+menu-


  • Category Archives RED FLAG WARNING
  • Clallam Co SMP Contaminated Sites 1972-2017

    Clallam Co SMP 303(d) Contaminated Sites 1972-2017

    The SMP (ICR) is a misleading distraction and cover-up of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) evaluation for waterbodies on the 303(d) list,  thousands of migratory birds and other wild mammals  have been continuously contaminating Clallam County fresh water river reaches Public Marine Beaches,  in and  on the Straits of Juan De Fuca.

    DISCOVERY July 22, 2016  DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMEL POOP DON’T COUNT

    WATERS SHOWING APPARENT EXCEEDANCES OF 303(d) (TMDL) CRITERIA

    DUE TO DOCUMENTED NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS, (DNA DOCUMENTED AND  IDENTIFIED 75% OF THE CONTAMINATION, AS PREDOMINATELY BIRD POOP, INCLUDING 34 WILD MAMMAL SPECIES)

    AND WITH NO SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CONTRIBUTION, WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5.

    SOME IMPAIRED WATERS  (TRIBAL?) WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5 BECAUSE A TMDL IS NOT REQUIRED

     The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) ARE INTENDED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE KNOWN CONDITION OF THE STATE’S WATERS.

    —————————————————————————————

    DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT

    July 22, 2016  THE  EPA Approved WA STATE’S  DOE 303(d) NATURALLY CONTAMINATED POOP LOOP HOLE

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016.

     This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired (CONTAMINATED) waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    ————————————————————————————-

    NO DUH…. BASED ON THE ABOVE…. NO WONDER WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) HAS REFUSED TO ANSWER MY SMP UPDATE QUESTIONS…..

    Indeed, The WA State Department of Ecology (DOE) has continuously and repeatedly refused to answer my 10 questions on the  2017 SMP Update, including the ICR identified contaminated waterbodies on the 303(d) list, on both fresh and saltwater reaches  in Clallam County.

     March 29, 2012  SMP Public Comment DOE is incapable or unwilling

    TO PROVIDE THE NAMES AND LOCATIONS OF THE CONTAMINATOR AND IMPAIRERS.

     WERE ANY OF THE UNSCIENTIFIC, UNKNOWN LOCATIONS AND UNIDENTIFIED CONTAMINATORS  DOCUMENTED NUMBER OF SEVERAL CONTAMINATED OR IMPAIRED SITES CAUSED BY? OR A RESULT OF?  CLALLAM COUNTY 1976-2012 SMP FAILURE TO PROTECT NNL OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION?

     HOW MANY OF THE UNIDENTIFIED SEVERAL CONTAMINATED SITES WERE EVEN A REQUIRED PART OF THE SMP UPDATE?

     —————————————————————————————

     2011-2017 I HAVE CONTINUOUSLY AND  REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS ON THE CONTAMINATED SITES IN AND ON CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINES…

    Original Message —–  From: pearl hewett To: earnest spees

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

    Karl,

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

    FRESHWATER AND MARINE CONTAMINATED REACHES FOR WRIA 17-19  HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE 2017 SMP UPDATE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS  DOCUMENT.

    On the 18 Marine reaches they identified (3) Contaminated sites

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches they identified  (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several Contaminated sites on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)  (2) Contaminated sites on the R2 on the Hoko.

    ———————————————————————————-

    September 10, 2011 9:24 AM

    To: zSMP
    Cc: earnest spees;
    Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011

    1. Will we have input, considering that the impaired water quality on the lower Dungeness has been proven to be 75% bird poop and 25% people related?

    —————————————————————————————–

     DUNGENESS FRESH WATER AND MARINE fecal coliform (FC) bacteria 303(d)

    1996-2003 Documented public health issues in Clallam County.

    QAPP- Dungeness River/Matriotti Creek Fecal Coliform …

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0003080.pdf

    FOR DUNGENESS RIVER/MATRIOTTI CREEK FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA … • SIGNIFICANT BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION AND NUTRIENT … FECAL COLIFORM FECAL COLIFORM DUNGENESS RIVER

    In 1996 Matriotti Creek, a tributary to the DUNGENESS RIVER, was placed on Washington’s 303(d) list of impaired waters because of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria violations. THE 303(D) LIST (REQUIRED BY SECTION 303(D) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT) is a list of water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards.

    ————————————————————————————

    In 2000, Washington Department of Health closed some areas of Dungeness Bay to shellfish harvest, also due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The closure area was expanded in 2001, and again in 2003.

    ——————————————————————————

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY’S (DOE)  LOOP HOLES ON TMDL CLALLAM COUNTY CONTAMINATED MARINE AND FRESH WATER SITES (known as the 303(d) list)

    WATERS SHOWING APPARENT EXCEEDANCES OF 303(d) (TMDL) CRITERIA

    DUE TO DOCUMENTED NATURAL BACKGROUND CONDITIONS, DNA DOCUMENTED AND  IDENTIFIED 75% OF THE CONTAMINATION, AS PREDOMINATELY BIRD POOP, INCLUDING 34 WILD MAMMAL SPECIES.

     AND WITH NO SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CONTRIBUTION, WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5.

     SOME IMPAIRED WATERS  (TRIBAL?) WILL NOT BE LISTED IN CATEGORY 5 BECAUSE A TMDL IS NOT REQUIRED

    The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) are intended to inform the public about the known condition of the State’s waters.

    ——————————————————————————-

    DISCOVERY INDEED… WHO KEW?

    July 22, 2016  THE  EPA Approved WA STATE’S  DOE LOOP HOLE

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016.

     This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired (CONTAMINATED) waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    —————————————————————————————

    Sequim WA is on the (TMDL) evaluation for waterbodies on the 303(d) list) in the Sequim Clallam County SMP Update

     

    ———————————————————————

    1972 Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List

    The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be “fishable and swimmable.” Washington’s Water Quality Assessment lists the water quality status for water bodies in the state. This assessment meets the federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.

    The assessed waters are grouped into categories that describe the status of water quality. The 303(d) list comprises those waters that are in the polluted water category, for which beneficial uses– such as drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollution.

    ————————————————————————–

    Genetic Markers for Rapid PCR-Based Identification of Gull …

    aem.asm.org/content/78/2/503.full

    Genetic Markers for Rapid PCR-Based Identification … from gull feces, all three occurred in fecal DNA from … for bird fecal contamination with …

    INTRODUCTION

    Contamination from gulls, Canada geese, ducks, and other birds negatively impacts water quality (5, 16, 24, 33a, 49, 56). Their feces are sources of fecal coliforms, enterococci, and Escherichia coli, and their presence is correlated with elevated fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) and beach closures (2, 22, 23, 38). Pathogenic E. coli and Campylobacter, Salmonella, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium spp. occur in bird feces (11, 18, 19, 42) and can infect domestic poultry and humans (27, 41) and contaminate shellfish (1). Bird feces are also a source of antibiotic resistance genes (34, 39, 50). Recently, because of avian influenza, concerns have risen about pathogen movement due to bird migration (8, 10, 17, 28, 30).

    ————————————————————————————

    HISTORY DUNGENESS BAY????

     has been classified as “Approved” for commercial shellfish harvest by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH). The DOH Office of Shellfish Programs is charged with classifying commercial shellfish beds in Washington State. They conduct ambient water quality monitoring to ensure that all commercial shellfish areas meet National Shellfish Sanitation Requirements for water quality.

     In 1996 Matriotti Creek, a tributary to the Dungeness River, was placed on Washington’s 303(d) list of impaired waters because of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria violations. THE 303(D) LIST (REQUIRED BY SECTION 303(D) OF THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT) is a list of water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards.

