+menu-


  • Category Archives Statewide issues of concern
  • Did Clallam Co need an SMP Update in 2010?

    THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S  2010 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

    DID CLALLAM COUNTY  NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

    I THINK NOT.

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 9:00 PM

    Subject: MY STATISTICS ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    I have finally finished reading all 7 ESA Adolfson chapters for WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS on line.

     I have addressed the Public Access to Private Property issue based on their own statistics.

    Freshwater and the Marine for WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    (29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

    (34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

    As far as I can figure out, the water in Clallam County is impaired because it is not cold enough.

    COLD ENOUGH?

     Based on the data in their reports, the amount of tree canopy, public access  and development are NOT factors in the water temperature?

    Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    Do they really think that throwing logs in the water and removing barriers  will change the temperature of the water?

    Changing Climate is a scientific fact. (NOT GLOBAL WARMING)

    THEY ARE DREAMING….

     NOW, NO NET LOSS

     (10) CONTAMINATED SITES, AT THE MOST, ALL BEING CLEANED UP AS I WRITE THIS.

    IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FISH… and the dams… and the endangered species and not a damn word about the damn fishing nets.

    GET BETTER

    Pearl

    —————————————————————

    DID CLALLAM COUNTY  REALLY NEED A FULL BLOWN $600,000.00 SMP UPDATE?

    FEB 24, 2015 DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the  maritime national wildlife refuge complex (NWRC)

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #584   022415 – DeptOfInterior       

    snippet

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

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

    THEY WHO?  THERE IS NO SIGNATURE ON THE COMMENT?

    THEY, GO ON TO SAY….

    THE MINIMUM NECESSARY IS A VAGUE TERM…

    AND THEY? EVEN PROVIDED THEIR OWN FWS FORM 3-2319 O2-06 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A PROCEDURE TO FOLLOW FOR THE 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT.

    ————————————————————————

    DOE JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

    —————————————————————————————

    From: pearl hewett

    To: smp@co.clallam.wa.us

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:01 AM

    Subject: Fw: SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    SMP COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches

    Contaminated sites

    they found (3) 

     ———————————————

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    Contaminated sites

     (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

     (Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

     (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

     With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the FACTS

     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.

     Pearl Rains Hewett

     ————————————————————-

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    ———————————————————————————–

    The   DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), public comment above shall be included for the Planning Dept SMP Update.

    My comment below shall not.

    SMP Public Comment #162

    Posted on February 28, 2015 10:41 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

    Based on ECOLOGY’S own  2010 Characterization and Inventory  report

    Based on the  best available science from 1992?

    I THINK NOT.

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    ON THE 18 MARINE REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES THEY FOUND (3)

    ON THE 64 FRESHWATER REACHES CONTAMINATED SITES

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness,

    (Several) on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    With all of the SMP concern about contaminated sites

    These are the incomplete, censored scientific facts

    Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name?

    (10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact

    location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:30 AM

    Subject: COMMENT ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    COMMENT ON

    WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS

    On the 18 Marine reaches CONTAMINATED sites they found (3)

    Impaired water quality sites (12) (based on how many factors?)

    Impaired water caused by temperature (4)

    —————————————————————-

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches CONTAMINATED sites

    (1) contaminate site on the R3 Dungeness, DNA testing determined bird poop and mammals

    Several on R1 Elwha (how many is several?)

    (2) on the R2 on the Hoko.

    (29) impaired water quality sites (based on how many factors?)

    On the 64 Freshwater reaches

    (34) sites are described as impaired water caused by temperature.

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:57 AM

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    —————————————————————————

    ECOLOGYS 10 Unanswered questions  from July 12, 2012

     (1) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify, the cause of marine and freshwater contamination?

    (2) Please provide copies of the scientific papers that definitively identify what caused the marine and freshwater contamination? People, development or industry or by birds, wild mammals or naturally present in the environment?

    (3) I am requesting a copy of the scientific papers on the DNA testing for impairment and contamination at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    (4) Were ANY of the contaminated or impaired sites caused by? or as a result of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP failure to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (5) Please provide scientific papers on how the Clallam County SMP from 1976-2012 has failed to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (6) Please provide scientific papers on why DOE is demanding wider setbacks and buffer zones to protect NNL of ecological function?

    (7) Please provide scientific papers on how many single family residence were destroyed on Clallam County marine and freshwater shorelines, by rivers or tidal action as a result of? or caused by? or a failure? of Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

    (8) Please provide scientific papers on how many ecological disasters occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

    (9)Please provide scientific papers on how many injuries or deaths occurred as a result of? or caused by? or failure of? Clallam County 1976-2012 SMP?

     (10) As a member of the Clallam County SMP Advisory Committee I am asking for the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    UNTIL the DOE can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2012 has caused any loss of ecological function, the current setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or reduced.

    ——————————————————————————–

    SMP Handbook: Chapter 7, Shoreline Inventory and Characterization

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/Chapter7.pdf

    Last updated 3/23/2010. 1 … The inventory and characterization of your jurisdiction’s shoreline … must also be included in your Inventory and Characterization report. …. A draft list of inventory data sources (digital copy) for Ecology review and comment ….. plans – http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/index.html ) or your own …

    THE SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY DID PROVIDE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE 2017 SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    —————————————————————————-

    HOW MANY OF MY TEN SMP UPDATE  SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS DID DOE JEFFREE STEWARD ANSWER WITH THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE?

    NONE period.

    JEFFREE STEWARD QUOTE July 12, 2012  “I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976”

    If you are interested in reading his full text July 12, 2012 response..  Welcome to it… it’s a bunch of bureaucratic blah… blah… blah…

     

    Merrill, Hannah

    From: Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) [jste461@ECY.WA.GOV]

    Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:06 PM

    To: ‘pearl hewett’; zSMP; Ehlers, Paula (ECY); Skowlund

    , Peter (ECY); White, Gordon (ECY)

    Cc: Karl Spees; Jay Petersen; harry bell; Katie Krueger

    ; robert crittendend; Lois Perry; Sue Forde

    Subject: RE: JEFEREE STEWARD legal WRITTEN request for DOE WRITTEN answers

    Dear Ms. Hewett:

    Thanks for your reminder about several questions raised via email which are in the message below. As I indicated during Tuesday’s (7/10/12) Advisory Group meeting, in an effort to understand concerns you and others have expressed, Ecology representatives drove to Port Angeles in June, meeting with you and several Clallam County concerned citizens

    whom you had invited. That meeting was meant to address some of your concerns directly, and I thought we had a pretty good and frank exchange. Evidently, based on statements made since, you found our meeting somewhat less satisfactory.

    You have raised a number of pointed questions and asked for written responses. You have asked for “scientific papers” on a variety of subjects. You say my agency (and me specifically) has been “ignoring” your request. That is not my intent. Please understand, my job is to help Clallam County as well as several other jurisdictions to make progress in meeting legislatively required comprehensive updates to their Shoreline Master Programs. This various and complex work has to be done within limited timelines and budgets.

