+menu-


  • Category Archives not for Profit!
  • 2017 Clallam Co SMP BOCC RCW 90.58.590

    Discovery Dec 8, 2017

    Under RCW 90.58.590 Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria

    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.”[ 2009 c 444 § 1.]

     (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review.

    Intent—2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.

    —————————————————————————-

    The Clallam County BOCC has this option on the 2017 SMP Update.

    And,  most certainly the Citizens of Clallam County have provided  727  Public comments with enough local issues, circumstances and irregularities in the 2017  SMP Update Draft….

    To request the Clallam County WA  BOCC   use  their moratoria authority under RCW 90.58.590

    to  remedy the critical issues, imposed in and on the citizens in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and Dec 13, 2017 including but not limited to,

    2017 SMP Update 727 Comments

    —————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.590

    Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria—Requirements—Public hearing.

    (1) Local governments may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter.
    (2)(a) A local government adopting a moratorium or control under this section must:
    (i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
    (ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
    (iii) Notify the department of the moratorium or control immediately after its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing required by this subsection;
    (iv) Provide that all lawfully existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
    (b) The public hearing required by this section must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the moratorium or control.
    (3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two sixmonth periods if the local government complies with subsection (2)(a) of this section before each renewal. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to the department, the moratorium or control must remain in effect until the department’s final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
    (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify county and city moratoria powers conferred outside this chapter.
    NOTES:
    Intent2009 c 444: “The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.
    Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria.” [ 2009 c 444 § 1.]
    —————————————————————

    Comments and questions on the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update can  still be submitted individually to the elected county representatives:

    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us – rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us – mozias@co.clallam.wa.us


  • 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


  • 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

    Snippet…

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

    ————————————————————

    My quote,

    2017- Hello Country Bumpkins…

    ————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

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

    I’M A CONCERNED CITIZEN… JUST ASKING

    DOE ABUSE? COLLUSION?  OR JUST BEING GOOD SHEPHERDS?

    —————————————————————————

    IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO RAKE IN THE DOUGH

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

    INCLUDING  PIERCE COUNTY,

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

     REDISCOVERING, DOCUMENTING, EXPOSING AND DISSEMINATING

    Full unedited text

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

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

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

    April 21, 2014

    Glen Morgan
    Adjunct Fellow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Rabble”

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

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

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

    What will happen who knows?

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

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

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

    MUST NOT BE…..

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


  • Did Clallam Co need an SMP Update in 2010?

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

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

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

    I THINK NOT.

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

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

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

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

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

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

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

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

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

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

    COLD ENOUGH?

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

    Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

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

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

    THEY ARE DREAMING….

     NOW, NO NET LOSS

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

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

    GET BETTER

    Pearl

    —————————————————————

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

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

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior       

    snippet

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

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

    THEY WHO?  THERE IS NO SIGNATURE ON THE COMMENT?

    THEY, GO ON TO SAY….

    THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IS A VAGUE TERM…

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    —————————————————————————————

    From: pearl hewett

    To: smp@co.clallam.wa.us

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

    Subject: Fw: SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites

    they found (3) 

     ———————————————

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

     (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

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

     (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

     With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the FACTS

     Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

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

     Pearl Rains Hewett

     ————————————————————-

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

    My comment below shall not.

    SMP Public Comment #162

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

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

    Based on ECOLOGY’S own  2010 Characterization and Inventory  report

    Based on the  best available science from 1992?

    I THINK NOT.

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

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

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

    ON THE 64 FRESHWATER REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

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

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the incomplete, censored scientific facts

    Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

    COMMENT ON

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

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

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

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    —————————————————————-

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches CONTAMINATED sites

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

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

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

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    —————————————————————————

    ECOLOGYS 10 Unanswered questions  from July 12, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

    SMP Handbook: Chapter 7, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

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

    NONE period.

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

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

     

    Merrill, Hannah

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

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

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

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

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

    ; robert crittendend; Lois Perry; Sue Forde

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

    Dear Ms. Hewett:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

    Jeffree Stewart

    Shoreline Specialist

    Washington Department of Ecology

    360-407-6521

    ————————————————————————————–

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

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S 2010 DOCUMENTED CHARACTERIZATION AND INVENTORY  REPORT

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

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

    I THINK NOT.

