+menu-


  • Category Archives Wetlands
  • 6/6/2012 Private Meeting with DOE Bureaucrats

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Behind My Back | DOE Private meeting 6/6/2012

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/doe-private-meeting-662012/

    Jan 30, 2013 – THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County Department of Community Development for my …

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

    ——————————————————————-

      Behind My Back | It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/10/17/itswho-theyare-that-concernsme

    Oct 17, 2017 · Behind My Back … AND, IT’S WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US. To be continued…. This entry was posted in A Fearful Reminder, …

    INDEED, THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF APPOINTED BUREAUCRATS IN  WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY (DOE).

    —————————————————————————

    PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING WITH THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE (THE BUREAUCRATS)

    I made a list of my concerns  as red flag warnings from Pearl Revere

    —————————————————-

    RED FLAG #1

    When American citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me. Jan. 26, 2011 DOE SMP Public Forum.

    ——————————————–

    RED FLAG #2

    When ELECTED OFFICIAL IGNORE THE  FEARS AND CONCERNS of  American citizens , that is unacceptable to me

    1. Senator Hargrove
    2. Rep. Van DeWege
    3. Rep. Tharinger
    4. Clallam County Sheriff Benedict
    5. Clallam County Commissioner Tharinger
    6. Commissioner Mike Chapman
    7. Commissioner Mike Doherty
    8. WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna

    —————————–

    RED FLAG #3

    FEAR AND CONCERNS  WA STATE AND  APPOINTED AGENCIES

    1. WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
    2. AND OTHER UNKNOWN agencies?
    3. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as for the DOE SMP)?
    4. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as from the state)?
    5. Ariel surveillance of all Lake Sutherland homes, property and docks?
    6. DNR?
    7. WSDOT (inter agency contract with DFW) inspecting 101 culverts.
    8. DFW illegal trespass on all Lake Sutherland private property.

    —————————

    RED FLAG #4

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

     —————————

    RED FLAG #5

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    1. 1. DOE SMP WAC’S (Over stepping WA State SMP LAW)
    2. Failure to provide an SMP ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLALLAM COUNTY.
    3. DOE WAC directs Clallam County on how to deny permits to private property owners until they submit to regulations and/or restrictions that may be illegal or unconstitutional at State level.
    4. Page 88 DOE WA State Public Trust Doctrine (DOE unconstitutional creation of law without due process). They admit in writing they have done it once?
    5. DOE approval of Shoreline Management Updates that are in conflict with RCW ______ in the protection of single family residence?
    6. DOE excessive setbacks, taking of private property, non-conforming, loss of value, use and enjoyment.
    7. DOE WAC, denies permitted development of private property and requires the taking of private property for public access.

    ————————————————————————–

    JUNE 6, 2012  MY PRIVATE MEETING WITH WA STATE DOE BUREAUCRATS

    Posted as  DOE PRIVATE MEETING 6/6/12 cont.

    The WA State DOE, state policy people asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County
    Department of Community Development for my contact information, by name as an individual, Pearl Rains Hewett.

    Regional Director Paula Ehlers called me at home and requested a private meeting with me.

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Paula Ehlers told me I was allowed to invite 2-3 people. I invited (7).

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Dr.Robert Crittenden, biologist, expert witness and paid consultant.
    Dick Piling, Realtor, Republican Chairman of Clallam County
    Harry Bell, Business men’s assoc. He is Green Crow, the company owns a lot of WA State forestland, he is well know at state level SMP Advisory Committee
    Connie Beauvais, Manager of Crescent Water District, informed, active Member of the Appointed Planning Dept.
    MD retired, Karl Spees, SMP Advisory Committee, CAPR 13, very active private property owner
    Attorney Mary Pfaff, Member of the SMP Advisory Committee, had a Dr. appointment and did not attend.

    The WA State DOE Team, was a lot more interested in my guests, than they were in me.
    None of the invited (6) that attended were asked to leave.
    Interesting to note, we had the meeting at the courthouse (Steve Gray reserved the room) On the way into the DOE meeting, we ran into several interesting? interested? people. Sheila Rourke Miller, Jim McEntire and Mike Chapman.

    WHAT WAS THE MEETING AGENDA? Intel?
    DOE? I have no idea?
    I asked all of my invited guests to independently, based on their area of expertise and concerns, to prepare (5) questions for the DOE meeting.

    I personally, showed them the map, graphically demonstrating the SMP TAKING affected of the 175′, 150 plus 10′ setback on Burt Reid’s 7 acre priority feeder bluff private property. I spoke of the other property owners, all 474 of them, up to 88% would become totally non-conforming.

    I asked them, as I pointed to the map, as the US Supreme Court Justices asked an EPA witness in the 9 to zero ruling against the EPA, on the Sackett Case, “If this was your investment property? How happy would you be? What would you do? Just plant a few bushes and walk away?

    I did not take notes, I did listened and made an occasional indignant comment.
    By definition, “indignant” Angry at unfairness angry or annoyed at the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness of something.

    We did agreed that we were all American’s first and we do recognize private property rights.
    WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH – LEARN?

    Gordon White told us that, the appointed WA State Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant, (ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT)  is aware of the concerns of the Clallam County private property owners (all 3300 of us)

    WA State DOE is not required to provide an economic impact statement for Clallam County.

    My personal conclusion,
    The DOE is aware of the SMP economic impact on Clallam County government.
    The DOE is aware that they are TAKING private property value without compensation.
    The DOE is aware, that If private property owners keep fighting, we can reduce the setbacks, through our local government.

    My conclusions are based on the following
    18 months of research on line,
    WA State Law, protection of private property
    WAC’S, DOE proposed budget 2010-2013
    WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Lawsuits, WA State Supreme Court Rulings
    United States Supreme Court Rulings
    Pacific Legal Foundation battles and BIG WINS
    documented information on many other WA State SMP’S,
    “Conspiracy Exposed” George C. Rains Sr.
    “Access Denied to inholder property”,
    Attending county meetings, public forums,
    Reading every word of the Clallam County DOE SMP Update and every SMP Public Comment,
    Clallam County Chapter 35,
    Water rights, reserved water rights,
    60 years of recorded history from George C. Rains Sr.
    To name just a FEW areas I have researched, questioning, challenging, communicating and disseminating all of it. (can what I know hurt them?)

    I have great things going for me.
    I AM AN AMERICAN
    I AM NOT AFRAID OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO ME.
    I freely play, the one card I have, guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    American’s working together to protect Constitutional and private property rights, they (light candles) by disseminating, research, keep us informed, reform us, post emails, encourage and support our FREEDOM.
    Karl Spees, CAPR 13
    Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online.
    Sue Forde Citizen Review Online
    Marv Chastin

    This entry was posted in Private Property Rights, Shoreline Management Plan, WA State Dept. of Ecology.

    ——————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  OCT 19, 2017

    WHAT ARE “YOU” GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    WHAT AM I GOING TO ABOUT IT?

    THE USUAL……

    Post this 2017 SMP Update comment on behindmyback.org

    Then, email it to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, at:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  and others.

    To be continued…


  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

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

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

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

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

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

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

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

    2014-2017

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

    ————————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————

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

    Director of Community Development

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

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

     

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

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

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————–

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

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

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

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

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

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

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

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

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

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

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

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

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

    ———————————
    I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.

    —————–
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”

    ——————————-
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

    ———————————-
    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    —————————–
    Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL

    .——————–
    But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
    Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.

    And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.

    ————————————–
    The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
    ———————————————————————————
    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF  (WOTUS)

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” power grab

    WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
    —————————————————————-
    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    ——————————-
    THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
    which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID  NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    Washington State attorney General “DID” file lawsuits against ONE Superbowl ticket vendor, Arlene’s Flowers, and Hanford.

    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
    ———————————————————————————-

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————-
    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————
    What’s Up With WOTUS?
    9/3/2015
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”

    The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).

    If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
    Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ————————————————————————————
    By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
    UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.

    Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
    ———————————————————————
    CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
    California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
    August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
    The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
    Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
    Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
    “This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
    The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    “We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
    Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
    But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.


  • Ecology’s New Water Game

    Ecology’s New Water Game

    “Reclaimed Water”

    Ecology is withdrawing a previous CR-101 (WRS#06-

    23-039) on this topic and filing this new CR-101 to announce the re-start of

    work on this rule.

    —————————————————————–

    Who is this going to affect in WA State?

    Ecology will work with an advisory committee to draft rule language, provide updated progress information via a Reclaimed Water website and emails to ListServ

    to communicate with stakeholders, AND HOLD AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING.

    If you will be affected?  You better get into the game NOW!

    —————————————————————————–

    09/19/97 Ecology had (75 pages) Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards

    Users of this document are advised that RECLAIMED WATER SUITABLE FOR REUSE REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION THAT IS GENERALLY OVER AND ABOVE CONVENTIONAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES.

    ————————————————————————–

    NOW 2014

    ECOLOGY IS GOING TO BUILD ON PRODUCTS DEVELOPED IN THOSE 75 PAGES.

     —————————————————————————————

    Let’s see now, first  YOU MUST PAY FOR  A PERMIT

    All reclaimed water generation and use must be covered under a reclaimed water permit that is issued jointly between Ecology and Health.

    Then? AFTER you run the DOE Gantlet, pay the piper, do all  the work, and reclaim and generate the “Reclaimed Water”?

     AFTER THE FACT THEN? ECOLOGY  DETERMINE THE ALLOWANCE  FOR A SPECIFIC BENEFICIAL USE?

    ————————————————————-

     The key to these uses is that it specifies “Reclaimed Water” must be generated PRIOR TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR A SPECIFIC BENEFICIAL USE.

    ——————————————————-

     

    Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards

     

    ————————————————————————————————-
    Ecology is withdrawing the original notice filed in Chapter 173-219 WAC 2006 and filing a new rule pre-proposal for this activity.