    I do appreciate the passionate engagement you demonstrate by active participation in the Advisory Committee. Ecology has limited resources and lots of responsibilities- we have to make choices that keep our focus on the work we have to do.

    Please remember that Ecology’s SEA Program leadership team did make an extra effort, driving to and from Port Angeles, listening to you and your colleagues, and sharing perspectives directly, face to face. We found that exchange helpful. We hope you and your colleagues also gained some understanding about the state’s perspective. At least that was our intention-and we had hoped it would be better received than just writing back and forth on details best addressed in other venues.

    I understand that you believe ecological functions have “improved” in Clallam County since 1976.

    And it is clear you believe the Department of Ecology is required to prove otherwise, point by point as noted. I did forward your message to Paula Ehlers. She and I discussed the request,

    and we both agree that, from what we have seen, Clallam County and their consultants are doing very competent and conscientious work in addressing the necessary scientific underpinnings that a shoreline program has to based on. We also recognize the County has been actively listening to and recording the concerns of all interested citizens and organizations, yours among them, and working those concerns in as the SMP update proceeds. We see our proper role as helping and encouraging the County in doing that work. We will proceed in doing that work.

    Again, thanks for your focus and engagement with Clallam County shoreline master program concerns.

    I hope we can continue to communicate as the work proceeds, showing mutual respect, and allowing for differences in perspective about what needs to be done.

    Sincerely,

    Jeffree Stewart

    Shoreline Specialist

    Washington Department of Ecology

    360-407-6521

    ————————————————————————————–

    YES. INDEED I DO BELIEVE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS HAVE “IMPROVED” IN CLALLAM COUNTY SINCE 1976.

    BASED ON ECOLOGY’S 2010 DOCUMENTED CHARACTERIZATION AND INVENTORY  REPORT

    WITH FURTHER  DOCUMENTATION FROM FEB 24, 2015  FROM DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR (DOI), THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE  MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX (NWRC)

    IN 2010 Did Clallam County  really need a full blown $600,000.00 SMP Update?

    I THINK NOT.

    —————————————————————–

    HAVE MY TEN SCIENCE BASED QUESTION, FROM JULY 12, 2012,  TO ECOLOGY BEEN ANSWERED

     ABSOLUTELY NOT

    DOE REPRESENTATIVES HAVE IGNORED WRITTEN QUESTIONS, FROM JULY 12, 2012  TO NOV 7, 017 ON WRIA 17-19 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS REPORT, AND THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE, ASKED AND REQUESTED ON THE SMP PUBLIC  COMMENT SECTION ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE WEBSITE.

    The bottom line

    WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NOV 7, 2017

    THE 2010 SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION IN CLALLAM COUNTY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ENTIRE SMP UPDATE PROCESS.

    UNLESS  ECOLOGY can prove with site specific scientific papers that the Clallam County SMP 1976-2017 has caused any loss of ecological function, the previous setbacks and buffer zones should remain in place or be reduced, on the 2017 SMP Update Draft by Clallam County BOCC


  • SMP Update Eight Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – EIGHT YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County 2017 SMP Update Public Comment Nov 2, 2017  Pearl Rains Hewett, previous member of the 2011 so called Clallam County Advisory Committee, still a Concerned Citizen of Clallam County WA

    And  to think Clallam County has been working on the SMP Update for eight years 2009-2017.

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology has still not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov  2, 2017 it is listed as Underway.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

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

    Nov 2, 2017,  Update on Bellevue WA SMP Update four years later

    State Review and Approval

    And,  to think the city of Bellevue  has been working on their SMP Update for NINE years. And, Ecology still has not approved Bellevue SMP Update, on Nov 1, 2017, it is listed as Underway.

    Bellevue

    Northwest

    Complete

    Underway

    Contact:
    Joe Burcar
    425-649-7145

     

    Who is Bellevue’s Joe Burcar? I’ll call him later today.

    WHAT IS CLALLAM COUNTY’S STATUS  ON THE DOE SMP UPDATE ON NOV 2, 2017?

    Click on the link below to find out.

    Status of Local Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) | Washington State …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › … › Shoreline Management home › SMP home

    Most local programs have not been fully updated in over 30 years. Local governments … All counties must update their Shoreline Master Programs. Some towns …

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW SMP THINGS WORK…  OR NOT

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE (ELECTED) COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    BELLEVUE COUNCILMEMBER KEVIN WALLACE EXPRESSED HIS IRRITATION that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said.

    “SO, I JUST WANT TO LODGE MY PERSONAL FRUSTRATION. I’M JUST STUNNED THAT EVERY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DO THIS AND IN 2014 THE STATE OF THE LAW ON THIS IS SO UNCLEAR. … WHAT WE’RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT IS SOMEONE’S OPINION,” HE SAID.

    ———————————————————————————

    BELLEVUE THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER NINE YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    NOV 1, 2017, BELLEVUE’S SMP UPDATED IT IS LISTED AS UNDERWAY. PENDING DOE APPROVAL.

    —————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/08/19/smp-update-six-years-of-frustration

    SMP UPDATE SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment August 18, 2014 Pearl Rains Hewett Member of the Clallam County SMP …

    Posted on August 19, 2014 9:39 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

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

    FROM MAR 12, 2008 TO AUG. 2014 – SIX YEARS

    This is a applicable, cautionary, documented historical  summary and it is,  my PUBLIC Clallam County SMP COMMENT on the pitfalls and frustration that ONE WA State  city council  and PLANNING COMMISSION has been experiencing for OVER 6 YEARS in attempting to update their DOE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

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

    Jul 16, 2014 BELLEVUE Shoreline plan set for August 2014  public hearing

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history (Mar 12, 2008)

    ———————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    WHO IS ATTORNEY RICHARD SETTLE ? (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC  HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

    During the July 14, 2014  Study Session, staff presented additional information requested by the Council during the course of its in-depth review. This additional information was Council to identify variations to the  Planning Commission Recommendation that they wished to be considered during the second Public Hearing, and prior to development of the Final SMP Update package for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Variations requested by the Council for consideration by the public are described below.

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would require public access (either physical or visual) to be provided as a component of new or expanded private recreation uses (such as yacht clubs, marinas and community clubs). This variation would build on the Planning Commission recommended requirement to provide public access to public uses (including parks, and transportation and utility infrastructure). A description of the Public Access variation under consideration by the City Council is included in

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would permit all beach parks to be developed through an administrative permit approval process when a Master Plan had been previously adopted by the City Council.

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

    permitted in the same manner as other parks with Master Plans. A

    description of the Park Development variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in

    Attachment B.

    3.Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission recommendation would allow for the measurement of setbacks from a fixed elevation as a default, with the ability for applicants to obtain a site-specific determination if desired.

