+menu-


  • Category Archives Statewide issues of concern
  • WA Gov. Inslee (D) “The Taxman Cometh”

    HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2017-2019 WA STATE BUDGET

    On page on page 15 OF 43

    OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS, STATE REVENUE COLLECTIONS AS A

    SHARE OF THE ECONOMY HAVE FALLEN BY NEARLY 30%

     —————————————————————

    INDEED, THE DEMOCRATIC TAXMEN SHALL COMETH TO APPROPRIATE 2017-2019.

    WHAT ELSE COULD A WORKING TAXPAYER EXPECT FROM  A LEGISLATURE CONTROLLED  BY DEMOCRAT’S AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR INSLEE WITH VETO POWER

    READ IT AND WEEP  (locate your local food bank)

    2017–19 budget & policy highlights – Public School Employees of …

    pseclassified.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/70/files/2016/12/Budget-Highlights.pdf

    INSLEE’S PROPOSED BUDGET would fully fund basic education and set new course … job of fully funding Washington’s schools. … which will require billions of dollars in new state support.

    BUT THERE ARE NEEDS BEYOND ……

    MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IS ALSO INCREASED TO MEET FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

    Budget highlights – Office of Financial Management – Access Washington

    www.ofm.wa.gov › Budget › State Budgets › 2017-19 Governor’s proposed budgets

    Bold Action Now: Proposed 2017–19 Budget Highlights … Natural Resources; General Government; State Employees; Transportation; Capital; Budget Summary …

    —————————————————————–

    WHY CALL IT “THE NEW NORMAL “IN WA STATE?

    WHEN, THIS ” IS NORMAL” FOR THE GOV INSLEE AND HIS DEMOCRATS…

    June 2017 In what has become THE NEW NORMAL, Washington state lawmakers are expected to go into a third special sessions … In 2013, it took 156 days and three special sessions. …

    2nd Special Session ends, 3rd starts with Inslee vowing to veto “stop …

    www.spokesman.com/…/2nd-special-session-day-30-could-also-be-3rd-special-sessio…

    Jun 21, 2017 – Second special session ended and a third one started Wednesday as … time in state history a Legislature failed to pass a two-year budget before … state’s public school system mandated by the Washington Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————

    OFM | Governor Jay Inslee’s Proposed 2017-19 Budget

    ofm.wa.gov/budget17/default.asp

    Details of the 2017–19 Book 1 (“current law”) budget are available at the Washington State Fiscal Information website. The “Book 1” budget does not reflect the (what?) … Governor’s proposal to the Legislature.

    ———————————————————-

    PRIORITY  BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BILLS PASSED BY THE CONTROLLING DEMOCRATS

    INDEED THE DEMOCRATIC TAXMEN MUST COMETH TO APPROPRIATE 2017-2019.

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE WORKING TAXPAYERS?

    —————————————————

     

    ———————————————-

     School funding: Fines hit $67 million, still no McCleary fix from WA …

    www.bellinghamherald.com/article155432304.html

    Jun 11, 2017 – Contempt of court fines over school funding in Washington state will hit $67 million this week, but the Legislature still can’t agree on HOW TO PAY FOR BASIC EDUCATION. … Court imposed a $100,000 penalty for each day the Legislature failed to … “The important thing is to get the school-funding formula right, and …

    —————————————————————————————

    TWO REALLY BIG QUESTIONS. 

    WHO POCKETED  THE $67,000,000.00 MILLION DOLLARS IN FINES?  

    WHAT DID THE COURT DO WITH THE MONEY?

    ———————————————————————–

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE TAXPAYERS?

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 The U.S. Supreme Court found that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA “was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, WHATEVER THE COST.”

     WA STATE BUDGET 2019-2019 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IS ALSO INCREASED TO MEET FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

    —————————————————————–

    PRIORITY  BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BILLS PASSED BY CONTROLLING DEMOCRATS

    2017-19 CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS Bill (HB 1075 / SB 5086)

    ————————————————————————————-

     DEMOCRAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE 2017-2019 BUDGET.

    MAY 19, 2017 WA STATE  DEMOCRAT  ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON  APPEALED  THE MULTI-BILLION BATTLE OVER SALMON CULVERTS, AND WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON LOST IT!

    COSTING WA STATE WORKING TAXPAYER’S BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REPLACE FISH CULVERTS.

    ————————————————————–

    Washington state loses big legal battle over salmon culverts | The …

    www.seattletimes.com/…/washington-state-loses-big-legal-battle-over-salmon-culverts/

    May 19, 2017 – “Fixing fish-blocking culverts under state roads will open upANOTHER,  9TH CIRCUIT COURT’S,  U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO MARTINEZ  (DECLINED TO EVEN CONSIDER WA STATE’S APPEAL) FORCING WA STATE TO SPEND BILLIONS TO REPLACE CULVERTS THAT IN SOME …

     —————————————————————

    Jun 27, 2016 – By 2030, the state must replace about 800 highway culverts at a cost of … the court upheld virtually all of the findings of THE  9TH CIRCUIT COURT’S DECISION. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO MARTINEZ DECISION. … Washington tribes by allowing culverts that diminish salmon runs. … The ruling also applies to culverts owned by the state Department of Fish and …

     ————————————————————————————–

    2013 Martinez gave the state 15 years to reopen 90 percent of the habitat blocked by its culverts in western Washington. The state has said replacing its culverts will cost at least $2 billion. Between 2013-15, the state corrected 76 fish-blocking culverts.

    At the current schedule, replacing the remaining 800 culverts would be completed by 2060 – 30 years past the deadline, according to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

    —————————————————–

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE TAXPAYERS?

    WA STATE BUDGET  2017-2019  Adds  funding to meet court-ordered removal of

    Fish passage barrier removal fish passage barriers to improve fish access to habitat. This represents a $145.3 million increase over current funding levels and provides an average biennial spending level of about $90.0 million over the next 16 years. ($97.5 million  2017–19; $724.0 million over 16 years)

     ——————————————————————————-

     May 2, 2017 MEET BOB FERGUSON WA State Attorney General…

    JULY 14, 2017 Perhaps by now, you’ve already heard of him?

     In the space of a few days, WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat just beginning his second term, has gone from unknown state attorney general in the far corner of the country to making national headlines.. Fergeson’s quote  I wouldn’t have filed it if I didn’t think I was going to win; after appealing a federal case before a  9th circuit court judge and winning a stay.

    ———————————————————

    May 2, 2017 MEET BOB FERGUSON

    Now a toast of the progressive community, Ferguson views the law as a profoundly moral enterprise.

    FERGUSON IS A REMARKABLY HUMBLE, PRIVATE MAN….

    HE SAID, “WHEN I RAN FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 2012, I WOULD TELL PEOPLE I BELIEVE THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL POSITION IN GOVERNMENT”

    SOME WOULD SAY THAT FERGUSON IS OBSESSIVE:

    BOB FERGUSON SAID, “After the shock [of Trump’s election victory] wore off,” the attorney general said, speaking by phone from the state capital of Olympia. “I WANTED MY OFFICE TO BE READY IN CASE PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTEMPTED TO DELIVER ON SOME OF HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES……

    ( LOL JULY 14, 2017)

    ———————————–

    As a school kid, Ferguson would frequently neglect to do his homework so he could spend more time on the game.

    When the order  was unveiled, WA STATE  DEMOCRAT  Attorney General Bob Ferguson  was meeting with other Democratic state attorneys general in Fort Lauderdale, discussing likely challenges they would face from the Trump administration on immigration law, civil rights, environmental regulations, and other key policy areas.

    SOME WOULD SAY THAT FERGUSON IS OBSESSIVE:

    Within minutes of the order being signed, Ferguson’s team—including an expanded civil-rights division, which he had prepared over the past several months for just such a moment, and which had been in contact with Democratic attorneys general nationwide to work out how to respond to such actions—

    “The reason I went to law school is because when used in the right way, the law can have a profound impact on people in really personal ways.”

     https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-bob-ferguson-the-washington-state-attorney-general-who-shut-down-trumps-muslim-ban/

    ———————————————————————-

     So, In the space of a few days, WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat just beginning his second term, has gone from unknown state attorney general in the far corner of the country to making national headlines.

    9th U.S. Circuit Court  Judge James L. Robart, 69,  blocked President Trumps temporary immigration ban and the … decision – later upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals –

    AND,  Jun 26, 2017 THE US SUPREME COURT In a partial win for President Trump, the court said a limited travel ban could. PRESIDENT TRUMP  later tweeted: “Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. .

    AND WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON (D) LOST IT!

