They started building a bulkhead for a new home on Hood Canal. Then the feds found out  – Seattle Times

Posted on February 12, 2024 by Al Bergstein

The takeaway here is that a homeowner appears to have ignored multiple cease and desist orders, and knowingly went ahead with construction of a bulkhead when the state and federal laws were clear that he needed permission first. The continued creation and rebuilding of bulkheads on the waters edge (see photo in the article), is an ongoing destruction of shoreline habitat that used to be used by the variety of species using the shore, many of whom are on the brink of extinction. Hard choices *have* to be made to stop this destruction and that sometimes means saying no to people.

It seems clear that it is ridiculous to say, as their attorney stated, that the bulkhead was not, “in the water” as the photo clearly shows water line markings from a high tide at some point in time, likely recently. Is the bulkhead submerged when at high tide?

The article also includes a good graphic showing the ways bulkheads destroy the beach environment.

A judge ruled the structure was built in Hood Canal without a proper permit, and now the homeowner faces a $250,000 fine. Lynda Mapes reports. (Seattle Times)

Filed under: Environmental Law, Environmental Protection, Mason County | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Army Corps of Engineers loses another court case. This time affecting bulkheads and more.

Posted on November 8, 2019 by Al Bergstein

Another major but little noticed lawsuit has been concluded with the Army Corps of Engineers. This time, a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental groups, including Sound Action, Friends of the San Juans, Washington Environmental Council (WEC) and Earthjustice argued that because the corps arbitrarily decided to determine that the high water mark was closer to the water than in other jurisdictions over which it has authority, that this was a capricious rule. The judge agreed.

This will mean that the Army will have to spend more time determining environmental issues before issuing a bulkhead permit. It will also likely mean a lot less bulkheads being permitted.

According to an article by the Spokane News Review, “Rock or concrete walls have been erected along about one-quarter of Puget Sound’s 2,500 miles of shorelines. Nearly a mile of Puget Sound shoreline is built up each year. ”

“The Corps has known for years that its high tide line marker in Puget Sound is unlawfully low,” Anna Sewell, Earthjustice attorney for the groups, said in a statement.

The groups say that if the Corps, which regulates structures or work in U.S. navigable waters, used the true high tide line, more shoreline armoring projects would come under its review.

The lawsuit notes that an interagency workgroup that included the Army Corp’s Seattle District and two other federal agencies recommended changing the Corps’ tidal jurisdiction. That change would have brought about 8,600 acres of shoreline habitat under the Corps jurisdiction.”

The Earthjustice overview of this case stated:

The Corps is required by law to review proposed armoring projects up to the “high tide line,” which is generally the line at which land meets the water. But the Corps’ Seattle District uses a much lower tidal marker (known as the “mean higher high water” mark). As a result, the Seattle District does not review the majority of armoring projects in Puget Sound.

Since the 1970s, the Seattle District of the Corps (“Seattle District”) has defined its Clean Water Act (“CWA”)  jurisdiction in the Puget Sound region to extend only up to the“mean higher high water” mark, which is an average of the higher of the two high water marks each tidal day observed over a nineteen-year period.Under the CWA’s implementing regulations, however, the Corps’ jurisdiction extends to the “high tide line.” Approximately one quarter of high tides in the Seattle District exceed the mean higher high water mark, meaning the Seattle District’s CWA jurisdictional marker is significantly below the high tide line.

The Corps’ failure to assert jurisdiction means there has been no federal oversight of whether most armoring projects in the Sound meet the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act or any other federal requirement.

The original lawsuit can be found here.

01 Enviro Complaint 05 21 2018

 

We will continue to cover this story as it evolves with the Corps implementation of this ruling.

 

 

Filed under: Around the Salish Sea, Environmental Activism, Environmental Law, Puget Sound | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Army Corps of Engineers loses another court case. This time affecting bulkheads and more.