     

    Subject of possible rule making:

    Department of Ecology will create a new chapter in the Washington Administrative Code(chapter 173-219 WAC–Reclaimed Water) focusing on RECLAIMED WATER

    use in Washington State. Ecology is withdrawing a previous CR-101 (WRS#06-

    23-039) on this topic and filing this new CR-101 to announce the re-start of

    work on this rule. The process will build on products developed towards this rule -making  prior to a Governor rule-making suspension.

    Ecology will work with an advisory committee to draft rule language, provide updated progress information via a Reclaimed Water website and emails to ListServ

    to communicate with stakeholders, AND HOLD AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING.

    ————————————————————————————

    More information:
    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/activity/wac173219.html
    September 1997 (75 pages) 09/19/97

     

    Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards

     

    The key to these uses is that it specifies “Reclaimed Water” must be generated PRIOR TO THE ALLOWANCE FOR A SPECIFIC BENEFICIAL USE.

    —————————————————————-

     Article 5. Other Uses of Reclaimed Water

    Section 1.

    Streamflow Augmentation

    (a) Reclaimed water intended for beneficial reuse may be discharged for streamflow augmentation provided the reclaimed water meets the requirements of the federal water pollution control act, chapter 90.48 RCW and is incorporated within a sewer or water comprehensive plan as applicable, adopted by the applicable local government and approved by the departments of Health and Ecology as applicable.

     

    (b) For the purposes of these standards, streamflow augmentation projects must identify a beneficial purpose that includes but is not limited to

    in-stream flow enhancement, irrigation supplies, water right replenishment or transfer and fisheries propagation.

     

    —————————————————————————–

     

    All reclaimed water generation and use must be covered under a reclaimed water permit that is issued jointly between Ecology and Health

     INTRODUCTION

    These standards have been developed under the authorization and specific requirements delineated with RCW 90.46 (Reclaimed Water). The type of uses, treatment and legal definition within the standards were developed in association with the Reuse Advisory Committee established under RCW 90.46.

     

    Users of this document are advised that RECLAIMED WATER SUITABLE FOR REUSE REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION THAT IS GENERALLY OVER AND ABOVE CONVENTIONAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES.

     

    Disinfection practices for Class A , B, C, and D reclaimed water are measured in total coliform, rather than fecal coliform traditionally used to measure wastewater disinfection effectiveness. Sampling is to be performed daily and Class A and B require less than 2.2 total coliforms per 100 milliliters based on a 7 day average.

     

    These standards require that reclaimed water must be reliably generated. Emergency storage or alternate permitted discharge locations must be provided for reclamation facilities for use during upset conditions..

     

    The standards also require automated alarms, redundancy of treatment units and STRINGENT OPERATOR TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION to meet the reliability criteria.

     

    The standards describe allowable beneficial uses, the required level of reclaimed water treatment appropriate for each beneficial use, and any specific statutory requirements from RCW 90.46. Some treatment and beneficial uses are regulated uniquely to reclaimed water projects. The key to these uses is that it specifies “Reclaimed Water” must be generated prior to the allowance for a specific beneficial use. All reclaimed water

    generation and use must be covered under A RECLAIMED WATER PERMIT that is issued jointly between Ecology and Health

    INTRODUCTION

    …………………………..

    5

    DEFINITIONS

    …………………………..

    6

    SECTION 1 –

    GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

    …………………………..

    13

    Article 1. Irrigation

    …………………………..

    13

    Section 1. Nonfood Crops.

    …………………………..

    13

    Section 2. Land Treatment Systems.

    …………………………..

    13

    Section 3. Food Crops.

    …………………………..

    13

    Section 4. Landscape Irrigation.

    …………………………..

    14

    Article 2. Impoundments

    …………………………..

    14

    Section 1. Landscape Impoundments.

    …………………………..

    14 Section 2. Restricted Recreational Impoundments.

    …………………………..

    14

    Section 3. Non-restricted Recreational Impoundments.

    …………………………..

    14

    Section 4. Constructed Beneficial Use and Constructed Treatment Wetlands.

    …………………………..

    14

    Article 3. Groundwater Recharge by Surface Percolation

    …………………………..

    15

    Section 1. Applicability

    …………………………..

    15

    Section 2. Treatment Requirements

    …………………………..

    15

    Section 3. Other Requirements

    …………………………..

    15

    Section 4. Evaluation

    …………………………..

    16

    Article 4. Commercial and Industrial Uses

    …………………………..

    16

    Section 1. Fish Hatchery Basins.

    …………………………..

    16

    Section 2. Decorative Fountains.

    …………………………..

    16

    Section 3. Flushing of Sanitary Sewers

    …………………………..

    16

    Section 4. Street Cleaning

    …………………………..

    17 Section 5. Washing of Yards, Lots, and Sidewalks on Corporation Grounds.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 6. Dust Control.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 7. Dampening of Soil for Compaction.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 8. Water Jetting for Consolidation of Backfill around Pipelines.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 9. Fire Fighting.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 10. Fire Protection.

    …………………………..

    17 Section 11. Toilet and Urinal Flushing

    …………………………..

    17 Section 12. Ship Ballast.

    …………………………..

    18 Section 13. Washing Aggregate and Making Concrete.

    …………………………..

    18 Section 14. Industrial Boiler Feed.

    …………………………..

    18 Section 15. Industrial Cooling

    …………………………..

    18 Section 16. Industrial Process Water.

    …………………………..

    18 Article 5. Other Uses of Reclaimed Water

    …………………………..

    18 Section 1. Streamflow Augmentation

    …………………………..

    18 Section 2. Other Uses of Reclaimed Water

    …………………………..

    19 Article 6. Other Methods of Treatment

    …………………………..

    19 Section 1. Other Methods of Treatment

    …………………………..

    19 Article 7. Sampling and Analysis

    …………………………..

    19 Section 1. Protocols and Minimum Frequencies

    …………………………..

    19 Article 8. Engineering Report

    …………………………..

    2009/972

    Section 1. Scope and Minimum Requirements

    …………………………..

    20

    Article 9. Operational Requirements

    …………………………..

    21

    Section 1. Personnel

    …………………………..

    21

    Section 2. Maintenance

    …………………………..

    22

    Section 3. Operating Records and Reports.

    …………………………..

    22

    Section 4. Bypass.

    …………………………..

    22

    Section 5. Disinfection

    …………………………..

    22

    Section 6. Responsibilities

    …………………………..

    23

    Article 10. General Requirements of Design

    …………………………..

    23

    Section 1. Flexibility of Design

    …………………………..

    23

    Section 2. Alarms.

    …………………………..

    24

    Section 3. Power Supply.

    …………………………..

    24

    Section 4. Storage, Where No Approved Alternative Disposal System Exists

    …………………………..

    24

    Article 11. Alternative Reliability Requirements

    …………………………..

    25

    Section 1. Emergency Storage or Disposal

    …………………………..

    25

    Section 2. Biological Treatment

    …………………………..

    25

    Section 3. Secondary Sedimentation

    …………………………..

    26

    Section 4. Coagulation

    …………………………..

    26

    Section 5. Filtration

    …………………………..

    27

    Section 6. Disinfection

    …………………………..

    27

    Section 7. Other Alternatives to Reliability Requirements

    …………………………..

    28

    Article 12. Use Area Requirements

    …………………………..

    28

    Section 1. General

    …………………………..

    28

    Section 2. Tank Trucks.

    …………………………..

    30

    Section 3. Cross-Connection Control

    …………………………..

    30

    Section 4. Setback Distances.

    …………………………..

    30

    Article 13. Summary of General Requirements

    …………………………..

    32

    Section 1. Reclaimed Water Treatment and Quality Requirements.

    …………………………..

    32

    Section 2. Monitoring Requirements.

    …………………………..

    32

    Section 3. Setback Distances.

    …………………………..

    33

    Table 1. Treatment and Quality Requirements for Reclaimed Water Use

    …………………………..

    34

    Table 2. Monitoring Requirements

    …………………………..

    36

    Table 3. Setback Distances

    …………………………..

    37

    Appendix 1

    …………………………..

    38

    SECTION 2 – RECLAIMED WATER STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS

    …………………….

    44

    Article 1. Applicability

    …………………………..

    44

    Section 1.

    Category 1 and Salt Water Wetlands

    …………………………..

    44

    Section 2. Waters of the State.

    …………………………..

    44

    Article 2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria

    …………………………..

    44

    Section 1. Hydraulic Loading

    …………………………..

    44

    Section 2. Water Levels.

    …………………………..

    44

    Article 3. Water Quality Criteria: Standards for Discharge to Wetlands

    …………………………..

    45

    09/973

    Section 1. Minimum Quality

    …………………………..

    45

    Section 2. Water Quality Criteria.

    …………………………..

    45

    Section 3. Loading Rates.

    …………………………..

    45

    Section 4. Ammonia

    …………………………..

    46

    Section 5. Metals.

    …………………………..

    46

    Article 4. Biological Criteria: Standards in Wetlands Receiving Reclaimed Water

    ………………….

    46

    Section 1. Beneficial Uses.

    …………………………..

    46

    Section 2. Natural Conditions.

    …………………………..

    46

    Section 3. Biological Criteria

    …………………………..

    46

    Article 5. Ground Water Protection Criteria

    …………………………..

    47

    Section 1. Hydrogeologic Evaluation

    …………………………..

    47

    Article 6. Net Environmental Benefit

    …………………………..

    47

    Section 1. Required Demonstrations.

    …………………………..

    47

    Article 7. Application and Monitoring Requirements

    …………………………..

    48

    Section 1. Background Studies.

    …………………………..

    48

    Section 2. Operational Monitoring

    …………………………..

    48

    Article 8. Summary of Standards

    …………………………..

    49

    Section 1. Reclaimed Water Treatment and Quality Requirements.

    …………………………..

    Section 2. Monitoring Requirements.

