *Kevin MacCartney: Sierra Club; Shoreline Property Owner … *Denotes SMP Committee members/alternates attending a majority of …

    SMPC Attendees:

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————————

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    Arnold Schouten … the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ———————————————————————

    Bob Vreeland

    ——————————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    —————————————————————–

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    ————————————————–

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence.

    ———————————————————

    Karl Spees

    ———————————————————-

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    —————————————————————–

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    ———————————————————

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    ———————————————–

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    ————————————————————-

    Matt Heins Tribe

    ———————————————-

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————

    Randy Johnson tribal rep (aka nasty randy)

    —————————————-

    Ron Gilles Sequim Realtor

    ———————————————-

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant) ESA Adolfson’s Compliancy expert with 24 WA State SMP’s Under their belt.

    https://www.google.com/#q=esa+adolfson+margaret+clancy+health+of+puget+sound&start=30

    Shoreline management plan meeting brings unanswered …

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Oct/shoreline_meeting.html

    Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer (of Kramer Consulting Inc.), representing … The “Public Participation Strategy” as presented by ESAAdolphson was that “The …. for Puget Sound; Co-Manager AT PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2006; and Project

    opportunities to improve shoreline management in puget

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/docs/exec_summary.pdf

    NFWF Project: 2010-0060-002 Protect Puget Sound Shoreline … Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson) … effort to recover Puget Sound by 2020. .

    —————————————————

    Senior planner for SMP Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    ————————————————-

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    ————————————————–

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    ———————————————–

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    ——————————————————–

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    ——————————————————–

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    ——————————————————————–

    Robert Knapp, James town S’Klallem tribe  (used to be with stream keepers)

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————-

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ————————————————-

    Bob Vreeland

    Andrew Stevenson Port Angeles Arnold Schouten Port …

    www.clallam.net/RealEstate/…/SMPCmemberList1-2012….

    Clallam County

    Bob Vreeland. Port Angeles … Sequim. Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park. 7 … Countywide. WA Department of Ecology.

    —————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence. … Agenda change: Hannah Merrill will give the SMP Update, instead of Cathy Lear. … US Army Corps of Engineers; EPA; WA Dept. of Ecology; WA State Recreation.

    Karl Spees

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    Matt Heins Tribe

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Randy Johnson nasty randy (tribal rep.)

    Ron Gilles

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant)

    Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    Robert Knapp, JS’K

    ———————————————–

    REMEMBER… This is just 

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

    What happens to one of us, happens to all of us.

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

    The Bottom Line….

    As one of the  3000, I shall continue my comments and concerns on the SMP Update

    day after day, week after week, month after month as I have done prolifically since 2011.

    To be continued….


  • The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

     

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

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

    designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” says Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    In response to this growing environmental crisis, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND. Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    ——————————————————————————————

    No doubt with MORE THAN 600 RESTORATION PARTNERS the following is a true statement

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.

    Even the government is clueless, when it comes to how many nuts are responsible for  planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ———————————————————————————————–

    A DECEPTIVE? AND EVASIVE? NGO OR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PLOY, ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL “GAME OF RESTORATION”  ONE.

    Who knew about this?

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND.

    THIS IS NOT A CASUAL REPORT OF RESTORATION FOR THE SMP UPDATE

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

     ————————————————————————————————

    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    ———————————————————-
    A FEDERAL Part of the PUGET SOUND restoration plan
    FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

    This is not a casual report of RESTORATION for SMP mitigation.
    ——————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and APPROVAL for incorporation into
    Washington’s FEDERALLY APPROVED coastal zone management program
    Under the 1972 CONGRESS ENACTED FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
    ——————————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.
    ————————————————-
    Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎

    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎

     


  • Obama’s Obamacare Fumble?

    Nov. 14, 2013 a football analogy? or apology?
    Football ? Fumble? To drop a ball that is in play?

    MOST GAMES HAVE RULES?

    THE OBAMACARE GAME HAS NO DECIPHERABLE RULES.

    DECIPHERABLE by definition make out what something says to succeed in establishing what a word or piece of writing says, when it is difficult or almost impossible to read, workout the meaning of something, to study something that is written in code or in an unknown form of writing until it can be understood and read normally

    AN ANALOGY OF NFL DECIPHERABLE RULES TO OBAMACARE?

    Rule 8 Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble – NFL.com
    static.nfl.com/static/…/11_Rule8_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf‎

    Note: A BALL THAT IS INTENTIONALLY FUMBLED AND GOES FORWARD is a forward pass.

    A ball that is … ANY OTHER FORWARD PASS BY EITHER TEAM IS ILLEGAL AND IS A FOUL by the passing team, including: ….. A quarterback drops back into his end zone.

    Note: If a player pretends to fumble and causes the ball to go forward, it is a …. A DROP KICK IS A KICK BY A KICKER WHO DROPS THE BALL AND KICKS IT as, or immediately …

    Rule 8 Forward Pass, Backward Pass, Fumble

    Section 1 Forward Pass
    DEFINITION
    Article 1 Definition
    It is a forward pass if:
    (a) the ball initially moves forward (to a point nearer the opponent’s goal line) after leaving the passer’s
    hand(s); or
    (b) the ball first strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else at a point that is nearer the
    opponent’s goal line than the point at which the ball leaves the passer’s hand(s).

    Note: A BALL THAT IS INTENTIONALLY FUMBLED and goes
    forward is a forward pass.

    A BALL THAT IS INTENTIONALLY MUFFED, AND GOES FORWARD OR BACKWARD, IS A BATTED BALL (12-1-8).
    The direction taken by A FUMBLED or muffed ball

    DOES NOT AFFECT THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES SPECIFIC TO SUCH ACTS, UNLESS IT IS RULED THAT THEY ARE INTENTIONAL.

    When a player is IN CONTROL of the ball and attempting to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his hand starts a forward pass.

    (a) If the passer is attempting to throw a forward pass, BUT CONTACT BY AN OPPONENT MATERIALLY AFFECTS HIM, causing the ball to go backward, it is a forward pass, regardless of where the ball strikes the ground, a player, an official, or anything else

    (b) If, AFTER AN INTENTIONAL FORWARD movement of his hand, the PASSER LOSES POSSESSION OF THE BALL AS HE IS ATTEMPTING TO TUCK IT BACK TOWARD HIS BODY, it is a forward pass.

    IF THE PLAYER LOSES POSSESSION AFTER HE HAS TUCKED THE BALL INTO HIS BODY,

    IT IS A FUMBLE.

    (C) IF THE PASSER LOSES POSSESSION OF THE BALL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO RECOCK HIS ARM,

    IT IS A FUMBLE.

    LEGAL FORWARD PASS
    Article 2 Legal Forward Pass.
    THE OFFENSIVE TEAM may make one forward pass from behind the line during each down. If the ball, whether IN PLAYER POSSESSION OR LOOSE, crosses the line of scrimmage,

    A FORWARD PASS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, regardless of whether the ball returns behind the line of scrimmage before the pass is thrown.

    ITEM 1: ILLEGAL PASSES.
    ANY OTHER FORWARD PASS BY EITHER TEAM IS ILLEGAL AND IS A FOUL BY THE PASSING TEAM,
    including:
    (a) A forward pass thrown when the passer IS BEYOND the line of SCRIMMAGE.
    ——————————————————————————————————-

    The line of SCRIMMAGE by definition a rough or confused struggle
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Note: It is a forward pass from beyond the line of scrimmage if the passer’s entire body and the ball are beyond the line of scrimmage when the ball is released, whether the passer is airborne or touching the ground.

    THE PENALTY FOR A FORWARD PASS thrown from beyond the line IS ENFORCED FROM THE SPOT where the ball is RELEASED.

    (b) A second forward pass thrown from behind the line of scrimmage.

    (c) A forward pass thrown after the ball has crossed the
    line of scrimmage and has returned behind it.

    (d) A forward pass thrown after there has been a change
    of possession.

    ITEM 2: INTERCEPTED ILLEGAL PASS.
    IF AN ILLEGAL PASS IS CAUGHT OR INTERCEPTED, the ball may be advanced and
    the penalty declined.

    PENALTIES:
    (a) For a forward pass from beyond the line: Loss of down and five yards from the spot of the
    pass. See 14-8-2. See S.N. 3 below.

    (b) For a second forward pass from behind the line, or for a forward pass that was thrown after
    the ball returned behind the line: Loss of five yards.

    (c) FOR A FORWARD PASS THAT IS THROWN by Team B, or for a forward pass that is thrown by Team A after a change of possession: Loss of five yards from the spot of the pass.

    SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
    (1) ELIGIBILITY, pass interference, and intentional grounding rules apply when a forward pass is thrown from behind the line, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PASS IS AN ILLEGAL FORWARD PASS.

