+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Access to Public land
  • Discovery Clallam Co SMP Update 2009-2017

    Discovery on the Clallam County SMP Update 2009-2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————

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

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    Fromxxxx

    To: pearl hewett

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

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

    It’s good to hear from you Pearl

    ———————————————————————————-

    Re: The DCD 2017 SMP Draft Update

    April 12, 2011 DISCOVERY on Nov 2, 2017

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

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

    Subject: Re: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

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

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

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

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

    They want clarification and specific requirements on the revised SMP.

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

    FYI

    Pearl

    —————————————————————————

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

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

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

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

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    To DCD Director Mary Ellen Winbourn

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    RE: SMP Update Advisory Committee

    (360) 417-9452

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    ———————————————————————

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

    —————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY April 17, 2011

    ESA ADOLFSON WA STATE SMP COOKIE CUTTERS

    SMP COOKIE CUTTING April 17, 2011

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

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

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

     April 17, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

    AND THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED …..

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

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

    ——-

    DISCOVERY  Jefferson County – Michelle McConnell leaves for Ecology

    Posted on March 30, 2014 by Al B.

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

    050511 – PHewett – G

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

    ——————————————————————-

    MY DISCOVERY on the DCD SMP Draft Update

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jim Kramer

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

    Subject: Re: Taking of Private Property for Public Access

    Jim,

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

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

    Eight months ago, I had no voice.

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

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

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

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

    Pearl

    ————————————————————————————

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

    EIGHT YEARS  ago, I had no voice.

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

    WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST  EIGHT YEARS? 

    DISCOVERY AND MORE DISCOVERY AND MORE….

    Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

    SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

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

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

    ————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? 

    November 03, 2017 8:02 AM

    Subject: Educate the BOCC

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

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

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

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

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

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

     I THINK NOT!

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

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

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

    What am I doing on Nov 3, 2017?

    Sending these documents to the  BOCC 

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

    —————————————————————

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

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

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

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

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

     


  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

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

    And  to think Clallam County has been working on the SMP Update for eight years 2009-2017.

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology has still not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov  2, 2017 it is listed as Underway.

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

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

    Nov 2, 2017,  Update on Bellevue WA SMP Update four years later

    State Review and Approval

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology still has not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov 1, 2017, it is listed as Underway.

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

    Who is Bellevue’s Joe Burcar? I’ll call him later today.

    WHAT IS CLALLAM COUNTY’S STATUS  ON THE DOE SMP UPDATE ON NOV 2, 2017?

    Click on the link below to find out.

    Status of Local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) | Washington State …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › … › Shoreline Management home › SMP home

    Most local programs have not been fully updated in over 30 years. Local governments … All counties must update their Shoreline Master Programs. Some towns …

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE (ELECTED) COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    BELLEVUE COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN WALLACE EXPRESSED HIS IRRITATION that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said.

    “SO, I JUST WANT TO LODGE MY PERSONAL FRUSTRATION. I’M JUST STUNNED THAT EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DO THIS AND IN 2014 THE STATE OF THE LAW ON THIS IS SO UNCLEAR. … WHAT WE’RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT IS SOMEONE’S OPINION,” HE SAID.

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    NOV 1, 2017, BELLEVUE’S SMP UPDATED IT IS LISTED AS UNDERWAY. PENDING DOE APPROVAL.

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

    Posted on August 19, 2014 9:39 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

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

    FROM MAR 12, 2008 TO AUG. 2014 – SIX YEARS

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history (Mar 12, 2008)

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC  HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

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

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

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

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

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

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

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

    Attachment C.

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

    5.Residential Moorage.

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

     City Council

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

    Planning Commission

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

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act. by 2010.

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

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since March 12, 2008

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

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

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

    Public access

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

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

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

    Park development options

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

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

    High water mark

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

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations.

    Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, BUT THE PLAN MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED.

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

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

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

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

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

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    Related Stories

     

    This entry was posted in A Man-made Disaster, Bang for their buck? Restoration, Clallam County SMP, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Demand Accountability, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, FACTS are troublesome things, Follow the Money, For The Record, If It’s not broken? Why PAY to fix it?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Man-Made Disasters, Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), POLITICAL MANIPULATION, Politically Ignored, Politically Motivated, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, Public Comments, Public Meetings, Public Servants, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Ignorant Disruptive Public?, The Ignorant Uninformed Act?, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology

     


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • 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….


  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.html

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

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

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • Renaming and Rebranding the ONP Wilderness

    Renaming and Re-branding the ONP Wilderness

    Sponsored In 2016, by the Wild, Wilderness, WA DC Democrats,.  Senator Maria Cantwell, (D) Mountlake Terrace, and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, (D) Seattle, introduced S. 3028, while H.R. 5397 was sponsored by members of the Washington delegation in the House, including Derek Kilmer (D) Born: Port Angeles, WA (DWA 6th District)

     SO, After President Trump was Elected President Nov 8, 2016, And before President Trump was sworn into office on Jan 20, 2017.

    The bill was signed into law Dec. 14, 2016, by President Barack Obama.

    AUG 18TH, 2017 Ceremony marks change of name  of to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    ————————————————————–

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Trump’s DOI and EPA Pick?

    WELL, IF WA STATE  SENATOR PATTY MURRAY (D) WANTED ALL OF THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IN WA STATE, WHAT WOULD SHE DO?

