HomeMy WebLinkAbout89.Hagen, J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment X
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:19 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment X
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
Backing up to ARTICLE 7: This entire chapter is over-reactive to the impact of shoreline modifications
as they exist in Jefferson County. Not to mention that water-dependent uses are preferred by the
SMA. The Cumulative Impact Analysis identifies that "A relatively small percentage (less than 10%) of
of the County;s shorelines are armored." The CIA also cites data form the assessor's office that 70%
of the shorelines has already been developed. The likelihood that shoreline armoring will become a
How Does
significant contributing factor to degradation is not shown to exist. Section 5.4 of the CIA
Residential Development Affect Shorelines?
includes concern for armoring but only in general
terms, not how this will directly threaten Jefferson shorelines. This concern is characterized by the
statement, "Over time a heavily armored shore can lose its beach because sediment sustains the
beach is no longer reaching it or staying on the beach." But what does that have to do with Jefferson?
We are not, nor are we likely to be, "heavily armored." The same general presumptions are made for
common water-dependent uses such as docks, piers, and mooring buoys. Assumptions of future
harm, development pressures, and "proliferation" of shoreline accessory uses and modification need
to be documented with facts from relevant sources to meet the "reasonably foreseeable" standard. It
is interesting that a process where private landowners are beholden to a rigorous "science says"
standard conversely allows assumptions on future development to be taken on face value.
ARTICLE 7, cont.
7.2 Boating Facilities
7.2.A.4.
Again, the emphasis on "protect the natural character of the shoreline and prevent ( missing
significant) adverse ecological impacts..." But these are preferred uses given preference by RCW
90.58.020 and WAC 173-26-201(2)(d). It is the rest of the sentence that is actually disturbing,
"...caused by in-water and over water structures by limiting the number of new docks/piers/floats and
by controlling how they are designed and constructed and where they are located." This is a blatant
violation of the law and also suggests that DCD is going into the water-dependent design and
construction business. What are the qualifications of DCD staff to perform this kind of work?
7.2.B. Shoreline Environment Regulations.
7.2.B.3.ii & iv.
Public docks are allowed in the Natural SED as a conditional use but all other boating
facilities accessory to residential development are prohibited.
7.2.B.4.
Boating facilities are allowed in the conservancy SED as a conditional use. This subjects
69% of Jefferson shorelines to either prohibition or conditional use of preferred, water-dependent
uses.
7.2.F. Regulations - Docks, Piers, Floats, and Lifts - Accessory Development.
1
7.2.F.1.iii.
Again, the cumulative impacts issue. Interesting that they use the standard of "negligible"
where in other sections they prohibit outright, presumably including single family homes, if the
"proliferation?"
development causes a net loss in ecological functions. What This is yet another
example of the exaggerated assumptions that characterize this SMP.
7..5. Flood Control and Structures.
7.5.A.1.
"The County should prevent the need for flood control works by limiting new development in
flood-prone areas." WAC 173-26-221(3)(c)(i) states "Development in flood plains should not
significantly increase flood hazard or be inconsistent with a comprehensive flood hazard management
plan adopted pursuant to chapter 86.12 RCW, provided the plan has been adopted after 1994 and
approved by the department." Not sure if that applies to Jefferson, but one of our arguments against
Channel Migration Zone regulations during the CAO were duplicative regulations already in place that
addressed those concerns, not to mention flood insurance issues. "Limit" and "not significantly
increase flood hazard" may be a semantic distinction but really captures the differences in attitude on
whether the glass is half empty or half full.
7.8. Structural shoreline Armoring and Shoreline Stabilization.
"There can be no ownership of
property without protection of property." Again the county and DOE operates from the assumption
that armoring and bulkheads are categorically harmful. The science used to defend this assumption is
not universally accepted. And the sceince doesn't exist in a vacuum and must have some context with
regard to the specific conditions.
7.8.A.1.
If this policy is to prevent the "proliferation" of bulkheads and armoring then it doesn't
recognize historic trends. Shoreline stabilization is massively expensive. Nobody wants to do it except
as a absolute necessity. Not to mention that it is a primary preferred use under RCW 90.58.100(6).
7.8.A.4.
Is it required that beach erosion proposals evaluate a range of options and designs? Why is
"should" used in a policy? Where in the WAC is this mandate grounded?
7.8.A.
There are 14 policies here that are redundant and basically repeat the same requirements
over and over.
7.8.A.12.
This policy requires (again, a policy, not a regulation) proponents to "coordinate with other
affected property owners and public agencies to address ecological and geohydraulic processes,
etc." From what statute do they derive this authority?
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
2