Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071618_cabs02JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners (°BOCC") Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Emma Bolin, Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development ("DCD") Kevin Hitchcock, Assistant Planner A. Watkins, DCD Leadership Team DATE: July 16, 2018 SUBJECT: County Administrator's Briefing Session (CABS) for Monday, July 9, 2018 on Proposed Comment Letter for Board signature: Washington Department of Fish Wildlife (WDFW) Riparian Management Recommendations STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) requests comments on Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations by July 17, 2018. Outreach by WDFW on the proposed management recommendations included emails, web postings and a fall -2017 conference call with WSAC and members of the Washington Association of County and Regional Planning Directors. Patty Charnas, DCD Director participated in the conference call. The WDFW document offers a source of best available science and offers draft guidance to local jurisdictions on riparian (rivers and streams) ecosystem management. Best available science (BAS) is part of the process to inform future critical areas regulations. The guidance is on how to protect functions and values of riparian ecosystems and surrounding watersheds. WDFW acknowledges that local jurisdictions may have existing codified approaches to protect riparian areas. WDFW's goal is to refine and recommend changes to improve protection. WDFW is basing these recommendations on new scientific knowledge gained since publishing their earlier 1997 PHS Riparian Management Recommendations. Jefferson County requests additional guidance on how to implement the complex recommendations into a regulatory framework that is simple, predictable and makes sense to residents. ANALYSIS: The recommendations do not create any buffers, but clearly, WDFW wishes to establish one of the BAS options the county may consider in developing regulations. The county may encounter implementation challenges, detailed in the technical document, because protection of the full Riparian Management Zone would be more restrictive than current riparian buffers established in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS: There is no fiscal impact to this briefing. RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners review and consider signing the prepared comment letter to WDFW prior to the July 17, 2018 WDFW comment deadline. REVIEWED BY: LpklfiP-,-M- - Orley, C htity Administrator Date SON Com JEFFERSON COUNTY BoCC Letterhead I NG�G� Acting Director Joe Stohr Director Kelly Susewind Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 43200 Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: Keith Folkerts, Priority Habitats and Species Section Manager July 9, 2018 Re: WDFW's Dear Mr. Stohr request r!ks Jefferson County Board of on Riparian appreciates th above referenced document. As you may be aware, Jefferson County provide on Washington's Olympic Peninsula, co -existing with hundreds of square miles of premier state 'And national forests, designated parks, wild and scenic rivers and numerous important other waterways that support anadromous fish runs and endangered salmon stocks. This county takes very seriously its stewardship responsibility to conserve and protect sensitive environments like shorelines, rivers and streams. Our commitment to ensuring healthy waterways is evident in our county mission, in our goals and policies contained in our county comprehensive plan and in our development regulations, which are considered by many to be among the most environmentally protective at the county level. It is with this spirit and history that we are responding to WDFW request for comments on proposed management recommendations for riparian (rivers, stream and shorelines) ecosystems. Following this cover letter are our staff's more detailed, technical comments. We offer the following more general comments and request to be kept informed prior to any formal action taken by WDFW on this subject. WDFW has re -visited information first published in 1997 regarding riparian management recommendations for local governments to consider in their local development regulations (principally critical areas ordinance rules and shoreline master programs). The WDFW 1997 management guidelines contained other recommendations on protective buffers for rivers and streams and their habitats and species. The 1997 documents included site potential tree height (SPTH) as a management tool. Now, in 2018, the WDFW draft document reissues SPTH as a stand-alone tool and further declares the WDFW treatise to be `best available science' (BAS), which is a term local governments must address and include when conducting periodic updates to critical areas rules. We do not find anything published that distinguishes how 1997 data and information, which has already been considered "best available science" in earlier critical area updates, meets a 2018 threshold of new or compelling BAS. Our review of the WDFW document revealed no strong justification of why SPTH should now be a paramount management recommendation over state -compliant existing standards. WDFW does not identify nor described a problem that the draft SPTH document will solve. The document is curiously silent on the formidable resources expended to date and the many years of local jurisdiction implementation of state compliant buffer widths for rivers and streams. Many counties, including Jefferson County, defended challenges to existing protective buffer widths in front of various state hearing boards. The WDFW does not consider that something as complex and variable as SPTH must first, be able to be consistently implemented at a local permitting level and second, not invite challenges to local governments. Jefferson County has a history of defending regulations to growth - management -hearings and shoreline -management -hearing boards for precisely issues concerning buffer widths. We believe WDFW has not sufficiently considered nor discussed how re -issuing SPTH addresses regulatory gaps, which would qualify the need for proposing SPTH `management recommendations.' As discussed in our more detailed technical comments that follow, we believe that Jefferson County will encounter implementation challenges if SPTH becomes part of riparian buffer width determinations. For instance, SPTH methodology calls for protection of the full riparian management zone, ostensibly through non -clearing buffer widths, which would vastly expand buffers and present additional restrictions to any land use proposal regardless of level of impact. The existing Jefferson County critical areas regulations remain consistent with Best Available Science (BAS). It is unclear, therefore, if Site Potential Tree Height based regulations can fill any regulatory gaps. We wish to strongly advise that if WDFW chooses to publish the document that it do so as interim draft management guidelines and that WDFW be awarded additional state funding to conduct critically lacking pilot projects in one or more county permitting programs. Only after demonstrating through statistically significant data collected from pilot projects at the local permitting level, that the SPTH method first presented in 1997 is irrefutably able to supplant existing BAS -based riparian buffers, should WDFW proceed to publish the subject document as final management recommendations. In doing so, there would be solid evidence that SPTH indeed addresses substantial gaps existing at the local level and that much-needed buffer protections, for which existing buffer widths are failing to provide, will be supplied consistently by SPTH. Again, we refer you to the attached detailed technical discussion for additional comments from this county. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments. Due to the high level of concerns we have discussed, please keep this office informed of any action taken with respect to this draft document. county Attachment: Detailed technical comments Washington Department of Fish Wildlife (WDFW) Riparian Management Recommendations: Technical Analysis The Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations document circulated for comment describes key changes from earlier 1997 WDFW recommendations on riparian management. The following particularly pose implementation challenges to the county: (Suggested County response in italics): • Consideration of the Channel Migration Zone as important to protect for maintaining riparian functions on some streams. The Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance already identifies and regulates Channel Migration Zones, albeit developed to address geohazards. • Riparian Management Zones (RMZ), rather than buffers, are proposed as the area within which to achieve No Net Loss. The RMZ provides a framework for assessing, planning and managing for the "full range of riparian functions. RMZ protections can be adapted to meet local needs, reflect current conditions and can address multiple goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and Shoreline Management Act (SMA)." Discussed herein. The document relies upon early 1990's science, the FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team) curve: A conceptual model that describes the relationship between various riparian ecosystem functions and distance from channel using a Site -Potential Tree Height (SPTH), or the average height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more) for a given site class. SPTH200 informs the outer limits of the riparian management zone ptended to provide for full riparian ecosystem functions. Comparing Jefferson County regulations to the WDFW recommendations: The existing Jefferson County critical areas regulations remain consistent with Best Available Science (BAS). It is unclear if Site Potential Tree Height based regulations can fill any regulatory gaps. The county advocates that WDFW publish the recommendations as management guidelines and further an interim draft so that additional state funding may be sought to conduct a pilot project at one or more selected county's permitting programs. The SPTH recommendations negatively impact regulation flexibility because the resulting buffers are more restrictive than current buffers. The SPTH "zone of influence" is measured from the outer edge of the channel migration zone, which adds width to the regulated riparian area. For comparison, Jefferson County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area and Shoreline buffers are measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The county's approach protects areas closest to the stream where most functions occur, consistent with BAS. • Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff performed a GIS analysis comparing the amount of acreage subject to current Critical Area buffers and additional acreage that would be subject to a SPTH-based buffer. Adopting the recommended riparian buffer of at least one SPTH2oo represents an 83% increase in buffer area in the eastern portion of the county. ®SWdy Area Q.@9k roan Cau�Ey Acres SPTH Buffers Total Area 48,390.5 CAO Buffers Total Area 26,404.8 Area Increase from STPH 21,985.7 Increase 83% • Proposed WDFW RMZ water tab le active uplands .. zoneof Influence channel .......:.:................ riparian ILII zone zone of influence width _I I width equal to equal to SPTH SPTH LChanoal Migration zone RMZ Current Buffer (Type "F" Stream) �_)i 1vr M Riparian _.kpmby— Setback. Management zone RMZ] Figure 1-1. Generalize diagram of the riparian ecosystem as defined in Chapter 1 Volume 1. The zone of influence—portions ofterrestrial ecosystems that significantly Influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems—starts at the edge of the stream channel or CMZ. The width of the zone of influence is equal to the Site -Potential Tree Height Buffer Photo (top): Figure 1.1 from Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations demonstrates the Riparian Management Zone. Photo (bottom): Jefferson County Shoreline Buffers and Setbacks handout (credit ESA); Table (previous page): GIS analysis compares the amount of county land impacted by adopting the WDFW RMZ recommendation of one SPTH compared to land impacted by the current Fish & Wildlife Conservation Area buffers defined in Jefferson County's Critical Area Ordinance. The comparison was made only for eastern Jefferson County due to lack of SPTH coverage in the western portion of the county. SPTH buffers were created using an average of the two Site Class estimates provided in the document: King (1966) AW It 1P The 'Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations are advisory only: In 1997, WDFW recommended riparian area buffer widths. These 1997 buffers (150-250 feet) were wider than what are used today (50-150 feet). Despite high buffers recommended at the time, Jefferson County considered Best Available Science and implemented buffers lower than the 1997 widths. Local governments are not required to use this guidance. The information presented in this document is not, in and of itself, the "best available science." Rather, it represents recommendations as to how a local government could incorporate the best available science in policies, plans and regulations. However, the recommendations vary from the approach used in the CAO and SMP, which may expose the county to legal vulnerability. • The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.172 Critical Areas – Designation and protection – Best available science to be used) requires counties include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Special consideration to conservation or protection measures is necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. The WDFW recommendations are one of the options presented by Best Available Science but the county should consider the spectrum of BAS in developing critical areas regulations. Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations inconsistencies: • The county delineated Channel Migration Zones in riparian areas which are associated with geohazards. Regulations based on the RMZ and SPTH require delineating CMZ in all riparian areas—not just in those associated with geohazards. CMZ delineation on a broad -scale would be expensive. • WDFW shows the stream length -weighted third quartile of the 200 -year SPTH in Jefferson County is 203 feet. Compared to 137 feet in Clallam County, it is unclear why Jefferson County is 48% higher. Why does Jefferson County have one of the higher averages? The document provides no analysis describing these discrepancies. • The SPTH concept, developed in 1993, is not new best available science. Implementation may frequently require site-specific information in the form of a Habitat Management Plan due to unique tree growth patterns and site potential height. It is unclear if the FEMAT curves consider factors such as precipitation, geomorphology, salt tolerance, altitude etc., which would influence the height of the 200 -year old tree. Volume 1 of WDFW scientific basis for its recommendations Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1 Science Synthesis and Management Implications discusses scientific uncertainty stating "that the mean results of statistical models do not consistently predict the precise magnitude of management effects at any specific location." Regulations based on SPTH2O0 may not provide predictability due to complexity. Flexibility could prove challenging if applicants, design professionals, and county review staff need to invest more resources into site-specific analysis. • WDFW states that the RMZ is not a buffer, but recommends protecting all riparian ecosystem functions within the RMZ. It is unclear how WDFW proposes the county implement recommendations into future regulations within the context of the existing regulatory framework with established buffers.