+menu-


  • Category Archives SMP Cumulative Impact on People
  • June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    My public comment

    Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011.

    INDEED, THIS IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING SHORE LANDS, WETLANDS, ANIMALS OR RIVERS. THIS IS ABOUT CONTROLLING PEOPLE AND THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I WISH PEOPLE WOULD WAKE UP TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY, STATE AND COUNTY  WITH REGARDS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING LAND AND IMPOSING HEAVY REGULATIONS ON ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    I received a phone call from a concerned (fearful) Clallam County citizen last night.

    “Pearl, have you read the new SMP Update Draft? Do you know how Steve Grey and (ESA Consultant) Margaret Clancy have changed it? Do you know what’s in it?”

    We talked for over an hour. My understanding of the most outrageous concerns.

    There shall be 200 foot setbacks based on a concocted 100 year plan?  Clallam County SMP Update Requirements prior to any permitted use of private shoreline property shall include, but not limited to,  up to $20,000.00 in …….

    Geotechnical Engineering

    www.whatisgeotech.org/

    IT INCLUDES, WITHOUT BEING LIMITED TO, the analysis, design and construction of foundations, slopes, retaining structures, embankments, roadways, tunnels, levees, wharves, landfills and other systems that are made of or are supported by soil or rock. Geotechnical Societies by Country.

    ———————————————————-

    The concerned citizen said, Pearl, what are you going to do about this? You have private shoreline property that will be seriously affected.

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY WA, THERE ARE 3300 VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY  OWNERS THAT SHALL BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTRAGEOUS RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY SMP UPDATE, I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

    THE REAL QUESTION IS WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    THEY HAVE VOTERS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THOSE AFFECTED BY THE SMP UPDATE, THAT FEEL VIOLATED BY THE RESTRICTED USE OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN CLALLAM COUNTY.

    ———————————————————————–

    INDEED, BUT EVEN MORE TO THE POINT, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    —————————————————————

    Farmer Faces $2.8 Million Fine for… Plowing His Field! – Freedom …

    freedomoutpost.com/farmer-faces-2-8-million-fine-for-plowing-his-field/

    May 26, 2017 – A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit. John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is …

    Tim BrownMay 26, 2017

    A California farmer is facing $2.8 million in fines for plowing his field and planting wheat without a permit.

    John Duarte of Duarte Nursery is David going up against Goliath, just like ranchers, farmers and natural health product makers.  His case could set a dangerous precedent that would require farmers to obtain expensive and time-consuming permits from the US Army of Corps Engineers before planting crops.

    “The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations.”

    However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller sided with the Army Corps last June, in which the US Attorney’s Office is asking for $2.8 million in civil penalties.

    Why?  Who was harmed?  What real and actual crime took place?

    USA Today has the background of the story that began in 2012 when Mr. Duarte planted wheat on land that he bought with his own money, some 450 acres.

    Because the property has numerous swales and wetlands, Duarte hired a consulting firm to map out areas on the property that were not to be plowed because they were part of the drainage for Coyote and Oat creeks and were considered “waters of the United States.”

    Francois conceded that some of the wetlands were plowed but not significantly damaged. He said the ground was plowed to a depth of 4 to 7 inches.

    The Army Corps did not claim Duarte violated the Endangered Species Act by destroying fairy shrimp or their habitat, Francois said.

    This particular freshwater species is unique to California and southern Oregon and has been classified as a threatened species since 1994 because much of its wetlands in California’s Central Valley were converted to cropland or became urban.

    Duarte’s wheat was planted but not harvested because in February 2013 the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued orders to stop work at the site. The agencies claimed Duarte had violated the Clean Water Act by not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States.

    Duarte sued the Army Corps and the state, alleging they violated his constitutional right of due process by issuing the cease and desist orders without a hearing. The U.S. Attorney’s Office counter-sued Duarte Nursery tto enforce the Clean Water Act violation.

    Farmers plowing their fields are specifically exempt from the Clean Water Act rules forbidding discharging material into U.S. waters, Francois said.

    The government claims that Duarte did not plow but rather used a ripper, which dug 10 inches into the soil and they allege that it disturbed portions of the property that included wetland areas.

    “Even under the farming exemption, a discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the farming activities that impairs the flow of the waters of the United States still requires a permit because it changes the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters,” the U.S. attorney said in court filings.

    Francois claims the penalties are unfair because his client believed the plowing exemption allowed him to till the soil.

    “A plain reading of the rules says you don’t need a permit to do what he did,” Francois said. “How do you impose a multimillion penalty on someone for thinking the law says what it says?”