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback recommendation would include a 50-foot  structure setback with the flexibility to reduce the setback and move toward the water through a series of menu options(or incentives). Existing structures on the site receive the benefit of a footprint exception to legally retain setbacks established by existing residential structures. A string test, allowing for setbacks to be reduced based on the location of structures on abutting properties, would also be included. Mitigation for potential loss of vegetation and vegetation retention would also be required. A description of the Setback and Vegetation Conservation variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in Attachment D.

    5.Residential Moorage.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission residential moorage recommendation would increase the allowed moorage walkway width from four feet to five feet in the first 30 feet waterward of OHWM. Variations to the balance of the Planning Commission recommendation on this topic were not considered.

     City Council

    The City Council has held study sessions to consider the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program. Refer to the links below for council agenda materials and minutes on the topic.

    Planning Commission

    Residents and other stakeholders had multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the shoreline management update through Bellevue’s Planning Commission, residents who served as an advisory panel for the City Council.  The Planning Commission reviewed work products, provided input and guidance related to the development of goals, policies and regulations, and served as a preliminary approval board. Agendas for Planning Commission meetings in which the shoreline management update was addressed are available below.

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

    Responses to questions & requests collected between May & December of 2009

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act. by 2010.

    As a consequence, Bellevue has to update its shoreline regulations by 2010.

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since March 12, 2008

    Aug 23, 2008  Boat tour to focus on shoreline issues The boat will sail promptly from Newport Shores Yacht Club (81 Skagit Key) at 1 p.m. on

    Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008,  with boarding beginning at 12:30. Members of the Bellevue City Council, city boards and commissions and staff from permitting agencies and local Indian tribes are also expected to attend.

    The three-hour tour is open to the public, but space is limited. (To inquire about the tour or to RSVP, please call 425-452-4392 or e-mail sltaylor@bellevuewa.gov.)

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

    Jul 20, 2013  The Bellevue City Council agreed on a two-prong strategy for updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and, ultimately, forwarding the plan to the state Department of Ecology for final review and approval.

    The shoreline plan is required by state law and provides a regulatory framework for managing shorelines in Washington. Local plans must be consistent with Ecology guidelines.

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

    In May, the commission recommended that the council consider several components of the plan update that had been completed and posted online for review.

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    On Monday, the council directed city staff to work with Ecology on the content of the commission’s recommendations and possibly narrow the range of issues that need to be resolved. COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN WORK TO FINALIZE THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE SHORELINE PLAN UPDATE PRIOR TO FORMALLY SUBMITTING IT TO ECOLOGY. The council plans to review and discuss the plan update during a study session later this year.

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

    WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 BELLEVUE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAD MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS BY THE END OF MONDAY’S THIRD ROUND OF INFORMATIONAL SESSIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF CREATING A SHORELINE MASTER PLAN THE CITY HOPES WILL PASS STATE MUSTER.

    The City Council was updated Monday on the cumulative impact analysis and HOW BELLEVUE’S PLAN WILL ATTEMPT TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT THAT NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS occur during future development and redevelopment along the city’s jurisdictional shorelines. THIS CAME AHEAD OF A MAY 5 PUBLIC HEARING for the city’s shoreline master plan, which will eventually go to the Washington Department of Ecology for final approval.

    Sarah Sandstrom, fisheries biologist for the Watershed Company, told council members “NO NET LOSS” goes further than just ecological functions of a shoreline, and includes also preserving shoreline views for residents and assessing the amount of reasonable development that could occur in the next 20 years along Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.

    With a majority of Bellevue’s shorelines already developed, Sandstrom said residential redevelopment will likely be the most common occurrence and some new single-family development.

    The plan involves taking a qualitative look at the issue of NET LOSS, she said, as it’s hard to quantify restoration when a dock, for example, requires a certain amount of native vegetation to offset its impact as part of an “ECOLOGICAL TRADEOFF.”

    “Shoreline residential development falls under an exemption,” said Sandstrom of the no net loss requirement. “So, individual demonstration of no net loss is not required for shoreline residential development or for most permits that are issued as shoreline substantial development permits.”

    That does not mean the city will not need to ensure there is no net loss of ecological function, she told council, but that it will not need to be proven independently by the permit applicant. The project would be checked against current regulations that should result in no net loss.

    Bulkheads — vertical concrete barriers along shorelines — will not be allowed to be replaced under the shoreline plan, which instead favors a rocky slope. Bulkheads, said Sandstrom, negatively affects wave reflection. Bulkheads would need to be determined the only feasible option to be used.

    Sandstrom said another concern is that the plan proposes residential setbacks of 25 feet, which is less than the existing median setback of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.

    “The potential for houses moving closer to the shoreline has potential impacts in terms of water quality, moving pollutant generating surfaces closer to the shoreline,” she said.

    Should redevelopment of properties occur using a 25-foot setback, Sandstrom said there is also the potential of obstructing the views from other properties than are 50 feet from the shoreline.

    One option proposed to prevent this is a common line or streamline setback, which would require a new or redeveloped property to use the average setback of the two properties adjacent to it.

    Whether all of the effort being put into the plan will satisfy how the DOE defines “NO NET LOSS” may only be known once the shoreline master plan is submitted. According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    “It’s definitely not pre-European discovery,” he said.

    Councilmember Kevin Wallace expressed his irritation that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said. “So, I just want to lodge my personal frustration. I’m just stunned that every jurisdiction in the state has to go through this and do this and in 2014 the state of the law on this is so unclear. … What we’re basically looking at is someone’s opinion,” he said.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

    Jul 16, 2014 at 3:10PM Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci made it clear to City Council on Monday they had precious little time left to approve options for a draft shoreline management plan AHEAD OF AN AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING.

    COUNCIL MEMBERS PASSED IT BACK TO STAFF, CONFIDENT PUBLIC OPINION WILL CHANGE IT AGAIN.

    Public access

    The council passed forward direction to have the SMP expand public access to commercial shoreline properties that expand more than 20 percent, such as marinas and yacht clubs.

    LAND USE DIRECTOR CAROL HELLAND TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS — CAUTIOUS OF VIOLATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS — access can be limited if security risks are present, and may also only apply to visual access in some cases.

    Siding with yacht clubs and marinas, Councilmember Jennifer Robertson pointed out they do offer public access — as long as people pay for it.

    Park development options

    Council members have heard public comment asking them to side with the city’s planning commission’s recommendation that Meydenbauer Beach Park — slated to be Bellevue’s most expensive park redeveloped at more than $40 million — REQUIRE a conditional use permit ahead of construction. The Meydenbauer Bay Neighborhood Association argues it would require a public hearing and allow residents to be more involved in its development.

    The City Council decided since a master plan exists for Meydenbauer Bay Park, future construction would be dealt with through administrative permitting and does not require a CUP.

    High water mark

    Robertson told council members they were making the wrong decision when they voted to set the high-water mark at a static elevation using the Bellevue Lake Study, which sets it at 31.8 feet, but allows for individualized assessment.

