The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-343 o~ M~MCCOnnell From: Sent: To: Cc: Steve Todd [stodd@pnptc.org] Friday, January 30, 2009 2:05 PM Michelle McConnell 'Byron Rot'; 'Scott Chitwood'; 'Hans Daubenberger'; 'Paul McCollum'; 'Randy Johnson'; 'Chris Weller'; 'Randy Harder' Jeff Co PDSMP comments from JSKT, PGST, and PNPTC Jeff SMP Itr to PC 1-30-09_PNPTribes.pdf 7-q lP I @ Subject: Attachments: Hi Michelle, The Jamestown S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, and Point No Point Treaty Council submit the attached comments on the Jefferson County Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (version Dec. 3, 2008). We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and trust the Planning Commission will consider them in their deliberations and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. We look forward to working with Jefferson County and others involved in the SMP revision process in the weeks and months ahead. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or problems in receiving these comments. Thank you, Steve Todd, Habitat Biologist Point No Point Treaty Council 360-297-6526 1 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Point No Point TrtlZf:y CoIfflci1 JamestO'llm S'Klallam Tribe January 30, 2009 Peter Do~ey,Cbainnan Jeffef$Oll County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: (:Ouu;nents Qn the .Jeffe~oll~"!UJ.ty Preliminwy Draft Shoreline Master Program Dear CbainnanDowney.and fellow Ch.t:SQns: The Jamestown S 'Klallam ana Port Qamble S'K1.$ll~ TrilYes,..andt'be Point~o Point Treaty Council commend the efforts of county staff and theircollSliltants,and>tbe many individuals involved in the technical and policy committees that developed a; revised Shoreline Master Program (SMP) which will protect our shorelines, water quality, ecological processes and functions, as well aspr~vide for many other shoreline uses (e.g., residential, public access, etc.). The aforementioned Tribes depend on ilieprotection (and restoration) of Jefferson CountyshQJ.'~linesand habitats to support healthy fish, shellfish, and wildlife populations into the future. As you areaware,thel'e are several salmonid species that useJeffetson Countysb.orelines and are currenttyQl1 tbe fedetatEndangered Species Act(ESA) list,. andasigliiftcallt regiQnalwnbl'ella gtQ11p, the hgetSotlnd Partnership,is mobiliZing a. br"ad$peQtrUrnof stakehol.tS inat1effOrtto ptotect.and recover }ltJ.get Sound to a. healthy con<.i!tion. Indee<J"there arcC compeUingreasonsfor Jefferson. COunt1. to implemen~ shoreline policies andregulations.that are in concert with a regional objective that moves away from pervasive and e~logicauy damaginJ shoreline development that bas been in place fQrgenetatiQ.ns, and toward a plan that better prote<;ts (and restores) the shoreline. The Tribes seek a SMP ti1at adequately meets that larger objective. Se-veral tribal staff members. have activelyserved.onOPthtbe$hore~~techn~ Advi$}ry and Shoreline Policy AdvisorYCQmmilt~s ($T~CandSl'~Cdres~vel~), and .bav-eftequently.prQvided reviewfP1dinPB! tQth.erevi~onprooesssince its inception. Weagaitl appreciate the opportunit1 to provioo coDltnents on the lat~tSMPdraft(ver. 12/3/(8), !hat is now before thePlanningiComnlissionfotteview. mgeileral we find the policies and regulations in the proposed drafttQ beanhnprov~ent upon the existing 1989 SMP,notably the revisedSl10reline Environment Designations (SEns), an extension of streams that would fall within Shoreline juriSdietion,andmGrepro!ectlve buffers along marine and freshwater shorelines, which adhe.re more closely to our Point No .Point Treaty CO'Wlcil 7999 NE Salish Lanet<in.gston, Wa98346 scientific understanding of ecological processes and functions associated with these shorelines. Despite the additional protection with the proposed SMP, it falls short of the mandate of no net loss of ecological processes, functions, and habitats. We offer thefoUQwing recommendations that, if adopted, would help alleviate our concerns: Channel Migration Zones (CMZs) Channel migration zones (CMZs) are among the most ecologically important and dynamic parts of shorelines for salmon and other wildlife. They are also among tl).e most risky and costly places to build and maintain a house, road, or business. Our climate is currently changing, with more frequent and severe fall/winter rain events, spectacularly demonstrating the damage to human infrastructure and people around Puget Sound over the past few years. For these reasons, CMZs are not compatible with development for residential, commercial, or other uses. They do, however, provide for ecological processes and habitat functions valuable to our natural resources. The following taken from Perkins (2006, page 1, 2nd paragraph) summarizes the ecological values and risks associated with channel migration zones: "Channel migration creates hazards to private property and public infrastructure by eroding land or cutting off access roads. Each of the four rivers (Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene) has levees and revetme~ts built to prevent channel Illigration,often at considerable public expense. Where channel migration is not constrained, it creates habitat for fish and other riparian species by leaving behind a diverse network of relict channels, gravel bars, floodplains and terraces. " The SMP must include language that ensures that development is prohibited, and native vegetation is protected, within the high and moderate hazard zones (these zones "roughly correspond" to channel migration being likely in less than 50 years and within 50-100 years, respectively) as delineated by Perkins (2003 and 2006) for the Lower Hoh, Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers CMZs. To allow development and associated grading and clearing of vegetation within these high and moderate hazard CMZs is perpetuating development patterns that are risky, costly, and overwhelmingly damaging to ecological processes and functions. To construct a house or other permanent structures (e.g., business, road, etc.) within CMZs will necessitate future shoreline armoring, flood control, and other measures to protect property and structures - actions that are actually prohibited within the proposed SMP. Thus, we strongly support the language of Article VIII, Residential Regulation #2, page 8-27, lines 11-20 quoted as follows (bold italics addedfor emphasis): "The following types of residential development shall be prohibited: 2 1. Develc;,pments that can ~ teaSQl,lablyeX1pec$dt()reqlJiresttUCtt1r~lshore annotingduring the useful1Ue ofthe'structW'e or Otle hundre<t(l00) years, W'lU~hever is greater. 2. Developments that can be reasonably ex;pooted to requirestructutal flood protection within a channel migmtion wne or ftoodway duringtlte useful life of the structure or one hundred (100) year$, whichever is greater." Additionally, we make the fqllowmgreoommendations: In Article II (Definitions): Add 4~cbannelmi~OtlZ9n~"'t()the defiu.itionof~~~eologi~Y4azard()l1$ areas" after ~earthquaIce" andDefore'~or other geological eyents.. ." In Article I, page 1-4, lines 24-2S,a.dd the language in1xJ14 italics below: "Nonconforming use and development witbirt.shorelineJunsdidionsball be subject to this Program and not ICC Chapter 18.22.080 exceptincases in'VOlving Geologically Hazardous Areas, including Chtmn,tMigratWn Zones. Non-conforming Lots We understand tbatresidentialdevelopmentis a preferred use in the SMA and. there are pressures and benefits to provide flexihilityto>ownersofnon..confonninglots, and 10 minimize the number of shoreline variances. Article VIII, Resi~ntial Policy #1, page $-t5, lines 21-30(bof4 itoJ,ics (J!}dedfor emplmsfs): "Residential use ... is a preferred use of the shorelines wk._suck de.vekt1ment is Pltltmed and.carrietl out in 411f(lnnfJ,.tht#p"Qtg~~~e.ju.,"ctionsflll4 processes to 1JJ1ct)"$istl{fJt.wit4t~.1f#t loss p1'QlJ~ Qlfhis,Pr(Jgram.~" However, we sbare simUarconCt}mson n0n..~()nning lots to those eXpressed in a recent letter by the. Washington Del1anment of ECology (lettetfrotn Je~ Stewart to Jefferson County, dated 12/1/(8). The approach outlined in the proposedSMP to address non-conforming residential lots (Article VI, page 6-6, lines 20-39 and page 6-7~ lines 1- 14), giving landowners the opportunity to meet 11 conditions in order .avoid a shoreline variance process, would in effect, largely perpetuateshorellne development patterns and damaging impacts that have been in place for decades. In addition, developw.ent with minimal buffers (e.g., as narrow as 30 ft.) win l~ely necessit~te ar.moringsl10relines in order to pro~ct .homes and otherstructur~in the futur{}. 'fhiScontradicts Article VIII, ResidentialP():u.cy #6, page.8-26,.IinesS..9: ~'New residential development should De planned and built in a~~ that avpids the need for structural shote l;\1'.tI1oringaud floodhazardredu.etionmeasures..." 