+menu-


  • Category Archives SMP Cumulative Impact on People
  • SMP 19 Unresolved Issues 2012-2017

    Another 2017 SMP Update concern to Clallam County Commissioner

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY AND LEAVE 19 UNRESOLVED SMP ISSUES ON 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.

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

    ———————————————————————-

    Part two, What happened to us? the 3000 and the 19 unresolved issues behind our back, behind closed doors by the SMP Update bureaucrats and the paid facilitators ?

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee—– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lois Perry ; Sue Forde ; zSMP

    Cc: Karl Spees ; Jo Anne Estes ; Katie Krueger ; connie beauviasMarv Chastain ; Jay Petersen ; harry bell ; Steve Gray ; notac; ; jim McEntire ; smiller@co.clallam.wa.us

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

    Subject: SMP COMMENT ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my comment

    on the SMP Advisory Committee

    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?

     ——————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    Jul 4, 2015 THREE YEARS LATER SECOND SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

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

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

    —————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT continued…

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? Jay Pedersen 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,  Jay’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   Ed Bowen 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) ED BOWEN 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) NOT DISCUSSED, MENTIONED 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.

    —————————————————————————–

    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.

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property,

    may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government

    ————————————————————————–

    Oct 14, 2017 added information on Clallam County SMP Update, paid facilitators MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAME .

    No Net Loss of Ecological Function?

    This work was funded through a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

    Prepared by MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAMER and Carol MacIlroy

    prohibit new building lots from being created in the 100-year floodplain limit new roads in the floodplain that unregulated development or illegal activities will not occur at a level significant enough to affect flood storage. It will not be possible to fully avoid all impacts from the development of these lots through SMP policies and regulations.

    ————————————————————————–

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property, may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government?

    Through, an administrative process established by the Clallam County DCD Planning Dept?

    ———————————————————————-

    (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.

    ——————————————————————————-

    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, prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————–

    WHO WERE THE SMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    THAT 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?

    ———————————————————————————-

    PDF]

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Committee …

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/…/ClCoSMPC2013.pdf

    Clallam County

    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?

    *Chris Byrnes: WA Department of Fish & Wildlife

    … *Darlene Schanfald: Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park …

    *Jeffree Stewart: WA Department of Ecology …

    *Kevin MacCartney: Sierra Club; Shoreline Property Owner … *Denotes SMP Committee members/alternates attending a majority of …

    SMPC Attendees:

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————————

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    Arnold Schouten … the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ———————————————————————

    Bob Vreeland

    ——————————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    —————————————————————–

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    ————————————————–

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence.

    ———————————————————

    Karl Spees

    ———————————————————-

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    —————————————————————–

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    ———————————————————

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    ———————————————–

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    ————————————————————-

    Matt Heins Tribe

    ———————————————-

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————

    Randy Johnson tribal rep (aka nasty randy)

    —————————————-

    Ron Gilles Sequim Realtor

    ———————————————-

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant) ESA Adolfson’s Compliancy expert with 24 WA State SMP’s Under their belt.

    https://www.google.com/#q=esa+adolfson+margaret+clancy+health+of+puget+sound&start=30

    Shoreline management plan meeting brings unanswered …

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Oct/shoreline_meeting.html

    Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer (of Kramer Consulting Inc.), representing … The “Public Participation Strategy” as presented by ESAAdolphson was that “The …. for Puget Sound; Co-Manager AT PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2006; and Project

    opportunities to improve shoreline management in puget

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/docs/exec_summary.pdf

    NFWF Project: 2010-0060-002 Protect Puget Sound Shoreline … Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson) … effort to recover Puget Sound by 2020. .

    —————————————————

    Senior planner for SMP Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    ————————————————-

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    ————————————————–

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    ———————————————–

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    ——————————————————–

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    ——————————————————–

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    ——————————————————————–

    Robert Knapp, James town S’Klallem tribe  (used to be with stream keepers)

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————-

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ————————————————-

    Bob Vreeland

    Andrew Stevenson Port Angeles Arnold Schouten Port …

    www.clallam.net/RealEstate/…/SMPCmemberList1-2012….

    Clallam County

    Bob Vreeland. Port Angeles … Sequim. Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park. 7 … Countywide. WA Department of Ecology.