    —————————————————————————————-

    JULY 14, 2017 INDEED, YOU MUST MEET (TWO TIME LOSER)  BOB FERGUSON

    Meet Bob Ferguson, the Washington State Attorney General Who Shut …

    https://www.thenation.com/…/meet-bob-ferguson-the-washington-state-attorney-gener…

    May 2, 2017 – Now a toast of the progressive community, Ferguson views the law as a profoundly moral enterprise.


  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • 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). 


  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    I received email notification because I am an interested party (since Jan 26, 2011).  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017).

    Clallam County Commissioners, Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach, You are receiving this email because you are elected Clallam County representatives and you SHALL be deciding the fate of vested, voting, taxpaying, Shoreline private property owners on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

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

    LET’S START WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP REVISED REVISIONS

    2014-2017

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    ————————————————————————————-

    A complete list of Clallam County DOE SMP UPDATE PUBLIC  comments 2010-2012

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…Jul 3, 2012TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected on the block to step up to the plate.

    PLEASE SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know how the 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall  impacted  you and your property. Below is their contact information:

    ——————————————————————————

    Indeed, elected in 2014, DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn,. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive …

    Director of Community Development

    Mary Ellen Winborn
    mwinborn@co.clallam.wa.us
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles Washington 98362
    360-417-2321

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/03/wa-doe-amending-the-smasmp/

    Mar 3, 2017 – Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S … Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …

    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?

     

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    PLEASE SEND YOU COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know the impacts that this 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall have on you and your property.

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

    Mark Ozias, District 1
    mozias@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Randy Johnson, District 2
    rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Bill Peach, District 3
    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Not one of the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How many of the 624 SMP  public comments have Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach actually read?

    And, how many of the 624 SMP Public comments have been shoved under the rug, through the combined efforts of ESAAdolfson  SMP Consultant Margaret Clancy (between 2012 and 2017)  and Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Clallam County Dept. of Community Development using after the fact cut off dates for public comment et al,  and  a matrix system?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected commissioners, participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected, on the block, to step up to the plate.

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…

    Jul 3, 2012 – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012. Available on Clallam County …

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

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

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

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

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).
    ·    060712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law
    ·    060312 – ESpees – G
    ·    #276 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    052212 – JBlazer – SED
    ·    #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.
    ·    052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft
    ·    #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from
    ·    private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.
    ·    051712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #270 SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    ·    051612 – PHewett – PPS
    ·    #269 SMP Public Forum participation
    ·    051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft
    ·    #268 SMP references to sea level rise
    ·    051212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM MAY 10, 2012
    ·    051212 – KNorman – SED
    ·    #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.
    ·    051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft
    ·    #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.
    ·    050812 – EBowen – G20
    ·    #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.
    ·    050812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.
    ·    050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft
    ·    #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.
    ·    050612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors office for Public Record?
    ·    050512 – ESpees – G
    ·    #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.
    ·    050412 – LMuench – G
    ·    #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.
    ·    050412 – ESpees – G
    ·    #257 The ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!
    ·    050412 – PHewett – G
    ·    #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.
    ·    050312 – JBettcher – G
    ·    #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.
    ·    050212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #254 REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #251 No. 87053-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    042112 – Spees – G
    ·    #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.
    ·    042112 – PHewett – G
    ·    #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.
    ·    041712 – Port of PA – G
    ·    #246 Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’
    March:
    ·    032912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.
    ·    032612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.
    ·    032512 – PHewett – G20
    ·    #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)
    ·    032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft
    ·    #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.
    ·    032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G
    ·    #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP comments, testimony, tables and reviews
    ·    032112 – OEC – SMPdraft
    ·    #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….
    ·    031712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #239 PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD
    ·    031412 – MBarry – G
    ·    #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions
    ·    030912 – PHewett – G/NNL
    ·    #237 Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)
    ·    030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft
    ·    #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property
    ·    030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft
    ·    #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing
    ·    030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft
    ·    #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).
    ·    030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft
    ·    #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.
    ·    With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.
    ·    030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft
    ·    #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.
    February:
    ·    022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft
    ·    #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program
    ·    022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue
    ·    #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.
    ·    022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft
    ·    #227 TRIBAL comment
    January:
    ·    010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED
    ·    #226 TRIBAL comment

