+menu-


  • Category Archives Shoreline Management Plan
  • WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County

    Southwest

    Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Ecology shoreline planner in your region or contact Bev Huether at bev.huether@ecy.wa.gov.

     

     

     

     

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015 – SMP Public Comment (159) Clallam County Planning Commission Public … WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas–warped-data/.

    I did attend the last two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ———————————————————————

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    WAC WAC WAC

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    Elected Director Mary Ellen Winborn, 

    Department of Community Development

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    AFTER OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION UNDER DOE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS.

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58, specifically:

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

     ——————————————

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/02/ecologys-back-amended-plus-smp-wacs/SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 (Sep 2, 2015) – Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND …
    MARCH 1, 2015
    ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”
    —————————————————————-

    Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

    Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature … The Act applies to all 39 counties and more than 200 towns and cities that have …

    ————————————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Updates

    Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. For the complete schedules, see DOE’s Shoreline Master Program Update Schedule page. For the status of individual jurisdictions, see Status of Local Shoreline Master Plans: Comprehensive Updates.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update in 2010, 2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    On March 30, 2015 I called it a good read “FALSE NEWS”

    Behind My Back | Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/30/3370/

    Mar 30, 2015 – Clallam County SMP Update CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS MARCH …

    ———————————————————

    AFTER THE FACT CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS WERE INFORMED

    Any comments received after February 27 2015 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners

    The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    SMP Comments received after the Planning Commission deadline:

    NOTE:

    Any comments received after the February 27, 2015 Planning Commission deadline will still be part of the record, but will only go to the Board of County Commissioners. They are linked in this set below.

    ~~ SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION FOR COMMENTS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~

    2017 Comments

    2016 Comments

    2015 Comments

    2015 Comments

    011017-EBowen 021716-PHewett 040215 – EBowen 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 040816-PHewett 041615 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 040816-BMcGonigel 041915- PHwewtt 030115 – PHewett
    040816-PHewett 042015 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    051616-PHewett 052815 _ EBowen 031315 – KSpees
    081016-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    090916-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    091016-LPerry 070315 – PHewett 031515 – KSpees
    092716-EBowen 070415 – PHewett 031815 – KSpees
    100716-EBowen 070415 – LPerry 031815 – PHewett
    101616-EBowen 080215 – PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090215-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090815-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    033015 – PHewett
    033115 – KSpees

     

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Public Comments (pre- 2014 )

     The comment codes are as follows:

      • A = Aquaculture
      • B = Buffers
      • CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report
      • CR = Consistency Review Report – Straits
      • G = General SMP Comment
      • G20 = General SMP Comment – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • ICR = Inventory & Characterization Report – Straits
      • ICR20 = Inventory & Characterization Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • NNL = No Net Loss
      • PPS = Public Participation Strategy
      • SED = Shoreline Environmental Designation
      • SRP – Shoreline Restoration Plan
      • SMP = Shoreline Master Prgram secondary draft (11/2012)
      • SMPdraft = Shoreline Master Program preliminary draft (3/2012)
      • V = Visioning Statement Report – Straits
      • V20 = Visioning Statement Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20

    To include your comments:

    Email Us

    Email Us
    To receive SMP related emails, click “Email Us” above and type “Add to Contact List” in the subject line and send.

    SMP Comments (pre 2014)

    date (mmddyy)- name/agency (first initial & last name ex. JDoe)
    comment code (G; ICR; etc., see above).

    The SMP Update comments below are listed in reverse chronological order.

    2013 Comments

    October 2013

    September 2013:

    August 2013:

    July 2013:

    June 2013:

    May 2013:

    April 2013:

    March 2013:

    February 2013:

    January 2013

     

    2012 Comments

    December 2012:

    November 2012:

    October 2012:

    September 2012:

    August 2012:

    July 2012:

    June 2012:

    May 2012:

    April 2012:

    March 2012:

    February 2012:

    January 2012:

     

    2009-2011 Comments

    December 2011:

    November 2011:

    October 2011:

    September 2011:

    August 2011:

    July 2011:

    June 2011:

    May 2011:

    April 2011:

    March 2011:

    February 2011:

    January 2011:

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2010:

    2009:

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

     CLICK ON CLALLAM COUNTY LINK….

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    Department of Community Development

    Photo - Mary Ellen Winborn

    Mary Ellen Winborn,
    Director

    The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive planning, zoning, and processing of development and building permits.

    Our mission is to promote public safety, a healthy environment, and a strong local economy, and to provide courteous, timely, and efficient service to the public.

    Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.

    Courthouse Hours and Holidays.

    Contact Us

     

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update

    Shorelines in Clallam County are protected by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and by the Clallam County SMP (see links below).  This website provides SMP Update information and links to local and state shoreline-related materials.

    Shoreline Permits are issued by the Clallam County Department of Community Development Planning Division.
    For information regarding shoreline permits or shoreline exemptions, please call 360-565-2616.

    Many of our documents are in portable document format (PDF), and some are very large.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update : November 2014 NEW draft

    Current SMP Comments

    Comments under review by Planning Commission

    Comments

    Click above to send us your comment~

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)
    NOTE:  The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

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

    Final steps:

    The Planning Commission will submit a recommended Final Draft SMP to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption.

    The BOCC will hold a public hearing(s) on the PC recommendation.

    The County adopted SMP will be submitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for additional public review and state approval.

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    Email Us MailGuy

    To receive information regarding the SMP Update,
    click “Email Us“to the left.
    Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line.Or call:  360-417-2563

    Shoreline Master Program
    SMP

    SMP Presentations &

    Related Events:

     

    Upcoming Planning Commission Worksessions and meeting minutes

     

    Living with the Coast Workshop

    backArrow Back to SMP Home Page  

    Content Updated May 5, 2015

     

    ————————————————————————-

    It was hell for private shoreline property owners that sat as members of the SMP Advisory Committee. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT STILL IS.

    PDF]Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Please read this … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/636_LPerry.pdf
    Jul 4, 2015 – The SMP Advisory Committee that represent the 3300 Clallam .... Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the … as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities ….. Trouve à http://www.clallam.net/. … ePub(iPone/iPad/iPod) FB2(Android,PC) PDF MOBI(Kindle) …
    ————————————————————————–

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update

    Sep 2, 2015?

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/638_PHewett.pdf
    Sep 2, 2015 – Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State … Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and …

    ————————————————————-

    And, March 1, 2017 ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58,

     specifically:

    ————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:34 PM

    Subject: The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser

    The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    March 1, 2017 Ecology is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58, specifically:

     

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/1506ov.html

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

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

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!


  • EPA Grants and Contracts

    TRUMP FREEZES EPA Grants and Contracts

    Trump moved to block implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Barack Obama’s term.

    Trump freezes EPA Grants and Contracts.

    THE EPA’S FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OF $8,600,000.00 BILLION, IN ADDITION $5,000,000.00 MILLION IN STATE GRANT FUNDING IS PROVIDED IN THE WETLANDS

    ———————————————————

    THE EPA’S ACTIVE CONTRACTS LIST 10/26/2016
    DATA PROVIDED BY US EPA OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

    NUMBER OF CONTRACTS: 629

    TOTAL CONTRACT OBLIGATION: $6,398,369,335.21

    ACTIVE CONTRACTS BY CONTRACT NUMBER AS OF 10/26/2016

    —————————————————————–

    Here how the EPA grants worked with and through the DOE at a state level.
    ————————————-
    The EPA granted to WA State DOE $100,000.00 for the Shoreline Management Update  (SMP) in a pass through grant)
    EVERY SMP UPDATE IN EVERY COUNTY, IN THE USA WAS GRANTED $$$$ ( AS A PASS THROUGH GRANT)   BY THE EPA, TO  EVERY STATE DOE, TO BE GRANTED TO EVERY COUNTY.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Fiscal Year 2016 – US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/…/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf

    The agency’s FY 2016 budget request of $8.6 billion enables us to ..Many communities are facing multiple pollution problems and are looking for integrated or holistic …. In addition, $5 million in state grant funding is provided in the wetlands.