    …………………………..

    49

    Table 1. Treatment and Quality Requirements for Reclaimed Water Use

    …………………………..

    …..

    49

    Table 2. Monitoring Requirements

    …………………………..

    50

    SECTION 3 – STANDARDS FOR DIRECT AQUIFER RECHARGE

    …………………………

    51

    Article 1. Applicability

    …………………………..

    51

    Section 1. Applicability

    …………………………..

    51

    Article 2. Treatment Requirements

    …………………………..

    ..

    51

    Section 1. Potable Ground Water.

    …………………………..

    51

    Section 2. Nonpotable Ground Water

    …………………………..

    51

    Section 3. Other Methods of Treatment

    …………………………..

    52

    Article 3. Reclaimed Water Quality Requirements

    …………………………..

    52

    Section 1. Direct Recharge to Potable Ground Water.

    …………………………..

    52

    Section 2. Direct Recharge to Nonpotable Ground Water.

    …………………………..

    53

    Section 3. Point of Compliance.

    …………………………..

    53

    Article 4. Sampling and Analysis

    …………………………..

    54

    Section 1. Oxidized Wastewater.

    …………………………..

    54

    Section 2. Filtered Wastewater.

    …………………………..

    54

    Section 3. Reclaimed Water.

    …………………………..

    54

    Section 4. Ground Water from Monitoring Wells.

    …………………………..

    55

    Section 5. Laboratory Methods and Analyses

    …………………………..

    55

    Article 5. Operational Requirements

    …………………………..

    55

    Section 1. Personnel

    …………………………..

    55

    Section 2. Maintenance

    …………………………..

    55

    Section 3. Operating Records and Reports.

    …………………………..

    55

    09/974

    Section 4. Bypass.

    …………………………..

    56

    Section 5. Disinfection

    …………………………..

    56

    Section 6. Responsibilities

    …………………………..

    56

    Section 7. Retention Time in the Underground.

    …………………………..

    57

    Section 8. Separation Distance in the Underground.

    …………………………..

    57

    Section 9. Ground Water Monitoring.

    …………………………..

    57

    Article 6. General Requirements of Design

    …………………………..

    58

    Section 1. Flexibility of Design

    …………………………..

    58

    Section 2. Alarms.

    …………………………..

    58

    Section 3. Power Supply.

    …………………………..

    59

    Section 4. Storage, Where No Approved Alternative Disposal System Exists

    …………………………..

    ..

    59

    Article 7. Alternative Reliability Requirements

    …………………………..

    59

    Section 1. Emergency Storage or Disposal

    …………………………..

    …………………………..

    59

    Section 2. Biological Treatment

    …………………………..

    60

    Section 3. Secondary Sedimentation

    …………………………..

    60

    Section 4. Coagulation

    …………………………..

    61

    Section 5. Filtration

    …………………………..

    61

    Section 6. Reverse Osmosis.

    …………………………..

    62

    Section 7. Disinfection

    …………………………..

    62

    Section 8. Other Alternatives to Reliability Requirements

    …………………………..

    63

    Article 8. Reclaimed Water Transmission and Distribution System Requirements

    …………………..

    63

    Section 1. General

    …………………………..

    63

    Section 2. Cross-Connection Control

    …………………………..

    64

    Section 3. Setback Distances.

    …………………………..

    64

    Article 9. Engineering Report

    …………………………..

    65

    Section 1. Engineering Report.

    …………………………..

    65

    Article 10. Pilot Plant Study

    …………………………..

    67

    Section 1. Pilot Plant Study.

    …………………………..

    67

    Article 11. Summary of Standards

    …………………………..

    68

    Section 1. Treatment and Water Quality Requirements

    …………………………..

    68

    Section 2. Monitoring Requirements.

    …………………………..

    68

    Table 1. Treatment /Quality Requirements for Direct Recharge with Reclaimed Water

    ………….

    69

    Table 2. Monitoring Requirements for Direct Recharge with Reclaimed Water

    ………………………

    70

     


  • The Bad News On Kilmer

    US. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of wetlands, shorelines
    By ROB CARSON — Staff writer Published: August 22, 2013
    ———————————————————–
    A CAUTIONARY NOTE TO DEREK KILMER ON NORM DICKS HISTORY

    A MAN MAY BE KNOWN BY THE COMPANY HE KEEPS
    WHAT DEREK KILMER DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT NORM DICKS COULD HURT HIM.

    Scandals surrounding Norm Dicks are long, and deep. … of records and files pertaining to the FBI investigation of Congressman Norm Dicks.
    ————————————————————
    REPORTED August 22, 2013 ANOTHER GOLIATH’S CONSORTIUM

    During more than two hours of TESTIMONY Tuesday, the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes?
    Several who TESTIFIED said MORE MONEY needs to be allocated for scientific monitoring. GETTING MONEY FOR RESTORATION projects HAS BEEN RELATIVELY EASY LATELY, they said, but finding money for monitoring results has been nearly impossible.

    TESTIMONY BY Bill Ruckelshaus, August 22, 2013
    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus,
    —————————————————————
    GETTING EASY RESTORATION MONEY INDEED,
    AS EASY THE EPA FEDERALLY MANDATED UNFUNDED $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RAIN TAX IN MARYLAND TO CLEAN-UP CHESAPEAKE BAY?

    HOW MUCH EASIER COULD IT BE TO GET RESTORATION FUNDING? THEN A FEDERALLY APPOINTED EPA EDICT?
    ————————————————————–

    A NECESSARY COMMENT
    DEREK’S COMMENT “CORPORATION’S ARE NOT PEOPLE”
    GOLIATH CONSORTIUM’S (the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes) ARE NOT PEOPLE.

    The heads of federal and state environmental agencies ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS – someone who holds a government position (either by election or appointment)

    ———————————————————-

    A CAUTIONARY NOTE TO DEREK KILMER ON NORM DICKS HISTORY

    REP. NORM DICKS, DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2007-2010

    January 2007, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) became chairman of a congressional subcommittee that gave him the power to secure millions in federal funds to environmental projects in his district.

    August 2007, DAVID DICKS (Son of Rep. Norm Dicks) was appointed by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. as executive director for a newly created state agency, the Puget Sound Partnership.

    May 7, 2008, Gov. Chris Gregoire named Bill Ruckelshaus the first chair OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
    ———————————————————-

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP,” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.

    ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” May 2010
    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    Jul 30, 2010 – William Ruckelshaus resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    November 2010, David Dicks resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    Mar 12, 2012 House Dem Norm Dicks Steps Aside After FOIA Revelations – Scandals surrounding Norm Dicks are long, and deep. … of records and files pertaining to the FBI investigation of Congressman Norm Dicks.
    ————————————————————

    TESTIMONY BY Bill Ruckelshaus, August 22, 2013
    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus,

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?

    A former administrator of the EPA and FIRST chair of the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP Leadership Council
    FROM May 7, 2008 UNTIL HIS RESIGNATION Jul 30, 2010.

    HOW DID WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS THE FIRST CHAIR OF THE ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” AVOID BEING NAMED IN THE REP. NORM DICKS AND DAVID DICKS SCANDAL AND IRS INVESTIGATION?

    WHAT INVOLVEMENT DID Bill Ruckelshaus HAVE IN THE ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” REP. NORM DICKS AND DAVID DICKS SCANDAL AND INVESTIGATION?

    In May 2010, auditors found the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    ————————————————————
    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP: Jul 30, 2010
    Ruckelshaus passes the torch – Strange …
    blog.seattlepi.com/…/puget-sound-partnership-ruckelshaus-passes-the-tor…‎
    Jul 30, 2010 – William Ruckelshaus is stepping down as chairman of the PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP leadership council.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Legislature in 2007: It has turned into a major cooperative effort involving federal, state, tribal and local governments, PLUS A MULTITUDE OF NON-PROFITS.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    In 1983, with the EPA in crisis due to mass resignations over the mishandling of the Superfund project,[2] President Ronald Reagan appointed Ruckelshaus to serve as EPA Administrator again.

    WHO IS Bill Ruckelshaus?
    On November 28, 1984, Ruckelshaus announced that he would be retiring as EPA head, effective January 5, 1985, around the start of President Reagan’s second term. In actuality he stayed on until February 7, 1985.

    UNITED NATIONS
    In 1985, Ruckelshaus joined Perkins Coie, a Seattle-based law firm. From 1983-86, he served on the World Commission on Environment and Development set up by the United Nations

    BANNED DDT
    Ruckelshaus (who had not attended the hearings himself) overruled Sweeney’s decision and issued the ban nevertheless, claiming that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” [1]
    —————————————————-

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP In August 2007,
    David Dicks got the job, which required him to develop a plan for coordinating state and federal efforts to clean up THE NATIONS SECOND LARGEST ESTUARY, PUGET SOUND.
    which is only overshadowed by the Chesapeake Bay.
    ——————————————————–
    REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS
    ———————————————————–
    Posted Feb. 9, 2012
    Earmark investigation: Rep. Norm Dicks and Puget Sound
    The Washington Post
    by Kimberly Kind

    with comments from Randy Dutton Citizen Review Online

    Posted Feb. 9, 2012

    Olympia, Wash. — In January 2007, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) became chairman of a congressional subcommittee that gave him the power to secure millions in federal funds to environmental projects in his district.

    Six months later, the congressman requested millions of dollars to clean up Puget Sound — a vital but polluted system of waterways in his home state of Washington, according to White House records.

    His interests on behalf of the sound aligned with those of his son, David Dicks, who at the time was interviewing to be executive director for a newly created state agency,

    ”THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP”
    (REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS)

    In August 2007, he got the job, which required him to develop a plan for coordinating state and federal efforts to clean up the nation’s second-largest estuary,
    which is only overshadowed by the Chesapeake Bay.

    Over the next four years, father and son worked in tandem to restore Puget Sound, with the congressman directing millions more to the work, including a $1.82 million earmark and more than $14 million in grants and other funds that went to his son’s agency. There were no competitors for the funds.