    —————————————————————–

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

     ABSOLUTELY NOT

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

    The bottom line

    WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOV 7, 2017

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

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


  • Discovery Clallam Co SMP Update 2009-2017

    Discovery on the Clallam County SMP Update 2009-2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————

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

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    Fromxxxx

    To: pearl hewett

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

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

    It’s good to hear from you Pearl

    ———————————————————————————-

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    April 12, 2011 DISCOVERY on Nov 2, 2017

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

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

    Subject: Re: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

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

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

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

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

    They want clarification and specific requirements on the revised SMP.

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

    FYI

    Pearl

    —————————————————————————

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

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

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

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

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    To DCD Director Mary Ellen Winbourn

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    RE: SMP Update Advisory Committee

    (360) 417-9452

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    ———————————————————————

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

    —————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY April 17, 2011

    ESA ADOLFSON WA STATE SMP COOKIE CUTTERS

    SMP COOKIE CUTTING April 17, 2011

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

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

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

     April 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

    AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED …..

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

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

    ——-

    DISCOVERY  Jefferson County – Michelle McConnell leaves for Ecology

    Posted on March 30, 2014 by Al B.

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

    050511 – PHewett – G

    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ——————————————————————-

    MY DISCOVERY on the DCD SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jim Kramer

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

    Subject: Re: Taking of Private Property for Public Access

    Jim,

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

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

    Eight months ago, I had no voice.

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

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

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

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

    Pearl

    ————————————————————————————

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

    EIGHT YEARS  ago, I had no voice.

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

    WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST  EIGHT YEARS? 

    DISCOVERY AND MORE DISCOVERY AND MORE….

    Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

    SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

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

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

    ————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? 

    November 03, 2017 8:02 AM

    Subject: Educate the BOCC

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

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

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

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

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

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

     I THINK NOT!

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

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

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

    What am I doing on Nov 3, 2017?

    Sending these documents to the  BOCC 

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

    —————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

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

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

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

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

     


  • It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

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

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

    When the fearful citizens came forward  on Jan 26, 2011

    I said something.

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

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

    ——————————————————————

    UPDATE JUNE 19, 2017

    IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

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

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

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

    DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S IN IT?”

    THE CONCERNED CITIZEN SAID,

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

    SO I DID THIS ABOUT THAT

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

     WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ABOUT THAT? 2011-2017

    OVER 170 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SMP UPDATE

    This is post # 1005 on my blog/website

      Behind My Back

    www.behindmyback.org

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

    ——————————————————————–          

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS REPUTATION PRECEDES THEM.

    ———————————————————————

    Progressive Economics: The Rise Of Bureaucracy In America – Forbes

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

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

    Regulation’s Stranglehold On Millennials’ Futures – Forbes

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017  

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

    Make this post # 1005 on my blog/website

    And make another SMP Update Public Comment.

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)

    INTERESTED PARTIES,

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

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

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

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

    Sekiu Community Center, 42 Rice St., Sekiu WA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager

    Clallam County Department of Community Development

    ————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

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

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

    To be continued….


  • Women’s Rights Matter

    page 1 Things That Matter
    A # 1 bestselling book by Charles Krauthammer.
    “Things That Matter”, his working title started as, “There’s More To Life Than Politics”
    A quotation from Keats, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty— that is all/ Ye need to know on earth, and all ye need to know”.
    “Turns out, we need to know one more thing on earth- politics”
    “In the end, everything must bow to the sovereignty of politics”
    ———————————————————————————-
    Is truth all you need to know?
    LEARNING FROM HISTORY is paramount to my comments.
    —————————————————————————-
    a snippet from “The Disturbing, Shameful History of Childbirth Deaths”
    RELIABLE, SAFE, AND LEGAL BIRTH CONTROL ALLOWED WOMEN TO LIMIT AND TIME THEIR PREGNANCIES,
    AND IT LED TO A DECREASE IN ILLEGAL ABORTIONS, A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN PREGNANT WOMEN HISTORICALLY.
    ————————————————————————