    SENATOR MURRAY MADE HER CHOICE, OVER SIX (6) YEARS AGO…. WILD OLYMPICS  WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN 2010, IN 2012, CONGRESS NORM DICKS AND SENATOR PATTY MURRAY(D) INTRODUCED IDENTICAL BILLS IN … WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 2012

    APR 11, 2013 – WA STATE  SENATOR PATTY MURRAY’S (D) PROPOSAL IS CALLED WILD OLYMPICS.

    REINTRODUCING 2013-2014 and REINTRODUCING 2015-2016

    Stop Wild Olympics Update 2016
    if you have already read to the bottom, here is page 2  

    The Wild Olympics Scam
    From The Beginning: 

     

    bldg

    WA STATE SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL was busy having roads decommissioned while MURRAY (D) AND KILMER (D)  waited in the wings with their phones and their pens.

    In the meantime Kilmer(D) took on Dicks (D) roll, with Murray(D) to re-introduce the unwanted, unnecessary and wasteful Wild Olympics Wild & Scenic Act TWICE!

    —————————————————————————————–

    The Long Range Plan ONP 1944-2017?

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/ceremony-marks-change-of-name-to-daniel-j-evans-…

    1 day ago – OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS, WHICH COVERS 95 PERCENT OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, HAS BEEN RENAMED AND RE-BRANDED.

    RE-BRANDING IS A MARKETING STRATEGY IN WHICH A NEW NAME, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.

    ——————————————————————

    ONP SPOKESWOMAN PENNY WAGNER SAID, “IT’S NOT CHANGING THE WILDERNESS,” WAGNER ADDED. “IT’S NOT ADDING OR SUBTRACTING LAND. IT’S JUST A “RENAMING” OF THE EXISTING WILDERNESS.”

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 Ceremony marks change of name  of to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Invited speakers are,  the usual liberal suspects, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell D, U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer D, former U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks D, AND A NEW (January 9, 2017) REPUBLICAN STATE SEN. HANS ZEIGER?  Olympic National Park ACTING Superintendent Lee Taylor.

    THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS, WHICH COVERS 95 PERCENT OF THE PARK, HAS BEEN RENAMED to honor Evans for his contributions to wilderness preservation, park spokeswoman Penny Wagner said.

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 “IT’S NOT CHANGING THE WILDERNESS,” WAGNER ADDED. “IT’S NOT ADDING OR SUBTRACTING LAND. IT’S JUST A RENAMING OF THE EXISTING WILDERNESS.”

    ——————————————————————–

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    ——————————————————————————

    1938 THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK WAS OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED BY US PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

    ————————————————————-

    1944 six years later In a conversation at Sol Duc Hot Springs between the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    1964 PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON SIGNED THE WILDERNESS ACT INTO LAW

    1981 OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK WAS DESIGNATED BY UNESCO AS NATURAL UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK IN 1981 ALSO RECOGNIZED BY UNESCO AS AN INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE.

    1988 SEVEN YEARS LATER IN NOVEMBER 1988. AFTER BECOMING A UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE, AFTER BECOMING AN  INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN 1981?

    1988, EVANS INTRODUCED THE WASHINGTON PARK WILDERNESS ACT

    1988  THE BILL PROPOSED MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION ACRES OF WILDERNESS WITHIN OLYMPIC, MOUNT RAINIER AND NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARKS. IT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.

    1988,  THE ACT DESIGNATED 877,000 ACRES IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AS THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS.

    ——————————————————————

    1992 George C Rains Sr., my Dad had an 48 year inholder  history (1944-1992) with the Olympic National Park and he wrote a notarized 28 page warning on the National Park Service, Oct 8, 1992.

    Snippets: Most people have no knowledge of these vast encroachments to take our property and property rights on the Olympic Peninsula, and it is time that the truth be known.

    Land and Power Grab Are the removal of the Lake Mills Dam and Aldwell Lake Dam part of the National Park Service conspiracy to later demand a wide corridor down each side of the Elwha River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and ultimately split Clallam County?

    George C. Rains Sr.

    ————————————————————————-

    U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt originally created Mount Olympus National Monument on 2 March 1909. It was designated a national park by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 29, 1938. In 1976, Olympic National Park was designated by UNESCO as an International Biosphere Reserve, and in 1981 as a World Heritage Site.

    ———————————————————————————–   

    AND AUG 18, 2017,  THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS HAS BEEN RENAMED AND RE-BRANDED BY WA STATE DEMOCRATS, IN A CEREMONY  ON  HURRICANE RIDGE AS THE  DANIEL J. EVANS WILDERNESS

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    ————————————————————————

    OCT. 8, 1992- 2013-2017

    Behind My Back | “Conspiracy Exposed”

    www.behindmyback.org/conspiracy-exposed/

    CONSPIRACY EXPOSED” The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on OCT. 8, 1992 by George C. Rains Sr. when he was 77 years old.

    The proof of this conspiracy has and is being proven in the step by step acquisition of private and DNR land by the National Park Service, as this is being written and during the last 21 years from 1992 to 2013.

    The nine page summary includes some of the 48 year history of Clallam County from 1944 to 1992 and is his proof of the conspiracy.

    It’s a good read from a historical standpoint and a cautionary statement to the citizens of Clallam County. Could this happen to Clallam Country by imminent domain, isolation, regulation, restriction and/or economic starvation?

