HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.Hagen, J. 5-10_DOE SMP Public comment VII cont.
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Monday, May 10, 2010 12:30 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:DOE SMP Public comment VII, cont.
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
6.1.B. 2., cont.
The dictate for an outright prohibition on developments that cause a net loss of
ecological functions is found here and in several other places in the LA SMP. An undated Ecology
"No Net Loss of Ecological Functions"
document acquired from a public records request titled
addresses the standards, meaning, and implementation of NNL. This document poses the question,
Does this mean that an SMP must prohibit all development that will result in a loss of
"
shoreline ecological functions? No
Answer. 1. . Current available science tells us that all types of
shoreline development produce at least some degree of impact to ecological functions. Some
preferred uses as set forth in the SMA are among those developments which impact shoreline
function. The 'no net loss of ecological function' standard means that updated SMPs must contain
provisions for mitigating these unavoidable impacts, for instance by restoring degraded shorelines
identified in the locally prepared shoreline inventory and analysis."
Please reconcile that interpretation with the many outright prohibitions contained in the
Jefferson LA SMP.
6.1.B. Regualtions - No Net loss and Mitigation.
6.1.B.1., cont.
Lacking any inventory of the "extent of existing structures" as required in WAC 173-
26-201(3)(c), it isn't possible to establish a meaningful No Net Loss baseline. Protection of ecological
functions does not occur in a vacuum. An essential component of the NNL equation is the
corresponding impact of development. This must be determined in as rigorous a fashion as the
science used to identify ecological processes and protection standards. If the environmental science
were applied as casually and with the same undocumented assumptions as the development impacts
have been analyzed it would fail all legal tests.
"No Net Loss of Ecological Functions""How do
Again referring to the document, the section titled
local jurisdictions demonstrate no net loss in their SMPs?"
lists eight steps toward
accomplishing NNL.
2.b.
advises "projecting 'reasonably foreseeable future development' over a minimum 20 year
planning period, in a shoreline use analysis." This hasn't been done (and there is a link here to a lack
of internal consistency with the JC Comprehensive Plan).
5.
states "Cumulative impacts analysis is typically conducted while drafting SMP provisions as part of
the comprehensive update process. It is thus an iterative land use planning exercise, based on a
scientific understanding of the shoreline ecological functions, and evaluation of future development
and use scenarios. When applied to each shoreline planning unit, cumulative impacts analysis should
1
yield specific measures which result in no net loss of ecological functions." First, the CIA was so
liberally iterative that it wasn't finished until long after initial SMP provisions were drafted, indicating
the CIA was really an exercise to support a predetermined premise. Otherwise, the CIA would have
first been completed before developing specific NNL provisions, as any objective exercise would
follow. Again, the CIA contains no meaningful evaluation of development scenarios.
6.
states "Analyzing cumulative impacts is necessary in the comprehensive SMP update process to
identify and compensate for the total predictable incremental effects on shoreline functions that
remain after mitigation has been applied through implementation of updated SMPs. Preparation of a
cumulative impacts analysis report is therefore an important final "planning" step in achieving no-net-
loss." This is an admission that a CIA is an important component in measuring no net loss, and that
its quality is essential in determining NNL. As has been repeatedly stated throughout these
comments, the lack of an inventory of existing shoreline structures and the overly broad descriptions
of present development patterns and projections of future impacts in the CIA renders any cumulative
impact assessment useless in measuring NNL. It is no wonder Ecology and local jurisdictions are,
halfway through the state SMP update process, still struggling with the NNL issue.
In a e-mail from Jeffree Stewart to Michelle McConnell dated January 10,2007, Mr. Stewart writes,
"No Net Loss (NNL)
is a broad intention, a fundamental concept achieved both at the planning
stage, (where we are now in Jefferson County) and later as shoreline projects are reviewed and
permitted. At the planning stage, the Cumulative Impact Analysis is crucial. Evaluation of
development build-out scenarios relative to protection of the existing ecological conditions sets
provides the basis for appropriate shoreline designations with policies and rules." I have already
commented that the CIA and FSCIR are insufficient on which to accurately assign shoreline
environmental designations. Here, the characterization of the importance of evaluating build-out
scenarios relative to existing ecological conditions highlights the absence of such an evaluation, and
why this constitutes the missing link in the NNL formula.
The fact is, there is no documented accounting for the level of cumulative impacts supposed by the
five-fold increase in protection standards. The scenario of "development pressures" is the equivalent
of a cumulative impact precautionary principle. Well before any cumulative impact analysis was
undertaken, Stephen Stanley of Ecology wrote, in a January 26, 2006 to Tom Clingman, "I believe
that Jefferson County has excellent potential as a pilot project given that we have a cooperative and
well informed County staff, a rural county that has sensitive ecosystem resources and faces a
rapidly expanding population in the coastal areas." (Emphasis mine). In an undated SMP 2007-
2009 Biennial Continuance document written by Jeffree Stewart, he states as a consideration
"Development pressures are increasing. A large scale destination resort has been proposed at
Pleasant Harbor. Urbanization is expanding in rural areas like Port Ludlow and Quilcene. Industrial
proposals, like that for a gravel barge transport on Hood Canal, are under review. An increasing influx
of retirement residential development continues."
Related to the above, to what extent are development pressures increasing? Urbanization in
Quilcene? Even if Mr. Stewart meant Port Hadlock, the 20 year build-out scenario total is 4,900
people! More to the point, this is but one example of where the LA SMP is not internally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It is difficult to find any references at all to the Jefferson
Comprehensive Plan in support of the development pressure theory and cumulative impact
"No Net Loss of Ecological Functions"
assessment. In the document a projection of reasonably
foreseeable development over a minimum 20 year planning period is advised. This is precisely the
planning cycle our Comprehensive Plans are structured upon. The Land Use Element provides
concise directives on how growth will be managed in an orderly manner that is consistent with he 14
planning goals, which include critical areas and shoreline protection. Build-out scenarios are tightly
2
influenced by Plan goals and policies that strictly govern housing densities and severely restrict
conversion of resource lands to residential uses. New commercial expansion is virtually stymied by
RCW. 36.70A.070.5(d). Undeveloped land in Rural Commercial Crossroads designations totals a
mere 16.78 acres (Table 3-6) and only about 1.4 acres are vacant in the shoreline jurisdiction. By law
defensible population projections must be submitted to the Office of Financial Management. But is
any of this information contained in the LA SMP, FSICR, or Cumulative Impact Analysis? Especially
the CIA. No. There is a wealth of documented information regarding how growth will be managed but
this was largely ignored in favor of amorphous "development pressures." A NNL that achieves the
objective of RCW 90.58.020 of a balance of ecological protection and use needs to be based
on rigorous, accurate data, not on subjective appraisals and prejudiced precautionary assumptions.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship foundation
Jefferson County
3