Salmon are plentiful and healthy, so what problem are we’re trying to solve?

from a story by Christopher Dunagan in the Kitsap Sun…

Recent rains have encouraged the chum salmon to move upstream in many creeks across the Kitsap Peninsula. Observers say some of the chum they are spotting are much larger than any they have seen in years.

“The timing of these rains is just about perfect,” said Jon Oleyar, a biologist for the Suquamish Tribe who knows the East Kitsap streams like nobody else. “If you’re a salmon, you’re saying, ‘It’s about time we got some decent water.’”

Coho salmon, which normally arrive earlier than chum, were favored by rains in October, the biologist said, and their size has been remarkable.

“By far, these are the largest coho I have ever seen,” said Oleyar, who has conducted salmon-counting surveys for the tribe for the past 11 years.

County fights “one size fits all” rural zoning.

The following story is important for shoreline homeowners because “one size fits all” has been the land use planning mantra of planners, activist groups and the Department of Ecology. However, the Shoreline Management Act and the Growth Management Act call for custom-tailored approaches to fit local conditions.

by Rob Ollikainen, Peninsula Daily News

Clallam County (the northernmost county on the Olympic Peninsula) has won a key battle in its long war over zoning.

The Western Washington Growth Management Act Hearings Board on Tuesday found the county’s rural zoning is valid and compliant with the Growth Management Act. Moreover, the board found the county’s amended limited areas of more intensive rural development, or LAMRIDs, are compliant.

“My office successfully argued to the growth board that Seattle special interest group Futurewise’s and local group Dry Creek Coalition’s ‘one size fits all’ approach to rural zoning failed to acknowledge the unique, local circumstances in rural Clallam County and ignored this county’s right to control its own future,” Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly said in a statement.

“This is an unprecedented win for private property owners in Washington state, where county after county in recent years has instead chosen to abandon the battlefield over rural lands and settle for one-dwelling-for-five-acres.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Kitsap lawmaker says Ecology overstepping its authority.

Rep. Jan Angel has sent letters this week to the state departments of Ecology and Commerce asking its directors to refrain from creating new shoreline policies and guidance.

The issue centers around which jurisdiction takes precedence in setting shoreline rules and buffers: the state’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) or the Growth Management Act (GMA). GMA governs “critical areas” which the Department of Ecology contends should cover some shorelines with generally more restrictive rules.

Both laws have been in conflict and the subject of litigation involving Kitsap County’s shoreline buffer zones. However, Angel says the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the Shoreline Management Act is the governing jurisdiction for the state’s shorelines.

Now, she says, without legislative authority, the Department of Ecology has issued “interim guidance” and is developing new policies on how governments can deal with critical areas within the shorelines.

Partnership preparing for shoreline moratorium battle.

According to an article in the Kitsap Sun, the Puget Sound Partnership is preparing several requests for the coming legislative session. One of them is a shoreline moratorium that would halt construction of bulkheads and docks in “sensitive areas” until new rules are approved.

Because of the importance of “feeder bluffs,” which create gravel beaches, as well as spawning areas for small forage fish, one proposal would halt shoreline construction in the vicinity of these areas. Degradation could be reduced until new rules and incentives are in place.

State Rep. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, cited her city’s legal defeat over a shoreline moratorium and recommended against such temporary measures. What may be needed instead, she said, is better enforcement of existing rules through permits issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Josh Baldi of the Washington Department of Ecology said his agency has not yet decided whether to support the idea. Existing shoreline rules require “no net loss” of ecological function, he said. If that’s not happening now, is a moratorium the solution?

Rumor control: Do planners want your home to fall into Puget Sound?

by Ken Sethney, Chair, Bainbridge Shoreline Homeowners

It is often said that COBI Planners — or Dept. of Ecology bureaucrats — or some evil, shadow government masterminds — want all shoreline properties to erode and all “nonconforming” homes to fall into the water.

That’s why they want to declare your home to be “nonconforming”. That’s why they don’t want you to build or repair a bulkhead. That’s why they don’t want you to build a dock, or plant a lawn or have garden with anything in it but “native plants”. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Sounds a bit paranoid, doesn’t it?

That’s what we thought until we received a copy of a presentation on nonconforming uses and structures delivered to local planners and consultants by Betty Renkor, Senior Shorelines Planner, Department of Ecology.

Sustainability, salmon and Mother Nature.

by John B Evans

Despite weather that was too cool early on, then too hot, hit and miss watering, frequent trampling by our family dog and abundant weeds… the veggies are resilient and the harvest spectacular.

Mother nature figured, after a misstep here and there with dinosaurs and such, that resilience, (the ability to adapt to a range of less than ideal conditions ) works. She also determined it is a good idea to generate a “surplus” of everything… just in case.

Legal response to Jefferson County’s draft SMP.

by Dennis D. Reynolds, Land Use Attorney, Bainbridge Island

I represent The Olympic Stewardship Foundation (“the OSF”). The OSF’s membership includes a broad array of citizens, property owners and business owners in Jefferson County. The OSF is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the voice of rural landowners. Its members support the shared belief that citizens, particularly those who live on their land, are capable of providing the very best care and management for the environment in which they live. The core of the OSF’s founding members have a demonstrated record of maintaining and improving on-the-ground conservation in Jefferson County.