਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

From:                              Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights [email@capr.us]

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Sent:                               Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:10 PM

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

To:                                   JACKSRANCH@SKYNETBB.COM

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Subject:                          CAPR Newsletter

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Restoring  Property Rights  Since ਍ഀ 2003

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Citizens'਍ഀ Alliance for Property Rights

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Dear CAPR Members and Property Rights Supporters,

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Please consider taking਍ഀ action on the following alerts!

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

http://www.capr.us/capr_pp_donate.php

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Action Alerts!

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Meeting Alert!

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

There਍ഀ has been much call for reform of Washington’s Growth Management Act਍ഀ and Shoreline Management Act and the Legislature is currently਍ഀ reviewing the GMA. We would like to thank Senator Pam Roach for the਍ഀ information below regarding meetings and a hearing involving the GMA਍ഀ and SMA. CAPR urges your attendance. Please see the bottom of the਍ഀ page for the Black Diamond meeting address.
਍ഀ
਍ഀ November 13, Wednesday. 7 PM at the Black Diamond Eagles
਍ഀ
਍ഀ There will be a Gov. Ops hearing in Black Diamond. The purpose is to਍ഀ kick off the discussion on GMA. There will be proponents and਍ഀ opponents of the original bill and they will, based on the Black਍ഀ Diamond experience, point out what has worked and what has not਍ഀ worked. This will be broadcast on TVW.
਍ഀ
਍ഀ November 14th, Thursday. 7 PM at Dieringer Elmentary, 21727 35th St.਍ഀ E., Lake Tapps
਍ഀ
਍ഀ This will be a community meeting to alert citizens and discuss the਍ഀ SMA and how DOE wants to apply it in Pierce County. Dan Roach and I਍ഀ are hosting it so we can bring the issues forward. We will have਍ഀ participation by the Lake Tapps Community Council because we want਍ഀ them to help lead the issue. Press will be there.
਍ഀ
਍ഀ November 21st, Thursday. 3:30 (I did not ask for this time slot!)਍ഀ Senate Hearing Rm 2
਍ഀ GMA, possible hearing on draft legislation. (The drafts are not yet਍ഀ available because they have not been written...and because we want to਍ഀ get ideas from the BD meeting)
਍ഀ
਍ഀ EE member Bob Edelman is from BD and will be a presenter at the਍ഀ meeting on the 13th.
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ Governmental Operations - 11/13/2013 7:00 p.m.
਍ഀ Senate Full Committee
਍ഀ Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge #1490
਍ഀ 32618 Railroad Ave.
਍ഀ Black Diamond, WA
਍ഀ
਍ഀ Work Session: Growth Management Act - a case study in Black Diamond.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Meeting Alert!

਍ഀ

At issue is a਍ഀ proposed buffer that would accommodate vegetation while restricting਍ഀ lake-front development

਍ഀ

Lake਍ഀ Tapps residents will loose their property rights by imposing new਍ഀ shoreline regulations that could restrict or halt their ability to਍ഀ make improvements or build along the lake front.

਍ഀ

“The਍ഀ property rights of every citizen that owns property on the lake are਍ഀ going to be subject to severe restrictions,” said Leon Stucki, vice਍ഀ president of the Lake Tapps Community Council.

਍ഀ

The਍ഀ issue will be the focus Thursday night at a community meeting called਍ഀ by Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, and her son, Pierce County Council member਍ഀ Dan Roach, R-Bonney Lake.

਍ഀ

Pierce਍ഀ County is proposing a 50-foot buffer along Lake Tapps and a 75-foot਍ഀ buffer along Spanaway Lake as part of its revised changes to਍ഀ shoreline policies — the first such changes in nearly 40 years.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

What: Meeting about਍ഀ shoreline restrictions for Lake Tapps.

਍ഀ

When: 7 p.m.਍ഀ Thursday.

਍ഀ

Where: Dieringer਍ഀ Heights Elementary School, 21727 34th St. E., Lake Tapps.

਍ഀ

Who: Sen. Pam਍ഀ Roach, Pierce County Councilman Dan Roach, Lake Tapps Community਍ഀ Council

਍ഀ


਍ഀ Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/10/2882995/lake-tapps-residents-fight-for.html#storylink=cpy

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ


਍ഀ Read more here:਍ഀ http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/10/2882995/lake-tapps-residents-fight-for.html#storylink=cpy

਍ഀ


਍ഀ Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/10/2882995/lake-tapps-residents-fight-for.html#storylink=cpy

਍ഀ


਍ഀ Read more here:਍ഀ http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/10/2882995/lake-tapps-residents-fight-for.html#storylink=cpy

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Action Alert!

਍ഀ

Comment to defend your property rights!

਍ഀ

Comments must be submitted by December 15, 2013!

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

WDFW seeks Far-reaching Hydraulic Rule Code Changes it਍ഀ is not Prepared to Administer

਍ഀ

Your property, your dock, your utilities, your਍ഀ business is at risk with this!

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Impact਍ഀ Statement on proposed changes to the Hydraulic Code Rules -Chapter਍ഀ 220-110 Washington Administrative Code (WAC). 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has਍ഀ prepared a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement that਍ഀ will be reviewed here.  For਍ഀ purposes of this article, the above mentioned document will be called਍ഀ DPEIS.  This is needed because throughout the document referred਍ഀ to(http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/sepa/2013/13072peis.pdf)਍ഀ the department seems to think that other acronyms are interchangeable਍ഀ with DPEIS.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The DPEIS in itself is problematic.  This document is generalized, does not include਍ഀ supporting documentation, and is redundant, rambling, and was not਍ഀ prepared with the required cost – benefit analysis. It does not meet਍ഀ the requirements of SEPA or NEPA and does not address the real਍ഀ impacts such as increased threats to human life, property, and਍ഀ livestock.  There is no financial analysis addressing the਍ഀ impacts to business, farmers, foresters, property owners, or impacts਍ഀ to citizens’ constitutional rights. This document fails to address਍ഀ the impacts to municipalities including increased costs and impacts਍ഀ to utility districts.  Therefore, the DPEIS is incomplete.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The science listed in the references is from internal਍ഀ publications, not independently peer਍ഀ reviewed third party scientific publications, and the so called਍ഀ science used is not multidisciplinary.  Much of what is used as਍ഀ science does not meet BAS requirements and does not meet the਍ഀ requirements of HB 1112. 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The WDFW is attempting to broaden its mission from਍ഀ issuing HPA permits based exclusively on impacts to fish, to include in its mission shoreline and near shore਍ഀ habitats and mitigation requirements that are already addressed by an਍ഀ excess of federal, state, and municipal codes.  Furthermore,਍ഀ WDFW is attempting a change to the use a one size fits all method of਍ഀ applying so called science from a site specific HPA analysis. 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment which results from਍ഀ the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,਍ഀ present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what਍ഀ agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertake such other਍ഀ actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but਍ഀ collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of਍ഀ time.  There is no summary of changes from the current rules to਍ഀ the proposed rules, making it difficult to determine if the proposed਍ഀ changes will have either a positive or negative impact on fish਍ഀ species, or to determine if the proposed rule changes will have any਍ഀ impact regarding cumulative effects.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

In the course of attempting to broaden its mission,਍ഀ the WDFW is including in its਍ഀ proposed rules agencies such as The State Department of Archaeology਍ഀ and Historic Preservation, and activities that are already covered਍ഀ under other codes, such as the GMA and the SMA.  The WDFW does਍ഀ not have the authority to include codes that do not pertain directly਍ഀ to the WDFW.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Stakeholder and public involvement are inadequate in a਍ഀ rule making process that proposes to be so broad and sweeping a rule਍ഀ change as to have significant impact on the public.  This is seen in that the public comment period਍ഀ only received 31 comments to the proposed rule changes.  The਍ഀ inadequate notice and involvement of the public will result in਍ഀ hardships and changes that will come as a surprise to the public and਍ഀ then be all the more costly.  The WDFWs choice of stakeholders਍ഀ obviously dismissed and failed to include a broad enough group of਍ഀ individuals as to allow for significant involvement by the਍ഀ public.  Where were the major property rights groups included in਍ഀ the stakeholders group?  The WDFW now should be compelled to at਍ഀ least publically list the stakeholders to insure the public that਍ഀ enough public interests were involved in the process.  Some਍ഀ questions need to be answered:  How many public meetings were਍ഀ held?  Was there adequate notice of these meetings to the਍ഀ public?  Were all municipalities, small and large aware of the਍ഀ proposed rule changes and the possible impacts to them of the rule਍ഀ changes?  Were formal comments accepted and recorded at each step਍ഀ of the involvement process?

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The stakeholder group was consulted on the Hydraulic਍ഀ Code Rules that WDFW proposes for adoption including new fish science਍ഀ and design technology.  The਍ഀ new fish science and design technology is not something that should਍ഀ be addressed by the stakeholder group alone, but also to the਍ഀ public.  It should also be vetted, since it is labeled as਍ഀ science.  How did the WDFW do the peer review, and what specific਍ഀ science was used to develop the “new fish science”?  What specific਍ഀ disciplines of science were used, and which scientists were਍ഀ consulted?  The multidisciplinary approach to best available਍ഀ science was not used, as its white papers show the science was਍ഀ internally produced documents that were reviewed, and they were਍ഀ reviewed internally.  The WDFW presents no record of what is਍ഀ defined as best available science, and presents no record of that਍ഀ definition having been followed.  If the WDFW wishes to broaden਍ഀ its scope of influence through rule changes, then it needs to also਍ഀ present evidence that that scope is needed, and that it has complied਍ഀ with Best Management Practices in its science, and that the proposed਍ഀ rules and science they use are compatible with the scope they਍ഀ seek.  Has the WDFW made sure that its actions will comport with਍ഀ what is required of them under the Clean Water Act, GMA, SMA, and਍ഀ Ecology’s Storm Water Management?  How has the WDFW with this਍ഀ document of Proposed Rule Changes shown that it has complied with the਍ഀ law in HB 1112?