    EPA Active Contracts Listing | Contracting with EPA | US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/contracts/epa-active-contractslisting

    Oct 31, 2016 – Listed below, you will find the EPA Active Contracts Listing, which lists of all currently active EPA Contracts. The listing is available by Contract …


  • Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S
    This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND SEVERAL” of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)

    ———————————————-
    Please send this out to notify

    ALL WA STATE VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ————————————————–
    ECOLOGY STATES
    We have already reached out to INTERESTED parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    ——————————————————–

    ECOLOGY STATES
    We will communicate with STAKEHOLDERS through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    ECOLOGY STATES

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.
    —————————————————————-
    IS COUNTY GOVERNMENT INTERESTED?
    ARE VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED?

    —————————————————————-

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:

    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)
    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    —————————————————————–
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Dumar, Laurie (ECY)
    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV
    Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:56 PM
    Subject: Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act

    Ecology filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    September 2, 2015
    Rule preproposal

    • Permits for oil or natural gas exploration activities conducted from state marine waters (WAC 173-15)
    • Shoreline management act – streams and rivers constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-18)
    • Shoreline management act – lakes constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-20)
    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)
    • State master program approval\amendment procedures and master program guidelines (WAC 173-26)
    • Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures (WAC 173-27)
    Thank you for using WAC Track!

    ________________________________________
    Visit us on the web or social media.
    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    ————————————————–
    This is attachment A

    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program
    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.
    ——————————————————————————————
    THIS IS A REALLY BIG LAND GRABBER…..
    DESIGNATING THE ASSOCIATED SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS

    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)

    ——————————————————————————————
    Ecology’s full text
    Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act
    Chapters 173-15, 173-18, 173-20, 173-22, 173-26, 173-27 WAC
    Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Rules
    PREPROPOSAL STATEMENT OF INQUIRY
    CR-101 (June 2004)(Implements RCW 34.05.310)
    Do NOT use for expedited rule making
    Agency: Department of Ecology AO #15-06
    Subject of possible rule making:
    Ecology is beginning rulemaking to amend several of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58,
    SPECIFICALLY:
    • Chapter 173-15 WAC -Permits for Oil or Natural Gas Exploration Activities Conducted from State Marine Waters
    • Chapter 173-18 WAC -SMA–Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • CHAPTER 173-22 WAC -ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC -State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    Statutes authorizing the agency to adopt rules on this subject :RCW 90.58.060 REQUIRES ECOLOGY TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND UPDATE WAC 173-26.

    The last rule update was in 2011 and focused mostly on GEODUCK AQUACULTURE.

    OTHER CHAPTERS ARE BEING INCLUDED IN THE UPDATE TO IMPROVE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE RULES.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    This is Attachment A……

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program

    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish (continued)
    Identify OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THIS SUBJECT AND THE PROCESS COORDINATING THE RULE WITH THESE AGENCIES:

    Local governments must follow the SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) when drafting their local shoreline master programs.

    The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) INTO STANDARDS FOR REGULATION of shoreline uses.

    We have already reached out to interested parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    Process for developing new rule (check all that apply):
    Negotiated rule making n/a
    Pilot rule making n/a
    Agency study n/a
    OTHER (DESCRIBE)
    We will use standard rulemaking.

    We will communicate with stakeholders through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:
    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)

    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    VISIT THE SEA PROGRAM RULE
    web page at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/rulemaking-index.html

    Join the Listserv at http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-SHORELINE-RULE
    Learn more about Shoreline Master Programs at:
    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.html

    DATE 09/01/15 CODE REVISER USE ONLY
    NAME (TYPE OR PRINT)
    Gordon White
    SIGNATURE
    TITLE Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager


  • SMP Comment on Climate Change

    SMP Comment on Climate Change

    Something NEW has been added to the SMP Update agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————–

    THE “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” ON THE MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS OF POLITICS

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————–

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

    scienceandpublicpolicy.org/…/goreerr…

    Science and Public Policy Institute

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————–

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

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

    THE HISTORY OF …..

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE “INCONVENIENT TRUTHS” ON THE MULTIPLE DECEPTIONS OF POLITICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    —————————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

    The bottom line

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

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

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

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

    scienceandpublicpolicy.org/…/goreerr…

    Science and Public Policy Institute

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

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

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

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

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

    A concerned American Grandmother

    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • SMP Public Comment #162

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #162

    A FEDERAL  INTERFERENCE IN A LOCAL PROCESS?

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    RED FLAG WARNING

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

    INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DUE PROCESS?

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

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

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

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

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

    bottom line

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

    ————————————————————————————————

    Direct Quote

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

    snippet

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    THE FEDERAL WE’S WHO WANT?

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

    ——————————————————————————————-

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

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

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    ———————————————————————–

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

     INTERFERING IN OUR LOCAL CLALLAM COUNTY DUE PROCESS?

    With their SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior

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

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

    ——————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    Native American Rights Fund

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

    bottom line

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

     

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It 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. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards 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. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

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

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. 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. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. Except where specifically provided in statute, the regulations apply to all uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required, and are implemented through an administrative process established by local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 and enforcement pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     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?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

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

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. 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% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards 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. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that 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..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    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. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Moving forward, this documented,  SMP Public Comment on Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives is crucial to  future decision making by our newly elected Department of Community Development (DCD) Director, Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, the two (2) Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach, that were not in office  during the following documented events.

    CW 90.58.130 is the law on SMP Public Participation (full text below)

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    Commissioners approved a “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY” for the SMP Update in March of 2010 a 16 page document (Who? Where citizens involved in creating this document?)

    PDN Article published Dec 14, 2010
    Clallam shoreline update could bring new curbs to development, commissioners told

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

    Clallam County PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY approved March 2010

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    Clallam County recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update

    —————————————————-

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE.

    Approved March of 2010? TEN months later? Jan 26, 2011 Clallam County SMP,  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————————————————–

    I was invited Jan 26, 2011 and did attend as Trustee of the George C. Rains Sr. Estate.

    Prior to the meeting, I did a background check on ESA Adolfson, consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    It was presented by ESA  Adolfson paid Consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer

    No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.

    Word got around and sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

     SMP Public Comment #30  011811 – DJones – G

    —————————————————————————

    From: Darlene Jones

    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM

    To: Recipient list suppressed

    Cc: Merrill, Hannah

    Subject: Shoreline Master Program

    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.

    There will be a SMP Focus Group Discussion on Wednesday, January 26, 2011

    from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. at Vern Burton Community Center. The meeting will be facilitated by the County’s consultants on this project, Jim Kramer and Carol MacIlroy.

    Last week I received a flyer in the mail from Clallam County announcing the meeting.

    Contact info:Hannah Merrill, Clallam County Planner SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    The flyer states, “We want to get some early input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    At this point I have no opinion of the process or expected outcome. This email is merely to be sure you know about the meeting and where to get more information. …

    ———————————————————————————————

    Who are these ESA Adolfson, paid consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer?

    The background check, I did prior to the January 26, 2011 meeting, on ESA Adolfson consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer disclosed the following.

    “Opportunities to improve shoreline management in Puget Sound”

    Jun 2, 2010 – Jim Kramer. Carol MacIlroy. Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson). Prepared for: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

    MARGARET CLANCY, ESA project manager, has helped other jurisdictions, INCLUDING JEFFERSON COUNTY, update their own plans. CLANCY WAS JOINED BY FELLOW CONSULTANTS JIM KRAMER AND ANN SEITER

    ———————————————————————————–

    During the  Jan 26, 2011 meeting a question was asked of the ESA consultants.

    How long have you been working on this?

    Jim Kramer’s answer was

    “A couple of months”

    After the meeting, I confronted ESA SMP Facilitator Jim Kramer in the hall,  and asked him why he didn’t tell the truth?

    He just shrugged and basically said… What difference does it make… and walked away.

    ————————————————————————————-

     Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.Word got around, No doubt From: The email Darlene Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM To: Recipient list suppressed.