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations.

    Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, BUT THE PLAN MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED.

    “It is the latest study that has been done, and it is consistent, at least with what Sammamish set,” Chelminiak said.”I’m ready to vote,”

    ROBERTSON SAID. “I’M GOING TO BE AN EMPHATIC ‘NO’ “

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

    Council members passed through an option to allow flexible setbacks of 50 feet, which property owners can buy down to 25 feet if they follow a string test and provide adequate vegetation conservation using set menu options.

    Balducci said the planning commission recommendation for 50-foot setbacks with greenscape options would result in net loss of native vegetation, and that replacing it with lawns is not what SMP regulations should encourage.

    Robertson said the commission’s option should be considered, but require greenscape only be allowed for two-thirds of the area required for vegetative conservation. She said string tests and menu options requiring unsightly native vegetation goes too far.

    Council members agreed to move forward with the 50-foot setbacks, string test and menu options, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MODIFY THOSE OPTIONS to lessen vegetation requirements and allow greenscape where appropriate.

    “I would agree, this goes overboard,” Chelminiak said.

    A draft of the SMP will be developed by city staff ahead of an Aug. 4 public hearing, after which the council WILL DIRECT STAFF AGAIN on Sept. 8, 2014 on what regulations should be submitted to the DOE for review.

    BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer

     Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

     Mar 13, 2014  WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    and review of the cumulative impact analysis and light rail component on April 28 2014 .

    —————————————————————————————

    April 30, 2014 Updating the SMP plan — mainly unchanged since 1974 — also has been an

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2010

    April 30, 2014 Monday’s City Council study session laid out the progress of the planning commission,

     including fixes to a number of COMPLIANCY ISSUES within the SMP’s May 2013 draft FOLLOWING AN UNSOLICITED REVIEW BY the (DOE) Washington Department of Ecology, which has final say on approving the program.

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Related Stories

     

    This entry was posted in A Man-made Disaster, Bang for their buck? Restoration, Clallam County SMP, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Demand Accountability, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, FACTS are troublesome things, Follow the Money, For The Record, If It’s not broken? Why PAY to fix it?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Man-Made Disasters, Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA), POLITICAL MANIPULATION, Politically Ignored, Politically Motivated, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, Public Comments, Public Meetings, Public Servants, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Ignorant Disruptive Public?, The Ignorant Uninformed Act?, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology

     


  • Update: Interest in the Elwha Project Lands

    OCT 27, 2017  Future interest by the WA State in Elwha Project Lands?

    AUG 10, 2012 PAST INTEREST IN ELWHA PROJECT LANDS

     1992 THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS

    THE FEDERAL LAW  IS…. THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    AFTER THE BIG DAM REMOVAL.. THE FEDS ELECTED, BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES RAN INTO A LEGAL CONUNDRUM.

    AUG 10, 2012 THE AGENCY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WAS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE CONUNDRUM WAS SPECIFICALLY, WHO WERE THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS IN CLALLAM COUNTRY WA  LEGALLY, SET ASIDE FOR BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT?

    WHY SHOULD  OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES BE BOTHERED WITH  LEGISLATIVE ACTION BY RULE OF LAW?

    WHEN THE LEGAL ISSUES ON THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS COULD BE RESOLVED BY BUREAUCRATIC RULE BY RED TAPE?

    THERE WERE SEVERAL UNDISCLOSED LEGAL ISSUES WHEN THE ELECTED FEDS, NPS BUREAUCRATS AND THE TRIBES, WANTED TO JUST RUN IN AND GRAB THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS PUBLIC LAND……

     ——————————————————————————–

     SO, THE SOLUTION  TO THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM ON AUG 10, 2012 WAS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (BUREAUCRATS) INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC (DUE) PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ——————————————————————————–

    OCT 27, 2017  SO?  WDFW (BUREAUCRATS) released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission  (BUREAUCRATS) SO WE ARE WAITING FOR WA STATE TO CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    ———————————————————–

    THE WAITING GAME INDEED,  WAITING FOR THE  LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS

    THE ELWHA RIVER ACT 1992, 2011 SMP, 2012 NPS, 2013 DOE SMP,  2017 WDFW AND THE FISH COMMISSON.

    NO WORRIES…. The Waiting Game is a common practice of government and bureaucrats, just wait until citizens give up or forget….

    INDEED, THE  LONG WAITING  FOR THE BUREAUCRATS TO RULE OCT 27, 2017  .

    ———————————————————————-

    AUG 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND,

    BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT,

    NOTED  BY TODD SUESS, AUGUST 10, 2012 ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

    —————————————————————————

    We citizens should be used to it “The Waiting Game”  is common practice for the tired, overwhelmed Citizens of Clallam County  

    WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS

    TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE CLALLAM COUNTY WA PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ————————————————————————

    BUT NOT ON MY WATCH  SEPT 30, 2013

    Behind My Back | The NPS Waiting Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/09/30/the-nps-waiting-game/

    A common practice of government waiting…… waiting until NPS willful neglect allows, nature to ravage the roads, the trail, the access, NPS WAITING FOR the .. the snow to collapse the resorts, lodges, cabins, NPS just WAITING… until  those with living memory of a place die off, just WAITING… wait until the people cool off or wait until people forget, out of sight out of mind….

    My SMP Update comment on WA State DOE SMP Priority of public access to public land
    and as referenced in the WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Elwha River public lands (between US 101 and SR 112)
    Clallam County Public Land
    NORM’S RESORT NPS Public Land
    ———————————————————————————

    NORM’S RESORT  who’s Norm? what’s he got to do with it?

    The Norm’s privately owned resort, in 1979, provided “we the people” free public access with a long dirt trail for free walking beside the ELWHA RIVER and the use of the ELWHA RIVER FOR A FREE FISHING SPOTS AND IT DIDN’T STOP THERE, IT PROVIDED A STORE, CABINS, RENTAL BOATS.

    What happened to NORM’S RESORT free facilities?

    NORM’S RESORT was demolished by the federal government.

    NORM’S RESORT PRIVATE ELWHA RIVER property is now OUR PUBLIC LAND controlled by the NPS AND there is EVEN more Clallam County PUBLIC LAND on the Elwha River between US 101 and SR 112 that IS UP FOR GRABS.

    There is a county road for the main purpose of access to this area and a WDFW boat launch high and dry….

    2013- IT HAS EVEN BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE CLALLAM COUNTY’S PUBLIC LAND BE GIVEN TO THE TRIBES?

    As a Community we should insist that the public Elwha River property (between US 101 and SR 112 public land) –

    BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORTY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLIC USE.

    ——————————————————————————-

    In accordance with the DOE and the requirements for PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND as stated in THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APRIL 4, 2017 (I did this)

    ·  Behind My Back | The Elwha River Limbo Land

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/04/04/6477

    Posted on April 4, 2017 6:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    The Elwha River Limbo Land SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter WHAT …

    ————————————————————————-

    MY Category Archives  A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    ·  Behind My Back | A CITIZEN EXPRESSING INTEREST

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-citizen-expressing-interest The Elwha River Limbo Land. SOME 1,100 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE? ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AUGUST 10, 2012 By Lynda V. Mapes Seattle Times staff reporter

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”?

     THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

    THEY WERE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR USE, AS, BY ELIGIBLE PARTY’S?

    THAT IS THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE SET ASIDE, “ACCORDING” TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ELWHA ACT, PASSED BY CONGRESS IN 1992.

    WERE THEY FACTUALLY?  SPECIFICALLY? SET ASIDE BY CONGRESS IN THE 1992 ELWHA ACT??

    WHY IS CLALLAM COUNTY WA NOT LISTED AS AN ELIGIBLE PARTY FOR A CLALLAM COUNTY RECREATIONAL AREA?

    WHEN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF THE DAM SOUTHWEST OF PORT ANGELES IN 1992, THE SO-CALLED PROJECT LANDS WERE TO BE SET ASIDE EITHER FOR USE AS

    1. A STATE PARK,
    2. A NATIONAL PARK OR
    3. A NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, OR
    4. BE TRANSFERRED TO THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE.

    SO FAR, THE TRIBE IS THE ONLY ELIGIBLE PARTY THAT HAS A PLAN AND A DESIRE FOR THE LAND.

    AUGUST 10, 2012 THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTENDS TO LAUNCH A PUBLIC PROCESS TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF THE LAND, BUT AT THE MOMENT HAS NO FUNDING TO PAY FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTED TODD SUESS, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT FOR OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    THE AGENCY IS AWARE THE TRIBE WANTS THE LAND, BUT CAN’T JUST TURN IT OVER. “WE NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC PROCESS,” SUESS SAID.

     ———————————————————————–

    WHAT WILL BECOME OF “THE SO CALLED PROJECT LANDS”? THAT USED TO BE UNDER THE ELWHA DAM AND LAKE ALDWELL?

     WELL, I GUESS WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS….

    TO  THE WA STATE  ELWHA RIVER PROJECT LANDS DURING THIS  PUBLIC PROCESS BY BUREAUCRATS  TO DECIDE THE LONG-TERM DISPOSITION OF OUR CLALLAM COUNTY PUBLIC LAND BY WA STATE BUREAUCRATS

    ——————————————————-

    The bottom line

    Oct 29, 2017 WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    CROSS MY FINGERS?

    NOPE,  THE USUAL…

    ————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: xxx

    To: Pearl Hewett

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:14 PM

    Subject: Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands

    Future interest by the State in Elwha Project Lands, WDFW released its findings (so far) to the Fish Commission.  Listen in at:

    https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017101082

    watch – TVW, Washington States' Public Affairs Network

    www.tvw.org

     

    and making it easy for you, time stamp starts at 1:50:17 and goes through to 1:52:12.  Less than two minutes of one’s life and one shale know as much as I do.

    Without getting hopes up, opinion is there’s a bit of hope WDFW is seriously going to address this, at least make recommendations for the State to consider.


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

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

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    ———————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

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

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

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

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

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

     —————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

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

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

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

    050511 – PHewett – G

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

    —————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

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

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

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

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

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

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

     

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

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

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

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

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

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

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

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

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

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

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

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

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

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

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

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

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

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

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

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

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

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

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

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

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

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

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

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

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

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

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

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

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

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

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

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

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

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

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

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

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

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

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

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

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

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

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

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

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

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

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

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

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

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

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

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

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

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

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

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

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

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

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

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

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

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

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

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

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

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

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

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

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

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

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

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

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

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

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

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

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

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

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

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

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

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

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

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

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

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

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

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

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

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

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

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

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

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

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

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

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

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

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

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

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

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

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

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

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

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

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

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

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

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

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

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

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

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

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

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

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

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

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

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

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

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

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

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

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

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

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

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

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

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

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

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

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

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

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

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

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

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

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

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

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

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

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

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

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

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

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

    052711 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

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

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

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

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

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

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

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

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

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

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

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

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

    comments PUBLIC?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

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

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

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

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

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

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

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

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

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

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

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

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

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

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

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

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

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

    ·         031111- JWare – G

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

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

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

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

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

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

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

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

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

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

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

    2010:

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

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

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

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

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

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

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

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

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

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

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

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

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

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

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

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

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

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

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

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

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

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

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

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

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

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


  • WA State Ecology is Back to WAC Us

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, PUBLIC RECORDS

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

    Why it matters?

    SIMPLY PUT…..

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

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

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

     How much will PUBLIC RECORDS cost us?

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————

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

    This posting is over 3000 words.

    —————————————————————————–

    Complete unedited text

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records

    For more information:

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

    ——————————————————————

    Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records

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

    Overview

    Introduction

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

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

    Why it matters

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

    Scope of rule development

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

    Process of development

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

    —————————————————————————

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

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

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-03 WAC

    PUBLIC RECORDS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    173-03-040

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

    173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    173-03-070

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

    173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    173-03-090

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

    173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003?

    WAC 173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

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

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

    —————————————————————————

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    (1) Headquarters office.

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

    Department of Ecology

    P.O. Box 47600

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

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

    Nuclear Waste Management

    1315 W. 4th Ave.

    Kennewick, WA 99336

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

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

    Chief financial officer for financial services.

    Administrative services manager for administrative services.

    Director for intergovernmental relations.

    Director for employee services.

    Director for communications and education.

    Assistant administrator for spills prevention, preparedness and response.

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

    (a) Air quality;

    (b) Water resources;

    (c) Water quality;

    (d) Toxics cleanup;

    (e) Nuclear waste;

    (f) Solid waste and financial assistance;

    (g) Hazardous waste and toxics reductions;

    (h) Environmental investigations and laboratory services; and

    (i) Shorelands and environmental assistance.

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

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

    3190 – 160th Avenue S.E.

    Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

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

    300 Desmond Drive

    Lacey, WA 98503

    Mailing address:

    P.O. Box 47775

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7775

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

    15 West Yakima, Suite 200

    Yakima, WA 98902-3401

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

    1. 4601 Monroe, Suite 100

    Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

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

    ———————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-040

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

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

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

    Date of Request . . . .

    Time of Request . . . .

    Name . . . .

    Address . . . .

    . . . .

    Description of Records:

    . . . .

    . . . .

    . . . .

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

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

    . . . .

    Signature

    Number of pages to be copied

    . . . .

    Number of copies per page

    . . . .

    Charge per copy

    $

    . . . .

    Special copy work charge

    $

    . . . .

    Staff time charge

    $

    . . . .

    Total charge

    $

    . . . .

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

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

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

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

    (c) A description of the public records requested;

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

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

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

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

    (a) Providing the record;

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

    (c) Denying the public record request.

