Almost exactly one year ago, Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed into law a bill protecting the Metolius Basin from destination resorts and other intensive development.
Don’t look now, but … they’re back.
A week ago, developers floated a proposal to build 15 “fishing accommodations” on the Metolius arm of Lake Billy Chinook, inside the Area of Critical Statewide Concern created as a buffer around the Metolius.
These “fishing accommodations” are not going to be little tents or one-room shacks – they’re going to be privately owned, detached units of up to 1,600 square feet each.
In other words, houses.
According to Erik Kancler, executive director of Central Oregon LandWatch, there already are “eight camp trailers, 11 docks, five decks, retaining walls, and myriad other uses” on the site, most of which will be grandfathered in if the "fishing accommodations" are okayed.
Not only would the project be a foot in the door for further development inside the buffer zone, but it could have important statewide implications as well, Kancler writes in a post on the Blue Oregon site:
“The statewide issue is that thus far, ‘fishing accommodations’ (which are a conditional use allowed in forest zones within a quarter-mile of Class 1 waters) have been understood to be single ‘guest rooms’ to be used ‘for sleeping purposes.’ To our knowledge, no one’s ever attempted to call privately owned detached dwellings with kitchens, bathrooms, etc. ‘guest rooms.’
“If allowed to stand, such a precedent could ultimately lead to hundreds, perhaps thousands of new residences along the Metolius and other Class 1 rivers throughout the state, such as the Umpqua, the McKenzie, the John Day, or the Illinois.”
Jefferson County’s planning staff has recommended that the project be approved, with the stipulation that none of the “fishing accommodations” can be bigger than 850 square feet and none can be built in a riparian area. The county planning commission has to make a decision next, and the county commission after that.
“I’ve been amazed at the lengths that local elected officials will go through to stay out of the way of landowners or to actively facilitate developments that seem to clearly disregard the letter and intent of the law, the public interest, or the concerns of neighbors,” Kancler writes. “Should Jefferson County ultimately approve this development, it would be among the worst cases of ‘accommodation’ I’ve seen yet.”
written by JH , July 16, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 16, 2010
written by JS , July 17, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 17, 2010
Who filled them?
written by Jennifer Severeide , July 17, 2010
Would the plan include a commitment from the Forest Service to not renew any of the 104 cabin leases as they come up for renewal, and to then demolish those existing cabins and their septic tanks and return the sites to natural habitat? The final management plan did not include this commitment. I highly question the idea of imposing a plan on the basin that by omission allows property owners to be grandfathered into continuing their current usage and practices – even if they are doing harm. I question why this would be the case ~ especially if the objective of this law is to “protect the waters of the Metolius and the fish and wildlife resources.”
If new property owners are to be required “to minimize wildfire risk and the costs of protection from wildfire” should then the Forest Service be allowed to continue prescribed burning and fire research programs in the basin?
Would it be the intention of this plan that the streamside trails along the river be pulled back to enhance and protect the riparian zone?
Would this plan address the numerous camp sites along the river and the probability that their continued usage will cause damage to the natural habitat of fish and wildlife and have ill effects on the water quality?
Would the plan address private property decorative water features fed by the waters of Lake Creek; Spring Creek and the Metolius River?
None of these issues have been addressed or adopted and as a result I don’t buy into the “these resorts will destroy an Oregon jewel” theory ~ especially as the proposed solutions only apply to those you “think might do harm” and not to those that are currently doing so.
I am very much opposed to what I see as the eradication of the county’s authority to govern local land use issues. There was a time in which the Governor believed in the process and stated “I support following the established processes for resolving those challenges as they relate to land use decisions. For this reason, I do not support Senate Bill 30.” Although the Governor no longer stands beside his original statement I most certainly do.
To have rushed into this recommendation is unimaginable to me. The implementation of this type of law – a law that will never be reversed – a law that will set such a precedent in all counties of this state (most of which have a professed Oregon treasure) deserves a far more fully vetted process. One that most certainly takes longer than 57 days and details scientific studies supporting the assumptions.
If it is that this area is of such critical concern and needs state level protection then the rulings should apply to all property owners in the basin. All residents should be held accountable and responsible for the protection and safeguarding of this basin – not just those that come in the future.
I am not against protecting the river and the basin and I absolutely recognize and appreciate the beauty of this area. I am, however, against setting two standards.
It is my opinion that by setting two very diverse standards you are in effect saying “The Metolius Basin is special … It’s just not that special”.
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 17, 2010
I think it's irrelevant to bring up the campgrounds, the cabins and other features on or near the Metolius that have been there for many decades. If these things were proposed today they might well not be approved; however, they have been there a long time and it's unrealistic to require or expect them to be taken out.
As for the USFS's prescribed burns, I believe those are in fact intended “to minimize wildfire risk and the costs of protection from wildfire.”
BTW you might have disclosed that you and your husband are managers of the Lake Creek Lodge in Camp Sherman, which has fought a running battle with Friends of the Metolius over its expansion plans. Would you be willing to see your 20 cabins demolished if the Forest Service agreed to demolish those few old cabins along the river?
written by Jennifer Severeide , July 18, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 19, 2010
written by Jennifer Severeide , July 20, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , July 20, 2010
Suit yourself.
"I find it highly offensive that you would do an internet search on my name"
Why? It's not like tapping your phone or going through your garbage can. The Internet is public space. I was trying to find out whether you had a personal ax to grind -- something you were quick enough to accuse others of.
BTW I find it somewhat (though not highly) offensive that you seem to think only people who live in Camp Sherman have a right to comment on what happens with the Metolius.
