+menu-


  • Category Archives Out of Towner’s are not LOCAL
  • Did Clallam Co need an SMP Update in 2010?

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

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

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

    I THINK NOT.

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

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

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

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

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

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

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

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

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

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

    COLD ENOUGH?

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

    Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

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

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

    THEY ARE DREAMING….

     NOW, NO NET LOSS

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

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

    GET BETTER

    Pearl

    —————————————————————

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

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

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior       

    snippet

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

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

    THEY WHO?  THERE IS NO SIGNATURE ON THE COMMENT?

    THEY, GO ON TO SAY….

    THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IS A VAGUE TERM…

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    —————————————————————————————

    From: pearl hewett

    To: smp@co.clallam.wa.us

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

    Subject: Fw: SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites

    they found (3) 

     ———————————————

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

     (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

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

     (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

     With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the FACTS

     Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

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

     Pearl Rains Hewett

     ————————————————————-

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

    My comment below shall not.

    SMP Public Comment #162

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

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

    Based on ECOLOGY’S own  2010 Characterization and Inventory  report

    Based on the  best available science from 1992?

    I THINK NOT.

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

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

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

    ON THE 64 FRESHWATER REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

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

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the incomplete, censored scientific facts

    Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

    COMMENT ON

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

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

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

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    —————————————————————-

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches CONTAMINATED sites

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

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

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

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    —————————————————————————

    ECOLOGYS 10 Unanswered questions  from July 12, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

    SMP Handbook: Chapter 7, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

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

    NONE period.

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

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

     

    Merrill, Hannah

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

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

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

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

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

    ; robert crittendend; Lois Perry; Sue Forde

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

    Dear Ms. Hewett:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sincerely,

    Jeffree Stewart

    Shoreline Specialist

    Washington Department of Ecology

    360-407-6521

    ————————————————————————————–

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

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S 2010 DOCUMENTED CHARACTERIZATION AND INVENTORY  REPORT

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

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

    I THINK NOT.

    —————————————————————–

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

     ABSOLUTELY NOT

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

    The bottom line

    WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOV 7, 2017

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

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


  • It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

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

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

    When the fearful citizens came forward  on Jan 26, 2011

    I said something.

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

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

    ——————————————————————

    UPDATE JUNE 19, 2017

    IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

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

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

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

    DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S IN IT?”

    THE CONCERNED CITIZEN SAID,

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

    SO I DID THIS ABOUT THAT

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

     WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ABOUT THAT? 2011-2017

    OVER 170 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SMP UPDATE

    This is post # 1005 on my blog/website

      Behind My Back

    www.behindmyback.org

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

    ——————————————————————–          

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS REPUTATION PRECEDES THEM.

    ———————————————————————

    Progressive Economics: The Rise Of Bureaucracy In America – Forbes

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

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

    Regulation’s Stranglehold On Millennials’ Futures – Forbes

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017  

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

    Make this post # 1005 on my blog/website

    And make another SMP Update Public Comment.

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)

    INTERESTED PARTIES,

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

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

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

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

    Sekiu Community Center, 42 Rice St., Sekiu WA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager

    Clallam County Department of Community Development

    ————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

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

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

    To be continued….


  • The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    OUR WATER AND TIMBER

     THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

     http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    LOCAL PRIORITIES IN PUGET SOUND

    At the heart of the ROSS are WATERSHED Open Space Strategies, engaging local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately?  Skagit and Clallam County.

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and …

    —————————————————————————–

    REGIONAL ANALYSIS IN PUGET SOUND

    Together, we will analyze and SYNTHESIZE local priorities and regional challenges to plan across traditional jurisdictional and watershed boundary lines for our shared future.

    ——————————————————————–

    THE ROSS APPROACH ON MANAGED  TIMBER  PRODUCTION

     GOT TIMBER?  WANT DNR TO GIVE CLALLAM COUNTY’S TIMBER BACK?

     THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.

     BETTER CHECK IT OUT…

    ———————————————————————-

    I Signed up for the ROSS Newsletter!

    I will receive monthly project updates and opportunities to get engaged in the Regional Open Space Strategy.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Managed  timber  production PAGE 9

    In  the  context  of the  ROSS,  we  ATTEMPTED  to  use  the  MODEL  to  assess  general  habitat  rarity  and  quality  within  our  focus  area.

    All  types  of  land  covers  that  were  open  space habitat.

    THREATS  CONSIDERED  IN  THE  MODEL  WERE  ROADS,  HIGHWAY,  TRAILS,  AND  DEVELOPED  LAND.  The  relative  sensitivities  of  land  cover  to  these  THREATS  used  in  the  model  WERE  PLACEHOLDERS  SINCE  CONCLUSIVE  DATA  FOR  THESE  VALUES  COULD  NOT  BE  FOUND.

    Ultimately, we  could  not  run  the  model, even  as  a  trial,  because  of  technical  issues.  The  InVEST software  displayed  an  error  that  the  GIS  data  used  did  not  cover  the  same  geographic  space.

    While  this  was  not  the  case,  our  team  did  not  resolve  the  issue in  time  for  this  report.  Managed  timber  production  model  The  InVEST  timber  model  has  been  developed  to  measure  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  time  period  and  to  calculate  the  net  present  value  of  that.

    The  amount  of  timber  harvests  from  both  natural  forests  and  managed  plantations  can  be  estimated  by  using  this  model.    The  model  requires vector  GIS  data,  information  about  harvest  levels,  frequency  of  harvest,  costs  of  harvesting  and  management  practices for  each  timber  harvest  parcel.  The  model  can  make  two  types  of  calculations  in  terms  of  the  selected  time  period:  the  timber  parcel  map  can  be  related  either  to  a  current  map  or  to  a  future  scenario  map.

