+menu-


  • Category Archives The Ignorant Disruptive Public?
  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

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

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

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

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

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

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

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

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

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

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

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

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

    I should/could  QUIT.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

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

     

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

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

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

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

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

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

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

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

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

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

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

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

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

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

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

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

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

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

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

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

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

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

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

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

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

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

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

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

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

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

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

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

    Notes:

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

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

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

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

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

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

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

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

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

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

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

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

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

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

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

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

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

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

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

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

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

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

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

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

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

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

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

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

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

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

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

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

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

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

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

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

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

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

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

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

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

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

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

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

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

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

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

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

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

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

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

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

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

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

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

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

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

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

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

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

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

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

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

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

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

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

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

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

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

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

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

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

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

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

    WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them.

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


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

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

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

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

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

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

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

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

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

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

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

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

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

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

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

    I should/could  QUIT.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Electronic Warfare Public Forums

    Large crowd protests Navy electronic warfare training plan at PA forum

    Many in the crowd grew upset when they learned THE FORUM was not being recorded and the questions would not be used as part of the comments on the proposal. Instead, officials said questions and comments have to be submitted in writing through the formal comment process.

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED, FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE….. What difference does it make?

    Electronic Warfare is FEDERAL.  Don’t waste your time sending comments through the formal comment process.

    SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO YOUR FEDERAL ELECTED CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES,

    (1) THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING US

    (2)  THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTING OUR BEST INTERESTS

     (3)  AND, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO US  FOR THE NAVY ELECTRONIC WARFARE PROJECT.

    I have three, Rep. Kilmer, Senators Murray and Cantwell.

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DO THEY  MAKE?

    ———————————————————————————-

    ARE LOCAL PUBLIC FORUMS? PUBLIC MEETING? EFFECTIVE?

    PUBLIC FORUM

     Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

     Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. WHEN PEOPLE ARE INTIMIDATED INTO SILENCE, they are effectively DENIED ACCESS TO A PUBLIC FORUM.

    —————————————————————————————

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

    ARE YOU ONE OF THE IGNORANT, DISRUPTIVE, PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS PUBLIC FORUMS OR PUBLIC MEETINGS?

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING? DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC ATTENDEES have to sit down and shut up… or they will KICK YOU OUT

    AT AN OPEN PUBLIC FORUM…YOU ARE GIVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH, PROTECTION YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BE  LOUD, AND EVEN THE IGNORANT DISRUPTIVE PUBLIC IS WELCOMED,  WOW FREE SPEAKING, EVEN SHOUTING THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS DOWN IS ALLOWED.

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S  “NEW”  (2006) LISTENING SESSIONS?

    An increasing trend in PUBLIC PARTICIPATION is for agencies, elected officials, and non-governmental organizations to hold listening sessions. While there is a wide degree of variation depending on the issue and the host, LISTENING SESSIONS generally are an opportunity for citizens to exchange ideas and provide recommendations on programs and policies. SIMILAR TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, many listening sessions begin with the agency or official giving a brief presentation on the issue and then allowing time for citizens to offer comments or recommendations.

     (after the 2014 election results?) HELLO CONGRESS…  CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?

    ————————————————————————————————

    WHAT ELSE IS   “NEW” WITH PUBLIC MEETINGS?  WITH PUBLIC OBSERVERS? WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS?

    OBSERVER by definition

     (1) A PERSON WHO FOLLOWS EVENTS, ESPECIALLY POLITICAL ONES, CLOSELY

     AND COMMENTS PUBLICLY ON THEM.

    (2) A  person who watches or notices something.

    (3) A fly on the wall

    (4) A fly on the wall who watches or notices something.

    WITH NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ALLOWED.

    ———————————————————————————–

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION

    “Once a government is committed to the principle of SILENCING THE VOICE OF OPPOSITION, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?  ENFORCED SILENCE

    If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE.”

    ————————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    WHAT THE DIFFERENCE? PUBLIC FORUM? PUBLIC MEETING?

    Meeting Face to Face: Public Meetings, Hearings, and Open …

    rlch.org/…/meeting-face-face-public-meetings-hearings-open-houses-and…

    Apr 8, 2010 – A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share … are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum. ….. of the differences between public hearings and public meetings, …

    In addition to providing notice and requesting written comments, part of the federal public participation process often involves public meetings, hearings, and/or open houses as another way for agencies to obtain public input on an issue. But there are other opportunities to meet face-to-face with decision-makers at all levels of government, from the U.S. Congress to your local planning commission. In this edition of the Problem-Solving Tools Series, we highlight some of the various opportunities to voice your comments and concerns, describe what you can expect, and provide links to other resources and “how-to guides” for more information.

    What are the Forums?  What Should I Expect?

    PUBLIC MEETINGS

    A public meeting is a gathering where people come together to share information, exchange ideas, introduce new services and ways of working, or to develop relationships and contacts.  The purpose of a public meeting is to discuss issues, not to make decisions.  By allowing for a two-way flow of information, meetings provide an opportunity for people to share their concerns, hear other points of view, and identify areas of conflict.  The term “public meeting” is used rather loosely to describe anything from community members gathering to informally discuss an issue to more formal events used to obtain comment on an agency decision or action.

    PUBLIC FORUM

    Public forum doctrine relies heavily on history and tradition. A location is deemed a “traditional public forum” or a “general public forum” and given the highest level of First Amendment protection when it has “immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public, and, time out of mind, [has] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”[8] Strict scrutiny applies to any content-based speech restriction in these locations.[9]

    Public meetings shouldn’t be marred by insults, unruly behavior 
    The U.S. Forest Service organizes open meetings to answer questions and to give everyone a chance to weigh in on the use of our public lands. When people are intimidated into silence, they are effectively denied access to a public forum.

    ———————————————————-

    Documented Research “behindmyback.org”

    WA. STATE PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    Posted on May 28, 2014 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Shut Us Up? and Kick Us Out?

    SOMEONE? AT MRC APPROVED AND ALLOWED this OFFENSIVE 14 PAGE power point presentation,  under  PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS?

    ———————————————————————-

    JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    The Public Meeting “Observer”

    Posted on May 29, 2014 9:14 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Public Meeting OBSERVER

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    “If you’re not allowed  to use your free speech to criticize your own government, at a PUBLIC MEETING, then what the hell is the point of having it?”

    WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

    THE “NEW” PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA FOR OBSERVER PUBLIC COMMENTS

    ————————————————————————-

    FEDERAL PUBLIC VS. OTHER MEETINGS

    Posted on July 6, 2014 9:40 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    The Fly on the Wall Observer?

    5 U.S. Code § 552b – Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)

    For purposes of this section—

    (3) (c), EVERY PORTION OF EVERY MEETING OF AN AGENCY SHALL BE OPEN TO PUBLIC OBSERVATION.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    OPEN TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE  Public Meeting?

    Where did Jefferson County WA come up with their PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER?

    AKA the  A FLY ON THE WALL?

    ——————————————————

    The bottom line

    ARE THE FEDS JUST ALLOWING US TO BLOW OFF STEAM AT A LOCAL PUBLIC FORUM?

    OR ARE THE FEDS JUST BLOWING US OFF?

     

     


  • More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    More on the WA Coast Electronic War Games

    Don’t kill the messenger, look at the picture, read the article and  the 106 unedited pro and con comments. There are more Questions then Answers.

    Navy wants to conduct war games on Wash. coast | Local …

    www.komonews.com/…/Navy-wants-to-conduct-war-games-…

    KOMO‑TV Sep 27, 2014 – Environmental Assessment for the Electronic Warfare Range. …. encourage everyone who cares about preservation of human life and health to …

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Navy-wants-to-conduct-war-games-on-coast-277325531.html

    By Associated Press Published: Sep 27, 2014 at 11:23 AM PDT Last Updated: Sep 27, 2014 at 1:54 PM PDT

    FORKS, Wash. (AP) – The U.S. Navy hopes to post three camper-sized trucks with electromagnetic-radiation equipment on the Olympic Peninsula to conduct war exercises with military aircraft from 15 sites.

    The Navy plans to post warning signs and barriers near the trucks when the machines are operating because getting exposed at close range to the radiation could be dangerous, according to The Peninsula Daily News. The machines that emit the radiation would let the Navy simulate modern electronic warfare, according to a draft environmental assessment for the project posted on a U.S. Forest Service website.

    Officials hope to begin the war games next year in Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor counties. The exercises would be conducted at 12 sites in the Olympic National Forest and three sites on state Department of Natural Resources land. The proposal would be part of the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range and would involve aircraft from the Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

    Greg Wahl, an environmental coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service who is leading the project, said it will have no significant impact, which would eliminate the need for a study on the environmental effect of the war games, the newspaper said.