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-070

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

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

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-090

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

    The bottom line…..

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

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


  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

     

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

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

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

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

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

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

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

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

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

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

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

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

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

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

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

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

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

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

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

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

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

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

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

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

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

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

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

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

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

    REQUEST A COPY

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

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

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

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

    Keywords

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

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • Renaming and Rebranding the ONP Wilderness

    Renaming and Re-branding the ONP Wilderness

    Sponsored In 2016, by the Wild, Wilderness, WA DC Democrats,.  Senator Maria Cantwell, (D) Mountlake Terrace, and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, (D) Seattle, introduced S. 3028, while H.R. 5397 was sponsored by members of the Washington delegation in the House, including Derek Kilmer (D) Born: Port Angeles, WA (DWA 6th District)

     SO, After President Trump was Elected President Nov 8, 2016, And before President Trump was sworn into office on Jan 20, 2017.

    The bill was signed into law Dec. 14, 2016, by President Barack Obama.

    AUG 18TH, 2017 Ceremony marks change of name  of to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    ————————————————————–

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Trump’s DOI and EPA Pick?

    WELL, IF WA STATE  SENATOR PATTY MURRAY (D) WANTED ALL OF THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IN WA STATE, WHAT WOULD SHE DO?

    SENATOR MURRAY MADE HER CHOICE, OVER SIX (6) YEARS AGO…. WILD OLYMPICS  WAS FIRST INTRODUCED IN 2010, IN 2012, CONGRESS NORM DICKS AND SENATOR PATTY MURRAY(D) INTRODUCED IDENTICAL BILLS IN … WILD OLYMPICS WILDERNESS AND WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 2012

    APR 11, 2013 – WA STATE  SENATOR PATTY MURRAY’S (D) PROPOSAL IS CALLED WILD OLYMPICS.

    REINTRODUCING 2013-2014 and REINTRODUCING 2015-2016

    Stop Wild Olympics Update 2016
    if you have already read to the bottom, here is page 2  

    The Wild Olympics Scam
    From The Beginning: 

     

    bldg

    WA STATE SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL was busy having roads decommissioned while MURRAY (D) AND KILMER (D)  waited in the wings with their phones and their pens.

    In the meantime Kilmer(D) took on Dicks (D) roll, with Murray(D) to re-introduce the unwanted, unnecessary and wasteful Wild Olympics Wild & Scenic Act TWICE!

    —————————————————————————————–

    The Long Range Plan ONP 1944-2017?

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/ceremony-marks-change-of-name-to-daniel-j-evans-…

    1 day ago – OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS, WHICH COVERS 95 PERCENT OF THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, HAS BEEN RENAMED AND RE-BRANDED.

    RE-BRANDING IS A MARKETING STRATEGY IN WHICH A NEW NAME, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.

    ——————————————————————

    ONP SPOKESWOMAN PENNY WAGNER SAID, “IT’S NOT CHANGING THE WILDERNESS,” WAGNER ADDED. “IT’S NOT ADDING OR SUBTRACTING LAND. IT’S JUST A “RENAMING” OF THE EXISTING WILDERNESS.”

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 Ceremony marks change of name  of to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Invited speakers are,  the usual liberal suspects, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell D, U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer D, former U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks D, AND A NEW (January 9, 2017) REPUBLICAN STATE SEN. HANS ZEIGER?  Olympic National Park ACTING Superintendent Lee Taylor.

    THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS, WHICH COVERS 95 PERCENT OF THE PARK, HAS BEEN RENAMED to honor Evans for his contributions to wilderness preservation, park spokeswoman Penny Wagner said.

    FRI AUG 18TH, 2017 “IT’S NOT CHANGING THE WILDERNESS,” WAGNER ADDED. “IT’S NOT ADDING OR SUBTRACTING LAND. IT’S JUST A RENAMING OF THE EXISTING WILDERNESS.”

    ——————————————————————–

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    ——————————————————————————

    1938 THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK WAS OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED BY US PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT

    ————————————————————-

    1944 six years later In a conversation at Sol Duc Hot Springs between the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    1964 PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON SIGNED THE WILDERNESS ACT INTO LAW

    1981 OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK WAS DESIGNATED BY UNESCO AS NATURAL UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK IN 1981 ALSO RECOGNIZED BY UNESCO AS AN INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE.

    1988 SEVEN YEARS LATER IN NOVEMBER 1988. AFTER BECOMING A UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE SITE, AFTER BECOMING AN  INTERNATIONAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN 1981?

    1988, EVANS INTRODUCED THE WASHINGTON PARK WILDERNESS ACT

    1988  THE BILL PROPOSED MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION ACRES OF WILDERNESS WITHIN OLYMPIC, MOUNT RAINIER AND NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARKS. IT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.

    1988,  THE ACT DESIGNATED 877,000 ACRES IN OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK AS THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS.

    ——————————————————————

    1992 George C Rains Sr., my Dad had an 48 year inholder  history (1944-1992) with the Olympic National Park and he wrote a notarized 28 page warning on the National Park Service, Oct 8, 1992.

    Snippets: Most people have no knowledge of these vast encroachments to take our property and property rights on the Olympic Peninsula, and it is time that the truth be known.

    Land and Power Grab Are the removal of the Lake Mills Dam and Aldwell Lake Dam part of the National Park Service conspiracy to later demand a wide corridor down each side of the Elwha River to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and ultimately split Clallam County?

    George C. Rains Sr.

    ————————————————————————-

    U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt originally created Mount Olympus National Monument on 2 March 1909. It was designated a national park by President Franklin Roosevelt on June 29, 1938. In 1976, Olympic National Park was designated by UNESCO as an International Biosphere Reserve, and in 1981 as a World Heritage Site.

    ———————————————————————————–   

    AND AUG 18, 2017,  THE OLYMPIC WILDERNESS HAS BEEN RENAMED AND RE-BRANDED BY WA STATE DEMOCRATS, IN A CEREMONY  ON  HURRICANE RIDGE AS THE  DANIEL J. EVANS WILDERNESS

    CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    ————————————————————————

    OCT. 8, 1992- 2013-2017

    Behind My Back | “Conspiracy Exposed”

    www.behindmyback.org/conspiracy-exposed/

    CONSPIRACY EXPOSED” The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on OCT. 8, 1992 by George C. Rains Sr. when he was 77 years old.

    The proof of this conspiracy has and is being proven in the step by step acquisition of private and DNR land by the National Park Service, as this is being written and during the last 21 years from 1992 to 2013.

    The nine page summary includes some of the 48 year history of Clallam County from 1944 to 1992 and is his proof of the conspiracy.

    It’s a good read from a historical standpoint and a cautionary statement to the citizens of Clallam County. Could this happen to Clallam Country by imminent domain, isolation, regulation, restriction and/or economic starvation?

