+menu-


  • Category Archives Rubber Stamped
  • 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

     


  • 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.


  • Forget About Draining the Swamp

    Forget About Draining the SWAMP

    The Government alligators have taken over WA STATE WETLANDS

    When you’re up to your butt in alligators, it’s easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

    (idiomatic) When performing a long and complex task, and when you’ve gotten utterly immersed in secondary and tertiary unexpected tangential subtasks, it’s easy to lose sight of the initial objective. This sort of distraction can be particularly problematic if the all-consuming subtask or sub-subtask is not, after all, particularly vital to the original, primary goal, but ends up sucking up time and resources (out of all proportion to its actual importance) only because it seems so urgent.
    ————————————————————————–

    Wetland Program Plan (WPP)

    Final WPP Now Available

    In March 2015, Ecology and the Interagency Work Group finalized the state’s Wetland Program Plan. The plan is a strategic tool, developed and implemented by the state, to articulate what the state seeks to accomplish with the wetland program over time. A strategy is necessary for an effective program that protects wetlands and strives to meet the state’s goal of no net loss and an overall net gain in wetland resources.

    This plan is organized around six core elements: regulation, monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, water quality standards, education and outreach, and sustainable financing. These elements are critical to the success of the program. This plan outlines work for a six-year timeframe and sets a longer-term vision for future actions.

    >More background information

    Download the Plan

    State Interagency Work Group

    Many agencies play a role in the protection and management of wetland resources in Washington State, in coordination with local governments and federal partners. Current state partners include the:

    Program Matrix

    During the development of the draft WPP, state agencies on the Interagency Work Group, as well as other agencies with a role in protecting and managing wetlands, were asked to identify aspects of their existing programs that fell within each of the EPA core elements.  The information was compiled into a wetland program matrix.  This matrix served as the baseline from which this plan was developed.

    >Download the Program Matrix

    If you have questions about an agency program, please contact the agency. If you have questions about the matrix in general or the Washington Wetland Program Plan, please contact the plan coordinator (see below).

    Update on Past Planning Efforts

    State Wetland Integration Strategy and Mitigation that Works Forum Report

    There were two major planning efforts in the past that provided direction and context for developing this plan: the State Wetland Integration Strategy (SWIS, 1994) and the Mitigation that Works Forum report (2008). These guiding documents have shaped the state’s wetland program and demonstrate the importance and value of long-term planning and agency coordination. We will be posting an overview of the recommendations and implementation actions of SWIS and the Making Mitigation Work Report on this web page. For each action, we will include an update on the status, current priority, and if and where it is included in the Wetland Program Plan action tables. In progress, please check back.

    Contact

    Susan Buis
    (360) 407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ————————————————————————————————-

    This is a major policy change especially with the NEW “all wet areas are connected” science synthesis proposed by EPA.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Meanwhile, the ABSOLUTE WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL United States are located in the Pacific Northwest, with Washington State’s Aberdeen Reservoir taking the top spot with an average yearly precipitation of 130.6 inches (3317mm).

    http://usatravel.about.com/od/Weather/ss/Wettest-Places-in-the-USA.htm

    SO? IF YOU LIVE IN WA STATE, THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES? AND  YOU’VE GOT ALL OF YOUR MUD PUDDLES, CONNECTED TO ALL OF YOUR WETLANDS AND THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO ALL OF THE WET AREAS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHEN ARE OUR WA STATE  ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO START ACTING, REACTING AND OBJECTING TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE EPA WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN FOR THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES?

    Washington State Senate

    APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE — LIMITATIONS … 42.36.080, Disqualification based on doctrine — Time limitation for raising challenge. 42.36.

    • Municipal Research and Services Center

      Feb 5, 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, MRSC Report no.11 Rev., April 2011.

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

    SO? THE EPA FUNDED/GRANTED (taxpayer money) FOR THE WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN?
    WHO IS GOING TO FUND THE ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT FOLLOWS?

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan – Access Washington

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/…/1406005.html
    WorkSource

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan … VIEW NOW: Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 115) (Publication Size: 4391KB) Core Elements Action Tables

    ———————————————————————————-

    Summary of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Quick Links

    2 USC §1501 et seq (1995)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector. Most of UMRA’s provisions apply to proposed and final rules:

    • for which a general notice of proposed rule making was published, and
    • that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by state, local, or tribal governments (SLTG), in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

    If a rule meets these conditions, the agency must:

    • Prepare a written statement that includes:
      • the legal authority for the rule,
      • a cost-benefit assessment,
      • a description of the macro-economic effects, and
      • a summary of SLTG concerns and how they were addressed.
    • Consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and select the least costly, least burdensome, or most cost-effective option that achieves the objectives of the rule, or explain why the agency did not make such a choice.
    • Consult with elected officers of SLTG (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of proposed rules containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates.

    Section 203 of UMRA applies to all regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, §203 requires federal agencies to develop a plan to:

    • provide notice of the requirements to potentially affected small governments;
    • enable officials of small governments to provide meaningful and timely input for any proposal containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates; and
    • inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the requirements.

     


  • 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 Update Committee

     

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

    FROM Aug 23, 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

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    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 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 2011. (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

     

     

     


  • Sue and Settle up 380%

    The EPA HAD 48 SUE AND SETTLE AGREEMENTS during President Obama’s first term, representing A 380 PERCENT INCREASE from the average sue and settle rate during the previous three four-year presidential terms.

    The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Assault on State
    alec.org/docs/EPA_Assault_State_Sovereignty‎

    THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S. ASSAULT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY. Introduction.
    EPA’s Power Grab: By the Numbers. Sue and …
    ———————————————————————
    New Report Reveals Significant Increase in EPA Actions Under the Obama Administration

    Growth of EPA Linked to LOST JOBS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN STATE COMPLIANCE FEES

    By CEI Staff
    June 26, 2013
    WASHINGTON, D.C., June 26, 2013 — A new report released today by the American Legislative Exchange Council shows a substantial increase in the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Obama Administration, which has cost states billions of dollars in compliance fees and millions of jobs lost.

    The report, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Assault on State Sovereignty, is authored by William Yeatman, Assistant Director of the Center for Energy and the Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    Yeatman focuses on the three methods used by the EPA to implement environmental standards—SUE AND SETTLE, regulatory disapprovals, and takeover of state plans known as “FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS” (FIPs)—and explains how the EPA’s actions affect state budgets and job growth.

    SUE AND SETTLE, a legal strategy where the EPA effectively replaces state participation in environmental protection with that of environmental groups, has imposed more than $13 billion in annual regulatory costs since 2009 and has drastically increased the power of the EPA at the expense of the states. The EPA had 48 sue and settle agreements during President Obama’s first term, representing a 380 PERCENT INCREASE from the average sue and settle rate during the previous three four-year presidential terms.

    The second method OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT USED BY THE EPA is the issuance of regulatory disapproval’s. During President Obama’s first term, the EPA issued 95 regulatory disapproval’s, representing more than a 190 percent increase from the average of the previous three four-year presidential terms.

    THE EPA’S TAKEOVER OF A STATE REGULATORY PROGRAM is the final method in which environmental standards are implemented. “Federal implementation plans,” or FIPs, entail

    THE COMPLETE USURPATION OF A STATE’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

    From 1997 through 2009, the EPA imposed only two FIPs. Since 2009, the EPA has imposed 19 FIPs, REPRESENTING A 2,750 PERCENT INCREASE IN FIPS from the average presidential term FIP rate during the past three presidential terms.

    “In addition to releasing an unprecedented regulatory assault on the American public, this administration has been aggressively USURPING STATE AUTHORITY IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,” said Todd Wynn, the director of ALEC’s Task Force on Energy, Environment and Agriculture.

    “The EPA is supposed to serve as a resource for states, but in the last few years we’ve seen a more NATIONALIZED ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. Our report addresses the impact the EPA’s aggressive actions are having and proposes model policies to help state legislators push back against an intrusive federal government.”

    The report also addresses the implications of pending EPA regulations, including a new standard for ozone, regional haze regulations, coal ash regulation, Clean Water Act expansion, a carbon pollution standard and potential federal hydraulic fracturing regulations. The report argues these regulatory activities threaten the affordability and reliability of electricity generation and the nation’s recent oil and gas boom.

    “Congress intended for EPA and states to work together to solve the country’s environmental problems. Since 2009, however, EPA has centralized a great deal of environmental policy making.

    Even worse, the agency has found a method, known as SUE AND SETTLE, to effectively replace states with ENVIRONMENTALIST SPECIAL INTERESTS in the regulatory process,”
    said William Yeatman.

    Competitive Enterprise Institute | 1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640

    ————————————————————-
    AND THE GOOD NEWS IS

    Comment on EPA’s “Sue/Settle” Strategy Gets Them Sued by 12 …
    www.usgovernmentportal.com/comment-epas-suesettle-strategy-gets-the…‎
    Jul 19, 2013 – EPA’s “Sue/Settle” Strategy Gets Them Sued by 12 States … Alabama, 11 other states sue EPA over denial of Freedom of Information Act …


  • Wall Street Journal p.11

    A version of this article appeared October 4, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: USING ‘SUE AND SETTLE’ TO THWART OIL AND GAS DRILLERS. (prompted by the)
    —————————————————————–
    “SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2013”
    ——————————————————————–
    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce

    SUE AND SETTLE: REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
    www.uschamber.com/sites/…/reports/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.p…‎
    33 See CLOUDED WATERS: A Senate Report Exposing the High Cost of EPA’s Water Regulations and Their Impacts on State and. Local Budgets, U.S. Senate …

    ——————————————————————–
    A DOCUMENTED 49 page expose NAMING the NAMES OF THE APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES PRACTICING Sue and Settle: Behind Closed Doors AND Regulating THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    The Wall Street Journal article on October 4, 2013 inspired this article
    By Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers (continued below)

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.
    ——————————————————

    ONE GLARING EXAMPLE OF THE DEPT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
    www.sueandsettle.com uschamber.com/sites/default/files/reports/SUEANDSETTLEREPORT-Final.pdf08-00689
    —————————-
    10,346 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND designated as CRITICAL HABITAT FOR A FROG?

    pdf08-00689
    (D. Ariz.)
    Settled:
    4/29/2009
    WildEarth Guardians v.
    Kempthorne
    DOI
    CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
    for the Chiricahua leopard frog
    Result
    : DOI under the Bush administration listed the leopard frog as
    threatened under the Endangered Species Act but declined to designate a critical habitat because doing so would not be “prudent,” as is permitted by the Endangered Species Act.

    WildEarth Guardians SUED to challenge this
    decision, and the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S DOI settled the case.
    The terms of the settlement provided that DOI would reconsider its prudency determination.

    On March 20, 2012, DOI finalized a rule that reversed its
    prudency decision and designated approximately 10,346 acres as critical habitat for the Chiracahua leopard frog.
    ——————————————————————–
    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STENCH OF APPEASMENT
    Take the time to goggle and read the 49 page EXPOSE
    49 pages of TRUTH on the lawsuits, A DOCUMENTED WHO’S SUING WHO? AND WHO’S SETTLING?
    GRAPHS AND CHARTS documenting where the thousands OF NEW REGULATIONS FROM THE CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR ACTS ORIGINATED.

    Sue and Settle: BEHIND OUR BACKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND THREATENING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    ————————————————————-

    SEIRRA CLUB IS #1 PROFITING FROM SUE AND SETTLE
    Storm water run off?
    Chesapeake Bay restoration?
    Haze and particulates?

    DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE THESE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES CAME FROM?
    DID CONGRESS LEGISLATE? DEBATE? VOTE? PASS? AND AUTHORIZE?
    —————————————————————

    SUE AND SETTLE – US Chamber of Commerce
    The lead authors and the project team are from the U.S. Chamber Environment, Technology &
    Regulatory Affairs Division.
    Recognition
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce thanks William Yeatman, assistant director of the Center for
    Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for helping us formulate an
    additional methodology and THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DATABASE OF SUE AND SETTLE CASES. The database was used to check the validity of, and supplement, the Chamber’s database of cases.
    ——————————————————————–

    By Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers (continued)

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.

    By Stephen Moore: Oklahoma City
    Last week the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and an environmental advocacy group agreed to a legal settlement that will place nine species—including the Panama City crayfish, moccasin shell mussel and boreal toad—on the fast track for placement on the endangered species list. It is only the latest of many such listings.

    The Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned Fish and Wildlife to designate some 250 species as endangered since 2008. Many of CBD’s petitions—and lawsuits—are still in the pipeline. About 97% of the species that are designated as endangered never move off the list.

    Next March, FISH AND WILDLIFE will make a determination about whether to add the lesser prairie chicken, found in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Kansas to the list.

    Harold Hamm, president of Continental Resources, says that the habitat for the prairie chicken overlaps “some of the most promising land for oil and gas leases in the country.”

    Many Westerners suspect that this environmental activism isn’t only or even mostly about saving species and obscure subspecies.

    Instead, it is about restricting land use on hundreds of thousands of acres of private and state land.

    The concern is that if these species are listed as endangered, their habitat could be placed off limits for economic development.

    Associated Press
    The lesser prairie chicken, near Laverne, Okla.

    In the 1980s, ENVIRONMENTALISTS successfully used a listing of
    the Northern Spotted Owl as threatened to cripple the timber industry in Oregon and Washington, throwing many thousands out of jobs.

    This is the playbook now being used by groups like the CBD—which boasts on its website of its desire to end most oil and gas production in the United States.

    Since taking office, the Obama administration and its green allies inside and outside federal agencies have been making expanded use of a tactic called “SUE AND SETTLE” to issue new and expensive regulations.

    Groups like CBD and WildEarth Guardians, for example, petition Fish and Wildlife to list a species as endangered.
    Other environmental groups use a similar tactic to get new water and air regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Then, sometimes the very same day, the environmental groups file a lawsuit against Fish and Wildlife or the EPA to force the government to act—arguing that the regulatory process is too slow.

    Amos Eno, a former Fish and Wildlife Service official who worked to save the grizzly bear and the condor, is critical of the tactic. Mr. Eno, who now runs Resources First, says the money wasted on these lawsuits could be used on conservation efforts to actually save species from extinction.

    Because the federal agencies include former employees of green organizations, sue and settle can be a collaborative, not adversarial, process.

    The agency may be only too happy to sign a consent DECREE THAT COURTS THEN RUBBER STAMP. OFTEN, STATE AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENTS HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN.

    Increasingly, sue and settle is how rules are made in Washington. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found that more than 60 times in the last four years the EPA agreed to settlements with environmental groups to pass regulations that in some cases impose tens of billions of dollars of costs on industry and land owners.

    The feds have even paid green groups millions of dollars in legal fees for the favor of suing the government.
    The Obama administration didn’t invent sue and settle, but the pace has increased dramatically since 2009—an era that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt calls

    “SUE AND SETTLE ON STEROIDS.”

    Last September Mr. Pruitt and 11 state attorneys general presented a Freedom of Information Act request to investigate the communications between the Obama administration and environmental litigants. Their suspicion is that the two are secretly working hand in hand to grease the process of regulating industries it doesn’t like. A year has passed, but the EPA has refused to fully comply.

    This summer Mr. Pruitt has joined with the other attorneys general—including from Texas and Utah—

    TO SUE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

    Mr. Pruitt also believes that sue and settle “is an end run around the Administrative Procedures Act.” This is the law that governs how regulations are promulgated, and requires among other things transparency and a reliance on science to justify new rules. “An administration which claims to only want to ‘follow the science’ has exploited a litigation mechanism to enact new rules imposed on us without reviewing the science,” Mr. Pruitt says.

    The attorneys general also cite new EPA REGIONAL HAZE RULES—which came into being because of sue and settle—that could raise electricity costs in their states by as much as 20%. On behalf of his fellow attorneys general, Mr. Pruitt says that “we’re very worried that under Obama sue and settle will be used by the EPA to issue new regulations on fracking.” This could kneecap the oil and gas boom in Western states.

    In its report “SUE AND SETTLE: REGULATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS,” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has counted more than 100 new major rules “with estimated compliance costs of more than $100 million annually” that arose from this tactic. The result is a giant tax on the economy brought to you by the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund

    WITH LITTLE OR NO INPUT OR OVERSIGHT FROM CONGRESS.

    Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) and Rep. Doug Collins (R., Ga.) have introduced
    “SUNSHINE FOR REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2013”
    that would require all proposed consent decrees to be posted for 60 days for public comment before being filed with a court—and allow affected parties to challenge them.
    MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN BOTH PARTIES who are worried about the Obama regulatory assault will need to take corrective action if they have ANY HOPE OF A TRUE ECONOMIC TURNAROUND.

    Mr. Moore is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

    • Stephen Moore: Using ‘Sue and Settle’ to Thwart Oil and Gas Drillers
    Wall Street Journal ‎- 5 days ago
    In The Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore writes that THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IS BEING EMPLOYED MORE THAN EVER TO BLOCK DEVELOPMENT.
    ———————————————-

    QUOTATIONS TO PONDER ON PUBLIC SERVANTS

    It may serve for a great lesson of humiliation to mankind to behold the habits and passions of men trampling over interest, friendship, honour, and their own personal safety, as well as that of their country.

    When our betters tell us they are our humble servants, but understand us to be their slaves.

    Civility, intended to make us easy, is employed in laying chains and fetters upon us, in debarring us of our wishes, and in crossing our most reasonable desires.
    Jonathan Swift.

    ——————————————————————-


  • EPA Plus DOE Cost?

    Proposed Chapter 173–98 WAC In this case? IS the moneys all gone, on DOE administrative costs before a single PENNY trickles down to benefit the people?
    ————————————————————-
    Comment on EPA PLUS DOE COST?

    SENT TO Derek KILMER,

    Thank you for responding on the EPA.

    Your comment
    As the EPA moves forward on regulations it is important that they are in the national interest and that there is a greater BENEFIT than COST associated with them.