    The earmark and grants are unreported elements in the story of the father and son and Puget Sound, which has long been controversial in the Pacific Northwest, spawning charges of nepotism, waste and no-bid contracts, according to state audits and political opponents.

    Norm Dicks lost his chairmanship in the Republican takeover of the House in 2010, and his son stepped down from his $129,000-a-year job around the same time.

    The case illustrates the complications that can arise when a lawmaker’s congressional actions benefit not only his district but also a family member. Both father and son insist they were only trying to save the environment and serve the people of Washington.

    “This is a very important issue for the people in my state. This isn’t about me or my son,” the 71-year-old congressman said during an interview in his Capitol office. “David got the job through a competitive process . . . he had the passion for the job.”

    David Dicks, 40, said the group’s success in pursuing federal funds was because his father had become chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on the interior, environment and related agencies.

    “He didn’t have the power to do this before,” David Dicks said. “He didn’t do it for me; he did it because he cares about Puget Sound and he finally had the ability to do something about it.”

    But their critics say good intentions were undercut by favoritism.

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP
    (REP. NORM DICKS DAVID DICKS AND WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS)

    “Everyone was scratching everyone’s back with this ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP” said Republican state Sen. Mark Schoesler, who has been a vocal critic of the partnership. “They were banking on daddy Dicks to bring money home, and then his son squandered it.”

    Beginning in 2006, Congressman Dicks and David Dicks were both active in efforts to create a state agency to clean up the sound. The congressman served on the governor’s blue ribbon panel that recommended forming the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP, which would serve as coordinator for local, state and federal efforts. David Dicks, an environmental lawyer, wrote passages in the panel’s final report on funding and political strategies for such a partnership.

    “Your kids are going to do things that you have been involved with,” Norm Dicks said. “I don’t think there was a conflict. We are all trying our best to restore Puget Sound.”

    DAVID DICKS was appointed by Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire. The governor’s spokesman said Dicks’s environmental credentials “made him highly competitive.”

    As executive director of the new agency, David Dicks’s job included raising funds for and coordinating with local, state and federal agencies that would be the “boots on the ground.” In public hearings, he spoke of his ability to secure federal funds and was repeatedly praised for doing so.

    “When we started this, we were getting $1 million for the sound program through EPA,” David Dicks said during a Nov. 6, 2010, hearing in Olympia. “We were then able to leverage that up to $20 million for two years and then up to $50 million. That obviously is a big, serious increase in the federal support.”

    In addition to the earmark and grants, federal records show Congressman Dicks was able to raise the annual budget for all Puget Sound-related work during his tenure as chairman, reaching a height of $50 million in 2010. During the hearing, David Dicks said all the money went to support

    the partnership’s cleanup and restoration agenda.

    With his House subcommittee chairmanship, Dicks was considered an appropriations “cardinal,” holding the purse strings of the federal budget. As such, the congressman said he knew that both he and his son would be criticized if he delivered money

    directly to the Puget Sound Partnership.

    On June 26, 2007, Congressman Dicks introduced his first appropriations bill with money for Puget Sound. He later asked that the funds he secured be sent directly to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    “We knew there would be sensitivity,” the congressman said. “We sent it to the regional EPA office, not to the partnership, and had them create a competitive process.”

    The funds had to be used on an “action agenda,” Norm Dicks said — work that the partnership was charged to perform.

    EPA officials said in phone calls and e-mails that recipients of the funds had to go through a “competitive” process.

    However, EPA records show that $6.1 million of the funds were given in 2008 and 2009 through a noncompetitive agreement, largely to fund the action agenda.

    Confronted with the records, and after several weeks of exchanges with The Post, the EPA backed away from characterizing the process for the funds as competitive.

    “While responding to The Washington Post’s detailed requests for information related to EPA’s work with the Puget Sound Partnership, we found that two pieces of information we provided were incorrect,” said Tom Eaton, Washington state operations office director for the EPA. “In both cases, as soon as we realized our error, we provided the correct information.”

    An additional $5.99 million was given in 2010 for the action agenda through a grant process for which there was only one applicant — the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP The agency was also the only applicant in 2009 for a $2 million grant for community outreach and education for Puget Sound restoration efforts.

    The congressman’s spokesman, George Behan, said that Norm Dicks believed that none of the funds can be considered earmarks because the money went through a national program at the EPA, not directly to the ”PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP

    “You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, it’s an earmark,” said Steve Ellis, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense. “There was a lot of verbiage and hyperbole about how it was going to be competitively bid, but the facts clearly show that this is a case of a lawmaker directing funds to a specific entity that also happened to employ his son.”

    In early 2009, the Washington State Auditor’s Office started looking at state funds given to the partnership, a state agency that has 40 employees and receives $3 million in state funds and $7.57 million in federal funds for its annual budget.

    In May 2010, auditors found the partnership “circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds,” incurring “costs without clear public benefit.”

    Auditors pointed out that the Seattle office of the K&L Gates law firm had been given a no-bid contract, receiving up to $478 an hour and a total of $51,498. The firm has been a campaign donor to the congressman.

    “Under state contracting laws, you have to go out to bid on anything that is $20,000 or more. This contract was originally $19,999. Now come on — that shows intent,” State Auditor Brian Sonntag said in an interview in his Olympia office. “That tells me they were looking for a way to direct that contract without opening it to competition.”

    “I think of all the things that happened, the way we executed that contract was the weakest thing we did,” David Dicks said. “We shouldn’t have done it that way.”

    The state’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee issued its own audit in December, finding that the action agenda failed to include “required benchmarks” to determine if “progress is being made.”

    The audit triggered a review by the EPA, which called on the partnership to return more than $120,000 in funds after finding several contracts and agreements that lacked certifications to show the agency received the goods and services it had paid for.

    A week after Republicans took control of the House in November 2010, David Dicks resigned from the Puget Sound Partnership.

    “It was a difficult time,” he said. “I left a lucrative law practice to help save Puget Sound. No one was expecting the response that me and my father got.”

    ——————-

    Comments from Randy Dutton:

    K&L Gates was Dicks’ 4th largest political contributor.

    · K&L Gates had a position on the Board of Directors that hired David Dicks.

    · David Dicks then, according to the audit report, issued a contract that falsified the urgency, thus trying to avoid having the work done by the AG’s office as required; skirted the dollar threshold then immediately increased it after the contract award (violation of federal law subject to incarceration). This appears to be payback. (Audit Report)

    · David Dicks sent $10,000 to the Cascade Conservancy where his brother Ryan was working, which the Audit Report said provided no value to the taxpayers. (Audit Report)

    · David fired a whistleblower then secretly used public money to pay her off. (KOUW report)

    · David misused government property (his car).

    · David failed to report lobbying effort as required by the state. (EFF report)

    · $3 Million of ‘Green Jobs’ funding went to Pierce County, whereupon Ryan Dicks (2nd son of Norm) was hired at about $87,000/year for 2 years to spend it to: insulate some homes, install some heat pumps, replace a scoreboard, change some lights. More payback? (Tribune)

    ———————————————————
    COMPLETE TEXT August 22, 2013 THE BAD NEWS ON DEREK KILMER

    U.S. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue drive to clean up Puget Sound
    Published: August 22, 2013

    U.S. Reps Kilmer and Heck promise to continue the work of Norm Dicks on behalf of wetlands, shorelines
    By ROB CARSON — Staff writer

    Freshmen U.S. Reps. Derek Kilmer and Denny Heck promised Tuesday that they’ll do their best to sustain former Congressman Norm Dicks’ drive to clean up Puget Sound.

    “Together our feet aren’t big enough to fill the shoes of Norm Dicks and what he has done to improve the health of Puget Sound,” said Heck, D-Olympia, “but we’re here to see how we can advance our movements forward.”

    At a field hearing held at Tacoma’s Center for Urban Waters, Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, called the restoration of Puget Sound “both a moral and an economic necessity.” Kilmer replaced Dicks, who retired in 2012 after representing the 6th Congressional District for nearly four decades.

    In 2009, when Dicks was chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on the interior, environment and related agencies, he raised the budget for Puget Sound-related work to a high of $50 million — 100 times what it had been the previous decade.

    During more than two hours of testimony Tuesday, the heads of federal and state environmental agencies and Indian tribes summarized achievements, which they said included the restoration of miles of wetlands and other shoreline habitat; improvements in the handling of stormwater runoff; and the removal of invasive species, creosoted docks and pilings, and derelict vessels.
    ————————————————————–
    A NECESSARY COMMENT

    But they told the congressmen that continued vigilance, and a continued flow of federal money, is critical for success.

    “It’s not like putting out a fire,” said Bill Ruckelshaus, former administrator of the EPA and former chair of the Puget Sound Partnership’s Leadership Council. “We’ve got to stay everlastingly at it.”

    Several who testified said more money needs to be allocated for scientific monitoring. Getting money for restoration projects has been relatively easy lately, they said, but finding money for monitoring results has been nearly impossible.
    —————————————————————

    INDEED, EASY AS THE MANDATED UNFUNDED EPA $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RAIN TAX IN MARYLAND TO CLEAN-UP CHESAPEAKE BAY

    ————————————————————–

    Another consistent problem with the restoration effort, several who testified said, is that a sizeable portion of the public is still either unaware or unconvinced that a problem exists.

    At the Center for Urban Waters, which overlooks the Thea Foss Waterway, a parade of pleasure boats headed back and forth from Commencement Bay.

    “How can you say, looking out here, that everything is not hunky-dory?” said Randy Kinley, representing Lummi Nation. “The problem is below the sunny surface.”

    Heck said he believes that is indeed a central issue.

    “You have to convince the people,” Heck said, “and what you need to convince the people is a convincing message. Distilling the message is something we can make a lot of progress on.”