    ———————————————————————–

    JAN 27, 2014

    Behind My Back | Part 1 (WOW) a War on Wild?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/01/27/part-1-wow-a-war-on-wild/

    JAN 27, 2014 – Why would anyone use the word “War” against the federal governments “Wild” Agendas that historically, have had the FEDERAL power, past, …

    Editorital: A War on Wild | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/editorital-a-war-on-wild/

    JAN 31, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org … Now is the time for many of us to speak of a War On Wild and keep our … (WOW) A War on Wild and Scenic Rivers?

    ———————————————————————————

    JUL 31, 2016

    Behind My Back | The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/07/31/the-long-range-plan-of-nps-1944-2016/

    JUL 31, 2016 – www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/let–me–ask-america-a-question/ … The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on Oct. 8 …

    ————————————————————————————–

    RE-BRANDING  AND CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/ceremony-marks-change-of-name-to-daniel-j-evans-…

    1 day ago – OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Daniel Evans is a former U.S. senator and Washington governor whose efforts played a key role in the preservation of more than 1.7 million acres of wilderness in the state, Olympic National Park officials said.

    The Olympic Wilderness, which covers 95 percent of the park, has been renamed to honor Evans for his contributions to wilderness preservation, park spokeswoman Penny Wagner said.

    “It’s not changing the wilderness,” Wagner added. “It’s not adding or subtracting land. It’s just a renaming of the existing wilderness.”

    The public is invited to the dedication ceremony.

    The event will be from 10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the west end of the Hurricane Ridge Visitor Center parking lot.

    Parking will be available on a first-come, first served basis.

    Invited speakers are Evans, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, former U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, state Sen. Hans Zeiger, Olympic National Park Acting Superintendent Lee Taylor and Sequim author Tim McNulty.

    In 2016, Cantwell, D-Mountlake Terrace, and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Seattle, introduced S. 3028, while H.R. 5397 was sponsored by members of the Washington delegation in the House, including Derek Kilmer.

    Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, represents the 6th Congressional District, which includes the North Olympic Peninsula.

    The bill was signed into law Dec. 14, 2016, by President Barack Obama.

    President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law in 1964 “to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness,” Olympic National Park officials said in a news release.

    The idea was to preserve a remnant of the country’s untamed, wild places as wilderness for the permanent good of the people.

    Wilderness areas help protect complex ecosystems, natural processes and habitat for threatened and endangered species, park officials said.

    In March 1988, Evans introduced the Washington Park Wilderness Act with former Sen. Brock Adams.

    The bill proposed more than 1.7 million acres of wilderness within Olympic, Mount Rainier and North Cascades national parks. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in November 1988.

    The act designated 877,000 acres in Olympic National Park as the Olympic Wilderness.

    Evans served three terms as Washington governor from 1965 to 1977. He was a senator from 1983 to 1989.

    Evans and his wife, Nancy Evans, live in Seattle’s Laurelhurst neighborhood.

    Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 56450, or at rollikainen@peninsula dailynews.com.


  • Electronic Warfare Dear Interested Party

    Electronic Warfare Dear Interested Party

    The decision is documented in the 2017 Decision Notice and Finding of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRONIC WARFARE RANGE, WHICH CAN BE FOUND https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42759&exp=overview. Additional project materials may also be found at this location.

    Thank you for your interest in the Olympic National Forest.

    ———————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: USDA Forest Service

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:57 PM

    Subject: USDA Forest Service Olympic NF – Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment Update

    Dear Interested Party:

    We want to let you know that a decision was made to authorize issuance of a Special Use Permit that would allow the U.S. Navy to conduct ground-to-air training using mobile electronic transmitters from eleven designated roadside locations on the Pacific Ranger District of the Olympic National Forest for a period of up to five years.

    The decision adopts the Navy’s 2014 Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 1506.3, to eliminate duplication by federal agencies. The decision is to select Alternative 1 as described in the 2014 Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment with modifications. The decision also incorporates by reference analysis associated with the Navy’s 2015 Northwest Training and Testing Final EIS/OEIS and its 2016 Record of Decision as well as other materials. The decision is documented in the 2017 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range, which can be found https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=42759&exp=overview. Additional project materials may also be found at this location.

    In making the decision, we considered public comments received during the designated scoping, comment, and objection periods, as well as input received outside of these designated periods. The main concerns profiled were potential impacts to public health and wildlife. Additional to standard permit Terms and Conditions, the decision includes Forest Service Project Design Features and Navy Standard Operating Procedures to address public health/safety and resource concerns. Compliance with the decision will be ensured through the Special Use Permit administration process.

    Thank you for your interest in the Olympic National Forest.

    Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com.

    This service is provided to you at no charge by US Forest Service.

    This email was sent to phew@wavecable.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: USDA Forest Service · 1400 Independence Ave., SW · Washington, DC 20250-0003 · 1-800-832-1355


  • China Dam Smart? U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    China Dam Smart?  U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DID THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    IT WAS NOT HE WHO “OWNS THE WATER”, WOTUS….

    IT IS”HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER”

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus-water-runs-down-hill/

    Sep 4, 2015 – “WATERS OF UNITED STATES” POWER GRAB. WOTUS RULE – Pacific Legal Foundation https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus. Pacific Legal Foundation

    DAMS CONTROL WATER. period

    THE STUPID US GOVERNMENT WAS SO “DAM DUMB” THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    Behind My Back | How Dam Dumb is the US Government?

