The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About82.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment II Michelle McConnell From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:02 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment II Categories:LASMP Public Comment Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Hagen To: jkramer.consulting@gmail.com ; cmacilroy@gmail.com ; mclancy@esassoc.com Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:38 PM Subject: Draft SMP White Paper Comments II Jim Kramer Carol MaciIroy Margaret Clancy I would like to add on to my previous comments, which were limited to the perception that the overarching objective of the white paper was to, due to funding and resource challenges, lobby for increased involvement by outside agencies and non-profit organizations in the implementation and administration of SMPs. There were some not-so-subtle volleys that changes in state law could enable organizations like the Puget Sound Partnership to become designated as a central warehouse for oversight of SMPs, diluting local control. History has shown how often today's "assistance" becomes incrementally greater centralized control. The following comments are meant to address some of the specific topics addressed in the white paper. The white paper describes "many successes where counties and cities have increased local protection of the ecosystem." It further describes no net loss as " the environmental protection standard for SMPs to achieve." Immediately following, however, are concessions that "even though the SMP update process has been underway for several years, the path for SMPs to meet the no net loss policy objective is still emerging." Later, "While these measures (protection polices) constitute major improvements in shoreline protection, verifying that they achieve no net loss will be difficult because there is no agreed-upon indicators of function for local governments to use and consequently there is no commitment to monitor over time." This is a remarkable acknowledgement by a paper authored with guidance and support from the Department of Ecology. How can there be any successes when the cornerstone of SMP no net loss protection strategies is missing the core building block? It is equally stunning that the DOE is halfway the post 2003 statewide update process absent any fundamental understanding of how this key principle will be applied, not to mention that until it is understood, monitoring is impossible. Jurisdictions are being told in no uncertain terms that 150 foot shoreline buffers are based on the most current scientific information and are absolutely necessary, but now this paper is stating there are still no agreed-upon indicators of function. How can you establish protection measures without this information? This explains why uniform 150 foot buffers are applied regardless of whether the 1 use is heavy industrial or a single-family residence located on an isolated 20 acre parcel. For several years many of us who have voluntary participated under the unofficial stakeholder group called "effected citizens and taxpayers" have protested that Ecology has never clearly identified what is being protected and there is no direct cause-and-effect relationship between the perceived environmental problem and the regulatory solution. Until this vital equation is realistically and objectively examined, state agencies will continue to waste money and human resources. This is not a funding/implementation/evaluation problem but an assumption problem. Rather than pursuing an objective science-based approach Ecology and environment groups have locked in on the automatic assumption that any human development is harmful. That is contrary not only to the principles of good public policy but in conflict with the law. I would hope that the no net loss data gaps and the cause-and-effect relationship between the shoreline conditions and development be a major topic at the April 21, 2010 Shoreline Planners meeting. The no net loss data gaps also create a ripple effect influencing other SMP concepts including cumulative impacts and restoration. How can cumulative impacts be assessed when there is no clear understanding of where the no net loss baseline begins? Jefferson County actually has a regulation in its Locally Approved SMP which gives the County "authority to require the applicant/proponent to prepare special studies, assessments and analyses necessary to identify and address cumulative impacts including, but not limited to, impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, public access/use, aesthetics, and other shoreline attributes." Again, there is no environmental baseline for this regulation to be measured against, not to mention the County is requiring the applicant to perform the studies it should already have conducted in support of any meaningful cumulative impact assessment. A lack of agreed-upon indicators of ecological functions and values is also directly linked to restoration requirements. The degree of restoration required to supplement the no net loss objective is unknown until the no net loss baseline is identified. Another question related to restoration is whether credits are being given for previous regulatory actions taken at an ecosystem-wide scale. Adoption of GMA and associated density-downzoning, increased control of stormwater, updated clearing and grading ordinances, new water rules affecting allocation and potentially future development, etc. all combine to reduce cumulative impacts and mitigate project-level impacts. Are these factored into the no net loss equation and Restoration Plans? The nonconforming use issue can be simplified by establishing an accurate no net loss baseline from which more directly proportionate buffer standards can be applied. This paper condescendingly puts the onus on owners of nonconforming properties to "understand the ecological impact of their actions while acknowledging and respecting the voluntary nature of their decisions to take less detrimental actions where possible." But as this paper already concedes, the ecological impact isn't known! A true cause-and-effect relationship between development and impact, particularly as it relates to the "critical constituency" of private landowners, most of whom simply want to build and live on single- family residences, could very well determine that much smaller buffers are able to achieved the desired results, limiting the instances where nonconformance comes into play. If 150 foot buffers are deemed satisfactory for our Paper Mill, then what could work for a 1,500 sq. ft. residence? Ecology has instituted a high/medium/low impact table in its guidance for protecting wetlands. There is no reason why a similar formula that makes a distinctions between intensity of uses cannot be applied to shoreline protection. Finally, it is ironic that for all the outreach to property owners and groups in the survey, the tone in the white paper ultimately reverts to private landowners and property right groups as a 2 misinformed obstacle in pursuit of an unbalanced environment-centric agenda. In dealing with this attitude over the last seven years I almost get the feeling people are regarded by the environmental lobby as a public nuisance that threatens shoreline preservation forever. This not only lacks a basic sense of empathy and humanity but conflicts with the law. This paper reinforces a grudging acceptance over the fact that activities deemed particularly harmful - bulkheads and agriculture come to mind - are protected by the law. Even single-family residences seem barely tolerated, with concern twice expressed over parcel-level impacts (150 foot buffers aren't enough?!). This white paper can propose all the expanded partnerships it wants but until it develops a respectful partnership with individual citizens who live and work on the shoreline and make it their home, all the resources and funding available will go for naught. Consideration of these perspectives is appreciated in preparation for what is hoped to be a productive at the April 21, 2010 Shoreline Planners meeting. Thank You, Jim Hagen Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation Jefferson County 3