    Rob Carson: 253-597-8693 rob.carson@ thenewstribune.com

    Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/08/22/2683877/lawmakers-back-cleaner-sound.html#storylink=cpy


  • West Nile Virus in WA State

    It’s back: a month earlier than in previous years

    West Nile detected in Yakima County WA

    West Nile virus detected in mosquito samples collected in Yakima …
    www.doh.wa.gov › Newsroom › 2013 News Releases‎

    3 days ago – … collected in Yakima County have tested positive for West Nile virus … These results are the first sign that the virus is active in Washington this year. Testing mosquito samples and dead birds for West Nile virus began just last …

    It’s back: West Nile detected in Yakima County | Q13 FOX News
    q13fox.com/2013/06/14/its-back-west-nile-detected-in-yakima-county/‎
    3 days ago – … in Yakima County for West Nile virus earlier this week, a month earlier than in previous years. Officials with the Washington state Department …

    Perhaps now that West Nile virus is in WA State, reading my POSTS AND email on West Nile Virus will be of greater interest.


  • EPA Grants West Nile Virus

    EPA GRANTS – WETLANDS AND WEST NILE VIRUS DEATHS

    As of June 11, 2013, 11 STATES have reported West Nile virus infections in people, birds, or mosquitoes
    ——————————————————————–

    AND, the 2013 WEST NILE VIRUS SEASON BEGINS
    ——————————————————————-

    IN NOVEMBER 2007 EPA GRANTS
    EXPECTED RESULTS: The results will be applicable to wetland management. The link (MOSQUITOES) between biodiversity (WETLANDS) and this potentially deadly virus IN HOPES THAT THEIR FINDINGS
    WILL HELP SAVE LIVES IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

    2007 DEATHS (124)
    2008 DEATHS (44)
    2009 DEATHS (32)
    2010 DEATHS (57)
    2011 DEATHS (43)
    2012 DEATHS (286)
    2013 DEATHS (1)

    The CDC statistical results 2008 thru 2012?
    463 LIVES LOST TO WEST NILE VIRUS

    ——————————————————————–
    June 16, 2013 – Research, documentation and comments.
    read on if you are concerned

    This is IN REGARD TO Federal EPA unfunded mandated wetland preservation and expansion program.

    —————————————————————-

    Rutgers University – Epa – US Environmental Protection Agency
    cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display…/4173‎
    R833777, Risk Factors for West Nile Virus: The Role of Biodiversity in the Ecology of Hosts, Vectors and Humans, Grant, January 1, 2008 through December 31, …
    ——————————————————-
    Record Details – Science Inventory | US EPA
    cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?dirEntryId=201232‎
    US Environmental Protection Agency logo … AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND BIODIVERSITY (R833778) … Project type: EPA Grant …
    ——————————————————————
    Behind My Back | WETLANDS AND WEST NILE VIRUS
    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/wetlands-and-west-nile-virus/‎
    Jan 30, 2013 – WEST NILE VIRUS Project Period: November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296. Project Period: January 1, 2008 …
    ——————————————————
    Where are the “scientific findings” of the $1.5 million IN EPA granted studies?
    NOT FOUND ON LINE JUNE 16, 2013?
    the rest of the story
    ——————————————————————- Continue reading 


  • EPA West Nile Virus 2013

    Back in the News May 2013

    What prevention method does the CDC offer in this 2013 life and death situation?

    Stay indoors after dark?

    2013 THE EPA MANDATES THE CREATION OF MORE WETLANDS, MORE MOSQUITOES AND MORE WEST NILE VIRUS

    2013 STATES PASS LAWS ON SPRAYING PESTICIDE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM VECTOR BORNE DISEASES.

    ———————————————————————–

    The 5,207 cases reported in 2012 is the highest number of West Nile virus disease cases reported to CDC through the third week in November since 2003, including 234 deaths.

    Please remember Texas and California.

    Ask the Federal Government to stop EPA Funding and creation of WETLANDS (Jan. 20, 2012 hand carried to WA DC)

    PLEASE INVESTIGATE EPA WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS IN THE USA.

    Jan. 20, 2012 Malaria and other mosquito-vectored diseases are a brutal form of population control

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?
    ——————————————————————–
    ASK THE FEDS TO STOP FUNDING THE EPA CREATION OF MORE WETLANDS?
    AND WHAT DO YOU GET?
    ——————————————————————–
    MORE CREATION OF WETLANDS- MORE MOSQUITOES – MORE WEST NILE VIRUS AND
    SPRAYING PESTICIDE TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM VECTOR BORNE DISEASES.
    ——————————————————
    More excuses for them to come onto our land.
    WA State
    Sen. Honeyford’s mosquito abatement bills become law

    POSTED ON MAY 14, 2013

    By Mike Faulk http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1136522-8/sen-honeyfords-mosquito-abatement-bills-become-law

    YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

    Relief is on the way for residents of rural communities just outside the currently drawn mosquito district boundaries.

    Senate Bill 5002, which was signed by Gov. Jay Inslee and goes into effect July 27, allows local mosquito control districts to inspect and abate breeding places on adjacent lands outside a district’s official boundaries. It also allows districts to cut or remove shrubbery or undergrowth as part of abatement operations, but that’s subject to consultation with the land owner.

    ————————————————–
    AND YOU GET THIS WA State

    Senate Bill 5324: Senate Bill 5324: Concerning mosquito abatement in storm water control retention ponds
    Passed 48 to 0 in the Senate on April 22, 2013, provides that a county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must: consider, and to the extent possible consistent with the Department of Ecology’s design guidelines for stormwater retention ponds, construct stormwater facilities to maintain and control vegetation to inhibit mosquito breeding; and consult with local mosquito control districts, where established, when developing construction plans that include stormwater retention ponds. A county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must maintain and control vegetation growth in, without compromising the function of, stormwater retention ponds to minimize mosquito propagation. When notified of the presence of WNV or other mosquito-borne human diseases, a county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must consult with DOH or the mosquito control district as to the most effective IPM strategy to use. In areas with mosquito control districts, the district must abate mosquitoes when notified of the presence of WNV or other mosquito-borne human diseases.
    See Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” at http://www.washingtonvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=660484

    ——————————————————————-

    AND YOU HAVE THIS WA State
    RCW 17.28.175
    Control of mosquitos — Declaration that owner is responsible.

    A board established pursuant to RCW 17.28.110 may adopt, by resolution, a policy declaring that the control of mosquitos within the district is the responsibility of the owner of the land from which the mosquitos originate. To protect the public health or welfare, the board may, in accordance with policies and standards established by the board following a public hearing, adopt a regulation requiring owners of land within the district to perform such acts as may be necessary to control mosquitos.

    [1990 c 300 § 2.]

    —————————————————————-

    AND YOU HAVE THIS WA State
    RCW 17.28.185
    Control of mosquitos — Noncompliance by landowner with regulations.

    (1) Whenever the board finds that the owner has not taken prompt and sufficient action to comply with regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 17.28.175 to control mosquitos originating from the owner’s land, the board shall notify the owner that a violation of this chapter exists. The notice shall be in writing and sent by certified mail, or served by personal service. The notice shall provide a reasonable time period for action to be taken to control mosquitos. If the board deems that a public nuisance or threat to public health or welfare caused by the mosquito infestation is sufficiently severe, it may require immediate control action to be taken within forty-eight hours following the time that notification is reasonably expected to have been received by the owner or agent by certified mail or personal service.

    (2) If the owner does not take sufficient action to control mosquitos in accordance with the notice, the board may control them, or cause their being controlled, at the expense of the owner. The amount of such expense shall constitute a lien against the property and may be enforced by proceedings on such lien. The owner shall be liable for payment of the expenses, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent collection of any judgment on account thereof by any means available pursuant to law, in substitution for enforcement of the lien. Necessary costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the board in carrying out this section, may be recovered at the same time, as a part of the action filed under this section. The venue in proceedings for reimbursement of expenses brought pursuant to this section, including those involving governmental entities, shall be the county in which the real property that is the subject of the action is situated.

    —————————————————————–

    AND YOU HAVE THIS WA State
    RCW 17.28.250

    Interference with entry or work of district — Penalty.

    Any person who obstructs, hinders, or interferes with the entry upon any land within the district of any officer or employee of the district in the performance of his or her duty, and any person who obstructs, interferes with, molests, or damages any work performed by the district, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    [2011 c 336 § 467; 1957 c 153 § 25.]

    —————————————————————–

    AND YOU HAVE THIS WA State
    RCW 17.28.254

    Abatement, extermination declared necessity and benefit to land.

    It is hereby declared that whenever the public necessity or welfare has required the formation of a mosquito control district, the abatement or extermination of mosquitoes within the district is of direct, economic benefit to the land located within such district and is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare of those residing therein.

    [1959 c 64 § 6.]

    —————————————————————-

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    That I sent to WA DC hand carried Jan 20, 2012

    DC INVESTIGATE WET LAND INCREASE AND WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    To Whom It May Concern

    United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

    PLEASE INVESTIGATE EPA WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS IN THE USA.

    WEST NILE VIRUS Project Period: November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296

    Project Period: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010EPA Grant Number: R833777 West Nile Virus $749,994

    ————————————————————–
    As a two year member of the WA State, Clallam County Shoreline Update Committee.

    3300 private shoreline property owners in our county are affected by this Dept. of Ecology mandate, it requires large setbacks from wetlands.

    I researched the creation of millions of acres of wetlands mandated by federal Government since 2004.

    I followed and reported as West Nile Virus killed more and more people.

    I sent emails to Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, they did not respond.

    I asked for the EPA study results from November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296?

    Mlaria and other mosquito-vectored diseases are a brutal form of population control

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?

    The EPA is guilty of much more then CLOUDED WATERS.

    This is a 2013 life and death situation. I request that all DC elected officials make this investigation a priority.