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf
    ·    120711 -OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G
    ·    #223 Sea level  rise and climate change
    ·    120611 – WDOE- ICR20
    ·    #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization
    November:
    ·    113011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.
    ·    112511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.
    ·    112411 – ESpees – G
    ·    #219 It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.
    ·    111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED
    ·    #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.
    ·    111111 – JPetersen – SED
    ·    #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.
    ·    111011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”
    ·    110611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW
    ·    110511 – ESpees – NNL
    ·    #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.
    ·    110511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.
    ·    110511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.
    ·    110311 – WDFW – ICR
    ·    #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.
    ·
    October:
    ·    103111 – WDOE – ICR
    ·    #204  Not a copy format
    ·    103111 – JLarson – ICR
    ·    #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?
    ·    101911 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.
    ·    101811 – JEstes – G
    ·    #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to
    ·    further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.
    ·    101711 – PHewett – G
    ·     #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
    ·    101711 – WSP – ICR20
    ·    #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011
    ·    101111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?
    ·    100811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science
    ·    100611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?
    No b comment for #193?
    ·    100411 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.
    ·    100311 – JTatom – G
    ·    #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions
    ·    of our “privately” owned property.
    ·    100111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?
    September:
    ·    092611 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.
    ·    092511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #188 Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland
    There is no #187  public comment?
    ·    092211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,
    ·    that is the problem.
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”
    ·    092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #183 Tribal comment
    ·    091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #182 Tribal comment
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011
    ·    090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR
    ·    #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and
    ·    Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.
    ·    090211 – ESpees – G
    ·    #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext
    August:
    ·    083111 – WDNR – ICR
    ·    #175 Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may
    ·    encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.
    ·    083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.
    ·    083111 – JLWisecup – G
    ·    #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.
    ·    083111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that
    ·    are out of control.
    ·    083111 – ESpees -G
    ·    171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.
    ·    082811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?
    ·    082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps
    ·    #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.
    ·    082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR
    ·    #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.
    ·    082511 – DAbbott – G
    ·    #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.
    ·    082411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.
    There is no comment#164
    There is no comment #163
    ·    081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.
    ·    There is no comment #161
    ·
    ·    081011 – WSP – ICR
    ·    #160 not able to copy
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #159
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #158
    ·
    ·    080511 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #157 Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #156
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #155
    ·
    ·    080111 – FutureWise – ICR
    ·    #154 The Sierra Club
    July:
    ·    072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR
    ·    #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist
    There is not comment #152
    ·    072211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?
    ·    The State owns all rainwater?
    ·    072011 – CCPlCom – ICR
    ·    #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that intended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.
    There is no comment #149
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature
    ·    072011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)
    ·    Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several
    ·    072011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR20
    ·    #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber
    ·    071711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS
    ·    071711 – ESpees – G
    ·    #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’
    ·    071211 – TSimpson – ICR
    ·    #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #139 COLD ENOUGH?Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and
    ·    the full identity of EVERY contaminator.
    ·    071111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.
    ·
    ·    No comment # 134
    ·    No comment #133
    ·    No Comment #132

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.
    June:
    ·    062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20
    ·     #131 She was very concerned about any
    ·    potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.
    ·    062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20
    ·    #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.
    ·    062411 – DMansfield – G20
    ·    #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property
    ·    062411 – PCWidden – G20
    ·    #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.
    No comment #127
    ·    062011 – JEstes – G
    ·    #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified
    No Comment # 125
    ·    060611 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #124 local DOE
    ·    060611 – PortofPA – CR
    ·    #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT
    ·    060411 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat
    ·    060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR
    ·    #121 Tribal Comment
    ·    060311 – HBell – CR
    ·    #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241
    ·    060311 – WSP – CR
    ·    #119 State Park comment
    ·    060311 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #118 Local DOE
    ·    060311 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden
    ·    060211 – RCrittenden – CR
    ·    #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.
    ·    060211 – JEstes – CR
    ·    #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated
    ·    need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.
    ·    060211 – SForde – G
    ·    #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: None – in fact, you are violating them.
    ·    060211 – QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #113 Tribal comment
    ·    060211 – CRogers – CR
    ·    #112 -Page 4 typo error
    ·    060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #111 Tribal comment
    ·    060111 – AStevenson – CR
    ·    #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process
    No comment #108
    ·    060111 – PHewett – G #107
    ·    TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.
    ·    060111 – MTWalker – G
    ·    #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #105 Tribes Not Affected
    May:
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.
    ·    053111 – MGentry – G
    ·    #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.
    ·    053111 – PHewett – G / CR
    ·    #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack
    ·    052911 – ESpees – G
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • Is Clallam County WA a Sanctuary County?

    Is Clallam County WA a Sanctuary County?

