Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout193.Puddicombe, C.-CoalitionPreservePSHabitat 5-11_Jefferson County SMP update. Michelle McConnell From:seablues Puddicombe [seablues@msn.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:39 AM To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) Subject:Jefferson County SMP update. Categories:LASMP Public Comment May 10, 2010 WS Dept. of Ecology Mr. Jeffree Stewart PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503 jeff.stewart@ecy.wa.gov (360)407-6521 Re: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Dear Mr. Stewart, Please accept the following comments on behalf of the citizens of Jefferson County, and The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat regarding the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program update. * Article 2 – Definitions, number 16, page 2-13. Jefferson County should define hydraulic geoduck harvesting as “dredging” and not merely as a de minimus form of dredging. The Washington State Shellfish Growers Environmental Codes of Practice (ECOP) essentially acknowledges that geoduck harvesting involves “dredging” and results in the “removal of sand, gravel or minerals.” According to the ECOP, “the beach level will be lowered 1-2 inches by the harvest “over an area of acreage. One to two inches equals approximately 134 to 268 yards of sediment compaction per acre. This is a significant displacement of material and cannot be considered “a trifle” or a de minimus. * Article 2 – Definitions, number 43, page 2-42. Jefferson County should define geoduck tubes as a structure. The AGO incorrectly concluded that geoduck operations do not involve the construction of structures. First, the AGO incorrectly concluded that the PVC tubes themselves are not structures. The AGO completely disregarded that part of the definition that states that a “structure” is “any piece of work artificially built”. It is that phrase in the definition that makes clear that the PVC tubes are “structures”. Also, the opinion erred when it focused solely on the individual tubes and not on the entire configuration that is constructed on site. Pierce County Hearings Examiner Terrance McCarthy ruled, after several days of expert witness testimony during the “Foss/Taylor Appeal in 2007, that geoduck farms are indeed a “structure”, that they “obstruct public use” of the water, and that they cause “habitat disruption”. * Article 8 – 2. Aquaculture; A. Policies, page 8-3; numbers 1 and 2. Jefferson County should more fully apply the SMA guidelines in its description of aquaculture as a preferred, water dependent use. Some language should be included to acknowledge that aquaculture is not a preferred use if it results in any loss of ecological functions; if it adversely impacts eelgrass and microalgae; if it conflicts with navigation and other priority water dependent uses such as swimming, fishing, wading, water skiing, etc.; or if it impacts the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Under the guidelines, many aquaculture techniques, including geoduck aquaculture, do not 1 qualify as a “preferred use”. The use of the word “minimize” should be replaced with the words “eliminate” or “avoid”. * Article 8 – 2. Aquaculture; A. Policies; page 8-3; number 5. Jefferson County should not use language that would preclude Bush and/or Callow tidelands from other uses. If an owner of Bush Callow lands wishes to put that land into a conservation easement, or dedicate it as a recreational beach, this language would prevent that. This language is not consistent with the fundamentals of the SMA or the Public Trust Doctrine. * Article 8 – 2. Aquaculture; A. Policies; page 8-3; number 6. Jefferson County should not use language that is inconsistent with the SMA. Residential developments are a “priority” use that has precedence over aquaculture as a use. * Article 8 – 2. Aquaculture; A. Policies; page 8-3; number 7. Jefferson County should not use language that is inconsistent with the SMA or The Public Trust Doctrine. Public use of state beaches and tidelands is a priority of the SMA and the public trust that should not be infringed upon by aquaculture. Aquaculture should not conflict with the public’s use of state beaches and tidelands, and not vice versa. The SMA should not be re-written to promote aquaculture beyond its original intention. Joan K. Thomas, of the Washington Environmental Council and one of the drafters of the SMA, spoke on the history of the act at the 1991 SMA Symposium. The WEC, along with citizen and environmental groups, were instrumental in the passage of the SMA, and in getting the SMA on the ballot. In 1970, these groups had gathered over 160,000 signatures in 10 weeks. The earlier versions of the act also provided for direct citizen enforcement. Joan K. Thomas stated at the 1991 symposium: “I have thought about this carefully over the years as I have seen my expectations frustrated. We have lost the full potential of the SMA to protect a valuable resource through fainthearted administration.” “When the SMA was written in 1971, aquaculture meant oysters and clams and one salmon raising operation. This activity was recognized and protected as water-dependent. I do not read the original intent or the original guidelines to promote the industry as we know it today. In fact, the guidelines specified that navigational access not be restricted and that visual access of upland owners be considered. Aquaculture has become a sore point between local governments and the Department of Ecology – a fraying of the partnership.” http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/washu/washuw91002.pdf page 16. Jefferson County should include explicit language indicating that aquaculture should be sited to avoid use conflicts with priority uses and water dependent uses that are preferred over aquaculture. In-water buffers to protect eelgrass, sand dollars and other essential habitats should be addressed and other species that are considered pests should be protected (see Pest Management Strategic Plan for Bivalves, page 19: http://www.caseinlet.org/uploads/Pest-Mngmnt-Bivalves-Draft_20Document.pdf We also suggest that Jefferson County Require SSDP’s for all aquaculture. ESA listed salmon and rockfish sustainability, recovery and habitat considerations should be addressed directly in the SMP. Environmental protections should be more explicit and aquaculture should not be permitted in the Natural SED in order to preserve high value habitat areas and to more fully comply with the SMA. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please kindly acknowledge receipt of this email. Regards, Curt Puddicombe 2 The Coalition to Preserve Puget Sound Habitat Gig Harbor seablues@msn.com 206-730-0288 3