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

The scope of influence the WDFW seeks in this DPEIS਍ഀ includes differences from the present rules to the Preferred Rules਍ഀ that would impact the lion’s share of the following activities:

਍ഀ

Streambank protection and lake shoreline਍ഀ stabilization; Residential docks, watercraft lifts, and buoys in਍ഀ fresh water areas;  Boat ramps and launches in freshwater areas;਍ഀ  Dredging in freshwater areas;  Marinas and terminals in਍ഀ freshwater areas;  Sand and gravel removal;  Water crossing਍ഀ structures;  Fish passage improvement structures;  Channel਍ഀ change/ realignment;  Large woody material placement,਍ഀ repositioning, and removal in freshwater areas;  Beaver dam਍ഀ management;  Pond construction;  Water diversions and਍ഀ intakes;  Outfall structures in freshwater areas;  Utility਍ഀ crossings in freshwater areas; Felling and yarding of timber;਍ഀ  Aquatic plant removal and control;  Mineral prospecting;਍ഀ  Intertidal forage fish spawning habitat survey;  Seagrass਍ഀ and macroalgae habitat surveys;  Bulkheads and other bank਍ഀ protection in saltwater;  Residential piers, ramps, floats,਍ഀ watercraft lifts, and buoys in saltwater areas; Boat ramps and਍ഀ launches in saltwater areas;  Marinas and terminals in saltwater਍ഀ areas;  Dredging in saltwater areas;  Artificial aquatic਍ഀ habitat structures; Outfall, tide, and flood gate structures in਍ഀ saltwater areas;  Utility lines in saltwater areas;  Boring਍ഀ in saltwater areas. 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

This extensive list of activities are claimed to have਍ഀ the potential to effect several different aspects of the਍ഀ environment.  Thus WDFW is਍ഀ proposing rule changes that are significant, much requiring਍ഀ mitigation, on the same activities in many differing ways, and basing਍ഀ the required rule changes on potential effects, ignoring the fact਍ഀ that no nexus between the activity and peer reviewed science exists.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

This DPEIS evaluates two alternatives for changes to਍ഀ the Hydraulic Code Rules—the No Action Alternative, which consists of the Current Rule.  And the਍ഀ Preferred Alternative, comprising the Proposed Rule Changes.  It਍ഀ is time for the WFWD to choose the stated alternative of the No਍ഀ Action Alternative to change its Hydraulic Code Rules until and਍ഀ unless it can prove its Preferred Alternative is one it is capable to਍ഀ implement.  The WDFW needs to show it is ready to chew what it਍ഀ has attempted to bite off.  This DPIES document dismayingly਍ഀ demonstrates they are not yet ready for the environmental਍ഀ responsibility they seek.

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Here again is the internet address to obtain this਍ഀ document and review it.  http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/sepa/2013/13072peis.pdf  Although it is਍ഀ unnecessarily large at 132 pages, it is broken into sections, so the਍ഀ task of determining how an individual or business will be effected by਍ഀ this proposed rule change is not as daunting as would first਍ഀ seem.  It is needed though to understand and comment on the਍ഀ changes.  The comment period has been extended until December਍ഀ 15, 2013. One should get comments submitted before that time. Here is਍ഀ the information needed for submitting comments:

਍ഀ

Contact:਍ഀ Randi Thurston

਍ഀ

Phone:਍ഀ (360) 902-2602

਍ഀ

Email:਍ഀ randall.thurston@dfw.wa.gov

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Keep up਍ഀ on Property Rights News on the CAPR blog

਍ഀ

http://www.capr.us/capr_blog.php

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Keep in਍ഀ contact with CAPR by visiting our website.

਍ഀ

http://www.capr.us

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

or਍ഀ visit our Facebook Page.

਍ഀ

https://www.facebook.com/caprnational

਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ

Thank you for your continuing support of CAPR!

਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

This message was sent to JACKSRANCH@SKYNETBB.COM from:

਍ഀ

Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights | 718 Griffin Ave #7 |਍ഀ Enumclaw, WA 98022

਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free!

਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ

Manage Your Subscription  | ਍ഀ Forward To a Friend

਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