HomeMy WebLinkAbout031113_ra02Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Philip Morley, County Administrator
FROM: Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, Shoreline Administrator /~
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner, SMP Update Project anage~
/~
DATE: Monday, March 11, 2013
SUBJECT: Follow-up Discussion: In-Water Finfish Aquaculture Provisions; SMP Update (MLA08-475)
ATTACHED: 1) Revised draft - In-water Finfish Aquaculture CUP criteria with King County codified provisions
for aquaculture; 2) Puget Sound Salinity & Photic Zone Information; 3) Definitions for Habitat; 4)
HB 1599 Status; S) Summary and Maps of Siting Locations;
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: As follow-up to the Board's continued deliberations on February 19, 2013 about how to
regulate in-water finfish aquaculture (e.g. net pens), to avoid a complete prohibition and to provide adequate
protection of shoreline resources, staff provides feedback on some items of interest including 1) the King County
SMP approach, 2) Puget Sound salinity and depth of the photic zone, 3) definitions for in-water habitat, 4) recent
legislative proposals to amend the Shoreline Management Act, and 5) a summary of geographic locations where
in-water finfish aquaculture would be allowed, subject to the performance standards of a conditional use permit
(CUP). Should the Board feel comfortable with the proposed approach, staff would compile the entire proposal
packet for in-water finfish aquaculture provisions and begin preparations for a public comment period and public
hearing in an effort to move forward towards final adoption.
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS/PROS and CONS:
History: In January 2011, Ecology issued a conditional approval of the County's December 2009 Locally Approved
SMP, including forty (40) required and recommended changes. The County also identified twenty-three (23)
additional edits proposed to correct errors and clarify the document. In October 2011, the County provided a
draft response to Ecology about the sixty-three (63) proposed changes and, in December 2011, Ecology indicated
informal agreement with all but the County's proposed prohibition of in-water finfish aquaculture. Ecology will not
support the outright prohibition of awater-dependent use in shoreline jurisdiction, and concluded the County had
not provided adequate scientific rationale for such a prohibition. Ecology counter-proposed allowing in-water
finfish aquaculture in all shoreline environment designations as a conditional use. The CUP follows a permit
.review process that requires a higher level of scrutiny for each proposal, and includes public comment and final
decision by a Hearing Examiner. The Board feels this approach is overly permissive, risks harm to the shoreline
resources of Jefferson County, and prefers greater geographic limitation for the allowance to avoid known areas of
sensitivity for shoreline processes and functions and land use compatibility.
As the County has continued to consider how to regulate this water-dependent use, requests for additional
clarification were sent to Ecology. Ecology has, in turn, provided response and guidance. In July 2012, Ecology
requested the County move to final action by a set deadline. In August 2012, the County requested additional
time to continue researching the issue and confer with experts. Ecology agreed and set an October 2012 deadline
offering three options for the County to follow. In September 2012, the County informed Ecology that we would
pursue 'Option 1-Conditional Use Approach'. Staff has been working with the Board to develop a set of
conditional use permit (CUP) criteria/performance standards so as to finalize the formal response to Ecology about
Regular Agenda
the 63 proposed changes, and to move to final adoption of the updated Shoreline Master
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Grant funding for the SMP Update ended in June 2009. Department of Community Develol
expends General Fund appropriations from the Departments annual budget to continue w
Delay of the final adoption for the SMP Update is impacting other DCD revenue sources, ini
Shoreline Protection -Measuring & Achieving No Net Loss agreement with Clallam County,
during 2013 - 2014. Without the new SMP in effect by June 2013, DCD may risk forfeiting t
funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board:
1. Review the findings and recommendations on the items of interest;
2. Provide direction to staff on any final edits to the proposed CUP criteria or the full
aquaculture packet far public review; and
3. Direct staff to schedule a public comment period and public hearing.
REVIE k B~
,-- ,7
C-'P ip Morley Administrato Date
invent staff work
irk on this project.
luding the Enhancing
n the range of $300,000
his critical source of
finfish
Jefferson County SMP Update
Proposed Conditional Use Criteria for In-water Finfish Aquaculture
The following provisions would replace provisions D.1 through D.6 of the County's 10/31/11 Formal Response
to Ecology for Article 8.2 Aquaculture:
D. Regulations -Finfish
1. The culture of finfish, including net pens as defined in Article 2, may be allowed with a discretionary
conditional use approval (C(d}) subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. The following
standards and criteria apply for all in-water finfish aquaculture use/development, per the
recommendations ofthe 19861nterim Guidelines {Weston/SAIC), the 1986 Aquaculture Siting Study (EDAW
Inc.), the 1988 Use Conflict Study (Boyce), and the 1990 Final Programmatic Envrronmentol Impact
Statement -Preferred Alternative (Parametrix). In the event there is a conflict between these
requirements, the more restrictive shall prevail. Upon availability of any other subsequently state-
approved guidance, the more current requirements shall prevail.
2. In-water finfish aquaculture shall be prohibited in Discovery Bay, south of the boundary for the Protection
Island Aquatic Reserve, and in Hood Canal (south of the line from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, including
Dabob and Tarboo Bays), due to significant water quality issues in these water bodies.
3. General
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture proposals shall provide the County, at the applicant/operator's
expense, a site characterization survey, baseline surveys, and annual monitoring as described in the
1986 Interim Guidelines, or subsequent documents approved by the State. The applicant/operator shall
also provide the County with copies of all survey and monitoring reports submitted to WA
Departments of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facility proposals shall submit an operations plan that includes
projections for:
i. Improvements at the site (e.g. pens, booms, vii. Pounds of fish on hand throughout the
etc.) and their relationship to the natural year;
features (e.g. bathymetry, shorelines, etc.); viii. Average and maximum stocking density
Ii. Number, size and configuration of ix. Source of eggs, juveniles, and broodstock;
pens/structures; x. Type of feed used;
iii. Schedule of development and maintenance; xi. Feeding method;
iv. Species cultured; xii. Chemical use (e.g. antifouling, antibiotics,
v. Fish size at harvest; etc.); and
vi. Annual production; xiii. Predator control measures.
2-13-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown In yellow hlghlighi
1.19-1013 DISCUSSION DRAFT Page 1 of 6
c All in-water finfish aauaculture op erations shall provide C ounty with documentation of adeq uate
property damage and personal ini ury commercial insuran ce coverage as required by Washin gton
Department of Natural Resources and other agencies."
Bottom Sediments & Benthos
a. The depth of water below the bottom of any in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall meet the
minimum required by the 19861nterim Guidelines (i.e. 20-60 feet at MLLWj, as based on facility
production capacity (Class I, II or III) and the mean current velocity at the site, measured as noted in
the Guidelines or by more current data/methodology.
b. In-water finfish aquaculture operations shall be prohibited where mean current velocity is less than 0.1
knots (5 cm/sec).
c. The pen configuration (e.g. parallel rows, compact blocks of square enclosures, or clusters of various
sized round enclosures, whether oriented in line with or perpendicular to the prevailing current
direction) of any in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall be designed and maintained to minimize the
depth and lateral extent of solids accumulation.
d. The use of unpelletized wet feed shall be prohibited to minimize undigested feed reaching the benthos
or attracting scavengers in the water column.
e. Anchoring or mooring systems shall utilize adequately-sized helical devices or other methods to
minimize disturbance to the benthos.
Water Quality
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid adverse
impacts to water temperature, dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels, and other water quality
parameters. Facilities must comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES)
requirements.
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall monitor water quality and net cleaning activities to
comply with State requirements (including WAC 173-201A-210), especially during periods of naturally
high water turbidity. Additional net cleaning activities shall be performed, as needed, to ensure State
water quality standards are met.
6. Phytoplankton
a. In-water finfish aquaculture facility production capacity shall be limited in nutrient sensitive areas to
protect water quality and shall not exceed 1,000,000 pounds annual production per square nautical
mile. The following shall apply for specific geographic areas:
i. In the main basin of Puget Sound (area south of the sill at Admiralty Inlet extending to the line
between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff, including Port Townsend Bay, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak
Bay, and extending to the County's boundary midway to Whidbey Island), annual production shall
be limited by the site characteristics in compliance with this Program.
2-23-13 Edlts suggesfed by Commissioner Sullivan shown !n yellow hlghllght
2-19.2013 DISCUSSION DRAFT Page 1 of 6
b. Applicants shall demonstrate through field and modeling studies that the proposed fish farms will not
adversely affect existing biota.
7. Chemicals
a. Only FDA-approved chemicals shall be allowed on a case-by-case basis for anti-fouling, predator
control and other purposes. The use of tributyltin (TBT) is prohibited and all chemical use shall be
reported to the State as required.
b. When necessary, vaccination is preferred over the use of antibiotics. Only FDA-approved antibiotics
shall be used and such use shall be reported to the State as required. Operator shall take all necessary
precautions to ensure that nearby sediments and shellfish do not accumulate significant amounts of
antibiotics.
8. Food fish & Shellfish
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located to avoid adverse cumulative impacts to critical
habitats °F ~^^~~~' ~~^^~co^'^~^ (as defined in Article 2) and populations of food fish and shellfish as
follows, as determined on a case-by-case basis:
i. When adjacent to any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, aquatic reserve or similar area intended to protect
threatened or endangered species, locate a minimum of 300 feet in all directions from such
protected areas;
ii. When water depth is less than 7S feet, locate at least 300 feet down-current and 150 feet in all
other directions from sigwi#iEagt- critical habitats;
iii. When water depth is greater than 75 feet, locate at least 150 feet from significant habitat.
b. The County shall designate protective buffer zones around habitats of special significance in
accordance with marine area spatial planning efforts led by the State, when such guidance and
methodologies are available.
9. Importation of New Fish Species
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with existing State and federal regulations to
ensure importation of new and/ornon-native species does not adversely affect existing and/or native
species.
10. Genetic Issues
a. Incompliance with State and federal requirements, in-water finfish aquaculture facilities that propose
to culture species native to local waters should use stocks with the greatest genetic similarity to local
stocks.
b. When there is increased risk of interbreeding or establishment of naturalized populations of the
cultured species that would in conflict with native stocks, only sterile ormono-sexual fish shall be
allowed.
2-13-13 Edits suggested 6y Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow highlight
1.19-2013 OISCUSSlON DRAFT Page 3 of 6
c. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum distance from river mouths where wild
fish could be most vulnerable to genetic degradation, to avoie adverse o.imular.ve impars to crtical
habitats (as defined in Artid~ -'~ as determined on a case-by-case basis or by State guidance.
11. Escapement and Disease
a_All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with State and federal requirements to control
pests, parasites, diseases, viruses and pathogens and to prevent escapement including, but not limited
to, those for certified eggs, approved import/transport and live fish transfer protocols, escapement
prevention, reporting and recapture plans, and disease inspection and control per RCW 77.15.290,
RCW 77.115, WAC 220-76 and WAC 220-77 and other requirements as appropriate.
b_The use of regional broodstock is preferred.
a-c.As consistent with the above mentioned Washington statues and administrative rules, and other
applicable authorities, all in-water finfish aquaculture facility operators shall provide the County with a
Disease Response Plan to detail specific actions and timelines to follow when an outbreak is detected.
The plan shall address transport permit denial, quarantine, confiscation, removal, and other possible
scenarios identify evhat agencies will be notified or involved, what alternate facilities may be used, a
public information/outreach stratet;y and other appropriate information."
12. Marine Mammals & Birds
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum of 1,500 feet from critical habitats (as
defined n A: side 2; for marine mammals and seabirds.
b. Only non-lethal techniques (e.g. anti-predator netting) shall be allowed to prevent predation by birds
and/or mammals on the cultured stocks.
13. Visual Quality
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall conduct a Visual Impact Assessment to evaluate and
document the following siting and design variables in order to minimize visual impacts to adjacent and
surrounding uses:
i. Locate offshore from low bank shorelines rather than high bluff areas where angle of viewing
becomes more perpendicular to the plane of water making the facility more visually evident;
ii. Locate offshore a minimum of 1,500 feet from ordinary high water mark, or a minimum of 2,000
feet when higher density residential development is present along the adjacent upland. The County
may require a greater distance as determined by a visual impact assessment.
iii. Facilities shall be designed to maximize a horizontal profile to repeat the plane of the water surface
rather than project vertically above the water surface. Vertical height shall be the minimum
feasible, not to exceed 10 feet from the surface of the water.
iv. Facilities shall be designed so that the overall size and surface area coverage does not exceed 10%
of the normal cone of vision, dependent on the foreshortening created by the offshore distance and
the average observation height.
2-23-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown In yellow h/ghllght
2-19-2013 OISCUSSlON DRAFT Page 4 of 6
v. Facilities shall be designed to borrow from the form of structures and materials already in the
environment (e.g. pilings, docks, marinas} and to blend with the predominate color schemes present
(i.e. blue, green, gray, neutral earth tones}. The colors of white and black shall be minimized as they
have highly variable appearance in response to lighting conditions. Bright colors such as red,
yellow, and orange shall be avoided, unless required for safety purposes. The use of a variety of
materials or colors shall be limited and ordered.
vi. Facilities proposed to locate in the vicinity of existing in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall
evaluate the aggregate impacts and cumulative effects of multiple operations in the same area.
vii. Facilities shall be designed and located so that the surface area of individual operations does not
exceed 2 acres of surface coverage and no more than one operation per square nautical mile
viii. Land based access for parking, staging, launching, and storage associated with any in-water finfish
aquaculture facilities shall be evaluated for visual impacts and conflicts with adjacent upland uses.
14. Navigation, Military Operations and Commercial Fishing
a. When appropriate, in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located close to shore and near
existing navigational impediments (i.e. marinas, docks).
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid conflict with
military operations.
c. The County shall notify, as appropriate, marinas, ports, recreational and commercial boating/fishing
organizations, and local tribes about comment opportunities during the permit review process,
especially re: proposed location offish farm and related navigational aids.
15. Human Health
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure adequate water quality compatible with good husbandry practices;
ii. Report any known bacteriological characteristics offish food used;
iil. Ensure proper storage offish food to avoid alteration or degradation of feed quality; and
iv_Regularly monitor and report presence of parasites in farmed fish.
iv-v Comply with federal, state and local food safety requirements including, but not limited to, source
identification and country of origin IabelinR, and Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points Plan."
16. Recreation
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall ensure compliance with State and federal requirements,
especially when location is proposed near underwater park facilities.
b_All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located a minimum of 1,000 x~ feet from any
recreational shellfish beach, public tidelands, public access facilities (e.g. docks or boat ramps) or other
areas of extensive or established recreational use.
~c.ln-water finfish aquaculture operators shall inform the Notice to Mariners and other appropriate
entities for nautical chart revisions and notify other sources that inform recreational uses le.tz. boaters,
divers, shellfish harvesters).
2.23-13 Edits suggested by CammissionerSulllvan shown in yellow highlight
2-19-2013 DISCUSSION DRAFT Page 5 of 6
17. Noise
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure compliance with state and federal noise level limits;
ii. Require mufflers and enclosures on all motorized fish farm equipment;
iii. When appropriate, prefer electric motors over internal combustion engines.
b. The County may require an acoustical study, conducted at the applicant/operator's expense, to ensure
any audible impacts are identified and adequately addressed.
18. Odor
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure compliance with state limits regarding nuisances and waste disposal;
ii. Follow best management practices including, but not limited to:
1. Daily removal and disposal of dead fish and other waste;
2. Regular cleaning of nets and apparatus;
3. Storage of food in closed containers;
4. Walkway design and use allows spilled food to fall into the water.
iii. Maximize the distance between the facility and nearby residential use/development, downwind
location preferred, to minimize impacts resulting from foul odors.
19. Lighting and Glare
a. Facilities shall comply with USCG requirements for operational and navigational lighting. The height of
the light source above the water surface shall be the minimum necessary, not to exceed 80 inches,
unless otherwise specified by State or federal requirements.
b. Facilities shall be designed so that any glare or shadows caused by the solar orientation are minimized.
c. Facilities shall utilize materials that minimize glare caused by sunlight or artificial lighting.
20. Upland Shoreline Use
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to minimize
incompatible uses and degradation of upland area.
21. Local Services
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Provide estimates of high, average, and low volumes of waste to be produced, including
catastrophic events;
ii. Provide a waste management plan to include the method and frequency of collection, storage and
disposal; and
iii. Ensure compliance with local, state, federal waste disposal requirements.
b. Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not be abandoned in
the upland.
2-23-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow hlghllght
2-19-2013 DISCt155lON DRAFT Page 6 of 6
Jefferson County SMP Update
Proposed Conditional Use Criteria for In-water Finfish Aquaculture
The following provisions would replace provisions D.1 through D.6 of the County's 10/31/11 Formal Response
to Ecology for Article 8.2 Aquaculture:
D. Regulations -Finfish
1. The culture of finfish, including net pens as defined in Article 2, may be allowed with a discretionary
conditional use approval (C(d)) subject to the policies and regulations of this Program. The following
standards and criteria apply for all in-water finfish aquaculture use/development, per the
recommendations ofthe 1986 Interim Guidelines (Weston/SAIC), the 1986 Aquaculture Siting Study (EDAW
Inc.), the 1988 Use Conflict Study (Boyce), and the 1990 Final Programmatic Environmental ImpacT
Statement -Preferred Alternative (Parametrix). In the event there is a conflict between these
requirements, the more restrictive shall prevail. Upon availability of any other subsequently state-
approved guidance, the more current requirements shall prevail.
2. In-water finfish aquaculture shall be prohibited in Discovery Bay, south of the boundary forthe Protection
Island Aquatic Reserve, and in Hood Canal (south of the line from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, including
Dabob and Tarboo Bays), due to significant water quality issues in these water bodies.
3. General
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture proposals shall provide the County, at the applicant/operator's
expense, a site characterization survey, baseline surveys, and annual monitoring as described in the
19861nterim Guidelines, or subsequent documents approved by the State. The applicant/operator shall
also provide the County with copies of all survey and monitoring reports submitted to WA
Departments of Ecology, Fish & Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facility proposals shall submit an operations plan that includes
projections for:
i. Improvements at the site (e.g. pens, booms, vii. Pounds of fish on hand throughout the
etc.) and their relationship to the natural year;
features (e.g. bathymetry, shorelines, etc.); viii. Average and maximum stocking density
ii. Number, size and configuration of ix. Source of eggs, juveniles, and broodstock;
pens/structures; x. Type of feed used;
iii. Schedule of development and maintenance; xi. Feeding method;
iv. Species cultured; xii. Chemical use (e.g. antifouling, antibiotics,
v. Fish size at harvest; etc.); and
vi. Annual production; xiii. Predator control measures.
2-23-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow highlight
2-19-2013 DISCUSSION DRAFT {Edits shown in Track Changes% Page 1 of 6
c All in-water finfish aquaculture operations shall provide County with documentation of adequate
property damage and personal iniury commercial insurance coverage as required by Washinston
Department of Natural Resources and other agencies."
Bottom Sediments & Benthos
a. The depth of water below the bottom of any in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall meet the
minimum required by the 19861nferim Guidelines (i.e. 20- 60 feet at MLLW), as based on facility
production capacity (Class I, II or III) and the mean current velocity at the site, measured as noted in
the Guidelines or by more current data/methodology.
b. In-water finfish aquaculture operations shall be prohibited where mean current velocity is less than 0.1
knots (S cm/sec).
c. The pen configuration (e.g. parallel rows, compact blocks of square enclosures, or clusters of various
sized round enclosures, whether oriented in line with or perpendicular to the prevailing current
direction) ofany in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall be designed and maintained to minimize the
depth and lateral extent of solids accumulation.
d. The use of unpelletized wet feed shall be prohibited to minimize undigested feed reaching the benthos
or attracting scavengers in the water column.
e. Anchoring or mooring systems shall utilize adequately-sized helical devices or other methods to
minimize disturbance to the benthos.
5. Water Quality
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid adverse
impacts to water temperature, dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels, and other water quality
parameters. Facilities must comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES)
requirements.
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall monitor water quality and net cleaning activities to
comply with State requirements (including WAC 173-201A-210), especially during periods of naturally
high water turbidity. Additional net cleaning activities shall be performed, as needed, to ensure State
water quality standards are met.
6. Phytoplankton
a. In-water finfish aquaculture facility production capacity shall be limited in nutrient sensitive areas to
protect water quality and shall not exceed 1,000,000 pounds annual production per square nautical
mile. The following shall apply for specific geographic areas:
i. In the main basin of Puget Sound (area south of the sill at Admiralty Inlet extending to the line
between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff, including Port Townsend Bay, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak
Bay, and extending to the County's boundary midway to Whidbey Island), annual production shall
be limited by the site characteristics in compliance with this Program.
1.13-13 Edits suggested 6y Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow highlight
2-i9-2G13 D/SCL'SS10.N DRAFT (Edits shown ir. Trock ChongesJ Page 2 of 6
b. Applicants shall demonstrate through field and modeling studies that the proposed fish farms will not
adversely affect existing biota.
7. Chemicals
a. Only FOA-approved chemicals shall be allowed on a case-by-case basis for anti-fouling, predator
control and other purposes. The use of tributyltin (TBT) is prohibited and all chemical use shall be
reported to the State as required.
b. When necessary, vaccination is preferred over the use of antibiotics. Only FDA-approved antibiotics
shall be used and such use shall be reported to the State as required. Operator shall take all necessary
precautions to ensure that nearby sediments and shellfish do not accumulate significant amounts of
antibiotics.
8. Food fish & Shellfish
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located to avoid adverse cun~uiative impacts to critical
habitats ^s ~^^^~~' ~~^^~`~~~^^^ (as defined in Article 2) and populations of food fish and shellfish as
follows, as determined on a case-by-case basis:
i. When adjacent to any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, aquatic reserve or similar area intended to protect
threatened or endangered species, locate a minimum of 300 feet in all directions from such
protected areas;
ii. When water depth is less than 75 feet, locate at least 300 feet down-current and 150 feet in all
other directions from sigai#+eara~ crrica' habitats;
iii. When water depth is greater than 75 feet, locate at least 150 feet from significant habitat.
b. The County shall designate protective buffer zones around habitats of special significance in
accordance with marine area spatial planning efforts led by the State, when such guidance and
methodologies are available.
9. Importation of New Fish Species
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with existing State and federal regulations to
ensure importation of new and/or non-native species does not adversely affect existing and/or native
species.
10. Genetic Issues
a. Incompliance with State and federal requirements, in-water finfish aquaculture facilities that propose
to culture species native to local waters should use stocks with the greatest genetic similarity to local
stocks.
b. When there is increased risk of interbreeding or establishment of naturalized populations of the
cultured species that would in conflict with native stocks, only sterile ormono-sexual fish shall be
allowed.
2-13.13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow highlight
2-i9-2013 DlSCUSSlON DRAFT (Edits shown rn Track Chonges) Page 3 of 6
c. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum distance from river mouths where wild
fish could be most vulnerable to genetic degradation, to avoid adverse c~mu~ative impacts to critical
habitats (as defined in Article 2; as determined on a case-by-case basis or by State guidance.
11. Escapement and Disease
a_All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with State and federal requirements to control
pests, parasites, diseases, viruses and pathogens and to prevent escapement including, but not limited
to, those for certified eggs, approved import/transport and live fish transfer protocols, escapement
prevention, reporting and recapture plans, and disease inspection and control per RCW 77.15.290,
RCW 77.115, WAC 220-76 and WAC 220-77 and other requirements as appropriate.
b_The use of regional broodstock is preferred.
a>c.As consistent with the above mentioned Washineton statues and administrative rules, and other
applicable authorities, all in-water finfish aouaculture facility operators shall provide the County with a
Disease Response Plan to detail specific actions and timelines to follow when an outbreak is detected.
The plan shall address transport permit denial quarantine, contiscation, removal, and other possible
scenarios, identify what agencies will be notified or involved, what alternate facilities may be used, a
public information/outreach strateav and other appropriate information."
12. Marine Mammals & Birds
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum of 1,500 feet from critical habitats (as
defined in Arice Zj n4~^^~~~' ~~^^'P°^~^^^ for marine mammals and seabirds.
b. Only non-lethal techniques (e.g. anti-predator netting) shall be allowed to prevent predation by birds
and/or mammals on the cultured stocks.
13. Visual Quality
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall conduct a Visual Impact Assessment to evaluate and
document the following siting and design variables in order to minimize visual impacts to adjacent and
surrounding uses:
i. Locate offshore from low bank shorelines rather than high bluff areas where angle of viewing
becomes more perpendicular to the plane of water making the facility more visually evident;
ii. Locate offshore a minimum of 1,500 feet from ordinary high water mark, or a minimum of 2,000
feet when higher density residential development is present along the adjacent upland. The County
may require a greater distance as determined by a visual impact assessment.
iii. Facilities shall be designed to maximize a horizontal profile to repeat the plane of the water surface
rather than project vertically above the water surface. Vertical height shall be the minimum
feasible, not to exceed 10 feet from the surface of the water.
iv. Facilities shalt be designed so that the overall size and surface area coverage does not exceed 10%
of the normal cone of vision, dependent on the foreshortening created by the offshore distance and
the average observation height.
2-23-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow highlight
2-19-2013 DISCUSSION DRAFT (Edits shown in Trock Chonoesj Page 4 of 6
v. Facilities shall be designed to borrow from the form of structures and materials already in the
environment (e.g. pilings, docks, marinas) and to blend with the predominate color schemes present
(i.e. blue, green, gray, neutral earth tones). The colors of white and black shall be minimized as they
have highly variable appearance in response to lighting conditions. Bright colors such as red,
yellow, and orange shall be avoided, unless required for safety purposes. The use of a variety of
materials or colors shall be limited and ordered.
vi. Facilities proposed to locate in the vicinity of existing in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall
evaluate the aggregate impacts and cumulative effects of multiple operations in the same area.
vii. Facilities shall be designed and located so that the surface area of individual operations does not
exceed 2 acres of surface coverage and no more than one operation per square nautical mile
viii. Land based access for parking, staging, launching, and storage associated with any in-water finfish
aquaculture facilities shall be evaluated for visual impacts and conflicts with adjacent upland uses.
14. Navigation, Military Operations and Commercial Fishing
a. When appropriate, in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located close to shore and near
ewsUng navigational impediments (i.e. marnas, docks).
b. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid conflict with
military operations.
c. The County shall notify, as appropriate, marinas, ports, recreational and commercial boating/fishing
organizations, and local tribes about comment opportunities during the permit review process,
especially re: proposed location offish farm and related navigational aids.
15. Human Health
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure adequate water quality compatible with good husbandry practices;
ii. Report any known bacteriological characteristics offish food used;
iii. Ensure proper storage offish food to avoid alteration or degradation of feed quality; and
iv_Regularly monitor and report presence of parasites in farmed fish.
i+rv. Comply with federal, state and local food safety requirements includine, but not limited to, source
identification and country of oritzin IabelinQ, and Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points Pfan."
16. Recreation
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall ensure compliance with State and federal requirements,
especially when location is proposed near underwater park facilities.
b_All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any
recreational shellfish beach, public tidelands, public access facilities (e.g. docks or boat ramps) or other
areas of extensive or established recreational use.
~c.ln-water finfish aquaculture operators shall inform the Notice to Mariners and other appropriate
entities for nautical chart revisions and notify other sources that inform recreational uses (e.e. boaters,
divers, shellfish harvesters).
2-23-13 Edits suggested by Commissioner SuNivan shown in yellow highlight
1-19-2013 D15CUSSlON ORAFr (Edits shown in Track Chonges! Poge S of 6
17. Noise
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure compliance with state and federal noise level limits;
ii. Require mufflers and enclosures on all motorized fish farm equipment;
iii. When appropriate, prefer electric motors over internal combustion engines.
b. The County may require an acoustical study, conducted at the applicant/operator's expense, to ensure
any audible impacts are identified and adequately addressed.
18. Odor
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Ensure compliance with state limits regarding nuisances and waste disposal;
ii. Follow best management practices including, but not limited to:
1. Daily removal and disposal of dead fish and other waste;
2. Regular cleaning of nets and apparatus;
3. Storage of food in closed containers;
4. Walkway design and use allows spilled food to fall into the water.
iii. Maximize the distance between the facility and nearby residential use/development, downwind
location preferred, to minimize impacts resulting from foul odors.
19. Lighting and Glare
a. Facilities shall comply with USCG requirements for operational and navigational lighting. The height of
the Tight source above the water surface shall be the minimum necessary, not to exceed 80 inches,
unless otherwise specified by State or federal requirements.
b. Facilities shall be designed so that any glare or shadows caused by the solar orientation are minimized.
c. Facilities shall utilize materials that minimize glare caused by sunlight or artificial lighting.
20. Upland Shoreline Use
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to minimize
incompatible uses and degradation of upland area.
21. Local Services
a. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to:
i. Provide estimates of high, average, and low volumes of waste to be produced, including
catastrophic events;
ii. Provide a waste management plan to include the method and frequency of collection, storage and
disposal; and
iii. Ensure compliance with local, state, federal waste disposal requirements.
b. Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not be abandoned in
the upland.
2.23.13 Edits suggested by Commissioner Sullivan shown in yellow hlghllght
2-192013 DISCUSSION DRAFT (Edits shown in Track ChongesJ Poge 6 of 6
aculture facility must use the sequential
A. Unless the applicant demonstrates that the substrate modification will result in an increase in
habitat diversity, aquaculture that involves little or no substrate modification shall be given preference
over aeuaculture that involves substantial substrate modification and 'the degree of proposed substrate
modification shall be limited to the maximum extent practical.
B. The installation of submerged structures. intertidal structures and floating structures shall be
limited to the maximum extent practical.
lifecycle
aam narvesung or other s~m~lar mechanisms, shall not
versely impact critical saltwater habitats.
plementation of mitigation measures would have a
oreline processes or that would result in a net loss of
in areas that will result in significant conflicts with
led. located and managed to prevent the spread of
nonnative species.
d to minimize use of artificial chemical substances and
3tent and 'nave the least impact on plants and animals.
>nformance with state and federal standard and to the
ulture activity.
lilies that involve minimal supplemental feeding and
in subsection G. of this section may be located in King
I by tribes with treaty fishing rights:
wild salmon stocks during a limited portion of their
~pment activity.
impacts of a proposed aquaculture activity and for all
ise provided for, the department may require baseline
approved consultant. at the applicant's expense. and
able to determine the success of the project and the
vironmental impacts. Permits for such activities shall
ions for adjustment or termination of the project at any
J Aquaculture developments approved on an experimental basis shall not exceed hve acres in
area, except land-based projects and anchorage for floating systems, and three years in duration. The
department may issue a new permit to continue an experimental project as many times as it determines is
necessary and appropriate.
K. The department may require aquaculture operations to carry liability insurance in an amount
commensurate with the risk of injury or damage to any person or property as a result of the project.
Insurance requirements shall not be required to duplicate requirements of other agencies.
L If aquaculture activities are authorized to use public facilities, such as boat launches or docks,
King County may require the applicant to pay a portion of the cost of maintenance and any required
improvements commensurate •,vith the use of those facilities.
M. New aquatic species that are not previously cultivated in Washington state shall not be
introduced into King County saltwa[ers or freshwaters without prior written approval of the Director of the
Washington state Department of Fish and ~P/iltllife and the Director of the Washington Department of
Health. This prohibition does not apply to Pacific. Olympia, Kumomoto, Belon or Virginica oysters;
Manila, Butter, or Littleneck clams: or Geoduck clams.
N. Unless otherwise provided in the shoreline permit issued by the department: repeated
introduction of an approved organism after harvest in the same location shall require approval by the
county only at the time the initial aquaculture use permit is issued. Introduction, for purposes of this
section. shall mean the placing of any aquatic organism in any area within the waters of King County
X. Commercial salmon net pens shall meet the following criteria and requirements:
1. Each commercial salmon net pen application shall provide a current, peer-reviewed science
review of environmental issues related to salmon net pen aquaculture;
2 The department shall only approve a commercial salmon net pen application if the
department determines the scientific review demonstrates that the project construction and activities will
achieve no net loss of ecological function in a manner that has no significant adverse short-term impact
and no documented adverse long-term impact to applicable elements of the environment, including, but
not limited to, habitat for native salmonids, water quality. eel grass beds, other aquaculture, other native
species, the benthic community below the net pen or other environmental attributes.
3. The department's review shalC
a. include an assessment of the risk to endangered species, non-endangered species, and
other biota that could be affected by the net pen: and
b. evaluate and mode. water quality impacts utilizing current information, technology. and
assessment models. The project proponent shall be financially responsible for this water quality
constructed and maintained to prevent
but not limited to, tide, wind and wave
5. Commercial salmon net pens shall not be located:
a within three hundred feet of an area containing eelgrass or a kelp bed;
b within one thousand five hundred feet of an ordinary high water mark; or
c. in a designated Washington state Department of Natural Resources aquatic reserve.
6. A commercial salmon net pen may not be used to mitigate the impact of a development
proposal: and
7 The conditional use permit for commercial salmon net pen must be renewed every five years
An uptlated scientific review shall be conducted as part of the renewal and shall include a new risk
assessment and evaluation of the impact of the operation of the salmon net pen during the previous five
years. (Ord. 17485 § 27, 2012.- Ord. 16985 § 32. 2010).
Michelle McConnelE
From: David Alvarez
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:13 PM
To: Philip Morley Michelle McConnell; Phil Johnson
Cc: David Sullivan', John Austin; Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins
Subject: RE: SMP -Puget Sound salinity info
Philip makes a good point, but the t<vo graphs agree that the salinity along the North Olympic
Peninsula is about 28 or 29, [believe that is ?9,000 parts per million. Other places, such as the SW
shore of Vancouver Island have higher salinity.
David Alvarez
From: Philip Morley
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:50 Ph1
To: Michelle McConnell; Phil Johnson
Cc: David Sullivan; John Austin; Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins; David Alvarez; Leslie Locke; Raina Randall; Julie Shannon
Subject: RE: SMP -Puget Sound sallnlty Into
Note that for the third link (snapshot graphic surface salinity), there are 2 graphics and the two have different color
scales to show salinity.
Philip
Philip Morley
Jefferson County Administrator
pmorlevCdco. iefferson.wa.us
(3601 385-9100 x-383
This is a reminder that all email to or from this email address maybe subject to the Public Records Act
contained in RCNJ 42.56. Additiona!!y, all emoii to and from the county is captured and archived by
Information Services.
From: Michelle McConnell
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Phil Johnson
Cc: David Sullivan; John Austin; Philip Morley; Carl Smith; Stacie Hoskins; David Alvarez; Leslie Locke; Raina Randall;
Julie Shannon
Subject: SMP -Puget Sound salinity info
Hi Phil
As follow-up from your question about Puget Sound salinity levels at last week's BoCC meeting, here are some links:
UW webpage https://catalvst.uw.edu/workspace/banasn/14943/82765
MoSSea webpage on surface salinity modeling http://facultv.washineton edu/pmacc/MoSSea/PS hiehlishts html
Snapshot graphic of surface salinity.htto://facultv.washinaton.edu;pmacc/MoSSea na;r_~_~_ >..:I'sl 1,i_i0U6.IP4
I hobo this information is helpful.
Thanks,
Michelle
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Long Range Planning Lead
Shoreline Master Program Update Project Manager
Watershed Stewardship Resource Center Project Manager
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
MAIL 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 9R3GR
DIRECT 360.379.4484 I MAIN 360.379.4450 I FAX 360.379.4473
WEB www.cojefferson.wa.us/commdeveloRment
OFFICE OPEN: Monday -Thursday 9:00 am - 4:30 pm
MISSION: To preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by promoting
a vibrant economy. sound communities and a healthy environment.
All C-mail Sr_nt [e the address ~a;ll be receroed by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subJect [o Public Disclosure under
Chapmr 42 Su riCW anU as such maybe viewed by parties od ~cr :nan ;rte [rtcnded reup~Fn[.
`' `SAVE PAPER -Please do not print this a-mall unless absolutely necessary
Yc U' -'JC_
Common View
PS-ARAB: Puget Sound Alexandrium Harmful Algal Blooms
Modeling
Oceanographic modeling
~.
_ ,~
t 7 :~
..
Tne creanocraph~c rtcde:' ct 'uyee socre and ;o-rocrmrQ 'rva;ers use0 .r [his ore;7ram ~s oel^p ceveloGed Cy ParKer MacC•eady, Veti
9anas, ane Dave ..<.u:7erland thvcyh the MoSCea Prcyrary ;t•{ocNing t'te Sal~sr Ssa;, sGOrsc•CC by tJNi ?FISM. ThC !•!^'~See .vent r=
Oroe.CeS ar Overv,ew o` Poe mode, avmriors of salinity, tatrperature, anE more from a 2Q06 Fintlwst, extc'sive i•tl0rma0on cn hmv
:PE medfl pcrtorrys r?lathe to data from ±he nany ?t:get S.rtrr. / Sabsh Sea mon:[a mg proerams.
Regional climate projections
2enronal c'.!ma:e stmaaa pis vve been cor~.ptetce `or ::'tis pro}ed usioc the Weather arc FesearcF ~ orecas!i~n; (W'Rfj notlel d: [2 kr-t
grid 5pacwn arc forced :+y farce-sca:'e not.rdary mud Dons. Two :eng rearo~at fLmate ncde simuar!cns bare beer conpletec. Gne is a
rctruspcoavc simola;ior ;! 9x3-20. _) uslnp VCEV-VCna rea^alvsts as 'xundarr condo ons fc. NiR= 1 •te second is a _370-7CT'?
Climdte OrC'EU:i0't ICRfu by ECHAMS T1aX F211Ck {`$[1:Ct?. Fd8'L'J,g) gCCdi CI n,die mOdC VUtJIt, '•v^I:!t W 11 DC USfC !n addd pn (0 dr
eXSt rg ',:R~ sn•ulanen forced oy Cf.5M3 ;i.e., Community Clir-tale >ys!e'n Motlel Ve^s-en 7; bcunAery r~nCito~s. `here resus ~ni I be
tsed M S:.GGO¢ two :asks: ;) To Crovida fors:iny r~elds :c tna Regiorzl Ocear Medelin5 System fROtdS) to sirrua[a the : rnaahon and
vioohyscs o! Ch: coastal oc?art arc Fug?t Sound. {te atnosc ~enc fer; r.c fess v.dl be supGlen'e~;ed w [h fr?s7~na:er nv?r moats
CerYel rronl crfv GUS researcr. 2, The fet)!brdl C (mate Sim JIdtlJns :VI'! lie USeC CO analyze t^~? fuiUre :~ar,es 2pd :•drldbC~.IV cf GOd>:dl
vrinAS. Results for the coanye ~n ccasta' •niads'rom Yte amen[ climate ;1970:999) to :r'.c f_~ture ti!na!e (20=G20G9) arc mown in the
f cure Calov+. Cen:ours shon• :ha streamines for :he currer¢ su rrrt~eClme sauce (10 m) winos and shzci~o rtl'cates the :Tanga in
MCridi9'tdl (d Dng-ShOB)'ntad5, 'w:(h Clr,a ird!ratiry ar m.%ase r Sr u; -:arty wirCS.
Cnerge !c•e~ rq N~reo
.~~ -
.~~ ~f- •.
..
o,
- -~~.r
e.
~r
~, -or
,.~_
e.
@uesnons or :omments~~
Contact oe ar emnl p+taiy;thr:p: c+ecEo
CoWno~`: `A 1999Q0.3 ceeminC & SOt6etly techm_ia;.n ~ P vav '~-rn
~l5.f201
Main Page
Overview
Model analysis and highlights
Animations
• Daily snapshot> ol'surfacz salinity. cv-er aa;l wind :omin, Jan-Dec. 2006 (?I MB .moe)
Hourly snapshots of st:: ii:ce salinity ovz: a spring neap cyc:c (6'_ \IR .mnv)
The imagz helm. s a snaps9ot of sea surface s;dim!y in mid-.\fay, 2006. highlighting thz 1':rsh
tcater. input L•y [hz regions major riozrs.
. u~zt Soun;l.:hc 5t:::it o` Jt:ar. Je fuca
:iGJ Strait of Georgia. and off of eoastal
~
~ ~ ~ ll
ashington and thz Cohlmhia Rlte:
Ueh<:S is du a
t'1Brnec hznr een tF
~
- ,
.
.
c
;obszn ed and rnodzled mean S. lei-,rj
Crne as in a-:-. out for :IilRrenczs in
UcaaSpal i. tichich i. th;; misctateh
a betsv zzl: the di'tzrcnzz of the te;: and
'
'
' hots, m id\TI' SaI1r.II1tiS J: the II;J;ICI and
. L
• •
• ~ - obszrvztions. ~ , i S:::nc as u .. but for
v ~ UeltaZs tmi, nhieh is the dil:crcnce in
P }. pycnoziine depths {'/s; ocserv~ed
~
~L~
k ObiCrb;i:aaaii\ end Calenld[Cd h\' t(,e
.~
r ; a
a
• tt,odcl Nate :hal tF.~z S:rails re_ion \cas
c:nm mnniv ur crrar;flri :..., f1.,. ... ...... ,
Results plot archirc
I I Figure. \lzae rcsidcnzz time ;days! nt Pugc; Seunc uhoasin=. I here ru'c caiculnted usi:ra
dte mean landward zschanec flow land ;hz colunte of each ninbasinj o~zr dn; yea: loot 2006
Participants
Model Validation
» Highlights u
Links
'~~
.}/'
•
MoSSea
11nd~~lntp tlv~ ~uli'h ti,~;l
i)up: ~;~ facull~~.washin:~it~n.edw'pmac~''MoS5eatPS_highlights.himl 3:'412013
model run. Krd lincs:nark the secdoas where exchange [lmv a~as calculated, while black lines
delitrau cad: subbauin.
2) Figure. Meat: s;.linit+ ;dung a >ec:ion Luca oatside Admiralty :ale; ihruugh \7ain Rasa and
over 1'acu ica \arrows ;mo Suuth Socad. See :he vriidation again>t those obs here.
3) Figure Sacp:hut of ;:u'face s:Iinily Deer the tial n:udd domain and amour-in un Puget
tiuund taken lrort ca:Iv Jalc. 'uil(•.
hap:~5'lactJltZ.~iashinet~tt.cdtu'pmacc,'~foSSe~~`PS_highlights.html ~,`~3~2013
s
a
-.:U
y
a
an
n
:n
:+
r-
-~gn~tlo lcag)
lut p:;'i facul;~~.~~~ ashi ngcor..edu~'pm~cor'~~foSSea~'i maoe5isss_salishJu12006•J pg 3 %~.%20 ] 3
Best Availsblc Science Octebcr 2(10±
[l. NEAR$I(ORE ECOLOGY OVER~~LE~'V
The habitats of the nearshore environment arc a fundamental component in the diverse landscape
mosaic of the Puget Sound ecoregion. I ollowing is an overview of some key concepts related to
dclinina the nearshore, its individual habitats. and the functions that they provide to Puget
Sound. V
A. DEk'IVIVG-['HE'VEAK~IIORE
II-I Bainbridge Island Vcarshore Assessment
The nearshore environment is eenerally dclined as the area encompassing the transi[ion from
sub[idal marine habitats to associated upland systems. y~'illiams and Them (2(101) deline this in
practical terms as the zone where direct functional interactions occur beavicen upland and marine
hahitats. In Puget Sound specifically, this area typically includes hahitats from the marine
riparian zone w the lower limit of the photic zone (generally w a maximum of 36 ui below nrcan
lower low water [MLI,1'~ j). Within this range occur the strongest interactions behveen the
marine environment and coastal processes. I`or example, upland vegetation (marine riparian
habitat) contributes to beach and bank stability, provides shade litr the upper intertidal zone, and
contributes organic matter (leaf litter. woody debris) to the nearshore marine ecosystem
(N'illixms and'I'hc»n 2001: 1~Villiams et al. 2001) (figure tl-I).
Bzsl Available $cizncz Octuber ZUU3
B. HABITAT CL:\SSIGIC.4TION
Within the nearshoro, nahtrai marine and estuarine communities generally occur along
predictable gradients. These gradients correspond to local physical attributes (specifically,
elevation and depth. substrate, wave energy, and salinity}, and these known habitats and
corresponding plrvsical emironmeni relationships have been used to create standardized
classilication systems intended fur habitat inventory and mapping work in \\'ashington State
(Uethier 1990). Summary e~tamples of these classitication systems can be found in :lppcndix B
of this document.
T'hc ncarshore vertical zones for Puget Sound marine and estuarine systems can be generalhr
divided into the following classifications (ti~l(owing Uethier 1990) (Figure [[-2):
• Backshore; Supralitu>ral habitats that are outside the i, pical range of tidal influence and
may be wet only occasionally from spray or irregular flooding; above mean higher high
e.atcr (~1H11\V') vfspring tides
• IntertidalrEulittoral -habitats between MI IHW and 11LLW (axtremc lower low water of
spring tides ~l-;LL\\~ in Dctiticr 1990): regularly inundated'oy the Ilucutation of tides
• Shallow Subtidal -hahitats that arc rarely uncovered by low tide, 1 ~ m or less below ~1LLW
• Deep Subtidal -hahitats that are Haver uncovered by low tide, deeper than I ~ m below
IV[LL11'.
COAS7Al INTERTInAL
~Tw+
~~\ ~~I r+•Mr Brigeooew ~~aui
AIrnrY~ ~~~- MryVe ~ 1
'~M ~` ~C _ pnwY O „~jti'
!-'figure !!-'. Ge»era/izd disu•i6u1: o» oTmyja' inrer(friul lmbiax apes nlanr nn elerariar %<ieptlU srndrenr ('fi•orn
\"rginb+gnle cnx; Sunvslod ?pl/; a nrltiprerllrnrrr nrukelu»;e i 99/l, m•risl.4nndru a~oel/.
\\'ithin these vertical classification zones, other physical. geological, and chemical factors
(specifically, wave energy. substrate, and salinity) interact to constrain the distributions and
interactions of marine plants and animals (Uethier 1990). .4 natural community can be delined
as a distinct and recurring assemblage of plants and animals naturally associated with each other
Banbridge isiaud \zarshorz Asszssmznt II-2
Best ;wai':able S:icrec - Octubcr 2G0
and wi[h a particular plrvsical cnviremnent. Thus, habitats are distinguished by their physical
constrainU and biotic communities. Habitat types found in Puget Sound include eelgrass
meadocas, kelp forests, banks, flats, marshes. sand spits. subestuarics. and marine riparian areas.
The structure and typical species composition of habitat types relevar.[ to Bainbridge [stand are
described in detail in Chapter IV ofthis doeument.
C. DEFINING Fl VC770V
Ecological t"unctions are natural attributes of a given habitat that °serve" the resources that rely
upon that habitat. Ecological functions are defined by the structure (i.e., size. shape, substrate,
and species composition) of the habitat, and the species interactions that occur therein. F'or
example, bull kelp, found in the shallow subtidal zone of Puget Sound, provides a variety of
functions to the nearshore ecosystem that arc derived from its complex forest-like structure.
These !'unctions include refuge and tt"eeding habitat for fishes (especially rocktishl. spasvninu
habitat for herring, and buffering of wave and current energy (\\''illiams and Thom ?001). :1s
ccusystenn _nrw inctcasiugly eoutplcx, functions that arc provided by one habitat may also bz
beneficial to other habitats. resulting in a broad network of interactions. From a landscape
perspective, the presence of a varich' of nearshore habitats contributes a wider range of pcllential
ecological funtaions (c.g.. biodiversity maintenance) to the ecosystem as a whole.
To help cvalua[e the ecological t"unctions of individual habitats for fish and wildlife within Puget
Sound. standardized protucois have been developed [hat describe reconunended techniques tier
quantitatively measuring habitat attributes that characterize these potential functions (Simenstad
et al. 1991). Gxpert- and literature-derived guidance was used during [his process to develop
habitat-specitic lists of representative fish and wildlife species. and their primary functionai
mechanisms (i.e., reproduction, feeding, refuge. and physiological adaptation). Specific
examples of typical nearshore species and aspects of habitat functional dependence are discussed
in Chapter V of this document.
It should be noted that within the Puget Sound ecoregion. the nearshore zone provides a number
of necessary functional benefits [o salmon, a key species that indicates local watershed heal[h
and provides cultural and economic resources to communities region-wide. Some of these
functions include prey production (i.e., food for juvenile and adult salmonj, migratory corridors.
refuge for juveniles from predatars. and juvenile rearing. In addition, salmc»t transport marine-
derived nutrients back into freshwater streams and forests as they spawn and become prey for
wildlife (see C'ederhohn ct al. ?000), thus linking [he functions of the nearshore ecosystem to the
health or [he emire watershed. The specitic functional benefits of the nearshore to salmon are
further explored in Chapter V.
D. Ne.~tzsxou~ Ecot,octc RtoxFts
As the classification systems have demonstrated, rcarshorc habitats arc defined b~ a variety of
complex interactiors between physical gcolo~ical, chemical, and biological components. The
effects of human-caused changes in physical conditions can cause a change in the structure of
habitats. which will ultimatch' at3cct the habitat's function. from this general reasoning, we can
derive simple relationships (models) that may help us predict or mrderstand natural and human-
f!-~ Bainbridge island nearshore AcceS<n7en;
3esr .4vailnblz Science October 30C.
caused effects on nearshore ccosys[em functions. These models, based on existing knowledge
and best professional ,judgment. are especially useful when there is a pervasive lack of empirical
data.
The physical components of an ecosystem are referred to as its "controlling factors" because of
the strong dependence oT biological entities upon them. For example. the local combination of
controlling facrors (such as slope. depth. tidal cycle, and wave energy) will define the type of
plant species that can exist in that area. 13iolo~ical communities, which arc often spatialh
constrained by these local controlling [actors. serve to t"urther define the structure and functions
(e.~.. refu~_e, nutrient cycling] of the nearshore ecosystem (\Villiams and Thom 2001: \\'illiams
ct al. 2001) (fable II-I ). Once established, biological ccnnporents may. in turn, influence
controlling factors; so biological alterations can impact the ecosystem frmn a toundational level
(for example. temperature regulation and rutrient input from overhan,;ing vegetation).
lininbr:d_~c :stand \carshore As~ca~mcnt II-4
A conceptual model approach can be used to illustrate the interactions that. occur in the nearshore
ecosystem as intluenced by controlling factors and associated habitat structure and function (for
example, the etlect of wave energy and light on plant biomass, and resultinr~ links to primary
production). Impirical data are often lacking on the impacts of specific activities to a given
habitats structural and functional attributes. Conceptual models are useful because they allow
US t0 ^se exLiting information to idemify the linkages beivveen (and among) the controlling
factors and biological components of an ecosysrem. \\'hen changes occur a[ the controlling
factors level. [he associated biological and ecological responses can then be interred and tested.
In its most basic tiirm, impact assessment can be approached through the response chain
illustrated in Figure II-i (from \Villiams and Thom 2001).
3est Avai:abic Science Octoher 20q?
l~igurc !I-J. Cwr~;:prrrn! rnaie(linking sitore(me rmpcas r<i ecnrngfro( lrurcrion, (from l''iihruns and Timm ?00(/.
This approach provides the necessar< Irametvork ibr assessing cotnplex systems -where data
gaps often exist -and will be used throughout this document. The ti~llowing chapters focus on
survevin« three key areas within this framework For the Bainbridge Island nearshorc
environment: physical characteristics and dynamics (Chapter ~Il), habitats (Chapter IV'). and
biological resowces (Chapter V). Based on an understanding of these factors. the potential
impacts of nearshore modifications by humans can then be assessed in greater detail (Chapter
VU.
l]-5 13ai:rbridgc Isiand>iearshore Assessment
LA-SMP Article 2.C.26
Critical habitat means habitat areas with which endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitored plant, fish, or
wildlife species have a primary association (e.g., feeding, breeding, rearing of young, migrating). Such areas
are identified herein with reference to lists, categories, and definitions promulgated by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife as identified in WAC 232-12-011 or 232-12-014; in the Priority Habitat and
Species (PHS) program of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or other agency with jurisdiction for such
designations.
1986 Interim Guidelines for Salmon Net Pen Culture in Puget Sound
'Pa ble
HARITATB OP SPF.CiAL SICNIFICANCF.
• 8e1$rasa (Zos[ern mar~.ns) beAa having denaibias exceed LngL 13 Cnrlona (1.e.,
"nhoota") pct 0.25 m in summer or 10 Curtorta per O.ZS m in winter. These
d enalCLas should be based on 2U random 0.25 m2 quadrat samples taken in the
eelg teas beA. In addt[tnn to [he denst[y ertCeria nbove, culture shoulA
not he 2permtssLhle if more than 10X of Che samples exceeA 20 turiona per
0.25 m These guidelines are Chose used by the WaehLng[on Department of
Nisheriea (WDF) in defining areas nnaccep table for hard shell clam iYar-
vesting (DNR/WUF, t981).
• Kelp beds (i.c., dense beds of attached macroalgae, especially bull. kelp,
Neraocyetia lue[keana).
• Rocky reef hahitnts (high profile ruck outcro pa colonized by organ isms such
as hydroids, rmeroalgas, abalone, sea urchins, sea anemones, sta rf SSh, and
other attached orF,aniame).
• CeoAu~k (Panopc nbrupta) populations with densl ties exceed infi 0.4 animates
per m'. 'Phis dm+aity la the crl.[erion useA by orate ai;enctes to daflnc
maj ar geod uek he<le (DNR/1JDF, 1985).
s H~rd shell clam populations with Aenait(as exceeA L+g 1.2 kg (2.5 lhe) per
m This density Se Cha[ required for harA shell clam harvest (UNR/WUF,
19813.
• habitats having aignif icant populations uf, or which are important to the
feeding, reproduction. or other life stages. of Dungeness eTabs (Ca n_cer
ma}i+ister}, herring (Clupea)+ 1ingcoA/g resoling (ilexag rammid nc),. true cod
(CSdd to ae), soles and flounders (Pleu[o+recti€ormca), rock fiahea-
(SCOrpaenidae), cabaxona and other large eculpine (Cottidae), or sea perch
(Emhio[ocidna). The occurrence of these apeciea to a potential. culture
area does not neceaaarLly exclude iC from development. Tha dotcrmination
of whether the ai. re to of special efg niFtcance ko these species will be
determined by WDP on n case-by-enac basis.
• Wildlife refugee end habitats of endangered nr threatened species. (A 300
foot separation Erma net-pens is recommended regardless of current direc-
tion).
• Other habitats of sped al. aigntFcance, rag ardleaa of dupth, as determined
Un 8 Cage-hy-Case 1)88i.e.
Michelle McConnell
From: Barnfather, Linda [Linda.Barnfather@leg.wa.govj
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Michelle McConnell
Subject: RE: Net Pen Legislation HB 1599
Yes, sadly it didn't make it out of committee before the cutoff for policy bills.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
Best,
Linda
Linda Barnfather
Executive Legislative Assistant to Majority Whip Kevin Van De Wege
UVashington Sate Noose aP Representatives
2Atn Legislative District
(35(3) 582-98317. fi4 Village Lane Sequim I VdA J8382
i36p} 786-7915 I Leg(slative Building 434 A
Barnfaffiee.li~da(cDle2.wa. sov
To sign up for our e-memo's: https://public¢ovdeliverv.com/accounts/WALEGHDCVANDEWEGE/subscriber/new
From: Michelle McConnell [mailto:mmcconnellCalco.jefferson.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Barnfather, Linda
Subject: Net Pen Legislation HB 1599
Hello Linda,
I understand that HB 1599 to amend the Shoreline Management Act regarding net pen aquaculture is considered a
`dead' bill, can you confirm that please?
Thank you,
Michelle
Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Long Range Planning Lead
Shoreline Master Program Update Project Manager
Watershed Stewardship Resource Center Project Manager
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
MAIL 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368
DIRECT 360.379.4484 I MAIN 360.379.4450 I FAX 360.379.4473
WEB www co Jefferson wa us/commdeveloomeni
OFFICE OPEN: Monday -Thursday 9:00 am - 4:30 pm
MISSION: 7o preserve and enhance the quality of life in Jefferson County by
a vibrant economy, sound communities and a healthy environment.
All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the Jefferson County e-mail system and may be subject
Chapter 42.56 RCW and as such may be viewed by parties other than the intended recipient.
Public Disclosure under
~''~ SAVE PAPER -Please do not print this a-mail unless absolutely necessary
fJ
m
v
a
O
~.
~.
d
O
v
d J
~.. V
-y 3
~, u
O ~
L 3
N a
T Q
Y
c
J w
O C
U ~-y
C ~
o
w 3
w ,
v ~
~-
L /`•
h d
w ~''
C u
u. O
d y
A
3 mar
C C
3 d
o ~
3 ~
6! i
~ J
N •+
L 3
3 ;
a
a
u
~
u V
"
C~ 3 C C
~ ~ ? i
L m
"
C ~i
' C c
cv > 3 J 2
• O
~ N L
O U v
J r~, n a
a C
U y N v
C
H
B
C T
J ~
C Y
rc a ~ 3 O
Y. Q
'
m
y
-c '
c °'
o
c c
!~ ~
°'
_ a
~ ~ c ~ U
c ~
~ a:
~ O c u =i
'
t U tp O ~
p ~
Y ~ O
:~ U
N o ~, > n
O p
=
v a J +~ G
y m 7 G ~
L ~)
l ~ ~ tc
i
w _ d
~ C
~j O ra O
e 3 ~
~ ~' E ~'
U
..
m C
u 0~ O
u
~ J ~
O '
6 ~ C C ~ '~ C
Q L y h OD •G O d
"O CS .
. :J C /. G:
c 'a .
~ c 3 p y a ~
u
N J
r
~ H
p ~ J p J
C ~ 3 =~ a
'O N
7
p
' ~ C J
?
y j J U L
d i j a L N ° :a v o
~ ~ ~
- 3 J
.~ J ,_
`
L i rC N O C C +V -O
a ~ a: 3 ci n `0 `0
U U v
J
c ~+ ~ 2 c ~ O c ~ c 3
~
,, ~ d ti
L O '~ ~ 0 2 O p j (s
~
~ " E m 3 0
5 ° ~' ~
a .
'^ .
a
~ ~
c
`~ o
~ c
p p p
O o
J a ~
Z O Z , Z
. .-+ Z '
O v~ V' ~ C ~
w
.i N M C !- N !"1 C F-
O
Z
Shalt of
Juan Qe Fuca
Smith and
Minor Islands
.:
! / ~
~ .
Protection r,nn
w swv
,... --- Island IEEE CCC
__
l
NL•Jefferson County {~ashington S~I1 011
~\ VM4'.M L,
~-~ ~, _ _ _ _._
5bnn~~~a M.ewr Sian ._~«.. ~., . ~.~
...
::.+a }5
Fnal 11191 <01: ~ ~ ---~
w....e..... y
. ~ .
r
"
,_.........~., ..~..
Sai1olla+n azFwa
p. ~_,~ o...n
I
.. i. ;....
r _
.
__
XE Jefferson County, 1Yashington SMP 2011 ~--'~'". y-'~' -•~~~---
o.w.
52areline N.,ivr Plnn ,.• .•• ~••.• ~°"^
Final 106L2J11 Q ~.. .....~ \~~
~i~Vn CVrr 1......... J~~~1~W~s5'
~... ....