    “Human tissue is directly susceptible to shock or burns when metallic objects, which have absorbed high electromagnetic radiation, are touched,” according to the assessment. “This type of burn would be similar to the type of burn produced inside a microwave oven. There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.”

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,” the assessment said.

    The deadline to comment on the draft environmental assessment for the Forest Service permit is Oct. 10.

    Figure 3.5-3: Visual Sensitive Receptors – Area 1 and Area 2. Environmental Assessment for the Electronic Warfare Range. (USDA Forest Service – JUNE 2014)

    ——————————————————————————————-

    106 unedited comments (Selfie’s deleted)

    Carol Hiltner 4 days ago

    Here is the address for submitting comments to the Forest Service:

    gtwahl@fs.fed.us

    The web site is: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=42759

    Here is a summary, from the Navy, of the damage microwaves do to humans:

    http://www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Navy_Radiowave_Brief.pdf

    It’s absurd to assert that microwaves being used AS A WEAPON are not damaging to humans.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Christopher Earle 5 days ago

    Where do we comment on the environmental issues?? Nice to say that the deadline for comments on the assessment is 10/10, but why not tell us where to comment??

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    BillyBob 6 days ago

    completely unacceptable to do this in our forests.  They know the dangers to humans being close, what about wildlife?  Take this nonsense to a desert somewhere.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    MajorSkeptic 6 days ago

    @BillyBob You have to be REALLY, REALLY close.  In fact he old technology megawatt radar transmitters from the cold were a lot more dangerous and the wildlife seemed to to survive the cold war better then the rest of us..

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    oldkentguy 6 days ago

    Why not just do it in Syria?

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Semolina Pilchard 6 days ago

    woohoo let the games begin !!!

    blup blup blup… blup blup blup… that ship’s a goner : (

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Father Krampus 6 days ago

    I suggest peninsula residents stock up on tin foil — double-layering the foil will help protect your brain from the mind-control waves.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Tech Translplant 6 days ago

    Lots of ignorance and fear on display by posters here.  Articles like this always bring out the anti-scientific wackos, who all make scientific-sounding claims, but never seem to have evidence to back up their accusations.

    Chances are excellent that if you’ve learned everything you know about radiation by reading random internet websites or listening to your friends tell you stories, then you don’t know enough about the subject to comment intelligently.

    If you’re afraid of reasonable levels of upper-RF and microwave frequency radiation, then you should literally put on your aluminum-foil hats, throw away your cell phones, and move tens of miles away from the nearest cell phone tower.  More power to you.  It’s a free country.

    For the rest of us, the dangers of microwave radiation are well-established at this point, and the conveniences far outweigh the fringe undocumented health concerns.

    As far as this equipment is concerned: 1) it’s temporary, 2) the antennas are not pointed at terrestrial targets, and 3) the dangerous power densities are located within feet of the antenna arrays, so roping or fencing off with big danger signs seems sufficient as a precaution to avoid people wandering in front of the transmitters.

    FlagShare

    2ikeReply

     

    Mary 6 days ago

    @Tech Translplant  You contradict your vague premise.  You first refer to “dangers of microwave radiation” as being “well-established at this point” and then confirm those dangerous power densities by stating “the dangerous power densities are located within feet of the antenna arrays.”  You deny danger and then confirm danger with your incoherent reasoning.  While it’s true that danger from EMF radiation increases with proximity and decreases with distance, the “feet” to which you nebulously refer encompass an area of as much as a half mile to a mile.  In one Swedish study of the effect of standard 60 cycles per second EMF’s, children who lived in close proximity to power lines with diffuse energy dispersal had a 20 percent higher cancer rate than children living a mile or more away.  Low frequency radiation is less dangerous than the high frequency of cell phones, cell towers, and probably the level proposed for this military operation. I agree that there are many scientific “wackos” out there, and those who contradict their own statements and use incomplete information to prove their points are among the scientific “wackos.”

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Tech Translplant 3 days ago

    @Mary @Tech Translplant

    1) The frequency of the equipment in question here isn’t even in the same frequency band as the power lines you’re now discussing, making the two completely invalid for comparison, especially because the mechanism by which the two different sources are “dangerous” is completely and utterly different;

    2) The antenna configuration of the equipment in the above article (highly directional) has no comparison whatsoever to the “antenna” configuration of a nearby power line (which is effectively omnidirectional for the purposes of your claims);

    3) You once again referred to a nebulous “Swedish” study without linking to it or citing it more appropriately, expecting everyone to just accept your summary of their research as unquestioned “fact”;

    4) I could cite many more mainstream sources which contradict your claims, the simplest of which is the Wikipedia article on electromagnetic radiation and health:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health

    I could cite many other on-point studies, including one of my college professors who carried out long-term studies of cell phone tissue interaction which were unable to demonstrate any conclusive findings;

    5) I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering with several graduate-level classes in electromagnetic fields and their applications (including in biological interaction), which I suspect makes me more qualified than you to appreciate the likely impact of the technologies involved here.  I don’t toss around credentials lightly, but I would love to know where you received your education which bases your claims.

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    BillyBob 6 days ago

    @Tech Translplant Lack of ignorance from those who actually believe this will not have an impact is far more concerning.  At least it should be.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Fairlane500 7 days ago

    Next on KOMO: The hidden danger of radio towers. Why staying outside the fence is in your best interest…

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

    Reality Control 7 days ago

    Today the “China” sea, tommorow the world (courtesy of Wal Mart).

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Reality Control Just as with drugs, if there was no demand there’s be no supply.  You’re putting the blame in the wrong place.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Reality Control 7 days ago

    @Chris @Reality Control They all sink.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Orangulo 7 days ago

    inb4 people assume that this kind of electromagnetic radiation is ionizing radiation.

    FlagShare

    1ikeReply

     

    Norma J Todd 7 days ago

    Are we suppose to believe them? Would this be allowed in downtown Seattle? Tell me it is safe enough to use in downtown Seattle and  I will believe that it is safe enough to use in small towns. Use it in Seattle first.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    gscott 6 days ago

    @Norma J Todd

    I think if you put on your tin foil hat you will be ok.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    KOMOdo-dragon 7 days ago

    “The machines that emit the radiation would let the Navy simulate modern electronic warfare, according to a draft environmental assessment for the project posted on a U.S. Forest Service website.”

     

    Interpretation:  These trucks are equipped with radar and microwave frequency transmitters that are designed to emulate fire-control radar, and/or communications emission profiles that closely resemble various surface-to-air missile systems or command and control platforms in use by our global neighbors (think of recent events in a certain Balkan state).  Put a fence around them at a safe distance, some warning signs and be done with it.  No need for any hand-wringing or worrying.  Since its non-ionizing radiation, and the inverse-square law is still in effect (as well as other laws of physical nature), there is no need to worry.

     

    This is just another attempt to “create” news.

    FlagShare

    14LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon Ukraine is an eastern European state, not a Balkan one.  Other than that, you’re technically correct – the best kind of correct.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Aviano 7 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon   “This is just another attempt to “create” news.”

    Exactly; and create fear in people who don’t understand. Better to be proactive than have fluster cluck that requires emergency, or unorganized actions and training to protect America.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Phlipfone 7 days ago

    @Aviano

    The greatest worry of the hand-wringers, here, is that this type of radiation may have an effect on vampires and werewolves.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    barkleydog 6 days ago

    @KOMOdo-dragon And you are an expert or do you just believe everything you read?

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    KOMOdo-dragon 6 days ago

    @barkleydog   I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😉

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    Oh how i love reading some of these posts. How the left leaning libs are afraid that OMG the government can’t be trusted to do military training at one of their bases! Yet out of the other side of their mouth. They put the most important thing they have their health over to government and be oh we can trust the government! Yet won’t trust them with this little thing. What a bunch of hypocrits. The lefts hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    FlagShare

    9LikeReply

     

    oldster70 7 days ago

    Does this mean targeting Bayliner and Tollycraft owners as known domestic terrorists?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Jessica the Phippster 7 days ago

    @oldster70 I bet at their Frequencies, we’d Never Notice a thing, Even on my Boat Radar….   I think it’s More of a FYI…..   FYI Folks, Microwaves Coming At Ya…    No Biggie, the radio Waves and Microwaves are all around anyway….    It would be hard to hide from them all,….  relax, and Start to Fold that Tin Foil….   you will Look right at Home For Halloween

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    oldster70 7 days ago

    @Jessica the Phippster @oldster70  Yes, I would guess my Radar is using WWII frequencies.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    FZR 7 days ago

    If you need radiation as a requirement for these war games, why not play in hanford radioactive waste land area?

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @FZR Wrong type of radiation.  Please get your technical facts straight.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    I think this is a great idea.

    We need to train our armed forces for when the bad guys eventually start to try to take us on.  That includes arming the police – but they need to be trained and disciplined to use the weapons they’re getting.

