+menu-


  • Category Archives Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA)
  • WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

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

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

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

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

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

    Clallam County

    Southwest

    Under way

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

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Ecology shoreline planner in your region or contact Bev Huether at bev.huether@ecy.wa.gov.

     

     

     

     

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015 – SMP Public Comment (159) Clallam County Planning Commission Public … WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas–warped-data/.

    I did attend the last two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ———————————————————————

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

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    WAC WAC WAC

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

    Elected Director Mary Ellen Winborn, 

    Department of Community Development

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    AFTER OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION UNDER DOE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS.

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58, specifically:

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

     ——————————————

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/02/ecologys-back-amended-plus-smp-wacs/SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 (Sep 2, 2015) – Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND …
    MARCH 1, 2015
    ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”
    —————————————————————-

    Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

    Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature … The Act applies to all 39 counties and more than 200 towns and cities that have …

    ————————————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Updates

    Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. For the complete schedules, see DOE’s Shoreline Master Program Update Schedule page. For the status of individual jurisdictions, see Status of Local Shoreline Master Plans: Comprehensive Updates.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update in 2010, 2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    On March 30, 2015 I called it a good read “FALSE NEWS”

    Behind My Back | Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/30/3370/

    Mar 30, 2015 – Clallam County SMP Update CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS MARCH …

    ———————————————————

    AFTER THE FACT CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS WERE INFORMED

    Any comments received after February 27 2015 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners

    The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    SMP Comments received after the Planning Commission deadline:

    NOTE:

    Any comments received after the February 27, 2015 Planning Commission deadline will still be part of the record, but will only go to the Board of County Commissioners. They are linked in this set below.

    ~~ SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION FOR COMMENTS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~

    2017 Comments

    2016 Comments

    2015 Comments

    2015 Comments

    011017-EBowen 021716-PHewett 040215 – EBowen 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 040816-PHewett 041615 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 040816-BMcGonigel 041915- PHwewtt 030115 – PHewett
    040816-PHewett 042015 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    051616-PHewett 052815 _ EBowen 031315 – KSpees
    081016-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    090916-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    091016-LPerry 070315 – PHewett 031515 – KSpees
    092716-EBowen 070415 – PHewett 031815 – KSpees
    100716-EBowen 070415 – LPerry 031815 – PHewett
    101616-EBowen 080215 – PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090215-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090815-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    033015 – PHewett
    033115 – KSpees

     

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Public Comments (pre- 2014 )

     The comment codes are as follows:

      • A = Aquaculture
      • B = Buffers
      • CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report
      • CR = Consistency Review Report – Straits
      • G = General SMP Comment
      • G20 = General SMP Comment – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • ICR = Inventory & Characterization Report – Straits
      • ICR20 = Inventory & Characterization Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • NNL = No Net Loss
      • PPS = Public Participation Strategy
      • SED = Shoreline Environmental Designation
      • SRP – Shoreline Restoration Plan
      • SMP = Shoreline Master Prgram secondary draft (11/2012)
      • SMPdraft = Shoreline Master Program preliminary draft (3/2012)
      • V = Visioning Statement Report – Straits
      • V20 = Visioning Statement Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20

    To include your comments:

    Email Us

    Email Us
    To receive SMP related emails, click “Email Us” above and type “Add to Contact List” in the subject line and send.

    SMP Comments (pre 2014)

    date (mmddyy)- name/agency (first initial & last name ex. JDoe)
    comment code (G; ICR; etc., see above).

    The SMP Update comments below are listed in reverse chronological order.

    2013 Comments

    October 2013

    September 2013:

    August 2013:

    July 2013:

    June 2013:

    May 2013:

    April 2013:

    March 2013:

    February 2013:

    January 2013

     

    2012 Comments

    December 2012:

    November 2012:

    October 2012:

    September 2012:

    August 2012:

    July 2012:

    June 2012:

    May 2012:

    April 2012:

    March 2012:

    February 2012:

    January 2012:

     

    2009-2011 Comments

    December 2011:

    November 2011:

    October 2011:

    September 2011:

    August 2011:

    July 2011:

    June 2011:

    May 2011:

    April 2011:

    March 2011:

    February 2011:

    January 2011:

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2010:

    2009:

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

     CLICK ON CLALLAM COUNTY LINK….

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    Department of Community Development

    Photo - Mary Ellen Winborn

    Mary Ellen Winborn,
    Director

    The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive planning, zoning, and processing of development and building permits.

    Our mission is to promote public safety, a healthy environment, and a strong local economy, and to provide courteous, timely, and efficient service to the public.

    Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.

    Courthouse Hours and Holidays.

    Contact Us

     

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update

    Shorelines in Clallam County are protected by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and by the Clallam County SMP (see links below).  This website provides SMP Update information and links to local and state shoreline-related materials.

    Shoreline Permits are issued by the Clallam County Department of Community Development Planning Division.
    For information regarding shoreline permits or shoreline exemptions, please call 360-565-2616.

    Many of our documents are in portable document format (PDF), and some are very large.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update : November 2014 NEW draft

    Current SMP Comments

    Comments under review by Planning Commission

    Comments

    Click above to send us your comment~

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)
    NOTE:  The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    Final steps:

    The Planning Commission will submit a recommended Final Draft SMP to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption.

    The BOCC will hold a public hearing(s) on the PC recommendation.

    The County adopted SMP will be submitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for additional public review and state approval.

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    Email Us MailGuy

    To receive information regarding the SMP Update,
    click “Email Us“to the left.
    Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line.Or call:  360-417-2563

    Shoreline Master Program
    SMP

    SMP Presentations &

    Related Events:

     

    Upcoming Planning Commission Worksessions and meeting minutes

     

    Living with the Coast Workshop

    backArrow Back to SMP Home Page  

    Content Updated May 5, 2015

     

    ————————————————————————-

    It was hell for private shoreline property owners that sat as members of the SMP Advisory Committee. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT STILL IS.

    PDF]Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Please read this … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/636_LPerry.pdf
    Jul 4, 2015 – The SMP Advisory Committee that represent the 3300 Clallam .... Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the … as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities ….. Trouve à http://www.clallam.net/. … ePub(iPone/iPad/iPod) FB2(Android,PC) PDF MOBI(Kindle) …
    ————————————————————————–

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update

    Sep 2, 2015?

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/638_PHewett.pdf
    Sep 2, 2015 – Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State … Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and …

    ————————————————————-

    And, March 1, 2017 ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58,

     specifically:

    ————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:34 PM

    Subject: The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser

    The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    March 1, 2017 Ecology is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58, specifically:

     

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/1506ov.html

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

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

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!


  • Battered by Dam Removal – Elwha Bridge

    Battered by Dam Removal Elwha Bridge Destroyed

    A DAM TRAGEDY THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE

    MARCH 11, 2016

    Andy Ritchie, project hydrologist with the National Park Service at Olympic National Park, EXPLAINED THAT DAM REMOVAL HAS ALLOWED THE RIVER NOT ONLY TO RUN FREE, BUT TO GATHER WOOD, SEDIMENT AND ROCK FROM ITS WATERSHED — TOOLS WITH WHICH IT IS REWORKING ITS CHANNEL.

    THE ELWHA IS MUSCLING BACK AND FORTH, “BATTERING” ITS BANKS WITH ENTIRE TREES IT CHEWS DOWN, and building massive jams of logs. “It’s alive,” Ritchie said.

    ENJOY THIS PICTURE OF WHAT’S BATTERED AND WHAT’S IS BATTERING


    US 101 Elwha River Bridge

    A logging truck makes its way across the U.S. 101 bridge over the Elwha River last week. (Keith Thorpe/Peninsula Daily News)

    A logging truck makes its way across the U.S. 101 bridge over the Elwha River last week. (Keith Thorpe/Peninsula Daily News) DEC 30, 2016

    —————————————————————————-

    What’s wrong with these pictures?

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge WSDOT website

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge

    MISLEADING PICTURE?

    MISLEADING PICTURE?
    Replacement is preferred option for Elwha River bridge. by Associated Press. Sunday, December 25th 2016. Photo shows the Highway 101 bridge over the …

    —————————————————————————-

    Forks council joins call for new Elwha bridge, new alignment …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/forkscouncil-joins-call-for-new-elwhabridge-new-…

    Dec 30, 2016 – PORT ANGELES — The Forks City Council has joined the chorus of … state to replace the battered U.S. Highway 101 Elwha River bridge on a …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/forks-council-joins-call-for-new-elwhabridge-new-…

    DEC 30, 2016… THE STATE TO REPLACE THE “BATTERED” U.S. HIGHWAY 101 ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE … at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-elwhariverbridge, shows a new bridge built …

    ———————————————————————

    HERE ARE THE LINKS TO MAKE A WSDOT PUBLIC COMMENT

    WSDOT – Olympic Region Weekly Construction and Traffic Updates

    www.wsdot.wa.gov › Regions › Olympic Region › Olympic Region – Construction

    3 days ago – CONSTRUCTION No active construction projects are occurring at this time. MAINTENANCE Highway: US 101 Region: Olympic County: …

    SCROLL DOWN CLICK ON  LINK

    1. For more information about the bridge or to see alternatives being considered for the future, please visit elwhariverbridge.com.

    2. US 101 Elwha River Bridge

    3. Information for the US 101 Elwha River Bridge is available at the following web page that features

    All of three of the links above take you to the same place (screen)

    LINK TAKES YOU HERE SEE THAT “COMMENTS” BELOW squint it’s in small print.

    It is where I finally made my  disgruntled comment to WSDOT.

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge

    US 101 Elwha River Bridge

    —————————————————————————-

    WHAT A NICE MISLEADING PICTURE

    WHEN WAS THE ABOVE WSDOT ELWHA BRIDGE PICTURE TAKEN?

    want to make a comment on the pictures?

    Comments

    ANOTHER NICE MISLEADING PICTURE

    WHEN WAS THE BELOW ELWHA BRIDGE PICTURE TAKEN?

    Replacement is preferred option for Elwha River bridge | KOMO

    komonews.com/news/local/replacement-is-preferredoption-for-elwhariverbridge

    Replacement is preferred option for Elwha River bridge. by Associated Press. Sunday, December 25th 2016. Photo shows the Highway 101 bridge over the …

    ————————————————————————–
    I finally found this on line today documentation  and facts

     US 101 Elwha River Bridge – Library

    Design Alternatives – US 101 Elwha River Bridge  (pdf 729kb)

    We encourage you to review the alternatives and send your thoughts about them to WSDOT.

    ————————————————————————–

    Elwha River claims section of road with massive washout …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20151123/…/311239985

    Peninsula Daily News

    Nov 22, 2015Peninsula Daily News

    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — The Elwha River flexed its new muscles during the most recent round of storms and severely damaged Olympic Hot Springs Road and effectively buried a campground in silt.

    When the water receded, Olympic National Park officials discovered the water had washed out a 60-foot-long section of Olympic Hot Springs Road, and much of Elwha Campground had nearly disappeared under more than a foot of silt and debris, Barb Maynes, spokeswoman for the park, had said over the weekend.

    “Other areas in the [Elwha] valley have seen damage — extensive damage,” Maynes said.

    Maynes said there is no established timeline yet for repairs or reopening damaged Elwha roads and campgrounds.

     ————————————————————————

    MARCH 11, 2016 THE ELWHA IS TRULY A RIVER GONE WILD,

    Elwha Valley access limited after river wrecks campgrounds, road  VIEW

    Olympic National Park is grappling with recreation choices as the restored river gives lessons in co-existing with nature. Here’s how to find your way in…

    ELWHA VALLEY, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK —

    THE ELWHA IS TRULY A RIVER GONE WILD, DEVOURING THE MAIN ROAD INTO THE ELWHA VALLEY AT OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, AND DEMOLISHING TWO CAMPGROUNDS.

    AND THAT WAS JUST IN ITS FIRST WINTER FLOOD SINCE DAM REMOVAL.

    THERE’S SURELY MORE TO COME, CREATING A QUANDARY FOR PARK OFFICIALS CHALLENGED WITH PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS INTO THE RIVER VALLEY THE PUBLIC JUST PAID $350 MILLION TO RESTORE.

    Andy Ritchie, project hydrologist with the National Park Service at Olympic National Park, EXPLAINED THAT DAM REMOVAL HAS ALLOWED THE RIVER NOT ONLY TO RUN FREE, BUT TO GATHER WOOD, SEDIMENT AND ROCK FROM ITS WATERSHED — TOOLS WITH WHICH IT IS REWORKING ITS CHANNEL.

    THE ELWHA IS MUSCLING BACK AND FORTH, BATTERING ITS BANKS WITH ENTIRE TREES IT CHEWS DOWN, and building massive jams of logs. “It’s alive,” Ritchie said.

    ——————————————————————————

    SINCE THE DAM REMOVAL , THE ELWHA IS TRULY A RIVER GONE WILD AND THERE’S SURELY MORE TO COME, CREATING A QUANDARY

    I found this on line today documentation  and facts  US 101 Elwha River Bridge – Library

    Design Alternatives – US 101 Elwha River Bridge  (pdf 729kb)

    On Dec. 20, 2016, WSDOT announced that Alternatives 1-4 had been removed from further consideration. Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 are continuing to be evaluated based on public input, funding availability, environmental considerations, the condition of the existing bridge and detour routes, real estate requirements, and other factors.

    Historical Timeline of Events:
    1913 – Elwha Dam was built
    1926 – The US 101 Elwha River Bridge was built
    1927 – Glines Canyon Dam was built
    1954 – US 101 Elwha River Bridge was widened from a 20-foot bridge to 28 feet
    2012 – Elwha Dam was removed
    2014 – GLINES CANYON DAM WAS REMOVED

     TODAY THE RIVER ROARS THROUGH THE TIGHT ROCK CANYON ONCE PLUGGED BY ELWHA DAM.

    ——————————————————————–

    2014 – GLINES CANYON DAM WAS REMOVED

    Elwha River claims section of road with massive washout …

    SINCE THE NOV 17, 2015

    PDN Reported this on Nov.23, 2015

    —————————————————————————

    MARCH 11, 2016 THE ELWHA IS TRULY A RIVER GONE WILD

    AND THERE’S SURELY MORE TO COME…

    CREATING A QUANDARY?

    ———————————————————-

    SEP 28, 2016

    Crews examining erosion at Elwha River bridge to cause series of …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/crews-examining-erosion-at-elwhariverbridge-to-c…

    SEP 28, 2016PORT ANGELES —SEDIMENT WASHING DOWN FROM THE FORMER LAKE ALDWELL HAS ERODED THE AREAS AROUND THE PIERS FOR THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE ON …

     —————————————————————–

    Elwha River bridge could need replacement after dam removal | Q13 …

    q13fox.com/2016/10/…/elwhariverbridge-could-need-replacement-after-dam-remo…

    OCT 20, 2016  PORT ANGELES, Wash. — Officials say the U.S. Highway 101 bridge over the Elwha River could need replacement or retrofitting

    NOW THAT TWO DAMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.

    The Peninsula Daily News reports that THE NOW-WILD RIVER is eroding the riverbed under the bridge. When state Department of Transportation crews drilled bore samples earlier this month, they learned that the bridge’s two piers sit atop gravel — not bedrock, as they had hoped.

    The bridge was built in 1926, after the Glines Canyon and Elwha dams were constructed. With THE DAMS REMOVED AS PART OF A $325 MILLION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PROJECT TO RESTORE THE ELWHA RIVER TO ITS WILD STATE, the state has placed boulders at the base of the piers to stem erosion. But that’s just a short term fix.

    The DOT says the bridge remains safe to drive on. EXPERTS ARE MONITORING it closely to detect any movement.

    —————————————————————————-

    WSDOT – Olympic Region Weekly Construction and Traffic Updates

    www.wsdot.wa.gov › Regions › Olympic Region › Olympic Region – Construction

    2 days ago – View Clallam County construction map (pdf 270 kb) CONSTRUCTIONDESCRIPTION: ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE MONITORING. Work schedule: No …

    Highway: US 101 Region:OlympicCounty: Clallam Location: Milepost(s) 238.7 to 239.5
    Contact: Doug Adamson, 360-357-2716
    Description: ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE MONITORING
    Work schedule: No scheduled impacts.

    For more information about the bridge or to see alternatives being considered for the future, please visit elwhariverbridge.com.

    Preventive measures
    The increased water flow resulting from two dams being removed from the river have caused much material to wash downstream. Since 2012, the riverbed at the bridge has lowered 14 feet.

    The lowered riverbed revealed the piers’ seals, promoting WSDOT to do borings to verify the depth of the foundations. The borings, done in October 2016, revealed that the foundations are on gravel, not bedrock. This finding was in contrast to what the original 1926 engineering plans showed. As a result, WSDOT immediately installed over 3,300 tons of riprap (large boulders) around both piers to help prevent further erosion. Additional monitoring using tilt meters, crack meters, water flow meters, surveys and visual observations are also taking place.

    The End Result
    WSDOT is exploring several options to keep traffic moving around the Olympic Peninsula. We believe that a reliable US 101 crossing over the Elwha River is vital to the well-being of the communities on the Olympic Peninsula. To that end, we have removed Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (options that did not include a bridge) from further consideration because they do not meet that need. Additionally, we have removed Alternative 4 (retrofitting the existing bridge) as a long-term solution due to the 90-year-old age of the structure.

    We are still evaluating the three remaining options that include building a new bridge using three different approaches. We do not have a firm timeline for a decision, but are moving forward aggressively.

    COMMENT…CLICK BELOW…

    We encourage you to review the alternatives and send your thoughts about them to WSDOT.

    ———————————————————————————–

    YEP…THE EXPERTS ARE MONITORING…..

    ————————————————————————–

    Replacement is preferred option for Elwha River bridge | KOMO

    komonews.com/news/local/replacement-is-preferred-option-for-elwhariverbridge

    Replacement is preferred option for Elwha River bridge.

    BY ASSOCIATED PRESS. SUNDAY, DECEMBER 25TH 2016.PHOTO SHOWS THE HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE OVER THE …

    THE Peninsula Daily News REPORTS THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED NEARLY 300 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON WHETHER TO ABANDON, RETROFIT OR REPLACE THE DILAPIDATED U.S. HIGHWAY 101 ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE. IF ABANDONED, TRAFFIC WOULD BE REROUTED ONTO STATE HIGHWAY 112.

    —————————————————————————————

    State officials tell of possibility Elwha River bridge will be closed …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/state-officials-tell-of-possibility-elwhariverbridge-…

    NOV 11, 2016 – PORT ANGELES — If the Elwha River bridge on U.S. Highway 101 west … also close as crews eventually work to retrofit or replace the bridge.

    —————————————————————

    Jan 11, 2017 The bottom line

    MARCH 11, 2016 THE ELWHA IS TRULY A RIVER GONE WILD

    AND THERE’S SURELY MORE TO COME…

    CREATING A QUANDARY?

    Design Alternatives – US 101 Elwha River Bridge  (pdf 729kb)

    We encourage you to review the alternatives and send your thoughts about them to WSDOT.

    For more information about the bridge or to see alternatives being considered for the future, please visit elwhariverbridge.com.


  • Drought? Piped Irrigation,Tailwater, BMP

    Drought? Piped Irrigation, Tailwater FC , BMP

    In response to three (3) questions on BMP for Dungeness drought irrigation water.

    Asked after the Sequim Community Drought Forum

    ——————————————————————–

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it,

    but what happens if it doesn’t get used?

    Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does?

    Or is there an end to the pipe?

    —————————————————-

    Great drought questions. Complicated answer.

    —————————————————————-

    START HERE

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …  a 47 page report

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    snippets from the  47 page report

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of best management practice BMPs from Task 2

    (i.e. IRRIGATION PIPING and septic system repairs) for remediating FECAL COLIFORM (FC) BACTERIA.

    ———————————————————————-

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants (fecal coliform (FC)) entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated.

    (all used for irrigating?)

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites. While this was statistically significant,

    it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery,

    However, the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    —————————————————————-

    Expanded snippets, the full 47 page report is online

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    Effectiveness Monitoring of Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Nutrients in the Dungeness Watershed, Washington

    Battelle PNWD-4054-3

    Pacific Northwest Division

    Richland, Washington 99352

    Prepared for:

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in fulfillment of Task 3 (Effectiveness Monitoring Study) of the Dungeness River Watershed Final Work plan for the EPA Targeted Watershed Grant Program (2004)

    October 2009

     This study was conducted as part of an Environmental Protection Agency EPA Targeted Watershed Grant awarded to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 2004 that focused surface water cleanup efforts in the lower Dungeness Watershed and Dungeness Bay in Washington State

     http://www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/FINAL_EM_RPT%28Oct_09%29v_2.pdf

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated. Median concentrations from the two upstream stations were 10 and 128 CFU/100 ml.

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites.

    One marine station, DOH-110 was significantly different before and after piping. However, the geometric mean at this site before piping

    was 7 CFU/100 ml and after the piping was 4 CFU/100 ml. While this was statistically significant, it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery, however the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    In the case where an irrigation ditch was piped to eliminate tailwater, but the piped ditch closely coupled the path of a stormwater runoff conveyance into the Bay, the benefits were reduced.