    Please remember Texas and California.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    235 W 5th St.
    Port Angeles WA 98362
    (360) 417-9452

    DC INVESTIGATE WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK Jan. 20, 2012

    CDC 2012 West Nile virus final update: November 20

    The 5,207 cases reported thus far in 2012 is the highest number of West Nile virus disease cases reported to CDC through the third week in November since 2003.

    1999-2012 over 30,000 reported cases of West Nile Virus, HOW MANY DEATHS?

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS.

    WEST NILE VIRUS Project Period: November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296

    Project Period: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010EPA Grant Number: R833777 West Nile Virus $749,994

    Expected Results: The results will be applicable to wetland management

    2007 The link (MOSQUITOES) between biodiversity (WETLANDS) and this potentially deadly virus in hopes that their findings will help save lives in the near future.

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?

    How many lives could have been saved if there had been a moratorium placed on the creation of WETLANDS in 2007? How many people died of West Nile Virus between Nov. 2007 and Nov. 2012, in the USA?

    ———————————————————————–

    HISTORY

    On Earth Day 2004, the President George Walker Bush

    announced a new initiative to go beyond “no net loss” of wetlands

    and attain an overall increase in the quality and quantity of wetlands in America.

    Specifically, the Administration has projected that an additional 1.5 million wetland acres

    will be created, improved, or protected between Earth Day 2006 and 2007, with

    three million acres being obtained by 2009.

    ADMINISTRATION PROJECTED 4.8 MILLION ACRES OF WETLANDS BY 2009

    These figures are in addition to the 1,797,000 acres of wetlands

    How many additional acres of wetlands were created 2009-2012?

    Waste water treatment plants create the perfect environment for West Nile Virus
    —————————————————————

    WHAT HAS THE EPA known for five years? and BEEN COVERING UP FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS?
    Find the results and make them PUBLIC. (previously sent to Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell)

    As of November 20, 2012, 48 states have reported West Nile virus infections in people, birds, or mosquitoes.

    A total of 5,207 cases of West Nile virus disease in people, including 234 deaths, have been reported to CDC. Of these, 2,643 (51%) were classified as neuroinvasive disease (such as meningitis or encephalitis) and 2,564 (49%) were classified as non-neuroinvasive disease.

    The 5,207 cases reported thus far in 2012 is the highest number of West Nile virus disease cases reported to CDC through the third week in November since 2003. Eighty percent of the cases have been reported from 13 states (Texas, California, Louisiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Michigan, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Ohio, and New York) and a third of all cases have been reported from Texas.

    Since 1999, more than 30,000 people in the United States have been reported as getting sick with West Nile virus. Infected mosquitoes spread West Nile virus (WNV) that can cause serious, life altering disease.

    Where are the “scientific findings” of the $1.5 million EPA granted studies?

    ——————————————————————-

    AND then YOU HAVE THIS…..

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Randy Dutton
    To: ‘Keith Olson’
    Cc: ‘pearl hewett’
    Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:33 PM
    Subject: Trespass

    More excuses for them to come onto our land.

    Sen. Honeyford’s mosquito abatement bills become law

    POSTED ON MAY 14, 2013

    By Mike Faulk http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1136522-8/sen-honeyfords-mosquito-abatement-bills-become-law

    YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

    Relief is on the way for residents of rural communities just outside the currently drawn mosquito district boundaries.

    Senate Bill 5002, which was signed by Gov. Jay Inslee and goes into effect July 27, allows local mosquito control districts to inspect and abate breeding places on adjacent lands outside a district’s official boundaries. It also allows districts to cut or remove shrubbery or undergrowth as part of abatement operations, but that’s subject to consultation with the land owner.

    The bill was sponsored by Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside.

    Another Honeyford bill, SB5324, encourages municipalities to use state Department of Ecology design guidelines when constructing storm water retention ponds to abate the spread of mosquitoes.

    The bill also requires Ecology to consult with the state Department of Health about strategies to prevent West Nile virus. Under the bill, which also goes into effect July 27, any retention pond found to contain West Nile virus will be the responsibility of the area’s mosquito control district to mitigate.

    In a news release, Honeyford said addressing the mosquito issue is a matter of public health.

    “In the past 10 years, the number of reported cases of West Nile virus has increased steadily, so I’m thankful the Legislature and the governor saw fit to support these bills; hopefully they’ll go a long way toward keeping the public safe,” Honeyford said.

    • Mike Faulk can be reached at 509-577-7675 or mfaulk@yakimaherald.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/Mike_Faulk.

    Randy


  • West Nile Virus EPA coverup?

    Ask the Federal Government to stop EPA Funding of WETLANDS (Jan. 20, 2012 hand carried to WA DC)

    PLEASE INVESTIGATE EPA WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS IN THE USA.

    Jan. 20, 2012 Malaria and other mosquito-vectored diseases are a brutal form of population control

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?

    ——————————————————————

    ASK THE FEDS TO STOP FUNDING THE EPA CREATION OF MORE WETLANDS?

    AND WHAT DO YOU GET?

    ——————————————————————-

    Thank Randy for this info.

    More excuses for them to come onto our land.
    ———————————————————

    Sen. Honeyford’s mosquito abatement bills become law

    POSTED ON MAY 14, 2013

    By Mike Faulk http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1136522-8/sen-honeyfords-mosquito-abatement-bills-become-law

    YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

    Relief is on the way for residents of rural communities just outside the currently drawn mosquito district boundaries.

    Senate Bill 5002, which was signed by Gov. Jay Inslee and goes into effect July 27, allows local mosquito control districts to inspect and abate breeding places on adjacent lands outside a district’s official boundaries. It also allows districts to cut or remove shrubbery or undergrowth as part of abatement operations, but that’s subject to consultation with the land owner.

    —————————————–
    AND YOU GET THIS

    Senate Bill 5324: Senate Bill 5324: Concerning mosquito abatement in storm water control retention ponds
    Passed 48 to 0 in the Senate on April 22, 2013, provides that a county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must: consider, and to the extent possible consistent with the Department of Ecology’s design guidelines for stormwater retention ponds, construct stormwater facilities to maintain and control vegetation to inhibit mosquito breeding; and consult with local mosquito control districts, where established, when developing construction plans that include stormwater retention ponds. A county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must maintain and control vegetation growth in, without compromising the function of, stormwater retention ponds to minimize mosquito propagation. When notified of the presence of WNV or other mosquito-borne human diseases, a county, city, town, water-sewer district, or flood control zone district must consult with DOH or the mosquito control district as to the most effective IPM strategy to use. In areas with mosquito control districts, the district must abate mosquitoes when notified of the presence of WNV or other mosquito-borne human diseases.
    See Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” at http://www.washingtonvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=660484

    —————————————————————–

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    RCW 17.28.175
    Control of mosquitos — Declaration that owner is responsible.

    A board established pursuant to RCW 17.28.110 may adopt, by resolution, a policy declaring that the control of mosquitos within the district is the responsibility of the owner of the land from which the mosquitos originate. To protect the public health or welfare, the board may, in accordance with policies and standards established by the board following a public hearing, adopt a regulation requiring owners of land within the district to perform such acts as may be necessary to control mosquitos.

    [1990 c 300 § 2.]

    —————————————————————

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    RCW 17.28.185
    Control of mosquitos — Noncompliance by landowner with regulations.

    (1) Whenever the board finds that the owner has not taken prompt and sufficient action to comply with regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 17.28.175 to control mosquitos originating from the owner’s land, the board shall notify the owner that a violation of this chapter exists. The notice shall be in writing and sent by certified mail, or served by personal service. The notice shall provide a reasonable time period for action to be taken to control mosquitos. If the board deems that a public nuisance or threat to public health or welfare caused by the mosquito infestation is sufficiently severe, it may require immediate control action to be taken within forty-eight hours following the time that notification is reasonably expected to have been received by the owner or agent by certified mail or personal service.

    (2) If the owner does not take sufficient action to control mosquitos in accordance with the notice, the board may control them, or cause their being controlled, at the expense of the owner. The amount of such expense shall constitute a lien against the property and may be enforced by proceedings on such lien. The owner shall be liable for payment of the expenses, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent collection of any judgment on account thereof by any means available pursuant to law, in substitution for enforcement of the lien. Necessary costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the board in carrying out this section, may be recovered at the same time, as a part of the action filed under this section. The venue in proceedings for reimbursement of expenses brought pursuant to this section, including those involving governmental entities, shall be the county in which the real property that is the subject of the action is situated.

    —————————————————————–

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    RCW 17.28.250

    Interference with entry or work of district — Penalty.

    Any person who obstructs, hinders, or interferes with the entry upon any land within the district of any officer or employee of the district in the performance of his or her duty, and any person who obstructs, interferes with, molests, or damages any work performed by the district, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

    [2011 c 336 § 467; 1957 c 153 § 25.]

    —————————————————————

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    RCW 17.28.254

    Abatement, extermination declared necessity and benefit to land.
    It is hereby declared that whenever the public necessity or welfare has required the formation of a mosquito control district, the abatement or extermination of mosquitoes within the district is of direct, economic benefit to the land located within such district and is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare of those residing therein.

    [1959 c 64 § 6.]

    ———————————————————

    AND YOU HAVE THIS
    That I sent to WA DC hand carried Jan 20, 2012

    DC INVESTIGATE WET LAND INCREASE AND WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    To Whom It May Concern

    United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

    PLEASE INVESTIGATE EPA WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS IN THE USA.

    WEST NILE VIRUS Project Period: November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296

    Project Period: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010EPA Grant Number: R833777 West Nile Virus $749,994

    As a two year member of the WA State, Clallam County Shoreline Update Committee.

    3300 private shoreline property owners in our county are affected by this Dept. of Ecology mandate, it requires large setbacks from wetlands.

    I researched the creation of millions of acres of wetlands mandated by federal Government since 2004.

    I followed and reported as West Nile Virus killed more and more people.

    I sent emails to Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, they did not respond.