    FlagShare

    3ikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @White KittyI     I must be losing my mind…..I thought we were already training our armed forces.   Is it just a government coverup and we really have no trained forces at all?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    PacMan 7 days ago

    @TazZen @White Kitty

    Training is an ongoing thing. You have to constantly refresh that information in the minds of the people living through the exercise.  You probably don’t respond to situations at work now exactly as you did five or ten years ago.

    Things change and so must we.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @PacMan @TazZen @White Kitty My post was sarcastic, damn, where is that font when I need it most?

    FlagShare

    2ikeReply

     

    PacMan 4 days ago

    @TazZen @PacMan @White Kitty

    Sorry, my sarcasm filter  broke when they fired Schram.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    rjsupersonic 7 days ago

    why is everyone whining?  We need a strong military to protect our freedom. If people don’t like it they can move to North Korea then  you have something to complain about!!!

    FlagShare

    4ikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @rjsupersonic Oh FFS!  Is that the best you can do?  No one is complaining about a strong military to protect our freedom.  I personally support our military; but I also support a healthy living environment where we can bring our families up without having to worry about my relatives and friends dying young because of cancer causing impositions that are unnecessary and useless.  We have proven time and time again that we can live in tandem with the elements necessary to protect our freedom, and we have ALSO proven, time and time again, that there are those who would impose upon us (HANFORD and THREE MILE ISLAND are just two examples) unnecessary dangers in haste in the name of freedom.

    And please, try more original material than the tired, lame, ‘move to North Korea’ crap.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @TazZen @rjsupersonic No member of the public has ever been exposed to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation as a result of anything that has ever gone on at Hanford or TMI.  If you’re going to level accusations, please learn the technical facts and try more original material than the tired, lame, unscientific “unnecessary dangers” crap.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @Chris @TazZen @rjsupersonic In response to your first sentence, I did not imply that at all.  MY POINT is, in the past the government has built facilities and implemented processes where they assured the public they were completely safe from any major adverse effects in order to appease them and gain their trust.  You cannot deny that, and if you do, please learn the facts, because otherwise your statement comes across as unscientific crap.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation.”

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,”

     

    Does anyone know WHY information about “DNA fragmentation and cancer due to EMF radiation exposure is inconsistent and insufficient at this time?  The government and the high priests of the electronic tech industry WANT effects of electromagnetic radiation to be unknown to the public.  The information has been found and well-hidden.  Research results have been suppressed and held secret in exchange for big bucks.  Or such results are ignored by the public because acknowledging that EMF’s can cause DNA and cancer effects is inconvenient and could remove the fun from that constant cell phone usage or the omnipresence of those cell towers.  For example, in the early 1990’s, a researcher at the UW did a study which revealed damaging effects of EMF radiation exposure in the 900 mega hertz range of cell phones on the DNA in the human brain.  That information was rapidly downplayed by U.S. West and other mobile technology companies at that time.

     

    Then when my neighborhood challenged the installation of a cell tower on top of an apartment building, U.S. West hired a professor emeritus from the UW to allay our fears by assuring our community that the high frequency EMF radiation could have no possible effects on our health.  I had difficulty in believing his assertions since I had previously read in a well-known scientific publication an article by this same professor, now a paid employee of U.S. West, in which he described an EMF radiation experiment he had performed on laboratory mice.  That study showed that in the control group, five percent of the mice developed cancer.  In the group of mice exposed to EMF radiation, 20 percent of the exposed mice developed cancer.  Apparently this professor conveniently forgot the results of his study when U.S. West offered him something he valued more than scientific truth: money.  I learned from that experience that it’s nearly impossible for even whole communities to fight the whims of the huge mobile technology companies, but at least in offering a fight there is a remote chance of stopping the increasing radiation of humans.

     

    As a member of a neighborhood group that tirelessly fought imposition of EMF radiation on our neighborhood, I know exactly how futile and difficult it seems to fight the increasing radiation of our society.  Our input to the government entities in this increasingly undemocratic society is having less impact than ever and may be pointless.  But I still encourage everyone who cares about preservation of human life and health to give input to the increasingly uncaring government by sending comments about this newest threat to the Forest Service by Oct. 10.  Maybe KOMO could save us some research and give us a link? Thanks to KOMO for bringing this to our attention!

    FlagShare

    3ikeReply

     

    Cindertang 7 days ago

    @Mary Your reply reminds me of my fathers story he used to tell us back in the sixties about an article that was in the popular mechanics magazine, It was about this guy who sent in a carburetor that ran off of chicken poop, he had a real working one sent in pictures and diagrams the works, now you would think some thing like that would be the greatest thing ever since chicken poop is so abundant and available. This thing really worked, it also disappeared. So yes I think some one bought it diagrams and all ( namely some big oil company) and are sitting on it waiting for what you might ask, well for the next big money making moment in history I think.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Mary One study does not a scientific principle make.  If you believe (vice think) 900 MHz EMR does appreciable physiological damage, then learn the science and dig up the proof instead of blaming some massive government and corporate coverup.

    I once worked for the Feds.  There aren’t enough smart people there to conduct a successful conspiracy.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Aviano 7 days ago

    @Chris @Mary  “I once worked for the Feds.  There aren’t enough smart people there to conduct a successful conspiracy.”

    You just made my day! Too funny.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Mary 6 days ago

    @Chris @Mary  Your reading comprehension level would benefit from giving more attention and focus to what you are reading.  If you again read my comments more carefully, you will see that I have mentioned several different studies here, not just one study, which have suggested that exposure to EMF’s at any frequency can have physical effects.  It’s difficult to “dig up” the absolute proof because results that indicate harm from EMF exposure have indeed been suppressed by corporate and government entities.  We may be seeing yet another example of government disregard for possible harm from EMF’s in this newest proposal to expose humans to EMF radiation.

     

    And if YOU believe that 900 megahertz radiation cannot “do appreciable physiological damage,” you must not be familiar with the operation of microwave ovens.  Microwave ovens generate between 915 megahertz and 2450 megahertz frequency bands, and I think anyone who uses a microwave knows what happens to that pizza or chicken when exposed to microwave radiation!  It’s called “cooking!”  If you want to see the effect of EMF’s on your brain, just look at that microwaved chicken! :-)  But while it’s true that 900 megahertz probably would not successfully cook a chicken, some of the older cell phones (and maybe newer ones, too) could actually cause a warming sensation when held to the ear for more than a few minutes.  More research is needed in this area, but it won’t happen because corporate interests and now the  government have too much at stake to allow that research.  But you may not understand this because, after all, you did work for the federal government which, by your own admission, does not hire smart people. :-)

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    None 7 days ago

    No, no, NO!  “Officials hope to begin the war games next year in Clallam, Jefferson and Grays Harbor counties.”  So, Forks is simply the beginning of something far more extensive and “The Navy plans to post warning signs and barriers near the trucks when the machines are operating because getting exposed at close range to the radiation could be dangerous.”  Oh, dandy.  So, in addition to the Hanford nuclear leakage (that is extant and which is still a very serious problem) as well as whatever the Pacific Ocean currents are bringing over from the Fukushima plant (that is ALSO still leaking directly into the ocean), we are supposed to accept that this is perfectly safe because our government officials tell us not to worry.  (???)

    Anybody in the market for a bridge that is positioned on a nice parcel of swampland?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    SeattleJoe 7 days ago

    @None You are clearly not a physics student. You do have the uneducated paranoia part down however.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    @SeattleJoe @None  What are you talking about?  You may be a physics student, but you clearly have not studied long enough!  Can you more specifically state the scientific basis on which you are discounting the very valid questions raised by “None?”  The current lack of concern about the contamination by Hanford nuclear waste is due to LACK of understanding of the nature and consequences of that radioactive pollution.  And that lack of understanding has been fostered by the government attempts to withhold and downplay frightening information. People have died because of Hanford nuclear contamination. Now this newest EMF radiation experiment is being downplayed by those government entities who just want us to sit passively back and allow them to perform this latest experiment on human health.  “You do have the uneducated” arrogance part down quite well.  Do some reading and educate yourself before you deride others who are more highly informed!

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Chris 7 days ago

    @Mary @SeattleJoe @None Here is the scientific basis: the physiological effects of ionizing radiation have been studied and investigated more than any other threat to human health except smoking.  (Saying that there is a lack of understanding of the nature and consequences of radioactive pollution is very disingenuous.)  The entire Hanford Reservation area is monitored, sampled, and tested more thoroughly than any piece of Federally-owned real estate in the US.  Yes, it is a problem that liquid is leaking from underground tanks at Hanford.  But the radioactive elements in the leakage from those tanks are not water-soluble, ergo they have not come anywhere near the Columbia.

    Please learn the scientific facts before succumbing to scare-mongering.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    SeattleJoe 6 days ago

    @Mary @SeattleJoe @None Sigh. Ok, where do we begin?