    However, the potential source of contamination to this ditch is from a much smaller geographic area than prior to piping when several miles of open irrigation ditch led to this discharge location

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs from Task 2(i.e. irrigation piping and septic system repairs)for remediating fecal coliform bacteria. The my core mediation best management practice BMP effectiveness is discussed in a separate report (Thomas et al. 2009)

    The overall results of this study have not shown an improvement in surface water quality with respect to fecal coliform bacteria in the Dungeness watershed or Dungeness Bay within the last 10 years. However, water quality conditions have not declined within the watershed either.

    This is notable when considering the population within the  Dungeness watershed has steadily increased during this time period.

    ————————————————————————-

    In fact, asking your three short questions was the prelude to the following.

    Finding the answer was a bit more complicated. It took several hours of research going from one website to another.

    However, it was time well spent, in connecting the dots, many vital failures of public notification shall now become open, transparent and someone must be held accountable.

    In one of the following documents the FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, failure of legal requirements for public notification of public meetings was mentioned and what remedial actions must be taken to comply with the WA State Public Meeting Act.

    This documented information of PUBLIC MEETINGS without legal, public notification, participation and public comment  SPANS A VERY LONG PERIOD IN TIME.

     ————————————————————————————-

    The more “We the People” know and can document, the better. Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere

    ———————————————————————–

    I found this.. I did not research it,  It was mentioned briefly at the Drought Forum, But who knew why?

    2015 Emergency Drought affect on More Creek Water users?

    Technical Memorandum – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/environment/…/SSA_Memo_Final.pdf

    Clallam County

    “Morse Creek is the largest of the independent drainages to salt water between the Dun- …. of 3,800′. It is the westernmost stream influenced directly by Dungeness area irrigation ….. Since 2000 the piping of many reaches of irrigation ditch has re- ….. Thus, the occurrence of baseflow in this reach expands and contracts up-.

    —————————————————————————-

     2015 Dungeness Watershed (7) irrigation systems

    More images for irrigation systems in the dungeness watershed

    one diagram shows two pipeline that end dumping into the bay

    ————————————————————

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), … The WUA has not drafted a proposal yet, but wanted to see first if the …

    ——————————————————————–

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Interlocal Agreement with Clallam County for Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) Planning…PIC Implementation I … finalizing the contract after removing Addendum A (relating to co-location of offices). … DUNGENESS IRRIGATION DISTRICT DITCH PIPING PROIECT’ in the amount of$l,0| 1.19. … Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), …

    ———————————————————————————–

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. AN EXTENSIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, WHICH DIVERTS RIVER.

    ————————————————————————–

    November 12, 2014 APPROVED Meeting Notes Dungeness …

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2014-11%20notes.pdf

    Nov 12, 2014 – Jennifer Bond, Clallam Conservation District … I. Introductions/Review Agenda/Review & Approve October DRMT Draft … District, provided an update presentation on the PIC (Pollution. Identification and Correction) Plan project status. …. Will look at opportunities for revising program in ways that would …

    —————————————————————————-

    October 23, 2014 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/…/agenda…/20141023_PIC_Agenda__Notes…

    Oct 23, 2014 – AGENDA. Pollution Identification & Correction Planning Meeting … Bond (CCD), Matt Heins (CCD), Stephanie Zurenko (DOE), Ivan … Jennifer and Andy gave a presentation on the draft PIC plan to the … Hansi also briefed the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s Natural Resources Committee on the status of the.

    ——————————————————————-

    My first Google search diagramhttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2015+dungeness+watershed+%287%29+irrigation+systems+diagram

    —————————————————————————-

    Documented questions on irrigation water

    —– Original Message —–

    From: “diane <

    To: “pearl hewett” <phew@wavecable.com>

    Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 3:56 PM

    Subject: Re: Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Pearl please forgive the silliness of my question.

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it, but what happens if it doesn’t get used? Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does? Or is there an end to the pipe? OK that is my question for today.

    ——————————————————————–

    Diane,

    Please forgive me for MY DOCUMENTED, convoluted extremely complex and difficult to follow intricately folded, twisted, coiled, complicated, sometimes, depends, on usually, or not, response to your (3) DROUGHT irrigation water questions.

    Pearl

     


  • SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    My SMP Public Comment #166

    Regarding the Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

    A  new summary of public comment document, undisclosed to the public, 32 page SMP document, generated for, to be used by and considered by, the Clallam County Planning Commission in their decision making process on the SMP Update Draft.

    Entitled: Summary of Comments Received (thru Feb 27, 2015) on the November 2014 Draft Shoreline Master Plan. (SMP) Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated summary of public comments “MATRIX” from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments. (OF THE  617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:33 AM

    I am requesting that this draft document be placed online and made public.

    —————————————————————————

    If you like SMP and other  Matrix Mumbo Jumbo? (continue reading)

    Mumbo Jumbo by definition, language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment.

    Below is a running commentary

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    I sent an email asking ten (10) questions?

    Response? Public notification?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Subject: SMP Update

    This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated public comment matrix from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments

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

    Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:33 AM

    Subject: Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

    The undisclosed SMP Clallam County document is a 32 page summary of SMP written public comments received from Aug 18, 2014 thru Feb 27, 2015, on the November 2014 Draft Shoreline Master Program. (SMP) Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft.

    Was this SMP Summary draft on the Agenda for the March 4, 2015 public meeting?

    It was a handout at a public meeting on March 4, 2015 and it is not on line for Public viewing?

    There is no authors name on the document? There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other legal entity requested that the document to be created?

    Who is responsible for this 32 page summary?

    It has? (SMP) – Clallam County Planning Commission Review Draft?

    Did the DCD director Mary Ellen Winborn ask for this document?

    Did the Planning Commission Members take a vote and request that it be written?

    Who wrote the document?

    Did DCD Steve Grey Deputy Director and Planning Manager just decide by himself to provide this undisclosed summary document at the taxpayer’s expense?

    I am requesting that this draft document be placed online and made public.

    RCW 42.30.130

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    RCW 42.30.130

    Violations.— Mandamus or injunction Any person may commence an action either by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of stopping violations or preventing threatened violations of this chapter by members of a governing body.

    PUBLIC SERVANTS   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

    All public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Does Clallam County Government accept that the  common law Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to  the 3300 – local vested private shoreline property owning effected and the other concerned Clallam County citizens and business on the Public SMP Update?

    The members of the public, citizens that requested To receive information regarding the SMP Update,  click “Email Us“to the left. Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line. Or call:  360-417-2563 WERE NOT CONTACTED OR NOTIFIED.

    The 32 page summary of SMP comments was offensive to say the very least.

    Please respond to my questions

    One of the 3300 SMP effected/affected private shoreline property owners. Author of 165 SMP public comments, submitted between 2011 and 2015, for the protection of private property in Clallam County, including business, community development, to protect and improve the economic viability of an 11% tax basis in Clallam County

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————-

    More From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Brief discussion on March 4, 2015.  No action was taken at this meeting.  The Planning Commission was provided notebooks containing written comments received August 2014 – February 27, 2015.  These comments include those public comments received after the November 5, 2014 public release of the 2014 Draft SMP, through the Planning Commission February public hearing process, and extended public comment period (thru February 27, 2015).  The Planning Commission was also provided with a partial DRAFT written comment summary matrix of the written comments received between August 2014 – February 27,2015.  No discussion on specific comments was initiated at this time.  Oral public testimony provided is in the Planning Commission meeting minutes.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  The Planning Commission will be provided an updated public comment “MATRIX” from written and oral comments received on the 2014 Draft SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments. (OF THE  617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    Wednesday, March 18, 2015 commencing at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the Clallam County Courthouse

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

    The Planning Commission is charged with providing a recommendation to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners on a Draft SMP.  UPCOMING WORK BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FOCUS ON REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE 2014 DRAFT SMP.  Here is their upcoming meeting schedule:

    March 18, 2015:  This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally organizational.  THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE PROVIDED AN UPDATED PUBLIC COMMENT “MATRIX” FROM WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE 2014 DRAFT SMP.  Both County staff and Planning Commission need time to read through the 160+ comments.  It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will initiate discussion on specific issue areas and comments received at their April regular meetings.

    —————————————————————————————

    http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/617_KSpees.pdf

    THERE ARE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE

    And, somebody? prepared an SMP public oral and written comments  “matrix” On 160+ of the 617+?

    One must ask what is the definition of a matrix?

    “matrix”  by definition, A situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained: matrix. Mathematics A rectangular array of numeric or algebraic quantities subject to mathematical operations, something (such as a situation or a set of conditions) in which something else develops or forms. : something shaped like a pattern of lines and spaces.

    “matrix” quantities subject to mathematical operations?

    617 SMP public comments? 160 + SMP written and oral comments to be reviewed?

    “matrix” Such as a situation or a set of conditions?

    Like the 457 SMP written Public Comments left out of the “matrix” mathematical operation? And? Who know’s how many oral comments?

    “SMP matrix” Indeed, something shaped like a PATTERN…..

    ————————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

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

    Sep 17, 2014 – Specifically, The THOUSAND (1000) WRONGS that I am … UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ————————————————————————-

    I have never been a fan of “New Math” and, I certainly object to this SMP Matrix Mumbo Jumbo,  language or ritual causing or intended to cause confusion or bewilderment).

    Am I? the only one of the 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners  that are bewildered and or confused by this SMP matrix of written and oral public comments?

    Is this NEW SMP matrix, prepared by somebody?  intended  to be ambiguous? biased? unfair? capricious? frivolous?  and confusing?

    I am just one of the affected 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners, that just happened to have submitted 165 written SMP update public comments and lord only knows, how many public oral comments on the SMP Update during the years I have spent, as a concerned citizen from Jan.26, 2011 to March 18, 2015,

    Plus oral and written comments during my volunteer time served,  as an important member of the citizens input committee (as described by and serving under Steve Gray, Planning Manager)

    I’m not a lawyer or an attorney,   I am JUST ONE of the affected 3300 Vested, Private Shoreline property owners, that shall be severely impacted and profoundly affected by the SMP 2014 Update.

    Thank God and the US Constitution for freedom of speech, I am Just asking?

    What was the legislated intent of the WA State Appearance of Fairness Doctrine? Does this apply to the local land use decisions being made on the Clallam County 2014 SMP Update?

    ——————————————————————-

    42.36.010
    Local land use decisions.

    Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local land use decisions shall be limited to the quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies as defined in this section. Quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies are those actions of the legislative body, planning commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of adjustment, or boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or other contested case proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do not include the legislative actions adopting, amending, or revising comprehensive, community, or neighborhood plans or other land use planning documents or the adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning amendment that is of area-wide significance.