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/17/how-dam-dumb-is-the-us-government/

    Apr 17, 2016CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/WOTUS-WATER-RUNS-DOWN-HILL/ … Jun 12, 2013 – ACCORDING TO AMERICAN RIVERS, 65 US dams were …

    THE SAGA OF THE STUPID U.S.A. DAM DESTRUCTION

    Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916 | American Rivers

    https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring…rivers/dam-removal-map/

    Today, many dams that were once at the epicenter of a community’s livelihood are now old, unsafe or no longer serving their intended purposes. Learn how …

    THE ELWHA RIVER DAMS THAT WERE ONCE THE EPICENTER OF OUR COMMUNITY’S LIVELIHOOD, ARE NO LONGER SERVING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES. period

    THEIR INTENDED DAM PURPOSES?  Protecting and Providing Clallam County’s infrastructure, (the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants)

    Indeed, THE INTENDED ELWHA DAM PURPOSES, Dam cheap, dam clean hydroelectric power, dam renewable energy that kept the dam economy strong, providing a clean water supply, insuring flooding and drought protection, preventing millions of dam dollars of destruction in and on public and private land, property, protecting public access roads, and A COUPLE OF the really big epicenter of our communities livelihood,  THE OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD? THE TOURISM, THE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK THAT KEPT OUR ECONOMY STRONG, INCLUDED TWO BEAUTIFUL LAKES.

    IT’S A DAM SHAME THAT 300,000 TOURISTS  CAN’T GET THERE FROM PORT ANGELES WA.

    LEARN HOW DAM STUPID…….THE REMOVAL OF THE BIGGEST DAM REMOVAL EVER, WORKED OUT FOR PORT ANGELES, CLALLAM COUNTY ETAL., WASHINGTON STATE U.S.A.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED “HOW’S THE U.S.A DAM

    SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live

    Seabury Blair Jr.
    Columnist

    Posted: April 15, 2013

     

    Two days after I hiked the sandy, rocky desolation that used to be Lake Mills, as many as 200,000 chinook salmon were killed in what has to be one of the biggest blunders in the history of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    The year-old salmon were released from the new $16 million Elwha Hatchery run by the state and Lower Elwha Klallam tribe on April 5. Most — if not all — were killed when they tried to swim downstream through the thick gray goop that is the lower Elwha River, created by the removal of two dams built illegally in 1910.

    Though they only had to negotiate 3.5 miles of the river before reaching clearer waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the silt in the river began choking them almost the minute they swam from the crystalline hatchery water into the moving mire that is the Elwha. Hatchery officials reported seeing hundreds of dead smolts lining the riverbank, their gills clogged by the same silt that forced “temporary closure” of a $70 million Elwha River water treatment plant.

    In the Port Angeles Daily News, Mike Gross, Fish and Wildlife biologist, called the release of the salmon “a mistake.” Gross said he suspected the fish suffocated when silt prevented their gills from providing oxygen.

    I imagine it would be akin to trying to breathe volcanic ash for days without a mask, or running a marathon in a massive dust storm.

    Hatchery officials said they checked on the amount of silt in the Elwha on April 4, and determined it was acceptable to release the fish. They said the silt in the river increased overnight.

    I hiked about 3 miles downstream in the desolate bed of the former Lake Mills on April 3, and I don’t need a degree in biology to tell you that no fish could live in that water. The river looked no different when I left the Elwha Campground on April 4.

    For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of mud, sand and river cobble deposited behind the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. Above Rica Canyon, at the entrance to the former Lake Mills, the river is the same old blue friend I’ve known for more than 50 years.

    But beginning at the old Lake Mills inlet, the river turns into gray slurry that is poison to any fish. I don’t imagine many wild animals drink from that deadly potion and live, either.

    Fisheries biologists have been releasing coho salmon into Indian Creek, which flows from the west into the Elwha; and Little River, which flows from the east. Both tributaries are about 7 miles upstream from the mouth of the river.

    They’ve reported some of the fish, along with a few chinook they released into Lake Mills before it became the desolation it is today, have survived the gantlet of poison. Now the state is planning to release nearly a million salmon from the hatchery in June.

    About the same time, work on removing the remainder of the Glines Canyon dam is expected to resume, which will surely cause more sediment to be swept downstream. Worse, concrete dust from the dam will be stirred into the mix, making it even more deadly.

    Let us hope the state and tribe can think of a way to get healthy salmon from the hatchery to the Strait before they kill a million more fish.

    Seabury Blair Jr. is the author of Backcountry Ski! Washington; Day Hike! Olympic Peninsula; Day Hike! Columbia Gorge; The Creaky Knees Guide to Washington; the Creaky Knees Guide to Oregon; and Washington Wild Roads. Email Seabury at skiberry@hughes.net.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW’S THE SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR PORT ANGELES WA?

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/port-angeles-to-sue-park-service-in-dispute-over-el

    6 days ago – PORT ANGELES — The Port Angeles City Council has set the stage for … impasse related to the historic removal of the Elwha River dams.

    snippet….City Attorney Bill Bloor said at the council meeting Tuesday that the Park Service has not provided contract information being sought by the city on the $25 million Elwha River surface water intake and treatment facilities.

