Whitney to Soos creek drift?

[Mike Carey]

More:

Under "Shoreline Management" http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/ ... neral.html

#2, Critical Areas, sub section "Principles", states:

(v) Promote human uses and values that are compatible with the other objectives of this section, such as public access and aesthetic values, provided that impacts to ecological functions are first avoided, and any unavoidable impacts are mitigated.

To me, that says that all things being equal, removing that obstruction would be a goal that the Dept of Ecology is mandated to do, since the log blocks public access (in this case drift boats) from floating down the river between established launch sites.

Farther down, under "Standards":

•Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that such actions do not cause significant ecological impacts or increase flood hazards to other uses.

TO me, that says if moving the obstruction doesn't cause a significant impact, Dept of Ecology is mandated to do so in order to maintain the existing use, in this case, being able to float the river.

Here's a whole section on public access:

(4) Public access.

(a) Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public access provisions below apply to all shorelines of the state unless stated otherwise.

(b) Principles. Local master programs shall:

(i) Promote and enhance the public interest with regard to rights to access waters held in public trust by the state while protecting private property rights and public safety.

(ii) Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water-dependent uses.

(iii) To the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally, protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines of the state, including views of the water.

(iv) Regulate the design, construction, and operation of permitted uses in the shorelines of the state to minimize, insofar as practical, interference with the public's use of the water.

(c) Planning process to address public access. Local governments should plan for an integrated shoreline area public access system that identifies specific public needs and opportunities to provide public access. Such a system can often be more effective and economical than applying uniform public access requirements to all development. This planning should be integrated with other relevant comprehensive plan elements, especially transportation and recreation. The planning process shall also comply with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations that protect private property rights.

Where a port district or other public entity has incorporated public access planning into its master plan through an open public process, that plan may serve as a portion of the local government's public access planning, provided it meets the provisions of this chapter. The planning may also justify more flexible off-site or special area public access provisions in the master program. Public participation requirements in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(b)(i) apply to public access planning.

At a minimum, the public access planning should result in public access requirements for shoreline permits, recommended projects, port master plans, and/or actions to be taken to develop public shoreline access to shorelines on public property. The planning should identify a variety of shoreline access opportunities and circulation for pedestrians (including disabled persons), bicycles, and vehicles between shoreline access points, consistent with other comprehensive plan elements.

(d) Standards. Shoreline master programs should implement the following standards:

(i) Based on the public access planning described in (c) of this subsection, establish policies and regulations that protect and enhance both physical and visual public access. The master program shall address public access on public lands. The master program should seek to increase the amount and diversity of public access to the state's shorelines consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, public rights under the Public Trust Doctrine, and public safety.

(ii) Require that shoreline development by public entities, including local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment. Where public access planning as described in WAC 173-26-221 (4)(c) demonstrates that a more effective public access system can be achieved through alternate means, such as focusing public access at the most desirable locations, local governments may institute master program provisions for public access based on that approach in lieu of uniform site-by-site public access requirements.

(iii) Provide standards for the dedication and improvement of public access in developments for water-enjoyment, water-related, and nonwater-dependent uses and for the subdivision of land into more than four parcels. In these cases, public access should be required except:

gotta run to work...

[dustinchromers]

thanks for the rcw mike. my information comes from wdfw enforcement, and was on regard to a sled owner cutting trees out of the river to attain access upstream. mallard is likely right if one has the skills and know how. unfortunately i find chainsaws scary, heavy, and dangerous. then again I'm no logger, just a computer programmer who is lucky to get outside a couple times a month. besides last time i handled saw gas was for a weed eater and the oil gave me a severe rash on my skin.

[mallard83]

Thanks for the info mike. It is always a fine line we as sportsman walk in this state regarding rules and regulations. If it is an impassable obstruction i will usually deal with the problem out of necessity but if there is a way around I just go on my way and just let the next high water blow it out. Hope that you can get ahold of them and find out the actual rules on this.

[mallard83]

thanks for the rcw mike. my information comes from wdfw enforcement, and was on regard to a sled owner cutting trees out of the river to attain access upstream. mallard is likely right if one has the skills and know how. unfortunately i find chainsaws scary, heavy, and dangerous. then again I'm no logger, just a computer programmer who is lucky to get outside a couple times a month. besides last time i handled saw gas was for a weed eater and the oil gave me a severe rash on my skin.

I can definitely see how a sled got in trouble for cutting them out in order to gain access upriver. Us guys in db's, toons or rafts are at the mercy of the river and really don't have a choice sometimes if there is no safe portage.

[Mike Carey]

I'll post what I find out. I was rushing to work this morning and ran out of time reviewing all the info.

[gassyboy]

We should all fill this out and each one of us send it in to the county to get the log removed. Maybe if they hear from a bunch of people they will take notice and get it out of there.

http://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library ... t-2013.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mike Carey]

Nice! I'll send one in. Feel free to use the log picture from my report, or a screen shot from the video.

[gassyboy]

Word has it the log has been cut and you are able to float over it on the left hand side now. The next high water should push it out of the hole completely.

[natetreat]

Good Riddance! I bet it was mallard83, showing us how it's done.

[mallard83]

Good Riddance! I bet it was mallard83, showing us how it's done.

Nuck nuck nuck......you so funny.......If I fished that river at all I probably would have taken it out, but no it wasn't me. Instead of flipping the people that know how to deal with river hazards crap, you should be thanking them. The river is how you make your money after all. Some people are willing to take action and keep our rivers safe and passable rather than just whine about it on a forum. So good luck to you on your nice clean drift that someone else cleared for you.

[natetreat]

Good Riddance! I bet it was mallard83, showing us how it's done.

Nuck nuck nuck......you so funny.......If I fished that river at all I probably would have taken it out, but no it wasn't me. Instead of flipping the people that know how to deal with river hazards crap, you should be thanking them. The river is how you make your money after all. Some people are willing to take action and keep our rivers safe and passable rather than just whine about it on a forum. So good luck to you on your nice clean drift that someone else cleared for you.

Oh I'm grateful to whomever did it, it's awesome that it's cleared up. The log in question was very very big. I have experience clearing smaller logs, branches and stuff like that on the coast. This one was beyond my experience to remove. Since you don't fish the river, you may not know how bad it was. Maybe you are more proficient than I at cutting big trees, but I look at that log and see a ton of things that could go wrong with the wrong cut. I think you missed the point of our discussion in the first place.

[mallard83]

Definitely did not miss the point of the discussion at all. I think that we obviously see eye to eye on some points but others we clearly don't. Just because someone doesn't see things your way does not mean that they missed the point. It is all based off of opinions and experience. No point in going on with this as it is turning into pointless dribble between us. Good luck to you.

[natetreat]

Agreed.