HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-453
GvnA-
~.~
. To: County Commissioners
From: ToddWexman
8 April 2009
. RE: Statesman' srequest to reduce the width of shorelmebuffers
'Not long ago the Governor put her signature to a study. blaming large..;scale developments
such as Statesman's for the continuing degradation ofwate~s in Puget Sound---to which
the Hood .Canal is conjoined. .
.~~bt~:Jo~li~!1M~~!~~~~=,~~~.a;.';;;
should be kept in mind when'consideringcoastal management strategiesandlor the
development of shorelines:
"DeIineatingriparian areas and establishing appropriate buffers should be based upon
maintaining and reestablishing natural processes and functions in addition to providing
for human health and safety and other ecosystem services.
. Although many approaches have been taken in establishing nparian management zones,
most set a minimum width with additional setback requirements for steep'slopes. Buffer
widthc()nsiderations ought to be influenced by the amount of remaining intact riparian
area along specified reaches ofshoreIine; impervious surface limitations; and
conn~ctivitywithin and betweenrea~he.s.:"" ... ~.
. In Puget Sound, where .shoreline.retr~at is expected, '. wide . buffers are ne~ded t(). allow. for
wildlife habitat, L WD recruitment, and other functions over time. The functions. and
benefits provided by the marine riparian zone will vary and be determined by 8 number
.' offactors (e.g., soils, slope, vegetation type and density). Therefore, determining
'CkH~~~n~!ic~~q~~~~~~t~.. . '. 'RaI,~!1J,d~esi~~r!t,ic~~o ..
gapproprlate'bUfTetwtd'ffiS.1Y incal data to SUpport .. '<-'
marine buffer width determinations, we must. take a precautionary approach when
developing along marine shorelines to prevent further, irreparable damage."
They conclude "the management of coastal areas has been inadequate in protecting
natural resources and maintaining ecosystem functions. The shorelines ofPuget Sound
have experienced. significant modifications and continue to be modified, much to the
detriment of shorelines and adjacent waters."
. Ifwe are to succeed.in protecting natural resources and maintaining ecosystem functions,
. we must carefully identifY, evaluate and incorporate multiple functions into a
management strafeg)'. We should u;se a multidisciplinary approach in developing riparian
tnanagement zon~s.
_....,,~>. ."". . .'.a',.:.........>..... . ""'C".
....:.....~s~....~....." .l.;'~.#;- .f"L~:;:.'~.. '~:1f.!.."'..Y'.t.,:,.:~.. - " '..t '.--_f. __"'~:\, .":. ,",
~.,.~.~t. ~it~.'~Hl~,. . ""'''';';'':;:'>'"i.':'';:;'i'
2~(P(
@
'.- -:::'-~- ~,:;.,~
. In its attempt to' achieve a greater margin of profit, the Statesman Group would like us to
throw precaution to the wind. They ask that' their requirement be reduced to 50 feet.
Present law requires a shoreline buffer of 150 feet. In draft form, our updated Critical
. Areas Ordinance recommends maintaining same.' .
'i',~~!,~f '/_I~~;fi6tlet Joss'af~t,iii~~;~~~~'ana:6foMft."~';;;;':;;;",j;,.$,t;;;:ti
Management Acts. Removing native vegetation is a net loss of function. Will The
Statesman GrQUP require another special favor in order to meet their needs? Will they
continue to chip away, one issue at a time, to get what they want? Will their development
plan look anything like what was,.in outline, first proposed?
I, for one, am fed up. The custom-designed MPR designation was a big mistake-a
foolhardy attempt to draw dense development to what should have remained'an
unobtrusive "rural zone." For now, we must do all that we can to discourage a Corporate
. Developer who would blithely sacrifice our precious shoreline for the sake of his own
. bottom line . .
~,fg(};'f~'I\;~),f#o~ .~."i~Ij;;; -"Cl. ..' ,c't< }"';;/;;'I"I;., .
_.,,~.:~"\lfi('l!""-~';:;s;i'i\;ft~i+f8' .,~"".t"",...>t'-,
.~.#'-_:tJ:;;~,~.t1;;~~~;~~~~;';~;.~~~~:~l?~:~~,~~~:~):;'~S_
"",..~.", -'''''''..-....... c,I' ........31. ~."",..... '. h .. '.,
:.~~~'?;..,,-- ..~,~..... "~:i!,~ " '--,~:p" ~--'~-;;~":.;'~_.,,"-~:;:"+-..'..-~;'-;.-'t.:;.
~,>,~. ..' ......~ ... ,1+lo\,~"", ''''''''t,.C4'i',.-;j;