HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-328
(PV\!\!~
~b
Gom~
P.O. Box 536
Forks, WA 98331
January 29, 2009
2tl1l f
RJECJEIVElD~
I.i,~ .:, :. '1,
.";, "cl,J'J ~.,;J
DCD-SMP
IJlHERSnN COUNTY OCQ
Comments
621 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, W A 98368
This letter, with my comments, is in response to the January 21, 2009 Public Hearing by the Jefferson
County Planning Commission for the Preliminary Draft of the Shoreline Master Program (pDSMP).
Few environmental protection problems with the existing JCC 18.25 have been shown. New actions
should be predicated on reason. It is impossible to legislate for every conceivable problem or issue.
Applying "absolute ideals," to the extreme, results in overregulation and balance of use is not achieved.
Numerous issues are herein addressed and which cannot be resolved by the simple application of a line-
out, line-in process. It is to be expected henceforth, an iterative process of several revisions with more
public involvement will need to occur. The Planning Commission should anticipate a timeline of not less
than 6 months and up to 6 iterations of preliminary draft revisions and public meetings with comment,
before presentation to the County Commissioners.
This involvement must include land-vested citizen-stewards, small timberland owners, farmers with
experience in local agriculture and sources of safe food. There are "advocates" who state an opinion
without experience in agriculture, logging, or other resource-based activities and without legitimate
scientific background or facts at hand, yet highly qualified persons are given little credence.
Major concern arises within the community regarding the adequacy of previous Environmental Impact
Statements (EIS) without due regard to re-evaluating and updating effects on the citizens of Jefferson
County and landowners therein, to include: Cost-benefit analysis; Economy; Cultural factors; Social
policy analysis; and Sociological factors.
This precludes any Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) with the current process.
The following issues have generated significant community concern:
Many purchases were made on legal. shore side building lots, with the expectation of building homes or as
return on investments made decades ago. Reclassifying these as now out of compliance is a "taking".
Incremental "takings" occur through overlaying property with changing or new regulations or by
increasing buffers.
Setting a "25%" limitation on pruning and limbing is a "taking" as is "80%" natural buffer.
The ESA Adolphson Powerpoint display hard-copy infers that 28,500 people live on 250 miles of marine
shoreline, or I person every 46 feet. Just how far inland is "marine shoreline"?
Pandering to shellfish industry; whose aquacide use and harvest methods of jetting the substrate creates
uncontrollable dispersiou of chemicals and excessive silt movement. Yet, onshore tillage, fertilizer and
septic systems get unfair blame for silt production and pollution. The least stable biological conditions
are in the marine waters; changes are constant and are the least predictable in cumulative effects.
Population projections have not proven valid.
Is a tree farm an "unrestored shoreline" subject to public access ifnatural erosion is taking place?
Too much power would be vested in the "County Administrator" and subject to arbitrary or delayed
decision making. A maximum of 60 days to process a permit in the County should be sufficient, with a
significantly declining fee, (10% per week) for delay without cause by the applicant. Timelines for
county response needs to be streamlined and put in place.
The classification of shorelines with the presently undefined term, "Conservancy", places no limitation on
future interpretation of intent of use of the term, leading to even more stringent application of regulation
on these areas. It is essential to recognize these areas will benefit under the generally accepted concept of
stewardship. Hence, a term such as "Stewardable" is considered applicable.
The following portion refers to elements in the Preliminary Draft of the Shoreline Master Program.
It is by no means all-inclusive.
By utilizing these comments, no way is to be construed as my endorsement of the format of this
document. I reserve the right to make further comment at all stages of development and implementation
of the Program.
Where convenient, references begin with page as numbered in the document, with reference to subsection
and/or line number.
Pg. 1-1, Article I-Introduction, 1.A.5: The PDSMP ignores the first paragraph in quoting RCW
90.58.020, which speaks to: "... The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the
uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly
owned shorelines ofthe state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in
order to protect the public Interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the sarne tirne, recognizing and
pmtecImg private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for
a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the
inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines."
(Color highlights are mine, for emphasis)
Pg. 2-9 Add: Definition of: "Conservancy".
Pg. 2-40 Add: Definition of: "Stewardship" and "Stewardable".
Pg. 2-41 Add: Definition of: "Substantial number" (of people, etc.) How many is "substantial"?
Pg.3-1: 1. Conservation. This term is replaced by ~~8tewardshipn in Marine Resource Committee
documents.