    The  TIMBER  MODEL  can  be  especially  useful  for  ONE  OF  THE ROSS’  KEY  AREAS: “Rural  and  Resource  Lands”.    Since  the  model  gives  as  output  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  period  of  time  and  that  harvest’s  net  present  value,  it  can  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  calculating the  OPPORTUNITY  costs  of  preserving  a  forestland  or  opening  it  up  for  development.  

    THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.  The  information  about  the  volume  of  timber  produced  is  available  too.

    HOWEVER,  in  order  to  be  able  to  run  the  model  other  data  needs  (such  as  frequency  of  harvesting,  percentage  of harvesting,  maintenance  cost,  and  harvesting  cost)  need  to  be  collected  from  the  timber  parcel  owners.

    While  running  trial  of  this  model  we  discovered  that  in  order to  find  the  necessary  data  mentioned  above  to  run  the  model  we  would  need  to  conduct  a  field  study  and  collect  the  information  from  each  parcel  owner.  As  our  time  to  complete  the  study  was  limited, we  could  not  conduct  a  field  study.  It  may  be  POSSIBLE  in  the  future  to use  sustainable  forest  practices  information  to  estimate  for  example  the  frequency  of  timber  harvesting  in  Pierce  County.

    HOWEVER,  we learned  that the  definition  of  sustainable  forest  practices  may  vary  from  one  landowner  to  another  and  that  we  cannot  generalize  one  model  for  each  timber  harvest.

    THUS,  as  a  result  we  could  not  run  the  model.  Figure  6  provides  an  example  for how  the  model  output  can  be  used  in  VISUALIZATION  of  different  scenarios.

    The  last  column  in  the  figure  entitled  “MARKET  VALUE  OF  COMMODITY  PRODUCTION”  includes  the  value  of  the  timber  produced  in  that  area.  The  greenest  color  represents  the  highest  production  of  ecosystem  services  and  the  pinkest  color  represents  the  lowest  value  of  them.  For  example, in  the  conservation  scenario  it  can  be  seen  that  the  market  value  of  the  commodity  produced is  lowest  whereas  carbon  sequestration  has  the  highest  value  in  that  scenario……

    ———————————————————————————-

    OUR WATER And OUR TIMBER, WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

    Ask a Silly Question?

    The Butterfly has landed?
    What does the expansion of a military base  have to do with designating 150 acres of Clallam County property to a WA State conservancy group as OPEN SPACE FOR AN ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY?

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

    THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    DRAFT

    Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Executive Committee

    Role: Project Guidance & Endorsement of ROSS

    Lead: Ron Sims (PSP Leadership Council)

    Oct 12, 2011 – … Executive Ron Sims to the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council.

    Members: PSRC; Decision-Makers in King, Kitsap,

    Pierce, & Snohomish; Land & Resource Conservation

    Agency & Association Directors; MAJOR AGRICULTURE &

    FORESTRY INTERESTS, Large Community Organizations;

    and Supporting Financial Institutions

    ———————————————-

    ROSS Project Team

    Role: Staffing & Coordination

    Lead: Green Futures Lab

    Members: NCLC, National Park

    Service RTCA Program, & The

    Bullitt Foundation.

    ————————————————-

    Steering Committee

    Role: Oversight, Integrated ROSS Development

    Lead: TBD Members:

    Land Trusts; Key National, State, PSRC,

    County, City, Tribe, & Port Staff; Environmental

    Management Orgs.; Advocacy & Community Interests;

    Economic/Workforce Interests; Design & Planning

    Professionals, and Research Institutions

    ———————————————————

    Technical Advisory Committees

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Bob Feurstenberg

    & TBD Members:, USFS, NPS, TPL, TNC,

    Earth Economics, PSP, Forterra

    PSRC, Research Institutes, etc

    ——————————————————

    Recreation & Trails Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Amy Shumann (PHSKC) & Jennifer Knauer(PSP)

    Members:  WSDOT, BAW, CBC, NPS, TPL, SPF, Parks/Recreation &

    Health Depts., Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————–

    Rural & Resource Lands Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Lauren Smith (King County) & Skip Swenson (Forterra)

    Members: TPL, TNC, Land Trusts, Farm/Forestry Orgs., Labor, Property Rights, Cons.

    Dists., etc.

    —————————————————–

    Urban & Community Plan Advisory Committee

     Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Joe Tovar (Inova) & Ben Bakkenta( PSRC)

    Members: Forterra, ULI, Impact Capital, Great City,

    Tilth, SPF, Groundswell NW, Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————————–

    WATERSHED OPEN SPACE TASKFORCES

    Role: Watershed Open Space Studies.

    Leads:  Associated Watershed Councils & Conservation Districts

    ————————————————————–

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS BELOW

    It’s an extensive partnership of governments and non-profits.

    Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in $$$$$$ And, the power

    They have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition

    Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Prepared for the Regional Open Space Strategy of Central Puget Sound

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    The ROSS approach brings together decision makers, planners, businesses, and individuals with the power to make smart, regional-based, and coordinated decisions to support open space and our future quality of life in the Puget Sound Region. This collaborative effort is stewarded by the University of Washington’s award-winning Green Futures Lab.

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

    I found above plan/strategy in the MRSC publication.  This has to be a part of the desired ARL sweep.  The article says they have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition (haven’t found them yet).  Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in from an informed citizenry and the support of the regions leaders from both public and private sectors.

    IT’S AN EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS.

