HomeMy WebLinkAbout248.Wheeler, W. 5-6_Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (62)
Michelle McConnell
From:William Wheeler [fairleafarms@hotmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:41 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Dear Mr. Stewart,
The following comments are made under the provisions of the public comment period initiated by the
Washington Department of Ecology concerning their deliberations on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Plan (12-7-09 Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (LA-SMP) and related documents.
I live at 222 Big Leaf Lane, Quilcene, WA 98376. Use and enjoyment of my land is directly affected by the
provisions of the proposed regulation. In addition to residing on the property, I maintain it for sustainable
timber production. My property is certified under the American Tree Farm System, and the property is
inspected by third party certification foresters every five years to insure that my operation is being conducted in
accordance with national and international sustainability guidelines. I am active in family forestry and land
stewardship organizations in Washington and Colorado in a range of capacities, and have conducted and
published scientific work in the area of low impact family forestry both nationally and internationally. My
property reflects my commitment to responsible stewardship. My comments concerning the proposed SMP are
based on that background and understanding and are as follows:
The proposed SMP is first and foremost written to advance a view that property owners are the enemy of
1.
environmental protection, not it's advocates. On this presumption, and without either balanced scientific
evidence of either general harm caused by the majority of landowners, or specific harm sufficient in
extent to erase the good work of the majority of conscientious landowners, the SMP has become
excessively restrictive. Compliance has become unnecessarily costly for the average, conscientious
landowner, and it sets up an adversarial relationship between the county government and it's citizens.
As an apparent result of believing that landowners are enemies of the environment the SMP has not only
2.
become overly complex and difficult for a landowner to understand, it has also relied on coercive
language in an attempt to achieve what it can not legitimately achieve under state law. One example of
this is the extensive use of the term “strongly encouraged” in the regulation. Use of this term signals to
the landowner that he'd better take the “strongly encouraged” action, though he can't be legally
compelled to do so. It also gives justification to the county workers involved in the process that they
have a responsibility to “strongly encourage” the landowner to do so. In my experience such justification
routinely results in delays, erecting of administrative obstacles, and in short, bullying by administrative
staff in positions of power.
Another example of the way that the SMP is being used to inappropriately advance an agenda that is
3.
neither required nor authorized by state law, is the requirement that developments involving four or
more residential units include provisions for public access on private property. The drafters of the SMP
clearly understand that this requirement may be an illegal “taking” of private property for a public
purpose. They have cleverly crafted the requirement so that it can quickly be withdrawn if challenged in
court. This appears to be an attempt to gain public access to private property without reimbursement of
the landowner, impose upon the landowner the legal cost of protecting his rights under the state
constitution if he wishes to exercise those legitimate rights, and at the same time protect the county from
the financial consequences of a questionable regulatory action. Landowners should not be forced, by
their county government, to protect their rights in court when it's obvious from the outset that those
rights will be violated by the regulation.
1
In the specific area of Forest Practices the SMP repeatedly requires that landowners comply with a
4.
document called the Forest and Fish Report. This is not a regulatory document and I can find nothing in
the RCWs or WAC that makes it so. It is a management plan and agreement between various state
agencies, environmental group and the tribes, the implementation of which is codified in the Forest
Practices Regulations and legislation. Including its recommendations as compliance requirements in the
SMP not only undermines the state's legitimate regulatory process as embodied in various RCWs and
reflected by the Forest Practices Act and WAC 222 (Forest Practices Rules) it places county staff in the
position of making decisions on individual cases based on their interpretation of the intent rather than
the explicit wording of the forest practices law, it also places upon landowners a responsibility of
complying with recommendations of the Forest and Fish Report that have not been found to be possible
or practical and therefore have not been adopted by either the RCW or WAC. Use of the Forest and Fish
Report as a regulatory requirement in the SMP is inappropriate, is likely to result in unnecessary
litigation should it ever be exercised, undermines established democratic processes for adopting rules
and legislation, and is unnecessary. It should be removed from the SMP.
Required buffers and setbacks are unrelated to logical risk. Thus for example a landowner with 20 acres
5.
of forest and 500 feet of river frontage is required to leave 30% of his most valuable acreage in a natural
vegetative state, which in many cases will be brush and blackberries. Though provisions exist within the
SMP for the landowner to exercise some management and use of this “no touch or touch only with
government oversight and approval” zone, the hoops that he must go through are so extensive as to deter
all but the most conscientious and determined of landowners. The majority will either ignore the
regulation and do what they think is necessary, or ignore the stream side portion of the property itself
and find other, less desirable, uses for enjoying the property, such as turning upland areas into horse
pasture or ATV riding trails. Surely this regulation could have been written in a way that would not
discourage landowners, who are in my experience the best stewards of their land, from exercising
stewardship over it.
The Department of Ecology has made a substantial investment in the Jefferson County SMP. In fact, the
6.
$670,000 in grants directly connected with the Jefferson County SMP is one of the largest such
investment, on a per capita basis, that DOE has made in SMP development statewide. Everyone who
lives in Jefferson County understands the environmental treasures that we have here. We also
understand that the vast majority of those treasures are already protected in Federal land, commercial
forest and land use regulations that severely restrict development. Supporting documents for the SMP
suggest that approximately $360 has been spent for each of the parcels that might one day have a
substantial effect on shoreline functions and values. This, was done at an unknown cost to landowners,
their property values, and in total disregard to the safeguards that were already in place under the
existing SMP and a host of other regulations. What was the real justification for this expenditure of
taxpayer money? Was it to protect a pristine environmental area in danger of collapse, which was
already well protected by zoning and other regulations? Was it a way to distribute state money to a small
county with budget problems? Or was it a way to purchase a “Model Shoreline Master Plan” which
would serve as an example, however extreme, of the precautionary approach to shoreline protection.
Respectfully Submitted,
William A. Wheeler
Fair Lea Tree Farm
222 Big Leaf Lane
Quilcene, WA 98376
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. Get busy.
2