HomeMy WebLinkAbout060611_cab01
C~J ~.o""'''".'I>'tr-J",~ 'l3rJelJ......
~ I = i'a ..J
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
FROM:
Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator ~ _
AI Scalf, Director - Department of Community Developme~
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager/Shoreline Administrator Jk
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planne@
June 6, 2011
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Continued Discussion: Draft Finfish Aquaculture Code for the Draft Jefferson County
Response to Ecology on Changes to the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program
(MLA08-475)
ATTACHED:
1) Revised Draft Finfish Aquaculture Code; 2) Draft legal notice
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Since February of this year, the Board of County Commissioners have been
considering the preparation of a DRAFT Jefferson County Response to Ecology on Changes to the Locally
Approved SMP ('Draft County Response') matrix to address the 61 possible changes to the Locally
Approved SMP. In March, the Board recognized the need to review additional information on the issue
of finfish aquaculture to assist the preparation of an alternative proposal to Ecology's required changes.
Once the Finfish Aquaculture Code (revised draft attached) is determined, the Draft County Response
can be released for public review by publishing a legal notice (draft attached) to set the dates for an
open formal comment period and public hearing.
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS:
Ecology's approval Is regarding the December 7, 2009 Locally Approved SMP, submitted to Ecology on
March 1, 2010 as Exhibit A of Jefferson County Resolution 77-09 (erroneously referenced in Ecology
documents as 'Ordinance Number 77-09') as the proposed amendments to the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County Code. This SMP Comprehensive Update (MLA08-475) is
required by law and must be completed by December 2011.
In March 2010, the County submitted a Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) for final review and approval, per RCW 90.58 and WAC
173-26. After a public review process, Ecology reviewed the County's proposed SMP update for
consistency with state statutory and rule requirements.
On January 26, 2011 Ecology determined that the County has met the procedural and policy
requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and the SMP Guidelines, pending some required
changes. A letter from Ecology's director with three attachments outlines their conditioned approval,
findings and conclusions, required and recommended changes. The County needs to consider the
1
Regular Agenda
required changes and respond as to whether to accept or propose alternatives to those changes as part
ofthe process for final adoption by the state and by local ordinance.
Staff reviewed the required and recommended changes and provided guidance to the Board on whether
to agree, further study, decline or propose alternative changes, including numerous revisions proposed
for clarification to correct various errors In the document prior to final adoption. The Board discussed
the DCD Recommendation on February 22, February 28 and March 7, 2011 prOviding feedback to staff
on each item for the County's response to Ecology. The Board reviewed and discussed the Draft County
Response on March 14 and 21. Additional Information was gathered and the Board continued discussion
on the topic of finfish aquaculture on April 18 but further discussion was needed.
On April 25, the Board took action by sending a letter to alert Ecology about the status of the County's
pending response and directed staff to cease further efforts to gather and catalogue more finfish
information. With the Finfish Aquaculture Bibliography temporarily capped at 84 items, staff was
directed to prepare a revised draft code proposal for finfish aquaculture.
The attached revised draft code proposal for finfish aquaculture is consistent with the statutory
requirement to allow such shoreline activity as a water-dependent, preferred use and with Ecology's
requirement for allowance as a conditional use. However, rather than Ecology's allowance for finfish
aquaculture use/development In all shoreline environment designations (SEDs) the proposed draft code
allows the use only In appropriate areas to ensure adequate protection of sensitive shoreline features
and to minimize use conflicts with adjacent use/development. The specific performance standards are
consistent with state guidance on finfish aquaculture use/development such as siting, use conflicts, and
environmental Impacts. Further, the provisions clarify aquaculture as a subset of agricultural
use/development.
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Grant funding for the SMP Update ended in June 2009. Department of Community Development staff
work is covered by the department's annual budget.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board:
1. Direct staff as to what specific finfish aquaculture code language Is to be added to the Draft
rn~unty Response matrix; and
2-.-}~.1;:(~_~_h;t&fthe legal notice .w I' ... r -of a public hearing on the Draft County
Respons? ~ i>,.....$,(!..... ,oj.~.,." en "'-'-j~.) ~r c.o"'-S.<,J7~.,~-z 4..:y
n...,,- ""1!i '" cr: c=... --r c... ..c.- 'Nr-e... 'M ~",-'t-~ ";j .
