HomeMy WebLinkAbout90.Hagen, J. 5-6_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment IX
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Thursday, May 06, 2010 8:52 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment IX
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
Use of scientific and technical information.
One addition to buffer issues. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)
"Local governments should also contact relevant state agencies, universities, affected Indian tribes,
port districts and private parties for available information." Dr. Kenn Brooks, a dual PhD. (specializing
in marine aquatic resources) with 30 years field experience in Jefferson County was never contacted
despite being a well-known participant in the CAO Advisory Committee. Dr. Brooks is an
internationally respected scientist who travels all over the world to speak and discuss his research
papers. It was Dr. Brooks who conceived the concept for the Critical Area Stewardship Plans. .
6.4., cont. Shoreline vegetation conservation.
WAC 173-26-221(5) Nowhere in this section does it
mention "native" vegetation. The closest it comes is stating "...and control of invasive weeds and
6.4.A.
nonnative species." First addressed "maintaining" native shoreline vegetation but in
subsequent polices morphs into "establish" native vegetation for new uses and development. It is
clear from this section as a whole that the emphasis is on a shoreline characterized by native
vegetation, when the WAC native doesn't prescribe the same. Again, these policies are important as
they guide administrators during code interpretation.
6.4.B.2.
WAC 173-26-221(5)(c) includes, "Selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection
may be allowed and the removal of noxious weeds should be authorized." Note the term view
protection. Not enhancement, but protection. This indicates recognition by the authorizing statute
that views are an integral part of living on the shoreline.!
ARTICLE 7 - SHORELINE MODIFICATION POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.
1. Beach Access Structures.
Why live on the water is access tot he beach is restricted? RCW
90.58.020 states, "It is the policy of the state to provide for management of the shorelines of the state
by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses." Waterfront property owners have
a right to access their shoreline.
7.1.A.1.
The WAC 173-26 continually uses the qualifier significant when addressing adverse
impacts. This policy should state beach access structures should be located...in a manner that
minimizes significant adverse impacts. And just the fact that the word "minimizes" is used indicates
that the use should be allowed outright except in the most extraordinary circumstances. "Significant"
should also be added to Policy #4,5, etc.
7.1.A.2.
This policy describes a balance between use and protection that is belied by further polices
that attach numerous conditions that give wide latitude to administrative interpretation.
1
7.1.A.5.
This policy completely strays from the goal of a balance of uses and is bordering on a
regulatory takings. It is certainly related to the prohibition of beach access structures in the Natural
6.2.B.
designation, which is 41% of the shoreline. describes mitigation processes that should first be
employed before an outright prohibition. The standard in WAC 173-26-211 for Natural areas included
intolerant of human activities. That is an intentionally high threshold.
7.1.A.5.
This policy concludes that some properties will (doesn't say "may") have view only access to
6.4.B.2
the neighboring waters. Regulations in do not guarantee a view! There are so many policies
related to preserving the "natural, unaltered" condition of the shoreline that an applicant could
rightfully be concerned whether their proposal will be interpreted in a negative light.
7.1.B.
The outright prohibition on feeder bluffs ignores mitigation measures and modern engineering
techniques that have been recognized by court decisions. (Will have to dig that up). A blanket
prohibition is illegal for constitutional reasons.
7.1.C. Shoreline Environment Regulations.
In general ,why permit public access but prohibit or
condition private access?!
7.1.D.3.
The language here is too broad and again gives wide latitude to code interpretation (habitat
value), which would be negatively influenced by slanted polices. The regulations need to provide
concise guidance on standards.
7.1.D.4.
This regulation gives the county authority to require specific design standards. This authority
should only be applied as only as a reasonable, feasible alternative based on site-specific needs.
Engineering and architectural expertise exceeds that of DCD planners and administrators who have
no background in these issues!
7.1.D.10.i.
This states beach access structures shall be prohibited if "The structure would adversely
7.1.B.
impact a critical area or marine feeder bluff.." But prohibits outright! There is a direct conflict
here. Again, the qualifier significant needs to added to adverse impacts.
7.1.D.ii.
uses the regulatory standard of "likely to interfere." Regulations should be explicit in their
meaning. The LASMP is full of these regulatory ambiguities and thus very poorly written. It is no
wonder DCD is creating a whole new department called the Watershed Resource Center (price tag
800,000), paying contracted private citizens $75/hr., to in part explain dense environmental
regulations to permit applicants. Shouldn't DCD planners be able to do that?
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship foundation
Jefferson County
2