The Clallam County MRC has sent this letter to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) and the Clallam County Department of Community Development (DCD).RE: Shoreline management at Three Crabs Road.
At its recent monthly meeting, the MRC agreed to invoke its advisory responsibitity to the BOCC and communicate our concern about shoreline armoring (permitted and unpermitted) on Three Crabs Road, which recently came to our attention.
What we are seeing
Despite Comprehensive Plan policies for protecting marine shorelines and no-net-loss goats of the Shoreline Management Program, bulkheads have been and continue to be permitted – most often under emergency provisions following erosion from extreme storm surges, which are almost becoming an annual occurrence. ln addition, NASA has recently concluded that the pace of sea leveI rise is faster than previously thought, due to the thermal expansion of the ocean’s mass.
Summary of concerns
The MRC is concerned that intensifying weather conditions wit[ continue to cause erosion and that emergency bulkheads will continue to be requested and built, one property at a time, resulting insignificant impacts on shoretine functions and ecology. We urge the BOCC and DCD to develop a strategy that comprehensively addresses property and shoreline protection on Three Crabs Road.
The strategy shoutd include continued education and outreach to planners, contractors, property owners and county residents overall, and should also:
> clarify that avoidance of ecologicaI impacts is the top priority (but if avoidance is impossibte then
Ecology’s sequence of mitigation actions for shorelines should be followed and
> consider adjacent impacts and cumutative effects of any action; and
> identify mitigative approaches if avoidance is impossibte; and
> provide how no net loss witt be achieved through compensatory mitigation.
Filed under: Clallam County, Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Environmental Science, Olympic Peninsula, Straits of Juan de Fuca |
Excellent to be commenting on this- however, the letter contains many typos (eg, “goats,” wit], Witt)… so hopefully not sent yet
Refresh your browser. The copy of some of the article was flawed. I think it is fixed.
Another example of the County permitting development where it should never have occurred. It’s good for the MRC to call attention to what some folks have been describing for decades.