     ECOLOGY IS REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT TO CONDUCT A TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) EVALUATION FOR WATERBODIES ON THE 303(D) LIST.

    ————————————————————————————

    SO….. from November 1999 through October 2000.

    TO PROTECT SHELLFISH HARVESTING USE IN DUNGENESS BAY

    TO HELP LOCATE SOURCES OF BACTERIAL POLLUTION

    Ecology, the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and Clallam County staff sampled 35 to 40 stream sites from November 1999 through October 2000.

    Study results confirmed violations of water quality standards for fecal coliform in Matriotti Creek and Dungeness Bay, Meadowbrook and Cooper creeks, and Golden Sands Slough.

    The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) conducted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study for fecal coliform bacteria in Matriotti Creek, the lower Dungeness River, and tributaries to Dungeness Bay. Due to nonpoint pollution sources, fecal coliform levels were not meeting freshwater quality standards in Matriotti Creek and not meeting marine water quality standards in Dungeness Bay.

    ———————————————————–

    Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the Lower Dungeness …

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0210015.pdf

    Water Cleanup Plan for Bacteria in the … County Clallam County DOH Washington State Department of Health … Section 303(d) of the federal …

    —————————————————————————————-

    Water Quality Improvement Project
    Dungeness Area:
    FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA

    Introduction

    The Dungeness River flows out of the Olympic Mountains into Dungeness Bay. Located at the north end of the Olympic Peninsula, the area’s natural beauty and quality of life have attracted many newcomers during the last decade. Much of that growth happened in the lower river valley, in the rural, unincorporated areas of Clallam County. (See Study Area Map)

    Water quality issues

    The population growth ( MY FOOT) is impacting water quality. Numerous on-site septic systems, some of which are failing or improperly maintained; a proliferation of hobby farms where management practices may be less that optimal; and accumulated waste from many pets (MY FOOT) are contributing to increasing fecal coliform bacteria levels in local water bodies. Johnson, Bell, Cassalery, Matriotti, and Bagley Creeks have been placed on the state’s Water Quality Assessment (303[d]) List of impaired waters due to unacceptable levels of fecal coliform. In 2000, Washington Department of Health closed some areas of Dungeness Bay to shellfish harvest, also due to high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. The closure area was expanded in 2001, and again in 2003.

    Status of the project

    In June 2002 Ecology submitted a water quality improvement report, also known as a total maximum daily load (TMDL), to EPA for approval. The TMDL included the results and recommendations of a technical study done on the water in the watershed, and an implementation strategy that briefly outlined how the recommendations would be addressed. EPA approved the TMDL in July 2002.

    There is a strong local commitment to recovering and protecting water quality in the Dungeness watershed, and a variety of activities are ongoing or planned to deal with the water quality issues.

    ————————————————————————————–

    REDUNDANT… ADDED FOR EMPHASIS

    July 22, 2016. Current EPA Approved Assessment

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Ecology’s September 2015 submittal of our latest Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on July 22, 2016.

    This is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for the state of Washington, including updated assessments for marine waters.

    This Assessment fulfills Washington State’s obligation under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) §303(d) and §305(b) to identify polluted waters (known as the 303(d) list) as well as report on the status of water quality statewide where data is available.

    ————————————————————

    Only one category, Category 5, represents the 303(d)-listed waters.

    The criteria for the 303(d) list were developed to identify only those waters for which there is valid documentation of impairment. These waters require the preparation of water quality improvement projects, also known as TMDLs, in accordance with the CWA.

    Waters showing apparent exceedances of criteria due to documented natural background conditions, and with no significant human contribution,

    will not be listed in Category 5 but will be placed in Category 1.

    Some impaired waters will not be listed in Category 5 because a TMDL is not required (see Category 4). As part of the listing process, waters placed in Category 5 will be prioritized and scheduled for TMDL studies in accordance with the watershed schedule out lined in Section 9. The remaining categories (Categories 1 through 4, including three subcategories of Category 4) are intended to inform other water quality efforts in the State,

    AND TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE KNOWN CONDITION OF THE STATE’S WATERS.

    ————————————————————————————–

    INDEED, WE MUST SHARE THIS WITH THE 300,000 TOURISTS THAT COME TO PLAY ON OUR PRISTEEN SHORELINE BEACHES…

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT  HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION, ON THE SHORELAND BEACHES IN WA STATE, DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMEL POOP DON’T COUNT

     AND LOTS OF PEOPLE  LOVE ORGANIC STUFF…   

    ————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | For the Protection of Whose Life?

    For the Protection of Whose Life?

    Posted on January 30, 2013 2:11 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    FOR THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE AND RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC USE
    TO PROTECT THE EPA CLEAN WATER ACT,  DOE SHORELINES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE,  TO RESTORE PRISTINE CONDITIONS ON OUR BEACHES, PROVIDE NNL OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION BY HUMAN CONTAMINATION, and restrict the public use of public land,
    Our Federally appointed, WDFW, elected WA State officials Van De Wege, TharInger, etc. and Audubon Society member Ken Wiersema have decreed the following.

    DUNGENESS SPIT “The jogging is something that is very disturbing to wildlife when it’s done along the sand spit when birds are feeding and nesting and potentially breeding in those areas,” Audubon Society member Ken Wiersema “Thousands of birds use this DUNGENESS SPIT as a migratory stop.”

    DUNGENESS RIVER “Thousands of birds use 700 acres of wetland habitat on the second reach of the Dungeness River as a migratory stop.” and have created a foul/fowl contaminated mess at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    DNA identified 75% of the contamination, as predominately bird poop, including 34 wild mammal species.

    THREE CRABS SITE
    North Olympic Wildlife Area Addition: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) completed the purchase of 51.57 acres as part of the Dungeness Basin project to conserve and restore coastal wetlands properties. The property is located in Clallam County, approximately five miles north of Sequim fronting on Dungeness Bay. The property consists of 49.42 acres of tidelands and 2.15 acres of uplands containing the historic 3-Crabs restaurant. This purchase was funded by grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The property will be managed within the Wildlife Program as part of the Lower Dungeness North Olympic Wildlife Area.

    PUBLIC $$$$ TO BUY PUBLIC LAND, TO PROVIDE MORE WHAT?

    More bird habitat, more bird poop, more wildlife fowl/foul contamination

    spreading from Dungeness Spit to Three Crabs area to connect  to the mouth of the Dungeness River wildlife fowl/foul contamination.

    INDEED, this is “VERY DISTURBING” to the taxpayers.

    This entry was posted in EPA Clean Water Act, Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Shoreline Management Plan, West Nile Virus, Wetlands.

    DON’T WORRY ABOUT  HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION, ON THE SHORELAND BEACHES et al. IN WA STATE, DOCUMENTED NATURAL BIRD AND MAMMAL POOP DON’T COUNT.


  • 2017 SMP Update 727 Comments

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY BOCC PUBLIC FORUM ON THE SMP DRAFT UPDATE IS TODAY, DEC 12, 2017  AT 10:30AM

    I SHALL NOT ATTEND

    I’VE SPENT NEARLY SEVEN OF MY GOLDEN YEARS COMMENTING ON ISSUES OF CONCERN TO AND FOR VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, ON THE SMP UPDATE JAN 26, 2011 TO DEC 12, 2017

    THERE ARE 727  PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE

    I’VE MADE AT LEAST 150 OF THEM

    THE CUTOFF DATE FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE BOCC IS TODAY, DEC 12, 2017.

    PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE DEC 6, 2017?

    WILL YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS  AFTER DEC 6, 2017 TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY  BOCC BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED?

    MY SMP COMMENTS AFTER DEC 6, 2017 ARE POSTED ON behindmyback.org

    —————————————————————————————–

    March 18, 2015: THERE WERE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE when somebody? prepared an SMP public oral and written comments  “MATRIX” On 160+ of the 617 Public Comments?

     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

    WERE YOUR SMP PUBLIC, ORAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF CONCERN INCLUDED WITHIN THE ARBITRARY DCD CUT OFF DATES  THAT PROVIDED THE SMP 160+ MATRIX” FOR THE CLALLAM COUNTY BOCC?

     

    • www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/619_PHewett.pdf

      SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo March 18, 2015: This work session on the 2014 SMP Update is anticipated to be generally … Behind My Back I A Thousand Wrongs?

     

    —————————————————————————————

    PUBLIC COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED SINCE DEC 6, 2017?

    WILL YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS  AFTER DEC 6, 2017 BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY  BOCC  BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN POSTED?

    THERE ARE 726  PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE

    SMP UPDATE ISSUES AND CONCERNS?

    CLICK ON THE LINKS READ ALL OF THEM

     

    2017 Comments 2017 Comments 2016 Comments 2015 Comments
    011017-EBowen 111017-PHewett 021716-PHewett 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 111017-KSpees 040816-PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 111117-PHewett 040816-BMcGonigel 030115 – PHewett
    030317-PHewett 111217-DHewett 040816-PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    060217-EBowen 111217-WClark 051616-PHewett 031315 – KSpees
    060317-KSpees 111217-LPhelps 081016-PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    060317-PHewett 111217-DRoyall 090916-PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    060717-PHewett 111317-MWinborn 091016-LPerry 031515 – KSpees
    060917-PHewett 111317-LPhelps 092716-EBowen 031815 – KSpees
    060917-CKeen 111317-DRoyall 100716-EBowen 031815 – PHewett
    061517-KSpees 111417-PHewett 101616-EBowen 032115 – PHewett
    061917-MBlack 111417-EBowen 032115 – PHewett
    062017-PHewett 111517-TDziadek 032115 – PHewett
    062217-EBowen 111517-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    062217-EBowen 112717-DSchanfald 032115 – PHewett
    070517-BVreeland 120417-JWard 033015 – PHewett
    070517-EChadd 120417-DSchanfald 033115 – KSpees
    070517-OCA 120517-SKoehler 040215 – EBowen
    070517-CWeller 120517-DMyers 041615 – PHewett
    070517-RVreeland 120517-EMarks 041915- PHwewtt
    070517-MDoherty 120517-Ablue 042015 – PHewett
    071317-EBowen 120517-JLoran 052815 _ EBowen
    071317-EBowen 120517-JNolan 070315 – PHewett
    071917-CWeller 120517-CRose 070315 – PHewett
    072617-BVreeland 120517-DParks 070315 – PHewett
    072617-SMartin 120517-DSchanfald 070415 – PHewett
    081117-EBowen 120617-ALubeck 070415 – LPerry
    081217-EBowen 120617-MRossotto 080215 – PHewett
    092817-EBowen 120617-BBergman 090215-PHewett
    101617-PHewett 120617-PHewett 090815-PHewett
    101617-CEvanoff 120617-MRutherford
    101717-PHewett 120617-JWiley
    101717-BWinter
    101817-PHewett
    101917-PHewett
    102217-PHewett
    102317-PHewett
    102717-PHewett
    102917-PHewett
    103017-PHewett
    110217-PHewett
    110517-PHewett
    110617-PHewett
    110917-PHewett
    110917-PHewett

     

    Comments received between 2014 and Feb. 27, 2015 HERE

    2015 Comments 020615 – BLynette

    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 Comments021915 – 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 Comments021815 – 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 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    Comments received prior to 2014 HERE

    CLICK ON THE LINK “HERE” LINK ABOVE.

    WHAT WAS YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT CONCERNED   2013-2012-2011?

    WERE YOUR SMP PUBLIC, ORAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF CONCERN INCLUDED WITHIN THE ARBITRARY DCD CUT OFF DATES  THAT PROVIDED THE SMP 160+ MATRIX” FOR THE CLALLAM COUNTY BOCC?

    ————————————————————————-

     

    • DOE SMP PUBLIC SMP COMMENTS FROM 5/31/11 #100 TO …

      citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/2012/07/doesmp-public-smp

      TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012 Available on Clallam County SMP website. http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html …

     

    DOE SMP PUBLIC SMP COMMENTS FROM 5/31/11 #100 TO 7/02/12 #284

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

    http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

    I will complete the comments on #1 to #99 and document the pros and cons.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 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 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    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 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 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 Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The 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 Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors 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 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 MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 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 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM 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 SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 The statistics introduced 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 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 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 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 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
    ·    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 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment 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

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 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
    ·    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 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
    ·    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 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
    ·    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 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 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 intended 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
    ·    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?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

    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: None – in 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

    CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW..

    Comments received prior to 2014 HERE
    ·    052911 – ESpees – G
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

     


  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

    Answer:  “Color Books have been in the news  a lot since Nov 8, 2016”

     Hello Clallam County Country Bumpkins et al. Who knew what on Jan 26, 2011?

    And, what have we discovered …. Nov 10, 2017?

    The Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft is a 273 page color book, It  cost American taxpayers $1,329,915.00 dollars. A US Environmental  Protection  Assistance Grant  to Clallam County WA  for Project No  PO-00J08801-1-2- 3.

    Total Project cost, one million three hundred twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars.

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

    I’m requesting an answer from  Jim Jones, Jr.  the Clallam County Administrator..

    ——————————————————–

    NOV 3, 2017 TO NOV 8, 2017 all links are below.

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    What started as a $599,000.00 pass through grant from the EPA to Clallam County  for ESA Adolfson  facilitators/ consultants/ compliance experts, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, we were told,  to regulate 3300 vested  private shoreline turned into $1,329,915.00 dollar project.

    DISCOVERY  Jan 26, 2011 to Nov 10, 2017 continued….

    WHO KNEW, A PERSON THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEE, IN OR AT, OR QUESTIONED AT ANY PUBLIC 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DISCUSSIONS, IS CLALLAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE CATHY LEAR THE PROJECT MANAGER.

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

    Doubtless, everyone with an advanced degree in forestry would understand these references.

    This way of writing is distracting, however, for those who do not customarily speak in these terms. I think it should be made more “speaks for itself to anyone” wherever possible. A shoreline inventory should be a tool useful to anyone interested, but especially to land use planners and citizens with property they want to develop.

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

    NOV 9, 2017   MORE DISCOVERY  on the 2017 DCD SMP Draft Update 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK . People send me stuff, people tell me stuff, I have a researched and documented history of the Clallam County SMP Update stuff.

    NOV 9, 2017  A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ——————————————————–

    I am very familiar with the color purple on maps used for the SMP Update. I did attended the 2012 SMP Update Forks Public Forum.

    WHO KNEW ABOUT THE “NEW”  EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS COLOR BOOK?  NOT ONLY DID THEY COLOR  OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY PURPLE,

    WHO KNEW?  AND, WHO KNOWS THAT THEY DREW “NEW” EVIL  BLACK LINES ON OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY?

    NOV 9, 2017 3:30PM I COULD DOCUMENT ON MAP #41 IN THE COLOR BOOK,  THE “NEW” EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS, THE BLACK LINES “TOOK”  20 ACRES OF A GEORGE C. RAINS SR TRUST PROPERTY FROM  A 40 ACRE PARCEL ON THE SOL DUC RIVER.

    I WAS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY COURT HOUSE.

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    We spoke for about an hour…

    RE: THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE AND THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR.

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “We have to leave this to the professionals”…..

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

    After a seven years fight.. The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, finally gave up..

    “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS”…..

    THE PAID PROFESSIONALS? THAT WROTE THE DCD 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT AND PROVIDED THE NEW 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK…….

    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 (THAT INCLUDING JIM KRAMER)

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT 273 PAGE $1,329,915.00 DOLLAR COLOR BOOK. As the concerned trustee for over 800 acres of designated forest land, seriously affected by the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft…. I requested a paper copy of their color book .

    —– 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

    ——————————————————————————–

    WE THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY CAN LEAVE THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT UPDATE UP TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS AND ECOLOGY OR WE CAN CHALLENGE IT….

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

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:18 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004353-102417
    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:21 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

    Attachments:
    PO-00J08801-1_Add_$499957__Signed_10-5-10.pdf
    PO-00J08801-2_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-14__Signed_10-16-12.pdf
    PO-00J08801-3_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-16__Signed_12-15-14_.pdf
    PO-00J08801-0_$1329915_Exp__12-31-12__Signed_8-3-10.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

    IT APPEARS ABOVE, THAT THE PO-JOO8801  #3  REBUDGET  WAS ONLY EXTENDED TO DEC 31, 2016?

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

    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 met  with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn Nov 9, 2017

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

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

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

    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….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    ———————————————————————
    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012
    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/247_SMP041812.pdf

    Merrill, Hannah From: pearl hewett … Subject: SMP GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILEhave any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft …

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

    The statistics introduced 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. (the number was staggering)

    PER CATHY LEAR, they are waiting to compile the historic statistics to show the number of how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings were non-conforming on the old SMP marine setbacks. (hindsight is 20/20)

    How have the DOE restrictions, regulations and definitions on/of non-conforming property changed since 1976?

    I wrote the following as a tongue in cheek comment on the 2012 SMP Update.

    After seeing the statistics on non-conforming private marine property at the last SMP meeting, it is not funny, it is frightening.

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

    FOR SALE VIEW   LOT ON THE BEAUTIFUL STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA

    100FEET X400FEET

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

    The buyer is left with 25% of his private property purchase, a 100X100 foot piece of private property (with a 75% loss of his usable private land where the buyer is free to put his 1700 sq foot home, his drain field, his parking and his deck and his garden.

    The buyer will be allowed a 20 foot view corridor (20’X300′) through the 300 feet of restricted use area of his private property. (leaving 80% of his view blocked)

    The buyer will be allowed to limb up and remove 30% of the vegetation blocking his view every 10 years on the 100 X 300 foot restricted use area of his private property.

    The buyer will be allowed a 6 foot wide foot path through the 300 foot restricted use area (in the view corridor) of his private property and home to the beach. (a full city block from beach)

    Using a variance and a geological study you may be able to reduce the setbacks and buffer zones.

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.


  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

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

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

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

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

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

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

    State Review and Approval

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

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

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

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

    Click on the link below to find out.

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

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

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

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

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

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

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

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

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

    —————————————————————–

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

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

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

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

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

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

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

    The fixed elevation would be

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

    Attachment C.

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

    5.Residential Moorage.

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

     City Council

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

    Planning Commission

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

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

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

    Richard L. Settle

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

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

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

    Public access

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

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

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

    Park development options

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

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

    High water mark

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

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

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

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

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

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

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

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

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

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

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

    Related Stories

     

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

     


  • 6/6/2012 Private Meeting with DOE Bureaucrats

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Behind My Back | DOE Private meeting 6/6/2012

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/doe-private-meeting-662012/

    Jan 30, 2013 – THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County Department of Community Development for my …

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

    ——————————————————————-

      Behind My Back | It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/10/17/itswho-theyare-that-concernsme

    Oct 17, 2017 · Behind My Back … AND, IT’S WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US. To be continued…. This entry was posted in A Fearful Reminder, …

    INDEED, THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF APPOINTED BUREAUCRATS IN  WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY (DOE).

    —————————————————————————

    PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING WITH THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE (THE BUREAUCRATS)

    I made a list of my concerns  as red flag warnings from Pearl Revere

    —————————————————-

    RED FLAG #1

    When American citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me. Jan. 26, 2011 DOE SMP Public Forum.

    ——————————————–

    RED FLAG #2

    When ELECTED OFFICIAL IGNORE THE  FEARS AND CONCERNS of  American citizens , that is unacceptable to me

    1. Senator Hargrove
    2. Rep. Van DeWege
    3. Rep. Tharinger
    4. Clallam County Sheriff Benedict
    5. Clallam County Commissioner Tharinger
    6. Commissioner Mike Chapman
    7. Commissioner Mike Doherty
    8. WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna

    —————————–

    RED FLAG #3

    FEAR AND CONCERNS  WA STATE AND  APPOINTED AGENCIES

    1. WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
    2. AND OTHER UNKNOWN agencies?
    3. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as for the DOE SMP)?
    4. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as from the state)?
    5. Ariel surveillance of all Lake Sutherland homes, property and docks?
    6. DNR?
    7. WSDOT (inter agency contract with DFW) inspecting 101 culverts.
    8. DFW illegal trespass on all Lake Sutherland private property.

    —————————

    RED FLAG #4

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

     —————————

    RED FLAG #5

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    1. 1. DOE SMP WAC’S (Over stepping WA State SMP LAW)
    2. Failure to provide an SMP ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLALLAM COUNTY.
    3. DOE WAC directs Clallam County on how to deny permits to private property owners until they submit to regulations and/or restrictions that may be illegal or unconstitutional at State level.
    4. Page 88 DOE WA State Public Trust Doctrine (DOE unconstitutional creation of law without due process). They admit in writing they have done it once?
    5. DOE approval of Shoreline Management Updates that are in conflict with RCW ______ in the protection of single family residence?
    6. DOE excessive setbacks, taking of private property, non-conforming, loss of value, use and enjoyment.
    7. DOE WAC, denies permitted development of private property and requires the taking of private property for public access.

    ————————————————————————–

    JUNE 6, 2012  MY PRIVATE MEETING WITH WA STATE DOE BUREAUCRATS

    Posted as  DOE PRIVATE MEETING 6/6/12 cont.

    The WA State DOE, state policy people asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County
    Department of Community Development for my contact information, by name as an individual, Pearl Rains Hewett.

    Regional Director Paula Ehlers called me at home and requested a private meeting with me.

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Paula Ehlers told me I was allowed to invite 2-3 people. I invited (7).

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Dr.Robert Crittenden, biologist, expert witness and paid consultant.
    Dick Piling, Realtor, Republican Chairman of Clallam County
    Harry Bell, Business men’s assoc. He is Green Crow, the company owns a lot of WA State forestland, he is well know at state level SMP Advisory Committee
    Connie Beauvais, Manager of Crescent Water District, informed, active Member of the Appointed Planning Dept.
    MD retired, Karl Spees, SMP Advisory Committee, CAPR 13, very active private property owner
    Attorney Mary Pfaff, Member of the SMP Advisory Committee, had a Dr. appointment and did not attend.

    The WA State DOE Team, was a lot more interested in my guests, than they were in me.
    None of the invited (6) that attended were asked to leave.
    Interesting to note, we had the meeting at the courthouse (Steve Gray reserved the room) On the way into the DOE meeting, we ran into several interesting? interested? people. Sheila Rourke Miller, Jim McEntire and Mike Chapman.

    WHAT WAS THE MEETING AGENDA? Intel?
    DOE? I have no idea?
    I asked all of my invited guests to independently, based on their area of expertise and concerns, to prepare (5) questions for the DOE meeting.

    I personally, showed them the map, graphically demonstrating the SMP TAKING affected of the 175′, 150 plus 10′ setback on Burt Reid’s 7 acre priority feeder bluff private property. I spoke of the other property owners, all 474 of them, up to 88% would become totally non-conforming.