    I asked for the EPA study results from November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296?

    Mlaria and other mosquito-vectored diseases are a brutal form of population control

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?

    The EPA is guilty of much more then CLOUDED WATERS.

    This is a 2013 life and death situation. I request that all DC elected officials make this investigation a priority.

    Please remember Texas and California.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    235 W 5th St.

    Port Angeles WA 98362

    (360) 417-9452

    DC INVESTIGATE WETLAND INCREASE AND 2012 WEST NILE VIRUS OUTBREAK Jan. 20, 2012

    CDC 2012 West Nile virus final update: November 20

    The 5,207 cases reported thus far in 2012 is the highest number of West Nile virus disease cases reported to CDC through the third week in November since 2003.

    1999-2012 over 30,000 reported cases of West Nile Virus, HOW MANY DEATHS?

    The EPA and Corp with some documented scientific understanding since November 2007, connecting WETLANDS, mosquitoes, infected birds, West Nile Virus and other vector borne diseases, continued their reckless endangerment of human lives and public health by mandating and continued to create MILLIONS of acres of WETLANDS.

    WEST NILE VIRUS Project Period: November 2007 – October 2010 EPA Grant Number: R833778 $749,296

    Project Period: January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010EPA Grant Number: R833777 West Nile Virus $749,994

    Expected Results: The results will be applicable to wetland management

    2007 The link (MOSQUITOES) between biodiversity (WETLANDS) and this potentially deadly virus in hopes that their findings will help save lives in the near future.

    WHEN DID CREATING WETLANDS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE?

    How many lives could have been saved if there had been a moratorium placed on the creation of WETLANDS in 2007? How many people died of West Nile Virus between Nov. 2007 and Nov. 2012, in the USA?

    ———————————————————————

    HISTORY

    On Earth Day 2004, the President George Walker Bush

    announced a new initiative to go beyond “no net loss” of wetlands

    and attain an overall increase in the quality and quantity of wetlands in America.

    Specifically, the Administration has projected that an additional 1.5 million wetland acres

    will be created, improved, or protected between Earth Day 2006 and 2007, with

    three million acres being obtained by 2009.

    ADMINISTRATION PROJECTED 4.8 MILLION ACRES OF WETLANDS BY 2009

    These figures are in addition to the 1,797,000 acres of wetlands

    How many additional acres of wetlands were created 2009-2012?

    Waste water treatment plants create the perfect environment for West Nile Virus

    ———————————————————–

    WHAT HAS THE EPA known for five years? and BEEN COVERING UP FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS?
    Find the results and make them PUBLIC. (previously sent to Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell)

    As of November 20, 2012, 48 states have reported West Nile virus infections in people, birds, or mosquitoes.

    A total of 5,207 cases of West Nile virus disease in people, including 234 deaths, have been reported to CDC. Of these, 2,643 (51%) were classified as neuroinvasive disease (such as meningitis or encephalitis) and 2,564 (49%) were classified as non-neuroinvasive disease.

    The 5,207 cases reported thus far in 2012 is the highest number of West Nile virus disease cases reported to CDC through the third week in November since 2003. Eighty percent of the cases have been reported from 13 states (Texas, California, Louisiana, Illinois, Mississippi, Michigan, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, Ohio, and New York) and a third of all cases have been reported from Texas.

    Since 1999, more than 30,000 people in the United States have been reported as getting sick with West Nile virus. Infected mosquitoes spread West Nile virus (WNV) that can cause serious, life altering disease.

    Where are the “scientific findings” of the $1.5 million EPA granted studies?

    ———————————————————————–

    AND then YOU HAVE THIS…..

    Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:33 PM
    Subject: Trespass

    More excuses for them to come onto our land.

    ———————————————————————–

    Sen. Honeyford’s mosquito abatement bills become law

    POSTED ON MAY 14, 2013

    By Mike Faulk http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/yhr/tuesday/1136522-8/sen-honeyfords-mosquito-abatement-bills-become-law

    YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

    Relief is on the way for residents of rural communities just outside the currently drawn mosquito district boundaries.

    Senate Bill 5002, which was signed by Gov. Jay Inslee and goes into effect July 27, allows local mosquito control districts to inspect and abate breeding places on adjacent lands outside a district’s official boundaries. It also allows districts to cut or remove shrubbery or undergrowth as part of abatement operations, but that’s subject to consultation with the land owner.

    The bill was sponsored by Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside.

    Another Honeyford bill, SB5324, encourages municipalities to use state Department of Ecology design guidelines when constructing storm water retention ponds to abate the spread of mosquitoes.

    The bill also requires Ecology to consult with the state Department of Health about strategies to prevent West Nile virus. Under the bill, which also goes into effect July 27, any retention pond found to contain West Nile virus will be the responsibility of the area’s mosquito control district to mitigate.

    In a news release, Honeyford said addressing the mosquito issue is a matter of public health.

    “In the past 10 years, the number of reported cases of West Nile virus has increased steadily, so I’m thankful the Legislature and the governor saw fit to support these bills; hopefully they’ll go a long way toward keeping the public safe,” Honeyford said.

    • Mike Faulk can be reached at 509-577-7675 or mfaulk@yakimaherald.com. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/Mike_Faulk.


  • SMP Requested wetland disclosure

    Clallam County has failed to disclose the identity of private property WETLANDS

    Citing WA State Chapter 42.36 RCW Appearance Of Fairness Doctrine
    And, The “Understanding of a Reasonable Person” I am requesting disclosure of the following, “UNKNOW” factors of PRIVATE WETLANDS, on the Clallam County SMP Draft included in 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6 and (WAC 365-195-905(5)(a)) as defined in WAC 365-900 through 925 and other any other SMP Draft critical areas restrictions that apply to WETLANDS.
    ——————————————————-
    SMP Draft Update – WETLAND LIST OF UNKNOWN FACTORS
    Shall we all be required to wait in FEAR of the UNKNOWN?

    1. IDENTIFICATION
    2. NOTIFICATION TO THE AFFECTED
    3. INVITATION TO THE AFFECTED
    4. DISCLOSURE TO THE AFFECTED
    5. AFFECTED BY ADJOINING PROPERTY
    6. WETLAND CATEGORY (I – IV)
    7. ENDANGERED SPECIES LOCATION
    8. IDENTIFIED WETLAND PLANTS
    9. SETBACKS AND BUFFERS (unknown) (UP TO 300 FEET + OTHERS)
    10. PRIVATE PROPERTY RESTRICTED USE AND DEVELOPMENT
    11. REGULATORY TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE
    12. NON-CONFORMANCE OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
    13. DELINEATION
    14. WETLANDS ON PROPERTY TITLE?
    ———————————————————————————–
    WETLANDS ARE REGULATED BY WA STATE LAW
    ——————————————————————————–
    VIOLATION OF A “WETLAND” IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE.

    THE THREAT ON WHAT WAS PERCEIVED TO BE DEVELOPMENT OF A WETLAND BY THE EPA ENDED UP IN THE U S SUPREME COURT.
    ——————————————————————————-
    PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
    PLF and the Sacketts: an important win at the Supreme Court
    Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Contact: Damien M. Schiff
    Status: On remand: The administrative record was filed Jan. 15, 2013. Case is stayed until Mar. 18, 2013. Any motion on the administrative record is due Apr. 2, 2013.
    Summary:
    In an unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rules that landowners have a right to direct, meaningful judicial review if the EPA effectively seizes control of their property by declaring it to be “wetlands.” The Court rules in favor of PLF clients Mike and Chantell Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, who were told by EPA — and by the Ninth Circuit — that they could not get direct court review of EPA’s claim that their two-thirds of an acre parcel is “wetlands” and that they must obey a detailed and intrusive EPA “compliance” order, or be hit with fines of up to $75,000 per day.

    ————————————————————————

    CLALLAM COUNTY CRITICAL AREA MAPS
    The Critical Area and Zoning Maps show all of the above base information, plus zoning, parcels, and all of the various critical areas designated by the County. Note the Critical Area Map Legend: This is a one-page legend and guide to the maps. It is essential to understanding them. The Wetland Function Maps show all the wetlands in the county, identified with a unique identifier and an attribute code explaining its functional relationship to the overall natural systems

    HOW TO IDENTIFY YOUR WETLAND ON MAPS?
    Since parcels and wetlands are too small and numerous to label legibly
    at this scale, they are identified with tiny labels. To view wetland codes and large parcel numbers, you must zoom to at least 400%. To view small parcel labels, you must zoom to at least 1200%.

    SMP UPDATE DISCLAIMER ON MAPS
    2. Mapping: The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the
    County’s critical area maps. These maps are advisory and do not provide definitive information about wetlands?
    ——————————————————————————-

    THIS IS WA STATE LAW
    RCW 36.70A.175 Wetlands to be delineated in accordance with manual.
    Wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380.
    DELINEATED to describe or explain something in detail, to sketch or draw something in outline, to represent something visually using something such as a chart or graph, to indicate the physical boundaries of something

    ———————————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE DRAFT UPDATED INFORMATION

    CLALLAM COUNTY SMP FINAL DRAFT 4-22 NOVEMBER 20124.

    4.3.4
    Regulations –Wetland Designation, Delineation, Mapping and Classification
    1.Designation:
    Regulated wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
    ground water 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. Regulated wetlands generally include, but are not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, ponds, including their submerged aquatic beds and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
    wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990 (adoption date of Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management Act)that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetlands modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    2. Mapping: The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the
    County’s critical area maps. These maps are advisory and do not provide definitive information about wetland Clallam County SMP

    Final Draft November 2012 4-21 size or presence. The County shall update the maps as new wetlands are identified and as new information from credible sources becomes available.