    What is? Was? the intent of congress in providing federal EPA capitalization grants for projects that are consistent with the the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387?

    Indeed, was it the intent of congress? for WA State DOE to use federal funds to create an even LARGER controlling WA state administrative GOVERNMENT entity where the DOE administrative COSTS exceed the benefits to the people of WA State?
    —————————————————————–

    Proposed Chapter 173–98 WAC – USES? and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control State REVOLVING FUND?

    The DOE administration account PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF
    USING OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS FOR
    federal EPA capitalization grants,
    USING OUR STATE TAX DOLLARS FOR
    state matching moneys

    We want to be able to trust that the rules AND OUR TAX DOLLARS are targeted toward a legitimate problem?

    I submit the following comment.
    The bottom line on DOE proposed chapter 173-98 WAC
    In this case, the moneys all gone, on DOE administrative costs before a single PENNY trickles down to benefit the people
    —————————————————————-
    At the point where the DOE administration account adequately covers the WA STATE DOE program ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS? for projects that are consistent with the the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387
    —————————————————–

    PURPOSE? WAC 173-98-010

    CONSIDERING THAT The DOE administration account IS PRIMARILY COMPRISED OF
    USING OUR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS FOR
    federal EPA capitalization grants,
    USING OUR STATE TAX DOLLARS FOR
    state matching moneys

    WA STATE DOE IS USING OUR FEDERAL AND STATE TAX DOLLARS TO CREATE LARGER GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND EXPENSE.

    WA STATE DOE Administration charges
    WA STATE DOE Administration costs
    WA STATE DOE conducting
    WA STATE DOE managing
    WA STATE DOE collecting
    WA STATE DOE assistance
    WA STATE DOE reporting
    WA STATE DOE system costs
    WA STATE DOE tracking
    WA STATE DOE management

    We want to be able to trust that the rules AND OUR TAX DOLLARS are targeted toward a legitimate problem?
    —————————————————————-
    At the point where the DOE administration account adequately covers the WA STATE DOE program administration costs?
    ————————————————————-
    It is used to provide loan assistance to public bodies
    for statewide, high-priority water quality projects that are consistent with the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387
    —————————————————————–
    PLEASE READ THE PROPOSED DOE RULE
    full text online
    ————————————————————
    WAC 173-98-010
    Purpose.
    The purpose of this chapter is to set
    forth requirements for the Washington state department of ecology’s
    (department) administration of Washington state’s water pollution control revolving fund (revolving fund), and the water pollution control
    revolving administration account (administration account) as author-
    ized by chapter 90.50A RCW, water pollution control facilities financing.
    ((This))
    The revolving fund is primarily comprised of federal
    capitalization grants, state matching moneys, and principal and
    interest repayments. It is used to provide loan assistance to public bodies
    for statewide, high-priority water quality projects that are
    consistent with the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387

    The administration account is comprised of an administration
    charge applied to the outstanding loan balance on revolving fund
    loans. The administration account may be used for the following
    :
    (1) Administration costs associated with conducting application
    processes, managing contracts, collecting loan repayments, managing the revolving fund, providing technical assistance, and meeting state and federal reporting requirements; and
    (2) Information and data system costs associated with loan track-
    ing and fund management.

    At the point where the administration account adequately covers
    the program administration costs, the department may no longer use the federal administration allowance. If a federal capitalization grant is awarded after that point, all federal capitalization grant dollars must be used for making loans

    This may give you a better understanding of the rubber stamped COST of EPA partial funding of mandates.

    In this case, the moneys all gone, on DOE administrative costs before it a single drop trickles down to benefit the people

    IS? WAS? THIS? THE INTENT OF CONGRESS?

    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • Jolly Green Giants?

    Best described as GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUMS

    INDEED WHAT’S MISSING IN GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM CHOIR?

    THE VOICE AND BEST INTEREST OF THE VESTED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXPAYERS

    THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, TRIBES, AND a plethora of government employees and NGO special interest groups and for-profit Consulting Groups.

    DOES NOT REPRESENT THE VESTED AMERICAN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXPAYERS.

    read on if you are concerned
    ————————————————————–
    The latest on GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUMS
    Cascadia Consulting Group

    Cascadia Consulting Group is a for-profit, privately held firm that develops and implements innovative solutions to today’s environmental challenges. Founded in 1993, we work with private- and public-sector clients to advance sustainability through recycling and materials management, climate change mitigation and adaptation, energy efficiency, and stormwater pollution prevention. The Cascadia team brings both expertise and creative thinking to research and analysis, strategic planning, program design and implementation, and outreach and evaluation. We serve clients across the country and abroad.
    Cascadia’s mission statement is to pioneer a sustainable future, making a positive difference for our clients, our community, and the environment.
    Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 9:02 AM
    To: Laura Blackmore
    Subject: FW: More delays, more dead fish at Buckley dam – CORRECTED
    ———————————————————-

    ESA GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM
    Behind My Back | ESA ADOLFSON Sustainability is a for-profit
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/06/esa-adolfson-sustainability/‎
    Apr 6, 2013 – AGENDA 21 SUSTAINABILITY ESA ADOLFSON was contracted by Clallam County Commissioners, Steve Tharinger, Mike Doherty and Mike …
    ————————————————-

    GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM CHOIR
    Behind My Back | The Choir That Sings To
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/24/the-choir-that-sings-to/‎
    Jul 24, 2013 – THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, TRIBES, AND a plethora of government employees and NGO special interest groups. PLETHORA …
    —————————————————–

    Elwha Nearshore CONSORTIUM GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM

    Behind My Back | GOLIATH’S CONSORTIUM
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/28/goliaths-consortium/‎
    Jul 28, 2013 – 2013 Elwha Nearshore CONSORTIUM Proceedings – Clallam County www.clallam.net/ccmrc/documents/ENC_2013_Proceedings.pdf‎ Coastal …
    —————————————————–

    ICLEI GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM

    Behind My Back | ICLEI Gone But Not Forgotten
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/28/iclei-gone-but-not-forgotten/‎
    Jul 28, 2013 – ICLEI, “per say” has been removed from Clallam County Government It may be gone, but indeed, it has not been forgotten. *UN Agenda …
    ————————————————

    SURFRIDERS GREEN CONSORTIUM
    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/‎
    Jul 14, 2013 – THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD? THE WE’S WHO WANT OUR AMERICA’S WAVES? The WE’S WHO WANT OUR …
    ———————————————————–

    GREEN CONSORTIUMS INDEED
    Behind My Back | Mandated by the US Congress
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/19/mandated-by-the-us-congress/‎
    Jul 19, 2013 – PROMOTING THE UNITED NATIONS, ICLEI and NGO’S AGENDA in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 INTERNATIONAL UNITED …
    ————————————————————–

    DMRT CLALLAM COUNTY’S OWN GOLIATH’S GREEN CONSORTIUM
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Shawn Hines
    To: alm@olypen.com ; Ben Smith ; Bob Caldwell ; clear@co.clallam.wa.us ; cyne461@ecy.wa.gov ; Dean Yoshina ; donclare@olypen.com ; hhals@jamestowntribe.org ; joe.holtrop@clallamcd.org ; Judy Larson ; kevin_ryan@fws.gov ; Lorenz_Sollmann@fws.gov ; Marc McHenry ; Matt Heins ; mcmarcom@centurylink.net ; Michael Blanton ; Michele Canale ; Paul Haines ; jpsmmra@olypen.com ; Pete Tjemsland ; Powell, Theresa E (DFW) ; Robert Beebe ; Robert Brown ; schitwood@jamestowntribe.org ; shines@jamestowntribe.org ; smiller@co.clallam.wa.us ; Tom Martin ; tommartin@wavecable.com ; clark@olympus.net
    Cc: Amanda Cronin ; Andy Anderson ; abrastad@co.clallam.wa.us ; Ann Seiter ; Ann Soule ; bpero@co.clallam.wa.us ; boaterworld@msn.com ; Bob Reandeau ; brot@jamestowntribe.org ; bruce@greencrow.com ; Carol Creasey ; Cheryl Baumann ; manager@crescentwater.com ; marthadave@olypen.com ; lostmtnloft@olympus.net ; Diane Hood ; Dr. James Karr ; Elda Armstrong ; Emilie Carson ; Faleana Wech ; George Rains ; ginger_phalen@fws.gov ; Hannah Merrill ; harry@greencrow.com ; Helen@cliftmtg.com ; James Beebe ; James Karr ; Jerry and Sue Hunt ; jesse.dwyer@umontana.edu ; Jim Casey ; jjgift@q.com ; Jim McIntire ; jim.poffel@wa.usda.gov ; JoAnne Estes ; others@olypen.com ; Judith Lecort ; Karma Norman ; Ken Hobson ; King & Janie Fairchild ; Kyle Guzlas ; LIz and Larry Phelps ; Maier, Elizabeth ; Marguerite Glover ; mcouhig@gmail.com ; Matthew.Longenbaugh@noaa.gov ; mcmorgan@olypen.com ; Melanie Roed ; Melissa ; Mike Anderson ; Mike K ; Mike Langley ; Neil Harrington ; Norm Baker ; Patrick_Crain@nps.gov ; Paul B. Burgess ; Paul R Cereghino ; Pearl Rains Hewett ; Peter Schwartzman ; Phil & Teri Martin ; rivercenter@olympus.net ; RBERRY@simpson.com ; Rebecca Wolfe ; robertc@harpub.com ; warrerrw@dfw.wa.gov ; Sarah Doyle ; Shelley_Spalding@fws.gov ; Shirley Nixon ; Steve Gray ; smarble@olypen.com ; Steve Rankin ; Streamkeepers ; Susan Piper ; Tara ; Ted Miller ; Tiffany Royal ; Travis Smith ; Valerie Wolcott
    Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:19 AM
    Subject: FW: More delays, more dead fish at Buckley dam – CORRECTED


  • When Anything Goes

    IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    EVERYTHING GOES
    THE LATEST THREAT TO OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE
    THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
    Pledge Of Allegiance Challenge Heard In Massachusetts Court
    Huffington Post ‎- 7 hours ago
    BOSTON — AN (ATHEIST) family asked Massachusetts’ highest court Wednesday to ban the daily practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools

    THE BOTTOM LINE
    AMERICA IS BROKEN

    WHAT IS ALREADY GONE IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS GOING AWAY IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS GOING ON IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS ON GOING IN AMERICA?

    HOW CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIX IT?
    YOU DECIDE.

    THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
    GOD
    CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
    THE BILL OF RIGHTS
    AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY
    INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY
    RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
    GOVERNMENT KNEE JERK REACTIONS
    OBAMA STARTS ANOTHER MIDDLE EAST WAR/CONFLICT
    NO GUN ZONES
    FOREIGN TERRORISM
    DOMESTIC TERRORISM
    LYING TO CONGRESS
    LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
    GOVERNMENT BENGHAZI COVER-UP
    THE TARGETING OF THE IRS
    UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES
    UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL
    FEAR IN AMERICA
    GOVERNMENT THREATS
    GOVERNMENT BULLYING
    CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT
    UNRESPONSIVE PUBLIC SERVANTS
    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
    TYRANNY
    DEMOCRACY
    GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
    GOVERNMENT COLLUSION
    GOVERNMENT WILLFUL TAKING
    GOVERNMENT ABUSE OF POWER
    GOVERNMENT NEPOTISM
    GOVERNMENT NON-COMPETITIVE BID CONTRACTS
    GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY
    GOOD OLD BOY MENTALITY
    GOVERNMENT PORK
    GOVERNMENT CHERRY PICKING
    OVERLOOK INSTEAD OF OVERSIGHT
    INDEPENDENCE FROM INSIDER INFLUENCE
    INDEPENDENCE FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE
    UN AGENDA 21
    UN SUSTAINABILITY
    CONTROL BY OUTSIDE NON-PROFIT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
    UNION CONTROL
    LOBBYIST CONTROL
    MURDER, MAYHEM AND CRIME
    EMPLOYMENT
    LIVING WAGE
    MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS
    HOMEMAKERS
    SOMEBODY WHO MANAGES A HOUSEHOLD, ESPECIALLY HIS OR HER OWN HOME, AS A PRIMARY JOB
    GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF OUR CHILDREN
    DRUGGING KIDS BEFORE THEIR RIGHT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION
    WHAT TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN (UNCONVENTIONAL LIFESTYLES)
    PUBLIC EDUCATION GREEN PROPAGANDA
    WHAT NOT TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN (THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS)
    GOVERNMENT CONTROL FOR HEALTHY LIVING
    FREEDOM OF CHOICE
    FREEDOM OF CLOTHING (DON’T WEAR A CROSS)
    WHAT WE EAT
    WHAT DRINK (BIG GULP? NO CHOCOLATE MILK?)
    WHAT TO SMOKE (MARIJUANA)
    WHEN TO SMOKE
    WHERE TO SMOKE
    UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES
    TAXATION INTO HUNGER AND DESPAIR
    OBAMACARE
    DEATH PANELS (OVER 75?)
    MEDICAL COMFORT CARE
    IGNORING THE MEDICAL COST OF OBESITY
    IGNORING THE AMERICAN THE DRUG PROBLEMS
    POVERTY
    HUNGER
    HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
    PEACEFUL PROTESTS
    THE US BUDGET
    FREEDOM
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH (DON’T MENTION THE US CONSTITUTION OR GOD)
    FREE ENTERPRISE
    PRAYER
    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
    MORALITY conduct that is in accord with accepted moral standards
    standards of conduct that are generally accepted as right or proper
    LIFE
    LIBERTY
    GOVERNMENT TRESPASS
    GOVERNMENT TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
    FEDERAL CZARS
    FEDERAL EDICTS
    PARTISANSHIP OVER PEOPLES BEST INTEREST
    POLITICALLY CORRECTED
    OFFENSIVE WORDS (BROWN BAG? CITIZEN?)
    TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
    PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
    AMERICAN TRADITIONS
    AMERICAN HOLIDAYS
    EASTER VACATION
    CHRISTMAS
    RIGHT TO FREE PRESS
    NSA SURVEILLANCE
    NASA SPATIAL SURVEILLANCE
    GOVERNMENT DRONE SURVEILLANCE
    PRIVATE DRONE SURVEILLANCE
    HIDDEN CAMERA SURVEILLANCE
    RIGHT TO REASONABLE PRIVACY
    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND
    THE BIBLE

    THE BOTTOM LINE
    AMERICA IS BROKEN

    WHAT IS ALREADY GONE IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS GOING AWAY IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS GOING ON IN AMERICA?
    WHAT IS ON GOING IN AMERICA?

    HOW CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FIX IT?
    YOU DECIDE.


  • The Bad News On Kilmer

    US. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of wetlands, shorelines
    By ROB CARSON — Staff writer Published: August 22, 2013
    ———————————————————–
    A CAUTIONARY NOTE TO DEREK KILMER ON NORM DICKS HISTORY

    A MAN MAY BE KNOWN BY THE COMPANY HE KEEPS
    WHAT DEREK KILMER DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT NORM DICKS COULD HURT HIM.

    Scandals surrounding Norm Dicks are long, and deep. … of records and files pertaining to the FBI investigation of Congressman Norm Dicks.
    ————————————————————
    REPORTED August 22, 2013 ANOTHER GOLIATH’S CONSORTIUM

    During more than two hours of TESTIMONY Tuesday, the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes?
    Several who TESTIFIED said MORE MONEY needs to be allocated for scientific monitoring. GETTING MONEY FOR RESTORATION projects HAS BEEN RELATIVELY EASY LATELY, they said, but finding money for monitoring results has been nearly impossible.

    TESTIMONY BY Bill Ruckelshaus, August 22, 2013
    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus,
    —————————————————————
    GETTING EASY RESTORATION MONEY INDEED,
    AS EASY THE EPA FEDERALLY MANDATED UNFUNDED $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RAIN TAX IN MARYLAND TO CLEAN-UP CHESAPEAKE BAY?

    HOW MUCH EASIER COULD IT BE TO GET RESTORATION FUNDING? THEN A FEDERALLY APPOINTED EPA EDICT?
    ————————————————————–

    A NECESSARY COMMENT
    DEREK’S COMMENT “CORPORATION’S ARE NOT PEOPLE”
    GOLIATH CONSORTIUM’S (the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes) ARE NOT PEOPLE.

    The heads of federal and state environmental agencies ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS – someone who holds a government position (either by election or appointment)

    ———————————————————-

    A CAUTIONARY NOTE TO DEREK KILMER ON NORM DICKS HISTORY

    REP. NORM DICKS, DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2007-2010

    January 2007, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) became chairman of a congressional subcommittee that gave him the power to secure millions in federal funds to environmental projects in his district.

    August 2007, DAVID DICKS (Son of Rep. Norm Dicks) was appointed by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. as executive director for a newly created state agency, the Puget Sound Partnership.

    May 7, 2008, Gov. Chris Gregoire named Bill Ruckelshaus the first chair OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
    ———————————————————-

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP,” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.

    ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” May 2010
    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    Jul 30, 2010 – William Ruckelshaus resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    November 2010, David Dicks resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    Mar 12, 2012 House Dem Norm Dicks Steps Aside After FOIA Revelations – Scandals surrounding Norm Dicks are long, and deep. … of records and files pertaining to the FBI investigation of Congressman Norm Dicks.
    ————————————————————

    TESTIMONY BY Bill Ruckelshaus, August 22, 2013
    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus,

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?

    A former administrator of the EPA and FIRST chair of the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP Leadership Council
    FROM May 7, 2008 UNTIL HIS RESIGNATION Jul 30, 2010.

    HOW DID WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS THE FIRST CHAIR OF THE ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” AVOID BEING NAMED IN THE REP. NORM DICKS AND DAVID DICKS SCANDAL AND IRS INVESTIGATION?