Pg. 3-5, 7.B.3 Add: Encourage funding to landowner for restoration work.
Pg. 4-1, E.2: Designatine the centerline of a road or railway as a boundary of a shoreline places doubt as
to whether it is intended that the infrastructure be in, or out of the shoreline designation. It is the usual
practice that a right-of-way of such extends as necessary to accommodate construction maintenance of the
cut and fill slopes. Widths are not always uniform along the length.
Pg. 4-4, Line 10: "Conservancy". Use "Stewardable".
Pg. 6-3, Line 23: It is impossible to guarantee that the restoration area can be maintained in perpetuity.
There is no definition of "maintained", as used in this context.
Pg. 6-5, D.5, 6: Buffers landward of shorelines; "Shorelands...means those lands extending landward for
200 feet... from the ordinary highwater mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200
feet from such floodways... .". Where the floodway and floodplain are coincidental with the ordinary
highwater mark, the shoreland is defined as extending 200ft. landward of this common point. Now, this
section states a minimum buffer of 150 feet shall be maintained in all shoreline environments. Does this
mean the total buffer really is 350 feet?
Pg. 6-5, D.8: Buffer condition. Forest practices allow 30% harvest removal each 10 years. This buffer
condition requirement would be extremely difficult to maintain.
Pg. 6-5, D.IO: Increased Buffers: "The Administrator may... " This is subjective and vulnerable to
abuse.
Pg. 6-5, D.IO.ill: To preserve and stabilize banks where erosion is occurring, mtherthan increase buffer
width, encourage biological bank protection.
Pg. 6-7, E.l.x: Why not allow a 15 foot setback? Reasoning?
Pg. 6-15, 4.A.6.ii,iv: Overhanging trees and structures. These are absolutes, to be avoided.
Pg. 6-15, 4.B.3: This is an onerous requirement, and an imposition on land owners.
Pg. 7-2, I.B. 1&3: Private beach access. It is unreasonable to not permit a safe access structure from
private lots to a beach, regardless of shoreline classification.
Pg. 7-2, l.B.10.ill: Require temporary removal of a private access structure during such work.
Pg. 7-4, Line 25: Define "excessive".
Pg. 7-5, Lines 12 & 14: Change "should" to "shall".
Pg. 7-5, Line 36: Allow float plane moorage. Important for aquaculture management.
Pg. 7-8, Line 12: Allow for additional private boat launch at minimum of Y2 mile interval.
Pg. 8-2, B.6: Unless otherwise prohibited for health reasons, small gardens and orchard trees should be
encouraged.
Pg. 8-3, Co2.vi: Fencing will not work in west end of county-elk will tear it down.
Pg. 8-12, C.3: Forest Practices: Do not impose additional requirements- follow state Forest practices.
Pg. 8-31, C.8.iv: No Trespassing signs above the high water mark need to be placed high on trees to .
indicate no entry is permitted landward by bona fide fishermen allowed below the high water mark. Until
you have experienced the amount of trash and vandalism that occurs along the water, you may not have a
concept of the seriousness and liability of access to private land. Signs are tom down if they can be
reached; posts are either washed out or tom down and thrown in the river.
Pg. 8-37, B.4: Prohibiting ""Freestanding communication towers" covers far too many types and for
purposes that have no more effect on shorelands than another tree. They need to be placed where the
signals are effectively propagated. Under the proposed rule, a guyed tower of infinite height, width and
breadth would be permitted. I suggest you converse with Bob Hamlin, your county Emergency
Management Director, for technical direction, before including this sort of requirement.
Pg. 10-1, 1.A.1.ii: By whom, is the "Hearing Examiner" employed?
Pg. 10-3, 3.A Line 29: ""A complete application... shall... all of the information...inc1uding at a minimum:
1. The name... applicant...
2. The property address...
Pg. 10-5, Line 10: "The Administrator may vary or waive the requirements in 1 above..." This is in
conflict with the above citation and not in the interest of public information. A pre-defined purpose
should be clearly stated.
Pg. 10-7, G.2 Line 31: "...substantial number of people." Define '"substantial".
Pg. 10-8,1.6&7: Retain these two sub-sections, delete Ithrough 6.
Pg. 10-8, J: Delete this requirement, under the current state of the economy, it places undue burden on
families and others.
Respectfully submitted,
~ (J ;2:cL., #tc/
John C. Richmond