    About sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

    Eight or ten uninvited property owners  from Lake Sutherland showed up and made comments and asked questions of concern about how the 200′ SMP setbacks would affect their lake front property. (there are 300 privately owned shoreline homes Lake Sutherland)

    ————————————————————–

     Later, I asked the county for, and received the sign in sheet for the Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    There was not one Lake Sutherland property owner on the sign in sheet.

    After that, I asked for and received the summary of the Jan 26, 2011 meeting, prepared by the ESA facilitators /consultants. THERE WAS NOT ONE WORD OR REFERENCE TO THE LAKE SUTHERLAND PROPERTY OWNER THAT ATTENDED THE MEETING OR THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

     Snippet, Question/topic of the ESA facilitators /consultants Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    *WHAT WOULD INSPIRE YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN CLALLAM COUNTY’S EFFORT TO PROTECT PRIVATE USE OF LAND?

    —————————————————————————————–

    WHAT WOULD INSPIRE ME?

     In fact, I was so inspired, I went to a Clallam County Commissioners meeting and made a comment. Documented below.

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/…/30202999…

    Peninsula Daily News

    Feb 1, 2011 – About PDN … Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism; … Shoreline Master Program update, e-mail SMP@co.clallam.wa.us, …

    Pearl Rains Hewett, who attended a Jan. 26 forum, said some citizens were fearful over what the update will mean to them.

    ————————————————————————-

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County public participation process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    AND, TO DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?

    —————————————————————————————

    Clallam County Shoreline PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY March 2010

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that PUBLIC INPUT is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

     3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. all public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

     7. EVALUATE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROGRAM. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    A 16 page document

    3.0 Public Participation Goals ..

    4.1 Phase I – Public Participation Program ..

    6.0 Public Involvement Strategies ……………..

    6.1 Technical and Policy Advisor Groups ………..

    6.2 Shoreline Property Owners …………………

    6.3 Speaker Bureau …………………………..

    6.4 Written Comments …………………………

    6.5 Other Public Involvement Strategies ………..

    7.0 Public Notices and Information Dissemination ..

     

    Page 3 of 16

    This Public Participation Strategy

    describes the steps that Clallam County will take to involve the community in decisions regarding the SMP update. The goal is to provide the public with timely information, an understanding of the process, and opportunities to review and comment on update decisions before they are made. Clallam County views this Public Participation Strategy  as establishing the basic public involvement processes that will be utilized during the SMP Update Program. Other public participation activities may be put into practice without changing the plan.

    Page 5 of 16

    Update of the shoreline master program will include several steps, each of which will

    require providing the public with information and receiving their input.

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY RECOGNIZES THAT EARLY AND CONTINUOUS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS CRITICAL TO THE UPDATE and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. All public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    1. Be transparent and inclusive. To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    2. Identify the most effective opportunities for public participation Provide public input opportunities at project milestones, prior to decision-making To ensure the optimum use of the public’s time on issues of greatest concern

    3. Actively involve and encourage participation of all persons and entities having interest and means (RCW 90.58.103) early in the process, with continued communication and feedback

    throughout the process. Make a special effort to reach the under-represented

    communities/stakeholders

    Broadly and regularly disseminate SMP materials and meetings notices, and seek written and verbal input at the same intervals (RCW 36.70A.140; WAC 365-195-600) Use tools that enable people with different learning styles to be informed and participate Provide the public with a range of input opportunities.

    4. Coordinate the SMP Update Program with cities (Port Angeles; Sequim; Forks) efforts. Identify opportunities to coordinate messages and materials. Share Program schedules, meeting agendas, and feedback received with cities.

    5. Consult and consider recommendations from state-wide agencies and tribes, particularly with regard to resources and/or shorelines of statewide-significance. Provide special briefings and review opportunities to these “KEY” parties (WAC 173-26-251).

    6. Promote an understanding about the SMP Update requirements. ESTABLISH A STRATEGY TO EDUCATE KEY PARTIES about the SMP Update process and requirements

    DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    7. Evaluate the public participation process throughout the life of the Program. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    8. Coordinate and consolidate public participation requirements with the SEPA environmental review process. Implement a public participation plan that expands upon SEPA requirements.

    —————————————————————————

    JAN 26, 2011  Clallam County SMP  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————–

    MARCH OF 2010 Rememberthat date? Commissioners approved a PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY for the update

    Jan 2011, The ESA flyer states, “We want to get some ‘EARLY’ input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    ————————————————–

    DECEMBER 5, 2009

    HOW COULD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAVE AN SMP  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/1_SMP120509.pdf

    SMP Update Public Comment #1

    CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    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 ofthe 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.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WHO IN CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT DETERMINED THE “EARLY” NOTIFICATION PRIORITIES FOR THE SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    WHO WAS NOTIFIED EARLY? AND WHO DECIDED TO EDUCATE “KEY” PARTIES AND PROVIDE SPECIAL BRIEFINGS?

    DECEMBER 5, 2009 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAD AN SMP STRATEGY?

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2009:

    2010:

     

    ————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW FULL TEXT RCW 90.58.130

    the law on SMP Public Participation

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest, means

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments SHALL:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ————————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County Public Participation and Strategy process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?


  • Legislated Crackdown on DOE?

    Legislated Crackdown on DOE?

     Please note that the following legislative actions have been taken.

    House Bill 1202: Providing that an administrative rule or policy of the department of ecology may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166246

    ——————————————————————–

    WOW! DON’T YOU JUST LOVE THAT WORD

    ABROGATE, abrogated repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement) repeal, revoke, rescind, repudiate, overturn, annul; More?

    ————————————————–

    House Bill 1233: Specifying that the ability to withdraw a certain amount of groundwater for domestic purposes without first obtaining a permit from the department of ecology is not subject to relinquishment through nonuse
    Introduced by Rep. Bruce Chandler (Granger) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166277

    ——————————————————————

    House Bill 1203: Limiting the enforcement of administrative rules and policies
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166247

    ——————————————————————

    House Bill 1204: Limiting the enforcement of policies of the department of ecology
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166248

    ——————————————————————–

    House Bill 1200: Limiting the enforcement of policies of the department of fish and wildlife and providing for abrogation of policies by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166244

    —————————————————————————-

    House Bill 1201: Providing that an administrative rule may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166245

    —————————————————————–

    House Bill 1202: Providing that an administrative rule or policy of the department of ecology may be abrogated by act of the governor or either house of the legislature
    Introduced by Rep. Elizabeth Scott (Monroe) (R) on January 15, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166246

    ——————————————————————————————-

    THERE IS  REALLY A LONG LIST (A quick read provided the above)

    SORRY, THE CLICK HERE DOES NOT WORK

    Read more at http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=165801

    for legislative actions, and their impact on issues of local and state wide concern.

    Thank Lois for providing this http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=165801


  • SMP Public Comment (159)

    SMP Public Comment (159)

    Clallam County Planning Commission

    Public Forums

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

    I did attend two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WE HAVE LOTS OF CONCERNS

    OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS  LOTS OF OPTIONS

    ———————————————————

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

    SMP handbook chapter 5

    ———————————————————

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

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

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

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     ——————————————————————————————–

    The  SMP Update  OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANY OPTIONS

    My suggestions and SMP comment Jan 16, 2015

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————–

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    Shoreline Jurisdiction – Washington State Department of …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    4.PA  Does this SMP ever get any better?

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

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

    7.  PA My comment and question during the forum

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

    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Buyers are protected by RCW 64.06.020 –

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

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

    RCW 64.06.020 – Access Washington

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

    Washington State Senate

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

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

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

    This written  PA comment

    NOT REQUIRED BY SMP LAW

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

    RCW 90.58.020 SPECIFICALLY STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. An introduction by Steve Gray

    2. A SMP presentation by ESA Consultant Margaret Clancy

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

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

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

    Then the challenging  part..

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

    —————————————————-

    The reality part

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

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

    ———————————————————

    The unbelievable parts

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

    ————————————————————-

    Remember this part?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

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

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

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

    ——————————————

    The reality part

    FEMAS HAS WARPED FLOOD PLAINS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

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

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

    ————————————————————-

    The unbelievable parts Sequim Forum

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

    ——————————————————

    Sequim Forum

    Adopting Clallam County SMP by Ordinance? OR WHAT OTHER?

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

    Shoreline Master Program – City of Kirkland

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

    Kirkland

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

    (Ordinance 4251 over a 600 page document)

    —————————————————————————

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

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

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

    snippet

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

    SMP Rude Comments and Conduct

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    The SMP mini presentation provided more questions then answers

    Comments and Questions (wait until after the presentation)

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————–

    snippets of email comments I received Jan. 12, 2015

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

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

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

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

    It went something like this?

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

    My comment

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

    There was NO Applause.

    —————————————————

    the bottom line

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    Where do we go from here?

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

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

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     


  • My 158th SMP Comment

    November Draft SMP Update 

    My 158th Public SMP Comment

    For the protection of the affected 3300

    From Jan. 26, 2011 to Jan. 11, 2015

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    It is the legal obligation/responsibility of the Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners,  to FERRET OUT the illegal, unconstitutional, frivolous, capricious and redundant permitting regulations, restrictions and abuses  that are included in the November SMP Draft Update

     Full Definition of FERRET OUT  to find or uncover with keen, DILIGENT, crafty, or shrewd search.  FERRET  the facts out after hours of painstaking examination of records.

     Legal Protection for Clallam County 3300 shoreline private property and  all taxpayers, should not be limited to  “A CATCH AS CATCH CAN”  by the “DUE DILIGENCE” and PERSISTENCE of vested Private property owners.

    ———————————————————————————————

     EXAMPLES OF THE SMP CHANGES in the SMP Draft Update CAUSED by   the “DUE DILIGENCE” and PERSISTENCE of vested Private property owners?

    Example… the failure of DCD and ESA consultant to competently review and use the Clallam County SMP Shoreline Inventory and Characteristic report to protect and  keep “the 35 foot setbacks on Lake Sutherland”

     Example… The SMP rule that would have prohibited the 100% rebuilding of damaged property in buffer zones.

     Example… having to fight ESA Margaret Clancy, repeatedly for the LEGAL protection, LEGAL wording  and LEGAL intent of WA State law in and for the PROTECTION of single family residence and appurtenances’ on the SMP Update.

    The only LEGAL PROTECTION on the SMP Update, that vested private property have against the SMP’s  violation of their constitutional rights,  private property use and enjoyment, is the PROTECTION provided to us by our Elected Public Officials.

     —————————————————-

    ESA consultants, over reach for compliance, but are they ever sued for SMP content? The county is held legally liable and they are the ones that get sued.

    Please review Clallam County’s contract with ESA Adolfson?

    Do they have a NO LIABILITY CLAUSE in their contract?

     How much skin does ESA have in the Game?

     ——————————————————————————————-

     Lawsuits are expensive for taxpayers

    Back in the day, my father George C. Rains Sr. filed a lawsuit against Clallam County over SMP restricted signage.

    I gave a copy to our previous DCD Director, Sheila Rourk Miller

    This is a cautionary LEGAL tale to be heeded.

    After a long legal battle, my father prevailed in court.  The finding was based on his constitutional right to free speech.

    He was allowed reasonable attorney fees by the court. The reasonable attorney fees were $27,000.00 (a lot of money back then) Clallam County objected to the large fee.

    The court responded with the following. $27,000 was a reasonable amount because, my father had to hire two of the top constitutional attorney’s in the United States of America, to fight Clallam County SMP for his constitutional right to free speech.

    —————————————————————————–

    Jan. 12, 2015,  Today is my “ONE RIGHT” day with WA State DOE!

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

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

    Sep 17, 2014 – OK, so what’s WRONG with that? We the people, have every RIGHT to make a THOUSAND public objections and comments. So what’s …

    —————————————————

    Google “A thousand wrongs and one right”

    About 346,000,000 results (0.37 seconds)