+menu-


  • Category Archives Public Comments
  • 2017 SMP Exposing DOE’s Abuse of Citizenry

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

    Snippet…

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

    ————————————————————

    My quote,

    2017- Hello Country Bumpkins…

    ————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

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

    I’M A CONCERNED CITIZEN… JUST ASKING

    DOE ABUSE? COLLUSION?  OR JUST BEING GOOD SHEPHERDS?

    —————————————————————————

    IT ONLY TAKES TWO TO RAKE IN THE DOUGH

    DOE MICHELLE McCONNELL AND  ESA MARGARET CLANCY

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

    INCLUDING  PIERCE COUNTY,

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

     REDISCOVERING, DOCUMENTING, EXPOSING AND DISSEMINATING

    Full unedited text

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

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

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

    April 21, 2014

    Glen Morgan
    Adjunct Fellow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Rabble”

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

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

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

    What will happen who knows?

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

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

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

    MUST NOT BE…..

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


  • 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

     


  • behindmyback.org WA State DOE SMA 1971

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
    Based on this 1971 premise

    1971 Rod Mack:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,

    MY OBSERVATION IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME
    CONSIDERATION—

    IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—

    THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

    Rod Mack  My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines.

     Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    —————————————————————-

    2017 Pearl Rains Hewett:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    MY OBSERVATIONS FROM JAN 26, 2011 TO OCT 22, 2017  IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME CONSIDERATION—IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    ———————————————————————-

    President Trump was elected Nov 8, 2016 because

    FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS, THE VOTERS, IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS WAS A PRIME CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX BASE  FOR HARD WORKING MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS IN THE USA,THAN THERE WAS A PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    INDEED, TRUMP’S PRIORITY ONE WAS ROLLING BACK THE FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS, AND RETURNING POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

    WHAT HAPPENED TO US BETWEEN 1971 AND OCT 22, 2017 ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    TRICKLE DOWN FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. period

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    ———————————————————————————–

    Aug 13, 2013 I POSTED “SMP and Water 1970-2013” on behindmyback.org on and sent it to ZSMP as a public comment.

    SMP and Water 1970-2013

    Posted on August 13, 2013 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    ———————————————————

    NOV 17, 2014 I POSTED IT AGAIN…..

    Behind My Back | SMP a Good Idea? 1971-2014?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/11/17/smp-a-good-idea-1971-2014/

    NOV 17, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/06/ad–valorem–tax-dilemma/ … permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. … The FEDERAL road to WA State ECOLOGY’S SMP and WATER HELL was … it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once …

    ——————————————————————-

    NOW, WE ARE FACED WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT…

    THE USUAL…

    ———————————————————–

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:09 PM

    Subject: SMP and Water 1970-2013

     

    This is my public comment on the

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    1971 Rod Mack: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    my observation is that in areas where ECONOMICS is a prime
    consideration—in the smaller, less affluent
    communities—there is a higher priority for jobs and tax
    base than there is priority for environmental concerns

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    Rod Mack: My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Both by premise and legislative intent

    IN 1971….

    In 1972 the SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT PASSED

    The FEDERAL road to SMP and WATER HELL was PAVED with good intentions?

    AND HOW MUCH FEDERAL MONEY?

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some MORE MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL  MONEY
    ————————————————————–
    BAIT AND SWITCHED TO FEDERAL CONTROL

    When? and how did we lose our right to local government?
    When? and how were the appointed given state RULE by WAC?
    When? and how were federally appointed agencies given ultimate power?

    WHEN INDEED..
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

    ———————————————————
    HISTORY Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    Ecology Publication #05-01-006
    A 570 page report the first 35 years, 1970 – 2005
    ———————————————————-
    UPDATE 2013 STATE? SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT?
    HAS BECOME FEDERALLY ENACTED
    SHORELINE MANAGEMENT BY APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES.
    ———————————————————–
    Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005

    1971 The ENVIRONMENTALISTS proposed the state’s jurisdiction would include 500 feet back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet wide, that would be the jurisdiction of their bill.

    1971 They, the ENVIRONMENTALISTS also placed primary, almost exclusive, planning and REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, instead of LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Resulting in a very STRONG ROLE by the STATE and a much lesser role by LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    That initiative got enough signatures to go on to the ballot at the next general election. Seeing that, THE LEGISLATURE THEN DECIDED, as is allowed and provided for under the state’s constitution, to enact their version to put on the ballot, which was the 1972 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT, which ultimately passed. The basic difference between the initiative and the act was that the act named a strip 200 feet from the water’s edge as the area of jurisdiction, and then set up the joint state/local approach.
    ——————————————-
    2013 WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT? AND WATER?

    A much lesser role of STATE AND LOCAL government?

    FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES EDICTS MANDATING TO THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S WAC’S, EDITICS, RULING, REGULATING AND ENFORCING OF LOCAL COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENT

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    RESULTING IN A VERY STRONG ROLE BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS and AMENDMENTS TO THOSE ACTS and DELIGATING ALL POWER TO APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

    IF WILD OLYMPICS WAS FEDERALLY ENACTED jurisdiction would include 500 feet (or more) back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet (or more) wide, that would be the FEDERAL jurisdiction of that ACT.

    ————————————————————-

    Chapter Seven – Saving the Shorelines 2005
    The Plan to Protect the Coastlines
    An interview with Rodney Mack
    February 2, 2005
    Position held at time of interview:
    Retired, formerly Program Manager for the Shorelands and
    Environmental Assistance Program,
    Washington State Department of Ecology, 1983-1994

    From an environmental standpoint, given the two versions of the shorelines legislation, the environmentalist version talked about a jurisdictional area. In other words, what areas, what pieces of geography, the act applied to.

    Our Shoreline Management Act was probably, with maybe the exception of California, the strongest law of its kind in the country at the time. This was right at the beginning of the ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, and what we were doing was groundbreaking. It wasn’t a case where we could pick up the phone and call some other state and say, hey, what did you guys
    do in dealing with this? Other states were calling us.

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some more MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    ———————————————————–
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?

    shoreline development 259, 262, 264

    WA STATE WATER

    There’s an old saying, “In the Eastern United States, we take water forgranted. In the WEST, we take water from each other.

    My comment WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING; WATER IS FOR FIGHTING OVER
    ————————————————————-
    Chapter 4, Troubled Waters: Rivers, Streams, and Salmon Recovery
    ……….117
    Habitat, Hydropower, Hatcheries and Harvest, Dick Wallace
    ………….117
    Protecting In-stream Flows, Ken Slattery
    ………………………..129
    The Problem of Pollutants in the Watershed, Dave Peeler
    ……………139
    Devising a Plan for the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers, Cynthia Nelson
    …..149

    Chapter 5, Shifting Standards:
    Treating Wastewater Discharges to Puget Sound
    ………………………165

    Chapter 7, Saving the Shorelines
    ………………………………….259
    A Plan to Protect the Coastlines, Rod Mack
    ………………………259
    Chapter 8, Dividing the Waters: Determining Yakima River Water Rights
    …..295

    Chapter 9, Environment 2010
    RANKING AIR AT THE TOP, Stu Clark
    ……………………………..344
    AT THE TABLE FOR EPA, Randy Smith
    …………………………….390
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?
    WA STATE ON WATER
    ————————————-
    Water Code of 1917 298
    water pollution 9, 41-42, 117
    Water Pollution Control Commission 6, 8-9, 11, 25,
    27, 92, 166, 180, 464
    Water Pollution Hearings Board 25
    Water Quality 11, 16, 18, 58, 60, 80, 113, 118, 122, 139,
    141, 160
    Water Quality Investigation Section 508
    Water Quality Program 11, 18, 80, 118, 139, 165-166,
    451, 494, 503, 508
    WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1971 18, 131, 317
    Water Resources Program 18, 92, 118, 126, 129, 134,
    149, 295, 303, 305, 309, 318
    WATER RIGHT CLAIMS REGISTRATION ACT 310
    water rights 9, 14, 122, 124, 129-130, 132, 137, 143,
    146, 149-150, 152-153, 155-157, 160, 163, 186,
    295-304, 306-311, 313-314, 317-326
    Water rights 296
    Water Rights Claims Registration Act 300
    WATER STRATEGY 124
    water-dependent industrial uses 285
    Watershed Management Act 143, 145, 147
    Watershed planning 121, 159
    Watershed Planning 117, 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    Watershed Planning Act 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    watershed planning units 132, 14
    ———————————————————–
    2005 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS
    —————————————————————-
    CONGRESS 2, 6, 70, 125, 130, 133, 186-187, 193,
    356-359, 372-373, 376, 378-379, 382, 387-388,
    391-392, 400, 462, 505, 524
    ————————————————————
    2013 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS

    CONGRESS PASSED THE ESA AS PART OF THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    1966 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Endangered Species Act
    Congress passed the ESA as part of the explosion of federal … – Gale
    www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp657497.pdf‎
    by ES ACT – ‎Related articles

    Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, … Congress enacted significant MORE amendments in 1978, AND MORE 1982, and MORE 1988,

    1969 The National Environmental Policy Act of | Department of Energy
    energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969‎

    Full text of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, available as a download. NEPA established a national policy for the environment …
    ————————————————-
    1972 Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎
    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎
    —————————————————
    Congress passed the ESA as part of
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    This entry was posted in APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES, Clallam County SMP, Economic Impact, Intro to Deprived Of Our Water, Politically Motivated, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, The We’s who WANT, Tribal Right issues?, WA State Water Laws, WHAT A CONCEPT?, Wild Olympics.

    OCT 22, 2017


  • 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….


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    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.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP 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.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS Statistics taken from Clallam County future land use map 79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND 17.1% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

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

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

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011. There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

    ·         #30 I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)Update.

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county of the concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

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

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

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

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

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


  • The Dredged Report Nighttime Dumping?

    Public Comment Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    235 W 5th St

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    (360) 417-9452

    THIS IS MY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DREDGE REPORT AS PROVIDED ON THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    EFFECTING PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

    THE AREAS IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WHERE THE DUMPING OF THE DREDGED MATERIAL WILL BE DISPOSED OF  BY THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     ——————————————————————-

    186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT AN OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES.

    THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND TO BE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL, UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL,

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    THIS CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    ———————————————————————

    WHO KNEW?

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL

    AND APPROVED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THE  CONTAMINATED  MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREAS IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA……

    INDEED, WHO KNEW,  CLALLAM COUNTY WA HAS A  DUMPING AREA FOR DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED DREDGING MATERIAL?

     ——————————————————–

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED

     DREDGING PLAN:

    A DREDGING PLAN, SUFFICIENT TO ADEQUATELY SEPARATE CONTAMINATED MATERIAL FROM SEDIMENTS SUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL, WILL BE PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT AND SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY AGENCIES FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO DREDGING.

     A PRE-DREDGING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD TO REVIEW QUALITY CONTROL PLANS AND PROCEDURES FOR MATERIAL SEPARATION.

     FOR THIS PROJECT, THE DMMP AGENCIES DETERMINED THAT 186,761 CUBIC YARDS WERE SUITABLE FOR UNCONFINED DISPOSAL AT THE DMMP NONDISPERSIVE (OR DISPERSIVE) OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL SITE IN PORT ANGELES AND/OR PLACEMENT IN NEAH BAY FOR INTERTIDAL AND/OR SUBTIDAL BENEFICIAL USE.

     THE REMAINING 21,270 CUBIC YARDS WERE FOUND UNSUITABLE FOR OPEN-WATER DISPOSAL. AFTER MECHANICAL REMOVAL, THIS MATERIAL WILL BE LOADED ONTO TRUCKS AND TRANSPORTED TO AN UPLAND DISPOSAL AREA, APPROVED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    DREDGED MATERIAL TESTING:

    THE PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State.

    The DMMP EVALUATIONS MAY INCLUDE BOTH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL TESTING OF SEDIMENTS.

    AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. THE DESCRIBED DISCHARGE WILL BE EVALUATED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES PROMULGATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER AUTHORITY OF SECTION 404(B)(1) OF THE CWA.

    THESE GUIDELINES REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FOR ANY PROPOSED DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    ———————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

     (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

    Other APPROPRIATE special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

     ———————————————————————-

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered in determining whether authorizing the work would not be contrary to the public interest.

     In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below.

    Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below,

    Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826

    and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    ———————————————————–

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    ————————————————————————-

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ——————————————————————————-

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ——————————————————————-

    PEOPLE SEND ME STUFF…

    I research it, document it, post it and disseminate.

     

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Marquell, Elizabeth E CIV USARMY CENWD (US) <Elizabeth.E.Marquell@usace.army.mil>
    Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM
    Subject: Public Notice for NWS-2016-0826-; Makah Indian Tribe -Request for comments (UNCLASSIFIED)
    To: “Sanguinetti, Pamela A CIV USARMY CENWS (US)” <Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil>, CENWS Cultural Resources <Cultural.Resources@usace.army.mil>

    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
    For comments or questions regarding this Public Notice, please contact the project manager listed below.

    CONTACT INFORMATION:
    PROJECT NUMBER:  NWS-2016-0826-, Clallam County, Makah Indian Tribe
    PROJECT MANAGER: Pam Sanguinetti
    TELEPHONE: (206) 764-6904
    E-MAIL: Pamela.Sanguinetti@usace.army.mil

    The attached PDF document is a Public Notice for a proposed project where a permit is being requested from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.

    To view the attached document, you will need to use the Adobe Acrobat Reader.  For a free copy of the Acrobat Reader please visit: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

    To provide any project specific comments in writing or by e-mail, please visit the link below and follow the instructions outlined in the “How to Submit Comments” section.
    Http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory/PublicNotices.aspx

    For more Regulatory Program information, please visit http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regulatory.aspx
    CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

    Joint Public Notice

    Application for a Department of the Army Permit and

    a Makah Indian Tribe Water Quality Certification and

    Washington Department of Ecology Coastal Zone

    Management Consistency Concurrence

    US ARMY CORPS

    OF ENGINEERS

    Seattle District

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Regulatory Branch

    Post Office Box 3755

    Seattle, WA 98124-3755

    Telephone (206) 764-6904

    Attn: Pamela Sanguinetti, Project

    Manager

    WA Department of Ecology

    SEA Program

    Post Office Box 47600

    Olympia, WA 98504-7600

    Telephone (360) 407-6076

    Attn: SEA Program, Federal Permit

    Coordinator

    Makah Indian Tribe

    P.O. Box 115

    Neah Bay, WA 98357

    Telephone (360) 645-2201

    Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries

    Water Quality Specialist

    ______________________________

    Public Notice Date: October 6, 2017

    Expiration Date: November 7, 2017

    Reference No.: NWS-2016-826

    Name: Makah Indian Tribe

    Interested parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) AND THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (ECOLOGY) HAVE RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TO PERFORM WORK IN WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AS described below and shown on the enclosed drawings dated March 16, 2017.

    THE CORPS will review the work in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

    THE MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE will review the work pursuant to water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA.

    ECOLOGY will review the work pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

    APPLICANT: Makah Indian Tribe

    Post Office Box 115

    Neah Bay, Washington 98357

    ATTN: William S. Parkin, Jr., Director, Port of Neah Bay

    Telephone: (360) 645-3019

     

    AGENT: Berger ABAM

    33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300

    Federal Way, Washington

    ATTN: Ms. Victoria England

    Telephone: (206) 357-5621

    LOCATION: The project is located in the Strait of Juan de Fuca at the Makah Reservation in Neah Bay, Clallam County, Washington

    WORK: The project consists of an extension to an existing fishing pier to accommodate an emergency response towing vessel and other associated spill response vessels. The pier extension will be about 563 feet in length extending to the northwest. Two finger piers, respectively about 325-foot and 340-ftoot lengths, will extend to the north from the angled pier extension. Two floating piers, each about 180 feet long, will be located on the north side of the pier extension. The new pier extension will be supported by up to 220 steel piles, which includes eighty-five 24-inch diameter steel piles and one hundred thirty-five 18-inch diameter steel piles. The floating piers will be secured to 18-inch diameter steel piles.

    The pier extension will have concrete decking that will be paved with an asphalt overlay. The pier extension is sloped to drain stormwater to a central utility corridor with a grated cover. The bottom of the corridor will be sealed so that stormwater will drain into the trench and be collected. The collected water will be routed to a vault with cartridges to treat the stormwater prior to discharge into Neah Bay.

    THE AREA AROUND THE EXISTING PIER AND PROPOSED EXTENSION IS PROPOSED TO HAVE ABOUT 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL DREDGED to increase the depths to elevations ranging from -15 to -25 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) plus one foot allowable overdepth (-16 to -25 feet MLLW). Material would be dredged using either mechanical (clamshell) or hydraulic dredging equipment. Material suitable for in-water use would be placed using hydraulic pipeline or clamshell dredging equipment on the beneficial use site. Material not suitable for in-water disposal would be placed at an upland facility in accordance with state and federal waste and disposal regulations.

    PURPOSE: The project purpose is to provide secure, reliable support for enhanced oil spill response capability in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Pacific Ocean in the vicinity of Neah Bay.

    DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (DMMP):

    Dredged Material Testing: The proposed dredged material has been tested according to the procedures specified by DMMP, a multi-agency program for the evaluation of dredged material proposed for disposal at open-water sites in Washington State. The DMMP evaluations may include both chemical and biological testing of sediments. For this project, the DMMP agencies determined that 186,761 cubic yards were suitable for unconfined disposal at the DMMP nondispersive (or dispersive) open-water disposal site in Port Angeles and/or placement in Neah Bay for intertidal and/or subtidal beneficial use.

     The remaining 21,270 cubic yards were found unsuitable for open-water disposal. After mechanical removal, this material will be loaded onto trucks and transported to an upland disposal area, approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Clallam County Department of Health.

    The sediment testing data are available at the Corps, Seattle District, Dredged Material Management Office.

    DREDGING PLAN: A dredging plan, sufficient to adequately separate contaminated material from sediments suitable for open-water disposal, will be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the regulatory agencies for review prior to dredging. A pre-dredging conference will be held to review quality control plans and procedures for material separation.

    DISPOSAL SITE USE CONDITIONS: The following standard site-use conditions will be specified by the Corps and the Washington Department of Natural Resources as part of the Federal/State permitting processes if a permit is issued:

    (1) DISPOSAL OPERATIONS MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH INDIAN TREATY FISHING AT THE DISPOSAL SITE, INCLUDING GILL NETS AND OTHER FISHING GEAR;

    (2) THE PERMITTEE MUST COORDINATE ANY NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL WITH THE CORPS, SEATTLE DISTRICT, REGULATORY BRANCH PROJECT MANAGER; AND

     (3) APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONDUCTING NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL.

     Other appropriate special conditions may be added as a result of comments received during the public review period for this public notice.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

    THE WORK WOULD BE COMPLETED OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD.

     The line of Mean High Water/ Mean Higher High Water shown on the project drawings have not yet been verified by the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS). If the Corps determines the boundaries of the wetland/waters ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INACCURATE a new public notice may be published.

    MITIGATION: The applicant MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE is evaluating a number of sites within Neah Bay where derelict structures could be removed to mitigate the increased overwater coverage of the replacement structure. The PROPOSED DREDGED MATERIAL PLACEMENT would return a section of shoreline to its historical conditions based on historic photographs of the area.

    ENDANGERED SPECIES:

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA on all actions that may affect a species listed (or proposed for listing) under the ESA as threatened or endangered or any designated critical habitat.

    After receipt of comments from this public notice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will evaluate the potential impacts to proposed and/or listed species and their designated critical habitat.

    ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires all Federal agencies to consult with the NMFS on ALL ACTIONS, OR PROPOSED ACTIONS, PERMITTED, FUNDED, OR UNDERTAKEN by the agency, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The proposed action would impact EFH in the project area.

    If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determines that the proposed action may adversely affect EFH for federally managed fisheries in Washington waters, the Corps will initiate EFH consultation with the NMFS. The Corps’ final determination relative to project impacts and the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the NMFS.

    CULTURAL RESOURCES:

    The Corps has reviewed the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places, Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data and other sources of information. The Corps invites responses to this public notice from Native American Tribes or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies; historical and archeological societies; AND OTHER PARTIES likely to have knowledge of or concerns regarding historic properties and sites of religious and cultural significance at or

    near the project area. After receipt of comments from this public notice, the Corps will evaluate potential impacts and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and Native American Tribes in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as appropriate.

    PUBLIC HEARING: Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.

    EVALUATION – CORPS – The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

     That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST ITS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DETRIMENTS.

    ALL FACTORS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSAL WILL BE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS THEREOF; AMONG THOSE ARE CONSERVATION, ECONOMICS, AESTHETICS, GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, WETLANDS, HISTORIC PROPERTIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES, FLOOD HAZARDS, FLOODPLAIN VALUES, LAND USE, NAVIGATION, SHORELINE EROSION AND ACCRETION, RECREATION, WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION, WATER QUALITY, ENERGY NEEDS, SAFETY, FOOD AND FIBER PRODUCTION, MINERAL NEEDS,CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND, IN GENERAL, THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.

     The Corps is soliciting comments from the public; Native American Nations or tribal governments; Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate THE IMPACTS OF THIS ACTIVITY. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for the work. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species,

    historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above.

    Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing AND TO DETERMINE THE OVERALL PUBLIC INTEREST OF THE ACTIVITY. The described discharge will be evaluated for compliance with guidelines promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency under authority of Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. These guidelines require an alternatives analysis for any proposed discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

    —————————————-

    EVALUATION – ECOLOGY:

     ECOLOGY is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. ECOLOGY will be considering all comments to determine whether to concur or object that the project is consistent with Ecology’s Coastal Zone Management program.

    ——————————————–

    EVALUATION

    Makah Indian Tribe: The Makah Indian Tribe is soliciting comments from the public; Federal,

    Native American Nations or tribal governments, State, and local agencies and officials; AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES  in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this activity. The Makah Indian Tribe will be considering all comments to determine whether to certify or deny certification for the proposed project.

    ———————————————————-

    COMMENT AND REVIEW PERIOD:

    Conventional mail or e-mail comments on this public notice will be accepted and made part of the record and will be considered IN DETERMINING WHETHER AUTHORIZING THE WORK WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. In order to be accepted, e-mail comments must originate from the author’s e-mail account and must include on the subject line of the e-mail message the permit applicant’s name and reference number as shown below. Either conventional mail or e-mail comments must include the permit applicant’s name and reference number, as shown below, and the commenter’s name, address, and phone number.

    All comments whether conventional mail or e-mail must reach this office, no later than the expiration date of this public notice to ensure consideration.

    Copies of this public notice which have been mailed or otherwise physically distributed feature project drawings in black and white. The electronic version features those drawings in color, which we think more accurately communicates the scope of project impacts.

    TO ACCESS THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS PUBLIC NOTICE, GO TO THE SEATTLE

    DISTRICT’S WEB PAGE AT http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ AND UNDER THE HEADING OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS SELECT REGULATORY PUBLIC NOTICES. RECENTLY-ISSUED PUBLIC NOTICES ARE LISTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.

    SELECT AND VIEW THE LISTING FOR THIS PROJECT.

    —————————————————

    CORPS COMMENTS:

     All e-mail comments should be sent to pamela.sanguinetti@usace.army.mil.

    Conventional mail comments should be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch,

    Attention: Ms. Pamela Sanguinetti, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, Washington 98124-3755. All comments received will  become part of the administrative record and are subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act including any personally identifiable information such as names, phone numbers, and addresses.