    ———————————————————————–

    JAN 27, 2014

    Behind My Back | Part 1 (WOW) a War on Wild?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/01/27/part-1-wow-a-war-on-wild/

    JAN 27, 2014 – Why would anyone use the word “War” against the federal governments “Wild” Agendas that historically, have had the FEDERAL power, past, …

    Editorital: A War on Wild | Citizen Review Online

    citizenreviewonline.org/editorital-a-war-on-wild/

    JAN 31, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org … Now is the time for many of us to speak of a War On Wild and keep our … (WOW) A War on Wild and Scenic Rivers?

    ———————————————————————————

    JUL 31, 2016

    Behind My Back | The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/07/31/the-long-range-plan-of-nps-1944-2016/

    JUL 31, 2016 – www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/let–me–ask-america-a-question/ … The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on Oct. 8 …

    ————————————————————————————–

    RE-BRANDING  AND CHANGING THE NAME DOES NOT CHANGE THE GAME. period

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/ceremony-marks-change-of-name-to-daniel-j-evans-…

    1 day ago – OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Ceremony marks change of name to Daniel J. Evans Wilderness

    OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK — Dignitaries will gather at Hurricane Ridge today to celebrate the dedication of the Daniel J. Evans Wilderness.

    Daniel Evans is a former U.S. senator and Washington governor whose efforts played a key role in the preservation of more than 1.7 million acres of wilderness in the state, Olympic National Park officials said.

    The Olympic Wilderness, which covers 95 percent of the park, has been renamed to honor Evans for his contributions to wilderness preservation, park spokeswoman Penny Wagner said.

    “It’s not changing the wilderness,” Wagner added. “It’s not adding or subtracting land. It’s just a renaming of the existing wilderness.”

    The public is invited to the dedication ceremony.

    The event will be from 10:45 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the west end of the Hurricane Ridge Visitor Center parking lot.

    Parking will be available on a first-come, first served basis.

    Invited speakers are Evans, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, former U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, state Sen. Hans Zeiger, Olympic National Park Acting Superintendent Lee Taylor and Sequim author Tim McNulty.

    In 2016, Cantwell, D-Mountlake Terrace, and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Seattle, introduced S. 3028, while H.R. 5397 was sponsored by members of the Washington delegation in the House, including Derek Kilmer.

    Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, represents the 6th Congressional District, which includes the North Olympic Peninsula.

    The bill was signed into law Dec. 14, 2016, by President Barack Obama.

    President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Wilderness Act into law in 1964 “to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness,” Olympic National Park officials said in a news release.

    The idea was to preserve a remnant of the country’s untamed, wild places as wilderness for the permanent good of the people.

    Wilderness areas help protect complex ecosystems, natural processes and habitat for threatened and endangered species, park officials said.

    In March 1988, Evans introduced the Washington Park Wilderness Act with former Sen. Brock Adams.

    The bill proposed more than 1.7 million acres of wilderness within Olympic, Mount Rainier and North Cascades national parks. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in November 1988.

    The act designated 877,000 acres in Olympic National Park as the Olympic Wilderness.

    Evans served three terms as Washington governor from 1965 to 1977. He was a senator from 1983 to 1989.

    Evans and his wife, Nancy Evans, live in Seattle’s Laurelhurst neighborhood.

    Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 56450, or at rollikainen@peninsula dailynews.com.


  • WA State NO Preparation for Nuclear Attack?

    RCW 38.52.010 Definitions.

     RCW 38.52.030, was passed into law in 1983

    However, “emergency management” or “comprehensive emergency management” DOES NOT MEAN PREPARATION FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION OR RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS IN ANTICIPATION OF NUCLEAR ATTACK.

    ————————————————————————–

    REPUBLICAN John Dennis Spellman was the GOVERNOR OF WA STATE between 1981 and 1985 and the first King County Executive from 1969 to 1981

    The author of the 1983 state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former  Democratic state lawmaker Dick Nelson, felt that if Seattle suffered a nuclear attack, the chances of survival would be so low that a preparation plan would have been moot anyway.

    ————————————————————————————-

    APR 27, 2017 FIRST PUBLIC MEDIA…..

    If N. Korea launches nukes, Washington’s not allowed to have – KGW-TV

    www.kgw.com/news/local/state-law-prevents-nuclear-attack…plan/434534117

    APR 27, 2017 – RCW 38.52.030, passed in 1983, says “The comprehensive, all-hazard … subsection may not include preparation for emergency evacuation or relocation … The author of the state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former …

    The author of the state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former Democratic state lawmaker Dick Nelson, says at the time, Washington state was inundated with nuclear threats, and the idea was to create an example of peace.

    “It was about finding a middle ground we could all agree on,” he said in April.

    Nelson also felt that if Seattle were to be attacked, the chances of survival would be so low that a preparation plan would have been moot anyway.

    But Nelson says the law does provide an “out” so cities can create their own plan. He says the law doesn’t necessarily prevent a plan from being put into place, but rather offers the option of not creating a plan.

    APR 27, 2017 REGARDLESS, THE STATE SAYS IT HAS NO EVACUATION PLAN.

    ——————————————————————————-

    MAY 23, 2017 State Representative Dick Muri

    My proposal, House Bill 2214, along with the Senate companion bill 5936, sponsored by Sens. David Frockt, D-Kenmore, and Mark Milocsia, R-Federal Way, will remove some of the language inserted into our emergency planning laws from 1984.

    THIS NECESSARY CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR THE PREPARATION OF EMERGENCY EVACUATION OR RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS IN ANTICIPATION OF A NUCLEAR ATTACK.

    As always, I welcome your comments, questions and concerns. Please feel free to reach out to me in my district office in Steilacoom (253) 301-2278 or by email at dick.muri@leg.wa.gov.

    —————————————————————————————–

    So, Aug 14, 2017 at 8:35AM,  I called Representative Dick Muri district office in Steilacoom (253) 301-2278 because he welcomes  my comments, questions and concerns.

    I spoke with a very nice young lady named  L J. And, she listened.
    —————————————————————————————

    As Representative Dick Muri pointed out….

    For many of us who lived through the “cold war” era, bomb shelters, air raid sirens, and nuclear drills in which school children were taught to “duck and cover,” were common occurrences.

    ———————————————————————

    I am 75 years old,  in the 1950-60’s we were school children living in fear of a  NUCLEAR ATTACK for many years.

    And, nobody bothered to talked to us about our childish fears. But of course we were tough little American kids, and we lived through it!

    Aug 14, 2017 As usual, I am a concerned American grandmother of 10 and the great grandmother of 9. And, I have concerns about the fear that the WA State revised nuclear attack emergency law will have on all of our “not nearly as tough” school children.

    As, Representative Dick Muri  pointed out…. We should be prepared for every eventuality.

    I watched the 1963 movie “Ladybug, Ladybug” once, about a month ago on AMC. The result is an engrossing film that is depressing because of its realism. It brought back old fearful memories of nuclear war and attacks (those things nobody talked about to school children) and It’s haunted me ever since.