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Introduction to the Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    A Collective Vision

    PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

    Researching and Analyzing Governance Models for UW Green Futures Research + Design Lab

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————————

    This is part of  my comment on the Clallam County New SMP Matrix

    THE NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS, PILING ONE NGO NON-TAXPAYING  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPIES COMMENTS,  on top of another NGO non-taxpaying  special interest group comment, all in collusion with, in cahoots with, in partnership,affiliated with, paid for by and with grants and with our tax dollars, from  local, county, state and federal government agencies.

    AND, WITH ALL OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  ELECTED, APPOINTED AND PAID EMPLOYEES IN ALL AGENCIES, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH, IN COLLUSION WITH, IN CAHOOTS WITH, AFFILIATED WITH AND COORDINATING WITH THE GLOBAL, OUT OF TOWNERS, NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS NON-TAXPAYING  OPPORTUNISTIC SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    Sound familiar?

    —————————————————————————————-

    Indeed, THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    The Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND.

    Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    Who knew about this? Who knew about ROSS?

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

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

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States;

     DATA IS ALSO ACQUIRED FOR WATER SHED DRAINAGE AREAS of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

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

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

     


  • SMP Comment on Climate Change

    SMP Comment on Climate Change

    Something NEW has been added to the SMP Update agenda.

    The fact is, CLIMATE CHANGE is being discussed and presented by Steve Gray, to  the members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, with no mention of the multiple deceptions of politics on climate change.

    The High Court judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film “ An Inconvenient Truth ” was POLITICALLY PARTISAN and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of CLIMATE CHANGE. In fact it was judged to be a  “POLITICAL FILM”

    The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

    The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions.

    Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.

    It is inconceivable to me that the members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, would  let themselves be taken in by the multiple deceptions of politics on CLIMATE CHANGE, while mistakenly believing that they are reacting to something genuine.

    And, as usual, the opportunistic out of Towner’s are back in Clallam County, with yet another POLITICALLY PARTISAN and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of CLIMATE CHANGE. “SPREADING  AND PROMOTING THE  ALARMISM AND EXAGGERATION ” MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS OF POLITICS, in Al Gore’s “POLITICAL FILM” “ An Inconvenient Truth

    —————————————————————————–

    THE “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” ON THE MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS OF POLITICS

    11 Oct 2007 The High Court judge ruled yesterday Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth CONTAINS NINE KEY SCIENTIFIC ERRORS, a  High Court judge ruled yesterday. Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “IN THE CONTEXT OF ALARMISM AND EXAGGERATION” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on GLOBAL WARMING.

    The judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was POLITICALLY PARTISAN AND THUS NOT AN IMPARTIAL SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

      It is, he ruled, a “POLITICAL FILM”.

    ——————————————————————–

    35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie …

    scienceandpublicpolicy.org/…/goreerr…

    Science and Public Policy Institute

    As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a THREAT THAT DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL, OR EXAGGERATIONS OF PHENOMENA THAT DO EXIST, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him.

    The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions.

    Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Political science policymakers?  all interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves … to bring pressure to bear on policy makers to gain policy outcomes in their favour.

    It is inconceivable to me that the members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, would  let themselves be taken in by the multiple deceptions of politics on climate change, while mistakenly believing that they are reacting to something genuine.

    THE HISTORY OF …..

    —————————————————————————————

    THE “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” ON THE SOCIAL PHENOMENA OF MASS HYSTERIA?

    It happened the day before Halloween, on Oct. 30, 1938. War of the Worlds: This panic created by Orson Welles foreshadowed the age of … REVEALED THE WAY POLITICIANS COULD USE THE POWER OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC….

    In a prescient column, in the New York Tribune, Dorothy Thompson foresaw that the broadcast revealed the way politicians could use the power of mass communications to create theatrical illusions, TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC.

    “All unwittingly, Mr. Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air have made one of the most fascinating and important demonstrations of all time,” she wrote.

    “THEY HAVE PROVED THAT A FEW EFFECTIVE VOICES, ACCOMPANIED BY SOUND EFFECTS, CAN CONVINCE MASSES OF PEOPLE OF A TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, COMPLETELY FANTASTIC PROPOSITION AS TO CREATE A NATION-WIDE PANIC.

    “They have demonstrated more potently than any argument, demonstrated beyond a question of a doubt, the appalling dangers and enormous effectiveness of popular and theatrical demagoguery….

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” ON THE MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS OF POLITICS

    telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

    Al Gore’s environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth CONTAINS NINE KEY SCIENTIFIC ERRORS, a  High Court judge ruled yesterday. Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

    But the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.  It is, he ruled, a “political film”.

    The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British schools, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

    In the documentary, directed by Davis Guggenheim, the former US vice president and environmental activist calls on people to fight global warming because “humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb”.

    But Judge Michael Burton ruled yesterday that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

    But the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.  It is, he ruled, a “political film”.

    ————————————————————————————

    Those who let themselves be taken in by the multiple deceptions of politics, news, advertising and public relations, are doomed, like the more gullible members of the radio audience in 1938, to play a role in other people’s dramas, while mistakenly believing that they are reacting to something genuine.

    —————————————————————————————————

    At some point in time? Al Gore had a nightmare,  very likely from watching the American post-apocalyptic science fiction action filmWATERWORLD” too many times.

    WATERWORLD is a 1995 American post-apocalyptic science fiction action film This epic science fiction action film is set 200 years in the future. The polar ice caps have melted, flooding the continents and creating a giant ocean …

    In 2007 Al Gore turned his  nightmare of the American post-apocalyptic science fiction action filmWATERWORLD”

    Into a another American unscientific post-apocalyptic movie… “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH”

    2007 But the judge ruled that the “APOCALYPTIC VISION” presented in the film WAS POLITICALLY PARTISAN AND THUS NOT AN IMPARTIAL SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

    THE HIGH COURT JUDGE RULED, “AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH” was  A “POLITICAL FILM”.