    ELIGIBILITY, PASS INTERFERENCE,
    AND INTENTIONAL GROUNDING RULES DO NOT APPLY IF A
    FORWARD PASS IS THROWN
    (a) from beyond the line,
    (b) on a Free Kick play,
    (c) on a Fair Catch kick play, or
    (d) after a change of possession.

    (2) ROUGHING THE PASSER RULES APPLY ON ALL PASSES
    (LEGAL OR ILLEGAL) THROWN FROM BEHIND THE LINE of
    scrimmage (12-2-13). If a pass is thrown FROM BEYOND the line of scrimmage,

    UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS MAY APPLY FOR ACTION AGAINST THE PASSER
    ———————————————————–
    Read on if you are concerned or interested

    Obama kicking the (uninsured) can down the road?

    Obama Throwing the insurance companies under the bus?

    Obamacare fix: Responsibility shifts back to insurance companies …
    www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50159205n‎
    Obamacare fix: Responsibility shifts back to insurance companies. November 15, 2013 4:56 AM. CBS News political director John Dickerson joins the “CBS This …

    The Only “Fix” Is to Scrap Obamacare – Real Clear Politics
    www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/…/15/the_only_quotfixquot_is_to_scrap…‎
    The Only “Fix” Is to Scrap Obamacare. By Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal – November 15, 2013. Email • Print. Comments … Latest On Twitter. loading.
    ——————————————————————————————
    IF YOU DON’T WATCH THE NEWS YOU ARE UNINFORMED?

    IF YOU DON’T WATCH “ALL OF THE NEWS” YOU ARE MISINFORMED?

    I WATCH OBAMA SPEAK, I WATCH C-SPAN, THE NATIONAL, FOX. CNN, ABC, NBC, AND CBS, RESEARCH ON GOGGLE AND DOCUMENT.

    OBAMACARE QUESTIONS? UNANSWERED?

    WHO’S EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE? (NOT FOUND ON GOGGLE)

    WHO HAS TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE? (NOT FOUND ON GOGGLE)

    WHO DOES NOT HAVE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE? (FOUND ON GOGGLE)

    Sebelius: I’m Not Signing Up for Obamacare | CNS News
    cnsnews.com › News‎
    Oct 23, 2013 – I have not tried signing up, because I have insurance,” she told Gupta. … healthcare.gov account, Sebelius admitted that she did: “Well, I think …

    ——————————————————————————-
    WHO DOES NOT HAVE TO SIGN UP FOR OBAMACARE? (FOUND ON GOGGLE)

    OBAMACARE FINES TO BE SEIZED FROM BANK ACCOUNTS?

    MAN WHO ATTEMPTED TO SIGN UP CLAIMS HE WAS THREATENED WITH DRIVERS LICENSE BEING REVOKED, FEDERAL TAX LIEN ON HOME
    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars.com
    October 2, 2013
    A man who attempted to sign up for Obamacare online was told that a fine of over $4,000 dollars a year for refusing to take out mandatory health insurance could be taken directly from his bank account, and that his drivers license would be suspended and a federal tax lien placed against his home, according to an entry on the HealthCare.gov Facebook page.
    If true, the implementation of Obamacare is going to be a whole lot more draconian than Americans have been led to believe.
    Will Sheehan claims that when he tried to sign up for Obamacare and THEN REGISTER TO OPT OUT, he received an ominous warning. Sheehan’s full Facebook post reads;
    “I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance.
    I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”
    Sheehan went on to point out that the site makes you input all your personal information before giving you an indication of the costs, meaning a database of the “uninsured” is being built. He added that he could not afford to pay the premium so would have to break the law and pay the fine, leaving him with no health care coverage.
    The federal government has consistently denied that any fines pertaining to Obamacare non-compliance could be seized from bank accounts, despite reports last year that the IRS had hired 16,500 new agents to harass citizens who attempt to evade the new law.
    “There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures,” then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman said in April 2010.
    In addition, Americans who refuse to pay for mandatory health insurance “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution,” according to the law itself.
    Section 1501(g)(2) of the Affordable Care Act also states that the IRS cannot “file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section.”
    Either Sheehan’s claim that he received this notice is a lie, or the feds have been dishonest with the American people all along, and the revolt against Obamacare is about to take “don’t tread on me” to a whole new level.
    Read a copy of the full exchange on Facebook below.
    ———————————————————————————————
    Who does not have to sign up for Obamacare? (found on Goggle)

    Obamacare 101: What to know if you opt out of buying health insurance

    The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, requires that individuals buy health insurance. If you don’t want to buy insurance, you will have to pay a penalty – unless you qualify for an exemption from the mandate.
    The insurance “exchanges” set up under the Affordable Care Act, where people can shop online for health insurance, went live on Oct. 1, and an estimated 48 million uninsured Americans can use them to try to find an affordable plan. The 2010 Obamacare law requires that people have health insurance, or that they pay a fee starting next year if they choose to opt out.
    The Christian Science Monitor
    Weekly Digital Edition
    Here are the ins and outs of forgoing health insurance.
    If you don’t have health insurance, and aren’t sure if you want to purchase a plan, how long do you have to decide?
    You can sign up for health coverage on an exchange anytime between now and March 1, 2014. Your coverage would begin Jan. 1, 2014, at the earliest. If you do not enroll in that window, you will not be able to get health coverage through the insurance exchange marketplace until the next annual enrollment period unless there are extenuating circumstances.
    RECOMMENDED: Obamacare facts: How will the law affect you?
    How much are the penalties for not buying a health plan?
    The penalties are not very high to begin with. In 2014, the fine to remain uninsured is $95 per person (up to a family maximum of $285, or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater).
    But the penalty will increase more than sevenfold in the next two years, with the fine running as much as $695 per person by 2016. The family maximum would be as high as $2,085 (or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater).
    Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.
    What kind of insurance policy prevents someone from having to pay the penalty?
    In short, any plan that qualifies as “minimum essential coverage.” This includes plans offered on the marketplace exchange, a plan provided by your employer, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), TRICARE, Veterans Healthcare programs, Peace Corps Volunteer plans, and possibly others. For a full list with more details, refer to Healthcare.gov.
    What plans don’t qualify?
    You’d have to pay the fee if you have only vision or dental coverage or only workers’ compensation, coverage only for specific health conditions, or a plan that offers only discounts on medical services.
    Would it be cheaper to buy an insurance plan, and elect to not use it, rather than pay the fee?
    It depends, but as of now it is probably cheaper to pay the fine, provided you do not use any health-care services. You can calculate how much your health insurance premium would cost by using the Kaiser Family Foundation Subsidy Calculator, and then you can compare the cost to the penalty you would be assessed for having no insurance. The subsidy calculator takes into account your region, household income, employer coverage, number of family members, and tobacco use.
    Why is there a penalty?
    The penalty is meant to offset the costs of urgent medical care for individuals who do not have health insurance, according to Healthcare.gov. The website also warns that people without health coverage will have to pay the entire costs of all their medical care.
    How does someone apply for an exemption from health insurance so that they don’t have to pay the penalty?
    You can claim exemptions on your 2014 federal tax return, or you can apply for exemptions on the Health Insurance Marketplace exchanges. (The application is not currently available). Healthcare.gov will provide up-to-date information about how to apply for an exemption.
    Who is eligible for such exemptions?
    You can be exempted from the requirement to buy health insurance – and hence, from the penalty – if you meet one of the following requirements:
    •You are uninsured for less than three months of the year.
    •You live illegally in the United States.
    •You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting disposition.
    •You’re a member of a recognized Indian tribe.
    •Your income is officially deemed too low.
    •The lowest-priced converge would cost more than 8 percent of your household income.
    •You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare.
    •You’re a member of a recognized health-sharing ministry. (Note: Christian Scientists do not currently qualify for the exemption.)
    Healthcare.gov also provides a list of hardship exemptions that qualify an individual for exemption.
    This flow chart from the Kaiser Family Foundation might help you determine if you need to buy health insurance.
    Massachusetts has granted a religious exemption to its requirement to buy health insurance. Is this exemption still valid?
    No. The new federal requirement overrides state provisions, which means that any exemptions not listed under the Affordable Care Act are not included.
    If you are not exempt, how will the penalty be assessed?
    You will be required to provide information regarding health insurance when you file your 2014 federal income taxes. For those who elect not to buy health coverage, the penalty will probably be assessed on the form or withdrawn from your tax refund.
    Other articles in the Monitor’s Obamacare 101 series:
    • What happens starting Oct. 1?
    • What to know if you already have health insurance
    • How the federal subsidy works
    • What owners of small businesses need to know
    • When will the enrollment glitches be fixed?
    • What college students need to know
    • Seven ways you can sign up, despite Web woes
    • Enroll by March 31 to avoid penalty, White House clarifies
    RECOMMENDED: Obamacare facts: How will the law affect you?