    Indeed, but even more to the point, what business does the government have telling a man whether or not he can plow or not on his own land?  This is not about wetlands and animals or rivers.  This is about controlling people and their property.  I wish people would wake up to what is taking place in this country with regards to central government controlling land and imposing heavy regulations on private property.

    ——————

    The bottom line…

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Just saying, To Local Elected Representatives..

    Changes are taking place in WA DC.

    Don’t lock yourself up by imposing restricted use on Private Property that you can’t defend and uphold in a court of law.


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 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 for non-wetland 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 created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 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.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • 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


  • Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

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

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

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    ———————————————————————–

    SMP Legal Action Continues

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

    Gene Farr lives in Jefferson County.

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

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

    Is it the editing of the local paper or me?

    Karl Spees – Concerned American

    Thx Gene excellent letter.

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

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

     

    SMP Legal Action Continues

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Gene Farr

     


  • SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    My SMP Public Comment #166

    Regarding the Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————

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

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

    Below is a running commentary

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    I sent an email asking ten (10) questions?

    Response? Public notification?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    Subject: SMP Update

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

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

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

    Subject: Undisclosed 32 page SMP document

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

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

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

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

    Who is responsible for this 32 page summary?

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

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

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

    Who wrote the document?

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

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

    RCW 42.30.130

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

    RCW 42.30.130

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

    PUBLIC SERVANTS   ARE ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR EMPLOYEES

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

    —————————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    Please respond to my questions

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————-

    More From: zSMP

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

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

    ———————————————————————————————-

    SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

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

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

    One must ask what is the definition of a matrix?

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

    “matrix” quantities subject to mathematical operations?

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

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

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    42.36.010
    Local land use decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

    [1984 c 191 § 1; 1982 c 229 § 6.]

    ———————————————————————————–

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

    Back to the Agenda..

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

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

    Subject: SMP Update

     

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

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

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

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

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

    Thank you again for your interest.

    Staff Contacts:

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager:  360-417-2520

    Kevin LoPiccolo, Principal Planner:  360-417-2322

    Deborah Kucipeck, Planner: 360-417-2563

     


  • SMP What has Your County got to Lose?

    SMP What has Your  County got to Lose?

    For the record this is my Clallam County

    SMP Public Comment

    What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

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

    AND, ONE MUST CONSIDER THE VALUE OF PROPERTY  LEFT “HIGH DRY AND DESTITUTE”  BY THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    HOW MUCH MORE CRITICAL LAND MASS CAN CLALLAM COUNTY AFFORD TO LOSE AND STILL BE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE COUNTY?

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED AD VALOREM TAX IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    AN AD VALOREM TAX (Latin for “according to value”) IS A TAX BASED ON THE VALUE OF REAL ESTATE or personal property.

    An ad valorem tax is typically imposed at the time of a transaction(s) (a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT)), BUT IT MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS (real or personal property tax) or in connection with another significant event (inheritance tax)
    ———————————————————————————-
    The VALUE OF REAL ESTATE (private property)  WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.
    ———————————————————————————-
    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with “ZERO” WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with ONLY 150 GALLONS OF INDOOR WATER USE A DAY?
    ———————————————————————————-
    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED IT IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    1. DEVALUATE THE REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER

    2. RAISE THE VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE WITH WATER

    3. CHOOSING BOTH #1 one AND #2 two UNSATISFACTORY alternatives

    4. NOW WITH THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST WA STATE AND FOR THE TRIBES?

    5. More DILEMMA? LEGAL ARGUMENTS LEADING TO more UNDESIRABLE CHOICES, in logic, a form of reasoning that, , though valid,

    6. Leads AGAIN to ONE? TWO? OR more? undesirable alternatives.
    —————————————————————————-
    The Bottom line

    The ” VALUE OF REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.

    Highest and best use

    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process.
    1. The appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property? Of the uses
    2. Which are legally permissible?
    3. which ones are physically possible? Of those,
    4. Which ones are financially feasible?
    (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    AND, To say nothing of the MAN MADE ECONOMIC DISASTERS for Clallam and Skagit County and the private property owners in those counties?

    THE DOE WATER RULES, SETTING THE INSTREAM FLOW, THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE AND THE WA WATER TRUST.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    —————————————————————————————

    Research and documentation, YOU MAY continue reading, OR NOT,  for
    AD VALOREM TO AD NAUSEAM ….(is a latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued “to [the point of] nausea”.) on my website behindmyback.org.

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————————–

     

     

     

    AD VALOREM
    (tax (latin for “according to value”) is a tax based on the value of real estate or personal property.)