    ————————————————————-

    Word gets around in cyberspace

    New post on Pie N Politics Siskiyou County CA

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water facilities

    by Liz Bowen

    PNP comment:  Port Angeles is a city in and the county seat of Clallam County,

    Washington, United States. With a population of 19,038 as of the 2010 census,[7]

    it is the largest city in the county, according to Wikipedia. It is worth checking out the entire article at the link below.

    It looks like the fed gov. is not fulfilling its obligations. Shock !!! — Editor Liz Bowen

    —————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Pie N Politics page (1)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/27/pie-n-politics-page-1/

    Jul 27, 2015 – Pie N Politics page (1) Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are …

    Aug 19, 2016 – A PLAN TO REMOVE FOUR KLAMATH RIVER DAMS

    TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT FOR FISH AND RIVER COMMUNITIES

    ———————————————————————————

    The removal of  two dams on the Elwha River in WA State  2011-2014 “WAS”  previously the biggest dam removal DISASTER in U.S. History.

    After the removal of the Elwha River Dams.

    Apr 15, 2013 ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY?

    THE QUALITY OF MY PORT ANGELES DRINKING WATER….

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    http://www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    ————————————————————

    YEP, THE ELWHA DAM PROTECTED THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA’S ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE.

    Battered by Dam Removal – Elwha Bridge

    Posted on January 11, 2017 4:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Battered by Dam Removal Elwha Bridge Destroyed

    A DAM TRAGEDY THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE

    ———————————————————————

    Flooding is a Dam Shame

    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Drought is a dam shame

    China was so dam smart that they built the biggest dam in the world.

    He who controls the water controls the world?

    In the USA the government was and is so dam stupid they decided that hydro electric power was not dam clean, dam cheap, dam renewable dam energy, not dam flood control and not dam drought and dam property loss prevention.

    The dam Chinese government is so dam smart they work in the best interest of the dam people.

    The Chinese dam prevents the dam loss of life, billions of dam dollars in property damage, provides dam cheap, dam clean, dam renewable, dam energy and helps keep their dam economy strong.

    The Chinese dam controls the dam water releases the dam water to eliminate the dam droughts

    What part of this dam Chinese policy does the dam US government not understand?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM ENDANGERED etal., ad nausaum, SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    The best dam interest of the dam people in the USA be dammed

    As dictated by the dam US government

    The dam people in the dam USA are flooded and cleaning up the dam water damage for six dam months of the year.

    The dam people in the USA suffer the dam drought for the other six dam months of the year

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    THE DAM USA POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ASK

    “HOW’S THE DAM U.S.A. SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?


  • Elwha Supplemental Impact Statement?

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    The installation of Scott Pruitt, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, sued the agency he intends to lead more than a dozen times as Oklahoma attorney general, reinforces expectations.

    “I have no doubt that Scott will return the EPA to its core objectives,” said Republican Senator James Inhofe, also of Oklahoma, adding the agency had been guilty of “federal overreach, unlawful rule making, and duplicative red tape,”

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Statement FILED 9-11-02 

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017, Olympic National Park WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    ——————————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. MITIGATION PROJECT ISSUES?   IT’S IMPACT ON VISITORS? AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON VISITORS? FILED 9-11-02 

    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or VISITORS,

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and VISITORS.

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    VISITORS? LIKE AN IMPACT STATEMENT ONP INHOLDERS?

    ——————————————————

    Jun 28, 2011

    Olympic National Park mea culpa: ‘Inholder’ blocked from family property

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/olympic-national-park-mea-culpa-8216-inholder-82…

    Jun 28, 2011 – Pearl Rains Hewett stands at a blockade on Olympic Hot Springs Road in Olympic National Park on Monday. — Photo by Chris …

    ————————————————————-

    FISH BEFORE PEOPLE

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS.

    —————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495).

    ————————————————————————-

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

     SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

     DATED: JULY 9, 2002.JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124 FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017 WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.

    ———————————————————————-

    Timeline of the Elwha 1992 to Present – Olympic National Park (U.S. …

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/…/timeline-of-the-elwha-1992-to-present.htm

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS. … Before his death in 2007, Albright pioneered propagation methods for many plants native to the Northwest.

    ———————————————————————

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    PURSUANT TO THE ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RES- TORATION ACT …… 200,000. MORSE CREEK. YEARLING SMOLTS. ON-SITE. 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 …… Spawning ground surveys of live or dead fish and redds can then be.

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 15, 2013

    ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  200,000  DEAD SMOLT

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    Apr 15, 2013 – … AS MANY AS 200000 CHINOOK SALMON WERE KILLED IN WHAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE … HATCHERY OFFICIALS REPORTED SEEING HUNDREDS OF DEAD SMOLTS LINING THE … For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of … ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  

    JUL 12, 2013 LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY

    200, 000  MORE DEAD SMOLT

    400,000 TOTAL DEAD HATCHERY SMOLT…

    —————————————————————–

    The Danger of Putting All Your Eggs in the Hatchery Basket — Wild …

    wildfishconservancy.org › About › Press › Press Clips

    JUL 12, 2013 – ROUGHLY 200,000 HATCHERY COHO SALMON AND 2000 STEELHEAD, RESULTING FROM A PUMP FAILURE AT THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY ON THE ELWHA RIVER. …

     SPRING  Apr 15, 2013 THANKS TO MISTAKEN TIMING OF LARGE RELEASE OF SMOLTS AT ONE TIME … PRODUCTION LOST (200,000 DEAD) DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF HATCHERY WATER PUMP …

    The tragedy is: this production could have occurred with much less risk with natural spawning left to the river where fish make their own decisions regarding spawning destination and time, and juveniles determine their own window for outmigration.  Instead these fish have been hi-jacked by the continued belief in hatcheries rather than the proven success story of wild fish recolonization for thousands of years and resulting diversity that hedges its bets against the whims of nature’s unpredictable events.  And we paid $16 million to create this Elwha hatchery fiasco plus further annual investments in taking fish from the river and subjecting them to the persistent belief in hatcheries that is counter to the science — further evidence of the tragic disconnect of science from policy, the latter continually driven by the politics of popular beliefs.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130711/news/307119990

     ————————————————————————————

     (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

    WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    THE SEIS WILL ALSO ANALYZE CHANGES UNRELATED TO WATER QUALITY

    MITIGATION WHERE APPLICABLE.

    One of these changes is a re-evaluation of

    options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha

    Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying

    parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level

    and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel

    aggradation following dam removal.

    In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of

    actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed.

    ———————————————————–

    Full unedited text

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation;

    Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA;

    Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)][Notices][Page 57834-57836]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr12se02-94] SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating agencies are undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process intended to supplement the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 EIS).

    Two dams, built in the early 1900s, block the river and limit anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 river miles. The 1996 EIS is the second of two environmental impact statements that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park. Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495). However, release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or to the reliability of supply to downstream users during the dam removal impact period of about 3-5 years, which the 1996 EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below).

    Subsequently, new research and changes unrelated to the implementation project have emerged. Therefore, the primary purpose of this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) will be to identify and analyze potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures.

    Background     Elwha Dam was built in 1911, and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river (blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstream and tributary habitat). The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, reduced spawning gravels downstream, and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the river ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered.

    In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (PL 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha river ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, while at the same time protecting users of the river’s water from adverse impacts associated with dam removal. The records of decision associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. However, impacts to water quality and supply will result from release of sediments, which have accumulated behind the dams.

    The 1996 EIS proposed and analyzed mitigation measures to protect water quality and ensure supply for each of the major downstream users. These users included the city of Port Angeles’ municipal and industrial consumers, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery, the state chinook salmon rearing channel, and the Dry Creek Water Association. Many private wells along the river could also be affected, but mitigation proposed for these users would remain substantially the same.    Currently, surface water from a rock fill diversion and intake pipe at river mile 3.3 supplies the city’s industrial clients and the state rearing channel. Mitigation to protect the city’s industrial customers described in the 1996 EIS included the installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed and open-channel treatment with flocculants, chemicals and polymers during dam removal. The city’s municipal customers are supplied with a subsurface Ranney collector on the east-side of the river at river mile 2.8. To maintain water yield, the 1996 EIS [[Page 57835]] proposed a second Ranney collector be built on the river’s west-side, opposite the current collector. A temporary “package” treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells would have been operational during dam removal.

    The rearing channel would have been closed during dam removal and chinook production transferred to another state facility.    The tribal hatchery at river mile 1 will be central in protecting and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration following dam removal. Water for the hatchery is currently provided through wells and a shallow infiltration gallery. Measures described to protect hatchery water during dam removal included the expansion of the gallery to ensure supply and drilling of two new wells to provide clean groundwater for dilution.

    Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) currently meets the needs of its members through groundwater wells. These wells would be subject to an increased frequency of flooding following dam removal, as well as increased sediment and mobilization of iron and manganese. The 1996 EIS analyzed two options for DCWA–connection to the city’s water distribution system, or providing additional protection from flooding for the existing DCWA system and treating on site with filtration and chlorination.

    Since December 1996 (when the most recent record of decision was signed), the U.S. Department of the Interior (including Bureau of Reclamation) and its cooperating agencies (including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) have continued studying and refining elements of the selected alternative. As a result, they have found better solutions for protecting water quality and water supply during and following dam removal. In addition, changes in user needs have come about as a result of factors unrelated to the project.

    For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal.

    Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed.    As a result of these and other changes, the agencies are pursuing an option of building permanent water treatment facilities with varying levels of treatment depending on the ultimate use of the water

    (for additional details, see Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report at www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).  The locations and types of diversions may also change because water collected from the city’s Ranney well is no longer considered to be purely groundwater, but is highly connected to the river and so must be treated as a surface supply.

    In addition, problems associated with subsurface intakes during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period may now outweigh the benefits. These problems include possible clogging and reduced yields, increased costs of providing flood protection, and increased environmental impacts associated with installing and maintaining subsurface structures in or very near the river. Sources of “true” groundwater, which are not so closely connected to the river have been investigated, but do not exist in the quantities required. This leaves surface water as a more attractive option. An alternative of replacing the existing intake structure will therefore be analyzed in the SEIS.

    Feasibility studies indicate surface water could be treated and used for the city’s industrial customer, in combination with well water for the state’s rearing facility and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal hatchery, and as a backup for the city’s municipal customers. It may also be evaluated as an option to supply DCWA customers.