    —————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence. … Agenda change: Hannah Merrill will give the SMP Update, instead of Cathy Lear. … US Army Corps of Engineers; EPA; WA Dept. of Ecology; WA State Recreation.

    Karl Spees

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    Matt Heins Tribe

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Randy Johnson nasty randy (tribal rep.)

    Ron Gilles

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant)

    Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    Robert Knapp, JS’K

    ———————————————–

    REMEMBER… This is just 

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

    What happens to one of us, happens to all of us.

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

    The Bottom Line….

    As one of the  3000, I shall continue my comments and concerns on the SMP Update

    day after day, week after week, month after month as I have done prolifically since 2011.

    To be continued….


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

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

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    ———————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

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

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

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

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

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

     —————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

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

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

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

    —————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

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

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

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

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

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

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

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory Committee, are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation, we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

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

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

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

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

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

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

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

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

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

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

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

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

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

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

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

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

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

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

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

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

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

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

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

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

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

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

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

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

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

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

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

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

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

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

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

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

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

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

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

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

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

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

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

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

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

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

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

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

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

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

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

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

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

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

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

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

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

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

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

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

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

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

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

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

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

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

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

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

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

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

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

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

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

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

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

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

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

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

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

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

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

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

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

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

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

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

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

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

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

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

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

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

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

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

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

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

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

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

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

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

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

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

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

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

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

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

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

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

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

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

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

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

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

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

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

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

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

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

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

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

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

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

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

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

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

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

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

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

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

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

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

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

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

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

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

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

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

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

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

    052711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

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

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

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

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

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

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

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

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

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

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

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

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

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

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

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

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

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

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

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

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

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

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

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

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

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

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

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

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

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

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

    ·         031111- JWare – G

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

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

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

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

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

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

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

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

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

    2010:

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

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

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

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

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

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

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

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

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

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

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

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

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

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

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

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

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

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

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

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

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

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

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

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

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

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


  • WA State Ecology is Back to WAC Us

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, PUBLIC RECORDS

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Why it matters?

    SIMPLY PUT…..

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

    APR 15, 2013 – “Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news … citizenreviewonline.org/ecologys-qa-session-in-sequim-about-… Jan 17, 2013 …

     How much will PUBLIC RECORDS cost us?

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/24/wa-state-doe-emergency-fee-rule/

    JUL 24, 2017 – July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E CALCULATION OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS DECLARED …

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY finds that it is in the general welfare and the public interest, and benefits requesters and the agency, to adopt the emergency rule in order to preserve AND UPDATE FEES in accordance with the legislatively adopted schedule.

    WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION, THIS WOULD CREATE A PERIOD OF MONTHS DURING WHICH NO STATEMENT OR RULE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING PRA (PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) COSTS

    OR THE METHODS OF CALCULATING THEM, CREATING CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY REGARDING ECOLOGY’S FEE STRUCTURE AND ITS (WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY’S) ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    ———————————————————————–

    EINSTEIN SAID, “IF YOU CAN’T PUT IT SIMPLY, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL”

    JAN 17, 2013  “IT’S A MONEY DEAL,” I said, adding, “ECOLOGY SUCKS”,  (which prompted a flurry of applause)

    SIMPLY PUT:  THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!

    —————————————————————

    This is the 994th posting on behindmyback.org since Jan 29, 2013

    This posting is over 3000 words.

    —————————————————————————–

    Complete unedited text

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:52 AM

    Subject: The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: September 15, 2017

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac17303/1614ov.html

    ——————————————————————

    Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Overview

    Introduction

    The Department of Ecology is proposing amendments to Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of the Public Records Act including the process the agency uses for disclosing records.

    This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes. On 7/20/17 we filed an emergency rule amendment to implement changes passed by the legislature during the 2017 legislative session.  This emergency rule will be in place until 11/17/2017.  The content of this emergency rule will be included in the permanent rulemaking we are conducting.

    Why it matters

    The rule has not been updated since 1998 and needs to reflect current law, technology, and processes. The rule also contains outdated information about Ecology programs and staff, which will be made current and will reflect changes made in the 2017 legislative session.

    Scope of rule development

    Ecology is proposing to amend Chapter 173-03 WAC. This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes.

    Process of development

    Please refer to the Timeline and Public Involvement information to stay informed about the rulemaking.

