Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [] <br />Sent:Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:35 AM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XVI <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 6.1.D.11. Buffer Reduction or Averaging. <br /> <br /> <br />6.1.D.11 <br />A common defense throughout the process is that the SMP is"flexible" in that it allows for buffer reductions. <br />JCC 18.22.270(6) and (7). JCC 18.22.350(1) <br />refers to These in turn refer to mitigation sequencing contained in in addition <br />to the nine conditions set forth in 18.22.270(6 & 7). It says the administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer <br />widths on a case-by-case basis, and lists criteria to be met but I don't see the specific supporting data required to satisfy <br />the criteria. Is a Habitat or Vegetation Management Plan required? How much do those cost? What are the "specific <br />standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1)?" I don't see any specific standards, just a <br />9.4.A <br />general Mitigation Sequence (how does one comply exactly with 18.22.350(1)(a-e)? allows "As appropriate, such <br />statements of exemptions shall contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency and <br />compliance with the provisions of this program." What are the conditions? Do these include monitoring? What are the <br />costs in terms of both time and money? Often times people will just cry uncle rather than go through all the hassle of this <br />10.19 <br />"flexible" options. mentions a permit may be modified, including imposition of a monitoring plan with specific <br />reporting requirements. What are those requirements?! Where can they be found? A landowner could be faced with not <br />only an initial outlay for Habitat Management Plans but then be forced to conduct monitoring protocols down the line that <br /> <br />repeatedly add to the expense. Is this the "flexible" aspect of the SMP supporters are promoting? <br /> <br />6.1.D.13 <br />Critical Area Stewardship Plans under are tightly controlled in JCC18.22.460 ARTICLE IX. While this is a <br />laudable option and with refinement could exemplify a new paradigm for environmental protection in the future, in its <br />current state it is heavily conditioned and expensive. You can see the dollar signs adding up line by line. As as someone <br />who was closely involved with the CASP's conception and development I can say I have been disappointed by its <br />reception from landowners who, justified or not, are wary of County staff inspecting their land. Let's be honest; there is a <br />lack of trust between the citizen and regualtor. (It is literally insane to think DCD hiring Jill Silver to improve this <br />relationship will accomplish anything except to further alienate rural landowners). True environmental protection will not <br />occurr until it reaches a level of acceptance and legitimacy whereby it is incorporated into the daily habits of everyday life. <br />In actuality this is already taking place. Ironically, vice-gripping, onerous regulaltions like the 200 page SMP only create <br /> <br />resisitance toward the direction societal values are naturally progressing. <br /> <br />A twist on the perceived flexibility of buffer reduction options is they betray the central and continual defense of the 150 <br />foot buffers, which is they are scientifically proven to be necessary to protect the shoreline. The option of buffer reductions <br />indicates that segments of the shoreline can be protected with much smaller buffer standards, provided the landowner <br />makes a case for site-specific exceptions. This is a tacit acknowledgement that 150 foot buffers are not based on direct <br />science but on the precautionary principle, and nowhere in either the RCW or WAC is the precautionary principle <br />accepted as the most available, accurate scientific information per WAC 173-26-201(2)(a). That the burden is on the <br />landowner to provide their own most accurate scientific information amounts to a direct or indirect tax in violation of RCW <br />82.02.02. It is my understanding that Ecology's position is that the SMP update is a state law and therefore not subject to <br />82.02.02, but this runs contrary to Ecology's previous position that it doesn't need to conduct an economic impact analysis <br />because the SMP is locally adopted. In any event, uniform 150 foot buffers are either necessary or they aren't, and the <br /> <br />onus should really be on the regulator to justify in each instance why they are necessary. <br /> <br />On a couple of other notes related to the pro-SMP position, I also found it interesting that supporters of the SMP lauded <br />the BoCC for reading every single comment letter, as if that was somehow unusual or extraordinary. Aren't they supposed <br /> <br />to read every letter? <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />