Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-335 co 6vt~ \IV'tb t~"vt~ Michelle McConnell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Bill Dewey [BiIID@taylorshellfish.com] Friday, January 30, 2009 4:20 PM Michelle McConnell Taylor Shellfish Comments on 12/3/08 Jefferson County SMP Update 12/3/08 Draft Taylor Shellfish January 30 2009 comments on 12-3-08 SMP draft.pdf; image001.jpg 2t1uj @ Michelle, Attached are comments from Taylor Shellfish on the 12/3/08 Draft of the Jefferson County SMP Update. Have a great weekend! Bi// Dewey Taylor Shellfish Company 130 SE Lynch Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Phone (360) 426-6178 Direct line (360) 432-3334 Fax (360) 432-3344 Cellular (360) 790-2330 www.taylorshellfish.com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 January 30, 2009 Taylor Shellfish Farms Michelle McConnell Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Comments on Jefferson County SMP Update 12/3/08 Draft Taylor Shellfish is based in Shelton, Washington. The Taylor family has been farming shellfish in Washington since 1890. The company employs about 400 people here in Washington State. 40-45 of those employees work in Jefferson County on our clam and oyster farm on the Dosewallips tideflats and at our hatchery on Dabob Bay. From the hatchery in Dabob Bay we supply seed to all of our farms as well as numerous other shellfish companies on the West Coast of the US and Canada and elsewhere around the world. Shellfish culture has a long history in Jefferson County providing critical employment in rural areas. We appreciate the hard work staff and the ST AC and SP AC committee members have put into strengthening the SMP. It is an unenviable challenge finding the balance between protecting our shorelines, preserving economic opportunity and not trampling on property rights. While not perfect, I would like to applaud the efforts to date to find that balance. Without question, there are a number of changes that will enhance protection of the County's shoreline environments and water quality and from that standpoint, ensure shellfish culture has a future in the county. We are troubled however by some of the changes to aquaculture regulations that in our opinion will unnecessarily stifle growth of the industry. With wild fisheries tapped out and per capita consumption of seafood on the rise there is an unprecedented demand for our farmed shellfish products. Taylor Shellfish Company is the largest producer of farmed shellfish on the West Coast and perhaps in the country. Despite our best efforts we have not been able to increase production rapidly enough to meet this demand. This could be a tremendous opportunity for Jefferson County's economy. Due in large part to the regulatory climate here in Washington State, Taylor Shellfish has gone north to British Columbia to expand production and keep up with demand. Over the past few years Taylor Shellfish has spent $15 million purchasing existing shellfish farms in Canada. This represents investment and about 100 jobs that could have been here in Washington iflocal governments had policy and regulations that encouraged rather than stifled that opportunity. Towns in British Columbia and other countries around the world contact Taylors on regular basis, wooing us to come locate where they are. The only contact we've had from local and state government here in Washington is about the Taylor Shellfish Comments on 1213/08 Jefferson County SMP Update 12/3/08 Draft Page 2 latest regulation being passed to make it more difficult to operate here. As a natural resource dependent county, Jefferson County should be embracing and facilitating the growth of shellfish aquaculture particularly in light of the current economic situation. Even during difficult economic times people still need to eat and so far, demand for shellfish remains strong. Geoduck aquaculture in particular is an immediate opportunity for Jefferson County. Instead of embracing that opportunity, the draft SMP singles geoduck farming out for an added layer of regulation with a requirement for conditional use permits. There have been some concerns raised regarding environmental impacts of certain aspects of the farming process. However, all of the research to date suggests any impacts are minor and short term. If impacts are identified by ongoing research, Taylors and other shellfish growers are committed to adaptive management and adjusting practices to respond to the research results. We rely on a healthy environment to produce our shellfish. We would not have survived for over 100 years if we made a practice of destroying the healthy ecosystems we rely on. Requiring a conditional use permit for geoduck culture in the Conservancy environment is particularly inappropriate in light of the guidance provided in WAC 173-26-211. According to this rule, the purpose of the Conservancy designation is to provide, among other things, for sustained resource use. Aquaculture is one of the uses specifically called out in the rule as appropriate for this designation. If Jefferson County requires a CUP for aquaculture uses, it should require a CUP for low-impact outdoor recreation uses, timber harvesting, agricultural uses, residential development, and other natural resource-based low-intensity uses. This requirement is not consistent with the Goals and Policies framed earlier in the document; those Goals and Policies are appropriately supportive of aquaculture. We are particularly troubled by Article 8 D.8. It is inappropriate to flat out deny a permit if a project may interfere with public use of the surface water. With more and more shoreline deveiopment, it may eventually become impossible riot to interfere in some way with the public's use of the surface water. Consistent with a recent attorney general's opinion, AGO 2007 No.1, that potential interference should be the trigger for requiring a substantial development permit, not for denying one. There are lots of water-dependent uses that materially interfere with the public's normal use ofthe surface water that are allowed with substantial development permits. Docks are one example that comes to mind. These shoreline substantial development permits are conditioned so as to minimize that interference, but the use is allowed, not prohibited. Ecology's Shoreline Guidelines provide some guidance here, requiring that preference be given first to water-dependent uses, then to water-related uses and water-enjoyment uses. Shellfish aquaculture is clearly a water-dependent use. The public's normal use of the surface water in my mind typically would fall into the water-related or water-enjoyment categories. SE 130 Lynch Rd., Shelton, WA 98584 www.taylorshellfish.com Taylor Shellfish Comments on 12/3/08 Jefferson County SMP Update 12/3/08 Draft Page 3 Article 8 D.l needs to be clarified such that it is absolutely clear that the shoreline permit is only for the initial siting and construction of the farm. On-going operations, including seeding of even the initial crops should not require coverage by a shoreline permit. Depending on the size of the farm and the crop being planted it may not be practical to get all ofthe farm seeded with an initial crop within the first five years. For example, the production of geoduck seed is very inconsistent and unpredictable. It is also very expensive. These variables may make it impossible to complete seeding initial crops within a five year time period. The reason we ask this be made absolutely clear is that we have been in legal proceedings for two years now and precluded from planting new crops during these proceedings on a geoduck farm we obtained a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for in Pierce County. The county issued the permit and told us repeatedly no permit was required for ongoing operation of the farm, but then seven years later reversed their position when pressured by nearby shoreline owners. After seven years of annually planting crops that take 5 years to mature, we were notified by the county that the permit had expired and we needed a new one to continue operations. With millions of dollars at stake, the fate of this farm and our investment remains in the courts. It appears that these more stringent aquaculture regulations are in response to increasing complaints from shoreline owners associated with shellfish culture activities. We've noticed an increase in such complaints as shoreline properties adjacent to our farms have filled in with residential development. Along with the complaints have come water quality problems from failing septic systems and stormwater runoff. Some of the use conflict related complaints have also come as Taylors and other shellfish growers have expanded operations in Pierce County in particular to areas that have not traditionally had commercial shellfish culture. Clearly it is incumbent on the county to have reasonable regulations to ensure shellfish farming practices are responsible, stormwater runoff is controlled, and septic systems maintained. In our opinion, it is also important for the county to conduct a comprehensive planning process to identify and protect existing and prospective commercial shellfish growing areas. One possible tool for doing this is the Growth Management Act. The County's comprehensive plan identifies shellfish beds as resource lands oflong term significance. Unfortunately they've not acted on this to establish criteria for identifying the shellfish lands and designating them on zoning maps. If they were to take this next step, it could alleviate some of the use conflicts we're experiencing by informing property owners adjacent to such lands oftheir existence and the types of activities that might be expected to occur there. If tidelands were designated for commercial shellfish culture we would hope that over time the County would also ensure adequate septic and stormwater regulations were in place to preserve the commercial shellfish culture use. Ironically, I am writing these comments as I fly back from a week in Washington DC meeting with our Congressional Delegation and NOAA about encouraging comprehensive aquaculture planning for state and local governments in the federal legislation reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act. I have attached the briefmg SE 130 Lynch Rd., Shelton, WA 98584 www.taylorshellfish.com Taylor Shellfish Comments on 1213/08 Jefferson County SMP Update 12/3/08 Draft Page 4 paper we've been distributing this past week to emphasize my point. We're making this effort because our preference is to continue our growth and expansion in Washington state rather than Canada and other countries. The Department of Commerce and NOAA both have strong policies to dramatically increase domestic aquaculture production. The United States imports 80% of its seafood, 50% of which is aquaculture generated. Until steps are taken to address coastal water quality degradation and shoreline user conflicts, the bulk of the country's shellfish will continue to be imported and Taylor Shellfish Company will continue our expansion efforts elsewhere. Jefferson County's update of their Shoreline Master Program represents an opportunity to embrace shellfish aquaculture and reverse this trend. The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association has submitted detailed comments which we ask be considered carefully along with ours and comments from other shellfish producers. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for the County's considerable effort to date on this amendment process. Sincerely, Bill Dewey Taylor Shellfish Company SE 130 Lynch Rd., Shelton, WA 98584 www.taylorshellfish.com Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association January 2009 Use Conflicts in ShellfISh Growine Areas/CZMA Reauthorization Back!!round Shoreline development adversely impacts shellfish culture in coastal areas. The U.S. West Coast shellfish farming industry annually generates and estimated $110 million worth of shellfish. Commercial shellfish growers increasingly face degraded water quality on their farms and use conflict complaints that result from expanding residential development along the shorelines. This trend can be reversed through comprehensive state planning for shellfish aquaculture. Such planning should include appropriate marine and shoreline zoning, sewage and stormwater regulations to address use conflicts and adverse impacts of shoreline development. According to NOAA the total population of coastal watersheds in 2000 was approximately 127 million people (or 45 percent) ofthe national population. This represents a growth of24 million people since 1980. NOAA estimates the nation's coastal population is expected to increase by more than 7 million by 2008 and 12 million by 2015. Washington State's Puget Sound watershed, one of the most valuable shellfish producing areas in the country is expecting 1.4 million more people by 2020. The Department of Commerce aquaculture policy, NOAA's aquaculture policy, the National Aquaculture Act and NOAA's recently released 10 Year Plan for Marine Aquaculture all call for substantial increases in marine aquaculture production. The U.S. shellfish industry has considerable capacity to assist in accomplishing this national priority but only if we can maintain adequate water quality and address use conflicts associated with coastal development. In 2006 and 2007, the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), in partnership with the Coastal States Organization (CSO), conducted a project to identify future improvements to coastal management. The project called Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management sought ideas for legislative changes through an improved Coastal Zone Management Act, as well as administrative improvements. NOAA's Marine Fish Advisory Committee (MAFAC) has deliberated aquaculture extensively. At MAF AC' s request former NOAA Assistant Administrator Bill Hogarth a year ago conveyed to Vice Admiral Lautenbacher and senior NOAA management the importance of including aquaculture as one of the national priorities for states to include in management plans being considered as an outcome of the Envisioning the Future of Coastal Management project. The Adminstration' s CZMA reauthorization bill has yet to be introduced. The 10/13/08 CSO draft bill does not specifically call out planning for marine aquaculture development. Our Request: Include the requirement for comprehensive shellfISh aquaculture planning in state waters in a re-authorized Coastal Zone Management Plan. Encourage states to undertake such planning regardless of the status of CZMA re-authorization. This comprehensive planning should include marine and shoreline zoning, land use development, septic and stormwater regulations to address the use conflicts and water quality issues threatening the survival and precluding the expansion of shellfish aquaculture.