Monthly Archives: September 2011

Public Hearing Citizen Input – Rigged SMP Update 5/29/11

Public Hearing Citizen Input – Rigged SMP Update 5/29/11
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. It does fundamentally change the nature of citizens’ private property ownership rights. It is a vague non-scientific policy that is most consistent with a substitute religion. It is a surreptitious effort to take away citizens ownership and private property rights. It is much more consistent with Marxism and the Communist Manifesto than the Washington State Constitution.
The outcome of the new Clallam County Shoreline Update Plan has been predetermined. The SMP Update Advisory Committee is merely a sham to lend legitimacy to their pre-ordained decision.
1. The DoE makes the recommendations to the process and then accepts or rejects the elected officials plan. If they don’t like us rejecting their Radical Environmental Activist Plan, they will impose it anyway.
2. The two Democrat County Commissioners have a record of walking lock-step with the State’s Central Ruling Party. Commissioner Tharinger takes Radical Environmental Activism to the next higher level.
3. The Commissioners revealed their bias and closed the deal when they appointed ESA Adolfson, a demonstrated advocate of the Radical Environmental Activist Plan of the DoE. The Radical Environmentalist have a record of using predictable group dynamics to achieve a consensus that is contrary to the Citizens best interest but appears to be democratic. The ESA Adolfson just helped engineer and the imposed a carbon copy unacceptable SMP Update on Jefferson County. They are here in Clallam County to do more of the same. This is clearly a ‘selection bias’ with a predetermined unacceptable outcome.
4. $600,000 of our public funds/taxes/money are being used to put on a sham public hearing process. The outcome could be produced by a minimum wage filing clerk with a Xerox machine.
5. No doubt the Commissioners will make a few token concessions to distract the public from their disregard of the will and rights of the people. (There will always be a few vocal radical environmentalist who will applaud their misrepresentation of the people‘s Constitutional rights.)
6. It is my impression the Citizens Shoreline Update Advisory group will play an extremely minor roll in the Public Input process as compared to the County Advisory Committee. I am familiar with an outspoken radical environmentalist from San Francisco currently serving on that Committee, who brings his San Francisco value system to the table. I do not doubt that his radical environmental activism will carry great weight on that major source of ‘public input’.
7. The NNL Policy, expanded set-backs or buffers, and new forced access of the public to private property should be rejected out of hand.
Karl Spees – CAPR representative to the SMP Update Advisory Committee

Public Input to SMP Update – Tribal Adoption of SMP Update 6/1/11

Public Input to SMP Update – Tribal Adoption of SMP Update 6/1/11
The DoE’s and Ruling Political Party’s posture in respect to the Tribes, the environment, and the SMP Update is telling. (A weak but valid argument could be made that the SMP Update is a partisan overreaching land use policy.) The Tribes make up less than 2% of the citizens of Clallam County. On the SMP Update Advisory Committee (and most other land use committees) the Tribal representatives make up well over 2% yet are exempt from the regulations/policy. Most of the Tribal representatives are also on a payroll for their committee participation while the other citizens are overwhelmingly volunteers. (There are some paid governmental-agency representatives on the committee who arguably do not represent the interests of the general public of Clallam County.)
If the SMP Updates were about protecting the environment and serving the best interests of the citizens of the ’First People’s Nation’ it would be in the Tribes’ best interest to adopt them. The Tribes are exempt from the NNL Policy, the shoreline setbacks and buffers, as well as the trespass/public access policies. It is extremely unlikely the Tribes will adopt the SMP Update regulations with good cause. Fundamentally, the DoE’s SMP Update regulations/policies are not about ecology and the environment but about governmental taking of private property rights from the County’s citizens. To compound this arguably Unconstitutional policy it is being imposed along racial lines. Using racial discrimination to impose a land use policy is incontrovertible Unconstitutional. If the Tribes are unwilling to adopt the new DoE recommended SMP Update policies, they should not be adopted for all other Clallam County Citizens.
Karl Spees – CAPR 13 Representative on the SMP Update Committee

SMP – Public Hearing Input – Length of Document


Please add this to the Public Input for the SMP Update.

Public Hearing Input – Length of Document
My copy of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is contained in 48 very small pages. If place on 8X11 pages it would probably fit easily on 12 pages. The SMP I read was about 100 pages (8X11).
In contrast to the US Constitution:
1. The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
2. The SMP is contrary to/inconsistent with the Constitution
3. The SMP is poorly written
4. The SMP is poorly organized
5. The SMP is vague and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure
6. The SMP like the Constitution probably reflects its creators. The Founding Fathers were courageous, wise, and profound. The DoE staffers/radical environmentalists are flakey, shallow, and lack integrity.
If the State Agencies and current elected controlling officials wish to ignore the ‘will of the people’ and the State Constitution, why don’t they just shorten the SMP Update and say: Our authoritarian controlling government party will incrementally take your land use from your bundle of private property rights and keep the taxes the same. This will continue until the benefits of owning your property exceeds its value to you. Then the State will use your own tax money to buy your property which they have regulated into worthlessness. We won’t buy it right away until we’ve knocked down its value and you have supported us with your tax dollars for a while longer.
Clallam County needs to follow the minimum standards of the State Law and the spirit of the State Constitution.
1. Reject in total the NNL Policy
2. Reverse the SMP overreaching in regards to setbacks and buffers.
3. Provide access to the huge amount of publicly owned shorelines of Clallam County and reverse any trend toward forced public access on private property.
4. Quit spending an enormous amount of State revenue on this systematic assault on the private property rights of the State’s Citizens.
5. There needs to be an investigation and tracking of the huge amount of funds that are being squander on the pretext of saving the environment/the planet. (Private Property owners are this State’s most threatened species.)
Karl Spees – Student of Natural History & ‘Scientist’

Public Hearing Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day

Public Hearing Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day



Please add this to my public input to the SMP Update.


Public Hearing  Input- Stolen Freedoms 5/29/11 Memorial Day

I see our powerful central government feverishly creating regulatory laws that curtail our freedoms. The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms. We the people and private property owners are the frog in the pot which is slowly being brought to a boil. The takers and destroyers continue their relentless incremental taking of our rights and freedoms. Do we wish to be like China or Russia? The SMP Update should be left unchanged or some of the previous ‘takings’ reversed.

It is Memorial Day. This is a time to reflect on how precious our freedoms and rights really are and what it will be like without them. Today we pay tribute to those courageous men and women who gave their all to secure our freedoms. Sadly we take those freedoms for granted and casually let them be incrementally eroded away. They are being stolen before our eyes by sneak thieves in our governments.

Please wake up Americans. Please act now while stopping this petty tyranny is easy. Please act every day to protect our God given fragile rights and freedoms. Do this on behalf of yourself and your family or your Country so that the sacrifices of our fallen service men and women will not have been in vain.

