HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff report jones apr 24
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development ) PROPOSED FINDINGS,
Application ) CONCLUSIONS, AND
) RECOMMENDATIONS
File Number: SDP23-00023
Applicant: Christian Jones, 312401 Highway 101, Brinnon, Washington 98320
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Application: Shoreline substantial development permit application and flood development permit application to raise oysters using suspended tumble bags in McDonald Cove. Bag culture
oysters would be grown in mesh bags that are staked to the bottom. Stakes will be about one foot to two feet above the intertidal substrate and floats will suspend the mesh bags.
Seeding of Manila clams is proposed, and per JCC 18.25.440(4)(c), seeding shall not be considered development (and therefore does not require a shoreline substantial development permit).
The applicants submitted a habitat survey report, which states no eelgrass or kelp is present in the project area. This is an ‘after-the-fact’ application as the shellfish farm has
been operating since fall 2018 and shellfish harvested are for commercial sales. The proposal is subject to review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the applicant
submitted an Environmental Checklist.
Regulatory Authority: JCC 18.25.020 states that uses and developments, as defined in Article II of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), shall comply with the program
if the proposed activity is within shoreline jurisdiction. Aquaculture is included in Article II (JCC 18.25.100(1)(bb)) and is, therefore, subject to SMP policies, prohibitions, and
regulations. Per Table JCC 18.25.220 and JCC 18.25.440(3)(a) and (c) this application is to be reviewed as a Type III Shoreline Substantial Development permit.
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Location: The proposal would be located in McDonald Cove in Brinnon.
Project Area Conditions: The farm is located in an intertidal zone along Hood Canal and the substrate in the cove is mostly rock, sand, mud, and shell rubble. The cove is immediately
adjacent to resource lands and residential parcels. Highway 101 bounds the cove to the north, west, and south, with the open water of Hood Canal to the east.
Shoreline Designation: Pursuant to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program the shoreline designation below OHWM is Priority Aquatic. The adjacent shoreland is designated as Natural.
Comprehensive Plan: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (adopted December 10, 2018) states that the goals, policies, and regulations of the SMP are considered part of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Date of Application: The shoreline application for a shellfish farm was submitted to the county on December 1, 2023. The application was deemed complete on February 6, 2024, as per
JCC 18.40.110(4).
Site Visit: No site visit was made to the project area as part of the current application review.
State Environmental Policy Act Review: The proposal is subject to review under SEPA. A Determination of Non-significance was issued by Jefferson County on April 1, 2024 (Exhibit 9).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with the Type III permitting process, the application with SEPA was noticed as was the public hearing.
Notice of Application: The application was noticed on February 14, 2024:
Published in The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader on February 14, 2024 (Exhibits 4 and 5);
Posted on the property on February 13, 2024 (Exhibit 4);
Sent to agencies and tribes on February 14, 2024 (Exhibit 4); and
Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on February 13, 2024 (Exhibit 4).
Comments Received: DCD received one comment from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. This letter stated that a Hydraulic Project Approval would not be required and that the
applicant previously obtained state approvals pertaining to health of aquaculture products.
Staff Comment: Comment noted.
Notice of Public Hearing: The public hearing was noticed on April 24, 2024:
Published in The Port Townsend/Jefferson County Leader on April 24, 2024 (Exhibit 12);
Posted on the property on April 23, 2022 (Exhibit 13);
Sent to commenters on April 24, 2024 (Exhibit 12); and
Sent to all property owners within 300 feet on April 23, 2024 (Exhibit 12).
JEFFERSON COUNTY APPROVALS REQUIRED/APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
The proposal was reviewed against all relevant requirements, specifically:
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 10, 2018; and
Jefferson County Code, Title 18 – Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000 and effective January 16, 2001, as amended, including Chapter 18.25 JCC (SMP).
STAFF FINDINGS
The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Code, including the Shoreline Master
Program.
Proposal. The applicant is proposing to grow and harvest oysters and to seed clams in McDonald Cove. Tumble bags will be used to grow the oysters.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals and policies of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The shoreline goal (EN-G-4)
states: Implement
Chapter 18.25 JCC to protect shoreline functions and processes while allowing appropriate development and uses within the shorelines of Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program) and is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan goal and the policies of ensuring the
proposal complies with SMP goals and policies (Policy EN-P-4.1) and working cooperatively with Ecology (Policy EN-P-4.2).
Jefferson County Code - Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC). The proposed development is within shoreline jurisdiction and is subject to the critical area regulations specified in Chapter
18.22 JCC. The application was reviewed for the potential presence of critical areas under the provisions of the Unified Development Code. After an initial Geographic Information
System mapping review, the following critical areas were determined have the potential to be present in the project area: fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (marine water
serves as a primary association for listed fish species) and frequently flooded areas.
Staff Comment: McDonald Cove is regulated as a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area. The applicant submitted a Habitat Survey Report prepared by Marine Surveys & Assessments.
This report states that no eelgrass or kelp occurs in the project area.
The proposal will be located in an area mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (panel 53031C0165C) as Zone AE. The proposed project requires a flood
development permit, which is incorporated into the shoreline permit. The proposal meets the definition of development, but not structure, in JCC 15.15.050. For local permitting, the
proposal must comply with the Biological Opinion (BiOp). One way to meet the BiOp requirements is through the federal permitting process. Since this proposal requires a permit from
the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), compliance with the Endangered Species Act and with the BiOp will be met. To ensure compliance with the BiOp, a condition of approval includes
the requirement to obtain the Corps permit prior to beginning any work on this project.
The proposal was noticed to federal and state agencies and to tribes. DCD did not receive comments from agencies or tribes that would indicate listed species or eelgrass habitat would
be adversely affected by the proposal.
Jefferson County Code - Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25 JCC). The proposal is subject to all applicable policies and regulations of the Jefferson County SMP.
Staff Comment: The proposal is subject to following sections of the SMP:
JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture
JCC 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria
JCC 18.25.230 through 18.25.250 (Article V) Shorelines of statewide significance
JCC 18.25.270 through 18.25.320 (Article VI) General policies and regulations
Each of these sections of the SMP are addressed below.
JCC 18.25.440(1) presents polices pertaining to aquaculture. The following policies are applicable to this proposal:
(a) Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health
of Jefferson County.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy.
(b) The county should support aquaculture uses and developments that:
(i) Protect and improve water quality; and
(ii) Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and
(iii) Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and
(iv) Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resulting from in-water structures/apparatus/equipment, land-based facilities, and substrate disturbance/modification
(including rate, frequency, and spatial extent).
Staff Comment: The proposal would be expected to protect, and possibly improve, water quality in the bay. No upland facilities are proposed in nearshore habitats. McDonald Cove is
a small body of water and boats would be expected to use Hood Canal, not the cove. However, if the permit is approved, normal public use of the cove by kayakers could continue. Cumulative
impacts within the cove are not likely to occur as the applicant owns the property between the cove and Highway 101 along the south side and agencies (Washington Department of Transportation
and Jefferson County) own the strips of land along the north side of the cove, neither of which would be expected to propose aquaculture. This policy has been met.
(d) Aquaculture use and development should locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as tidal currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Individual aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to ensure that significant adverse cumulative effects do not occur.
Staff Comment: Based on information submitted by the applicant, conditions at the proposed location are appropriate and no cumulative impacts would be expected.
(j) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including shellfish habitat conservation areas are critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private
tidelands and bedlands are allowed uses. Such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this policy.
JCC 18.25.440(2) present uses and activities prohibited outright. This section of the SMP pertains to in-water finfish aquaculture.
Staff Comment: In-water finfish aquaculture is not proposed.
JCC 18.25.440(3) identifies shoreline environmental designation regulations for aquaculture:
(a) Priority Aquatic. Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject o the use and development regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment, except all finfish aquaculture
(in-water and upland) is prohibited.
(c) Natural. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional
use permit (C(d)). All finfish aquaculture is prohibited, except in-water finfish aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)) where the area within the county’s
jurisdiction extends seaward more than eight miles from the OHWM, as measured perpendicularly from shore. This does not require facilities to locate eight miles offshore; see other
provisions of this section for siting requirements and supplemental maps for additional information.
Staff Comment: This proposal is being processed as an application for a shoreline substantial development permit and is consistent with the above regulations.
JCC 18.25.440(4) presents the shoreline regulations for aquaculture:
(a) When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility
or farm. If the initial approval is a shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five years with a possible one-year extension. If the initial approval
is a conditional use permit, it shall be valid for the period specified in the permit.
Staff Comment: The shoreline permit is valid for five years.
(b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development,
and shall not require a new permit, unless or until:
(i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than 25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the
conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the amount of expansion
or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10-year period, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requirements
of this section; or.
(ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington.
Staff Comment: Not applicable: the proposal is for a new aquaculture use.