    My 7:30 AM wake up email

    Original Message —–

    From xxxx

    To: phew@wavecable.com

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

    Subject: Egads!

    Pearl,

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

    ———————————————————————–

    Egads! Indeed….. WHO KNEW?

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

    EVEN IF IT CONTAINS DIRECT QUOTES FROM 

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

    ————————————————————–

    Egads! THE MAP

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

    cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

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

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

     Egads! Indeed….. THE MAP WHO KNEW?

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

    Who? What? When? Where? and Why?

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

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

     ——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    AND CLALLAM COUNTY, WASH.

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

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

    ——————————–

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

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

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

    ————————————————————

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————

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

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

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

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

    AND CLALLAM COUNTY, WASH.

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

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

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

    —————————————————————-

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

    ————————————————–

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

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

    “To whom it may concern”

    Here is the WA STATE SANCTUARY  list from CIS.

    Washington State

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

    “To whom it may concern”

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

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

    WHICH LIMIT COOPERATION WITH ICE.

    —————————————————————————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

     ————————————————

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

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

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

    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE.

    ———————————————————————————-

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

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

    cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

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

     Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

    By Bryan Griffith, Jessica Vaughan March 2017

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

    Topic Page: Sanctuary Cities

    View More Immigration Maps

    Map Updated: March 23, 2017

     

    City

    County

    State

    Removed from List

    CIS.ORG

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

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

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

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

    THE ICE REPORT… link above….

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

    Summary

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

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

    custody issued by ICE to that jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

    This report is comprised of four sections:

    • Section I:

    Highest Volume of Detainers Issued to Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions

    between January 28, 2017, and February 3, 2017

    • Section I

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

    between January 28, 2017, and February 3, 2017

    • Section III:

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

    • Section IV: Report Scope and Data Fidelity

    ——————————————————-

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

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

    ————————————————————

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

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

    WHICH LIMIT COOPERATION WITH ICE.

    Wash. governor orders agencies to ignore immigration requests | TheHill

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

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

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


  • 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!


  • Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ————————————————-

    The following PUBLIC NOTICE published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

    WSR 16-09-074 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered:

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016

    All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace

    ——————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Rodriguez, RaChelle (ECY)

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

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:05 PM

    Subject: The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016

     

    The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

     

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/09/16-09-074.htm

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    Introduction: In 1994, the Washington state department of ecology (ecology) developed an NPDES general permit to regulate the discharge of wastewater from fresh fruit packing facilities.

    This permit was developed to meet the requirements of chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 RCW as amended, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq.) as amended. All requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference.

    The fruit packing industry is eligible for coverage under a general permit due to: (1) The similar wastewater characteristics among facilities; (2) the uniform discharge conditions to which all facilities would be subject; and (3) the significant reduction of resources necessary for permit handling. However, individual NPDES/state waste discharge permits will still be applied in those instances where ecology determines the general permit is not appropriate for a facility or an individual facility does not wish to be covered by the general permit.

    This general permit establishes treatment/disposal methods, effluent limits, and best management practices for discharges from the fresh fruit packing industry. Compliance with this general permit is anticipated to protect human health and waters of the state.

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered: Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    Documents Available for Review: You may download a copy of the draft permit and fact sheet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/fruit_packers/index.html; or you may request a copy from Cynthia Huwe, (509) 457-7105 or e-mail cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    Public Workshops: Public workshops concerning this draft general permit shall be held on May 18, 2016, in Union Gap and May 19, 2016, in Leavenworth. WebDMR training will also take place on these dates. Please see below for location and exact times.

    DATE Wednesday

    May 18, 2016

    Thursday

    May 19, 2016

    WORKSHOP BEGINS 9:00 a.m. to noon 1:30 to 4:00 p.m.
    WebDMR TRAINING

    BEGINS

    1:30 to 3:30 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to noon
    LOCATION Washington State

    Department of Ecology

    – CRO

    Chelan County Fire District #3 Community Fire Hall
    ADDRESS 1250 West Alder Street 228 Chumstick Highway
    CITY Union Gap, WA 98903 Leavenworth, WA 98826
    ROOM 102 B

    Additional WebDMR Training: An additional WQWebDMR system training (training only, no workshop) will be offered on Thursday, August 18, 2016, from 10 a.m. to noon at the Central Regional Office, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA, in Conference Room 102B.

