HomeMy WebLinkAbout17.Bergeron,D.-ChimGrg 5-11_Jefferson Co Proposed SMP Amendment (Res No 77-01)
Michelle McConnell
From:Chimacum Grange [chimacumgrange@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:04 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Jefferson County Proposed SMP Amendment (Res. No. 77-01)
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
By E-Mail (jeff.stewart@ecy.wa.gov)
Jeffrey Stewart, Shoreline Specialist
Washington State Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-7775
Re: Jefferson County Proposed SMP Amendment (Res. No. 77-01)
Dear Mr. Stewart:
On behalf of the Chimacum Grange and its members I request that the comments submitted by Attorney Dennis
D. Reynolds on behalf of the Olympic Stewardship Foundation, an affiliate organization, be incorporated in full
as comments from the Chimacum Grange.
In addition, we wish to emphasize the following:
• Due to our building’s proximity to Chimacum Creek, a listed stream under the proposed SMP
amendment, our building will be subjected to extreme additional costs and time constraints of permitting and
construction should we experience a loss. We do not believe this was ever an intent of the legislature.
• We question the inclusion of Chimacum Creek as a stream of significance on two counts. First, as
Chimacum Creek runs through the Chimacum Grange property, it is an artificial drainage ditch constructed by
th
the Army Corps of Engineers which historically was not a natural stream prior to human alteration in the 19
century; secondly, we have serious doubts that the mean annual stream flow of Chimacum Creek was accurately
measured and that it falls below the requisite 20 cubic feet per second.
• The proposed SMP amendment incorporates liberal construction. We insist that liberal construction
must also apply to the laws and rules that have forced the SMP amendment to occur. This has not been done.
• Restrictions on the land available for new agricultural use are overly broad and not in the public
interest, given that agriculture performed under best management practices will provide necessary future food
for people and fauna. In this matter the proposed SMP amendment violates the intent of the legislature.
• The county was not diligent in using science to determine text in the proposed SMP amendment. The
county failed to identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical
information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.
• Re: Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property. Documents made public by Jefferson County
indicate that the county was misled by Ecology, and that both the county and Ecology have been remiss in
complying with RCW 36.70A.370.
1
Respectfully submitted,
Dick Bergeron
President, Chimacum Grange
2