    Property tax
    Main article: Property tax
    A property tax, millage tax is an ad valorem tax that an owner of real estate or other property pays on the value of the property being taxed. There are three species or types of property: Land, Improvements to Land (immovable man made things), and Personal (movable man made things). REAL ESTATE, REAL PROPERTY OR REALTY ARE ALL TERMS FOR THE COMBINATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS. The taxing authority requires and/or performs an appraisal of the monetary value of the property, and tax is assessed in proportion to that value. Forms of property tax used vary between countries and jurisdictions.

    Real estate appraisal

    Real estate appraisal, property valuation or land valuation is the process of valuing real property. The value usually sought is the property’s market value. Appraisals are needed because compared to, say, corporate stock, real estate transactions occur very infrequently. Not only that, but every property is different from the next, a factor that doesn’t affect assets like corporate stock.

    Furthermore, all properties differ from each other in their location – which is an important factor in their value. So a centralized Walrasian auction setting can’t exist for the trading of property assets, such as exists to trade corporate stock (i.e. a stock market/exchange).

    This product differentiation and lack of frequent trading, unlike stocks, means that specialist qualified appraisers are needed to advise on the value of a property.

    The appraiser usually provides a written report on this value to his or her client. These reports are used as the basis for mortgage loans, for settling estates and divorces, for tax matters, and so on. Sometimes the appraisal report is used by both parties to set the sale price of the property appraised.

    In some areas, an appraiser doesn’t need a license or any certification to appraise property. Usually, however, most countries or regions require that appraisals be done by a licensed or certified appraiser (in many countries known as a Property Valuer or Land Valuer and in British English as a “valuation surveyor”).

    If the appraiser’s opinion is based on Market Value, then it must also be based on the Highest and Best Use of the real property.

    For mortgage valuations of improved residential property in the US, the appraisal is most often reported on a standardized form, such as the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report.[1] Appraisals of more complex property (e.g. — income producing, raw land) are usually reported in a narrative appraisal report.

    Types of value

    There are several types and definitions of value sought by a real estate appraisal. Some of the most common are:

    •Market value – The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive Walrasian auction setting.

    Market value is usually interchangeable with open market value or fair value. International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Market value – the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

    •Value-in-use, or use value[3] – The net present value (NPV)[4] of a cash flow that an asset generates for a specific owner under a specific use. Value-in-use is the value to one particular user, and may be above or below the market value of a property.

    •Investment value – is the value to one particular investor, and may or may not be higher than the market value of a property. Differences between the investment value of an asset and its market value provide the motivation for buyers or sellers to enter the marketplace.

    International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Investment value – the value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner for individual investment or operational objectives.

    •Insurable value – is the value of real property covered by an insurance policy. Generally it does not include the site value.

    •Liquidation value – may be analyzed as either a forced liquidation or an orderly liquidation and is a commonly sought standard of value in bankruptcy proceedings. It assumes a seller who is compelled to sell after an exposure period which is less than the market-normal time-frame.

    Price versus value
    There can be differences between what the property is really worth (market value) and what it cost to buy it (price).

    A price paid might not represent that property’s market value. Sometimes, special considerations may have been present, such as a special relationship between the buyer and the seller where one party had control or significant influence over the other party.
    In other cases, the transaction may have been just one of several properties sold or traded between two parties. In such cases, the price paid for any particular piece isn’t its market ‘value’ (with the idea usually being, though, that all the pieces and prices add up to market value of all the parts) but rather its market ‘price’.

    At other times, a buyer may willingly pay a premium price, above the generally-accepted market value, if his subjective valuation of the property (its investment value for him) was higher than the market value. One specific example of this is an owner of a neighboring property who, by combining his own property with the subject property, could obtain economies-of-scale.

    Similar situations sometimes happen in corporate finance. For example, this can occur when a merger or acquisition happens at a price which is higher than the value represented by the price of the underlying stock. The usual explanation for these types of mergers and acquisitions is that ‘the sum is greater than its parts’, since full ownership of a company provides full control of it. This is something that purchasers will sometimes pay a high price for. This situation can happen in real estate purchases too.

    But the most common reason for value differing from price is that either the buyer or the seller is uninformed as to what a property’s market value is but nevertheless agrees on a contract at a certain price which is either too expensive or too cheap. This is unfortunate for one of the two parties. It is the obligation of a Real Property Appraiser to estimate the true market value of a property and not its market price.

    Market value definitions in the USA
    In the US, appraisals are for a certain type of value (e.g., foreclosure value, fair market value, distressed sale value, investment value). The most commonly used definition of value is Market Value. While Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) does not define Market Value, it provides general guidance for how Market Value should be defined:
    a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer or sale of a property as of a certain date, under specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.