3 The approach to address non-conforming lots outlined in PDSMP also appears to contradict the following (which we support) from Article VI, page 6-2, lines 2-8 (bold italics added for emphasis): "1. All shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shoU be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions. 2. Uses and developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes shall not be allowed. Any use or development that causes the future ecological condition to become worse than current condition shall be prohibited." We are particularlyconcemed that combining the potentially thousands of non~ conforming shoreline lots in Jefferson County with the ability to bypass substantive permit review, will almost certainly result in net loss of ecological process and function over time. Therefore, we propose improvements to address non-conforming lots: 1. The 11 conditions outlined in the current draft must be more protective (specifics below). For example, allowing forest clearing and building within 30 ft of the ordinary high water mark does not protect shoreline processes or habitats. To the 11 conditions, we propose adding the following content to page 6-7, line 9, as shown in bold italics: "ix. The lot is not subject to geologic hazards, including channel migration zones..." In addition, to page 6-7, lines 10-11 to read as follows (change shown in bold ita1ics): "x. All structures are as far landward as possible, and not closer than one hundred (100) feet from the ordinary high water mark; And" The SMP language needs to clearly state that if anyone of these 11 conditions cannot be met, then a shoreline variance process must apply. 2. When a landowner does meet all 11 conditions, the landowner is responsible for developing a Shoreline Stewardship Plan (SSP) that designs and documents the performance standards for the site. This SSP would then be subject to review by affected tribes, State agencies, and county staff. The landowner would then need to assure that performance standards are met into the future. Through the Cumulative Impact Analysis, that we understand is nearly completed, the County needs to assess the approximate number of undeveloped non~conform.ing lots, their distribution on the landscape, and likely impacts on ecological processes and functions. With that information the County should prepare a strategy for addressing impacts from development of non-conforming lots, including various mitigation 4 ~trate~ttIa,t coul(} lnvolveacquirln$f!Jfopetties tltataretn08t vulnerable ana impacting onecologif;al processes aJ1dfunetions(e.g"in~ogican.y hazardGUS .areas,channel migtationzones, iruportantnvercorridors~!eeder bluff$).These.acq,uir~d pro~rties might also be locations where public acceSS: (anotherg<>aloftbe SMJ:l)COl.tldbeprovided in the future (assuming no/minitnal.associated e<>>logicalimpa:cts). Common Une Setback (Article VI, pages 6..18 thru 6..20) The lan.guagedescrlbmg policies and regulations with respect to the oommon line setback (CLS) is unclear as to whether the use of the CLS .mechanismisrestricted toonIy undeveloped non~orming lots, or whether it could a,pplyalso to undeveloped oonformmg'lotsaswell (i.e~, lots that do not meet the definition of noIi"'O()J:lfo~). The Stated purpose ofentplC)yijtgthe..CLS.is to~~..... tacoommodate).sh9relme views to be a~uateaIld~r toadjaeent.~dences but not neCessarily equivalent. .." The.CLS therefore allows fottednced uu:ffei's/setbaekS fora ~w residential development to have a comparaUlebUfferlsetback to their adjacent neigbbor(s),.which in many instances is extremely minimal. Though preserving views may be a ~rthy Objecnvetfor sOn:)e, we believe employing the CLS.inthisway cumulatively over the lqng..term will result in the loss of ecological processes and functions. The CLS mechanism,pamcularly wbencoupled with potentially high numbers of undeveloped non-confQttningl()~ wi11m~ it verydiffieult,if not pra~tiQa1lyi1:npossib1e~ f'or'tlleCoAAty to meet its no netloss mandate. We rewmmendths,t the CLS Qnlyapt'ly w~n developeGnan-COtUorminglot$ 0ccur on both sides of f,lD undeveloped lat~ Inattditinn, andeonsistent with our proposal above to change the minimum buffer to 100 feet in a nOll~nfottnil1g lot (or tri~tashoreJine varianCe), we recommend the minimum buffer in a eommon Jinesetback be no less. than 100 feet from the OHWM. The Cumulative Impact Analysis needs to determine the approximate number of potential CLS lots, their distribution, and their likely i1:npa~tsto ecological processes and functions. As mentioned above, the County will tben need to consider how tooompensate for these and other cumulative impacts (e.gt,from developi.ng nOIl..comormitlglots) tlrtoqgh implementation of stewardship programs, mitigation, restcuation actions, and targeted property a9Quisitions. Vegetation Conservation We .generally support the language deseribing vegetation conservation p()liciesand regulations. They represent a much-neeged i1:nprovement onttreexisting 1989 SMP. For exantple; Page 6..5, line~6;..8 (bqld italics:'INf.dl()remjlkasia)~ "Allbttffets sk4lll1elfiaintainedi.n a pr~eminaIit1YnaturaI,undisturbed, undeVeloped, and vegetated condition." 