    When and How to Submit Comments: Comments on the proposed general permit may be given at the public hearings. Interested persons are also invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed general permit. All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    This notice will be published in the legal section of the Yakima Herald-Republic and the Wenatchee Daily World on May 4, 2016. A mailing containing this notice will be sent to all current permittees and other interested parties.

    Final Determination: All comments received at the public hearings or at ecology’s central regional office by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, will be considered before final permit terms, limitations, and conditions are established. A responsive summary of comments received during the comment period will be prepared and available for public review. If the final content of the general permit remains substantially unchanged from the draft permit, a copy of the final determination in the form of a public notice of issuance shall be forwarded to all persons who submitted written comment or gave public testimony regarding the permit. However, if the final determination is substantially changed, another public notice of draft permit shall be published.

    Economic Impact Analysis: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016, on department of ecology’s publications and forms web site located at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/UIPages/Home.aspx.

    Tentative Determination to Issue: After ecology receives and considers all public comments, it will issue the final permit. Ecology expects to issue the general permit in August 2016, with an effective date of September 1, 2016.

    Further Information: Contact Sanjay Barik at sanjay.barik@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-4247; or Marcia Porter at marcia.porter@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-7864; 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA.

    Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran’s status, Vietnam Era veteran’s status or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Cynthia Huwe at (509) 457-7105.

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace


  • An Endangered Gopher Tax?

    The Thurston County Commissioners in collusion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service have created a novel method of extracting additional tax dollars from prospective new homeowners in Washington State.  According to public documents, Thurston County staff has proposed a new gopher tax, up to $42,000 for new homeowners who might consider building a home on or near land that might be inhabited by a rodent called the Mazama Pocket Gopher.  This gopher tax (called “mitigation” in planner-speak) would be in addition to any other fees, permits, taxes, or other costs that might be imposed on the construction of a new home in Thurston County, Washington.  For direct links to the concept files written and presented by Thurston County planning staff go here and here.

    For Whistleblowers, please go here to learn more 

    The $42,000 gopher tax is likely to become law later this year.   Two of the three Commissioners (Sandra Romero and Cathy Wolfe) have been supportive of the plan and the process for many years now.  In addition, the Thurston County Planning Department has been largely controlled by the US Fish & Wildlife Service for years – many of the county employees are entirely subsidized by USFWS grant money.  This has been a concern of property rights advocates for many years because local county staff won’t question their orders from USFWS when their jobs depend on grant dollars from that federal agency.

    Another aspect of the gopher tax that has local observers concerned is the current plan for much of this money to be transferred to an out-of-state nonprofit organization.  Some of these gopher tax monies would stay in Thurston County, but it appears that after insiders get their cut, most of these funds would be sent to an out-of-state organization to manage local taxpayer-purchased land that could be set aside as bonus pocket gopher habitat.

    The Pocket Gopher – Endangered Animal or Convenient Excuse?

    The Thurston County Mazama pocket gopher was listed as a threatened species by the USFWS in April,  2014.  The listing process was controversial, and generated a lot of local citizen backlash as well as open ridicule by rural Thurston County residents directed at the Commissioners, USFWS, and others who championed the original listing process.  Most casual observers could see that something was very wrong in Thurston County.

    Protesting pocket gopher listing
    A pirate might know it is stealing, but Thurston County calls it a tax or a “fee.” It is all about the money.

    Pocket gophers are considered pest rodents throughout most of the United States where they live.  They are prolific and resilient creatures, often found in areas that have been heavily disturbed by agriculture or forestry efforts.  In fact, the two largest concentrations of pocket gophers in Thurston County were found at the Olympia Airport and the surrounding industrial park and at the nearby Fort Lewis Firing Range.  Interestingly, the very gophers who USFWS claims are threatened, thrive in the middle of the artillery impact range on a piece of land that has been repeatedly pulverized, destroyed, and burned for most of a century.  Now, both USFWS and the Thurston County planning department argue that building a home on 5 acres will so harm the gophers that a prospective homeowner must pay $42,000 for permission to apply for a home – maybe.

    Few observers accuse the USFWS of staying true to science or the facts when it comes to listing endangered species.  On the east side of Washington State, USFWS attempted to list the “White Bluffs Bladder Pod” as an endangered species certain that this plant was so rare that it justified land restrictions.  However, a local agricultural organization took samples of the “endangered” plant, conducted DNA tests, and determined that it was a very common weed found in many Western States.  USFWS still plans to list the plant as endangered regardless of the truth or science.  This wouldn’t be the first time USFWS has listed an animal on the Endangered Species list that wasn’t endangered.  In some cases, the listed animals haven’t even been proven to exist.