    ———————————————————————————
    Best Available Science for Wetlands (WAC 365-195-905(5)(a)).
    Under the state’s Growth Management Act, local governments are required to use the best available science when reviewing and revising their policies and regulations on wetlands. However, there was no comprehensive synthesis or interpretation of the science for wetlands, and most local governments lack the resources to tackle such an undertaking.
    Best Available Science is defined in WAC 365-900 through 925.
    ———————————————————————————–
    3.Delineation: In accordance with RCW 90.58.380, wetlands shall be identified in accordance with the requirements of WAC 173-22-035. Unless otherwise provided for in this Program, all areas within the County meeting the criteria in the manual are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this section The wetland boundary shall be identified and delineated by a biologist with wetlands ecology expertise within the North Olympic Peninsula Region, and who has professional experience in this occupation demonstrated by a minimum of two years’ practical experience or is certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist by the Society of Wetland Scientists. This person shall field stake the wetland boundary and this line shall be surveyed by a professional land surveyor if the delineation is required for a land division pursuant to Clallam County Code Title 29.4.

    Classification and Rating:

    WETLANDS SHALL be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington(Ecology Publication No. 04-06-025and revised editions), as determined using the appropriate rating forms contained in that publication. These categories are generally defined as follows:

    ———————————————————————————–

    HOWEVER (full text below)
    7. Increased Wetland Buffers: The Administrator may increase wetland buffer zone widths, not to exceed three hundred (300) feet
    ———————————————————————————–

    a.category I Type standard Buffer Width Class I 200 feet

    Wetlands:Category I wetlands are those wetlands of exceptional value in terms of protecting water quality, storing flood and storm water, and/or providing habitat for wildlife as indicated by a rating system score of 70 points or more on the Ecology rating forms. These are wetland communities of infrequent occurrence that often provide documented habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered species, and/or have other attributes that are very difficult or impossible to replace if altered.
    ———————————————————————————–

    b. Category II Wetlands: Type standard Buffer Width Class II 150 feet

    Category II wetlands have significant value based on their function as indicated by a rating system score of between 51 and 69 points on the Ecology rating
    forms. They do not meet the criteria for Category I rating but occur infrequently and have qualities that are difficult to replace if altered.

    ————————————————————————–
    c. Category III Wetlands: Type standard Buffer Width Class III 75 feet

    Category III wetlands have important resource value as indicated
    by a rating system score of between 30 and 50 points on the Ecology rating forms. These wetlands are relatively common.

    —————————————————————————–

    d. Category IV Wetlands: Type standard Buffer Width Class IV 50 feet

    Category IV wetlands are wetlands of limited resource value as
    indicated by a rating system score of less than 30 points on the Ecology rating forms.
    They typically have vegetation of similar age and class, lack special habitat features,
    and/or are isolated or disconnected from other aquatic systems or high-quality upland habitats.

    Clallam County SMP Final Draft 4-22November 20124.

    3.5 Regulations –Wetland Buffers
    1.Buffer Widths: Buffers shall be established and maintained to protect all regulated wetlands. The standard wetland buffer width shall be determined according to the regulated wetland rating as outlined in Table 4-1below. The buffer shall not be altered except as authorized by this Program; provided that such alterations meet all other standards for the protection of regulated wetlands. All buffers are measured from the regulated wetland edge as marked in the field.

    Table 4-1. Wetland Buffers for Wetlands in Shoreline Jurisdiction Wetland Type standard Buffer Width
    Class I 200 feet
    ClassII150 feet
    Class III 75 feet
    Class IV 50 feet

    2.Wetland Buffer Condition: Buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well-vegetated and undisturbed condition defined as an average density of at least 150 woody stems per acre or fifty five percent (55 %) areal cover of woody vegetation, unless this Program specifically allows alteration of the buffer. Alterations that are not associated with an allowed use or development shall be prohibited.

    3. Multiple Buffers: In the event that buffers for any shorelines and/or critical areas are contiguous or overlapping, the landward- most edge of all such buffers shall apply.

    4.Buffer Averaging: Wetland buffer widths shown in Table 4-1
    may be reduced by the Administrator though buffer averaging. With buffer averaging, the buffer width is reduced in one location and increased in another location to maintain the same overall buffer area. Proposals for wetland buffer averaging shall not require a shoreline variance or compensatory mitigation if the following conditions are met:

    a. The minimum width of the buffer at any given point is at least fifty percent (50%) of the standard width per Table 4-1, or thirty five (35) feet, whichever is greater; and

    b. The net buffer area (acreage) after averaging is the same as the standard buffer area without averaging; and

    c. The area that is added to the buffer to offset the reduction is well-vegetated as defined in 4.3.5.2 above .

    5.Buffer Reduction: On sites that lack well-vegetated buffers as defined in 4.3.5.2 above, the Administrator may approve a proposal for wetland buffer reduction. Proposals for wetland buffer reduction on such parcels shall not require a shoreline variance as long as the following conditions are met:

    Clallam County SMP
    Final Draft
    November 2012 4-23

    a. The minimum width of the reduced buffer is at least seventy five percent (75%)
    of the standard width per Table 4-1; and

    b. The reduced portion of the buffer cannot exceed forty percent (40%) of the buffer length (in other words, in a one hundred [100]
    foot long segment of buffer, the reduced buffer could up to forty [40] feet long); and

    c. The reduced buffer area is planted and enhanced to meet the minimum vegetation density and/or cover targets in 4.3.5.2 above.

    Plantings shall consist of species native to western Washington.

    6.Mitigation for Buffer Averaging: Prior to approving a request for buffer averaging or reduction, the Administrator shall ensure the development is designed to separate and screen the wetland from impacts such as noise, glare, vegetation trampling, etc. The site design shall consider the varying degrees of impacts of different land uses. For example, parking lots, store entrances, and roads generally have higher noise and glare impacts than the rear of the store. Site screening should take advantage of natural topography or existing vegetation, wherever possible. Where natural screening is not available, berms, landscaping, and structural screens should be implemented (e.g., orient buildings to screen parking lots and store entrances from critical areas).

    Landscaping shall be consistent with Chapter 33.53 Clallam County Code.

    7.Increased Wetland Buffers: The Administrator may increase wetland buffer zone widths, not to exceed three hundred (300) feet, for a development project on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. Such determination shall be based on site-specific and project-related on conditions which include, but are not limited to:

    a. Wetland sites with known locations of endangered or threatened species for which a habitat management plan indicates a larger buffer is necessary to protect habitat values for such species; or

    b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control best management practices will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts.

    8.Buffer for Wetland Mitigation Sites: Any wetland that is created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for an approved wetland alteration shall have the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.

    4.3.6 Regulations –Wetland Protection Standards
    1.
    New shoreline uses and developments shall be located, designed, constructed,
    and maintained to avoid wetland areas. Impacts to wetlands shall be prohibited except when all of the following conditions are met:

    a. The use or development is specifically allowed by this Program;
    and

    b. All reasonable measures have been taken to avoid adverse effects on wetland functions and values; and

    c. Compensatory mitigation is provided, in accordance with section 4.4 of this Program,
    for all adverse impacts that cannot be avoided; and

    d. The amount and degree of alteration are limited to the minimum needed to accomplish the project purpose.

    Clallam County SMP
    Final Draft 4-24November 2012

    2.The Administrator may impose conditions on new shoreline use and developments as needed to preserve or, if feasible, increase the acreage, quality, function, and/or values of regulated wetlands within Clallam County. Specific conditions shall include, but not be limited to, reducing the number, size or scale of buildings, driveways and other features; altering the configuration or layout of the proposed development; using environmentally favorable construction materials; foregoing construction of accessory structures; directing lights away from the wetland; preserving native vegetation; and other reasonable measures needed to maintain the following wetland functions and values:

    a. Drinking Water:
    Ability of a wetland to recharge, maintain, and/or enhance surface or ground
    water resources that yield potable water in sufficient quantities to be economically useful.

    b. Floodflow Desynchronization:
    Ability of a wetland to retain/detain floodwaters in the upper watershed, reducing the severity of flooding.

    c. Groundwater Recharge:
    This wetland function is significant but not in the context that wetlands act as the major locations of groundwater recharge to aquifers. Although some wetlands do provide

    a significant amount of groundwater recharge, the large areas of river alluvium and unconsolidated glacial deposits and, in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley, the irrigation network are much more regionally significant. Rather, groundwater recharge is significant because wetlands in contact with the aquifer are most susceptible to carrying pollutants to the aquifer. Conversely, if managed properly, such wetlands could assist in the treatment of pollutants already carried in the drinking water aquifer.

    d. Nutrient Removal/Transformation:
    Ability of a wetland to retain or transform inorganic phosphorus and/or nitrogen into their organic forms, or transform nitrogen into its gaseous form, on either a net annual basis or during the growing season. This can reduce excess nutrients and algal blooms in downstream surface waters.

    e. Sediment/Toxicant/Bacterial Retention:
    Ability of a wetland to retain suspended solids and chemical contaminants such as pesticides, pathogens, and heavy metals absorbed to them, on a net annual basis.

    f. Seawater Intrusion Prevention:
    Wetlands can act as the boundary between the unconfined aquifer and the marine environment. Loss of water supply or drainage of wetlands will likely increase seawater intrusion to unconfined aquifers supplying drinking water to coastal inhabitants.

    g .Streamflow/Channel Maintenance:
    Wetlands that provide detention or groundwater discharge can supply a significant proportion of streamflow during summer and fall These areas regulate the amount and timing of stream energy and therefore are crucial to defining the shape of stream channels.

    h. Temperature Maintenance:
    Wetlands can provide thermal refuges during winter and summer months due to influence from springs or contact with the unconfined aquifer. During summer months, wetlands with this function are important as fish habitat for salmonids; during winter months, these wetlands provide waterfowl habitat by maintaining ice-free conditions.

    i. Water/Food Availability:
    The ability of a wetland to provide surface water and foraging resources for migratory and resident species.

    j. Habitat:
    The quality and availability of areas for breeding, nesting, feeding, and resting for wetland-dependent and wetland-associated species