    Thus, the definition of value used in an appraisal or CMA (Current Market Analysis) analysis and report is a set of assumptions about the market in which the subject property may transact. It affects the choice of comparable data for use in the analysis. It can also affect the method used to value the property. For example, tree value can contribute up to 27% of property value.[5][6]

    Three approaches to value
    There are three traditional groups of methodologies for determining value. These are usually referred to as the “three approaches to value” which are generally independent of each other:

    •The cost approach (the buyer will not pay more for a property than it would cost to purchase an equivalent).

    •The sales comparison approach (comparing a property’s characteristics with those of comparable properties that have recently sold in similar transactions).

    •The income approach (similar to the methods used for financial valuation, securities analysis or bond pricing).

    However, the recent trend of the business tends to be toward the use of a scientific methodology of appraisal which relies on the foundation of quantitative-data,[7] risk, and geographical based approaches.[8][9] Pagourtzi et al. have provided a review on the methods used in the industry by comparison between conventional approaches and advanced ones.[10]

    As mentioned before, an appraiser can generally choose from three approaches to determine value. One or two of these approaches will usually be most applicable, with the other approach or approaches usually being less useful. The appraiser has to think about the “scope of work”, the type of value, the property itself, and the quality and quantity of data available for each approach. No overarching statement can be made that one approach or another is always better than one of the other approaches.

    The appraiser has to think about the way that most buyers usually buy a given type of property. What appraisal method do most buyers use for the type of property being valued? This generally guides the appraiser’s thinking on the best valuation method, in conjunction with the available data. For instance, appraisals of properties that are typically purchased by investors (e.g., skyscrapers, office buildings) may give greater weight to the Income Approach. Buyers interested in purchasing single family residential property would rather compare price, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach (market analysis approach) would be more applicable. The third and final approach to value is the Cost Approach to value. The Cost Approach to value is most useful in determining insurable value, and cost to construct a new structure or building.

    For example, single apartment buildings of a given quality tend to sell at a particular price per apartment. In many of those cases, the sales comparison approach may be more applicable. On the other hand, a multiple-building apartment complex would usually be valued by the income approach, as that would follow how most buyers would value it. As another example, single-family houses are most commonly valued with greatest weighting to the sales comparison approach. However, if a single-family dwelling is in a neighborhood where all or most of the dwellings are rental units, then some variant of the income approach may be more useful. So the choice of valuation method can change depending upon the circumstances, even if the property being valued doesn’t change much.

    The cost approach
    The cost approach was once called the summation approach. The theory is that the value of a property can be estimated by summing the land value and the depreciated value of any improvements. The value of the improvements is often referred to by the abbreviation RCNLD (reproduction cost new less depreciation or replacement cost new less depreciation). Reproduction refers to reproducing an exact replica. Replacement cost refers to the cost of building a house or other improvement which has the same utility, but using modern design, workmanship and materials. In practice, appraisers almost always use replacement cost and then deduct a factor for any functional dis-utility associated with the age of the subject property. An exception to the general rule of using the replacement cost, is for some insurance value appraisals. In those cases, reproduction of the exact asset after the destructive event (fire, etc.) is the goal.
    In most instances when the cost approach is involved, the overall methodology is a hybrid of the cost and sales comparison approaches (representing both the suppliers’ costs and the prices that customers are seeking). For example, the replacement cost to construct a building can be determined by adding the labor, material, and other costs. On the other hand, land values and depreciation must be derived from an analysis of comparable sales data.
    The cost approach is considered most reliable when used on newer structures, but the method tends to become less reliable for older properties. The cost approach is often the only reliable approach when dealing with special use properties (e.g., public assembly, marinas).

    The sales comparison approach
    The sales comparison approach is based primarily on the principle of substitution. This approach assumes a prudent (or rational) individual will pay no more for a property than it would cost to purchase a comparable substitute property. The approach recognizes that a typical buyer will compare asking prices and seek to purchase the property that meets his or her wants and needs for the lowest cost. In developing the sales comparison approach, the appraiser attempts to interpret and measure the actions of parties involved in the marketplace, including buyers, sellers, and investors.
    Data collection methods and valuation process Data is collected on recent sales of properties similar to the subject being valued, called “comparables”. Only SOLD properties may be used in an appraisal and determination of a property’s value, as they represent amounts actually paid or agreed upon for properties. Sources of comparable data include real estate publications, public records, buyers, sellers, real estate brokers and/or agents, appraisers, and so on. Important details of each comparable sale are described in the appraisal report. Since comparable sales aren’t identical to the subject property, adjustments may be made for date of sale, location, style, amenities, square footage, site size, etc. The main idea is to simulate the price that would have been paid if each comparable sale were identical to the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject in a factor or aspect, then a downward adjustment is needed for that factor.[clarification needed] Likewise, if the comparable is inferior to the subject in an aspect, then an upward adjustment for that aspect is needed.[clarification needed] The adjustment is somewhat subjective and relies on the Appraiser’s training and experience. From the analysis of the group of adjusted sales prices of the comparable sales, the appraiser selects an indicator of value that is representative of the subject property. It is possible for various Appraisers to chose different indicator of value which ultimately will provide different property value.

    Steps in the sales comparison approach 1. Research the market to obtain information pertaining to sales, and pending sales that are similar to the subject property. 2. Investigate the market data to determine whether they are factually correct and accurate. 3. Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., sales price per square foot), and develop a comparative analysis for each. 4. Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of comparison and adjust as appropriate. 5. Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the adjustment (upward or downward) of the comparable sales into a single value indication.
    The income capitalization approach
    Main article: Income approach
    The income capitalization approach (often referred to simply as the “income approach”) is used to value commercial and investment properties. Because it is intended to directly reflect or model the expectations and behaviors of typical market participants, this approach is generally considered the most applicable valuation technique for income-producing properties, where sufficient market data exists.
    In a commercial income-producing property this approach capitalizes an income stream into a value indication. This can be done using revenue multipliers or capitalization rates applied to a Net Operating Income (NOI). Usually, an NOI has been stabilized so as not to place too much weight on a very recent event. An example of this is an unleased building which, technically, has no NOI. A stabilized NOI would assume that the building is leased at a normal rate, and to usual occupancy levels. The Net Operating Income (NOI) is gross potential income (GPI), less vacancy and collection loss (= Effective Gross Income) less operating expenses (but excluding debt service, income taxes, and/or depreciation charges applied by accountants).
    Alternatively, multiple years of net operating income can be valued by a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) model. The DCF model is widely used to value larger and more expensive income-producing properties, such as large office towers or major shopping centres. This technique applies market-supported yields (or discount rates) to projected future cash flows (such as annual income figures and typically a lump reversion from the eventual sale of the property) to arrive at a present value indication.

    Scope of work
    While USPAP has always required appraisers to identify the scope of work needed to produce credible results, it became clear in recent years that appraisers did not fully understand the process for developing this adequately. In formulating the scope of work for a credible appraisal, the concept of a limited versus complete appraisal and the use of the Departure Rule caused confusion to clients, appraisers, and appraisal reviewers. In order to deal with this, USPAP was updated in 2006 with what came to be known as the Scope of Work project.

    Following this, USPAP eliminated both the Departure Rule and the concept of a limited appraisal, and a new Scope of Work rule was created. In this, appraisers were to identify six key parts of the appraisal problem at the beginning of each assignment:
    • Client and other intended users
    • Intended use of the appraisal and appraisal report
    • Definition of value (e.g., market, foreclosure, investment)
    • Any hypothetical conditions or extraordinary assumptions
    • The effective date of the appraisal analysis
    • The salient features of the subject property
    Based on these factors, the appraiser must identify the scope of work needed, including the methodologies to be used, the extent of investigation, and the applicable approaches to value.

    Currently, minimum standards for scope of work are:
    • Expectations of the client and other users
    • The actions of the appraiser’s peers who carry out similar assignments
    The Scope of Work is the first step in any appraisal process. Without a strictly defined Scope of Work an appraisal’s conclusions may not be viable. By defining the Scope of Work, an appraiser can properly develop a value for a given property for the intended user, and for the intended use of the appraisal. The whole idea of “Scope of Work” is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for all parties as to what the appraisal report does, and doesn’t, cover; and how much work has gone into it.

    Highest and best use
    Main article: Highest and best use
    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process. First, the appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property. Second, of the uses which are legally permissible, which ones are physically possible. Of those, which ones are financially feasible (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    In more complex appraisal assignments (e.g., contract disputes, litigation, brownfield or contaminated property valuation), the determination of highest and best use may be much more complex, and may need to take into account the various intermediate or temporary uses of the site, the contamination remediation process, and the timing of various legal issues.[12]
    —————————————————————

    HISTORY
    The VAT was invented by a French economist in 1954. Maurice Lauré, joint director of the French tax authority, the Direction générale des impôts, as taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA in French) was first to introduce VAT with effect from 10 April 1954 for large businesses, and extended over time to all business sectors. IN FRANCE, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF STATE FINANCE, ACCOUNTING FOR APPROXIMATELY 45% OF STATE REVENUES.