    The pocket gopher listing process has become just as silly.  No USFWS employee is willing to say how many of these endangered pocket gophers actually exist.  In fact, they tend to become angry if anyone dares ask.  Partly, this is because past population counts have proven to be wildly inaccurate.  Another reason government staff requires forced ignorance of the gopher population numbers is that it would lead to a logical question which they also refuse to answer – how many gophers do you need for them to no longer be considered threatened?  None dare even think these thoughts, at least not if you want the grant gravy train to continue.  Solving a real problem has never been the goal.

    Gophers can be killed, just not by humans
    Gophers are a natural part of the food chain, but Thurston County is the ultimate predator and plans to profit from the gopher tax they impose on new home owners.

    Interestingly enough, the DNA samples for this “endangered” gopher exist at the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, but they refuse to allow an outside organization to take samples for an independant DNA test.  It is illegal for someone to trap a gopher and take independent samples – you could be arrested and get a criminal record like this guy.  Willful ignorance appears to be the order of the day in Thurston County and at the USFWS.  Science and the facts are entirely irrelevant.  The process is the point and the punishment.

    ———————————————————————–

    Thurston County Invents $42,000 Gopher Tax for New …

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/thurstoncountyinvents42000gopher

    We the GovernedThurston County Invents $42,000 Gopher Tax for New Homeowners. March 1, 2016 Glen Morgan 2 Comments. The Thurston County Commissioners in collusion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service have ….. gallup poll results, they are here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx.

    ———————————————————————–

    Subject: County Gopher Tax??

    BRILLIANT! These greenies in Thurston County have outdone themselves here. Is this coming to all WA Counties in the future? Great article by our CAPR Director, Glen Morgan:

    Glen Morgan – Short Bio | We the Governed

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/glenmorgan-short-bio/

    Jan 10, 2016 – Glen Morgan was the Grassroots Director and the Property Rights Director … Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) “for exemplary performance in …

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/thurston-county-invents-42000-gopher-tax-for-new-homeowners/

    You can all learn a LOT from Glen’s website at: www.wethegoverened.com

    Stevens County CAPR,Chapter 15
    Rene’ Holaday
    www.capr.us/STEVENS/
    email: mrromantico@earthlink.net…don’t send anything to: rholaday7@hughesnet.com -I never open it. 😉
    509-935-8377

    ———————————————–

    unedited full text…..

    bottom line

    Just asking? Just saying….

    MORE PETTY LARCENY IN WASHINGTON STATE?


  • HB 2589 Woman’s Right to Bathroom Privacy

    HB 2589 Act for Woman’s Right to Bathroom Privacy

    A WA State ACT Relating to allowing the use of gender-segregated facilities; and AMENDING RCW 49.60.030.

    This Act provides and protects Woman/girls Right to Bathroom Privacy.

    Read first time 01/15/16. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

    ———————–
    I am pleased to see that SEVERAL of our WA State elected representatives have taken responsibility for nullifying the WA State Bathroom Rule Chapter 162-32-010 WAC THAT TOOK EFFECT DEC. 26, 2015 and have taken an expeditious and appropriate legal action under HB 2589 to amend RCW 49.60.030.

    —————–
    Please call or email your elected WA State representatives and ask them to support HB 2589

    This Act provides and protects Woman/girls Right to Bathroom Privacy.
    ————————————————————–
    H-3300.2
    —————————————————————
    HOUSE BILL 2589
    —————————————————————-
    State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session

    By Representatives G. Hunt, Short, Van Werven, Rodne, McCabe, Taylor, Holy, Manweller, Shea, Walsh, Scott, Muri, Smith, Schmick, Harmsworth, McCaslin, Kochmar, Condotta, MacEwen, Buys, Griffey, Wilson, Pike, Young, Klippert, Hawkins, Haler, Kretz, Wilcox, Zeiger, Dent, Hargrove, Hickel, Stambaugh, Caldier, Hayes, and Parker

    Read first time 01/15/16. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

    AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of gender-segregated facilities; and AMENDING RCW 49.60.030.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
    Sec. 1. RCW 49.60.030 and 2009 c 164 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

    The bottom line… full text below

    (4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public or private entity
    from limiting access to a private facility segregated by gender, such
    as a bathroom, restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, to a
    person if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or otherwise has
    genitalia of a different gender from that for which the facility is
    segregated. Nothing in this chapter grants any right to a person to
    access a private facility segregated by gender, such as a bathroom,
    restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, of a public or
    private entity if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or
    otherwise has genitalia of a different gender from that for which the
    facility is segregated.