    42.36.060
    Quasi-judicial proceedings — Ex parte communications prohibited, exceptions.

    During the pendency of any quasi-judicial proceeding, no member of a decision-making body may engage in ex parte communications with opponents or proponents with respect to the proposal which is the subject of the proceeding unless that person:

    (1) Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action; and

    (2) Provides that a public announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties’ rights to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each hearing where action is considered or taken on the subject to which the communication related. This prohibition does not preclude a member of a decision-making body from seeking in a public hearing specific information or data from such parties relative to the decision if both the request and the results are a part of the record. Nor does such prohibition preclude correspondence between a citizen and his or her elected official if any such correspondence is made a part of the record when it pertains to the subject matter of a quasi-judicial proceeding.

    [1984 c 191 § 1; 1982 c 229 § 6.]

    ———————————————————————————–

    The 2014 Clallam County SMP Update is the is the most restrictive Local land use decisions that has  ever been inflicted on 3300 Clallam County Vested, Private Shoreline property owners.

    ARE YOUR SMP PUBLIC OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “SMP 160+ MATRIX”?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Just saying…concerned citizens better bone up on the definition of this new DEFINITE catch-all word Clallam County government “MATRIX” concept, it is also being used by the Home Rule Charter Commission.

    DEFINITE  by definition, clearly defined or determined; not vague or general; fixed; precise; exact: a definite quantity; definite directions. 2. having fixed limits; bounded with precision:.

    Now I’ve gone and done it… an Oxymoron….

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

    Back to the Agenda..

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:35 PM

    Subject: SMP Update

     

    ·         April 1, 2015:  Work Session before the Planning Commission on public comments received on 2014 Draft SMP.

    ·         April 15, 2015:  Continued Planning Commission work session on the 2014 Draft SMP.

    ·         May/June, 2015:   Planning Commission agenda and issue area focus related to the 2014 Draft SMP to be determined based on work and progress made at April meetings.

    Planning Commission agendas can be viewed at:  http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/pcmeetings.html

    For more information, visit the County SMP Update Home Page at:   http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/smp.html

    Thank you again for your interest.

    Staff Contacts:

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager:  360-417-2520

    Kevin LoPiccolo, Principal Planner:  360-417-2322

    Deborah Kucipeck, Planner: 360-417-2563

     


  • Out of Towner’s Undue Influence?

    Out of  Towner’s Undue Influence?

    Open Public Meeting Act?

    LOCAL LEGAL Public Notification?

    LOCAL Public meetings?

    Who’s being notified?  And?  Who’s being invited?  to OUR LOCAL PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE NOT LOCAL.

    LOCAL NGO’S ETC.,  IN AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE, THE OUTCOME OF OUR  LOCAL ISSUES AND PROMOTE THEIR  SPECIAL INTERESTS AND PERSONAL AGENDAS,  ARE EMAILING OUT AND NOTIFYING HUGE LISTS to other NGO OUT of TOWNER’S etc., some are GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    THEY ARE EMAILED, NOTIFIED AND THEY DO COME TO LOCAL PUBLIC MEETINGS.

    One STARTLING LOCAL example has been brought to my attention.

    How HUGE can a local NGO’s email  invite list to OUT of TOWNER’S be?

    About THREE PAGES of open Cc: including names and email addresses

    What size is normal? for this local NGO’s email  invite list?

    About  THREE INCHES of open Cc: including names and email addresses

    ————————————————————————————

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    HISTORICALLY “STRIKE BREAKERS” were/are NOT LOCAL. LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWN Strike breakers WERE NOTIFIED, INVITED AND ENCOURAGED  TO THREATEN , PICKET, BLOCK, HARASS, EVEN PHYSICALLY  INTIMIDATE LOCAL CITIZENS AND PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    WHAT’S  THE DIFFERENCE?

    LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWNERS, NOT LOCALS? LARGE NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWNER’S,NGO’S  NOTIFIED, EMAILED AND INVITED TO COME TO LOCAL TOWNS AND CITIES, TO intimidate LOCAL CITIZENS and PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL.

    TO RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL MINING? COAL TRAINS? OIL TRAINS? PIPELINES? LOGGING? MILLS? ROAD CONSTRUCTION? LOCAL DEVELOPMENT? TAKE ALL OF OUR WATER, AND TO THREATEN THE ECONOMY OF  OUR LOCAL CITIZENS, OUR STATES AND EVEN OUR FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY?

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

    WHEN EVEN THE APPOINTED FEDERAL EPA IS MAKING THE ROUNDS IN THE ENTIRE U.S.A. WITH THE FEDERAL INTENT OF AND  TO…

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL MINING?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT COAL TRAINS?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT OIL TRAINS?

     RESTRICT, PROHIBIT PIPELINES?  PRESIDENTIAL VETO…

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT LOGGING?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT MILLS?

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT ROAD CONSTRUCTION, CLOSE AND DESTROY ROADS.

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT?

     BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND OTHERS,  TAKING OF OUR PUBLIC WATER,

     AND TO

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT AND THREATEN THE ECONOMY OF  OUR LOCAL CITIZENS,

    RESTRICT, PROHIBIT AND THREATEN OUR STATES AND EVEN OUR FEDERAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY?

    —————————————————————————————————

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT?

    ————————————————-

    One of the most THE MOST BLATANT LOCAL INTENTS? (of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly

    TO PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WELL.

    WAS THE SIERRA CLUB ALERT SENT, EMAILED  OUT  TO ITS HUGE MEMBERSHIP, TO CRASH  THE LOCAL SEQUIM PUBLIC FORUM WITH REP. DEREK KILMER, THAT WAS INTENDED TO PROVIDE LOCAL CITIZENS INPUT ON THE WILD OLYMPICS TO OUR LOCAL FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE.

    Indeed, the SIERRA CLUB ALERT did create a carpool and did provide THEIR 15-20 OUT OF TOWNERS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON NOT JUST THE LOCAL ELECTED GOVERNMENT, BUT STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED AS WELL.

    the bottom line?

    NGO OUT OF TOWNER’S HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE ON  AND OVER OUR LOCAL ELECTED GOVERNMENT, AND OUR STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ELECTED AS WELL.

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

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

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    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.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 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 from nonwetland 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 may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. 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.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • We Need a New Public Notice Act

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    CASES IN POINT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL

    1. THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    2. THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    3.The Pacific Coast Drone project

    4. The Navy residential training that terrorized Port Angeles WA

    5. The West End Broad Band meetings

    6. WA STATE PARKS BLUE RIBBON PANEL

    Best known as, what we don’t notify  American citizens about “CAN” hurt them,

    BUT… it will all be over before American people find out what the hell is going on, so no worries.

    American people won’t feel a thing until after the comment period has expired.

    Then American people can read all about it in the local newspaper, after it’s been passed, to find out what’s in it, what it is and what it was all about.

    —————————————————————————–

    WE NEED A NEW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    WOW… READ ALL ABOUT IT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    —————————————————————————————–

    HERE AND NOW? IN THE REAL WORLD of “We the People”

    WHAT IS THE LOCAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    IF YOU ARE HAVING A LOCAL, HUGE MULTI-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE SALE, RUMMAGE SALE OR FLEA MARKET?

    AND YOU REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO COME?

    You advertise in advance. YOU POST BIG SIGNS WITH THE WHERE AND WHEN every couple of blocks with BIG ARROWS TO KEEP REMINDING AND  INVITING  THE PUBLIC.

    LOCALLY YOU SEE A BIG RUMMAGE SALE BANNER ACROSS FRONT STREET

    AND OUR RADIO STATION KONP GOES ON AND ON ABOUT LOCAL GARAGE SALES

    AND GUYS WEARING SANDWICH BOARDS, DOING THE HAPPY DANCE IN FRONT OF LES SCHWABS, FOR A FLEA MARKET.

    The BIG BANNER across front street even notified THE HOMELESS to come on down to the Vern Burton center and  sign up for local HOMELESS programs and benefits.

    —————————————————————–

    I have mentioned the Real World phenomena  of advertising at Planning Commission Meetings.

    A private (government) response was? “This is not the real world”

    —————————————————————————————-

    OH..BUT… IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO  ADVERTISE AND NOTIFY THE AFFECTED LOCAL’S?

    As FOX NEWS,  Judge Jeanine would say….REALLY?

    —————————————————————————

    After the of the Navy’s PUBLIC FORUM FIASCO in PA,  on Electronic Warfare on  the Olympic Peninsula.

    FIASCO? by definition,  a total failure, especially a humiliating or ludicrous one

    —————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  WHAT CAN”WE THE PEOPLE DO”?

    Expose them, every time there is a  fatal error in Due Process

    Remind them of WA State Law RCW 42.56.030

    THE PEOPLE, IN DELEGATING AUTHORITY, DO NOT GIVE THEIR PUBLIC SERVANTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND WHAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM TO KNOW. etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    Use Clallam County Home Rule to create a more stringent  public notification and participation process by the county and for the residents of Clallam County, including COUNTY FUNDING for REAL WORLD  advertising.

    Great minds think alike

    HERE IS THE LOCAL SOLUTION

    Making Public Participation Legal – All-America City Award

    www.allamericacityaward.com/…/Making-PublicParticipationLegal_La…

    a ModeL sTaTe PubLic ParTiciPaTion acT: an aMendMenT To The sTaTe … that governs public participation. at the local, state, and federal levels, these laws ..

    Contents

    THREE MINUTES AT THE MICROPHONE

    HOW OUTDATED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION LAWS ARE CORRODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

    POLICY OPTIONS FOR STRENGTHENING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

    A MODEL MUNICIPAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ORDINANCE

    A MODEL STATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

    AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

    ACT AND GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

    MODEL CITY CHARTER LANGUAGE FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY BODIES

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

    THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT FOR VOICE

    RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

    ………………………………………………………………

    From the Deliberative Democracy Consortium:

    Tired of tense, unproductive public meetings? Want to embed better online and face-to-face processes in the way governments work? Making Public Participation Legal, a new publication of the National Civic League, includes a set of tools, including a model ordinance, set of policy options, and resource list, to help communities improve public participation. The publication is now available for free. Download here. 

    Most of the laws that govern public participation in the United States are over thirty years old. They do not match the expectations and capacities of citizens today, they predate the Internet, and they do not reflect the lessons learned in the last two decades about how citizens and governments can work together. Increasingly, public officials and staff are wondering whether the best practices in participation are in fact supported – or even allowed – by the law.

    Over the past year, the Working Group on Legal Frameworks for Public Participation has produced new tools, including a model local ordinance and model amendment to state legislation, in order to help create a more supportive, productive, and equitable environment for public participation. The Working Group has been coordinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC).

    Making Public Participation Legal is a publication of the National Civic League, with support from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. The Working Group also includes representatives of the American Bar AssociationInternational Municipal Lawyers AssociationNational League of CitiesPolicy Consensus InitiativeInternational Association for Public Participation, and International City/County Management Association, as well as leading practitioners and scholars of public participation.