    I asked them, as I pointed to the map, as the US Supreme Court Justices asked an EPA witness in the 9 to zero ruling against the EPA, on the Sackett Case, “If this was your investment property? How happy would you be? What would you do? Just plant a few bushes and walk away?

    I did not take notes, I did listened and made an occasional indignant comment.
    By definition, “indignant” Angry at unfairness angry or annoyed at the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness of something.

    We did agreed that we were all American’s first and we do recognize private property rights.
    WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH – LEARN?

    Gordon White told us that, the appointed WA State Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant, (ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT)  is aware of the concerns of the Clallam County private property owners (all 3300 of us)

    WA State DOE is not required to provide an economic impact statement for Clallam County.

    My personal conclusion,
    The DOE is aware of the SMP economic impact on Clallam County government.
    The DOE is aware that they are TAKING private property value without compensation.
    The DOE is aware, that If private property owners keep fighting, we can reduce the setbacks, through our local government.

    My conclusions are based on the following
    18 months of research on line,
    WA State Law, protection of private property
    WAC’S, DOE proposed budget 2010-2013
    WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Lawsuits, WA State Supreme Court Rulings
    United States Supreme Court Rulings
    Pacific Legal Foundation battles and BIG WINS
    documented information on many other WA State SMP’S,
    “Conspiracy Exposed” George C. Rains Sr.
    “Access Denied to inholder property”,
    Attending county meetings, public forums,
    Reading every word of the Clallam County DOE SMP Update and every SMP Public Comment,
    Clallam County Chapter 35,
    Water rights, reserved water rights,
    60 years of recorded history from George C. Rains Sr.
    To name just a FEW areas I have researched, questioning, challenging, communicating and disseminating all of it. (can what I know hurt them?)

    I have great things going for me.
    I AM AN AMERICAN
    I AM NOT AFRAID OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO ME.
    I freely play, the one card I have, guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    American’s working together to protect Constitutional and private property rights, they (light candles) by disseminating, research, keep us informed, reform us, post emails, encourage and support our FREEDOM.
    Karl Spees, CAPR 13
    Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online.
    Sue Forde Citizen Review Online
    Marv Chastin

    This entry was posted in Private Property Rights, Shoreline Management Plan, WA State Dept. of Ecology.

    ——————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  OCT 19, 2017

    WHAT ARE “YOU” GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    WHAT AM I GOING TO ABOUT IT?

    THE USUAL……

    Post this 2017 SMP Update comment on behindmyback.org

    Then, email it to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, at:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  and others.

    To be continued…


  • 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.


  • WA State Accused of “Cloud Rustling”

    YEP,  IN 1977  WA STATE WAS  ACCUSED OF “CLOUD RUSTLING”

    Rainmaking and Cloud Rustling – The New York Times

    www.nytimes.com/1977/03/09/archives/rainmaking-and-cloud-rustling.html

    Mar 9, 1977 – THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IDAHO HAS ACCUSED THE NEIGHBORING STATE OF WASHINGTON OF “CLOUD RUSTLING,” AND ANNOUNCED PLANS TO FILE SUIT IN FEDERAL …

    THE HISTORY OF “CLOUD RUSTLING,” WEATHER MODIFICATION, AKA CLOUD SEEDING FROM 1944 THROUGH 2017 IS VERY, VERY INTERESTING

    ————————————————————–

    HMMM?  HOW INTERESTING…

    A CLOUD SEEDING LAWSUIT WAS FILED AGAINST WA STATE  IN 1956

    Washington State 1956

    Auvil Orchard Company, Inc. v. Weather Modification, Inc.,

    Nr. 19268 (Superior Court, Chelan County, Wash. 1956).

    This is an UNREPORTED case that has been mentioned briefly in several law review articles.4Auvil was able to get a temporary injunction prohibiting cloud seeding for hail suppression.

    HOWEVER, AUVIL WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN A PERMANENT INJUNCTION, BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE CLOUD SEEDING HAD CAUSED A FLOOD.

    —————————————————————

    AND, In 1977 WA State passed a law on CLOUD SEEDING

    Chapter 43.37 RCW: WEATHER MODIFICATION – Access Washington

    app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.37

    LIABILITY OF STATE DENIEDLegal rights of private persons not affected. 43.37.200. Penalty. 43.37. … PROGRAM OF EMERGENCY CLOUD SEEDING AUTHORIZED. 43.37.220.

    ———————————————————

    INDEED….

    THE HISTORY OF CLOUD SEEDING  MAKES AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY

    in the interaction between, Department of Defense, DoD, USDOD, or DOD scientists and society: not only about the obligations and ethics of scientists, but also about Owning the Weather in 2025. A Research Paper … Presented on 17 June 1996,

    AND, HOW COURTS HAVE AVOIDED DECIDING CASES INVOLVING TECHNICAL ISSUES ABOUT WEATHER MODIFICATION.

    ——————————————————————-

    UNBELIEVABLE?

    Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 – US Gov

    For those who would like to read the rest of Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, or are still having doubts about weather modification, Earth Changes Central has made a copy of the original US Air Force PDF file available for reading, which can be located here:
    http://earthchangescentral.com/research/Project2025/vol3ch15.pdf

    Aug 5, 1996 – Owning the Weather in 2025. was A Research Paper … Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense, DoD, USDOD, or DOD) school.

    WHO?

    The Department of Defense (DoD, USDOD, or DOD) is an executive branch department of the federal government of the United States charged with coordinating …

     WHAT?

    THE INFLUENCE OF THE WEATHER ON MILITARY OPERATIONS HAS LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED. During World War II, Eisenhower said, [i]n Europe bad weather is the worst enemy of the air [operations]. Some soldier once said, “The weather is always neutral.” Nothing could be more untrue. Bad weather is obviously the enemy of the side that seeks to launch projects requiring good weather, or of the side possessing great assets, such as strong air forces, which depend upon good weather for effective operations. If really bad weather should endure permanently, the Nazi would need nothing else to defend the Normandy coast!

    WHEN?

    D-Day Weather Map Is Most Important in History
    The forecast for northwest France on June 6, 1944 stands as history`s most important weather forecast. Conditions at Omaha Beach and the other landing zones within 50 miles of Normandy had to be just right so as to allow troops to parachute to their landing zones, as well as maneuver their way onshore via amphibious vehicles. With so many military assets being deployed — more than 5,000 ships, 13,000 aircraft and 160,000 Allied troops — THE WEATHER FORECAST, AT A TIME WHEN MODERN METEOROLOGY WAS STILL IN ITS INFANCY, WAS CRUCIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THE MISSION.
    (mashable.com)
    http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/weather-wwII-mud-war.php

    WHERE?

    Massive World War II bombing raids altered English weather
    Allied bombing raids during WWII turned the English sky white with contrails, providing a case study for scientists studying how the weather is affected by these long, feathery lines of condensation that form behind aircraft. Contrails form when the hot, moist plume of engine exhaust mixes with cold air. Liquid droplets form and then freeze, forming a straight, white line. Contrails, which can last days, have complex effects on the Earth`s surface temperature: They can reflect sunlight, causing cooling, or they can trap long-wave radiation, and preventing it from escaping to space.
    (livescience.com)
    http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/weather-wwII-mud-war.php

    WHY?

     Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in … – UK Skywatch

    www.uk-skywatch.co.uk/Weather%20as%20a%20Force%20Multiplier.%20Owning%…

    by CTJ House – ‎1996 – ‎Cited by 26 – ‎Related articles

    Aug 5, 1996 – Owning the Weather in 2025. A Research Paper … Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense, DoD, USDOD, or DOD) school.