    The SEIS will also analyze changes unrelated to water quality mitigation where applicable. One of these changes is a re-evaluation of options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel aggradation following dam removal. Although the 1996 EIS examined a community mounding system, the number of residents living in the valley part of the Reservation has now increased. The SEIS will evaluate other options which are technically, economically, or environmentally preferable in light of these changes. At this time, the Tribe is considering a variety of options, including individual onsite systems with pressurized pumps, small group treatment options, offsite treatment by others, or combining with other valley residents (who would not be affected by dam removal) to create a community treatment system.

    Since the release of the 1996 EIS, two species of fish cited for restoration have been listed as threatened, and the NPS has worked with USFWS and NMFS staff to further address these species during and following dam removal. Keeping the rearing channel open for chinook salmon production and modifying road culverts within the park to provide access for bull trout to additional tributary habitat are examples of some of the additional actions that the SEIS will examine.

    Environmental Issues     Updated and additional information relevant to decision-making will be presented in the SEIS. In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed. The 1996 EIS envisioned using one or more of nine solid waste disposal areas for rubble and other materials. Some of these may no longer be available, new sites might be added, or recycling of concrete may be economically preferable now.    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or visitors, and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and visitors.

    Scoping/Comments     Public scoping for the SEIS will conclude 30-days from the date of publication of this notice. All interested individuals, groups, and agencies are encouraged to provide information relevant to the design, construction, location, or potential environmental effects of desired measures noted above. Please limit comments to the proposal as described in this notice, since prior decisions to restore the ecosystem and anadromous fisheries through dam removal, and selection of the River Erosion alternative as the dam removal scenario, are beyond the scope of environmental impact analysis targeted in the SEIS. [[Page 57836]]

    Additional information and periodic updates will be available at the Web site noted above or by contacting the Elwha Restoration Project Office at (360) 565-1320. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice; as soon as this date is determined it will be announced on the Web site noted.

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.    If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision

    The SEIS will be prepared in accord with all applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NPS Management Policies (2001) and NEPA guidelines (Director’s Order 12). A 60-day public review of the Draft will be initiated upon its release, which at this time is expected in early 2003; then subsequently a Final will be prepared. Issuance of both documents will be announced via local and regional press, direct mailings, on the Web site noted above, and through the Federal Register.

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

    SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

    PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124

    FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P


  • ONP Elwha River Inholders

    Olympic National Park Elwha River Inholders that hold out…

    AND,  THE  133  ELWHA PARK RECREATIONAL INHOLDERS  CAMPSITES THAT WERE WASHED OUT.

    AND SOLD OUT AS WILLING SELLERS.

    The full list of  133 names and dates are below

    There are many tragic stories of private property owners who have lost their private property to the National Park thugs.  Strangely these tales seldom see the light of day.

    SOMETHINGS HAPPEN THAT MUST BE DOCUMENTED, TO BE REMEMBERED

    On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:33 AM, pearl hewett <phew@wavecable.com> wrote:

    Destroyed Inholder  Private Elwha Recreational Sites

    Frankie White Called me from Oregon yesterday. She owned one of the 134 INHOLDER private Elwha Recreational lots 25 years ago when it was destroyed by ONP. She called it the FLOOD.

    The NPS/ONP gave Frankie three choices on her private property.

    1. Sell you lot to us now for full appraised value.
    2. Sell it to us now, use it for 5 years and we will give you 1/2 of the appraised value.
    3. DO NOTHING and we will take it by immanent domain.

    The White family had enjoyed the ONP private Inholder campsite for 14 years.

    My Dad, George C. Rains Sr. told her not to sell, that the ONP could not take it.

    Their family did not have money to fight. They did not know HOW to fight the ONP.

    They were afraid, they didn’t know what to do, and they sold their site to ONP.

    Frankie said, “I cried and cried, BUT THE ONP LEFT US NO CHOICE, so we sold it to them”

    ———————————————————-

    SOMETHINGS HAPPEN THAT MUST BE DOCUMENTED, TO BE REMEMBERED

    excerpt from

    [PDF]Conspiracy Exposed – Citizen Review Online

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Jul/George_Rains_Statements.pdf
    ————————————————————–

    Jack Del Gussi, John H. Lewis and I created the finest recreational campground facilities the Elwha River has ever known. We subdivided and developed campsites with underground electric power, water system and good roads and restrooms.

    In the course of our development I noticed a small breach through a narrow strip of land on the south of the big island which is owned by the park. I could foresee a lot of damage if something was not done to protect our property below and the Olympic Hot Springs Road.

    I contacted Del Hur Industries to get an estimate on what it would cost to plug the breach and put a small rock dike to prevent further damage to our property and the road.

    After getting an estimate I contacted the park people and they would do nothing to help remedy the situation. I also offered to provide free of cost all rip rap from our rock quarry on Little River.

    The problem was ignored. Finally sometime later the river came up high enlarging the breach, washing out a section of the Olympic Hot Springs Road and cut a channel through our development and took out our bridge……

    To this day they have done nothing to remedy the threat and a good portion of our property was destroyed through their sheer negligence. The National Park has no respect  for private property rights and ownership.

    ———————————————-

    MAR 29, 2017  To this day they have done nothing to remedy the threat to the Olympic Hot Spring Road, our access to our inholder property is gone and a good portion of our property is still being destroyed through their sheer negligence. The National Park has no respect  for private property rights and ownership.

    ——————————————–

    Destroyed Inholder  Private Elwha Recreational Sites

    There are many tragic stories of private property owners who have lost their private property to the National Park thugs.  Strangely these tales seldom see the light of day.