    Communities that want to move forward with new public engagement processes and policies can also turn to an array of new resources being offered through ICMA’s Center for Management Strategies. CMS has assembled a team of leading engagement practitioners, research specialists, and subject matter experts who can help local governments develop and implement effective civic engagement programs.

    —————————————————————————

    WOW AND CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A HOME RULE CHARTER

    AND 15 NEW CHARTER MEMBERS

    AND THREE CONSERVATIVE COMMISSIONERS

    HOT DAMN… LET’S GO FOR IT..

     

     


  • WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    WOW Wild Wilderness Warfare?

    PLUS….  Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit  to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training in the Olympic National Forest?

    How in the world are Rep Kilmer and Senator Patty Murray going to pull this one off?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Dear elected public representatives and appointed administrative rulers, Federal, state, county and city (AKA Public Servants)

    This is the best OBJECTION, by Karen Sullivan, I have every read on the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project

    Described to me by District Ranger Dean Millett as no big deal…

    “JUST A COUPLE OF ROADS FOR A COUPLE OF PICKUPS”

    PS – Just so you know, SHE is only one person, SIMPLY A CONCERNED CITIZEN who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. HER email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and SHE cannot always answer every one, but SHE WILL  try. If we all lend our
    voices to Karen Sullivan  AND speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!
    ————————————————————————————–

    Complete  text by Karen Sullivan  November 14, 2014

    Below is a clear proposal from a former employee who maps out why the
    proposed activity is not legal.  From the document:

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    Dear Friends and Colleagues,

    Attached both as a PDF file and pasted into the body of this message,
    please find a summary of the ways in which I believe federal law has been
    violated by the Navy and the Forest Service, in the so-called public
    process and documentation associated with the Navy’s proposed
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training program for the Olympic
    National Forest.

    The reason for this lengthy document ( nearly 6000 words) is that neither unanimous public
    opposition nor the 2,000+ public comments submitted to the Forest Service
    so far have been found by the decision-maker, District Ranger Dean Millett,
    to be “substantive.”  Evidently, emotional pleas, descriptions of probable
    harm to small businesses and simple principled objections are discounted.
    Therefore, in order to rectify that lack as perceived by the Forest
    Service, I have attempted to give more substantive reasons why the Navy’s
    Environmental Assessment is defective and deficient and should be withdrawn
    or completely revised, and the Special Use Permit refused.

    I hope we can bring the total to 3,000 comments or more. Please feel free
    to use the information in here, share it and encourage more people to
    comment. You can comment more than once. Just go to:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759
    and submit them.
    Best,
    Karen Sullivan

    PS – Just so you know, I’m only one person, simply a concerned citizen who
    got a bee in her bonnet about this particular issue and decided to lend a
    hand. My email volume has increased exponentially, with a lot of requests,
    and I cannot always answer every one, but I’ll try. If we all lend our
    voices to speak out, just think of the magnificent racket we can make!

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

    *Violations of Federal Law in the US Navy’s Procedures for Obtaining a
    Permit *
    *to Conduct Electromagnetic Warfare Testing and Training *
    *in the Olympic National Forest*
    *Contents:*
    *1. Summary*
    *2. Violations of Federal NEPA Law*
    *3. Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan *
    *4. Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*
    *5. Fraudulent Noise Measurements*
    *6. No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*
    *7. Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*
    *8. Conclusion*

    *Disclaimer: The author is not an attorney, but is a retired federal
    employee who worked under certain environmental laws and regulations, and
    who has a clear understanding of what a public process should be. *

    *Part 1*

    *Summary*
    The US Navy is proposing to take large swathes of Washington’s Olympic
    National Forest plus a large amount of airspace over Olympic National Park
    and the communities in the area, to run electronic warfare attack and
    detection testing and training, for 260 days per year, permanently, using
    at least 36 new supersonic attack jets and radiation emitters on the
    ground, in 15 locations. The Navy has refused to hold true public hearings
    in affected communities on the Olympic Peninsula, citing not enough money
    in their $11.5 million dollar budget. Each new jet costs between $68
    million and $77 million, depending on which figure is used, so the total
    equipment budget is approximately $2,785,500,000. No public notices were
    printed in any newspapers that directly serve the affected communities.

    *The issue boils down to:* Should the Forest Service issue a Special Use
    Permit to the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to run their
    electronic radiation-emitting truck-and-trailer combinations, which would
    entail numerous unannounced forest closures and other problems? In a
    Machivellian twist, Dean Millett, the Forest Service District Ranger who
    will be making the decision on whether or not to issue the permit, has been
    limited to a very narrow scope, considering only the impacts and effects
    from the truck-and-trailer rigs and nothing else. No jet noise, no jet
    emissions or fuel dumps, no hazards from air-based electronic attack
    weapons, no chronic radiation, no fire danger, or other concerns brought up
    by the public are being considered in issuing this permit. These other
    concerns have been labeled by Mr Millett as being “outside of his decision
    space.” Yet if he issues the permit for road use by the Navy’s emitters, it
    will trigger all of the other testing and training actions and their
    impacts, none of which were evaluated in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment of September 2014.  The Navy’s Environmental Impact Statement of
    2010 is unavailable for public comment because the Navy removed it from
    their web site.

    *A military program of electronic warfare on public land* qualifies as a
    major federal action and is thus subject to a public process under the
    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. This process includes
    hearings in affected communities whenever there is environmental
    controversy. These hearings must be in accordance with NEPA guidelines,
    which safeguard the public’s right to be heard.  In addition, the
    scientific evidence to back up statements must be thorough, accurate, and
    available for public scrutiny. In this case, the public’s right to know and
    participate has been severely abridged and the Navy’s “science” and legal
    maneuverings for justifying all of these impacts to our communities are
    shakier than the San Andreas Fault.
    *If the permit is issued,* it will likely affect other National Forest
    lands as well, all of which have long been considered appropriate for
    “…military training when compatible with other uses and in conformity with
    applicable Forest Plans,” in a Memorandum of Understanding between the
    Department of Defense and the US Department of Agriculture. In the Ocala
    National Forest in Florida, for example, the Navy maintains a live bombing
    range located half a mile from one campground and two miles from another.
    This is probably not what Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when he moved the
    Forest Service from the Department of the Interior to the Department of
    Agriculture.

    District Ranger Millett is expected to sign the permit despite almost
    unanimous public opposition, *unless the Forest Service receives formally
    and in writing what he called “substantive” comments by the end of the
    comment period on November 28*, *2014*. Mr Millett declined to define
    “substantive” when asked at a public informational meeting. Therefore, it
    is the aim of this document to provide readers with the best examples of
    substantive comments possible, short of legal advice from an attorney.

    *Public comments can be sent* to: dmillett@fs.fed.us, gtwahl@fs.fed.us, and
    inputted directly online at:
    https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=42759

    *Part 2*

    *Violations of Federal NEPA Law*

    *1. Failure to notify the public:* The Navy has violated the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) by failing to adequately notify the
    public. One 8”X11” poster stuck on bulletin boards at a couple of post
    offices, combined with tiny notices placed in a few newspapers many miles
    away from those that directly serve affected communities, are a ludicrous
    excuse for notifying the entire population of the Olympic Peninsula.
    Congressman Derek Kilmer’s office sent the Navy a packet with contact
    information for all the local newspapers in affected communities, along
    with a request to prominently post public notices in those papers. Neither
    the Navy nor the Forest Service placed a single notice in any local papers
    serving Olympic Peninsula communities. This is a clear violation of the
    spirit and intent of NEPA as well, and a bad faith gesture to residents of
    the Olympic Peninsula.

    *Why did the Navy discard requests from a congressman and deliberately
    violate federal law in their public notification process?*

    *2.  Failure to record public comments: *Due to the high volume of
    complaints received, Rep. Kilmer asked the Navy to hold public meetings.
    Since then the Navy has made it repeatedly clear that were it not for
    Congressman Kilmer’s request for public meetings, there would be none on
    the Olympic Peninsula. Instead of holding hearings under NEPA, however, the
    Navy and Forest Service held “Informational Meetings.” The fact that none
    of the public’s comments were officially recorded at any of the meetings in
    Forks, Port Angeles and Pacific Beach has further upset people’s confidence
    in government and muddied the understanding of the NEPA process. Most are
    wondering why they aren’t getting a fair shake under normal NEPA procedure.
    CEQ regulations require that agencies “make diligent efforts to involve the
    public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures” (40 CFR
    1506.6(a)). “Informational meetings” fulfill neither NEPA requirements nor
    the public’s desire to comment, ask questions, and receive answers,
    especially when people are given one minute to speak and then interrupted
    frequently. The Navy has failed to conduct a proper NEPA process.

    *Why does the Navy refuse to hold hearings and record public comments?*

    * 3. Commenters are given no legal “standing:”* Since none of the hundreds
    of people who have attended the Navy’s informational meetings have had
    their comments recorded, none have any legal standing in the NEPA process,
    unless they submitted their comments again through other avenues that
    require knowing the email addresses of certain officials, or knowing where
    the Forest Service’s web-based NEPA page is. Had these been true public
    hearings, all of those people would now have legal standing, because many
    also held printed comments in their hands, ready to submit after they
    finished speaking. In the Port Angeles meeting, both the Navy and Forest
    Service dismissed the idea of recording comments despite being repeatedly
    challenged to by attendees. The public’s right to a full hearing is
    codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR, and in the State of
    Washington Revised Code, at RCW 42.30.

    *Why were commenters at public meetings given no legal standing in the NEPA
    process?*

    *4. What legal standing means:* Any grievances the public has about
    electromagnetic warfare testing and training MUST be addressed in public
    comments first, in order to have legal standing, which means we are giving
    the Forest Service and the Navy notice that we, the public, think these
    grievances should be addressed. If those grievances are not rectified, any
    legal actions on behalf of the public that follow would have more
    authority, because the Navy had been aware of the grievances yet chose not
    to address them. Without legal standing, those legal actions on behalf of
    the public would likely have less authority due to the implication of no
    notice of grievance being given in public comments. This is a denial of due
    process as stipulated in NEPA, and a distortion of the true amount of
    public concern. On page 1-8 of the Environmental Assessment, the Navy
    states, “No comments were received on the draft EA.” That is *exactly* the
    fear of people who attended those meetings, that their comments would not
    be acknowledged and that the absence of their comments will be reflected
    similarly by the Navy as it did in the EA, thus implying less public
    interest than there really is.

    *5. When hearings are required:* Public meetings or hearings “…are required
    when there may be substantial environmental controversy concerning the
    environmental effects of the proposed action, a substantial interest in
    holding the meeting, or a request for a meeting by another agency with
    jurisdiction over the action.” (40 CFR 1506.6 (c)).  Proper hearings under
    NEPA have not been held in affected communities, and the usual citizen’s
    right to register comments at public hearings has been denied. Therefore
    the Navy and the Forest Service have violated NEPA in this regard, too.

    *Why are the Navy and Forest Service discounting the extreme level of
    public sentiment that is being amply demonstrated in other ways besides
    formal written comments? *

    *6. Written comments are also being discounted:* Despite the level of
    public concern remaining extremely high, District Ranger Dean Millett was
    recorded on videotape during the meeting in Port Angeles saying that as of
    November 6, with regard to formal written public comments, the Forest
    Service had received “nothing substantive” that would stop him from signing
    the permit. He is looking exclusively for defects in the Environmental
    Assessment, and insists that public opinion doesn’t count if people simply
    express their objections. He also has said that 2,000 written comments are
    “not a lot” and have had no effect on him. The comment period has been
    extended twice, yet the public is still struggling to wade through the
    nearly 5,000 pages of scientific and technical documentation, much of which
    remains unavailable to them. By not allowing the public sufficient time to
    catch up with a process they entered late, through no fault of their own,
    and by not allowing them time to develop substantive comments, the Forest
    Service is compromising NEPA law.

    *What is the point of a public comment process if the Forest Service
    ignores public opinion?*

    *This is why the Forest Service needs to extend the comment period to the
    end of January, so that the public has enough time to understand the issues
    well enough to make “substantive” comments, and so that the holidays won’t
    interfere with that. *

    *7. Other agencies not consulted:*  Neither Olympic National Park nor the
    State DNR, whose lands will be affected by the mobile emitters, were
    consulted during the drafting of the Environmental Assessment. If they were
    consulted afterward, then where is the public record of those
    consultations? This is another failure on the part of the Navy in its NEPA
    procedure.  Also, neither DNR nor the Park Service were represented at any
    of the informational meetings. Why not?  Failure to consult with other
    affected agencies is a violation of federal law.

    *Part 3*

    *Violation of National Forest Management Act and Forest Plan*

    *8. Public interest is paramount: *By signing the permit, the Forest
    Service places itself in violation of its own Forest Management Plan, and
    the National Forest Management Act. No outside agency, including the
    Department of Defense, has the right to override the Forest Service’s own
    Forest Management Plans and conduct activities that place their priorities
    over those of the public. The Forest Service’s own regulations state that
    military use of public lands is not permissible if the military has other
    “suitable and available” lands for their Proposed Action, and Forest
    Service management policy states that when considering issuing such a
    permit, “…the interests and needs of the general public shall be given
    priority over those of the applicant.”  The Navy has not adequately
    demonstrated that it has not investigated the use of private or other
    lands, and its reasons for wanting to move the entire electronic warfare
    program from Mountain Home, Idaho to the Olympic National Forest are not
    enough: fuel savings and ease of scheduling for training are insufficient
    justification to override the overwhelming socioeconomic and environmental
    interests of the public.

    *Why are the needs and desires of the public not being given priority over
    the desires of the Navy?*

    *9. Special Use Permit screening checklist*:  Among its 14 requirements,
    the Forest Service’s own checklist for considering applications says, “Use
    will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety AND
    Use will not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy AND
    Use will not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use by
    the Forest Service, other scheduled or authorized existing uses on or
    adjacent to non-National Forest System lands.”

    (36CFR 251.54; FSH 2709.11 12.2 & 12.3; FSM 2703)

    *Part 4*

    *Cumulative Impacts – Omissions in Documents*

    *10. Documents still unavailable:* Though the Forest Service’s NEPA home
    page links to the Navy’s Environmental Assessment and its decision
    documents, neither it nor the Navy web pages contain links to the 2010 EIS,
    which was removed from public access by the Navy, or the previous EIS’s
    going back to 1989 that have been cited by the Navy in meetings, or the
    Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2010 Biological Opinion, which is not posted
    anywhere, or to the temporary permit that was issued by the Forest Service
    to the Navy three years ago, or to the Memorandum of Understanding that
    declared military training to be an “appropriate use” of national forest
    lands, or to supporting documents referenced in the Navy’s Environmental
    Assessment, such as Joint Publication 3-13.1, which describes the methods
    and intent of electronic attack weapons on the Growler jets that will be
    training in the Olympic National Forest.

    This is a violation of NEPA, which says such pertinent documents shall be
    made available to the public for scrutiny.  (18CFR 380.9).  Moreover, an
    explanation of the Forest Service’s own updated NEPA handbook says, “…NEPA
    procedures regulations [sic] are intended to let interested parties become
    more effectively engaged in the decision making process rather than merely
    as reviewer of proposals and final documents. Specifically, the regulations
    include an option for responsible officials to incrementally develop,
    modify, and document proposed actions and alternatives through an open and
    transparent process.”

    *If District Ranger Dean Millett is the responsible official who has the
    power to make the public review process more open and transparent, then why
    does he not do it?*

    *11. Navy dismisses entire categories of impacts:*  On page ES-2 of the
    Environmental Assessment the Navy states, “Cumulative impacts of the
    Proposed Action, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future impacts, were analyzed. Based on the analysis, cumulative
    impacts within the EW Range Study Area would not be significant.” On page
    4-1 the Navy says, “The cumulative impacts analysis in this EA focused on
    impacts that are “truly meaningful,” in accordance with CEQ guidance
    (Council on Environmental Quality 1997). The level of analysis for each
    resource was commensurate with the intensity of the impacts.” Also, “…this
    EA dismissed from further analysis the actions and environmental
    considerations that were considered not reasonably forseeable.” *The Navy
    is not allowed to dismiss environmental considerations* it considers not
    meaningful or foreseeable during a NEPA process; this is a violation of
    NEPA, which does not allow an agency such leeway. In November 2009, a
    federal court judge ruled that a faulty impacts analysis in a NEPA process
    may subject the government to financial liability later. In early 2010, the
    Obama administration announced plans to require analysis of the proposed
    action’s relation to climate change, along with impacts on land use,
    biological diversity, and air and water quality. While analysis of
    cumulative impacts has been the subject of disagreement among agencies, *the
    Navy has provided in its EA neither peer-reviewed citations nor detailed
    analysis on any of the following topics, all of which would be in the
    public’s interest:*

    a. Socioeconomic impacts to communities from increased jet noise and air
    pollution;

    b. Impacts to wilderness values in Olympic National Park;

    c. Cultural factors, including traditional uses of land;

    d. Analysis of multiple stressors on humans, endangered species, and other
    wildlife;

    e. Analysis of chronic radiation effects on humans, wildlife and habitats,
    including aquatic; (There was no mention in the EA of the U.S. Department
    of Interior’s February 7, 2014 critique of the FCC’s outdated dismissal of
    radiation concerns, see

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf  )

    f. Evaluation of the protection of children, environmental justice, water,
    land use, and geology;

    g. Analyses on population effects on threatened bird species, particularly
    the cumulative effects of noise and electromagnetic radiation on the
    northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, in whose critical habitat areas
    most of the Navy’s emitter sites will be located;

    h. Analysis of the effects of electromagnetic radiation and loud sounds on
    migrating shorebirds, geese, ducks, and other non-listed birds;

    Additionally, there were none of these:

    9. Cost analysis for jet fuel savings from not flying an extra 400 miles,
    versus effects on the environment.

    i. Analysis of other sites as alternatives to the Olympic MOA, including
    private lands.

    j. Analysis of the increased fire danger posed by jet and drone crashes,
    sparks from vehicle transmitters or operators’ cigarettes, or misdirected
    electromagnetic beams from either the transmitters or from jets, hitting
    tinder-dry vegetation;

    k. Analysis of the interaction and effects of climate change as a potential
    magnifier of impacts.

    *Why did the Navy not do its homework?*

    *Did the Forest Service assess each segment of the Olympic National Forest
    to be used by the Navy with an initial focus on identifying and evaluating
    the wide variety of impacts and potential risks to resources?  Were these
    risks rated as high, medium or low? Did the Forest Service assess impacts
    from jet emissions, jet and drone crashes, possible fires caused by said
    activities, along with other impacts, including but not limited to:  Loss
    of National Forest public revenue, loss of use by the public, the scope and
    number of acres needed for use by the Navy, the scope of the habit in that
    area, etc.  If there is potential damage, how will Navy restore these
    areas?  *

    *Were the above factors, if investigated by the U.S. Forest Service,
    reviewed by the Forest Botany and Wildlife Team? During their review, did
    they specifically consider the influence of electronic and electromagnetic
    affects to species such as fragmentation, disturbance, and potential loss
    of habitat quality?*

    *Part 5*

    *Fraudulent Noise Measurements*

    *12. Jet noise not accurately measured for assessing impacts:*  At a
    meeting with residents in Coupeville on the topic of jet noise, a Navy
    representative described the process of sound measurement as that of
    placing a GE engine on a test platform on the ground, turning it on and
    recording its noise. That data is fed into noise mapping software that
    considers land contour data. The processed data was then averaged with
    quiet time over the length of a year to produce a “Day-Night Average,” as
    is done at commercial airports by the FAA. No live jet takeoffs or landings
    were measured in establishing the Day-Night Average, according to the Navy
    official, nor was the frequent use of afterburners ever factored into those
    sound levels, nor was the significant extra noise from extended flaps,
    landing gear and speed brakes included.

    The Navy developed a decibel average of 65, which is under the limit for
    hearing damage but over the limit, according to the Navy’s own figures, for
    residential development. 65 decibels does not, however, account for the
    times when the decibel level *inside* some residential homes is above 100,
    which is more than enough to cause hearing loss, or the fact that at some
    homes at Admiral’s Cove the decibel level has been measured by an
    independent sound professional, at 134.2.  Growler jets are louder than the
    Prowlers they are replacing, and the Navy has promised that the minimum
    altitude they will be flying over land is 1200 feet. That has been
    frequently contradicted by hikers on mountainous forest trails, who have
    reported seeing jets fly past beneath them. According to the Navy’s own
    figures, a Growler jet flying at 1000 feet produces a “Single Event Level”
    of 113 decibels, which is enough to damage hearing and cause medical
    problems in people subjected to it. In the Roosevelt-Okanogan Military
    Training Area the Navy is authorized to fly at 300 feet above ground level.
    It is not clear what would prevent them from authorizing that lower
    altitude in the Olympic National Forest.

    A recent study called Community Aircraft Noise: A Public Health Issue
    identified serious health effects in Coupeville, WA, caused by chronic and
    acute noise episodes:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/Files/Community%20Aircraft%20Noise_A%20Public%20Health%20Issue.pdf

    *With regard to jet noise and emissions,* the “Citizens of Ebey’s Reserve”
    on Whidbey Island have created a web page which includes this Links and
    Files section, full of valuable information:
    http://citizensofebeysreserve.com/LinksAndFiles.html

    *As a result of the Navy’s apparent underestimation of sound levels* caused
    by jets, the effects of loud noise on threatened and endangered species in
    the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion for the Navy, which was
    begun in 2009 and issued in 2010, may be based on inaccurate or misleading
    information from the Navy. If this is indeed the case, that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service was given inaccurate or misleading information on which to
    base its evaluation of biological impacts, then the Biological Opinion
    should be considered invalid and formal consultation re-initiated under
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, using actual sound measurements
    from real jets. Providing deliberately misleading information to a federal
    agency is also considered a form of fraud or false statement under US Code,
    Chapter 47. There may be other applicable laws that were violated.

    *What is the real level of sound produced by Navy jets, and why was this
    information not incorporated into impact studies, and shouldn’t the Navy be
    required to change its measurement system to the full spectrum of noise
    generated by actual aircraft?*

    *Part 6*

    *No Verification of Navy’s Claim of No Significant Impacts*

    *13. The Forest Service conducted no independent research:* At the Port
    Angeles meeting, District Ranger Dean Millett acknowledged and is recorded
    on videotape saying that *the Forest Service did not conduct any
    independent investigation to verify the Navy’s claims of no significant
    impacts*. This violates the Forest Service’s own policies as well as the
    law. For example, the Environmental Assessment dismisses potential impacts
    on everything that does not fall into its category of “observable
    wildlife.” It inaccurately states that amphibians and reptiles only exist
    around marshes and meadows. On page 3.2-6 it says, “The proposed activities
    do not occur on marshes or in meadows; therefore, it is highly unlikely
    that amphibians or reptiles would occur in the project area.”

    A similar statement dismisses the possibility of amphibians or reptiles
    occurring on “disturbed areas” such as roadside pull-outs where mobile
    transmitters would operate.  The Forest Service is presumably aware that
    the Olympic National Forest is designated a temperate rainforest, which
    means it is damp and wet during much of the year, and is prime habitat for
    amphibians such as frogs, newts, and salamanders throughout, which can be
    quite far from “marshes and meadows.” Furthermore, both amphibians and
    reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) often frequent cleared or “disturbed”
    areas. Dismissing amphibians and reptiles from consideration is misleading
    and unlawful, because amphibians are especially sensitive to
    electromagnetic radiation, particularly in their larval stages. Along with
    omissions of important analyses and data previously discussed, such blatant
    misstatements of fact *preclude informed public comment*, raise serious
    questions about the integrity of the preparers, and renders the entire
    Environmental Assessment and the permit that is intended to be based on it,
    suspect. *The US Forest Service has a duty to conduct its own independent
    scientific review* of the impacts of activities that it allows or condones.
    An agency cannot simply adopt the conclusions of another agency.

    *If the Forest Service questions the Navy’s data, then why has it not done
    its own independent investigations?  And if it does not question the Navy’s
    data, why not?*

    *14. The Courts have spoken:*  The above comments amply demonstrate the
    need for the Forest Service to conduct its own scientific review.  In Save
    Our Ecosystems V. P Clark E Merrell, http://openjurist.org/747/f2d/1240 the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said, “The Forest Service must do research
    if no adequate data exists.” In Foundation for North American Wild Sheep V.
    US Department of Agriculture, the Ninth Circuit Court said, “the very
    purpose of NEPA’s requirement that an EIS be prepared for all actions that
    may significantly affect the environment is to obviate the need for such
    speculation by insuring that available data is gathered and analyzed prior
    to the implementation of the proposed action.” 681 F.2d at 1179. In Warm
    Springs Dam Task Force V. Gribble, the Court held that an agency cured the
    defect in its EIS by commissioning a study about the effects of a newly
    discovered fault system on that dam. 621 F.2d at 1025-26.

    *15. Other courts have imposed similar requirements on agencies*. See,
    e.g., Rankin v. Coleman, 394 F.Supp. 647, 658 (highway project enjoined for
    inadequate EIS on effects and alternatives; alternatives must be
    “affirmatively studied”), mod. 401 F.Supp. 664 (E.D.N.C.1975); Montgomery
    v. Ellis, 364 F.Supp. 517, 528 (N.D.Ala.1973) (“NEPA requires each agency
    to undertake research needed adequately to expose environmental harms and,
    hence, to appraise available alternatives”) (project enjoined pending
    preparation of an adequate EIS); Brooks v. Volpe, 350 F.Supp. 269, 279
    (“NEPA requires each agency to indicate the research needed to adequately
    expose environmental harms”), supplemented, 350 F.Supp. 287
    (W.D.Wash.1972), aff’d, *487 F.2d 1344*
    <http://openjurist.org/487/f2d/1344> (9th
    Cir.1973); Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
    (D.D.C.1971) (interpreting section 102(2)(A) as making “the completion of
    an adequate research program a prerequisite to agency action …. The Act
    envisions that program formulation will be directed by research results
    rather than that research programs will be designed to substantiate
    programs already decided upon”) If the information relevant to adverse
    impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and is not
    known, and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the
    agency *shall
    *include the information in the environmental impact statement.

    *Part 7*

    *Some Unaddressed Public Concerns*

    *16. Chronic radiation effects not addressed:* In Section 2.1.1.4, the
    claim that the noise and RF radiation from mobile emitters will not impact
    what the Environmental Assessment calls Biological Resources is entirely
    based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest,
    so exposure at any one site is limited. This despite the fact that 3 mobile
    units will be in operation from 8 – 16 hours per day, 260 days per year,
    among 15 different sites on the Olympic Peninsula. According to the EA,
    each mobile emitter site will average 11.15 training events per day, which
    also includes electronic detection and attack weapons from jets. This works
    out to an average of 468 hours of electromagnetic radiation per site per
    year, or 195, 24-hour days per decade. The Department of the Interior has
    criticized the FCC’s standards for cellphone radiation to be outmoded and
    no longer applicable as they do not adequately protect wildlife:
    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf

    *Where is the peer-reviewed research to back up the Navy’s claim of no
    significant impacts?*

    *17. Potential loss of human lives:*  Page 2-7 of the environmental
    assessment says the following: “The activities of the Proposed Action
    center on two divisions of EW, known as electronic warfare support (ES) and
    electronic attack (EA).” Then it goes on to provide this short explanation:
    “Sailors aboard Navy ships, submarines, and aircraft conduct ES and EA
    training as they search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize
    sources of intentional and unintentional radiated electromagnetic energy
    for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, targeting, planning, and
    conduct of future operations. “(EA 2-7)  This sounds pretty benign.

    The environmental assessment references Joint Publication 3-13.1,
    Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012 as a source document, and if you look
    at this publication the short explanation above is, verbatim, the
    definition of electronic support but  the environmental assessment leaves
    out any explanation of electronic attack (EA). Joint Publication 3-13.1
    defines Electronic Attack as follow: “EA refers to the division of EW
    involving the use of EM energy, DE (directed energy), or antiradiation
    weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of
    degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability…”

    Directed energy is defined as:  “An umbrella term covering technologies
    that relate to the production of a beam of concentrated electromagnetic
    energy or atomic or subatomic particles. ” (GL6) “Examples include lasers,
    electro-optical (EO), infrared (IR), and radio frequency (RF) weapons such
    as high-power microwave (HPM) or those employing an EMP.  (I-4)  Now it’s
    getting serious. Additionally, Joint Publication 3-13-1 also speaks to
    unintended consequences of EW:  “Unintended Consequences. EW planners must
    coordinate EW efforts … to minimize unintended consequences, collateral
    damage, and collateral effects. Friendly EA could potentially deny
    essential services to a local population that, in turn, could result in
    loss of life and/or political ramifications.”  (III-5)

    The Environmental Assessment, which only deals with the ground operations
    (the emitters), is addressing just a part of the impact and is totally
    silent on what may be the bigger concern, which is impact caused by the
    aircraft, ships and submarines engaging in EW training, and particularly
    electronic attack training.

    *What types of electronic attack will be practiced, and what are the
    potential impacts, intended or otherwise, on the local population and the
    environment?*

    *How can a Special Use Permit include the use of Electronic Attack weapons
    if they weren’t even discussed in the Environmental Assessment? *

    *Part 8*

    *Conclusion*

    The U.S. Navy is demonstrably unable to perceive or assess impacts in our
    forests, and is evidently unwilling to assess or disclose impacts to
    humans, wildlife and habitats from a variety of sources that concern the
    public. Because none of these direct, indirect and cumulative impacts have
    been analyzed, and because there have been so many violations of NEPA
    procedure, and because case law has shown again and again that one agency
    cannot rely exclusively on the data from another agency, this Special Use
    Permit should not be issued. For the above reasons, the Navy’s self-serving
    Environmental Assessment should be withdrawn and an honest, independent
    assessment of impacts should be made by the Forest Service, in a valid
    Environmental Impact Statement that places no applicant’s priority above
    the interests of the public, and that allows the public to have a say in
    the management of its public lands.

    It is ironic in the extreme that the Navy forces other agencies to consider
    vast amounts of area when evaluating impacts, such as to endangered species
    in the entire northwestern region of Washington, or on a training range
    that stretches from California to Alaska, yet it forces public commenters
    to restrict themselves to one item on their menu of impacts when foisting a
    program of such potentially immense consequence upon the public.

    As of December 2014, the Navy will also be expanding its sonar and
    explosive activity (http://tinyurl.com/PDN-Sonobuoy2) into waters off
    Indian Island near Port Townsend, in the Strait of Juan De Fuca, and in the
    2,408 square mile Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary, where the Navy says it is
    exempt from prohibitions. It has, however, said that bombing exercises will
    take place outside the Sanctuary. At the same time, the Navy is developing
    plans for two Carrier Strike Groups to train in the Gulf of Alaska just
    south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, using new
    extremely loud weapons systems and sinking two ships per year, in exercises
    that the Navy admits will kill or injure 182,000 whales, dolphins,
    porpoises, sea lions, seals, sea otters and other marine mammals in one
    five-year period. This is less than the original prediction of 425,000
    marine mammals, but still so astonishing it makes one wonder what parts of
    our biologically rich coasts will not become war zones with high casualty
    counts, if the Navy gets its way.

    s/  Karen Sullivan, November 14, 2014


  • Navy to Face Public on Warfare

    Navy  to Face Public  on Electronic Warfare

    Update Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula

    Oct.8, 2014  Kilmer responds (full text below)

    Oct 8, 2014 PDN Navy to Face Forks Public

    Oct, 9, 2014 PDN  We are going to extend comment through the end of October

    I did demand answers on Sept 3, 2014 and make Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his  personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Rep. Kilmer’s Response Oct. 8, 2014 (snippet, full text below)

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible FOR THE NAVY TO RE-OPEN THE COMMENT PERIOD and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    ——————————————————————————————

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    NAVY TO FACE PUBLIC NEXT WEEK ON PROPOSED WEST END …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/20141008/…/nav

    20 hours ago – FORKS — Community concerns over the Navy’s electronic warfare training proposal have prompted a meeting next week to … “We asked that the comment period be extended to [Oct. 31]

    ————————————————————————-

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    Thursday 9th October, 2014

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare Peninsula Daily News DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

     WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday.

    —————————————————————————————

    UPDATED — Navy to face public next week on proposed West End electronic warfare program; DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

    Peninsula Daily News Thursday 9th October, 2014

    FORKS — The deadline has been EXTENDED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT on the U.S. Navy’s environmental assessment for an electronic warfare training proposal. The development comes as the U.S. Forest Service considers issuing a special-use permit for the Navy to use its roads during the exercises.’; WE ARE GOING TO EXTEND COMMENT THROUGH THE END OF OCTOBER,’; Greg Wahl, a Forest Service environmental coordinator, said Wednesday. Comment on the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range project’s environmental assessment was set to end Friday, but with a community meeting on the topic coming next week, …

    ——————————————————————————————

    FULL TEXT  of Derek Kilmer’s response

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Representative Derek Kilmer

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 12:37 PM

    Subject: Responding to Your Message

    Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

    Thank you for contacting me about the Navy’s proposed electronic warfare range throughout the Olympic Peninsula. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts on this issue with me.

    As you know, the Navy is interested in developing an electronic warfare range to assist Navy pilots practice their skills. The range would consist of one permanent structure, located near Whidbey Island, and three mobile vehicles outfitted with electronics. All four components would be capable of emitting signals that would be observed by the pilots while conducting training missions.

    In accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was conducted to determine the effects the range would have on the local environment. The draft study was made available to the public for comment between August 1 and August 15th. The comment period is now closed.

    I heard a few concerns from constituents about the EIS and reached out to the Navy to understand what kind of outreach had been conducted prior to alert individuals of the comment period and the proposed project.

    Based on information I have received thus far, I am concerned that the steps the Navy took did not adequately inform the community of the public comment period. Folks should have an opportunity to be briefed on activities that may affect their community and should also have the chance to weigh in with questions and concerns.

    I am working with the Navy to expand their outreach to the Olympic Peninsula and the West End to communicate planned infrastructure and capability investments that may affect our community. To this point, I have asked the Navy to send a representative to discuss the project with the Forks Chamber of Commerce, per their request, to provide the community with additional information. I’m also exploring whether it would be possible for the Navy to re-open the comment period and give folks on the Peninsula a greater opportunity to weigh in.

    Please know, that I will continue to keep your thoughts in mind, as I work with the Navy to further understand this project and ensure that they improve their communications throughout our region.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Kilmer
    Member of Congress

     

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

    How could Representative Derek Kilmer  ignore and fail to respond on TO MY SEPT. 3, 2014 EMAIL, questions and concerns on Electronic Warfare PROJECT for USFS Olympic Peninsula?

    Rep. Kilmer may not have ignored it, but he did not respond to me until Oct 8, 2014, over a month later.

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

    NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP

    ATTITUDE IS A SMALL THING, BUT IT IS EVERYTHING WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

    No matter what kind of shape OUR COUNTRY  is in, if  OUR ATTITUDE is NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP, WE will stand a much better chance of succeeding. The folks in cyberspace  with will pick up on OUR  investigations, facts, documentation,,  credibility, sincerity and conviction, and they’ll begin to operate the same way. AND IT WILL ENABLE ALL OF US to take the difficult steps necessary.

    I did continue to post comments on my website, demanding answers and making Rep. Derek Kilmer publicly and politically accountable for his personal failure of “PUBLIC NOTICE” to the people he represents.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula?

    Posted on September 29, 2014 6:54 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    To Comment on Environmental Warfare?

    Posted on October 1, 2014 1:49 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————-

    Update on EW Public Comment

    Posted on October 1, 2014 2:40 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————————–

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Posted on October 4, 2014 5:16 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

    We have exposed the fatal error in the Due Process Law

    We have won  the right to  a meet and greet with the Navy

    We have won  the right to  EXTENDED PUBLIC COMMENT

    The Electronic Warfare Project for the Olympic Peninsula,is no longer JUST a Local Issue.  The power of cyberspace has made it an AMERICA ISSUE.

     

     


  • (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    Governor Inslee WANTS the blue ribbon task force on parks and outdoor recreation,

    that he appointed, to  FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM.

    I did attend the Aug. 19, 2014  committee meeting in Sequim, and I sat SILENTLY through the meeting from 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    I was allowed, EXACTLY TWO MINUTES, to make my public comment at 7:50 P.M.

    I listened to what your 28 Appointed Committee member’s “WANT” for about seven hours.

    Rep. Tharinger  mentioned, that what you “WANT” to provide funding for recreation/tourism, and what you may actually get, could be significantly different.

    I do investigative, documented reporting on my website behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    Below you will find  an exchange of emails

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    —————————————————————————

    Continue reading, for the full text of my questions, comments and the exchanged emails

    ——————————————————–

    Posted April 21, 2013 Pearl Rains Hewett

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR WA STATE PARKS

    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To: Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks

    Daniel,

    I am a WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders
    This my comment on YOUR Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Washington State Parks and YOUR requested $$$$ legislation.
    ——————————————————————
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)
    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.
    —————————————————————-

    MY COMMENT
    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ————————————————————–

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)
    ——————————————————————
    Per Rep. VanDeWege, $20 MILLION SPENT for removal of fish passage blocking culverts this year.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Last summer families in Port Angeles were putting up tents and camping in their back yards.

    The abysmal failure of the WA State Discover Pass? The cost, Families simply can’t afford to use WA State Parks.

    ———————————————————–
    *From: an online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    MY COMMENT
    Do you really think raising the gas tax and grabbing a piece of the pie, is the solution to increasing park attendance, for the jobless, working poor, economically starved people in Clallam County?

    MY COMMENT is the solution to providing free Public Viewing of WA State Parks just as a NOVA image on Television?
    ———————————————————————-
    THIS IS WHAT WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders ARE UP AGAINST
    ———————————————————————–
    *From: online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday).

    It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday.

    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!
    *online email comment name removed
    ———————————————————————–

    *Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias.
    ————————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) [mailto:Daniel.Farber@PARKS.WA.GOV]
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:50 AM
    To: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Subject: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Park Stakeholders,

    For your information, below is the latest report to park staff of issues affecting State Parks in the legislature.

    Daniel
    —————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Colleagues,

    I want to provide you a brief update on legislative doings since last week’s report.

    A. The Discover Pass and Agency Request Legislation:

    There is no change on the status of SB5897, which combines four major state parks related elements:

    1.The core of our agency request legislation (SB5653) which works to expand partnerships, expand the role of the Park Foundation, and link us more soundly to cultural celebrations, ethnic heritage and the arts.
    2.Discover Pass reforms (SB5289) that formalize existing practice of not requiring/enforcing the Pass when accessing through DNR and WDFW lands. There is no such change on State Parks lands. The bill also allows for wholesaling of the pass, if all three agencies agree.
    3.Establishing a set of performance measurements for state parks, and a reporting function to the legislature.
    4. Provides $5 million per year funding from the litter tax for 4 years to state parks.

    The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and now sits in the Rules Committee.

    Perhaps the last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House Appropriations Committee. SHB1935 is set as the first bill up for a public hearing in the House Hearing Room A. At this time we do not know or any amendatory language for that bill. But here is the most reasonable expectation:

    1 It will be similar to SB5897, however it is unlikely to include the litter tax provision.
    2.It may include some provision related to legislative oversight of the potential State Parks-Public Development Authority Co-Management at Fort Worden.
    B.Boating Safety

    SSB 5437 passed the Senate and the House, but in slightly different forms. It is now on the concurrence calendar in the Senate. The bill provides some law enforcement teeth when it comes to operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol.

    C. Snowmobile Funding HB2002 has passed the House and now sits in Senate Ways and Means. It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and allow our Commission to set other fees; enabling funding and services to improve to historic levels.

    D. Horse Park Authority A bill to expand the Authority from 7 to 11 members passed both chambers and is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on Monday. Our Commission appoints members to the Authority Board, but has little other relationship to the organization.

    E. Budgets There are no differences to report from last week. The latest versions of the budget proposals are:

    Operating Budget (General Fund or Other Tax Supported Funding)
    Governor Inlsee – $23.7 million
    House – $23.7 million
    Senate – $16.4 million
    Commission October Request – $27.2 million

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)
    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)

    I hope you find this report helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

    Take care,

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov

    This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Clallam County Salt Creek Recreation area is a popular FREE ON DEMAND summer refuge for poor working  families.
    Give the WA State parks back to the counties and provide employment for the local people.

    ————————————————————————–
    It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and
    allow our Commission TO SET OTHER FEES

    This entry was posted in Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks,

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State Park Question?

    Posted on April 21, 2013

    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?

    Indeed, I asked a simple question?

    just to be clear, the question remains unanswered?

    ——————————————————
    RESPONSE
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    All,

    My name below is listed from an email headline that I wrote to State Parks staff. But just to be clear, I wrote none of the content of the below email. State Parks is not the “we” referenced by Ms. Hewett.

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov
    —————————————————————-
    FULL email TEXT INCLUDING QUESTION
    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ———————————————————————–

    BELOW, Who is this “WE” who still wants? It is not “WE THE PEOPLE”

    “We” still want $27 million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    The same “WE” who wrote
    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    Set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ——————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013
    Dear Colleagues,

    From: name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.

    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday). It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday. This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!

    name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.
    ———————————————————————–

    FOR CLARIFICATION
    Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias
    ———————————————————————–

    This entry was posted in Reasonable Man understanding, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks

    ———————————————————

    If you bothered to read this far, I have a few closing comments.

    I listened to you, you gave me TWO MINUTES.

    Round and round and round the table, I listened to you , most members? FOCUSED on what they “WANT “. And, what you wanted was MORE TAXPAYER MONEY! for what YOU “WANT”.

    It took a comment from a WA Parks, Whidbey Islander before the word “AFFORDABLE”  RECREATION was mentioned.

    A question to the WA Parks Fort Wardener, how much does it cost? total?

    The answer? We don’t keep track of it?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?  We don’t keep track of it?

    Rep. Tharanger’s response… basically was, some from here, some from a grant there, more here, more from matching funds there.

    Rep. Tharanger’s response and I quote “Part of the Game”.

    Really? Following Taxpayer money? keeping track of the total amounts? grants? matching funds?

    THE TAXPAYER’S $$$$ MONEY’S IS ALL GONE FOR WA STATE PARKS? RECREATION? TOURISM? AND THE MILLIONS OF $$$ FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTAINACE? AND REPAIRS?

    “Part of the Game?” As a vested WA State taxpayer, perhaps someone in Olympia, could forward a copy of the WA State legislated rules for this WA Parks taxpayer money Game?

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

    Please visit my website for the

    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.

    To be continues….