    The Department of Defense is an executive branch department of the federal government of the United States charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the government concerned …

    Earth Changes Central has made a copy of the original US Air Force PDF file available for reading, which can be located here:
    http://earthchangescentral.com/research/Project2025/vol3ch15.pdf

    ———————————————————–

    READ THE 1996 DOCUMENT ABOVE

     ————————————————

    READ THE TWO DOCUMENTS BELOW…

    ————————————————

    Full text of “Weather modification: programs, problems, policy, and …

    https://archive.org/stream/weatificat00unit/weatificat00unit_djvu.txt

    193 Legislative and congressional activities 194 Federal legislation on weather ….. 93th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 26, 1977, Washington, U.S. Government Printing ….. Operation of cloud-seeding equipment near the border of one State may also …

    ———————————————-

    Weather Modification Law in the USA – Dr. Ronald B. Standler

    www.rbs2.com/weather.pdf

    Oct 22, 2006 – Washington state 1956 . … South Dakota 1977 . …. The best-known kind of weather modification is cloud seeding, with the goal of producing …

    ———————————————————

    WHO OWNS THIS WEATHER MAY 2, 2017

    Towns Flooded Across Arkansas, Missouri as Rivers Rise; 20 Dead in …

    https://weather.com/…/severe-weather-tornadoes-flooding-storms-texas-missouri-arka…

    May 2 2017 01:00 PM EDT … Story Highlights. At least 20 people have … Flooding triggered by deadly storms over the weekend prompted ….

    —————————————————————-

    Deadly storms and flooding in US Midwest, South | News | DW.COM …

    www.dw.com/en/deadly-storms-and-flooding-in-us-midwest-south/a-38658400

    13 hours ago – TOP STORIES … Deadly storms and flooding in US Midwest, South … Date 02.05.2017; Related Subjects Weather; Keywords US, Midwest, …

     ——————————————————————————————

    Weather Manipulation – Fact or Fantasy? – Earth Changes Central

    earthchangescentral.com/eccarticles/WeatherManipulation_Fact_or_Fantasy01.html

    Sep 11, 2005 – IN THE UNITED STATES, WEATHER-MODIFICATION will likely become a part of … has made a copy of the original US Air Force PDF file available for …

    ————————————————————————

    WHETHER WEATHER MANIPULATION IS FACT OR FANTASY?

    WHETHER CLOUD SEEDING CAUSES FLOODING?

    WHETHER CHEMTRAILS ARE A CONSPIRACY OR FACT?

     YOU DECIDE…

    ———————————————————————

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Behind My Back | Albedo modification?

    www.behindmyback.org/category/albedo-modification/

    www.sciencemag.org/…/fight-global-warming-senate-calls-study-… —————-. Science Apr 19, 2016 – Controversial “albedo modification” should be explored …

    Behind My Back | $5.4 Billion for DOE’S “albedo modification”?

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/29/5-4-billion-for-does-albedo-modification/

    Apr 29, 2016 – By Adrian Cho Apr. 19, 2016 , 4:00 PM www.sciencemag.org/. … Albedo modificationis not a solution to global warming, it is only a way to …

    ——————————————–

    Climate intervention (also called geoengineering)

    Climate Intervention – National Academies

    dels.nas.edu/…/cli
    National Research Council (U.S.) Commission on Ge…
    David Keith, an atmospheric physicist at Harvard University, says,
    “Ignorance is not a good basis for making decisions?
    so learning more about this is extremely valuable ($5.4 billion?)
     even if we find out that it will never work?
    ———————————————————
    The bottom line
    REALLY?

    To be continued……


  • Is Clallam County WA a Sanctuary County?

    Is Clallam County WA a Sanctuary County?

    My 7:30 AM wake up email

    Original Message —–

    From xxxx

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:09 AM

    Subject: Egads!

    Pearl,

    I just saw a map on Fox Business that SHOWS CLALLAM COUNTY AS A SANCTUARY COUNTY.  When did this happen and why didn’t we have anything to say about it????

    ———————————————————————–

    Egads! Indeed….. WHO KNEW?

    THE PENINSULA DAILY NEWS DOES NOT PRINT THIS SORT OF THING,

    EVEN IF IT CONTAINS DIRECT QUOTES FROM 

    CLALLAM  COUNTY SHERIFF BILL BENEDICT “I’VE TALKED TO THAT ORGANIZATION,” HE SAID, “AND I COULDN’T BE MORE VEHEMENT WHEN I DISAGREE WITH THEIR ASSERTION. WE ARE IN NO WAY OR SHAPE A SANCTUARY COUNTY.”

    ————————————————————–

    Egads! THE MAP

    Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States | Center for Immigration …

    cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

    Mar 20, 2017 – Sanctuary cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, … Naming and Shaming: The First ICE Weekly Alien Criminal Releases List …

    Source: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Data
    Click on Points to View More Information
    View Map in Full ScreenView Image of MapView Sanctuary Cities Topic Page

     Egads! Indeed….. THE MAP WHO KNEW?

    View the map in full screen above, Click on the links, Read to the bottom….

    Who? What? When? Where? and Why?

    INDEED, OUR  COUNTY, CLALLAM COUNTY WA”IS” MAPPED AND LISTED AS A SANCTUARY COUNTY

    Mar 27, 2017, 7:30AM  to 11:37AM  I Researched, I read, I documented,  I cut, I pasted, I connected the dots, I commented  and now I am posting it on my website for dissemination. “To whom it may concern”

     ——————————————————————————–

    What are sanctuary cities? Here’s a list of sanctuary cities, counties …

    www.fox25boston.com/news/…sanctuary-cities…sanctuary-cities-counties…/4881984…

    Jan 26, 2017 – My Fox Boston …. The CIS reports that around 300 sanctuary cities and counties … California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado …. Washington County … CLALLAM COUNTY. Clark County. Cowlitz County. Fife City. Franklin …

    According to CIS, there are about 300 sanctuary cities, counties and states in the United States.

    THE CIS REPORTS THAT AROUND 300 SANCTUARY CITIES AND COUNTIES REJECTED MORE THAN 17,000 DETENTION REQUESTS FROM ICE, BETWEEN JAN. 1, 2014 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 2015.

    NEARLY 300 CITIES AND COUNTIES ALEDGED TO OBSTRUCT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY

    THE LIST IS COMPILED IN PART FROM A 2014 REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS Port Angeles WA?)

     THIS INCLUDES SEVERAL COUNTIES THAT DISAGREE WITH THEIR INCLUSION ON THE LIST, AMONG THEM ARE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VA.

    AND CLALLAM COUNTY, WASH.

    COUNTY SHERIFF BILL BENEDICT “AND I COULDN’T BE MORE VEHEMENT WHEN I DISAGREE WITH THEIR ASSERTION. WE ARE IN NO WAY OR SHAPE A SANCTUARY COUNTY.”

    CLALLAM COUNTY SHERIFF BILL BENEDICT SAYS HE LISTENS TO WA STATES  ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON OPINION… AND GOVERNOR INSLEE?