REVIE ED BY:
~ ;; /Ir
Date
2
Draft Jefferson COunty Response to Ecology on Changes to the Locally Approved SMP:
Finfish & Net Pen Aquaculture Supplement
To address Ecology's Attachment B. Required Changes #13, 14 and 15 regarding finfish aquaculture, revise text
and reformat the following sectlons of the Locally Approved SMP:
. Article 2.E Definitions
. Article 4.3 Allowed Use Table
. Article 8.1 Agriculture
. Article 8.2 Aquaculture
(NOTE: Other Required, Recommended, and Proposed Clarification changes are referenced herein to assist
review.)
~rtJcle2;E PefiJlitiQJ1$
!t:
~&:{t:
l
15. Experimental aquaculture means aquaculture that l%SeS-Cultivates new species, or uses I'!rowiDl:! methods
or harvestinl'! techniQues that have not previously been ~",lti'Jatee used in the state of Washington and that
differ significantlv from common oractice.
IArticle 4. 3 Allowed Use Table ...~.
Priority
Aquath:
-,:- ."~ "'..!II~%
,-- .2!i
i(i,.._~;.. ~
P*
Natural Conservancy ShoreDne
ResIdential
~ ~ ~
X X X
X C(d) X
High Intensity
Aquath:
Aquaculture:
Net PeA5{rIAflsf:l
In-water FinfIsh
(Including Net Pens)
Upland FinfIsh
~
X
~
P*
~
C(d)*
X
C(d)
!Article 8.1 Agncuh:ure
. 'Y',_:~.~---~ '11
A. PolicIes - Add new policy:
8. The Coun reco nizes the 1m ortance of local food roduction both on land and in water areas when
ro erl mana ed to control ollution and revent environmental dama e. As consistent with the
Jefferson Coun Com rehensive Plan RCW 36.70A.030 and RCW 90.58.065 the commercial rowth of
food fish/finfish. shellfish and other aQuatic olants and animals is considered aa:ricultural oroduction.
however for ur oses of this Pro ram such food reduction that is water-de endent or located in water
areas "In-water" hould be mana ed as a uaculture and a uaculture activities as defined in Article 2.
B. Shoreline Environment Regulations - Delete text to read:
1. New agricultural activities are prohibited. FarFRiFlg aRe FRaRageFReAt sf sl:lellfisA aRe etAer aElllatie
luesl::IeU are 5l::1Bje&ttB tRe AEtl;lae~dtl::lr:e raelieies aRe FsgwlatisRS (ArtiEle R seEtieR 1) eftRi& PregFa~.
Page j 0/9
_U DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown In Traci(GheRge5.
Includes revisions based an 8DCC discussions through 4/25/11.
C. Regulations - Add new regulation:
3. Farmin and mana ement of food fish finfish shellfish or other a uatic lant or animal roducts
shall be subiect to the Aauaculture policies and regulations (Article 8 section 2) of this Program.
:Article 8.2 Aquacult'ure ----------
------,
A. Policies
1. Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is
important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of
Jefferson County.
2. The County should support aquaculture uses and developments that:
i. Protect and improve water quality; and
ii. Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and
iii. Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and
iv. Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resulting from in-water
structures/apparatus/equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate
disturbance/modification (including rate, frequency, and spatial extent).
3. When properly managed, aquaculture can result in long-term ecological and economic benefits. The
County should engage in coordinated planning to identify potential aquaculture areas and
assess long-term needs for aquaculture. This includes working with the Department of Fish and
Wildlife (DFW), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), area tribes and shellfish interests
to identify areas that are suitable for aquaculture and protect them from uses that would
threaten aquaculture's long-term sustalnability.
4. Aquaculture use and development should locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as tidal
currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Individual aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to
ensure that significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur.
5. The County should support tideland aquaculture use and development when consistent with this
Program and protect tidelands and bed lands that were acquired and retained under the Bush
and Callow Acts by not permitting non-aquaculture use and development on these tidelands.
6. Intensive residential uses, other industrial and commercial uses, and uses that are unrelated to
aquaculture should be located so as not to create conflicts with aquaculture operations.
7. The County should promote cooperative arrangements between aquaculture growers and public
recreation agencies so that public use of public shorelines does not confiict with aquaculture
operations.
8. Experimental forms of aquaculture involving the use of new species, new growing methods or new
harvesting techniques should be allowed when they are consistent with applicable state and
federal reguiations and this Program. Experimental aauaculture use/development in water
Page2oj9
6-6-11 DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown In TrockQeRges.
