Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MRC to finalize letter opposing piecemeal shoreline armoring approach at 3 Crabs Road; staff to send to county and state agencies
Summary
The Clallam County MRC directed staff to work with a member to finalize a draft letter on shoreline armoring at the 3 Crabs Road area and send it to the Board of County Commissioners, the Department of Community Development, state agencies and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe; Ecology’s decision window was noted as time‑sensitive.
The Clallam County Marine Resources Committee agreed by consensus to have staff work with MRC member Anne Sol to finalize a draft letter concerning shoreline armor and conditional use permits near 3 Crabs Road and to send the letter to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners with copies to the Department of Community Development, the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
Dan (staff presenter) summarized the situation: a conditional use permit (CUP) for a bulkhead at the site had been granted through county permitting procedures and the project now awaits state agency decisions. Committee members noted that additional nearby property owners are seeking bulkhead permits and that piecemeal permitting could produce cumulative shoreline impacts. Committee members said a letter that documents scientific and planning concerns could be useful to county decision makers and to state reviewers.
Staff and members discussed where to direct the letter and to whom to copy it. Committee members emphasized the MRC’s role as an advisory body to the county and requested that the final letter be clearly addressed from the MRC to the Board of County Commissioners; the group agreed to copy Department of Community Development, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. Amelia Calliger (MRC administrative staff) noted Ecology’s decision is expected by the end of the month, so the timeline is short.
The meeting’s direction was procedural — staff were asked to work with Anne to refine and finalize the draft and to clear it with county staff as appropriate before distribution. No formal legal challenge or lawsuit was proposed at this meeting; rather the committee sought to put its advisory views on the record for county and state decision makers.
Why it matters: The committee said shoreline armoring decisions have local environmental consequences (e.g., sediment transport, shoreline change and habitat impacts), and with multiple nearby permit requests the committee urged a coordinated review rather than piecemeal approvals.