    ——————————–

    Gov. Inslee’s executive order directs state police on immigration …

    www.kiro7.com/news/local/gov-inslee-to-sign-executive…immigration/496777657

    Feb 23, 2017 – Governor Jay Inslee will be signing an executive order relating to immigration … Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson declared victory in his … AS A SANCTUARY CITY, SEATTLE POLICE AND CITY EMPLOYEES ARE PROHIBITED FROM …

    ————————————————————

    Washington’s Governor Turns State Into A Sanctuary State – Christine …

    https://townhall.com/…/washingtons-governor-turns-state-into-a-sanctuary-state-n228…

    FEB 24, 2017 – The State of Texas is making moves to eliminate sanctuary cities … any state agency from detaining an illegal immigrant at the request … IN A PRESS CONFERENCE, INSLEE SAID THAT HE DID NOT THINK THAT WASHINGTON STATE SHOULD TAKE PART IN “[. …. ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS ANNOUNCES COMING CRACKDOWN ON …

    ———————————————————————

    NEARLY 300 CITIES AND COUNTIES ALEDGED TO OBSTRUCT FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY

    ‘Sanctuary’ county: embraced by some, disputed label for others | NACo

    www.naco.org/articles/‘sanctuary’-county-embraced-some-disputed-label-others

    JAN 9, 2017 – Several news media outlets characterized it as the county seeking … Organizations such as the Washington, D.C.-based Center for … According to CIS, there are about 300 sanctuary cities, counties and states in the United States. … among them are Chesterfield County, Va.

    AND CLALLAM COUNTY, WASH.

    Leonard has contacted CIS about being taken off the list to no avail. SIMILARLY, CLALLAM COUNTY SHERIFF BILL BENEDICT SAYS HIS REQUESTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED.

    “I’VE TALKED TO THAT ORGANIZATION,” HE SAID, “AND I COULDN’T BE MORE VEHEMENT WHEN I DISAGREE WITH THEIR ASSERTION. WE ARE IN NO WAY OR SHAPE A SANCTUARY COUNTY.”

    HE BELIEVES THE DESIGNATION REMAINS FOR THIS REASON: “WE LISTEN TO OUR OWN STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION THAT ESSENTIALLY TELLS US THAT UNLESS IMMIGRATION HAS AN IMMIGRATION DETAINER OUT ON SOMEONE THAT INCLUDES THE LITTLE BOX THAT SAYS THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE — IF THAT BOX ISN’T CHECKED, WE’RE NOT GOING TO TURN THEM OVER TO IMMIGRATION.”

    —————————————————————-

    Below, from the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates for restricting immigration, is a list of sanctuary state, counties and cities. THE LIST IS COMPILED IN PART FROM A 2014 REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.  Some cities/counties could have passed legislation that puts them more in complaince with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policies.  Click here to see the report from the DHS.

    ————————————————–

    THE CIS REPORTS THAT AROUND 300 SANCTUARY CITIES AND COUNTIES REJECTED MORE THAN 17,000 DETENTION REQUESTS FROM ICE, BETWEEN JAN. 1, 2014 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 2015.

    Mar 27, 2017, 7:30am to 10:30AM  I Researched, I read, I documented,  I cut, I pasted, I connected the dots, I commented  and now I am posting it on my website for dissemination.

    “To whom it may concern”

    Here is the WA STATE SANCTUARY  list from CIS.

    Washington State

    Benton County, Chelan County, CLALLAM COUNTY, Clark County, Cowlitz County, Fife City, Franklin County, Jefferson County, Issaquah, Kent, King County,  Kitsap County, Lynnwood City, Marysville, Pierce County, Puyallup, Skagit County, Snohomish County, South Correctional Entity Jail, King County, Spokane County,Sunnyside, Thurston County, Walla Walla County,Washington State Corrections,Whatcom County, Yakima County

    “To whom it may concern”

    GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE, WA STATE,  HAS ENACTED POLICIES? BY

    SIGNING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKING STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FROM DETAINING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

    WHICH LIMIT COOPERATION WITH ICE.

    —————————————————————————————

    Jeff Sessions says he’ll punish sanctuaries, cities could lose billions of …

    www.washingtontimes.com/news/…/jeff-sessions-says-hell-punish-sanctuaries-cities/

    21 hours ago – The Trump administration officially put sanctuary cities on notice Monday that they are violating federal laws and could lose access to billions of dollars in Justice Department grants if they continue to thwart efforts to deport illegal immigrants. AND COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT …

    Attorney General: Sanctuary cities are risking federal money | The …

    www.spokesman.com/stories/…/27/attorney-general-sanctuary-cities-are-risking-fede/

    MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2017, 4:18 P.M.. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, second left, speaks at a post-election event at City Hall in Seattle. Leaders in Seattle, San …

     ————————————————

    What are sanctuary cities? Here’s a list of sanctuary cities, counties …

    www.fox25boston.com/news/…sanctuary-cities…sanctuary-cities-counties…/4881984…

    JAN 26, 2017 – My Fox Boston …. The CIS reports that around 300 sanctuary cities and counties … California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado …. Washington County … CLALLAM COUNTY. Clark County. Cowlitz County. Fife City. Franklin …

    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    MAR 20, 2017 – SANCTUARY CITIES, COUNTIES, AND STATES

    Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States | Center for Immigration …

    cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

    MAR 20, 2017 – SANCTUARY CITIES, COUNTIES, AND STATES have laws, ordinances, … NAMING AND SHAMING: The First ICE Weekly Alien Criminal Releases List …

     Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

    By Bryan Griffith, Jessica Vaughan March 2017

    Naming and Shaming: The First ICE Weekly Alien Criminal Releases List

    Topic Page: Sanctuary Cities

    View More Immigration Maps

    Map Updated: March 23, 2017

     

    City

    County

    State

    Removed from List

    CIS.ORG

    Source: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Data
    Click on Points to View More Information
    View Map in Full ScreenView Image of MapView Sanctuary Cities Topic Page

    The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

    A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien’s previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

    The Center’s last map update reflected listings in an ICE report published on March 20, 2017.

    THE ICE REPORT… link above….

    ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS Weekly Declined Detainer Outcome Report  For Recorded Declined Detainers Jan. 28 – Feb. 3, 2017

    Summary

    Pursuant to section 9(b) of Executive Order 13768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, and section H of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s subsequent implementation memo,

    Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is making available for public release the non-Federal jurisdictions that release aliens from their custody, notwithstanding that such aliens are subject to a detainer or similar request for

    custody issued by ICE to that jurisdiction.

    For instances of such release, the report also includes the associated individual’s citizenship, detainer issued and declined dates, and notable criminal activity.

    ICE compiled this report based on jurisdictions with detainers that were recorded as declined

    between January 28, 2017, and February 3, 2017, regardless of detainer issuance date

    It should be noted that law enforcement agencies (LEA) do not generally advise ICE of when a detainer is not honored, and therefore this report represents declined detainers that ICE personnel have become aware of during their enforcement activities.

    This report is comprised of four sections:

    • Section I:

    Highest Volume of Detainers Issued to Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions

    between January 28, 2017, and February 3, 2017

    • Section I

    I: Jurisdictions with Recorded Declined Detainers Broken Down by Individuals Released

    between January 28, 2017, and February 3, 2017

    • Section III:

    Table of Jurisdictions that have Enacted Policies which Limit Cooperation with ICE

    • Section IV: Report Scope and Data Fidelity

    ——————————————————-

    MAR 20, 2017 – SANCTUARY CITIES, COUNTIES, AND STATES have laws, ordinances,NAMING AND SHAMING: The First ICE Weekly Alien Criminal Releases List …

    I just saw a map on Fox Business that SHOWS CLALLAM COUNTY AS A SANCTUARY COUNTY.  When did this happen and why didn’t we have anything to say about it????

    ————————————————————

    GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE, WA STATE,  HAS ENACTED POLICIES? BY

    SIGNING AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKING STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FROM DETAINING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

    WHICH LIMIT COOPERATION WITH ICE.