    WAS A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY “A WILLING SELLER”  LIKE FRANKIE WHITE, TO THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK ?

    INHOLDERS ELWHA PARK RECREATIONAL CAMPSITES
    Hand written sales by George C. Rains Sr.

    Dated Sept. 22, 1970

    Hand written income by George C. Rains Sr.

    ending Dec. 1973

    TOTAL CAMPSITES (133) Documented
    OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD CLALLAM COUNTY WA
    NUMBER OF CAMPSITES SITES DESTROYED BY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK?
    NUMBER OF DESTROYED SITES PURCHASED BY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK?
    OWNER PURCHASE PRICE
    1 Donald Salonen $2,500.00
    2 Peters, Jones and Salonen $2,500.00
    3 Peters and Jones $2,500.00
    4 McGinnis $2,500.00
    5 Mahoney $2,500.00
    6 Woodley $2,500.00
    7 Wenko $2,500.00
    8 James Arnold $2,500.00
    9 Cedon and Koski $2,500.00
    10 Louise Colby $2,500.00
    11 Adeline Knopman $2,500.00
    12 Uklenbott $2,500.00
    13 Donald Bray $2,500.00
    14 Adams $2,500.00
    15 Ainsworth $2,500.00
    16 Correia $2,500.00
    17 McDonald $2,500.00
    18 Gilbert Spenser $2,500.00
    19 McEachern $2,500.00
    20 Hutchinson $2,500.00
    21 Abbot $2,500.00
    22 Purvis $2,000.00
    23 McDonald $2,000.00
    24 Rylandar $2,500.00
    25 Rylandar $2,500.00
    26 Haggerty $2,500.00
    27 Croven- Byers $2,500.00
    28 Byers $2,500.00
    29 Karl Gustfason $2,500.00
    30 Anton $2,500.00
    31 Mitchel $2,500.00
    32 Gregon $2,500.00
    33 Knotek $2,500.00
    34 Paulis $2,500.00
    35 Inglin and Miemyick $2,500.00
    36 Stiles $2,500.00
    37 George Rains Jr. $2,500.00
    38 rest room priceless
    39 restroom priceless
    40 Corbin Cook $2,500.00
    41 Wheeler $2,500.00
    42 Scanano $3,200.00
    43 Cargo $3,200.00
    44 Yeaw $3,200.00
    45 Loopt and Lyman $2,500.00
    46 Loopt and Lyman $2,500.00
    47 Taylor $2,500.00
    48 Scoles $2,500.00
    49 Thocker $2,500.00
    50 Hansen $2,500.00
    51 Hansen $2,500.00
    52 Buchnell $2,500.00
    53 Robert Wry $2,500.00
    54 Larsen $2,500.00
    55 Tony Masi $2,500.00
    56 Glidden $2,500.00
    57 Stefono $2,500.00
    58 Johnny Key $2,500.00
    59 Lars gustofson $2,500.00
    60 Locks Louchs $2,500.00
    61 Louchs $2,500.00
    62 Reidel $2,500.00
    63 George Rains Jr. $2,500.00
    64 Don Kono $2,500.00
    65 George Rains Sr. $2,500.00
    66 Christanson $2,500.00
    67 Lee York $2,000.00
    68 George Rains Sr $2,500.00
    69 Don Kono $2,500.00
    70 Donald Arnold $2,500.00
    71 Creten $2,500.00
    72 Harry Arnold $2,500.00
    73 Nona Rains Preston $2,500.00
    74 Grauberger $2,000.00
    75 Grauberger-George Stevens $2,000.00
    76 Nona Rains Preston $2,500.00
    77 Libby $2,000.00
    78 Christensen $2,000.00
    79 Burchnell $2,000.00
    80 Owens $2,500.00
    81 Owens $2,500.00
    82 Owens $2,500.00
    83 Waldron $2,500.00
    84 30 foot road $2,500.00
    85 23-7 and 8 $2,800.00
    ADDITIONAL SALES 1970-1973
    PAYMENTS MADE BY
    86 Chester Blevins
    87 Clarence Colby
    88 Micheal Sanders
    89 Howell
    90 Klahn
    91 Wagstaff
    92 Joe Chase
    93 Donald Brady
    94 Glen Larson
    95 Micheal Sconogo
    96 Warren Schrader
    97 Barrow Sahor
    98 Nesbit
    99 Herbert Sahor
    100 Leonard Schroeder
    101 Jack Clark
    102 Mary Knapman
    103 Austin Glidden
    104 Dorothy Wheeler
    105 Joseph Mahoney
    106 William Bucknell
    107 Leonard McDaniel
    108 Wallace Adams
    109 Dom Solomen
    110 Max Ainsworth
    111 Robert McGinnis
    112 Earl Blevines
    113 Glen Waldron
    114 Elmer Wenko
    115 Donald Reidel
    116 Norman Taylor
    117 Gilbert Spencer
    118 Bill Preston
    119 Fred Correai
    120 Bert Wall
    121 Bertha Knotek
    122 Kenneth Owens
    123 Wallace Louchs (1)
    124 Wallace Louchs (2)
    125 Russel Stark
    126 Peter Lucal
    127 Peter Busch
    128 L. Durfraine
    129 Donald Bray
    130 James Howell
    131 Landoher
    132 James Klohn
    133 Michael Gort
    134 Tom Tinklham
    135 Bert Reid