    WHAT INVOLVEMENT DID Bill Ruckelshaus HAVE IN THE ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” REP. NORM DICKS AND DAVID DICKS SCANDAL AND INVESTIGATION?

    In May 2010, auditors found the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    ————————————————————
    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP: Jul 30, 2010
    Ruckelshaus passes the torch – Strange …
    blog.seattlepi.com/…/puget-sound-partnership-ruckelshaus-passes-the-tor…‎
    Jul 30, 2010 – William Ruckelshaus is stepping down as chairman of the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP leadership council.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Legislature in 2007: It has turned into a major cooperative effort involving federal, state, tribal and local governments, PLUS A MULTITUDE OF NON-PROFITS.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    In 1983, with the EPA in crisis due to mass resignations over the mishandling of the Superfund project,[2] President Ronald Reagan appointed Ruckelshaus to serve as EPA Administrator again.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    On November 28, 1984, Ruckelshaus announced that he would be retiring as EPA head, effective January 5, 1985, around the start of President Reagan’s second term. In actuality he stayed on until February 7, 1985.

    UNITED NATIONS
    In 1985, Ruckelshaus joined Perkins Coie, a Seattle-based law firm. From 1983-86, he served on the World Commission on Environment and Development set up by the United Nations

    BANNED DDT
    Ruckelshaus (who had not attended the hearings himself) overruled Sweeney’s decision and issued the ban nevertheless, claiming that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” [1]
    —————————————————-

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP In August 2007,
    David Dicks got the job, which required him to develop a plan for coordinating state and federal efforts to clean up THE NATIONS SECOND LARGEST ESTUARY, PUGET SOUND.
    which is only overshadowed by the Chesapeake Bay.
    ——————————————————–
    REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS
    ———————————————————–
    Posted Feb. 9, 2012
    Earmark investigation: Rep. Norm Dicks and Puget Sound
    The Washington Post
    by Kimberly Kind

    with comments from Randy Dutton Citizen Review Online

    Posted Feb. 9, 2012

    Olympia, Wash. — In January 2007, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) became chairman of a congressional subcommittee that gave him the power to secure millions in federal funds to environmental projects in his district.

    Six months later, the congressman requested millions of dollars to clean up Puget Sound — a vital but polluted system of waterways in his home state of Washington, according to White House records.

    His interests on behalf of the sound aligned with those of his son, David Dicks, who at the time was interviewing to be executive director for a newly created state agency,

    ”THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP”
    (REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS)

    In August 2007, he got the job, which required him to develop a plan for coordinating state and federal efforts to clean up the nation’s second-largest estuary,
    which is only overshadowed by the Chesapeake Bay.

    Over the next four years, father and son worked in tandem to restore Puget Sound, with the congressman directing millions more to the work, including a $1.82 million earmark and more than $14 million in grants and other funds that went to his son’s agency. There were no competitors for the funds.

    The earmark and grants are unreported elements in the story of the father and son and Puget Sound, which has long been controversial in the Pacific Northwest, spawning charges of nepotism, waste and no-bid contracts, according to state audits and political opponents.

    Norm Dicks lost his chairmanship in the Republican takeover of the House in 2010, and his son stepped down from his $129,000-a-year job around the same time.

    The case illustrates the complications that can arise when a lawmaker’s congressional actions benefit not only his district but also a family member. Both father and son insist they were only trying to save the environment and serve the people of Washington.

    “This is a very important issue for the people in my state. This isn’t about me or my son,” the 71-year-old congressman said during an interview in his Capitol office. “David got the job through a competitive process . . . he had the passion for the job.”

    David Dicks, 40, said the group’s success in pursuing federal funds was because his father had become chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on the interior, environment and related agencies.

    “He didn’t have the power to do this before,” David Dicks said. “He didn’t do it for me; he did it because he cares about Puget Sound and he finally had the ability to do something about it.”

    But their critics say good intentions were undercut by favoritism.

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
    (REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS)

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.”

    Beginning in 2006, Congressman Dicks and David Dicks were both active in efforts to create a state agency to clean up the sound. The congressman served on the governor’s blue ribbon panel that recommended forming the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP, which would serve as coordinator for local, state and federal efforts. David Dicks, an environmental lawyer, wrote passages in the panel’s final report on funding and political strategies for such a partnership.

    “Your kids are going to do things that you have been involved with,” Norm Dicks said. “I don’t think there was a conflict. We are all trying our best to restore Puget Sound.”

    DAVID DICKS was appointed by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. The governor’s spokesman said Dicks’s environmental credentials “made him highly competitive.”

    As executive director of the new agency, David Dicks’s job included raising funds for and coordinating with local, state and federal agencies that would be the “boots on the ground.” In public hearings, he spoke of his ability to secure federal funds and was repeatedly praised for doing so.

    “When we started this, we were getting $1 million for the sound program through EPA,” David Dicks said during a Nov. 6, 2010, hearing in Olympia. “We were then able to leverage that up to $20 million for two years and then up to $50 million. That obviously is a big, serious increase in the federal support.”

    In addition to the earmark and grants, federal records show Congressman Dicks was able to raise the annual budget for all Puget Sound-related work during his tenure as chairman, reaching a height of $50 million in 2010. During the hearing, David Dicks said all the money went to support

    the partnership’s cleanup and restoration agenda.

    With his House subcommittee chairmanship, Dicks was considered an appropriations “cardinal,” holding the purse strings of the federal budget. As such, the congressman said he knew that both he and his son would be criticized if he delivered money

    directly to the Puget Sound Partnership.

    On June 26, 2007, Congressman Dicks introduced his first appropriations bill with money for Puget Sound. He later asked that the funds he secured be sent directly to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    “We knew there would be sensitivity,” the congressman said. “We sent it to the regional EPA office, not to the partnership, and had them create a competitive process.”

    The funds had to be used on an “action agenda,” Norm Dicks said — work that the partnership was charged to perform.

    EPA officials said in phone calls and e-mails that recipients of the funds had to go through a “competitive” process.

    However, EPA records show that $6.1 million of the funds were given in 2008 and 2009 through a noncompetitive agreement, largely to fund the action agenda.

    Confronted with the records, and after several weeks of exchanges with The Post, the EPA backed away from characterizing the process for the funds as competitive.

    “While responding to The Washington Post’s detailed requests for information related to EPA’s work with the Puget Sound Partnership, we found that two pieces of information we provided were incorrect,” said Tom Eaton, Washington state operations office director for the EPA. “In both cases, as soon as we realized our error, we provided the correct information.”

    An additional $5.99 million was given in 2010 for the action agenda through a grant process for which there was only one applicant — the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP The agency was also the only applicant in 2009 for a $2 million grant for community outreach and education for Puget Sound restoration efforts.

    The congressman’s spokesman, George Behan, said that Norm Dicks believed that none of the funds can be considered earmarks because the money went through a national program at the EPA, not directly to the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP

    “You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, it’s an earmark,” said Steve Ellis, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense. “There was a lot of verbiage and hyperbole about how it was going to be competitively bid, but the facts clearly show that this is a case of a lawmaker directing funds to a specific entity that also happened to employ his son.”

    In early 2009, the Washington State Auditor’s Office started looking at state funds given to the partnership, a state agency that has 40 employees and receives $3 million in state funds and $7.57 million in federal funds for its annual budget.

    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    Auditors pointed out that the Seattle office of the K&L Gates law firm had been given a no-bid contract, receiving up to $478 an hour and a total of $51,498. The firm has been a campaign donor to the congressman.

    “Under state contracting laws, you have to go out to bid on anything that is $20,000 or more. This contract was originally $19,999. Now come on — that shows intent,” State Auditor Brian Sonntag said in an interview in his Olympia office. “That tells me they were looking for a way to direct that contract without opening it to competition.”

    “I think of all the things that happened, the way we executed that contract was the weakest thing we did,” David Dicks said. “We shouldn’t have done it that way.”

    The state’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee issued its own audit in December, finding that the action agenda failed to include “required benchmarks” to determine if “progress is being made.”

    The audit triggered a review by the EPA, which called on the partnership to return more than $120,000 in funds after finding several contracts and agreements that lacked certifications to show the agency received the goods and services it had paid for.

    A week after Republicans took control of the House in November 2010, David Dicks resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    “It was a difficult time,” he said. “I left a lucrative law practice to help save Puget Sound. No one was expecting the response that me and my father got.”

    ——————-

    Comments from Randy Dutton:

    K&L Gates was Dicks’ 4th largest political contributor.

    · K&L Gates had a position on the Board of Directors that hired David Dicks.

    · David Dicks then, according to the audit report, issued a contract that falsified the urgency, thus trying to avoid having the work done by the AG’s office as required; skirted the dollar threshold then immediately increased it after the contract award (violation of federal law subject to incarceration). This appears to be payback. (Audit Report)

    · David Dicks sent $10,000 to the Cascade Conservancy where his brother Ryan was working, which the Audit Report said provided no value to the taxpayers. (Audit Report)

    · David fired a whistleblower then secretly used public money to pay her off. (KOUW report)

    · David misused government property (his car).

    · David failed to report lobbying effort as required by the state. (EFF report)

    · $3 Million of ‘Green Jobs’ funding went to Pierce County, whereupon Ryan Dicks (2nd son of Norm) was hired at about $87,000/year for 2 years to spend it to: insulate some homes, install some heat pumps, replace a scoreboard, change some lights. More payback? (Tribune)

    ———————————————————
    COMPLETE TEXT August 22, 2013 THE BAD NEWS ON DEREK KILMER

    U.S. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue drive to clean up Puget Sound
    Published: August 22, 2013

    U.S. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of wetlands, shorelines
    By ROB CARSON — Staff writer

    Freshmen U.S. Reps. Derek Kilmer and Denny Heck promised Tuesday that they’ll do their best to sustain former Congressman Norm Dicks’ drive to clean up Puget Sound.

    “Together our feet aren’t big enough to fill the shoes of Norm Dicks and what he has done to improve the health of Puget Sound,” said Heck, D-Olympia, “but we’re here to see how we can advance our movements forward.”

    At a field hearing held at Tacoma’s Center for Urban Waters, Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, called the restoration of Puget Sound “both a moral and an economic necessity.” Kilmer replaced Dicks, who retired in 2012 after representing the 6th Congressional District for nearly four decades.

    In 2009, when Dicks was chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on the interior, environment and related agencies, he raised the budget for Puget Sound-related work to a high of $50 million — 100 times what it had been the previous decade.

    During more than two hours of testimony Tuesday, the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes summarized achievements, which they said included the restoration of miles of wetlands and other shoreline habitat; improvements in the handling of stormwater runoff; and the removal of invasive species, creosoted docks and pilings, and derelict vessels.
    ————————————————————–
    A NECESSARY COMMENT

    But they told the congressmen that continued vigilance, and a continued flow of federal money, is critical for success.

    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus, former administrator of the EPA and former chair of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council. “We’ve got to stay everlastingly at it.”

    Several who testified said more money needs to be allocated for scientific monitoring. Getting money for restoration projects has been relatively easy lately, they said, but finding money for monitoring results has been nearly impossible.
    —————————————————————

    INDEED, EASY AS THE MANDATED UNFUNDED EPA $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RAIN TAX IN MARYLAND TO CLEAN-UP CHESAPEAKE BAY

    ————————————————————–

    Another consistent problem with the restoration effort, several who testified said, is that a sizeable portion of the public is still either unaware or unconvinced that a problem exists.

    At the Center for Urban Waters, which overlooks the Thea Foss Waterway, a parade of pleasure boats headed back and forth from Commencement Bay.

    “How can you say, looking out here, that everything is not hunky-dory?” said Randy Kinley, representing Lummi Nation. “The problem is below the sunny surface.”

    Heck said he believes that is indeed a central issue.

    “You have to convince the people,” Heck said, “and what you need to convince the people is a convincing message. Distilling the message is something we can make a lot of progress on.”

    Rob Carson: 253-597-8693 rob.carson@ thenewstribune.com

    Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/08/22/2683877/lawmakers-back-cleaner-sound.html#storylink=cpy