    The polar ice caps are melting, Sea level “rising 6 m”

    Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia“.”THE ARMAGEDDON SCENARIO he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

    ——————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    The judge declined to ban the Academy Award-winning film from British SCHOOLS, but ruled that it can only be shown with guidance notes TO PREVENT POLITICAL INDOCTRINATION.

    It is inconceivable to me that the members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, would  let themselves be taken in by the multiple deceptions of politics on CLIMATE CHANGE, while mistakenly believing that they are reacting to something genuine.

    And, that the Clallam County Planning Commission would make decisions affecting the citizens and the school children of  Clallam County without reading the following.

    35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie …

    scienceandpublicpolicy.org/…/goreerr…

    Science and Public Policy Institute

    Oct 19, 2007 – Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts …

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    ” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.

    As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him.

    The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.

    A concerned American Grandmother

    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

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

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

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

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

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

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

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

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Gene Farr

     


  • Outrage Over WA DNR Logging?

    Outrage Over WA State DNR Logging?

    Indeed, four or more cars full of outraged tourists, identified by their out of state license plates, at the Lake Crescent view point, inside the Olympic National park,  were absolutely outraged by the ugly view of WA State Dept. of Natural Resources clear cut logging of Public Trust lands on the NE end of Lake Crescent.

    —————————————————————————-

    Outrage by definition,  powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice

    —————————————————————————————————

    As the tourists from four or more states, stood around pointing and loudly discussing their outrage of  the ugly logging issue with each other, they were totally clueless about what land was being logged? Who was doing the logging?  And, last but not least, why the land was being logged? They were so distracted by the ugliness of logging that they saw, that they barely glanced at or appreciated  the millions of ONP trees surrounding them.

    Unfortunately this ignorance is also shared and proliferated by members of our county government with regard to the ugly logging view on the Olympic Discovery Trail. And just imagine this shared and proliferated message from thousands of bicyclists that use it. That ugly view from the Olympic Discovery trail was discussed at a Clallam County Planning Commission meeting. Two members of that Commission, brought up the ugly view logging subject. They to, appeared to be  totally clueless about what land was being logged? Who was doing the logging?  And, last but not least, why the land was being logged?

    ———————————————————-

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust Land  and  the entire private forest land industry has a very serious impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    —————————————————————————————–

    AT THE VERY LEAST, Olympic National Park must put up informational signage on the purpose and intent of  DNR harvesting  of state trust land at the Lake Crescent viewpoint.

    AT THE VERY LEAST, Washington State Department of Natural Resources must put up informational signage in logged areas, on the purpose and intent of  DNR harvesting  of state trust land on the Olympic Discovery Trail.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    AT THE VERY LEAST The ONP and DNR informational signage for DNR  logged areas must include. Who, what,  and why the DNR logging was done.

     

    EACH QUARTER, DNR REPORTS the earned income and projected revenue from State Forest Lands (formerly known as Forest Board lands) in Clallam and several other Washington counties. Harvesting timber provides most of the revenue, which the counties use to support various taxing districts that provide county services — roads, schools, hospitals, libraries and fire districts.

     

    ————————————————————————————

    Olympic Discovery Trail ODT | Washington Bike & Multi-use …

    www.olympicdiscoverytrail.com/

    Olympic Discovery Trail

    THE OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL, one of America’s premier trail systems! … This is timber country in a big way.

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON DNR LOGGING AND HARVESTING? THE OUT OF STATE TOURISTS,  OUR  COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND THE THOUSANDS OF OUT OF TOWN BICYCLISTS THAT RIDE ON THE OLYMPIC DISCOVERY TRAIL, one of America’s premier trail systems! … This is timber country in a big way. … The Olympic Peninsula is approximately 130 miles of lowlands is Washington State’s premier destination for non-motorized touring, filled with views of snow capped peaks, …

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT?

    Behind My Back | The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/…/the-enablingact-february-22-1889/

    Mar 9, 2014 – Through the Enabling Act, a specific acreage of land was endowed and is held in trust for each identified beneficiary. Revenues generated from …

    THE IGNORANCE OF THE UNIFORMED PUBLIC ON LOGGING AND HARVESTING? Federal Public Trust Land, WA State Public Trust of Land and  the entire WA State private forest land industry has a devastating  impact on the economy of the of Washington State.

    —————————————————————————————————

    STATE FOREST TRUST LANDS THAT BENEFIT CLALLAM COUNTY?

    State Trust Land | Ear to the Ground | Page 11

    https://washingtondnr.wordpress.com/category/state-trustland/page/11/

    Tags:biomass, DNR, forest, timber, trust land, Washington … from managing 92,532 acres of STATE FOREST TRUST LANDS THAT BENEFIT CLALLAM COUNTY. … AND THE PUBLIC AND COUNTIES CAN BE REASSURED THAT DNR’S SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF FORESTED …

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

    THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC TRUST LANDS?

    THE MAJORITY OF PUBLIC LANDS IN THE UNITED STATES ARE HELD IN TRUST FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    Most of the PUBLIC LAND MANAGED BY THE US FOREST SERVICE and … Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands …

    IS IT ANY WONDER THAT THOSE FEDERAL TRUST LANDS CANNOT ANY LONGER BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC LANDS …

    WHEN THOSE PUBLIC TRUST LANDS ARE MANAGED, BY THE? WITH THE? OR THE? UNDER THE? AND THE? OR THE ? AND THE OTHER THE?  WHICH INCLUDES ? 

    1. managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

    2.The United States National Park Service,

    3. Bureau of Reclamation, 

    4. or the Fish and Wildlife Service,

    5. under the Department of the Interior,

    6. or the United states Forest Service,

    7. under the Department of Agriculture,

    Other federal agencies that manage public lands include

    8. the National Oceanic and atmospheric  Engineers,

    9.  United States Department of Defense

    10. which includes  the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    ———————————————————————————–

     More info on US FOREST SERVICE TRUST LANDS?

    The US Forest Service alone manages 193 million acres (780,000 km²) nationwide, or roughly 8% of the total land area in the United States.[3]

    Most of the public land managed by the US Forest Service and … Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands …

    Each western state also received federal “public land” as trust lands designated for specific beneficiaries, which the States are to manage as a condition to acceptance into the union. Those trust lands cannot any longer be considered public lands as allowing any benefits to the “public” would be in breach of loyalty to the specific beneficiaries.

    ——————————————————————————-

    THE GOOD NEWS IS… Pacific Legal Foundation Lawsuit.

    Releases|3-18-15 Feds sued for blocking thousands of …

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media

    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 18, 2015 – The victims include all citizen users of public lands — including the disabled … The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Department of … and has additionally contributed to her overall sense of well-being. … county, and depriving the county of revenue related to logging operations.


  • 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 #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)  the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

    INTERFERENCE  BY DEFINITION to come into opposition, as one thing with another, ESPECIALLY with the effect of hampering action or procedure involvement in the activities and concerns of other people when your involvement is not wanted.

    The Planning Commission extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015.

    This SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior shall be included in consideration by the Planning Commission.

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

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  comment #162  dated Feb. 28, 2015

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    We the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    snippet

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    DO THE FED’S RECOGNIZE THE FACT that that they have PROFILED AND TARGETED ONLY THE 3300 VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS IN CLALLAM COUNTY?

    THE FEDS  WANT A  HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE 3300 AFFECTED?  THAN IS REQUIRED BY WA STATE LAW? Ch. 90.58 RCW – Shoreline Management Act

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

    I have been consistently protecting private property rights. Hence,  my #162 Public SMP comment, as a taxpaying American citizen, born in and a  resident of Clallam County and the trustee of 800 acres of PRIVATE pristine forest land that has been owned by and under the stewardship of our family for over 65 years. Indeed, I have been consistently protecting private property rights in Clallam County since Jan. 26,2011.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    DOES THE FEDERAL DOI RECOGNIZE THE FACT  that 89% of Clallam County land is public and tribal land?  that those OTHER 89% of property owners are  exempt from and not affected, by the SMP Update?

    WHAT FACTS ABOUT CLALLAM COUNTY DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE  DOI, RECOGNIZE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    (DOI) RECOGNIZES THE FACT? That Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners have maintained, protected and kept their  private pristine  aquatic  areas and shorelines in great condition at their own expense forever?

    ————————————————————————————

    We  the Clallam County’s 3300 vested private shoreline private property owners RECOGNIZING THESE FACTS, including but not limited to all of the above….

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    The primary RESPONSIBILITY for administering this regulatory program is assigned to LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENTS have done so through the mechanism of shoreline master programs, adopted under rules established by the Department of Ecology (DOE)

    ——————————————————————————–

    WHY ARE THESE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

    With all due respect, may I suggest that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR the US Fish and Wildlife Service, WA  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC) ETC.

    take their big federal noses and stick them  into their own government federal public business, that being, the other 89% of public land and tribal land in Clallam County.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    And, an additional comment and suggestion for the DOI, by a Clallam County taxpaying citizen.  the federal government, the Department Of the Interior etc. HAS FAILED TO MANAGE THE CITIZENS PUBLIC TRUST TIMBER LAND, in the best interest of the people in Clallam County.

    INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, the tribes sued the federal government for failing to manage their tribal trust land and they won.

    Indian Trust Fund Mess – Salazar class-action lawsuit. The case is sometimes reported as the largest class-action lawsuit against the … 1 Early Federal Indian trust law; 2 Fruit of a failed policy;

    Vol. 37, No. 1 – Native American Rights Fund

    www.narf.org/pubs/nlr/nlr37-1.pdf

    Native American Rights Fund

    (and why are some tribes still) suing the govern- ment over … almost 56 million acres of trust land for tribes. Hundreds of … government’s management of tribal trust assets date back to …. hadn’t fixed what they’d done or failed to do in the past.”.

    —————————————————————————————

    The Planning Commission has extended the written comment period until Friday, February 27, 2015. To ensure consideration by the Planning Commission, comments should be received by February 27, 2015. 

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

    bottom line

    How fortunate I am, to have my website behindmyback.org to post this SMP Public  #162 dated Feb. 28, 2015

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment (159)

    SMP Public Comment (159)

    Clallam County Planning Commission

    Public Forums

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clallam County Planning Commission, for recognizing the need for this additional  step in the SMP Update  process, and voting to provide the public forums  for us.

    I have appreciation and  respect for the dedicated members of Planning Commission that made the (4) regional, informal, public forums a reality. The choice of evening forums, and  having the presenters go to meeting at the four locations, allowed working people to attend.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I did attend 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

    ————————————————————————–

    Jan. 8, 2015 Public Forum at the PA Senior Center

    It was very encouraging to see our New County Commissioner Bill Peach, our new DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, members of the Clallam County Planning Commission and Home Rule Charter Commission  in attendance. It is vital to have our local representative, Involved in, listening to public questions, comments and the many concerns of our local citizens on the SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WE HAVE LOTS OF CONCERNS

    OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS  LOTS OF OPTIONS

    ———————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER THE LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    SMP handbook chapter 5

    ———————————————————

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     ——————————————————————————————–

    The  SMP Update  OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANY OPTIONS

    My suggestions and SMP comment Jan 16, 2015

    That, Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners EXERCISE  THEIR LOCAL OPTIONS and ACT on the OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, from the November SMP Draft Update

    That they act in the best interest of Clallam County taxpaying citizens

    Nothing to lose out of towner’s and members of  special interest group, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DUMP, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED vested private shoreline property owners and taxpaying citizens.

    —————————————————————————————–

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    Shoreline Jurisdiction – Washington State Department of …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/chapter5.pdf

    Considering local options for shoreland areas ….. body is then regulated under the local SMP, even if it is not yet listed or mapped in the SMP [WAC. 173-20-046] …

     Options shown below ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL OR PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN, in addition to the minimum shoreline jurisdiction noted above, when determining shoreline jurisdiction along streams and rivers. When making this decision, consider:

    The LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPTION of selecting road or railroad corridors, or other features or distances within the flood plain, that provide a suitable upland boundary for the shorelands associated with the river.

    Ecology RECOMMENDS the SMP include the following definition if FEMA maps are used to define the floodway.”Floodway” means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ———————————————————————————–

    CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS

    The shoreline property owners, attending the Port Angeles Forum, were well informed on the SMP Update.  The PA questions and comments were detailed and pointedly skeptical.

    1. PA How much did this cost and who’s paying for it?

    2. PA What will I have to do to, to vest  my permits,  to allow me time to complete my home building project before the new SMP is in force?

    3.PA If this SMP was in place in Louisiana or Texas there would be no more development

    4.PA  Does this SMP ever get any better?

    5. PA Will this power point presentation be available online?

    6. PA How will the value of my shoreline property be effected?

    7.  PA My comment and question during the forum

    There has been county discussion that would REQUIRE critical areas information be recorded on shoreline property owners deeds. How is it proceeding?

    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Buyers are protected by RCW 64.06.020 –

    Critical areas information being recorded on shoreline property owners deeds, to alert and protect buyers,  is not an SMP requirement. Including this SMP requirement, by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be  redundant and place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline vested private property owners and all other taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The  County proposed requirement, to place critical areas property shoreline property owners deeds should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update.

    RCW 64.06.020 – Access Washington

    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 64 › Chapter 64.06

    Washington State Senate

    Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement … For your protection you must date and sign each page of this disclosure .

    RCW 64.06.020Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement — Minimum information.

    (1) In a transaction for the sale of improved residential real property, the seller shall, unless the buyer has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement under RCW 64.06.010, or unless the transfer is otherwise exempt under RCW 64.06.010, deliver to the buyer a completed seller disclosure statement in the following format and that contains, at a minimum, the following information:
    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    NOT REQUIRED BY SMP LAW

    The SMP update includes MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS on development of nine (9) or more units

    RCW 90.58.020 SPECIFICALLY STATES

     (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES

    The Clallam County SMP Update does not require the taking of any private shoreline property to provide public access to the public.     

    This  SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be a local legal prerogative, imposed solely by Clallam County  and  place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline property owners and the all taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The burden of expense and paperwork required to MUST provide proof of EXEMPTION from the  MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) must not be dumped on the backs of the already beleaguered vested private shoreline property owners.

    Commentary: WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner – commentary by Pearl Rains Hewett

    8/26/2011 If WA State WDFW and DNR can demand access fees for the EXPENSE of allowing public access on public land?

    How can private property owners be required, by the SMP (Shoreline Management Plan) Update, to provide public access on their private property without compensation for land management capital, operational, maintenance renovation, development of new facilities, trails, enforcement needs and allow them to seek restitution from those who damage their private property?

    The SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update

    ————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.020Legislative findings — State policy enunciated — Use preference.

    snippet
    The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
    (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
    (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
    (3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
    (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
    (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES


         (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

    Clallam County has  51% public access, the highest public access in WA State (per Steve Grey)

    November 2014  Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update – Clallam County

    SIGNS indicating the public’s right to access public shoreline recreation areas/facilities SHALL be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at points of access and entry.

    If people KNOW where it is and can find it,  It will certainly increase recreational opportunities for the public

    (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Sequim and PA PUBLIC FORUMS PROVIDED

    1. An introduction by Steve Gray

    2. A SMP presentation by ESA Consultant Margaret Clancy

    3. An opportunity for the audience to make comments ask questions as a group and get a response.

    4. The informal part,  mix and mingle, the opportunity for one on one personalized attention, staff and a shoreline property owner.

    First by finding the right map, identifying their piece of shoreline property.

    Then the challenging  part..

    Staff decoding the maps and explaining what all of those overlapping colored patches and lines meant?

    —————————————————-

    The reality part

    Wetland? Critical area? flood plain? associated wetland? zoning? setback? Buffer? Conservation? natural? hundred year flood?

    Why is my buffer? setback wider? Why is that patch so big? You mean? I can’t do anything within 100 feet  of that area? FEMA flood plain? I’ll have to get FEMA insurance?

    ———————————————————

    The unbelievable parts

    River meander line? floodplain? What the hell? I live on top of a hill? how can a river meander up to the top of a hill? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    ————————————————————-

    Remember this part?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ——————————————

    The reality part

    FEMAS HAS WARPED FLOOD PLAINS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarped-data/

    Mar 22, 2014 – Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes. Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office …

    ————————————————————-

    The unbelievable parts Sequim Forum

    Grand fathered in? everything you have, no matter where it is, no matter what it is, is just fine,  it is an acceptable use. No worries, be happy. (read the fine print, unless?)

    ——————————————————

    Sequim Forum

    Adopting Clallam County SMP by Ordinance? OR WHAT OTHER?

    What does this mean? Please explain  and clarify, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make?

    Shoreline Master Program – City of Kirkland

    www.kirklandwa.gov/Assets/City…/10c_UnfinishedBusiness.pdf

    Kirkland

    Jul 26, 2010 – Adopt Ordinance 4251 approving the Shoreline Master Program …. of the new provisions found in the State Guidelines are “no net loss” of …

    (Ordinance 4251 over a 600 page document)

    —————————————————————————

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Something has been added A NEW ONE TIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT on the SMP Update?

    Is this another of the County’s  unnecessary restriction on Shoreline property owners?

    snippet

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    SMP Rude Comments and Conduct

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    A nothing to lose member of a special interest group,
    And, a member of the SMP Committee, that wanted to know who would MONITOR county building permits to private property owners,

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    This comment was NOT included in the summary of that meeting. Nor, was my response to that comment.

    Disgust, Indeed…. We all know that every private property owner, that wants to add a bedroom or bathroom to his private home on his private property within the SMP jurisdiction is suspect.

    Now? we are confronted with A NEW ONETIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT? What happens when your mother-in law has to move  in,   or you have twins? and you want a second 10% build out?

    We all know that we will have to keep an eye on them, because they’ll be trying to get away with anything that they can.”  (they’ll get one 10% and then come back for another second 10%  to avoid the 25%)

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

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    The SMP mini presentation provided more questions then answers

    Comments and Questions (wait until after the presentation)

    1.  During the ESA presentation, a man raised his had three times, he was shut down two times. The third time, he managed to get in this comment. You are covering too much, I want answers and won’t be able to remember what I wanted to ask.

    2.  Where can I get a copy? (no access SMP online) Answer, go to the library.

    Can I get a copy from you? (aka the county) Answer, yes, but you will have to pay for it.

    How big is it? About two hundred pages plus, 30 plus maps.

    3. There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about AQUACULTURE

    —————————————————————–

    snippets of email comments I received Jan. 12, 2015

    Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands from Dungeness Farms (the duck hunting club just west of the old Three Crabs Restaurant).  The lease runs until 2028.  They propose farming geoduck on 30 acres.  Nothing has been said what will be done with the other 67 acres, but Taylor Shellfish leases in the south Puget Sound and they farm geoduck off shore and clams and oysters near shore.  The implication during the presentation was that some aqua farming would happen on the other 67 acres.  The land is at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    To plant the geoduck seed, Taylor Shellfish will scrape the seabed with heavy equipment.  In the South Puget Sound, they would gather the starfish in a pile and pour lime on them kill them.  Sand dollars are shoveled onto the shore where they die.  They remove any crabs from the area……..

    There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands (and fish pens)

    Steve Grey appeared to be stressed? When he had to respond several times?

    It went something like this?

    Emphatically stating that  TAYLOR SHELLFISH had not even  applied for a permit from the county.

    and, that TAYLOR SHELLFISH would be  required to  “run the gantlet” (my words) of fed? state? ecology? impact? before the county could/would approve a permit,

    Even if TAYLOR SHELLFISH HAD applied for a county permit,  and the county had received the application permit, which they do not, the county would have to receive before it could be considered, to be approved

    ————————————————————————————–

    My comment

    Some people just got up and walked out of the Sequim Forum.

    There was NO Applause.

    —————————————————

    the bottom line

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    Where do we go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     


  • The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    Funding for this work is provided by SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, PATAGONIA, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN Living on the Edge  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    WHY ARE THEY HERE?

    Big meeting? Landowner Update and Discussion?

    ———————————————————–

    WHO INVITED THEM? Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    http://www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/earthEconomics.pdf

    NATURE’S VALUE IN CLALLAM COUNTY: THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FEEDER BLUFFS and 12 Other Ecosystems. Earth Economics: Tacoma, Washington (a 146 page document)

    EARTH ECONOMICS would like to thank all who contributed valuable information to this project: Anne Shaffer and Nicole Harris from the Coastal Watershed Institute, CATHY LEAR AND STEVE GRAY FROM CLALLAM COUNTY, Dave Parks from Department of Natural Resources, George Kaminsky and Heather Barron from Department of Ecology, Kathryn Neal from the City of Port Angeles, Clea Rome from the WSU Extension, Ian Miller from WA Seagrant and Helle Andersen, formerly of CWI

    We deeply appreciate those who helped review and edit this document, Donna J. Nickerson, Aaron Schwartz, CATHY LEAR, Anne Shaffer and Dave Parks

    ——————————————————————

    COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE CWI IS A 501C3 NON-PROFIT

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/

    Jul 14, 2013 – The WE’S WHO WANT OUR WA STATE WAVES? THE WE’S WHO … ENTER Surfrider Foundation ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Surfrider …

    THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

    ———————————————————————

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    Why are THEY being given  an special SMP UPDATE before the first notification, publication, workshop, has been sent or given to the 3300 affected private shoreline property owners in Clallam County?

    WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    Why is Clallam County paying A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, our Taxpayer Dollars, TO GIVE THEM AN SPECIAL SMP UPDATE BEFORE NOTIFICATION OF THE AFFECTED CITIZENS?

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)

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

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    Living on the Edge? OR ARE THEY LIVING ON THE FRINGE OF AGENDA 21?

    Landowner Update and Discussion?

    How much land do THEY own CLALLAM COUNTY?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Why do THEY keep showing up in OUR back yard? THEY Pretend to be living on the edge?

    THEY Pretend they represent, “US”  the 3300  VESTED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS  AFFECTED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    THEY ARE NOT MY REPRESENTATIVES.

    THEY ARE THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, ECOLOGY, THE TRIBES, AND a plethora of PAID GOVERNMENT (including Clallam County) EMPLOYEES AND NGO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS GLOBAL, AND OTHER, AND FOR-PROFIT CONSULTING GROUPS.

    ———————————————————————–

    And, Clallam County employees are in collaboration with THEM?

    —————————————————————————-

    AND? THEY ARE GOING ALL WORKING TOGETHER?  THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINE THE BEST STEWARDSHIP? AND? THEY ARE GOING PROVIDE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS? THEY ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE DUNGENESS FEEDER BLUFFS?

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

    OUR FAMILY HAS PROVIDED OVER 60 YEARS OF PRISTINE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    OUR PRIVATE PRISTINE  SHORELINE FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

    —————————————————————————————————

    BUT WOW, IF I GO TO THEIR MEETING?

    THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A LANDOWNER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

    THE CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, North Olympic Land Trust, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    ——————————————————————————————

    THESE OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE ALL  coming here, to CLALLAM COUNTY WITH THEIR NGO AGENDA.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI)

    CWI IS A SMALL 501C3 NON-PROFIT FIRST FORMED IN 1996. CWI’s goal is to advance protection of intact and critical natural ecosystems thru long-term wise ecosystem management, nearshore restoration at the ecosystem level, and mentoring our next generation of scientists and managers, and citizen partnerships. Over our careers we at CWI have learned that -without exception- what is good for the environment is good for community. CWI has also learned that saving what we have is best for the ecosystem and economy- so CWI emphasizes protection,. We also know that when we are restoring, true restoration must occur at the ecosystem level to be successful.. Our experience is also that the majority of the community – which is growing rapidly – wants to be wise stewards but need the tools to do so. Our work is extremely challenging. Preservation and restoration can take decades-and that bureaucratic and political challenges (sometimes significant) are not reasons to quit. In total our work is to link senior scientists, managers, and citizens to motivate for the best, not just the easiest, management actions and solutions. Our work is never ending and crosses generations. Collectively CWI senior scientists have hundreds of years of experience managing and researching the natural history of this region CWI engages these scientists with college students, citizens, and landowners on the ground to understand how our natural ecosystems function and how to protect them while training the next generation of managers and scientists. We bring science to management in a rural, and sometimes extremely conservative, but ecologically critical region of the Pacific Northwest. Top priority work for CWI include coordinating the Elwha Nearshore Consortium, a group of scientists, citizens, and managers dedicated to understanding and promoting the nearshore restoration associated with the Elwha dam removals, and conduct unique and critical research to understand and promote nearshore habitat function, and define how to protect the nearshore functions, including cross regional fish use of nearshore habitats, and the importance of Dungeness and Elwha feeder bluffs for surf smelt. CWI also regularly sponsor’s community forums on emerging and ongoing topics including Elwha nearshore science, management, and restoration, and net pen aquaculture. Nearshore ecosystem services are complex, compelling, and integral element of CWI’s work. We are honored to be a partner in this new frontier of ecosystem management

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Earth Economics

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION located in Tacoma, Washington, dedicated to researching and applying the economic

    solutions of tomorrow, today.Earth Economics provides robust, science-based, ecologically sound economic analysis, policy recommendations and tools to

    positively transform regional, national and international economics, and asset accounting systems. Working with leading ecologists, economists and modelers, we serve a large circle of businesses, non-profits, government agencies, policy makers and media channels with research, reports, presentations, workshops and investigations. Our goal is to help communities shift away from the failed

    economic policies of the past, towards an approach that is both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.Mission Statement: Earth Economics applies new economic tools and principles to meet challenges of the 21st century: achieving the

    need for just and equitable communities, healthy ecosystems, and sustainable economies.

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

    SO HERE IS YOUR  BIG INVITE

    (I called Jamie Michel 206-282-3025 no response)

    Press Release

    Date: December 5, 2014

    **For Immediate Release**

    FROM: COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE, PO box 2263, Port Angeles www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 360.461.0799

    Contact: Jamie Michel, jamie.michel@coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 206-282-3025

    Living on the Edge

    Landowner Update and Discussion

    Tuesday January 27th, 2015

    6:00-8:00 pm at Dungeness Schoolhouse 2781 Towne Road, Sequim

    The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) and partners invite the community to a bluff management workshop the evening of 27 January 2015 at the historical Dungeness Schoolhouse from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

    This workshop will provide an update to our ongoing work to understand and promote wise stewardship of this important region of the nearshore. CWI will provide an update on efforts including the development of a realtor funding pool for distressed landowners (see photo), and protection grants.

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and Washington Department of Natural Resources will present findings long term bluff erosion study just published. Staff from the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge will provide details on their upcoming anniversary celebration in May.

    CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, AND THE NORTH OLYMPIC LAND TRUST,

    —————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE

    The Land Trust has completed its largest land conservation project ever! We are pleased to announce that we have purchased a 280-acre property just east of the Lyre River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This stunning property features the estuary at the mouth of the Lyre River, streams, wetlands, tidelands, kelp beds and bluff-backed beaches.   It also includes a large upland area with a diverse forest at various ages of growth,  Learn more ›  “The Land Trust has been working with community partners for years to conserve this property,” Planning is underway for the use of the property.  VISITORS WILL BE ABLE TO PARK ABOUT A MILE FROM THE BEACH and walk in from there. Visitors can enjoy DAY-USE activities such as birdwatching, wildlife viewing, surfing, picnicking, and beach walking. The area will be closed to all motor vehicles.

    THE USUAL? NO HORSES? NO RUNNING? NO JOGGING? NO BARKING?

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

    AND, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    The January 27th workshop will continue this dialogue between scientists, managers and bluff landowners on next steps for all of us to the benefit of our community and the environment. Join us!

    —————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHO INVITED THEM?

    Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS MEETINGS SMP PRESENTATION?

    Funding for this work is provided by Surfrider Foundation, Patagonia, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.