    “What are you talking about? ”

    I think I was pretty clear.

     

    ” You may be a physics student, but you clearly have not studied long enough!  ”

    I’m not a physics student, though I had to take a lot of it for my engineering degrees. I never said I was a physics student, try to read what I say and nothing more.

     

    “Can you more specifically state the scientific basis on which you are discounting the very valid questions raised by “None?” ”

    “None” posted this question: “we are supposed to accept that this is perfectly safe because our government officials tell us not to worry.  (???)”  I don’t trust the government any more than the next rational person but “None” gave nothing more than a couple uninformed and vague examples as the basis of his/her thinking and that soundly put him in the uneducated paranoia category.

     

    “The current lack of concern about the contamination by Hanford nuclear waste is due to LACK of understanding of the nature and consequences of that radioactive pollution.  And that lack of understanding has been fostered by the government attempts to withhold and downplay frightening information. People have died because of Hanford nuclear contamination. ”

    Yes people have died and that is bad. But the danger is currently minimal. Most “frightening information” is irrational speculation touted as fact. If you have some post it otherwise it is only speculation.

     

    “Now this newest EMF radiation experiment is being downplayed by those government entities who just want us to sit passively back and allow them to perform this latest experiment on human health. ”

    OK. So the government is experimenting on human health by telling people to stay away. OK. Interesting experiment. Is it one where they see how people react to not going near EMF radiation? It seems to me if the govt was nefariously experimenting they wouldn’t be telling people to stay away and putting up barricades to prevent people from getting close. You see this is how we differ. I rationally look at the situation, evaluate it and determine possible outcomes. You see something that you think is scary and go off shouting govt conspiracy theories.

     

    “You do have the uneducated” arrogance part down quite well.  Do some reading and educate yourself before you deride others who are more highly informed!”

    No arrogance intended. I simply called out someone who is acting irrational. Also, might I suggest you not make claims about someone’s knowledge on a subject when you don’t know the first think about them. Things like that tend to cause people to look unfavorably upon you.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    workingman 7 days ago

    Liberals, as it appears from these comments, don’t know how we maintain our freedom.  Clue: it’s not always being opposed to our military’s needs.

    Liberals are afflicted with a serious lack of common sense.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    rockguy 7 days ago

    @workingman You forgot those Socialists, Commies, and the Pinko’s, what ever they are.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @workingman You are SO predictable.  And apparently an easily brainwashed far right shill. If you would back up your contributions here, even on occasion . instead of spewing your ridiculous hate of everything liberal, you MIGHT find more people taking you seriously.  Instead, the only ones who do, for the most part, are far right blatherers themselves.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Sanctuary 7 days ago

    @workingman Looking at the amount of personal freedoms that conservatives want to or have already banned, I’m pretty sure you cons don’t give a rip about our freedom.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    So what freedoms have been banned? Name a few. Now your going to spout off the patriot act. Well news flash. Joe Biden wrote that bill while he was in the senate. Then you will name the NADA signed in to law by Berry Obama. Seems to me that the Dems love to take your freedom.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Sanctuary 7 days ago

    @truth_be_told Abortion, same sex marriage, same sex adoption, early voting, birth control access, marijuana – medical or recreational, to name a few.  The republican war on personal freedom continues.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @truth_be_told Exactly which freedoms have your so called ‘Dems’ taken?

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @truth_be_told Ah, the usual sound of crickets.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Mr. Roman lions 5 days ago

    @workingman

    So have you ever served your country or have you just been self serving?

    Agent Smith 7 days ago

    Next thing you know, that mega-spaceship from “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” is going to show up.

    And right after it, the other one, from “The Day The Earth Stood Still”.

    Keep asking for it. You’re going to get it.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Agent Smith  That will be so cool!

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    @Agent Smith Actually, have you read Communion, and the follow up book by Whitley Strieber?  He talks about the possibility of extra terrestrials visiting us, and abducting some (including him) and that those visitations may be subtle warnings about how we as a species are slowly destroying our planet.   He speaks to environmental issues as well.   He writes credibly, intellectually, and poises several different scenarios on why these visitations may be happening.

    Interesting stuff!

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Furd 6 days ago

    @TazZen @Agent Smith I’m about 60-70 pages into Communion and I find it hard to read any more.  Too fantastic for me and I TRY to keep an open mind.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    TazZen 6 days ago

    @Furd @TazZen @Agent Smith It is not an easy read, that’s for sure.  I liked the sequel better, as Strieber is more scientific, but
    you may find that even harder to read than Communion.  His writing is not for everyone.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Furd 6 days ago

    @TazZen @Furd @Agent Smith  Although I have set it aside for now I have not given up entirely.  I also have Confirmation.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    jocko_homo 7 days ago

    Maybe conduct your war games near the ebola outbreak as an alternative? Why risk the coast of WA where so much sea life and people exist in a relatively healthy environment. We have plenty pollution to deal with as it is.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    F**** that!  It’s all fun & games, until they kill us.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    garden 7 days ago

    I’m not necessarily for or against this but is there some reason these things need to be positioned in a residential area?  I mean, we have the whole Puget Sound to choose from.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    ddeaves 7 days ago

    So we’ll have radiation coming at us from Fukishima and Pacific Beach.

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    Klondiko 7 days ago

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative”

    Are you kidding me?

     

    Guess they got tired of killing dolphins. Find another place. Antartica works for me.

    Where is the link to comment KOMO?

    FlagShare

    8LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    @Klondiko I hope they don’t kill our orca’s.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    imright 7 days ago

    Here comes your EMP False Flag folks………………………….

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    rotups435 7 days ago

    @imright

     

    Trolling AboveTopSecret or BeforeItsNew much?

     

    Maybe bring a little John Titor in as well.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Grumpa 7 days ago

    This is Forks people, all you are going to radiate is vampires and werewolves…

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    Shelly 7 days ago

    Don’t forget about all the seafood that they could destroy.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    Oh HELL no! Simulated war games calls for *simulated* radiation!

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Jubilee 7 days ago

    Conduct these tests in Northern Syria, a win-win situation.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    TazZen 7 days ago

    I really like the way a photo shows exactly where some of the trucks would be located, especially being that they’ll be in residential neighborhoods. Also, I totally trust  a government ‘environmental coordinator’ to alleviate any public fear of negative environmental impacts.  Though they will post signs warning people, plus DNA studies are inconclusive as to the danger.   Nope no worries about human guinea pig experiments there.    You know, because it worked so well at Hanford.

    I also have no concerns as to ‘why now’, as the West Coast has been vulnerable for decades, and I was under the impression our government already had it covered.

    Probably just a diversionary tactic……hey!  Look over there!   It’s a squirrel!

     

    FlagShare

    8LikeReply

     

    Opus8no5 7 days ago

    Recent encounters with Russian nuclear bombers and strike aircraft near Alaska.  The West Coast is vulnerable and training is a logical tactical move as the Naval submarine base at Bangor would be a primary target.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    usnrbb 7 days ago

    @Opus8no5:  So would Joint Base Lewis McChord.  A major tactical army fort co-joined with a logistics air base, you gotta be kidding me.  That would be an attack  planner’s wet dream!

    Let’s face it  with two aircraft carrier bases, the west coast’s ballistic submarine base, two logistical air bases, a major army base, a naval air station, and who knows what else stuffed in here and there, Washington State is one big target center.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    ffej 7 days ago

    @usnrbb @Opus8no5 I would rather burn up in the initial attack than suffer in the aftermath.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Opus8no5  Yup, don’t forget Lewis-McChord, Bremerton, or Everett.  Bangor always has a couple of subs on patrol.  Bremerton and Everett could have two aircraft carriers and small boys sitting there, and L-M has all kinds of targets.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Opus8no5 7 days ago

    @White Kitty @Opus8no5

    You are quite correct.  Also, there is the main North-South transport artery (I-5).

    I’m encouraged by this defensive training.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Cindertang 7 days ago

    “Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time,” the assessment said.     Like every thing else these days sure why not, might be harmful might not, who is to say? so go a head and do it, its only life  well maybe.

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    Pest Outwest 7 days ago

    What’s wrong with going local?  They could maybe use White Center or the U District . . .

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    White Kitty 7 days ago

    @Pest Outwest Lake Washington near Rainier Beach maybe?

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    DMT 7 days ago

    “SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?”

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    lifesux 7 days ago

    go for it!! they need the training from those areas.

     

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    truth_be_told 7 days ago

    They have a Navy Base at Pacific Beach Big Whoop!

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    missyk 7 days ago

    Sounds like more high drama.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    TylerDurdenforpres 7 days ago

    I’m sure it will be fine, what could possibly go wrong?

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    dardena 7 days ago

    @TylerDurdenforpres

    “…just a little software patch, won’t hurt a thing…”

    Terry

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    @TylerDurdenforpres Haven’t we heard that in a million scifi/horror movies?