     —————————————————–

    ECOLOGY COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for Coastal Zone Management consistency concurrence, may do so by submitting written comments to the following address:

    Department of Ecology, Attn: SEA program – Federal Permit Coordinator, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington,

    98504-7600, or e-mail to ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov

    ———————————————————–

    MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE COMMENTS: Any person desiring to present views on the project pertaining to a request for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, may do so by submitting written comments to

    the following address: Makah Indian Tribe, Attn: Aaron Parker, Makah Fisheries Water Quality Specialist,

    P.O. Box 115, Neah Bay, WA 98357

    To ensure proper consideration of all comments, responders must include the following name and reference number in the text of their comments: Makah Indian Tribe, NWS-2016-826, or email to aaron.parker@makah.com

    ———————————————————————

    THE NIGHTTIME DISPOSAL OF 208,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DREDGED MATERIAL IS INCLUDED IN THE  MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, NWS-2016-826 PROJECT

    The bottom line….

    IF NIGHTTIME DUMPING OF CONTAMINATED AND OTHER DREDGED MATERIAL IN PORT ANGELES AND CLALLAM COUNTY WA,  AND THE APPROVAL OF THE  CLALLAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. CONCERNS YOU

    SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS


  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

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

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

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

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

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

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

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

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Gene Farr

     


  • SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    My SMP Public Comment #166

    Regarding the Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

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

    Below is a running commentary

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    I sent an email asking ten (10) questions?

    Response? Public notification?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    Subject: SMP Update

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

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

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

    Subject: Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

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

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

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

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

    Who is responsible for this 32 page summary?

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

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

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

    Who wrote the document?

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

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

    RCW 42.30.130

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

    RCW 42.30.130

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

    PUBLIC SERVANTS   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

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

    —————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    Please respond to my questions

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————-

    More From: zSMP

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————-

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    One must ask what is the definition of a matrix?

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

    “matrix” quantities subject to mathematical operations?

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    42.36.010
    Local land use decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

    [1984 c 191 § 1; 1982 c 229 § 6.]

    ———————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

    Back to the Agenda..

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    Subject: SMP Update

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you again for your interest.

    Staff Contacts:

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager:  360-417-2520

    Kevin LoPiccolo, Principal Planner:  360-417-2322

    Deborah Kucipeck, Planner: 360-417-2563

     


  • SMP Public Comment #164

    I resubmit this SMP Public Comment as  #164

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    In answer to posted SMP Public Comment “so many questions”

    Why not help the 3300 shoreline private property owners?

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    You, Clallam County DCD have not responded to their posted question? YET?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —– Original Message —– Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM

    Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:43 AM
    Subject: FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    • snippets
    •  Some documentation is from MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • ·         1. FEMA  flood specific
    • ·         2. Earthquake specific
    • ·         3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    • ·         4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

     

    1. FEMA  flood specific

    The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA) manages the NFIP.

    National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    Flood coverage costs an average of $570 a year, up 4% from 2009. And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    Over 10 years, flood insurance premiums could cost up to $27,340, for a high-risk home with $250,000 in coverage to rebuild the house and $100,000 to cover the contents, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency

    Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    On top of that, a proposal in Congress could also boost annual premiums by as much as 20% as part of a plan to overhaul the federal government’s flood insurance program, itself

    (FEMA )underwater by $18 billion.

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

    My comment is, the wider the DOE SMP Clallam County flood plains,  the more private property owners will be required  to pay for this.

     If MITIGATION is your middle name? You are probably a government agency.

    Of course, CLALLAM COUNTY HOMEOWNERS can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and FLOOD ZONES  for CHEAPER places to live.

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

     2. Earthquake specific

     Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi.

    —————————————————————————-

     Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    snippet

    Home policies typically don’t cover quakes

    While insurance policies with earthquake coverage are fairly easy to obtain, they have extremely high deductibles, high premiums and offer relatively little coverage, leaving some to wonder whether earthquake insurance is actually worth the price.

    “There is widespread belief among homeowners that earthquake insurance is included in their policy, but it almost never is. It’s an add-on that you have to buy. Most homeowners are just not covered,” says Rich Roesler to Insurancequote.com. Roesler is a spokesman for the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner.

