The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97.Hagen, J. 5-9_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment XVI Michelle McConnell From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net] Sent:Sunday, May 09, 2010 11:35 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment XVI Categories:LASMP Public Comment Public Comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. ARTICLE 6.1.D.11. Buffer Reduction or Averaging. 6.1.D.11 A common defense throughout the process is that the SMP is"flexible" in that it allows for buffer reductions. JCC 18.22.270(6) and (7). JCC 18.22.350(1) refers to These in turn refer to mitigation sequencing contained in in addition to the nine conditions set forth in 18.22.270(6 & 7). It says the administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis, and lists criteria to be met but I don't see the specific supporting data required to satisfy the criteria. Is a Habitat or Vegetation Management Plan required? How much do those cost? What are the "specific standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1)?" I don't see any specific standards, just a 9.4.A general Mitigation Sequence (how does one comply exactly with 18.22.350(1)(a-e)? allows "As appropriate, such statements of exemptions shall contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of this program." What are the conditions? Do these include monitoring? What are the costs in terms of both time and money? Often times people will just cry uncle rather than go through all the hassle of this 10.19 "flexible" options. mentions a permit may be modified, including imposition of a monitoring plan with specific reporting requirements. What are those requirements?! Where can they be found? A landowner could be faced with not only an initial outlay for Habitat Management Plans but then be forced to conduct monitoring protocols down the line that repeatedly add to the expense. Is this the "flexible" aspect of the SMP supporters are promoting? 6.1.D.13 Critical Area Stewardship Plans under are tightly controlled in JCC18.22.460 ARTICLE IX. While this is a laudable option and with refinement could exemplify a new paradigm for environmental protection in the future, in its current state it is heavily conditioned and expensive. You can see the dollar signs adding up line by line. As as someone who was closely involved with the CASP's conception and development I can say I have been disappointed by its reception from landowners who, justified or not, are wary of County staff inspecting their land. Let's be honest; there is a lack of trust between the citizen and regualtor. (It is literally insane to think DCD hiring Jill Silver to improve this relationship will accomplish anything except to further alienate rural landowners). True environmental protection will not occurr until it reaches a level of acceptance and legitimacy whereby it is incorporated into the daily habits of everyday life. In actuality this is already taking place. Ironically, vice-gripping, onerous regulaltions like the 200 page SMP only create resisitance toward the direction societal values are naturally progressing. A twist on the perceived flexibility of buffer reduction options is they betray the central and continual defense of the 150 foot buffers, which is they are scientifically proven to be necessary to protect the shoreline. The option of buffer reductions indicates that segments of the shoreline can be protected with much smaller buffer standards, provided the landowner makes a case for site-specific exceptions. This is a tacit acknowledgement that 150 foot buffers are not based on direct science but on the precautionary principle, and nowhere in either the RCW or WAC is the precautionary principle accepted as the most available, accurate scientific information per WAC 173-26-201(2)(a). That the burden is on the landowner to provide their own most accurate scientific information amounts to a direct or indirect tax in violation of RCW 82.02.02. It is my understanding that Ecology's position is that the SMP update is a state law and therefore not subject to 82.02.02, but this runs contrary to Ecology's previous position that it doesn't need to conduct an economic impact analysis because the SMP is locally adopted. In any event, uniform 150 foot buffers are either necessary or they aren't, and the onus should really be on the regulator to justify in each instance why they are necessary. On a couple of other notes related to the pro-SMP position, I also found it interesting that supporters of the SMP lauded the BoCC for reading every single comment letter, as if that was somehow unusual or extraordinary. Aren't they supposed to read every letter? 1 Additionally, a last-ditch argument being made by supporters is that much of the objection to the SMP is coming at the end, as if that timing trivializes the merit of dissent. They constantly refer to the extensive SMP committee process that helped form the draft from 2006-2008. These people are apparently unaware of public participation statutes (RCW 36.70A.140 and WAC 173-26-201(3)) not to mention the Planning Enabling Act which mandate for "early and continuous public participation...and consideration of and response to public comments." Jeffree Stewart even insinuated in his January 2009 comments to the Planning Commission Chair that, while revisions to the draft were appropriate, the SMP committee had developed a draft that was already close to DOE approval. The SMP Committee process that produced the Preliminary Draft SMP marked the beginning, not the end, of legally mandated public review. Public participation closes at the end of the final comment period. The people who developed the SMP preliminary draft, served on the SMP Committees, or have closely followed the four-year process tend to be either drawing a salary from their work or are passionately interested in these issues as a sort of hobby. Suffice to say not everyone is a policy-junkie. Most citizens have other primary interests - family, work, children, grandchildren, gardening, fishing, coin-collecting, antique shopping - RCW. you could name a thousand pastimes - and view civic policy as a mind-numbing exercise in boredom. 90.58.100(1)(a) mandates "a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the intergrated use of the natural and social sciences and the enviromental design arts." Just as a meaningful NNL baseline must assess the relationship between ecological functions and the corresponding impact of development, this provision implies a similar relationship between the natural and social sciences. Just as policy-makers should assess technical policy, scientific, and legal factors in the prepartion of SMP updates, so must they assess the social climate and attitudes that will it ultimately interact with. Who besides the "inside baseball" mentality of County and DOE staff would beleive citizens are going to show up for an all day "Charette" well before any proposed rules have even been released? In "Caddy Shack" Bill Murray famously intoned, in a deeply meditative state, "Be the Ball." Policy makers would do well to try to think outside their insular worlds and relate to the public as they actually live their lives and not as Ecology and the County wish them to be. (As someone recently commented to me, "Ecology's got more damn plans for me than I have for myself!"). Be the Ball. Understand the public you are designed to serve. Every time a major set of regulations come under review, many people wait until the end before they really take notice.This is nothing new, and it's true in general. It's why people are up all night on April 14th and why the malls are jammed on December 23rd. Why Ecology and the County don't recognze this shows a fundamental absense of the application of the social sciences. It is really telling that the County spent nearly all $670,000 of the DOE grant money during the isolated SMP Committee process, so that by the time the draft reached the general public for review there wasn't anything left. This indicates either a pre-determined, rubber-stamp outcome, a total lack of understanding of the public they serve, or worse a blatant disregard for the people. Judging by the continual portrayals by Michelle McConnell of the public as misinformed, it would seem the former and the latter. Jim Hagen Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation Jefferson County 2