    PREVENTION IS BETTER THEN DEATH
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD Started as the American Birth Control League in 1921, and changed its name to “Planned Parenthood” in 1942
    PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS BEEN PROVIDING TRUSTED HEALTH CARE FOR NEARLY 100 YEARS.
    ——————————————————————-
    And, a bunch of ill advised conservatives are going to shut down the government in an attempt to defund this?
    ——————————————————————————————
    Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), has since grown and consists of approximately 85 affiliates and 820 clinics in the United States, with a total budget of USD $1 billion.
    Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), IS THE LARGEST U.S. PROVIDER OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, WITH CLINICAL INTERACTIONS FOCUSED ON BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, HIV SCREENING AND COUNSELING, CONTRACEPTION, AS WELL AS MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES and abortions.
    ——————————————————————————
    The $5 billion presidential campaign? | TheHill
    thehill.com/blogs/…/presidential…/230318-the-5-billion-campaig…
    Jan 21, 2015 – The 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion,
    —————————————————————————
    My comment…
    With BILLIONS being spent? It is unbelievable that conservative political advisers have, and conservative candidates are using the following defunding agenda in an attempt to WIN the 2016 presidential election?
    REALLY? and, A GROUP OF MORE THAN 30 REPUBLICANS???
    Shutting down the government is a fool’s errand.
    If you want the BLAME, play the shutdown game AGAIN.
    Even if a conservative wins the primary election on this defunding agenda..
    In the long run? WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
    More women vote than men.
    Women will VOTE to protect their TRUSTED affordable healthcare and their constitutional rights provided by Planned Parenthood.
    ——————————————————————————————
    Conservatives Push Out Boehner Because He Wouldn’t …
    thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/…/boehner-steps-down/
    2 days ago – … pressure from the right wing of his conference” to defund Planned Parenthood. … Because He Wouldn’t Shut Down The Government Over Planned Parenthood … funding to avoid a government shutdown before October 1. … A group of more than 30 Republicans recently started threatening to force a …
    ——————————————————————————
    The ugly truth about WA DC politics 1993-2015
    FEDERAL LAW SINCE 1993 “THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT” of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994) legalized fetal tissue research. In addition, fetal tissue can be sold at a price that allows an organization to recoup the costs associated with it.
    Setting up Planned Parenthood to take the fall, using hidden cameras and edited videos with atrocious images.
    Going public and blaming Planned Parenthood? for complying with a liberal Act of Congress LAW?
    ———————————————————-
    Did you watch the CSPAN congressional debates on defunding?
    —————————————————————————–
    Of course, the liberals failed to mention, their FAULT in passing the LAW? “THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT”, Through no fault of Planned Parenthood, they were forced to comply with the liberal Act of Congress LAW.
    ——————————————————————
    AND, of course, if conservatives wanted a logical solution to to their problem with the 2001“NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT” they could introduce and pass new legislation to address their concerns. about the “CLINICAL RESEARCH”.Defined as, research conducted with HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS…..
    ——————————————————————————–
    LEARNING FROM HISTORY
    In 2012, Planned Parenthood and ITS SUPPORTERS FEROCIOUSLY ATTACKED the Susan G. Komen Foundation when it sought to discontinue funding
    Feb 4, 2012 – DONORS RUSH TO SUPPORT PLANNED PARENTHOOD; Susan G. Komen for the … to defund Planned Parenthood,”
    ONE IN FIVE AMERICAN WOMEN HAS CHOSEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOR HEALTH CARE AT LEAST ONCE IN HER LIFE.
    Throughout its history PPFA has experienced support, controversy, protests, and violent attacks.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Even if a conservative wins the primary election on this defunding agenda..
    In the long run? WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
    More women vote than men.
    Women will VOTE to protect their trusted, affordable healthcare and the constitutional rights provided by Planned Parenthood.
    —————————————————————————————
    WHO ARE THEY?
    We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.
    For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.
    ————————————————————–
    CONGRESS PLANNED AND LEGALIZED THE “CLINICAL RESEARCH“.Defined as, research conducted with HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS…..
    —————————————————————————–
    Planned Parenthood planned for BIRTH CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS THAT MATTER
    2015 THE ENTIRE RANGE OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH AND ECONOMIC ISSUES.
    Abstinence
    Abusive Relationships
    Adoption
    AIDS
    Anatomy
    Birth Control for Men
    Birth Control Implant
    Birth Control Patch
    Birth Control Pill
    Birth Control Ring
    Birth Control Shot
    Birth Control Sponge
    Breast Cancer
    Breast Exams
    Breastfeeding
    Cervical Cap
    Chancroid
    Chlamydia
    Colposcopy
    Condom
    Copper IUD
    Crabs
    Cryotherapy
    Dental Dams
    Diaphragm
    Dysmenorrhea
    Ectopic Pregnancy
    Female Condom
    Fertility awareness
    Gender Identity
    Genital Warts
    Gonorrhea
    Healthy Relationships
    Hepatitis
    Herpes
    How Pregnancy Happens
    HPV
    HPV Test
    HPV Vaccine
    Infertility
    Infertility (Men)
    Infertility (Women)
    Intersex
    LEEP
    Mammograms
    Masturbation
    Men and Urinary Tract Infections
    Menopause
    Miscarriage
    Molluscum Contagiosum
    Outercourse
    Parenting
    Pelvic Exam
    PID
    Pre-Pregnancy Health
    Pregnancy Options
    Prenatal Care
    Pull-Out Method
    Scabies
    Sex
    Sexual Orientation
    Sexual Pleasure
    Spermicide
    Stages of Pregnancy
    Sterilization (Women)
    Syphilis
    Testicular Cancer
    Transgender
    Trich
    Urinary Tract Infection
    Vasectomy
    Yeast Infection
    Abortion
    Abortion Pill
    Abortion Procedures
    – See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/#sthash.UEp9Evyj.dpuf
    This entry was posted in A Question of “WHAT ELSE?”, A Womans Right and Vote?, FACTS are troublesome things, Hello Congress is anybody home?, Learning From History?, Our Voice in WA DC, The Good vs. the Bad and the Ugly, The Power of Cyberspace, This Is The Law.


  • Skagit River Water Un-Tapped

    A BIG WIN FOR “WATER FOR LIFE, NOT FOR PROFIT!”
    THE BIGGEST TAPPED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    ANACORTES DEAL FOR SELLING OF FIVE million gallons of Skagit River water a day for the next 50 years, TO A PRIVATE BOTTLING COMPANY HAS DRIED UP.
    ————————————————————
    Story © 2013 Associated Press
    ANACORTES, Wash Will Not Be Home To Enormous Bottling Plant
    ————————————————————
    Historic media on Skagit River WATER

    Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin,

    Dec. 15, 2012 Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its [Water]Lawsuit

    “WATER FOR LIFE, NOT FOR PROFIT!”

    In addition, my opinion is that without supporting compromise of the Skagit River Basin water issue while promoting the sale of five million gallons of water per day to Tethys Enterprises for a beverage bottling plant, the City of Anacortes–which represents its citizens–is a lousy neighbor.
    ————————————————————-

    “TAPPED” THE SELLING OF OUR WATER
    From the “TAPPED” water on the East coast by Nestles a Swiss Company, to Anacortes WA, the sale of Skagit River Basin water, 5 million gallons of water a day sold to a private bottle water company is the BIGGEST TAPPED WATER in the United States of America. While, 6000 farmers and private property owners are left with ZERO water rights in the Skagit River Basin under the WA State DOE Water Rules.
    (read more on “Intro to deprived of our water”)
    —————————————————————–
    The facts on Skagit River WATER
    6000 farmers and rural landowners DENIED WATER in the …
    citizenreviewonline.org/6000-farmers-and-rural-landowners-denied-wate…‎
    Nov 6, 2012 – One couple on this “JUST WATER Alliance Video has owned and paid taxes on their retirement property in Skagit County for 25 years.
    ————————————————————–
    Just Water Alliance | Defending Water for Life in California
    defendingwater.net/california/tag/just-water-alliance/‎
    Dec 15, 2012 – Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its … Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Dec.
    —————————————————————

    Story © 2013 Associated Press

    ANACORTES, Wash Will Not Be Home To Enormous Bottling Plant

    Tethys had planned to build the largest beverage bottling plant in the country.

    Some opponents even claimed Tethys was just a front for companies like Coca-Cola or Nestle to come in.

    The city signed a deal three years ago to sell 5 million gallons of Skagit River water a day for the next 50 years to a company called Tethys.

    ——————————————————————
    AP News
    ANACORTES, Wash. – Plans to build a controversial water bottling plant in Anacortes are unraveling because the company planning the project has backed out.
    KUOW reports the city signed a deal three years ago to sell 5 million gallons of Skagit River water a day for the next 50 years to a company called Tethys.
    The proposal attracted debate in the community.
    Some residents feared the company would transfer its water rights to a larger company like Coca-Cola or Nestle and that it wouldn’t create jobs.
    Tethys had planned to build the largest beverage bottling plant in the country.
    One city council member, who opposed the water bottling project, says he wants to make sure the city does not transfer the water rights to another company.
    But Anacortes Mayor Dean Maxwell says deal is dead.
    —————————————————-

    More Information
    The Background
    the Anacortes City council saw this as a business decision and function of the city’s water utility and was not subject to public comment. The study session is the first public meeting on the proposal, and no public comment is accepted.

    Residents cite a lack of transparency in proceedings

    citizens questioned the legality of reviewing a petition to review a urban growth area change without a project-specific plan.

    The county’s legal council notes in a memo that the commissioners should review project-specific components of the proposal, such as impacts to water resources and traffic.

    Sept. 10: Mayor’s office announces Tethys’ decision to terminate the project.
    —————————————————————–

    Related Documents
    City of Anacortes Press Release
    Posted: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:09 am | Updated: 10:23 am, Wed Sep 11, 2013.
    By Mark Stayton
    ANACORTES — Tethys Enterprises has decided to withdraw plans to build a massive bottling plant here, according to a letter from Tethys to the mayor.
    In a press release sent Tuesday afternoon from the city, Mayor Dean Maxwell says Anacortes will continue to look for development and job opportunities.
    The Tethys letter is undated, and it was not clear how long the city has known about the decision. The mayor was unavailable for
    immediate comment Tuesday afternoon.
    The proposal sought to build a 1-million-square-foot bottling facility that could use up to 5 million gallons of water from the city’s 55 million gallon-per-day allotment. The plant was planned to locate south of March Point near the intersection of Stevenson and Reservation roads.
    In 2010, at the first public meeting about the proposal, City Council approved a contract to sell Tethys water through 2050, provided the company find a 30-acre or larger plot located
    within city limits or its growth area that had access to rail lines.
    Since then, the community has been bitterly divided on the proposal at public meetings — pitting concerns about the environment and water resources, as well as questions about the facility and governmental transparency against the need for industry and jobs in the region.
    Maxwell has defended his actions in helping bring the Tethys proposal to Anacortes by saying that the city’s municipal utility has an obligation to provide water to businesses that locate there, and he is head of that utility.
    At a mayor’s candidate forum held in July, Maxwell said the contract was put in place to make sure the company sets up a local manufacturing facility here instead of
    transporting the water elsewhere.
    Maxwell could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.
    At an Anacortes Chamber of Commerce meeting held last September, Tethys CEO Steve Winter said the facility would employ at least 540 people.
    Maxwell’s press release Tuesday states that finding industry to create jobs remains a priority.
    “The Tethys project was an opportunity for our community to provide living wage jobs, advanced technology, and a continued commitment to environmental sensibility,” he said in the press release. “While Tethys has decided to cease its efforts to locate a foodgrade beverage manufacturing facility in the City, the City will continue to look for other development and job creating opportunities.”
    Maxwell said in his statement that the safeguards in the water agreement, including
    stipulations that the plant be located within city limits or growth area, worked as they were intended.
    Winter’s letter said that while the project has “gained viability” over time, Tethys had a variety of reasons to terminate it. He also said he and his partners have been offered other opportunities elsewhere.
    “Now more than ever there is a need for the sweeping environmental improvements and economic and social benefits our project offers to the beverage industry and our region,” Winter said in the letter. Messages seeking comment from Winter Tuesday afternoon were not returned.