(c) Aquaculture uses and activities involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered
development, as defined in Article II of this chapter, and shall not require a shoreline substantial development permit, unless:
(i) The activity substantially interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or
(ii) The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article II of this chapter; or
(iii) The activity involves dredging using mechanical equipment such as clamshell, dipper, or scraper; or
(iv) The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands.
Staff Comment: Installation of tumble bags to raise oysters requires a shoreline substantial development permit; however, seeding of Manila clams does not require a shoreline permit.
(d) The county shall assess the potential for interference described in subsection (3)(c) of this section on a case-by-case basis. All proposed new aquaculture uses or developments
shall submit a joint aquatic permit application (JARPA) and SEPA checklist to enable assessment by the county. Activities shall not be considered to substantially interfere with normal
public use of surface waters, unless:
(i) They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public tidelands; and
(ii) They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar apparatus on a regular basis and in a manner that substantially obstructs public access, or passage from
public facilities such as parks or boat ramps; or they exclude the public from more than one acre of surface water on an ongoing or permanent basis.
Staff Comment: The proposal would not be expected to substantially obstruct public access or passage on a regular basis. A JARPA and a SEPA checklist were submitted and the proposal
does not appear to substantially interfere with the ability of the public to use surface waters.
(e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail to meet any of the criteria in subsection (1)(b) of this section shall require
a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP) or conditional use (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following regulations:
(i) Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with aquaculture use shall be located, designed, and maintained to avoid adverse effects on ecological
functions and processes.
(ii) The county shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to prevent adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining land uses.
The county shall determine what constitutes acceptable placement and concentration of commercial aquaculture in consultation with state and federal agencies and tribes based on the
specific characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility.
(iii) Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not require a waterside location or have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers
required by this program.
(iv) Overwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture use/development shall be prohibited.
(v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed 10 feet in height above the water’s surface. The administrator may approve hoists and similar structures
greater than 10 feet in height when there is a clear demonstration of need. The 10-foot height limit shall not apply to vessels.
(vi) Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in order to
minimize visual impacts.
(vii) Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation or access to adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. Mitigation
shall be provided to offset such impacts where there is a high probability that adverse impacts would occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required
to provide access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners.
(viii) Aquaculture uses and developments, except in-water finfish aquaculture, shall be located at least 600 feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion haulouts, seabird
nesting colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas for birds and mammals. In-water finfish facilities, including net pens, shall be located 1,500 feet
or more from such areas. The county may approve lesser distances based upon written documentation that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) and affected tribes support the proposed location.
(ix) Aquaculture uses and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse impacts to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp), and eelgrass beds are avoided.
(x) Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or bottomlands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance to substrate.
(xi) Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such as boat launches or docks, the county shall reserve the right to require the applicant/proponent
to pay a portion of the maintenance costs and any required improvements commensurate with the applicant’s/proponent’s use.
(xii) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to control birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations.
(xiii) Aquaculture use and development shall avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and genetically modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law.
(xiv) Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and development shall be used whenever possible and area lighting shall be avoided and minimized to the extent
necessary to conduct safe operations. Non-navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel traffic.
(xv) Aquaculture waste materials and by-products shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposal standards, including
but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW).
Staff Comment: The following addresses subsections (i) through (xv):
(i) The biological report states that no kelp or eelgrass occurs in the project area so the proposal is minimizing impacts to the shoreline environment. This proposal is subject to
review under SEPA and DCD did not receive any comments from federal or state agencies or from tribal representatives that would indicate the proposal may have adverse effects on the
shoreline environment if placed at this location.
(ii) Cumulative impacts are expected to be negligible. The applicant owns the narrow strip of land between McDonald Cove and Highway 101 along the south side of the cove and neither
of the property owners to the west and north (WSDOT and Jefferson County) would be expected to propose aquaculture in the cove.
(iii) No new upland structures or other development are proposed and no accessory structures are proposed below OHWM.
(iv) Not applicable as overwater shelters and sleep areas are not proposed.
(v) Rebar will be used to set the tumble bags, and the maximum height is expected to be one foot to two feet above the substrate. No portion of the proposal will be more than 10 feet
above the surface of the water.
(vi) Based on the information submitted, no visual impacts would be expected. A permit condition will be added to ensure compliance with this regulation.
(vii) The proposal is not expected to materially interfere with navigation, access to waterfront properties or public recreational areas so no mitigation was required. Recreationists
can still access
the cove, while bigger boats would be expected to use Hood Canal, which is immediately adjacent to the cove. The proposal will not affect access to waterfront properties.
(viii) The proposal is not within 600 feet of a National Wildlife Refuge, haul out location, nesting colony, or critical feeding and migration areas. DCD did not receive any comments
during noticing that would indicate such areas are present in or near the project area.
(ix) The proposal avoids kelp and native eelgrass. Kelp is not mapped in the project area on the Ecology Coastal Atlas nor was it identified in the project area by project biologists.
Eelgrass is mapped along the shoreline north of the project area on the Ecology Coastal Atlas but is not present in the intertidal area where the tumble bags are located.
(x) Rebar will be used with the tumble bags.
(xi) The proposal does not include using public boat launches, but a condition has been added in the event that public boat launches may be needed.
(xii) Lethal and/or harmful means of controlling birds and mammals are not proposed, and the permit is conditioned to prohibit lethal and harmful predator control.
(xiii) Chemical controls, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms are not proposed, and to ensure compliance with this regulation, the permit is conditioned to prohibit the use
of these substances unless allowed by state and federal law.
(xiv) Area lighting is not proposed and the permit is conditioned to direct lights during night work towards the substrate. No noticeable light or glare is expected from this project.
(xv) A permit condition is added to ensure that all unnecessary gear is removed from the project area and disposed of at an approved off-site facility.
(f) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging aquaculture use and development or bottom culture involving structures, the county may require a visual analysis prepared by the
applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas
are effectively mitigated.
Staff Comment: The proposal would be located in a quiet cove where few other residences, boaters, or drivers (in vehicles) would see the tumble bags. Recreational uses (such as kayaking
or bird watching) can continue if this proposal is approved. This proposal is not expected to have adverse impacts on the character of areas in the vicinity of the project area and
no visual analysis was required.
JCC 18.25.440(6)(a) and (b) present application requirements for aquaculture.
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted all information needed to show compliance with SMP requirements. As noted above, the proposal is not expected to adversely affect the character
of the area.
JCC 18.25.540 presents substantial development permit criteria: To be authorized, all uses and developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this
program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use
permit is required.
Staff Comment: The application was reviewed against all applicable sections of the SMP.
JCC 18.25.230(1) states: In accordance with RCW 90.58.020, the county shall manage shorelines of statewide significance in accordance with this section and in accordance with this program
as a whole. Preference shall be given to uses that are consistent with the statewide interest in such shorelines. Uses that are not consistent with this section or do not comply with
the other applicable policies and regulations of this program shall not be permitted on shorelines of statewide significance.
Staff Comment: The proposal is a preferred use and is consistent with statewide interests. For this reason, the department is recommending approval with conditions.
JCC 18.25.230(2) provides requirements for approving a use or development within a shoreline of statewide significance:
(a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.
Staff Comment: As stated in JCC 18.25.440(1)(a), aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest. This proposal is consistent with the above-referenced
policy and this requirement.
(b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
Staff Comment: The natural character of the shoreline is not expected to be altered by this proposal.
(c) Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
Staff Comment: The long-term benefit is the use of the shoreline for a preferred, water-dependent commercial development. RCW 90.58.020 allows alteration of the natural shoreline condition
for this type of shoreline use. The proposal is for a commercial farm, which has the potential to result in long-term economic benefits.
(d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not expected substantively alter shoreline resources or ecological conditions. Any disturbances to sediments in the shoreline environment to install
the tumble bags would would expected to settle in close proximity to the rebar. Eelgrass is not expected to be affected by the proposal.
(e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
Staff Comment: This proposal is not intended to increase public access. It should be noted this proposal, if approved, would not limit the ability of the public to access to the cove
for recreational purposes.
(f) Increase recreational opportunities of the public in the shorelines.
Staff Comment: The proposal is not intended to increase recreational opportunities, but those that currently exist would be able to continue.
(g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100.
Staff Comment: This RCW pertains to SMP contents and provisions; the proposal is consistent with this section of the RCW.
JCC 18.25.240 designates shorelines of statewide significance.
Staff Comment: The proposal location meets subsection (2), which includes the waters of Hood Canal between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme low tide south of the
line between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff.
JCC 18.25.250 presents use preferences within shorelines of statewide significance.
(1) When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist;
Staff Comment: Restoration or enhancement is not proposed. However, the proposal has the potential to improve water quality.
(2) State and federal resource agencies, co-managers, and tribes, shall be consulted for development proposals that affect anadromous fish, shellfish, marine birds, and other shoreline
resources;
Staff Comment: The proposal was noticed to allow input from other agencies and interested parties. No comments were received from federal or state agencies or from tribal staff that
would indicate shoreline resources may be adversely affected by the proposal if all permits are obtained and all permit conditions are followed.
(3) Areas that are subject to commercial timber harvest pursuant to the Forest Practices Act and RCW 90.58.150 should be reforested as soon as possible and in accordance with the Forest
Practices Act and the Forest and Fish Report.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal.
(4) Uses that are sustainable, that do not deplete natural resources, and that are compatible with other approved uses shall be preferred over uses that do not have these qualities;
Staff Comment: Aquaculture is a preferred use and is assumed to be consistent with this provision of the SMP.
(5) Uses that provide long-term benefits shall be preferred over uses that provide only short-term gains;
Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal would provide long-term economic benefits and would be expected to provide some level of water quality improvements.
(6) Uses that preserve aesthetic qualities shall be preferred over uses that impact aesthetic qualities;
Staff Comment: The proposal will extend up to two feet above the water line and is not expected to impact aesthetic qualities if the proposal is approved.
(7) Uses that require a shoreline location shall be preferred over non-water-related uses. Non-water-related uses should be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction or in areas where
they will not interfere with or displace preferred uses or public access;
Staff Comment: This aquaculture proposal requires a shoreline location.
(8) Commercial shellfish beds, areas that support recreation and tourism, and other economic resources of statewide importance shall be protected;
Staff Comment: The proposed aquaculture farm would be an economic resource.
(9) Uses that have the potential to cause significant erosion and sedimentation due to excavation, land clearing, or other activities shall be strictly regulated to prevent adverse
impacts to shoreline functions and processes;
Staff Comment: Excavation and land clearing are not proposed.
(10) All public access and recreation use and development shall be designed to protect the ecological resources upon which such activities depend; and
Staff Comment: Public access and recreation are not proposed.
(11) Public and private development shall be encouraged to provide trails, viewpoints, water access points and water-related recreation opportunities where conditions are appropriate
for such uses.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to aquaculture applications.
JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection.
Staff Comment: A biological report was submitted to address ecological protection. No development is proposed in shoreline buffers.
JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources.
Staff Comment: The proposal was sent to Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and to tribes. No comments were received so the proposal is assumed to be consistent
with this requirement.
JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access.
Staff Comment: Aquaculture proposals are not required to provide public access.
JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height.
Staff Comment: Not applicable to this proposal.
JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation.
Staff Comment: The proposal avoids native eelgrass and is consistent with this provision. No alteration of vegetation above OHWM is proposed.
JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity.
Staff Comment: Intertidal areas may be disturbed to install the rebar and tumble bags, but water quality and quantity would not be negatively affected by this proposal. There may be
some water quality improvement in the vicinity of the project area once the farm is operational.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
Based on the above findings, staff recommended conditions are presented below. These conditions may be modified by the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner and the Washington State Department
of Ecology.
The permittee shall obtain final approval from Washington State Department of Ecology prior to beginning any work on this aquaculture proposal.
Work within jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as described above shall receive separate review from this Department.
The permittee is authorized to construct and operate an oyster farm on up to 11,000 square feet.
Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the issuance of the permit
Flood hazard reduction measures shall be used in compliance with the Jefferson County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 15.15 of the Jefferson County Code.
To comply with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Biological Opinion, the permittee shall comply with all conditions in federal permits, including those that pertain to protection
of federally-listed species.
If public boat launches are used, the applicants shall negotiate all applicable fees with the public entity, including maintenance.
Chemicals and fertilizers are prohibited.
Active predator control was not proposed and is not approved for this aquaculture farm. Non-lethal pest control techniques shall be used.
Toxic compounds shall not be used or come in contact with the marine environment.
Aquaculture activities will be timed so that forage fish and spawning habitats are not disturbed.
All aquaculture gear shall be stored at an upland site and transported to the project area when ready to be used. Equipment and unnecessary gear shall not be stored on the tidelands.
The permittee shall ensure that proper disposal of gear and trash occurs. Gear that is not immediately needed shall be removed from the project area. All excess or unsecured materials
and trash shall be removed from the project area prior to the next incoming tide.
The permittee shall ensure workers are adequately trained so that the aquaculture use complies with all biological reports submitted to the county and with all permit conditions intended
to protect the natural shoreline environment.
Prepared by Project Planner Donna Frostholm April 24, 2024.
ATTACHMENT A:
EXIBIT LIST