    —————————————————————————

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-03 WAC

    PUBLIC RECORDS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003?

    WAC 173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 relating to public records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-010, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-010, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-010, filed 1/17/78.]

    —————————————————————————

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    (1) The terms “person,” “public record,” and “writing” shall have the meanings as stated in RCW 42.17.020.

    (2) “Department” means the department of ecology.

    (3) “Director” means the director of the department.

    (4) “Public records officer” means the employee designated as such by the department.

    (5) “Designee” means the employee of the department designated by the director or the public records officer to serve as the public records coordinator at the headquarters offices or at each of the regional offices in the absence of the officer.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-020, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-020, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-020, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    (1) Headquarters office.

    (a) The headquarters office is located at 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington. The mailing address for the headquarters office is:

    Department of Ecology

    P.O. Box 47600

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

    The mailing address for the nuclear waste management program’s Hanford project is:

    Nuclear Waste Management

    1315 W. 4th Ave.

    Kennewick, WA 99336

    (b) The offices of the director, deputy director(s), program managers and other agency officials are located in the headquarters office.

    (c) The titles of the executive staff are as follows:

    Chief financial officer for financial services.

    Administrative services manager for administrative services.

    Director for intergovernmental relations.

    Director for employee services.

    Director for communications and education.

    Assistant administrator for spills prevention, preparedness and response.

    (2) The program offices located in the headquarters office are:

    (a) Air quality;

    (b) Water resources;

    (c) Water quality;

    (d) Toxics cleanup;

    (e) Nuclear waste;

    (f) Solid waste and financial assistance;

    (g) Hazardous waste and toxics reductions;

    (h) Environmental investigations and laboratory services; and

    (i) Shorelands and environmental assistance.

    (3) Regional offices and their geographical jurisdictions are as follows:

    (a) Northwest regional office (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, San Juan, Island, King, and Kitsap counties):

    3190 – 160th Avenue S.E.

    Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

    (b) Southwest regional office (Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Lewis, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Clark, and Skamania counties):

    300 Desmond Drive

    Lacey, WA 98503

    Mailing address:

    P.O. Box 47775

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7775

    (c) Central regional office (Okanogan, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Klickitat counties):

    15 West Yakima, Suite 200

    Yakima, WA 98902-3401

    (d) Eastern regional office (Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Grant, Lincoln, Spokane, Adams, Whitman, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties):

    1. 4601 Monroe, Suite 100

    Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-030, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-030, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    (1) All public records of the department are available for public inspection and copying under these rules subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.

    (2) Availability of public records is subject to the exemptions and prohibitions against disclosure contained in RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.130, 42.17.255, 42.17.260, and 90.52.020. In addition, individuals may request, and ecology may grant, confidentiality of documents from disclosure under RCW 43.21A.160 and 70.105.170.

    (3) When a public record includes information which, if disclosed, would lead to an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, and the department becomes aware of this fact, the department shall delete such information before making the record available.

    (4) Public records requested may not be readily available for immediate inspection. If the requested records are not readily available, the department shall notify the requester when and where those records will be available.

    (5) Public records of the department are kept by the department or state archives until scheduled for destruction by the records retention schedule in accordance with chapter 40.14 RCW. Public records subject to a request for disclosure when scheduled for destruction shall be retained by the department and may not be erased or destroyed until the request is resolved.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-040, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-040, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-040, filed 1/17/78.]

    ——————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    The records retention schedule established by the division of state archives of the office of the secretary of state serves as an index for the identification and location of the following records:

    (1) All records issued before July 1, 1990, for which the department has maintained an index;

    (2) Final orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued in adjudicative proceedings as defined in RCW 34.05.010(1) and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties;

    (3) Declaratory orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued pursuant to RCW 34.05.240 and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties; and

    (4) Interpretive statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(8) that were entered after June 30, 1990.

    The records retention schedule indexes records according to the originating program or section, and then the record series title. Each title is further identified by a statement of function or purpose, and the retention period. The records retention schedule is available to the public for inspection and copying. With the assistance of the public records officer or designee, any person can obtain access to public records of the department using the records retention schedule.

    A separate index of policy statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(4) entered after June 30, 1990, shall be maintained by the department’s policy manual coordinator or designees.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-050, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-050, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-050, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    (1) All requests for inspection or copying made in person at a department office shall be made on a form substantially as follows:

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

    Date of Request . . . .

    Time of Request . . . .

    Name . . . .

    Address . . . .

    . . . .

    Description of Records:

    . . . .

    . . . .

    . . . .

    I understand that if a list of individuals is provided me by the Department of Ecology, it will neither be used to promote the election of an official nor promote nor oppose a ballot proposition as prohibited by RCW 42.17.130 nor for commercial purposes nor give or provide access to material to others for commercial purposes as prohibited by RCW 42.17.260(9).

    I understand that I will be charged the amount necessary to reimburse the department’s cost for copying.

    . . . .

    Signature

    Number of pages to be copied

    . . . .

    Number of copies per page

    . . . .

    Charge per copy

    $

    . . . .

    Special copy work charge

    $

    . . . .

    Staff time charge

    $

    . . . .

    Total charge

    $

    . . . .

    (2) You may request records in person at a department of ecology office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    (3) If you make your request by mail, your request must contain the following information:

    (a) The name and address of the person making the request and the organization the person represents;

    (b) The time of day and calendar date on which the person wishes to inspect the public records;

    (c) A description of the public records requested;

    (d) A statement whether access to copying equipment is desired;

    (e) A phone number where the person can be reached in case the public records officer or designate needs to contact the person for further description of the material or any other reason.

    (f) A statement that the record will not be used for commercial purposes.

    (4) The department must receive all requests at least five business days before the requested date of inspection to allow the public records officer or designee to make certain the requested records are available and not exempt and, if necessary, to contact the person requesting inspection. The department will process all requests in a timely manner. However, large requests or requests for public records maintained offsite may require more than five business days to prepare. The department will respond to your request within five business days of receiving it, by either:

    (a) Providing the record;

    (b) Acknowledging that the department has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the department will require to respond to the request; or

    (c) Denying the public record request.

    Additional time required to respond to a request may be based upon the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and assemble the information requested, to notify third persons or agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the information requested is exempt and that a denial should be made as to all or part of the request. In acknowledging receipt of a public record request that is unclear, the department may ask the requestor to clarify what information the requestor is seeking. If the requestor fails to clarify the request, the agency need not respond to it.

    (5) The department may in its discretion fill requests made by telephone or facsimile copy (fax).

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-060, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-060, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    The department does not charge a fee for the inspection of public records. The department will charge an amount necessary to reimburse its costs for providing copies of records. This amount shall be reviewed from time to time by the department, and shall represent the costs of providing copies of public records and for use of the department’s copy equipment, including staff time spent copying records, preparing records for copying, and restoring files. This charge is the amount necessary to reimburse the department for its actual costs for copying and is payable at the time copies are furnished. The charge for special copy work of nonstandard public records shall reflect the total cost, including the staff time necessary to safeguard the integrity of these records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-070, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-070, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    When the department refuses, in whole or part, a request for inspection of any public record, it must include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the refusal and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-080, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-080, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    (1) Any person who objects to the refusal of a request for a public record may petition for prompt review of that decision by submitting a written request for review. The written request shall specifically refer to the written statement by the public records officer or designee which constituted or accompanied the refusal.

    (2) Immediately after receiving a written request for review of a decision denying a public record, the public records officer or other staff member denying the request shall refer it to the director or the director’s delegate. The director or delegate shall immediately consider the matter and either affirm or reverse the refusal. The final decision shall be sent to the objecting person within two business days following receipt of the petition for review.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-090, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-090, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

    In order to adequately protect the public records of the department, you must comply with the following guidelines while inspecting public records:

    (1) You may not remove any public record from the department’s premises.

    (2) You must have a designated department employee present while you are inspecting a public record.

    (3) You may not mark or deface a public record in any manner during inspection.

    (4) You may not dismantle public records which are maintained in a file or jacket, or in chronological or other filing order, or those records which, if lost or destroyed, would constitute excessive interference with the department’s essential functions.

    (5) Access to file cabinets, shelves, vaults, or other storage areas is restricted to department personnel, unless other arrangements are made with the public records officer or designee.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-100, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-100, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————-

    The bottom line…..

    THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!


  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.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 WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • 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