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    flipperjack 7 days ago

    Who the hell are they kidding?  I live on the coast and they have been doing war games on the coast all summer.

    FlagShare

    7LikeReply

     

    Ankle Biter 7 days ago

    Why doesn’t the Navy just practice on Bellevue? With all these “Your Speed” signs around town there’s lots of electromagnetic radiation. There’s nothing like K-Band bathing the front of your house 24/7.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    Zoso 7 days ago

    @Ankle Biter Think Skyway would be better.

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    King Leer 7 days ago

    Start with Hoquiam. It is desperately in need of a Megaton Makeover.

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    Ankle Biter 7 days ago

    @King Leer What an awesome idea for a TV show.

    FlagShare

    2LikeReply

     

    kittykat1912 7 days ago

    @King Leer NO!

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Megan 7 days ago

    According to the photo, Areas 1 and 2 are in Pacifc Beach, WA. They are private residences across the street from the old navy base/MWR resort.

    FlagShare

    1LikeReply

     

    Vince 7 days ago

    So I guess we are looking forward to kids born with three to four eyes…

    FlagShare

    6LikeReply

     

    oldanintheway 7 days ago

    @Vince   But think of the advantages:

    Redundancy, in case of loss.

    Better ability to see what’s going on at busy intersections.

    Making eye contact with the opposite sex……..

    FlagShare

    4LikeReply

     

    dardena 7 days ago

    @oldanintheway @Vince

    Hey, you forgot cornea transplant donors…just saying.

    Terry

     

    FlagShare

    3LikeReply

     

    TrT 7 days ago

    @Vince Seriously though.. the Puget Sound area already leads in the category of childhood cancers, MS, breast and pancreatic cancer, and more.  I don’t know if it’s the toxic stew people call the Sound, or the lack of sun… or perhaps all the radiation from the military bases. This is NOT a healthy place.

    FlagShare

    5LikeReply

     

    Klondiko 7 days ago

    @TrT @Vince  People actually eat things from Puget Sound. Ughhh.

     

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Bacteria-causes-shellfish-harvesting-closure-277327041.html

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Mary 7 days ago

    @TrT @Vince  And don’t forget that radiation at Magnuson Park in the heart of the city.

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

     

    Jessica the Phippster 7 days ago

    I think that sounds cool…… I will stay away with the Ham radio Equipment…

    FlagShare

     

     

    FlagShare

    LikeReply

    KOMO News is happy to provide a forum for commenting and discussion. Please respect and abide by the house rules:

    Keep it clean, keep it civil, keep it truthful, stay on topic, be responsible. Share your knowledge and please suggest removal of comments that violate these standards.

    See full commenting rules

     


  • A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

    A Thousand Wrongs?   One Right?

    Sept. 17, 2014 WA STATE Appointed AGENCIES, including  ECOLOGY (DOE) have become AN INTIMIDATING AND THREATENING OMNIPRESENCE. They are  present in all places and at all times that LOCAL SMP UPDATES and/or  Water Rules  are discussed and at every LOCAL Public Meeting in every county, city and town in WA State.

     So  what’s WRONG with that?

     Jan. 26, 2011 When American Citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.

    ——————————————————————————

    A THOUSAND WRONGS  –  ONE RIGHT?

    Specifically, The THOUSAND (1000) WRONGS that I am addressing , are the nearly 1000 PUBLIC OBJECTIONS and comments made to ECOLOGY by the citizens of Clallam County regarding the implementation of  Ecology’s Dungeness Water Rule.

    OK, so  what’s WRONG with that?

    We the people,  have  every  RIGHT to make a THOUSAND public objections and comments

    So  what’s WRONG with that?

     

    WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT?

    When nearly a THOUSAND OBJECTIONS FROM “WE THE PEOPLE”  are made  TO WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY against the Dungeness Water Rule?

    WA STATE ECOLOGY’S RESPONDS WITH  525 PAGES OF  “TOO BAD SO SAD” we respectfully disagree.

     So? What’s WRONG with that?

     ECOLOGY’S RESPONSE on PUBLIC OBJECTIONS and comments?

    When literally thousands of OBJECTIONS, lawsuits and appeals are made against Ecology’s  Water Rules and the Shoreline Management Update (SMP)

    ECOLOGY uses our WA State AG and OUR  OWN tax dollars to fight against “WE THE PEOPLE”

    And, “We the People have to  dig into our own pockets to protect our RIGHTS.

    So  what’s WRONG with that?

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

     When did any OBJECTION OR COMMENT, that we the people have ever had on ANYTHING make a difference to ECOLOGY?

     THE ONE (1) RIGHT?

     When ONE (1) OBJECTION is made to WA State Dept of Ecology on something that really makes no significant economic or life altering difference to “We the People”?

     I do investigative documentation and reporting on my website. I have been signed up for Ecology’s WAC Track for years, receiving, reading hundreds of pages,  investigating and documenting, posting, commenting and disseminating information on  one proposed WAC after another WAC….

     —————————————————————————

    I knew that making my ONE (1) OBJECTION could stop Ecology’s

    PROPOSED AO #14-01 EXPEDITED RULEMAKING, in its  WAC tracks..

     

    I posted and sent my ONE  (1) OBJECTION on Jun 26, 2014 – Washington Department of Ecology AO #14-01 NOTICE THIS RULE REPEAL IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULEMAKING … full text on behindmyback.org. “Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?”

     —————————————————————————————–

    What difference does it make? How about this?

    HELLO ECOLOGY… SOMEBODY IS READING THE FINE PRINT ON YOUR PROPOSED WAC’S

    WOW…. SOMEBODY

    ACTUALLY GOT ECOLOGY’S FULL UNDIVIDED ATTENTION ON A PROPOSED WAC…

    —————————————————————————————

    Ecology responds with the following? 

     (full text below)

     1. September 04, 2014 1:20 PM RE: Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?

    From: Schreiner, Bari (ECY)

    To: ‘pearl hewett’

    Cc: Dorsey, Kyle (ECY)

    ————————————————————————————–

     2. Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:46 AM Request to discuss with you Ecology’s expedited rule making.

    From: Schreiner, Bari (ECY)

    To: ‘pearl hewett’

    Cc: Dorsey, Kyle (ECY)

    ———————————————————–

    3. I called Bari, left a message and she returned my call.

    Bari (ECY) and I had a 30 minute phone discussion with  Kyle Dorsey (ECY) included in the conversation.

    ———————————————————————————-

    4. September 17, 2014 9:22 AM Follow-up on discussion with Ecology on expedited rule making

    From: Schreiner, Bari (ECY)

    To: ‘pearl hewett’

    Cc: Dorsey, Kyle (ECY)

     

    —————————————————————————————-

    Please consider withdrawing your objection

    With the above in mind, would you would be willing to withdraw your objection?  If so, please send us an email letting us know you withdraw your objection.  We also would be happy to discuss this with you if you can provide a number where we can reach you.

    ——————————————————————–

    When has Ecology ever been happy to discuss our ,THOUSANDS OF OBJECTIONS TO THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE? OR THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT UPDATE?

    And they actually have requested my phone number, so they can reach me, to talk to me about my ONE (1) OBJECTION.

    —————————————————————————–

    (Ecology)We would like to save taxpayers time and money, and we hope some clarification will be helpful.

    ———————————————————————-

    My question?

    Shall I request an economic impact statement FROM ECOLOGY related to my ONE (1) objection?

    ————————————————————————————-

    Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:22 AM

    Subject: Follow-up on discussion with Ecology on expedited rule making

    Good morning,

    Thank you for talking with us yesterday.  In our discussion you asked what the maximum time frame was for when we could file an adoption notice on this rule making.  The last possible date we can file is Jan. 12, 2015.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.

    Have a good day,

    Bari

    ————————————————————————————–

    Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:46 AM

    Subject: Request to discuss with you Ecology’s expedited rule making.

    Dear Ms. Hewitt,

    I am following up on the email below that I sent to you related to the expedited rule making Ecology is currently working on.  We would like the opportunity to discuss this with you in more detail (see the message below). If you are interesting in discussing this please send us your contact information so that we can schedule a time that works for you.  We look forward to hearing from you.

    Have a good day.

    Bari

    ————————————————————————-

     

    Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:20 PM

    Subject: RE: Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?

     

    Dear Ms. Hewett,

     

    We want to acknowledge receipt of your objection to the use of the expedited rule-making process for the purposes of repealing two rules:

    • Chapter 173-330 WAC – Used Automotive Oil Recycling Sign Requirements for Automotive Oil Sellers

    • Chapter 173-24 WAC – Tax Exemptions and Credits for Pollution Control Facilities

     

    Why we are using the expedited process

    We would like to save taxpayers time and money, and we hope some clarification will be helpful.  The Department of Ecology is proposing to eliminate these two rules because the Legislature changed the  laws that originally authorized these rules, and the rules can no longer be used.  Repealing these rules is essentially cleaning house.  We don’t want the public to be confused by rules that can no longer be implemented, but we can’t take them off the books without telling people.

     

    Because these rules are either invalid or no longer serve a purpose, we must repeal them as a matter of good stewardship.  The expedited process we are proposing will save the taxpayers money. If we go through the non-expedited process required for some rule making, the process will be longer and cost more.

     

    Why these rules are no longer needed:

    Chapter 173-330 WAC requires sellers of oil to post a sign visible to the public at or near the point of sale that indicates used oil is recyclable and where used oil may be properly disposed.  The statute authorizing Chapter 173-330 WAC (Chapter 19.114 RCW) was repealed in 1991 and replaced with Chapter 70.95I RCW.  The requirements for signs in Chapter 70.95I RCW are different from those in Chapter 19.114 RCW, so the provisions of Chapter 173-330 are no longer valid.

     

    Chapter 173-24 WAC describes Ecology’s process for approving tax credits for pollution control measures authorized by Chapter 82.34 RCW.  In 1981, the legislature amended Chapter 82.34 RCW to provide that applications for pollution control tax credits could not be filed after November 30, 1981.  Since Ecology can no longer accept applications for pollution control tax credits, the provisions in Chapter 173-24 WAC serve no purpose.

     

    Please consider withdrawing your objection

    With the above in mind, would you would be willing to withdraw your objection?  If so, please send us an email letting us know you withdraw your objection.  We also would be happy to discuss this with you if you can provide a number where we can reach you.

     

    Thank you for your further consideration.

    Bari Schreiner

     

     

    Bari Schreiner
    Department of Ecology
    Rules and Accountability/Plain Talk
    Phone: 360.407.6998
    Fax: 360.407.6989

    Visit the Laws and Rules Web Site at:
    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html

     

     

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

    Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:22 AM

    Subject: Follow-up on discussion with Ecology on expedited rule making

     

    Good morning,

     

    Thank you for talking with us yesterday.  In our discussion you asked what the maximum time frame was for when we could file an adoption notice on this rule making.  The last possible date we can file is Jan. 12, 2015.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.

     

    Have a good day,

    Bari

    —————————————————————————–

    Ridicule is  a good thing

    Sept, 17, 2014  Lest we forget, the presence of Federal and State Agencies
    that have been DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE and become a
    PUBLIC NUISANCE to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    October 6, 2013 Lest we forget, the presence of Federal and State Agencies
    that have been DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE and become a
    PUBLIC NUISANCE to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    With the WA State DOE invasion of Clallam County for the DOE Dungeness
    Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update, they are guilty of both.

    July 05, 2012 THIS COMMENT WAS SENT OVER A YEAR AGO.

    From: Pearl Hewett
    Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:35 PM
    To:Wessel, Ann (ECY);
    Subject: DOE Dungeness Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY CODE
    Title 15 PUBLIC PEACE, SAFETY, MORALS

    15.02.120 PUBLIC NUISANCE
    Compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall constitute minimum
    health, sanitation and safety provisions and material noncompliance with said terms and conditions shall constitute a public nuisance and be subject to all criminal, civil and equitable remedies as such.

    Chapter 15.30 PUBLIC DISTURBANCE
    Disturbing the PUBLIC PEACE in Clallam County
    Since Jan. 26, 2011 the Clallam County

    Commissioners and elected WA State Representatives have been aware that
    the presence of Federal and State Agencies have been DISTURBING THE PUBLIC PEACE and become a PUBLIC NUISANCE to the private property owners in Clallam County.  With the WA State DOE invasion of Clallam County for the DOE Dungeness
    Water Rule and DOE Shoreline Management Update, they are guilty of both.

    DOE is DISTURBING THE PEACE
    and they have become a

    PUBLIC NUISANCE
    to the private property owners in Clallam County.

    To date, no action has been taken to protect us, by the following
    elected officials, WA State representatives, Rep. Van De Wege, Rep. Tharinger,
    or Senator Jim Hargrove. Or by our Clallam County elected officials, Mike Doherty, Mike Chapman or Sheriff
    Benedict.

    We the People of Clallam County have documented grievances against.
    WA State DOE Dungeness Water Rule and SMP taking of property value

    WA State Dept of Fish and Wildlife unconstitutional trespass and search


  • (5) WA Parks – The Unintended Consequences

    (5) WA Parks – The Unintended Consequences of the power of Cyberspace

    I did attend the Sequim Public meeting of the blue ribbon task force, by invitation, promised an opportunity to make public comment  and I did give public testimony on Aug. 19, 2014.

    I did NOT have a good time.

    It was one of the most insulting and dismissive Public Meetings I have ever attended.

    INSULTING by definition, hurtful and offensive, causing offense by being rude or insensitive or by suggesting a low opinion of somebody or something

    DISMISSIVE by definition, contemptuous or indifferent indicating rejection, especially in a contemptuous or indifferent way.

    After I waited for nearly seven hours. I was permitted to give, a clocked and timed, exactly two minute public comment.

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

    The  seven hours that I spent on Aug. 19, 2014 listening to the appointed blue ribbon panel?

    When a member of the panel was opposed to putting public comment after the committees conclusions had been completed?

    Adding insult to injury…

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word.

    Why bother to solicit OUR input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    ————————————————————————————–

    Things happen for a reason.

    THAT MEETING was why I  posted my comment on  behindmyback.org

    WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    It was not intended to promote WA Parks.

    It was in fact an Unintended Consequence of the power of Cyberspace

    The Comment reached #5 on the Google search engine web of over 5.5 MILLION displayed results. (intended to promote WA Parks)

    Does anyone know how posted comments go to? get to? arrive at? and

    show up on the Google information web? I certainly don’t.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    The comment that I posted on my website, was also, in part, a sarcastic response to the cumulative years of exclusion and omission of “We the People” on the Olympic Peninsula, and the comment was directed to those elected government representative, that  have ignored  our public comments, refused to allow us to ask questions, refused to answer our questions and denied us the due process of law.

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

    When the blue ribbon panel convened on Feb. 19, 2014

    And, when the task force was instructed  under EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    and encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    Feb. 19, 2014 District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word to the people he represents

    —————————————————————————

    WHERE WAS REP. THARINGER WHEN WE NEEDED HIM?

    And in the following six months Rep. Steve Tharinger did not bother to notify or set up anything in district 24, to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word or lift a hand to the people he represents

    Why bother to solicit OUR input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    ———————————————————————————–

    When the media finally got around to informing “We the People” in  District 24, on Aug. 18, 2014 of the blue ribbon task force Public meeting and comment with one day notice? on Aug. 19, 2014?

    District 24 Rep. Steve Tharinger knew the Sequim meeting was eleven days before

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

    And, Rep. Steve Tharinger did not say a word, when he knew our public comments after the fact, would be a mote point.

    —————————————————————————-

    IF  REP. THARINGER DOES NOT RESPOND TO, OR NEED OUR INPUT?

    The needs and concerns of  taxpaying, private property owning citizens and families on  the Olympic Peninsula have been ignored by for years, by both our Federal and WA State elected Government representatives.

    Appointed Federal and State Agencies have been allowed to “RULE” us with no intervention on our behalf by our elected.

    ————————————————————————————

    WHERE WAS REP. THARINGER WHEN WE NEEDED HIM?

    Jan. 27, 2011″When American Citizens are afraid of what their Government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.”

    ————————————————————————-

    I have six ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

    Federal, Senators Marie Cantwell and Patty Murray, Rep. Derek Kilmer

    State, Rep. Tharinger and, VanDeWege, and Senator Hargrove.

    THEY HAVE ALL FORGOTTEN WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

    And they have voted, and promoted the taking of our public and private land in our surrounding area and have allowed the Federal and WA State Government  to take our land, water, property and our Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    They DO NOT act in the best interest of the economy or of our communities and they DO NOT protect the Constitutional Rights of the American citizens that they have been elected to represent.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Does anyone know why Google removes things from their Google information web?

    I do now!

    keep reading…

    ————————————————————————————-

    We all live and learn about the power of cyberspace, my understanding?

    Round and round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows?

    Google’s search engine,  put my WA Parks comment  in #5 place.

    My comment (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    was removed from Google search two days after I posted it.

    ———————————————————–

    Google  Removal Policies

    read more at: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2744324

    We want to organize the world’s information, but some content on the web is sensitive or not appropriate for everyone to see. This page explains our policies for different types of content that Google will remove from web, image or video results.

    ———————————————————————–

    I will probably never find out WHO  had it removed?

    But, I completely understand the WHY it was removed.

    It is still on my website.


  • (4) WA Parks Executive Order 14-01

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    What happens in Olympia,  on Feb. 19, 2014?

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01, Signed and sealed with the official seal of the state of Washington on this 19th day of February, 2014, at Olympia, Washington.

    Should not stay in Olympia until Aug. 18, 2014

    The Task Force is encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    Many business’s, people and families, on the Olympic Peninsula, would have been interested and sent or attended the Aug. 19, 2014 meeting to make PUBLIC COMMENT, but WHO KNEW?

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

     

    —————————————————————–

    EXECUTIVE ORDER 14-01

    ESTABLISHING A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR

    OUTDOOR RECREATION IN WASHINGTON STATE

    WHEREAS,

    we want our children to experience, enjoy, learn about, and become lifetime

    stewards of Washington’s magnificent natural resources; and

     

    WHEREAS,

    maintaining access to, and facilities in, our state parks and state recreation lands managed by the departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources, as well as the entire network of local, state, federal, and private lands that make Washington an outdoor recreation Mecca important to the state’s citizens and the tourism industry; and

    WHEREAS,

    Washington’s stunning parks, outdoor recreation opportunities, and quality of life are an important incentive for attracting new businesses and retaining all types of employers to the state; and

    WHEREAS,

    outdoor recreation activities in Washington directly support 227,000 jobs and consumers spend $22.5 billion on outdoor recreation equipment, apparel, lodging, and other services, generating $1.6 billion in state and local tax revenue; and

    WHEREAS,

    outdoor recreation such as camping, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, boating, hiking, off-roading, cross-country and downhill skiing, mountain and road biking, scuba diving, surfing, horseback riding, and more strengthen the social and cultural fabric of communities and provide important and valuable contributions to urban and especially rural economies across the state; and

    WHEREAS,

    Washington State Parks, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Natural Resources have seen significant reductions in funding to operate, maintain, and make capital investments in campgrounds, boat

    launches, and trails, resulting in a continuing maintenance backlog; and public lands managed by federal and local agencies, including the

    United State Forest Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Parks Service face similar operating, maintenance, and capital investment backlogs;

    WHEREAS,

    the state lacks strategies for transforming its approach to outdoor recreation to ensure that this sector is properly recognized as contributing to the economy, creating and sustaining jobs, improving public health, and immeasurably improving the quality of life that Washingtonians cherish;

    NOW THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of Washington, do hereby create the Washington Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

    The Task Force shall use a holistic strategy to develop an action plan and issue recommendations to manage, transform, better leverage, or develop Washington’s outdoor recreation assets and state programs to increase outdoor recreation activities as well as promote the jobs and businesses associated with outdoor recreation. The strategy, action plan, and recommendations shall:

    1. Support and expand outdoor recreation jobs, businesses, and tourism across the state;

    2. Promote and expand recreational fishing and hunting opportunities as a way of advancing local economies;

    3. Promote outdoor recreation experiences and increase environmental awareness for youth, families, and adults;

    4. Support Washington-based businesses’ use of Washington’s quality of life and outdoor recreation experiences in recruiting and retaining talented employees as well as in attracting new businesses to the state;

    5. Develop long-term sustainable funding sources for Washington State Parks and other outdoor recreation lands and infrastructure managed by the Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources.This action plan shall also include recommendations for establishing an organizational mechanism to oversee implementation of the action plan and for promoting long-term outdoor recreation.

    The Governor shall appoint fifteen (15) voting members to the Task Force, representing a diverse and statewide profile of both the public and private sectors from the following stakeholder groups:

    1. Outdoor Recreation Business

    2. Tourism

    3. Environmental Organizations/Environmental Education

    4. Sportsmen/Sportswomen

    5. Environmental Education

    6. General Business

    7. Local and Federal Recreation Agencies

    8. Outdoor Recreation Participants

     

    The following state agencies shall designate representatives to participate as nonvoting members:

    1. Department of Fish and Wildlife

    2. Department of Natural Resources

    3.State Parks and Recreation Commission

    4. Recreation and Conservation Office

    5. Department of Commerce

    6. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

    7. Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation

    8. Office of Financial Management

     

    The Governor shall also invite one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the Senate and one member from each of the two largest caucuses of the House of Representatives to participate as nonvoting member

    The Governor shall designate one of the voting members as the chair of the Task Force. Non-governmental members of the Task Force may be reimbursed for travel and meeting expenses at the discretion of the Task Force.

    The Recreation and Conservation Office shall provide staff support and administer all contracts and expenses for the Task Force.

    The Task Force is encouraged to hold public meetings across the state to solicit input and collect information on regional priorities and suggestions for state action.

    The Task Force shall complete its draft plan and recommendation by September 1, 2014.

    The Task Force shall complete its final plan and recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature by September 19, 2014.

    The Task Force shall expire on December 31, 2014.

    This executive order shall take effect immediately.

    Signed and sealed with the official seal of the state of Washington on this

    19th day of February, 2014, at Olympia, Washington.

    By:/s/Jay Inslee Governor

    BY THE GOVERNOR:/s/Secretary of State

     

    http://www.governor.wa.gov/office/execorders/documents/14-01.pdf


  • (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    Governor Inslee WANTS the blue ribbon task force on parks and outdoor recreation,

    that he appointed, to  FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM.

    I did attend the Aug. 19, 2014  committee meeting in Sequim, and I sat SILENTLY through the meeting from 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    I was allowed, EXACTLY TWO MINUTES, to make my public comment at 7:50 P.M.

    I listened to what your 28 Appointed Committee member’s “WANT” for about seven hours.

    Rep. Tharinger  mentioned, that what you “WANT” to provide funding for recreation/tourism, and what you may actually get, could be significantly different.

    I do investigative, documented reporting on my website behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    Below you will find  an exchange of emails

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    —————————————————————————

    Continue reading, for the full text of my questions, comments and the exchanged emails

    ——————————————————–

    Posted April 21, 2013 Pearl Rains Hewett

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR WA STATE PARKS

    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To: Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks

    Daniel,

    I am a WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders
    This my comment on YOUR Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Washington State Parks and YOUR requested $$$$ legislation.
    ——————————————————————
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)
    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.
    —————————————————————-

    MY COMMENT
    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ————————————————————–

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)
    ——————————————————————
    Per Rep. VanDeWege, $20 MILLION SPENT for removal of fish passage blocking culverts this year.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Last summer families in Port Angeles were putting up tents and camping in their back yards.

    The abysmal failure of the WA State Discover Pass? The cost, Families simply can’t afford to use WA State Parks.

    ———————————————————–
    *From: an online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    MY COMMENT
    Do you really think raising the gas tax and grabbing a piece of the pie, is the solution to increasing park attendance, for the jobless, working poor, economically starved people in Clallam County?

    MY COMMENT is the solution to providing free Public Viewing of WA State Parks just as a NOVA image on Television?
    ———————————————————————-
    THIS IS WHAT WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders ARE UP AGAINST
    ———————————————————————–
    *From: online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday).

    It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday.

    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!
    *online email comment name removed
    ———————————————————————–

    *Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias.
    ————————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) [mailto:Daniel.Farber@PARKS.WA.GOV]
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:50 AM
    To: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Subject: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Park Stakeholders,

    For your information, below is the latest report to park staff of issues affecting State Parks in the legislature.

    Daniel
    —————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Colleagues,

    I want to provide you a brief update on legislative doings since last week’s report.

    A. The Discover Pass and Agency Request Legislation:

    There is no change on the status of SB5897, which combines four major state parks related elements:

    1.The core of our agency request legislation (SB5653) which works to expand partnerships, expand the role of the Park Foundation, and link us more soundly to cultural celebrations, ethnic heritage and the arts.
    2.Discover Pass reforms (SB5289) that formalize existing practice of not requiring/enforcing the Pass when accessing through DNR and WDFW lands. There is no such change on State Parks lands. The bill also allows for wholesaling of the pass, if all three agencies agree.
    3.Establishing a set of performance measurements for state parks, and a reporting function to the legislature.
    4. Provides $5 million per year funding from the litter tax for 4 years to state parks.

    The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and now sits in the Rules Committee.

    Perhaps the last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House Appropriations Committee. SHB1935 is set as the first bill up for a public hearing in the House Hearing Room A. At this time we do not know or any amendatory language for that bill. But here is the most reasonable expectation:

    1 It will be similar to SB5897, however it is unlikely to include the litter tax provision.
    2.It may include some provision related to legislative oversight of the potential State Parks-Public Development Authority Co-Management at Fort Worden.
    B.Boating Safety

    SSB 5437 passed the Senate and the House, but in slightly different forms. It is now on the concurrence calendar in the Senate. The bill provides some law enforcement teeth when it comes to operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol.

    C. Snowmobile Funding HB2002 has passed the House and now sits in Senate Ways and Means. It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and allow our Commission to set other fees; enabling funding and services to improve to historic levels.

    D. Horse Park Authority A bill to expand the Authority from 7 to 11 members passed both chambers and is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on Monday. Our Commission appoints members to the Authority Board, but has little other relationship to the organization.

    E. Budgets There are no differences to report from last week. The latest versions of the budget proposals are:

    Operating Budget (General Fund or Other Tax Supported Funding)
    Governor Inlsee – $23.7 million
    House – $23.7 million
    Senate – $16.4 million
    Commission October Request – $27.2 million

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)
    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)

    I hope you find this report helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

    Take care,

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov

    This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Clallam County Salt Creek Recreation area is a popular FREE ON DEMAND summer refuge for poor working  families.
    Give the WA State parks back to the counties and provide employment for the local people.

    ————————————————————————–
    It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and
    allow our Commission TO SET OTHER FEES

    This entry was posted in Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks,

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State Park Question?

    Posted on April 21, 2013

    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?

    Indeed, I asked a simple question?

    just to be clear, the question remains unanswered?

    ——————————————————
    RESPONSE
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    All,

    My name below is listed from an email headline that I wrote to State Parks staff. But just to be clear, I wrote none of the content of the below email. State Parks is not the “we” referenced by Ms. Hewett.

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov
    —————————————————————-
    FULL email TEXT INCLUDING QUESTION
    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ———————————————————————–

    BELOW, Who is this “WE” who still wants? It is not “WE THE PEOPLE”

    “We” still want $27 million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    The same “WE” who wrote
    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    Set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ——————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013
    Dear Colleagues,

    From: name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.

    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday). It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday. This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!

    name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.
    ———————————————————————–

    FOR CLARIFICATION
    Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias
    ———————————————————————–

    This entry was posted in Reasonable Man understanding, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks

    ———————————————————

    If you bothered to read this far, I have a few closing comments.

    I listened to you, you gave me TWO MINUTES.

    Round and round and round the table, I listened to you , most members? FOCUSED on what they “WANT “. And, what you wanted was MORE TAXPAYER MONEY! for what YOU “WANT”.

    It took a comment from a WA Parks, Whidbey Islander before the word “AFFORDABLE”  RECREATION was mentioned.

    A question to the WA Parks Fort Wardener, how much does it cost? total?

    The answer? We don’t keep track of it?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?  We don’t keep track of it?

    Rep. Tharanger’s response… basically was, some from here, some from a grant there, more here, more from matching funds there.

    Rep. Tharanger’s response and I quote “Part of the Game”.

    Really? Following Taxpayer money? keeping track of the total amounts? grants? matching funds?

    THE TAXPAYER’S $$$$ MONEY’S IS ALL GONE FOR WA STATE PARKS? RECREATION? TOURISM? AND THE MILLIONS OF $$$ FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTAINACE? AND REPAIRS?

    “Part of the Game?” As a vested WA State taxpayer, perhaps someone in Olympia, could forward a copy of the WA State legislated rules for this WA Parks taxpayer money Game?

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

    Please visit my website for the

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER, designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” SAYS GERRY O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.

    To be continues….

     

     

     


  • (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS?  (a new style  is being created?)

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS AND THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. AND, for improper display of the pass. Both my sister and my daughter were ticketed on the same day for improper display

    PARKING TICKETS?

    PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    Confused?

    YOUR ignorance is no excuse?

    —————————————————————-

    PARKING TICKETS?

    COMMON REASONS TO USE THE EXPLANATION FORM 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

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

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS.

    NO DUH! The people that have lived in WA State most of their lives,  DON’T WANT TO PAY TO “DISCOVER” WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE. 

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass.

    An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white OR green  pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover Pass” written on the front of the white OR green pass.  A valid “Day Pass” is also available at each park.

     If the white pass has “WDFW” written on it, it is not a Discover Pass and is not valid for State Parks.

    1. Pay in full within 15 days. You may use electronic or phone payment options below.
    2. Request a hearing in writing as explained on the ticket within 15 days.
    3. Mail in an explanation in writing by completing and mailing the explanation form with payment and supporting documentation within 15 days.

    If you choose to mail in a written explanation you must use the Explanation Form, which is available by clicking here

    Common Reasons to use the Explanation Form 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY PASS PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    DISCOVERY PASS CONFUSION? WHAT CONFUSION?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    HAVE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS?

    NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE  BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION TO  FOCUS ON THE DISCOVERY PASS, HATRED, PROBLEMS AND CONFUSION AND GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE  RECREATION AND TOURISM.

     to be continued…

     


  • (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    WOW! APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR  A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION. FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Notification to PUBLIC  in PDN Article published Aug 18, 2014

    One day notification to  meeting Aug. 19,2014 to make PUBLIC COMMENT.

    PDN Article WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. AND AT 7:25 P.M. (WRONG)
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    I DID ATTEND AND SIT THROUGH THE MEETING FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    THE PANEL DID NOT HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M.

    (1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. was designated as a “FLY ON THE WALL OBSERVER” period)

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

    I have previously posted two comments on my website

    May 29, 2014 – PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

    ————————. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

     

    The Fly on the Wall Observer? Posted on July 6, 2014 … https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf. Do I have the right to …

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

    God forbid that a member of the PUBLIC should be allowed TO ASK A QUESTION  during that time period, OR IN FACT, TO ASK A QUESTION AT ANYTIME DURING THE SEVEN HOUR MEETING .

    WOW, DIRECTIVE… SIT DOWN FOR SIX HOURS? BE QUIET FOR SIX HOURS? LISTEN TO US FOR SIX HOURS? NO QUESTIONS FOR SIX HOURS? NO ANSWERS FOR SIX HOURS OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

    MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING,  SHALL BE ALLOWED EXACTLY  TWO MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER LISTENING TO THE PANEL FROM  1 P.M. TO 7:25 P.M

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

    SOMEONE MENTIONED KEEPING THINGS OUT OF THE MEDIA?

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

    AFTER THE FACT OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT.

    THE PANEL DID HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC AFTER  7:25 P.M.

    ————————————————————————-

    One member of the panel objected to making PUBLIC COMMENTS, after the fact and last on their agenda.  

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

    TO COMMENT OR NOT TO COMMENT?

    I LOVE THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING ACT, ONE DAY NOTIFICATION AND A TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT SO I CAN GIVE THEM MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

    A woman that said she had been with WA State RECREATION for 30 years, SHE finally did it…

    I had heard ENUF…I filled out the card to make my comment.

    WHY? Because, my family gave up on WA State Parks  OVER FOUR  years ago and they have GONE TO IDAHO AND  HAVE SPENT  10 DAYS EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, VACATIONING IN IDAHO.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE MEETING  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. (pertinent parts?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS – OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS (a new style  is being created?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    LET’S TAX THE PEOPLE

    1. Car tax

    2. Bottled water tax

    3. RV tax

    ——————————————————————-

    WHY DO THE PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    THE HUGE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

    TO KEEP PARKS OPEN? TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS,  BUT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RECREATING TO LOCAL FAMILIES?

    AFFORDABLE? WA STATE PARK RECREATION? (the first mention of the word “AFFORDABLE” was from a Park man from Whidbey Island.

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS TO COME TO WA  PARKS ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE NO FACILITIES  AND  NO SPACE AVAILABLE. (they will go to Idaho or Oregon next year)

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  PEOPLE TO COME TO WA  PARKS FOR THE FISHING? ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE IS NO FISHING?

    to be continued …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF PDN PUBLIC NOTICE

    Article published Aug 18, 2014
    State outdoor recreation panel to hear public testimony Tuesday in Sequim
    Peninsula Daily News
    SEQUIM –– A panel called by Gov. Jay Inslee to develop an action plan for increasing outdoor recreation activities will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday.

    The task force formed in April also will focus on promoting jobs and business associated with outdoor recreation for the plan due Sept. 18.

    will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday

     

    The panel — which will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Sequim Holiday Inn Express, 1441 E. Washington St. — will hear testimony from the public from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and at 7:25 p.m.

    The 28-member task force includes 16 citizen members appointed by the governor; state Reps. Steve Tharinger, D-Sequim, and Vincent Buys, R-Lynden; state Sens. Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, and Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island; and eight representatives of state agencies.

    Tharinger represents the 24th Legislative District, which covers Clallam and Jefferson counties and part of Grays Harbor County. He is running for re-election in the Nov. 4 general election.

    Outdoor recreation statewide directly supports 227,000 jobs and generates more than $22 billion in annual spending on things like equipment, lodging and apparel, according to the state Recreation and Conservation Office.

    More information about the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation can be found on the state Recreation and Conservation Office’s website at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-recreation.


    All materials Copyright © 2014 Black Press Ltd./Sound Publishing Inc.

    to be continued …

     


  • 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 Update Committee

     

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

    FROM Aug 23, 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

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    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 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 2011. (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