Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Jim Hagen [] <br />Sent:Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:52 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment IX <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />Public comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Use of scientific and technical information. <br />One addition to buffer issues. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a) <br />"Local governments should also contact relevant state agencies, universities, affected Indian tribes, <br />port districts and private parties for available information." Dr. Kenn Brooks, a dual PhD. (specializing <br />in marine aquatic resources) with 30 years field experience in Jefferson County was never contacted <br />despite being a well-known participant in the CAO Advisory Committee. Dr. Brooks is an <br />internationally respected scientist who travels all over the world to speak and discuss his research <br />papers. It was Dr. Brooks who conceived the concept for the Critical Area Stewardship Plans. . <br /> <br /> <br />6.4., cont. Shoreline vegetation conservation. <br />WAC 173-26-221(5) Nowhere in this section does it <br />mention "native" vegetation. The closest it comes is stating "...and control of invasive weeds and <br />6.4.A. <br />nonnative species." First addressed "maintaining" native shoreline vegetation but in <br />subsequent polices morphs into "establish" native vegetation for new uses and development. It is <br />clear from this section as a whole that the emphasis is on a shoreline characterized by native <br />vegetation, when the WAC native doesn't prescribe the same. Again, these policies are important as <br />they guide administrators during code interpretation. <br /> <br /> <br />6.4.B.2. <br />WAC 173-26-221(5)(c) includes, "Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection <br />may be allowed and the removal of noxious weeds should be authorized." Note the term view <br />protection. Not enhancement, but protection. This indicates recognition by the authorizing statute <br />that views are an integral part of living on the shoreline.! <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ARTICLE 7 - SHORELINE MODIFICATION POLICIES AND REGULATIONS. <br /> <br /> <br />1. Beach Access Structures. <br />Why live on the water is access tot he beach is restricted? RCW <br />90.58.020 states, "It is the policy of the state to provide for management of the shorelines of the state <br />by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses." Waterfront property owners have <br />a right to access their shoreline. <br /> <br /> <br />7.1.A.1. <br />The WAC 173-26 continually uses the qualifier significant when addressing adverse <br />impacts. This policy should state beach access structures should be a manner that <br />minimizes significant adverse impacts. And just the fact that the word "minimizes" is used indicates <br />that the use should be allowed outright except in the most extraordinary circumstances. "Significant" <br />should also be added to Policy #4,5, etc. <br /> <br /> <br />7.1.A.2. <br /> This policy describes a balance between use and protection that is belied by further polices <br />that attach numerous conditions that give wide latitude to administrative interpretation. <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />