Monthly Archives: October 2011

Conflict of Interest? Clallam Co. versus NOLT

from PearlRains-Hewitt

October 27, 2011

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dale Holiday IS THE Grant Director at Department of Health and Human Services – Clallam County

Dale Holiday IS North Olympic Land Trust (Member Board of Directors and Chair of the Fund Raising Committee)

Why should we worry about the best interest of the public in Clallam County? When Clallam County pays Dale Holiday a Member of the Board of Directors of the Olympic Land Trust as the Grant Director for Clallam County Dept. of Public Health and Human Services.

Whose interest is being conflicted by our County Commissioners?

Welcome to the North Olympic Land Trust

North Olympic Land Trust is a non-profit conservation organization serving the communities of the North Olympic Peninsula. We are working to protect the special qualities of the North Olympic Peninsula in Clallam County, Washington, just outside the internationally treasured Olympic National Park. 

Pearl Rains Hewett

CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Dale Holiday’s Overview
Current
  • Member Board of Directors at Olympic Peninsula Humane Society
  • Grant Director at Department of Health and Human Services – Clallam County
Groups and Associations:
North Olympic Land Trust (Member Board of Directors and Chair of the Fund Raising Committee)
 Olympic Peninsula Visitor Bureau (Member Board of Directors)

Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I submit this as my comment to the proposed SED

 

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee

 

 

PROPOSED # 2  FRESHWATER RESIDENTIAL

Like Lake Sutherland

I thought the set back was 35 feet?

Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?

Prohibited or discouraged use

Armoring, except when single family residence is in imminent danger.

BY Law there is NO mention of the words” imminent or danger or soft armoring”

IN FACT THE LAW STATES, SHALL PROVIDE FOR METHODS TO achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage.

 

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

Read on if you are interested

 

PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

Protection of single family residences

2

RCW 90.58.100

(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as

construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection.

 

The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.

 

The standards shall provide a preference for permit

issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the

proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

Watch Out, Dungeness, Here They Come – Dungeness Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN – from Pearl Rains-Hewett

WATCH OUT DUNGENESS, HERE THEY COME 

Dungeness Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study

CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 (GO ON LINE, LOOK THEM UP, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

SPECIFICATIONS DOCUMENT

Issue Date: October 11, 2011

THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

THE APPLICATION FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE STUDY HAS BEEN WRITTEN (SENT?)

Read on if you are interested.

Pearl Rains Hewett

PROJECT TITLE:

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: November 1, 2011

EXPECTED TIME PERIOD FOR CONTRACT:

January 2012 – October 2012

Task 4: Assessment of Alternative Wastewater Solutions in Dungeness

 

Task Description

With this task the feasibility of a clustered or community option for wastewater treatment and disposal will be determined

for the community adjacent to the mouth of the Dungeness River. In this area, septic system repairs are very expensive

and sometimes unworkable due to poor soils, a high water table, and small lot sizes, and water supply development is

equally difficult. Recent microbial source tracking in the Dungeness Bay shellfish growing area adjacent to this

community (currently closed for commercial harvest) showed that human waste is a contributor, so this task will assess

feasible “small flow” solutions to an insidious nonpoint problem. The

feasibility study would interactively combine

community input into the development of technical options. The outcome would be a community equipped and

mobilized to pursue a facility plan with the best alternative, as per the hierarchy for rural development.

Project Area for Task 4

Old Dungeness” is a very historic community originally developed as the Clallam County seat, where building sites were

small and waste disposal and domestic water supplies were generally crowded on the same lot. Adjacent to this and on

the east side of the Dungeness River mouth, the mile-long Three Crabs Road can be characterized as a linear sand dune

between outer Dungeness Bay and wetlands. It was originally developed as vacation housing on the seashore. Now the

area has shoreline lots with large full-time residences with added fill to combat normal erosion, tidal action, increasinglyshallow

groundwater conditions (as sea level rises). On the wetlands side, a canal system that discharges to marine water

was excavated to create a 90-lot subdivision. The unique site characteristics and historic land use practices all contribute

to

septic system problems with no good repair options.

The map below for the Task 4 project area illustrates several of the limiting factors for management of wastewater (and

individual water supplies).

 

 

THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

 

THE APPLICATION FOR THE FUNDING HAS BEEN WRITTEN

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

BACKGROUND

 

“Dungeness” is a very historic community originally developed as the Clallam County seat,

where building sites were small and waste disposal and domestic water supplies were generally

crowded on the same lot. Adjacent to this and on the east side of the Dungeness River mouth,

the mile-long Three Crabs Road can be characterized as a linear sand dune between outer

Dungeness Bay and wetlands. Originally developed as vacation housing, now the small

shoreline lots have large year-round residences – sometimes with added fill to combat normal

erosion, tidal action, and potentially rising groundwater as sea level rises. On the wetlands side,

a canal system that discharges to marine water was excavated to create a 90-lot subdivision. The

unique site characteristics and historic land use practices all contribute to septic system problems

with no good repair options. With this project the feasibility of a clustered or community option

for wastewater treatment and disposal will be determined for Dungeness and the Three Crabs Rd.

communities, where septic system repairs are very expensive and sometimes unworkable due to

poor soils, a high water table, and small lot sizes.

Recent microbial source tracking in the Dungeness Bay shellfish growing area adjacent to this

community (portions of which are closed for commercial harvest) shows that human waste is a

contributor to water quality degradation. This feasibility study will incorporate community input

in the development of technical options to address this problem. The outcome should be a

community equipped and mobilized to pursue the next steps toward improved wastewater

management.

Note that while it should be acknowledged that water supply development is similarly difficult,

this project will not explore specific options for community water supply.

 

Please refer to the grant application (Exhibit C, Task 4) for detailed background information,

maps and references.

 

From those sites over 92% of the bacteria could be identified to a known host organism. At

 

least 34 species or animal groups were identified as present at one or more sites throughout the course of the study. The

 

predominant source identified at all sites was birds, followed by wild mammals. The presence of human sources was

identified at each site as well, with onsite septic systems the likely cause.

 

NO NET LOSS of Shoreline Ecological Functions IS NOT A LAW

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I submit this as my comment on NNL

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee

NO NET LOSS of Shoreline Ecological Functions IS NOT A LAW 

FOUND ON PAGE (1)  AND PAGE (47) OF A 48 PAGE REPORT AND

KEEPING IN MIND THAT WAC’s ARE NOT LAWS

SMP HANDBOOK Chapter 4

The SMP Guidelines, adopted in 2003, constitute the first actual rule (WAC) in Washington State to incorporate the

 no net loss requirement. 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. “It is the interim goal…to achieve no overall net loss in acreage and function of Washington’s remaining wetlands base. It is further the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington’s wetlands resource base.” (E.O. 89-10).

Read on if you are interested

SMP NNL Handbook Last updated 6/22/2010

8.

Specific Shoreline Activity and Use Standards Numerous additional specific references exist in the SMP Guidelines, requiring SMP regulations resulting in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Specific shoreline activity standards referencing NNL are located at: WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(ii)(C) and (D): Geologically hazardous areas. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(C): Critical saltwater habitats

WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iv)(C): Critical freshwater habitats

WAC 173-26-221(3): Flood hazard reduction

WAC 173-26-221(4)(d): Public access

WAC 173-26-221(5): Shoreline vegetation conservation

WAC 173-26-221(6): Water quality, storm water and nonpoint pollution

WAC 173-26-231: Shoreline modifications, including shoreline stabilization, piers and docks, fill, breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs, beach and dunes management, dredging and dredge material disposal, shoreline habitat and natural systems-enhancement projects.

Specific shoreline use standards referencing NNL are located at:

WAC 173-26-241(2)(a)(iv), addressing the following uses:

Agriculture

Aquaculture

Boating facilities

Commercial development

Forest practices

Industry

In-stream structural uses

Mining

Recreational development

Residential development

 

Transportation and parking

Utilities

 

WACs, “Guidelines” and “Rules” are “not” laws

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I submit this as my comment on the

Clallam County SMP

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

SMP Advisory Committee Member

Clallam County SMP – The Federal Public Trust Doctrine

Futurewise a special interest group

Washington State Administrative Code (WAC)

Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State. The WAC codifies the regulations and arranges them by subject or agency. The online version of the WAC is updated twice a month. Copies of the WAC as they existed each year since 2004 are available in the WAC archive.

 

WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S?

Guidelines Are Not Law’s?

Rules Are Not Law’s?

 

Our Elected County Officials take an oath to uphold WA State Laws not WAC’S.

 

Per FUTUREWISE these are not laws

Restoration and mitigation WAC 173-26-186(8) (c)

Restoration plan goal WAC 173-26-201(2) (f)

Recommended Shoreline stabilization WAC 173-26-231 (3) (a)

Recommendations for shore side uses and structures WAC 173-26-221 (4)

 

Public Access

A primary objective of SMA Policy

A primary Objective is not law?

Public use and access to the waters of the state is one of the requirements of

the Public Trust Doctrine Includes specific requirements in

 WAC 173-26-221(4)– Most developments are required to provide public access

• Not single-family home construction

• Not subdivisions of four or fewer lots

 

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120, 90.58.200, 90.58.060 and 43.21A.681. 11-05-064 (Order 10-07), § 173-26-201, filed 2/11/11, effective 3/14/11. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-201, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]

WAC 173-26-171 Authority, Purpose and Effects of Guidelines.

(1) Authority.

 

 Guidelines Are Not Law’s?

 RCW 90.58.090 authorizes and directs the department to adopt “guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100″ for development of local master programs for regulation of the uses of “shorelines” and “shorelines of statewide significance.”

 

Rules Are Not Law’s?

RCW 90.58.200 authorizes the department and local governments “to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of” the Shoreline Management Act.

 (2) Purpose.

The general purpose of the guidelines is to implement the “cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state.”

Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act

 and “administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions” of the Act.

[T]he department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and insuring compliance with the policy and provisions” of the Act. RCW 90.58.050.

In keeping with the relationship between state and local governments prescribed by the Act, the guidelines have three specific purposes: to assist local governments in developing master programs; to serve as standards for the regulation of shoreline development in the absence of a master program along with the policy and provisions of the Act and, to be used along with the policy of RCW 90.58.020, as criteria for state review of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090.

(3) Effect.

(a) The guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local master programs. The guidelines allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other local regulatory and non-regulatory programs related to the policy goals of shoreline management as provided in the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020, WAC 173-26-176 and WAC 173-26-181. The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and these guidelines constitute standards and criteria to be used by the department in reviewing the adoption and amendment of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090 and by the growth management hearings board and shorelines hearings board adjudicating appeals of department decisions to approve, reject, or modify proposed master programs and amendments under RCW 90.58.190.

(b) Under RCW 90.58.340, the guidelines, along with the policy of the Act and the master programs, also shall be standards of review and criteria to be used by state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations in determining whether the use of lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state are subject to planning policies consistent with the policies and regulations applicable to shorelines of the state.

 

 

(A) Comply with state and federal laws and implementing rules applicable to shorelines of the state within the local government jurisdiction;

Rules Are Not Law’s?

The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Zone Management in Washington State

The Shoreline Management Act which requires a combination of state and local planning, is an example.

The SMA clearly states the need for comprehensive planning to allow multiple uses of the state’s shorelines while protecting the public interest. Such planning is essential to the creation of local shoreline master programs (SMP) which implement the plans.

In general SMPs regulate use in, on, or over shorelines. This feature appears in zoning classifications including natural, conservation, rural, and urban which specify appropriate, conditional, and prohibited uses for each environment. SMPs may also incorporate any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of the SMA. This clause is an open invitation for local SMPs to incorporate explicitly public trust doctrine principles.

I find this hard to believe? I would like Sheila Miller to clarify this?

It is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)

Finally, SMPs, 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.

Conference call set for Oct. 12th for Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan

 

Posted 10/1/2011

 

Clallam County, WA – The next conference call to discuss the Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan will be Monday, October 12, at 10:00 AM.  The call-in number is 712-432-1100 passcode 277507#.   Notes from our last conference call on September 12 are attached.

 

Following is a draft agenda for the call:

– debrief on Sept. 14 Dungeness River Management Team meeting

– Action Plan workshop Oct. 17 – agenda, logistics, etc.

– Update on development of Action Plan proposals

– Public meeting on Action Plan?

 

As previously reported, there will be a workshop  to review and discuss the Action Plan proposals on October 17 at the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Center.   Susan Piper will be sending out a notice with details about the workshop in a few days.

Dungeness Watershed Action Plan Conference Call Notes, September 12, 2011

 

Participants (7):  John Woolley, Mike Anderson, Susan Piper, Ross Krumpe, Kathleen Dowd-Gailey, Rebecca Wolfe, Tim McNulty

 

DRMT Meeting

–          The watershed action plan will be on the agenda of this month’s meeting of the Dungeness River Management Team on September 14.  Susan and Scott Haggerty will review the status of the action plan.  Dean Yoshina and Mike will discuss the potential involvement of the DRMT in plan development and implementation.   John, Rebecca, and Ross are also planning to attend.

 

October Workshop

–          Susan said that the Forest Service planning team would be able to have an action plan workshop with interested members of the collaborative group and DRMT on either Friday, October 14, or Monday, October 17.  Mike will see if there is a preference for either date among members of the DRMT and the collaborative group.

[Update: since the Tribal conference room is not available on Oct. 14, the workshop date will be October 17].

–          The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s conference room is available for the workshop.  If more than 30 people are expected to attend, the workshop could be moved to the Guy Cole Convention Center.

–          The Forest Service will provide a final spreadsheet with project descriptions, staff rankings, and estimated costs a couple of weeks before the workshop.

–          Maps will be provided at the workshop, along with background information about the Forest Service’s watershed condition framework process.  Project information and discussion will likely be organized by resource area.

 

Planning Update

–          Several additional proposals were submitted before the August 30 deadline – e.g. Tyler Peak access, snag creation, mountain biking trails, and horse riding on Road 2860 segments.

–          An off-highway vehicle loop route is being considered on Road 2878-100 in the vicinity of Ned Hill.  OHV routes have also been suggested in the Jimmy Come Lately watershed.

–          John has field checked the 2878-100 road and found that it was relatively flat ground but thought that it would difficult to connect roads together to make a loop route.

 

 

Next conference call of the collaborative working group will be Monday, October 3, at 10:00 AM.