    (5) Nothing in this section prevents a minor child or a person
    with a disability from entering a facility segregated by gender when
    the child or person is a different gender from the gender for which
    the facility is segregated if: (a) A parent, guardian, supervisor, or
    caretaker is escorting the minor child or the person with a
    disability to or from the facility, (b) the child or person is under
    the custody, control, supervision, or care of the parent, guardian,
    supervisor, or caretaker, and (c) the gender of the parent, guardian,
    supervisor, or caretaker is the same as the gender for which the
    facility is segregated.26
    — END —
    ————————————————–
    full text

    Read first time 01/15/16. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. p. 1
    AN ACT Relating to allowing the use of gender-segregated facilities; and amending RCW 49.60.030.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
    Sec. 1. RCW 49.60.030 and 2009 c 164 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

    (1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race,6creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or7military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory,8mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or9service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and10declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be11limited to:12
    (a) The right to obtain and hold employment without13discrimination;14
    (b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations,15advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort,16accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;17
    (c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without18discrimination, including discrimination against families with19children;20

    (d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination; 2
    (e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions 3 with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: 4 PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 5 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for 6 the purposes of this subparagraph; 7
    (f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory 8 boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for 9 purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or 10 execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy 11 or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons 12 which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States 13 and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, 14 overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in 15 order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order 16 to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on 17 the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged 18 veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any 19 sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog 20 guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national 21 origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That 22 nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as 23 authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor 24 practices; and 25
    (g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of 26 public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement. 27
    (2) Any person deeming himself or herself injured by any act in 28 violation of this chapter shall have a civil action in a court of 29 competent jurisdiction to enjoin further violations, or to recover 30 the actual damages sustained by the person, or both, together with 31 the cost of suit including reasonable attorneys’ fees or any other 32 appropriate remedy authorized by this chapter or the United States 33 Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, or the Federal Fair Housing 34 Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq.). 35
    (3) Except for any unfair practice committed by an employer 36 against an employee or a prospective employee, or any unfair practice 37 in a real estate transaction which is the basis for relief specified 38 in the amendments to RCW 49.60.225 contained in chapter 69, Laws of 39 1993, any unfair practice prohibited by this chapter which is 40

    committed in the course of trade or commerce as defined in the 1 Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW, is, for the purpose of2applying that chapter, a matter affecting the public interest, is not3reasonable in relation to the development and preservation of4business, and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce.5

    (4) Nothing in this chapter prohibits a public or private entity
    from limiting access to a private facility segregated by gender, such
    as a bathroom, restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, to a
    person if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or otherwise has
    genitalia of a different gender from that for which the facility is
    segregated. Nothing in this chapter grants any right to a person to
    access a private facility segregated by gender, such as a bathroom,
    restroom, toilet, shower, locker room, or sauna, of a public or
    private entity if the person is preoperative, nonoperative, or
    otherwise has genitalia of a different gender from that for which the
    facility is segregated.

    (5) Nothing in this section prevents a minor child or a person
    with a disability from entering a facility segregated by gender when
    the child or person is a different gender from the gender for which
    the facility is segregated if: (a) A parent, guardian, supervisor, or
    caretaker is escorting the minor child or the person with a
    disability to or from the facility, (b) the child or person is under
    the custody, control, supervision, or care of the parent, guardian,
    supervisor, or caretaker, and (c) the gender of the parent, guardian,
    supervisor, or caretaker is the same as the gender for which the
    facility is segregated.26
    — END —
    —————————————————————————————-

    Question? What happens to the Chapter 162-32-010 WAC THAT TOOK EFFECT DEC. 26, 2015?

    Behind My Back | WA State Bathroom Rule

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/01/08/wastatebathroomrule/

    Jan 8, 2016 – WA State Bathroom Rule SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY Chapter … by Joseph Backholm, FPIW.org | January 6, 2016

    WA State Bathroom Rule
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY
    Chapter 162-32-010 WAC TOOK EFFECT DEC. 26, 2015

    ———————————————————————–

    What are informed voters going to do about Jay Inslee in 2016 ?

    Gov. Inslee Won’t Answer Question About Bathroom Rule; Bryant Opposes