Includes revisions based on BoCC discussions through 4/25/11.
bodies should be limited in scale and mav be allowed for a limited period of time to allow for
evaluation and adaptive management as needed.
9. The County should support community restoration projects associated with aquaculture when they
are consistent with this Program.
10. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including Shellfish Habitat Conservation Areas are
critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and
bed lands are allowed uses. Such actMties include but are not limited to bed marking,
preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest. NetlliRg iR tllispFsgraFl'l sllelllel Be ceRstrlleel as
te pre.lllse tlleir Ilse. [Note: See ReQuired Change #121
11. Chemicals and fertilizers used in aquaculture operations should be used in accordance with state
and federal laws, and this Program.
12. Net ~eRSJ 35 ee'RAea iR .\r.tieJe 2, sRe~Jia Rat Ias 3I1s....:e9.
13. Finfish aquaculture. including net pens as defined in Article 2~. that uses or releases herbicides,
pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, non-Indigenous species, parasites,
genetically modified organisms, _feed. or other materials known to be harmful Into
surrounding waters should not be allowed unless significant Impacts to surrounding habitat and
conflicts with adiacent uses are effective Iv mitigated.
B. Uses BREI.-"ahAties PFshil:llted Qwight
1. Net f:ieRs, a& elefiReel 1Ft f.rtiele 2} 8Fe rarsRieiteEL
2. FiR'R&R 3EfH3EHltyre tt-lat 1:1&8 8f release f::tsrsiEieles, fJe~tiE:iEfe&J aAtilaietis!::1 ~rtili:!er-s, ReA iReligeRBl::Is
E:)3eeles, J93Fasites, )3RarFR8eeytie.alsJ geAetl~II'1 FAsEfi'FIee 8~aRisFRs, fees Sf etAsr FR2Iterials
IERB\\'R te lae AarFRfl:11 iRte 51::lrFSYAelir-tg '.\'ater=s is J9rsRilaitee.
GJ!.. Shoreline Environment Regulations
1. Priority Aquatic: Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject to the use and development
regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment. except finfish aQuaculture. including
net pens. is prohibited.
2. Aquatic: Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of
the adjacent upland shoreline environment.
3. Natural: Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to policies
and regulations of this Program. Geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use
permit (C(d)). Finfish aQuaculture. including net pens. is prohibited.
4. Conservancy: Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to
policies and regulations of this Program. Geoduck and upland finfish aquaculture may be
allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). In-water finfish aQuaculture. including net pens. is
prohibited.
1'_3019
6-6-1.1. DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown In Tro,*~
Indudes revisions based on BoCC discuss/ons through 4/25/11.
5. Shoreline Residential: Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed
subject to policies and regulations of this Program. Geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a
conditional use permit (C(d)). Finfish aQuaculture. including net oens. is orohibited.
6. High Intensity: Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this
Program. exceot finfish aQuaculture. including net oens. mav be allowed with a conditional use
oermit (ICld)).
Sf. Regulations - General
1. When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall apply
to the Initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm. If the initial
approval Is a shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five (5J
years with a possible one-year extension. If the initial approval is a conditional use permit, it
shall be valid for the period specified in the permit.
2. Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking.2f.. or changing the species cultivated in any
existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/develooment. and shall
not require a new permit, unless or until: [Note: See Prooosed Clarification #211
I. The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than twenty-five
percent (25%) or more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the facility/farm changes
operational/cultivation methods compared to the conditions that existed as of the
effective date of this Program or any amendment thereto. If the amount of
expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) in
any ten (10) year period, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture
and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements of this section; or
Ii. The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of
Washington.
3. Aquaculture uses and activities involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or
harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered development, as
defined in Article 2, and shall not require a shoreline substantial development permit, unless:
i. The activity substantially interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or
ii. The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article 2; or
iii. The activity involves dredging using mechanical equipment such as clamshell,
dipper, or scraper; or
Iv. The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands.
4. The County shall assess the potential for interference described in 8.2.C.3 on a case-by-case basis. All
proposed new aquaculture uses or developments shall submit a Joint Aquatic Permit
Application (JARPAJ and SEPA checklist to enable assessment by the county. Activities shall not
be considered to substantially interfere with normal public use of surface waters, unless:
i. They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of f'lIlBli. waters iA.IllaiAg
public tidelands; and [Note: See ReQuired Change #181
ii. They Involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar
apparatus on a regular basis and in a manner that substantially obstructs public
Page 4 at 9
6-6-11. DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown In TrockGlwRg5.
Indudes revisions based on BaCC discussions through 4/25/11.
access, or passage from public facilities such as parks or boat rampst-Gf: or they
exclude the public from more than one acre of surface water on an ongoing or
permanent basis.
5. Aquaculture activities not listed in 8.2.f)f;.3 and listed activities that fail to meet any of the criteria in
1l.:U::.18.2.A.2 shall require a shoreline substantial development permit (SOP) or conditional use
permit (CUP). and shall be subject to all of the following regulations: [Note: See Recommended
Change #131
i. Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with
aquaculture use shall be located, designed and maintained to avoid adverse
effects on ecological functions and processes.
ii. The County shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to
prevent adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and
adjoining land uses. The County shall determine what constitutes acceptable
placement and concentration of commercial aquaculture in consultation with state
and federal agencies and Tribes based on the specific characteristics of the
waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility.
iii. Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not require a waterside
location or have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of
shoreline buffers required by the Program.
iv. OVerwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture
use/development shall be prohibited.
v. Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed
six (6) feet in height above the water's surface. The Administrator may approve
hoists and similar structures greater than six (6) feet in height when there is a clear
demonstration of need. The six foot height limit shall not apply to vessels.
vi. Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation
aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in
order to minimize visual impacts.
vii. Aquaculture use and development shall not materially Interfere with navigation, or
access to adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest
areas. Mitigation shall be provided to offset such impacts where there is high
probability that adverse impact would occur. This provision shall not be
interpreted to mean that an operator is required to prOVide access across owned
or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners.
viii. Aquaculture uses and developments. except finfish aauaculture. shall be located at
least six hundred (600) feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion
haulouts, seabird nesting colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or
migration areas for birds and mammals. Finfish facilities. including net pens. shall
be located 1.500 feet or more from such areas. The County may approve lesser
distances based upon written documentation that US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected tribes
support the proposed location.
PageSaf9
6-6-21 DRAFT
Proposed revisions to lA-SMP shown In Tracl(~
Indudes revisions based on BoCC discussions through 4/25/11.
ix. Aquaculture use and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse
impacts to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp), and eelgrass beds are avoided.
x. Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or
bottom lands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance
to substrate.
xi. Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such
as boat launches or docks, the County shall reserve the right to require the
applicant/proponent to pay a portion of the maintenance costs and any required
improvements commensurate with the applicant's/proponent's use.
xii. Aquaculture use and development shali employ non-lethal, non-harmful measures
to control birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal
and state regulations.
xiii. Aquaculture use and development shali avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and
geneticaliy modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law.
xiv. Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and
development shali be used wherever possible and area lighting should be avoided
and minimized to the extent necessary to conduct safe operations. Non-
navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel traffic.
x. uaculture waste materials and b - roducts shall be dls osed of in a manner that
will ensure strict compliance with ali applicable governmental waste disposal standards.
including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act. Section 401. and the
Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48\.
6. Prior to approving a permit for f1oating!hanging aquaculture use and development or bottom
culture involving structures, the County may require a visual analysis prepared by the
applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The
analysis shali demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively
mitigated.
D. Re ulations - Finfish
1. Surveys & Monitorlng- For experimental finfish aauaculture use/development. and for other
proposed finfish aauaculture activities subiect to a shoreline substantial development permit (SOP)
or a conditional use permit (CUP}, the County mav reauire. at the applicant/proponent's expense.
baseline and periodic survevs. assessments. and operational monitoring bva County-approved
consultant to determine the success of the proiect and/or the magnitude of anv adverse impacts.
Permits for such activities shall include specific performance measures and provisions for
adiustment or termination of the project at anv time if monitoring indicates significant. adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be adeauatelv mitigated.
2. Ex erlmental SCD e - Finfish a uaculture use or develo ment a roved on an ex erimental basis
shall not exceed two (2) acres in area (except land based proiects and anchorage for floating
systems) and three (3) years in duration: provided that. the County may issue a new permit to
Page6f1/9
_ll DIlA1'T
Proposed revisions to lA-SMP shown In Tm,*~
Indudes revisions bosed on BoCC dJscussIons through 4/25/11.
continue an eXDerimental Droiect as many times as is deemed necessarv and aODroDriate bv the
Administrator.
3. Chemical Use - An finfish 0 eration facili that uses or releases herbicides esticides antibiotics
fertilizers. non-indigenous soecies. oarasites. oharmaceuticals. genetlcallv modified organisms. feed, or
other materiais known to be harmful into surroundinlt waters shall demonstrate all siltnificant imoacts
have been mitiltated. When state or federal altencles/oermits reQuire the owner/ooerator to oreoare
records/reoorts on the use of such chemicals/materials. cODies shall be orovided to the County.
4. Mortal Events - In the event of a si niticant fish kili at the site of an finfish 0 eration facili the
owner/oDerator shall submit a timelv reoort to the County Public Health and Community DeveloDment
deDartments statinlt the date and extent of the loss. cause of death. and detailed remedial action to
orevent reoccurrence.
5.
itln Use Conflicts 8& 1m acts - Pro osals for in-water and u land finfish a uaculture activities
includin net ens as defined In Article 2 ma be allowed with conditional use a roval Cd sub'ect
to the Dolicies and regulations of this Proltram. Drovided that any adverse environmental imDacts.
facilitv siting. and use comoatibilitv issues related to the following are demonstrated to be adeQuatelv
mitiltated. Conditions of aDDroval mavaddress:
a. Environmental 1m acts such as:
i. In- or over-water rocessln sortin cullin washin or similar activities'
ii. Broodstock sUDolv is state-aoDroved:
iii. CODies of state- or federal-reQuired monitoring reDOrts Drovided to County:
iv. CODies of reauired analvsls of Dotential discharlte Der NPDES orovided to County:
b. Facilitv sitinlt issues such as:
i. Site characterization and baseline survey includinlt Dhoto/comDuter simulation of
visual im act for an in-waterfacili located within 1 500' of OHWM'
ii. In-water oDerations/facilities shall locate 2 nautical miles from TVDe 5 streams and 1
nautical mile from TVDe F streams unless documented conflicts with naviltation
Drove this infeasible:
c. Use comDatibilitv issues such as:
i. Direct Illtht. reflected glare. and securltv Iightinlt:
ii. Odor control:
iiI. Uland 0 erations must be screened from view b fences berms and or ve etation <-
unless visual assessment shows unnecessarv.
=f
a. Fish Den structures solelv and directlv established and managed for Durooses of native
salmon enhancement and/or restoration are not considered net Dens for DurDoses of this
Program. as defined in Article 2.
6. Net Pens In-Water - Pro osals for in-water finfish a uaculture activities includin net ens as
defined in Article 2. shall also demonstrate the following Drovislons are met and issues are
adeauatelv mitigated:
b. ODeration/facilitv shall not OCCUDV more than two (21 surface acres of water area.
Page 70/9
6-6-1.1. DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown in Trac~~
includes revisions bosed on BoCC discussions through 4/)5/11.
c. ODeratlon/facllitv shall not be located closer than one (1) nautical mile to any other finfish
aQuaculture activities. The County may aDDrove a lesser distance if the
aDDlicant/DroDonent can demonstrate that the DrODosal will be consistent with the
environmental and aesthetic Qualities of the shoreline and that the cumulative imDacts of
existing and DroDosed oDerations/facilitles would not be contrarv to the Dolicies and
regulations of this Program.
d. The cleaning of nets and other aDDaratus shall be conducted on a freQuent enough basis so
as not to violate state water Qualitv standards and shall be accomDlished bv air drving. SDrav
washing. hand washing or other similar means. If such means are demonstrated as
Infeasible. other methods may be used. Drovided they are in accordance with this Program.
e. Net Dens shall be located no closer than 1.500 feet from the ordinarv high water mark
IOHWM) unless demonstrated as infeasible and all significant environmental imDacts to
submerged aQuatic vegetation Isuch as eelgrass and kelD) and other habitats of sDecial
significance are effectivelv mitigated.
f. t a minimum all a llcable ate-a roved uidelines shall be met includin but not
limited to. the 1986 Recommended Interim Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Net
Pen Culture in Puget Sound. the 1986 AQuaculture Siting Study. the 1988 Use Conflicts &
Floating AQuaculture In Puget Sound. and the 1990 Final Programmatic Environmental
ImDact Statement lEIS) for Fish Culture in Floating Net-Pens Preferred Alternative. In the
event there is a conflict in reQuirements. the more restrictive shall Drevai!. Ucon availabilitv
of any other subseQuentlv state-aDDroved guidance. the more current reQuirements shall
Drevail.
g. Net Dens shall be Drohlbited In areas Identified In the 1986 guidelines for restricted or no
harvest of net Den finfish. Including but not limited to Hood Canal and Dlscoverv Bav south
of the Protection Island AQuatic Reserve.
E. Re lations - A llcation R ulrements
19. Prior to Issuing a permit for any proposed Ilettsm 61,dtllre sr fisatiRgfl:laRglRg 6IlltllreaQuaculture
use or development, the County may require copies of permitapplications and/or studies
required by state and federal agencies to ensure provisions of this Program are met, including,
but not limited to, the follOwing information:
I. Anticipated harvest cycles and potential plans for future expansion or change In
species grown or harvest practices
ii. Number, types and dimensions of structures, apparatus or equipment.
ii1. Predator control methods.
iv. Anticipated levels of noise, light, and odor and plans for minimizing their impacts.
v. Potential Impacts to animals, plants, and water quality due to the discharge of waste
water from any upland development.
Page8of9
6+11 DRAFT
Proposed revisions to lA-SMP shown In Trock~.
Indudes revisions bosed on BoCC d1saJss/ons through.4/2S/11.
-1
--{
~
vi. Proof of application for an aquatic lands lease from the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or proof of lease or ownership if bedlands
are privately held.
vii. Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Certification Number.
viii. Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) commercial aquatic farm or non-commercial,
personal consumption designation.
ix. Proof of application for any permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Health, or other agency,
x. Proof of a Iication for an state and federal ermits a rovals includin an
required federal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.c. 1531 et se . ESA.
?,.7. Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging or upland aquaculture use and development or
bottom culture involving structures, the County may require a visual analysis prepared by the
applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline. The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas
are effectively mitigated.
Page9of9
6-H1DRAFT
Proposed revisions to LA-SMP shown In Troc~~.
Includes revisions based on BoCC discussions through 4/25/11.
TO:
Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader
LEGAL NOTICE
Please publish one (1) time: Wednesday, June _____, 2011 in 7-point font
BILL:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
` 621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend WA 98368
Attn: Michelle McConnell
Tel: 360-379-4450 Account# 17385
DATE:
Monday, June 6, 2011
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND JEFFERSON COUNTY CODE, TO UPDATE THE
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
__________, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
will hold a public hearing on at the County Courthouse
Superior Court Room, 1820 Jefferson St., Port Townsend, Washington, on the
proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Jefferson County Code, to
update the Shoreline Master Program.
Written comments will be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners from
___________, 2011 until 4:30 p.m. on _______________, 2011. Written comments
BoCC -SMP Comments, PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA
should be sent to:
98368 or to JeffBoCC@co.jefferson.wa.us.
The BoCC is considering changes to the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program
(LA-SMP) prior to final adoption by the state and the County. The specific changes
under consideration are proposed as the DRAFT Jefferson County Response to
Ecology on Changes to the Locally Approved Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Public
input is sought on the 61 possible changes listed therein including, but not limited to,
topics such as common line buffer, tribal issues, residential dock length, in-water and
upland finfish aquaculture, non-water oriented shoreline use/development, forest
practices, boathouses, and vegetation trimming.
Below is a summary of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Code
amendments for a Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update (MLA08-475):
– The amendment is proposed as an appendix of updated goals
Comprehensive Plan
and policies that will supplement the following sections:
Element 3. Land Use & Rural;
Element 4. Natural Resource Conservation;
Element 6. Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic Preservation; and
Element 8. Environment.
– The amendment is proposed as a
JCC Chapter 18.25 Shoreline Master Program
stand-alone document that will replace this chapter in its entirety including:
Article I. Recitals;
Article II. Definitions;
Article III. Scope;
Article IV. Shoreline Designations and Project Classifications;
Article V. Policies and Performance Standards;
Article VI. Administration;
Article VII. Variances;
Article VIII. Program Revisions; and
Article IX. Legal Provisions
This proposal will supplement existing goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan
and replace the existing Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.25) in entirety.
Availability of Documents:
The full text of the DRAFT Jefferson County Response to
Ecology on Changes to the Locally Approved SMP matrixand the 12-7-09 Locally
Approved SMP proposed amendment can be found at the DCD Front Desk in Port
Townsend or online at
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Shoreline_StateApproval.htm. For
further information, please contact Department of Community Development (DCD), 621
Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360) 379-4450 or
mmcconnell@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Date: , 2011
________________________________
John Austin, Chair