    ———————————————————————

    snippet

    California Earthquake Authority (CEA)

    CEA Premiums based on science, not profit.

    Per my research consultant, earth quakes are policy specific insurance.

     Earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water or erosion, or your home sliding off of a Clallam County priority feeder bluff (PFB), are NOT Covered.

    See DIC insurance below.

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

    3. DIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    (Difference in Conditions Coverage)

    Per my research consultant, DIC insurance covers devastating, catastrophic damage to your private property. DIC gives you insurance coverage, that is not  covered on any of your other policy specific insurance policies.

    AN EXAMPLE OF DIC INSURANCE POLICY COVERAGE ON A CLALLAM COUNTY PRIORITY FEEDER BLUFF

    The insured house is on a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff

    The house is valued at $700,000.00

    The yearly premium for DIC insurance coverage on that property is $2600.00

    This DIC insurance policy DOES cover earth movement, like slides, mud slides, caused by water and/or erosion, AND it DOES insure your home if  it slides off of a Clallam County Priority Feeder Bluff (PFB)

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

    4. Generic specific homeowners insurance

    My research consultant , advises you to read your homeowners policy, you will never know what is covered if you don’t read your policy.

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

     

    • MARCH 15, 2011, 6:57 P.M. ET
    • Do You Need Disaster Insurance?

    By ANNAMARIA ANDRIOTIS

    The earthquake and tsunami in northern Japan has prompted homeowners everywhere to double-check their coverage. But those who decide that more coverage will help them sleep better may find an unpleasant surprise: Premiums are expected to spike.

    The costs of earthquake insurance and flood coverage were already climbing, even before the disaster in Japan (and that, analysts say, won’t help pricing either). Earthquake insurance premiums jumped by as much as 58% in some regions, says Mike Chaney, commissioner of insurance for Mississippi. They now costs anywhere from $100 to $3,000 annually depending on where you live. Flood coverage costs an average of $570 a year, up 4% from 2009. And those costs are expecting to keep rising, says Drew Woodbury, an equity analyst covering insurance at Morningstar.

    What’s driving the uptick? Insurance premiums move up after more claims are filed, and over the past few years U.S. homeowners have filed thousands of claims related to the series of hurricanes in the South and Midwest, says Chaney. Another jump in claims is expected next year if more devastating hurricanes and other natural disasters occur. On top of that, a proposal in Congress could also boost annual premiums by as much as 20% as part of a plan to overhaul the federal government’s flood insurance program, itself underwater by $18 billion.

    These higher premiums come just as natural disasters are happening more frequently, says David Neal, director at Oklahoma State University’s Center for the Study of Disasters and Extreme Events. There is now a 50% chance that at least one major hurricane will hit the East Coast this year, up from 31% historically, according to a study from Colorado State University. Earthquakes are also becoming more common: On average, 15 magnitude-7 earthquakes occur worldwide each year, says Dr. Harley Benz, a seismologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. But in 2010, that number spiked to 21, and already this year there have been seven, according to the USGS.

    Not every homeowner needs the extra coverage. But while basic homeowners’ insurance usually protects again fire and lighting, it often doesn’t cover floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. Consumers instead need to purchase additional policies. One thing to consider, say experts: Do you stand to lose more paying premiums every year or saving that money to possibly pay for repairs should a disaster occur? Over 10 years, flood insurance premiums could cost up to $27,340, for a high-risk home with $250,000 in coverage to rebuild the house and $100,000 to cover the contents, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which runs the National Flood Insurance Program. The typical cost to repair a basement after a flood of six inches is about $25,000, not including the cost of replacing furniture, appliances or belongings, according to FEMA.

    Of course, homeowners can also avoid these expenses by moving to less disaster-prone areas. Individuals can research the country’s earthquake and flood zones for safer places to live. Also, before moving, check with a lender; most will tell borrowers they’re moving into a high-risk flood zone and make sure they sign up for flood insurance.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    RED FLAG WARNING

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

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

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

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

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

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

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

    bottom line

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

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    snippet

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

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

    ——————————————————————————————-

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

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

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    Native American Rights Fund

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

    bottom line

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