Karl Spees – CAPR Rep. to SMP Update Advisory

REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011


Thursday:  July 14, 2011 – SMP Public Forum, John Wayne Marina, 2577 West Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, 1:00-3:30 p.m.
With about 35 people in attendance The following questions were asked of Department of Community Development Steve Grey, Consultant Jim Kramer and ESA Nathan.
1. The purpose for the Shoreline inventory and characteristic report is?
2. The purpose for the SMP update is?
3. Mandate deadline for SMP update ?
4. What is the 200 foot set back?
Answer, the 200 foot set back is WA State law, development can occur within the 200 foot set back, with special permitting.
5. City, County SMP compliancy who’s jurisdiction?
6. Request for slides of maps?
7. Where to send written comments?
8. Competency and reliability of ESA reports on, inventories, flood plains, critical areas, buffers and setbacks?
9. Will owners of the property be required, at their own expense, to prove the ESA data is inaccurate? when ESA has a disclaimer on the maps and “May be up to 100 feet off”?
Actual SMP map disclaimer ESA states:
Map data shown here are property of the listed sources, inaccuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
Answer, Yes, property owner will have to disprove inaccurate data at their own expense.
10. What is the concept of law, regarding “NO NET LOSS?”
11. Is the shoreline inventory and characteristic report to determine the base line for loss and consequences with regard to “NO NET LOSS?
12. An additional question on property will be required, at their own expense? to prove the ESA Map data is inaccurate?
13. Comment, SPM, good information, good access and good to have public involvement at meetings. 
14. Many web sites, which one do I use?
15. Development, with regard to loss of wildlife habitat?
16. Do you use any of the things learned by Jefferson County SMP guidelines? Reports related to It created levels of public anxiety?
17. Will Clallam County just rubber stamp other SMP’s information and just do it any way?
18. Is the SMP udate just cut and dried?
19. Will we have input, considering that the impaired water quality on the lower Dungeness has been proven to be 75% bird poop and 25% people related?
Answer, we can’t control the birds and can just focus on what can be controlled.
As, Pearl Rains Hewett  I had a problem being recognized by Steve Grey and Jim Kramer to be allowed to speak.
It was not mentioned that I was a member of the Invited SMP update committee.
I made (2) comments and asked (1) question during the 2 1/2 hour meeting.
My comment, Per HB 1478 after receiving a grant for the SMP, a county has 2 years to complete their update.
My comment, shrinking open space habitat has forced animals to use freshwater reaches for travel, causing further non- people related impairment of water quality.
20.  My question, How is permitting usage done on the 200′ set back required by WA State law? By the County? Shoreline exemption Permit? Or running the full gauntlet with the DOE?
21.Questioning the validity of the predicted 18,000 increase in population growth?
22. How does the SMP setback affect our out buildings? rebuild, improve, maintenance?
Answer, non-conforming improve, maintenance, no problem. If over 50% of a non-conforming structure burns down, no rebuilding is permitted.
23. Does the same apply to bulkheads?
Answer, maintain, repair ok, but eventually DOE wants all removed. There is protection for single family dwellings. The DOE wants soft bulkheads.
24. Where do you expect the population increase?
25. Flexibility of shellfish protection, shoreline uses, setbacks?
26. How will the merging of the Shoreline inventory and Characteristics with zoning be handled?
Answer, fairly, East to West. Forest land is not the same as conservative.
27. Suspicious of DOE/ SMP pattern of control, start with minimum impact, go to NO NET LOSS, go to enhance, end up with restoration?
Answer, our duty is to protect, restoration is not required by law.
28.  “IF NOT YET? Then when?
Answer, Priorities for restoration, Elwha, remove homes, Success of restoration of Jimmy Come Lately Creek, Elwha move levees back.
29. Comment and Question, only a 200 foot set back? Shouldn’t it be more like 300 feet?
Answer, Sometimes it is, take the flood plain add the wet land and it can be more.
The questions are for documentation of PUBLIC CONCERN on the SMP update.
Pearl Rains Hewett

Wet Lands are not identifed on SMP presentation maps


07/14/11 Public Forum Per Consultant Jim Kramer, designated Wet Lands are NOT identified in the SMP presentation maps.

The  purple areas indentified in the SMP public forum  Clallam County presentation maps as risk OR threat of development property areas are MISLEADING.

If you doubt the seriousness of wetland’s omission in the SMP maps presented in Public Forums go to the Clallam County map website of designated Wetland Maps and look at page 45 (Dungeness River area) and page 39 (area between Lake Farm Road and N Bagley Creek Road.

As described on Clallam County map website,

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%

Clallam County wetland maps are not interactive and in spite of the damning consequences of wetland designation  to private property owners and developers these wetland maps are posted with Clallam County’s disclaimer of accuracy.

 Map information is from multiple sources, accuracy is limited and layers may not align with each other. This map is intended to serve only as a guide to the general location and extent of regulated wetlands, streams, geologic hazards, and wildlife habitat. Determination of actual regulatory location typically requires a field examination by qualified staff.


EPA blocks Sacketts from building a house –

and denies them their day in court

The Sacketts are renting, and they wanted to build a home on their half-acre lot, to raise a family.

Their parcel is in a residential area, with sewer and water hookups, and they got the needed local permits to build.  But then EPA swooped in, without notice or hearings, and announced that the property is “wetlands.”  The Sacketts were ordered to return their land to EPA’s liking on pain of ruinous fines.

The Sacketts dispute EPA’s claim.  They hired a soil expert and a biologist, and got a certification that their parcel is not a wetland.

But EPA – and the Ninth Circuit – say they can’t challenge the agency in court!

Instead, they would first have to seek a “permit” costing hundreds of thousands of dollars (more than the value of the land!), and bring a legal case when the permit was denied.  Or they could violate EPA’s orders and be crushed with penalties of $32,500-plus per day – and then seek court review.

Either way, the courtroom doors are slammed in their faces – unless they pay massive fees or fines!

So this is the crucial issue before the Supreme Court:  Can EPA take people’s property, simply by declaring it “wetlands,” without having to justify their actions?  Or do Americans still have the right to defend themselves and their property rights, in court, against government oppression?

“This case is garnering a lot of attention because it’s a case that could happen to you,” as Damien Schiff says. “The Sacketts are not big developers.  They just wanted a family home.”

Pearl Rains Hewett

Invited SMP update committee member