    ———————————————————–

    ‘Ladybug, Ladybug’ Reviews Fly High For Perry’s Thriller — Corsair 11 …

    cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=CRS19631211.2.22

    WED. DEC 11, 1963 Based on a true Incident, “Ladybug” presents an unarguable— and … 1963, issue of McCall’s Magazine, the film probes the inner terror and the external actions of elementary school children and their teachers, who believe that a nuclear war has begun.

    “Ladybug, Ladybug,’ which will begin its world premiere engagement on Friday DEC 13, 1963  at the Fox Lido Theater, is just such a picture.—B.H.

    The Movie Lady Bug, Lady Bug is based on a true Incident, Adhering to the actual events that took place in 1962 in a small California community, and which were subsequently written of, in the April, 1963, issue of McCall’s Magazine.

    ——————————————————————–

    This is how it started…

    Ladybug Ladybug: Elementary School Atomic Drill – YouTube

    ▶ 10:16

    Jul 30, 2011 – Uploaded by CONELRAD6401240

    It’s haunted me ever since. I wonder why the full movie isn’t available online anymore? Thanks to …

    —————————————————————————————-

    California Digital Newspaper Collection > Corsair > 11 December 1963

    ‘Ladybug, Ladybug’ Reviews Fly High For Perry’s Thriller

    Successful film producer Frank Perry (“David and Lisa”) queried the 1,000 youngsters he auditioned for roles in his latest screen effort, the thought-provoking suspense film, “Ladybug, Ladybug”: “What do you think the world will be like in ten years?” Three-fourths of the perceptive children, conditioned by their parents’ reactions to the threat of nuclear war, as were their “Ladybug” counterparts, in essence replied: “What world?” This foreboding response,

    Perry feels, confirms his belief that “children comprehend more than adults give them credit for,” a point that he brings out in his film.

    Based on a true Incident, “Ladybug” presents an unarguable— and —disturbing—account of the penalty paid by modern society if It is “almost conditioned by fear.”

    Adhering to the actual events that took place in 1962 in a small California community, and which were subsequently written of in the April, 1963, issue of McCall’s Magazine,

    the film probes the inner terror and the external actions of elementary school children and their teachers, who believe that a nuclear war has begun.

    While, in reality, the mistake was soon corrected, Perry and his script-writer wife, Eleanor, wondered what would happen if their film sustained,

    for one teacher and a group of children, the dread of not knowing whether their “go home” drill was real. The result is an engrossing film that is depressing because of its realism.

    With the appearance of every freckled face and mouth only half full of teeth, as well as with each suspenseful development, the viewer reflects on the undeniable possibility of such a tragedy.

    Opening with a close-up of a hand holding a stop-watch, the picture later comes to its shattering climax with the force of the magnified snapping of an illusory mainspring.

    The effect leaves popcorn gobblers with their mouths open, and the theater uncomfortably hushed.

    While unknowns constituted half of the major cast, all the performances were more than adequately convincing. Exceptionally good in their roles were “teacher” Nancy Marchand (professional), and students Alice Playten (professional) and Christopher Howard (previously unknown). Producer, director, film-editor Perry, and his wife are making a name for themselves not only because of the speed and skill with which they make their films (“Ladybug” took 36 days to film, “David and Lisa,” 25), but also because they will only do films that they believe in.”

    “Ladybug, Ladybug,’ say the Perrys, which will begin its world premiere engagement on Friday at the Fox Lido Theater, is just such a picture.—B.H. Corsair, Volume 36, Number 10, 11 December 1963

    ——————————————————————————————

    Representative Dick Muri (cont.)

    Inundated with threats of possible nuclear retaliation by the (then) Soviet Union, many Washingtonians grew to believe the constant nuclear drills and disaster planning efforts created a culture of fear. Anti-nuke activists, centered mainly in the Seattle area, thought our only safety was in forcing the dismantling of all nuclear weapons. Because of this, they looked upon civil defense preparations as a waste of time and resources.

    I’m working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to see this is changed. The state of Washington is responsible for the protection of the lives and property of its citizens. In the case of any type of catastrophic disaster, our residents are entitled to the protections and services of the state. We should be prepared for every eventuality.

    ————————————-

    My request, Please consider our school children

    ————————————

    Because our time during the current special legislative session focuses on education funding issues, it is unlikely this legislation will move forward this year. I’ve introduced the bill in the House now to ensure the necessary work begins prior to the start of the 2018 legislative session.

    As always, I welcome your comments, questions and concerns. Please feel free to reach out to me in my district office in Steilacoom (253) 301-2278 or by email at dick.muri@leg.wa.gov.

    ——————————————————

     Representative Dick Muri

    OPINION-EDITORIAL: Removing the state prohibition on nuclear …

    dickmuri.houserepublicans.wa.gov/2017/…/prohibition-nuclear-attack-planning-muri/

    MAY 23, 2017 – Could Washington someday be the target of a nuclear attack? … RCW 38.52.010 specifically prohibits state emergency responders from …

    ———————————————————————————–

    OVER THREE MONTHS LATER, AUGUST 10, 2017 KING 5 LOCAL LIBERAL  TV FINALLY GOT AROUND TO MENTIONING IT!

    A little known law is preventing Washington state for preparing for a nuclear attack.

    If N. Korea launches nukes, Washington state doesn’t have evacuation …

    www.king5.com/news/local/washington-law-prevents-nuclear-attack…/434525985

    5 days ago – If N. Korea launches nukes, Washington state doesn’t have … Despite growing concerns about a nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea, emergency management … where we’re prohibited from planning for relocation or evacuation in … The author of the state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former …

    “Because of paranoia and scare that preparing for war would lead to war, legislators back in the early 80s set up this silly system (RCW 38.52.030, was passed into law in 1983) where we’re prohibited from planning for relocation or evacuation in the event of a nuclear war,” said Sen. Mark Miloscia (R-Federal Way), who co-sponsored the bill.

    Retired General Barry McCaffrey, who has been outspoken about the need to pay serious attention to North Korea, calls the law “goofy.”

    “Certainly it’s a goofy thing to not tell people to think about a major real threat,” he said in April. “What we’re trying to achieve is deterrence, which means ballistic missile defense.”

    Despite growing concerns about a nuclear strike on the U.S. by North Korea, emergency management officials in Washington state say they are prevented from forming an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear attack. An effort is underway to change that.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MAY 23, 2017 State Representative Dick Muri
    My proposal, House Bill 2214, along with the Senate companion bill 5936, sponsored by Sens. David Frockt, D-Kenmore, and Mark Milocsia, R-Federal Way, will remove some of the language inserted into our emergency planning laws from 1984.

     As always, I welcome your comments, questions and concerns. Please feel free to reach out to me in my district office in Steilacoom (253) 301-2278 or by email at dick.muri@leg.wa.gov.


  • 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