    Wash. governor orders agencies to ignore immigration requests | TheHill

    thehill.com/…/320871-wash-governor-orders-agencies-to-ignore-immigration-request…

    Feb 23, 2017 – Jay Inslee (D) on Thursday signed an executive order blocking state law enforcement agencies from detaining undocumented immigrants at …

    ————————————————————————————–

    INDEED, OUR  COUNTY, CLALLAM COUNTY WA”IS” MAPPED AND LISTED NAMED AND SHAMED AS A SANCTUARY COUNTY BY GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE EXECUTIVE ORDER BLOCKING STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FROM DETAINING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

    ONE LAST QUESTIONS HAS YOUR CITY, COUNTY OR STATE  BEEN MAPPED AND LISTED NAMED AND SHAMED AS A SANCTUARY?


  • Obama’s Infrastructure “The Fast Act”

    (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ”Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” or the ”FAST Act”.

    TALL ORDERS, this is a 490 page document

    WITH ALL THE  DEMOCRAT’S BELLS AND WHISTLES EMBEDDED

    Elaine Chao sworn in as transportation secretary – The Washington Post

    www.washingtonpost.com/…sworn-in…transportation…/3d12bd26-e80b-11e6-903d-9b…

    Jan 31, 2017 – Elaine Chao was sworn in as transportation secretary by Vice … STORY: Trump transportation secretary pick Elaine Chao confirmed in Senate, …

    ——————————————————————————
    I’m sure somebody in the Trump Administration  is reading it….
    TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT.
    ———————————————————————-
    I did not read the full report.
     BUT, I DID READ ENOUGH TO RED FLAG PARTS! (below)
    ————————————————————————

    Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act or the FAST Act – FHWA …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/

    On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. No. 114-94) into law

    ——————————————————————————
    THE DEMOCRAT’S FACT SHEET AND THE DEMOCRAT’S  FUNDING
    HOW MANY AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS HAVE THEY SPENT SINCE ENACTMENT?
    HOW MUCH HAVE THEY GOT STASHED?

    Sec. 1402. Highway Trust Fund transparency and accountability.

    Sec. 1403. Additional deposits into Highway Trust Fund.

    Apportionment – FAST Act Fact Sheets – FHWA | Federal Highway …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/apportionmentfs.cfm

    Total funding for Federal-aid highway formula programs. 

    THE FAST ACT AUTHORIZES A TOTAL COMBINED AMOUNT ($39.7 BILLION IN FY 2016, $40.5 BILLION IN FY 2017, …

    ———————————————————————

    JUST ASKING? JUST SAYING…

    HOW MANY TIMES HAVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS BEEN TAKEN BY THE GRANTED?

    —————————————————————————–

    Surface Transportation Block Grant Program – FAST Act Fact Sheets …

    https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/stbgfs.cfm

    [FAST Act § 1109(a)].

    THE STBG PROMOTES FLEXIBILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS AND PROVIDES FLEXIBLE FUNDING TO BEST ADDRESS STATE AND LOCAL …

    —————————————————————————

    RED FLAGS?
    THE  DEMOCRAT’S BELLS AND WHISTLES EMBEDDED
    —————————————————————-
    TAKEN BY THE GRANTED UNDER SEC. 79002?
    ————————————————————

    SEC. 79002. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

    TITLE LXXX—CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 80001. Requests for consumer reports by State or local child support

     enforcement agencies

    TITLE LXXVIII—TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

    Sec. 78001. Reviews of family incomes.

    TITLE LXXIX—HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

    Sec. 79001. Authority to administer rental assistance

    Sec. 32101. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes.

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    Sec. 1409. Milk products.

    Sec. 24303. Vehicle event data recorder study.

    Sec. 1301. Satisfaction of requirements for certain historic sites

    Sec. 1302. Clarification of transportation environmental authorities.

    Sec. 41009. Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental reviews and permits.

    Sec. 1415. Administrative provisions to encourage pollinator habitat and forage on transportation rights-of-way.

    Sec. 5512. Access to National Driver Register.

    Sec. 1413. National electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridors.

    Sec. 1414. Repeat offender criteria.

    TITLE XLIII—PAYMENTS TO CERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

    Sec. 43001. Payments from Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

    ———————————————————————–

    [PDF]FAST Act – Congress.gov

    https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fixing Amer-

    ica’s Surface Transportation Act’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act’’.

    (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—

    The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

    1. R. 22 (A 490 page report

    Subtitle C—Acceleration of Project Delivery

    Sec. 1301. Satisfaction of requirements for certain historic sites

    Sec. 1302. Clarification of transportation environmental authorities.

    Sec. 1303. Treatment of certain bridges under preservation requirements.

    Sec. 5512. Access to National Driver Register.

    PART I—DRIVER PRIVACY ACT OF 2015

    Sec. 24301. Short title.

    Sec. 24302. Limitations on data retrieval from vehicle event data recorders.

    Sec. 24303. Vehicle event data recorder study.

    TITLE XXXII—OFFSETS

    Subtitle A—Tax Provisions

    Sec. 32101. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes.

    Sec. 41007. Litigation, judicial review, and savings provision.

    Sec. 41008. Reports.

    Sec. 41009. Funding for governance, oversight, and processing of environmental

    reviews and permits.

    TITLE XLIII—PAYMENTS TO CERTIFIED STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES

    Sec. 43001. Payments from Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund

     

    DIVISION F—ENERGY SECURITY

    Sec. 61001. Emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions.

    Sec. 61002. Resolving environmental and grid reliability conflicts.

    Sec. 61003. Critical electric infrastructure security.

    Sec. 61004. Strategic Transformer Reserve.

    Sec. 61005. Energy security valuation

    TITLE LXXV—ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    TITLE LXXVIII—TENANT INCOME VERIFICATION RELIEF

    Sec. 78001. Reviews of family incomes.

    TITLE LXXIX—HOUSING ASSISTANCE EFFICIENCY

    Sec. 79001. Authority to administer rental assistance

    1. R. 22—10

    Sec. 79002. Reallocation of funds.

    TITLE LXXX—CHILD SUPPORT ASSISTANCE

    Sec. 80001. Requests for consumer reports by State or local child support

     enforcement agencies

    Subtitle E—General Provisions

    Sec. 5501. Delays in goods movement.

    Sec. 5502. Emergency route working group.

     Subtitle D—Miscellaneous

    Sec. 1401. Prohibition on the use of funds for automated traffic enforcement.

    Sec. 1402. Highway Trust Fund transparency and accountability.

    Sec. 1403. Additional deposits into Highway Trust Fund.

    Sec. 1404. Design standards.

    Sec. 1405. Justification reports for access points on the Interstate System.

    Sec. 1406. Performance period adjustment.

    Sec. 1407. Vehicle-to-infrastructure equipment.

    Sec. 1408. Federal share payable.

    Sec. 1409. Milk products.

    Sec. 1410. Interstate weight limits.

    Sec. 1411. Tolling; HOV facilities; Interstate reconstruction and rehabilitation.

    Sec. 1412. Projects for public safety relating to idling trains.

    Sec. 1413. National electric vehicle charging and hydrogen, propane, and natural gas fueling corridors.

    Sec. 1414. Repeat offender criteria.

    Sec. 1415. Administrative provisions to encourage pollinator habitat and forage on transportation rights-of-way.

    Sec. 1416. High priority corridors on National Highway System.

    Sec. 1417. Work zone and guard rail safety training.

    Sec. 1418. Consolidation of programs.

    Sec. 1419. Elimination or modification of certain reporting requirements.

    Sec. 1420. Flexibility for projects.

    Sec. 1421. Productive and timely expenditure of funds.

    Sec. 1422. Study on performance of bridges.

    ———————————————————–

    TITLE LXXV—ELIMINATE PRIVACY NOTICE CONFUSION

    Sec. 75001. Exception to annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

    SO WHAT’S NEW ON WIKI LEAK?

    “YEAR ZERO”… 8000 PAGES

    IN 1954 THOSE IN POWER KNEW IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME.