Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout064 99 ~- "" t'J11j tv- tløuj j~ 8- 3'~C¡ ,,- !" STATE OF WASIDNGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON RESOLUTION NO. 64-99 IN THE MATTER OF comments to the Department of Ecology regarding the April 7, 1999, proposed Shoreline Management Act guidelines } } } } WHEREAS, this resolution formalizes Jefferson County's position relating to the Washington State Department of Ecology's proposed guideline amendments to the Shoreline Management Act as defined under Chapter 173-26 WAC, as promulgated by the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW; and WHEREAS, on review of the proposed amendments the Coúnty makes the following Findings: 1. The shorelines of Jefferson County are regulated by the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program (SMMP) adopted in 1976 and on March 7, 1989, and with revisions August 16, 1993, August 26,1996 and February 6, 1998. 2. Per Growth Management Act requirements, the Jefferson County BOCC adopted a Comprehensive Plan on August 28, 1998 3. The BOCC by resolution #71-78 directed the planning department to revise the SMMP and to bring the county's shoreline master program into consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and furthermore, the revisions "shall include consideration of retaining the legal rights of land use activities to continue to operate as previously permitted under the SMMP" 4. The adopted Comprehensive Plan provides goals and policies in the Environment Element (pages 8-35, 8-36, 8-41, 8-43 through 8-46) which includes, but is not limited to, the following statement: "Coordinate to incorporate local, state andfederallaws into the recommendations of cooperatively -developed, comprehensive watershed and habitat conservation plans in the shoreline planning processes". 5. Jefferson County has been revising its shoreline master program (SMP) with the financial assistance of two one-year grants from the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grant program. 6. Jefferson County used the CZM grant, in part, to fund a sample inventory of a particular section of shoreline. Specifically, an inventory of biological and geological features of an approximately 27-mile section of the shoreline has been completed. Jefferson County's Planning Commission's shoreline sub-committee meets twice- monthly to continue work on drafting the Jefferson County SMP comprehensive amendments as part of the CZM grant requirements. 7. .VOL -¿~ 5 ("')""O'"r"'"' . Ire )H~h~ r ,..,< UiV ~ NOW; THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED we are stating the following concerns listed I - 5 and FURTHERMORE; these concerns are detailed in the attached comment letter which we have submitted in response to the Department of Ecology's Draft Shoreline Guidelines proposed April 7, 1999. 1. The timeline for shoreline inventory is unrealistically short; 2. The Guidelines present a huge unfunded mandate, particularly in the inventory requirements and the administrative costs of changing local Shoreline Master Programs; 3. The Guidelines underestimate the complexity of the County shorelines, which add immeasurably to the complexity of the required inventory; 4. The Guidelines do not provide for sufficient local flexibility, especially in nonurban areas; and 5. The Guidelines provide a definition of 'Best Available Science' that is not entirely consistent with other state definitions and that it pre-empts the anticipated legislative discussion of the definition. BY the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners: -- TIel Adopted this ~ day of ~rd 1991, S I '-\¡,\H-;YCo ea: -"',';"-f:".",-,.,--,-"~Ir, " '<:I~î}~' I' 'i')'~.1. '. iltfifc ", '",:<,\ ;"" 1,n~ ~~~"'7~( }/' """- ':,~,:," ,-,-., ,,""'"' Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners DR~e~ ~ j¿¿~~-? Glen Hun - 0J'1, ill er , ATTEST VOL 25 r~G~ 656 , " '., ~\ c,OMJt~æ A:a ~ ~'..... .-" , '" .... \~~~) ~' August 2, 1999 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dan Harpole, District 1 Glen HuntingfOl'd, District 2 Richard Wojt, District 3 Amy Johnson Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, W A 98504 RE: Comments on the proposed Shoreline Management Act guidelines Dear Ms. Johnson, Jefferson County submits the following comments in response to the proposed Shoreline Management Act guidelines. Summary As described in more detail in this letter, Jefferson County finds that the proposed Shoreline Management Act Guidelines are unacceptable. Specifically, we are concerned that: . The time line for shoreline inventory is umealistically short; . The Guidelines present a huge unfunded mandate, particularly in the inventory requirements and the administrative costs of changing local SMPs; . The Guidelines underestimate the complexity of the County shorelines which will add immeasurably to the complexity of the required inventory; . The Guidelines do not provide for sufficient local flexibility, especjally in non urban areas; . The Guidelines use a definition for the term 'Best Available Science' that is different from the Best Available Science Rule Discussion Draft of July 23, 1999. Inventory shoreline conditions WAC 173-26-200 (iii) (c) states, in part, the following: "T!ús chapter requires that several shoreline issues such as critical area protection, vegetation management and shoreline stabili::ation be addressed on a comprehensive basis to achieve a net gain in ecological functions... To accomplish this requires an inventory to characteri::e the shoreline eco.systems and sufficient(v detailed to provide baseline information for monitoring and adaptive management. /I :VOL 25 rH:o57 Phone (360)385-9100 ,I 1-800-831-2678 Fax (360)385-9382 jeffbocC@co.jefferson.wa.us ¡ '. Comments on the Proposed Shoreline Management Act Guidelines Page: 2 the preferred method jÒr local government to accomplish this task is to participate in a inter jurisdictional state-wide or watershed based inventory. !t the resource necessary to accomplish as detailed and comprehensive inventory described above are not available local governmental preparing comprehensive master program amendments shall as a minimum conduct an inventory in sufficient detail to designate shoreline environments and write provisions to protect existing resources and accommodate prejèrred shoreline uses in accordance with the following provision I (c of this subsection. [emphasis added] Inventory Costs For the last year Jefferson County has been revising its shoreline master program (SJ\t1P) with the financial assistance of a Coastal Zone Management (ClM) grant. Jefferson County has been on the forefront in conducting a sample inventory of a particular section of shoreline. Specifically, an inventory of biological and geological features of an approximately 27-mile section of the shoreline has been completed. Due to time and money constraints no further data could be collected along the county shorelines. Based on experience gained in conducting this inventory, Jefferson County finds the two- year time limit, mandated by the proposed guidelines for updating SMP wholly unrealistic. Based on inherent physical factors and level of staffing, data collection alone will take many years for those jurisdictions that have significant miles of shoreline. For example, tide and weather conditions may dictate a small window of opportunity available to collect the data, and qualified experts are required to ensure that the data are reputable, reliable and reproducible" Furthennore, there is no protocol in the proposed guidelines for how this type of data will be collected in a scientifically acceptable manner. Not only is the two-year time line to complete the inventories impossible to meet, but the non-funded mandate of such inventories is not acceptable to Jefferson County. Through the ClM grant, Jefferson County has spent approximately $20,000 on the inventory of 27 miles of saltwater shoreline. These costs only include the field work, a written report on biological and geological features, and digitized mapping of the data. The data collected for this study were located close to or at the ordinary high water mark of the shoreline, and did not include upland uses of the shoreline jurisdiction within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. To complete the inventory, an analysis of the data overlay with existing zoning uses will be necessary. A cursory comparison of the zoning from the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan was made to see what, if any, environmental designations warrant change under the proposed draft guidelines. As this example illustrates, intensive staffing time is needed in order to analyze the need for a comprehensive shoreline environmental re-designation based on best available science. The study of the 27-mile area cost approximately $750 per mile of saltwater shoreline, without analysis of upland uses of the shoreline jurisdiction within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark; such analysis of the upland uses would be a major added cost to this estimate" Complexitv of Inventory Needs In Jefferson County there are approximately 202 miles of saltwater shoreline, 251 miles of river and/or stream shoreline and 14 miles oflake shoreline in state or private ownership. In addition there are 47 miles of saltwater shoreline and 116 miles ofriver and/or stream shoreline Vvithin the Olympic National Park. We are unable to detennine what the costs are to conduct a comparable study along freshwater shoreline such as reaches of creeks and rivers. Costs can be decreased if no field work is conducted, but proposed changes to shoreline environment designations must be justified with supporting field work. Local jurisdictions would not be following be Best Available Science without site visit verifications. ~YOL 25 6~"'8 . r ~E~ - . Comments on the Proposed Shoreline Management Act Guidelines Page: 3 The proposed guidelines indicate that local jurisdictions may utilize available infonnation in conducting its inventories. For the 27-mile shoreline inventory study, Jefferson County used aerial photos from Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology to aid in data collection, but again, it takes local staff to look at and apply the infonnation of the available data to local issues. It is possible that local jurisdictions will be able to obtain some infonnation, such as natural history features of shorelines of the state, gathered by Department ofFish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology. However, information on development activities (i.e.: zoning) requires research by the local government. Amending Local SMPs an Added Cost When Jefferson County recently amended its SNlP for only an 'administrative and definition' update, the costs to the County for this relatively simple SNlP amendment, including printing, publishing public notice, and stafTmg of public meetings, was approximately $7,000. However, a comprehensive SNlP amendment would require a significant more staffing, publishing and public outreach costs. Using the cost estimate derived from the recent inventory of 27-miles of shoreline, Jefferson County predicts that the price tag to inventory the shoreline of the entire county, as required by the proposed guidelines, 'would cost from $350,000 to several million dollars. This estimate does not include those administrative costs of amending ordinances such as were incurred during the Jefferson County 1998 S"MP amendments. Limits of applicability of inventory information Jefferson County is a rural county \vith many miles of undeveloped shoreline currently designated as "conservancy". Thus, for Jefferson County to inventory all of the county shoreline, much information may be obtained which will reveal more detail about the shoreline characteristics, but such infonnation will have little pertinent application to changing the current designations. Furthennore, when a pennit application for a shoreline development project is submitted to the county, the county requires studies (e-g_: eelgrass survey, geotechnical report) to be conducted for the subject proposal relative to the property- Jefferson County is not suggesting that such studies for distinct propenies replace a comprehensive inventory, but notes that even with a completed inventory of general shoreline features individual property owners will still be subject to these requirements when applying for a shoreline pennit. Local Control The spirit of the original SMA was to allow each local jurisdiction the opportunity to tailor its SNlP to the community's needs based on the public process- In contrast, the proposed guidelines leave little room for deviation, as many aspects of the rules are highly prescriptive in nature with specific restrictions on land-use activities within the shoreline jurisdiction. Redesignating shoreline environments as defined in the new guidelines will potentially 'down-zone' many privately-owned properties. This will require full public disclosure and a public participation process which must be conducted within its locally defined procedures. The proposed rules must allow for greater flexibility based on local conditions and account for the time and expense that is required for a local government to complete a comprehensive SNlP re-\vrite. ~ VOL 2 5 (..:5~'9 ¡',~G~ Ù' . . Comments on the Proposed Shoreline Management Act Guidelines Page: 4 Best Available Science and Salmon Recovery WAC 173-26-0-20 Definitions (6) Best Available Science - states, in part, the following: "For the purposes of this chapter, best available science shall mean conformance to RCW 90.58.100(1) and 36.70A.172 in addition to the characteristics listed above. " [emphasis added] The proposed guidelines add 17 new points to the teun 'Best Available Science' (BAS). The definition of BAS found in the proposed guidelines is not consistent with the recently (July 23, 1999) released draft BAS rule from Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Jefferson County is concerned that the BAS rule has not been faunally adopted by the legislature and therefore, Jefferson County recommends that the SMA proposed guidelines cite by reference the future BAS rule and that a different definition for the same tenninology not be adopted. Jefferson County supports the notion that the proposed SMA guidelines be consistent with salmon recovery and best available science. How will this occur if salmon recovery rules have not been adopted? Where will the necessary funding be found for implementation? Shoreline .Manal!ement Act and the Growth Manal!ement Act Jefferson County agrees that the SMA should be consistent with GMA; however, the rural counties should not be left with the costs of conserving designated natural resource lands, including the shoreline resources, while the more intensively developed urban counties continue business as usual. We understand that the Department of Ecology appointed a Shoreline Guidelines Commission to assist in drafting the proposed guidelines. The Commission did an excellent job in getting the draft SMA out for public review, but after careful examination of the composition of this advisory board Jefferson County notes that few, if any, ofthe rural communities were represented on the Shoreline Guidelines Commission. This lack of rural community input is apparent in the proposed guidelines; only two different shoreline designation choices are available for rural jurisdictions. The proposed guidelines do not allow much variability in environmental designations for those jurisdictions outside Urban Growth Areas. If Jefferson County were to apply the proposed designations to its shoreline at this time, the only available designations under the proposed new guidelines outside of Port Townsend and Port Ludlow are --Natural" and "Rural Conservancy". What does The Department of Ecology propose within the guidelines for addressing the economic needs of rural communities? Are there adequate provisions for protection and/or endorsement of water- dependent (i.e.: aquaculture production) businesses and small-scale enterprises along the rural shorelines? Conclusion In conclusion Jefferson County is certain the scope of the mandated guidelines, which the Department proposes, will have a significant impact on local jurisdiction staff time and resources. Jefferson County is suggesting that the SMA guidelines require shoreline inventory only where development activities have significantly increased in the last 20 years or where environmental designations are proposed to be changed from less intensive to more intensive. , .~, ?5 r~r;~660 " - , .' Comments on the Proposed Shoreline Management Act Guidelines Page: 5 Jefferson County supports the concept that SMA guidelines be consistent with both salmon recovery plans and best available science. Jefferson County also supports any inventory data the state agencies can assist local governments with in obtaining and implementing for planning along the shoreline. Jefferson County suggests that The Department of Ecology, in response to the comments received on the proposed rules, reconvene the Shoreline Guidelines Commission to consider further amendments to the rules and that this Commission includes adequate representation from rural jurisdictions. Thank you for consideration of our comments, we look forward to working further with the Department in foD11ing a workable solution for these issues on incorporation into the new SMA guidelines. szr;4 Dan Harpole, ~ & c((~untin BOCC/lm cc: Jim Buck, State Representative Jim Hargrove, State Senator Lynn Kessler, State Representative :. VOL 25 6."':)'~ , rA~~ - 0.1