5 However, the use of terms like "predominantly", "natural", and "undisturbed" should be better defined as some may judge a lawn to be a "natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition". In addition, there are opportunities in the Vegetation Conservation regulations (begins on page 6-15, line 14) to mandate protections of shoreline vegetation, rather than merely encouraging (i.e., hoping) the voluntary action of landowners (e.g., use of "to the maximum extent possible" on page 6-15, line 34). We recommend you use stronger language. On page 6-5, lines 26-29 (bOld italics added): ". .. Up to twenty (20) percent of the buffer area, or at least 15 linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained for 4active use' and for shoreline access, provided that such areas are located to avoid areas of greater sensitivity and habitat value..." A question for clarity: should the above bold italics '~at least" be replaced with "at most''? On page 6-14, line 17: Omit "stable" because some shorelines are inherently unstable and in so doing, serve an ecological value (Le., addition of sand, gravel, and wood to beaches). To make shoreline stability a goal could mislead some people into thinking that we want to stabilize naturally unstable shorelines such as feeder bluffs. Climate change In general, the proposed SMP ignores climate change, which we are.currently experiencing and will continue to for many centuries. The document erroneously assumes our past experiences can be a guide for the future. The climate change models are consistent in describing a future of increased extreme weather events, both winds and flooding. The shoreline, whether marine or freshwater, is the most vulnerable landscape to climate change. Flooding in Puget Sound watersheds over the past few years will become more common in the future. In addition, as scientists continue to refine their models, the amount they predict for sea-level rise increases. Current estitnates are now 1 to 1.5 meters by 2100, with some scientists arguing this number is still subs~tia11y too low. Sea-level rise, combined with more frequent winter storms, will rapidly change the erosion rate along marine shorelines. For the safety of Jefferson County residents and protection of shoreline habitats and processes, this SMP should err on the side of caution . with residents building a greater distance from Shorelines. Our recommendations will help reduce risk; however, planning with a climate change focus must occur in the near future. 6 M€1hitoring To help us gauge whether we are. meeting no net 10ssovet time, at a mjnimu.m, We reeomm:endmonitoring theiol1eWing Witbinshoteline juriSd1mon. Some of this In()nitori:ng CQuld l>eaecomp)is1:)edby systematically tracking permits for bulkheads, overwate:r stnlCtl.U'es,f.il4 and other actions: . Changes in forest cover (and across watersheds) . Changes in impervious surface (and across watersheds) . Changes in shorelineannoring (i.e., bl,tl1d1~, dikes, etc.) . Cbangesin ov~ate1"suv.cture~ . cbangesinwetland fiIl (ind~dingihtertidalh~pi~ts) Looking .abead,.the Tnoosareinterested in SUStaIned.. and. further. enpgementWith County Staff and others in developing the mosteffecnve strategies for }lTotection, restoration,andstewatdship.ot()W'soorelines. Again, we thank the many individuals who have participated in the revision of the Jefferson County SMP. We urge the Planning Commission to seriously consider our Tribes' comments in your recomm:endations to the Board of County Commissioners. If you have questions, please contact Steve Todd, Habitat Biolpgist, at 360-297-6526. Sincerely, Scott Chitwood, Natural Resources pltector JamestownS'Klallam Tribe /2;~ Paul MeCuUlltn, Natural ~esmll;ces pt-rector PortOanible S'Klallam Tribe ~~ Randy Harder, Executive Director Point No Point Treaty Council 7 References Perkins, SJ. 2003. Lower Hoh Channel Migration Study. Report to the Hoh Tribe, Perkins Geosciences. Perkins, SJ. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers Jefferson County, Washington. Pinal Report February 2006 for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development, Port Townsend, Washington. Stewart, J . (Washington Department of Ecology). Memorandum dated December 1, 2008 To Michelle McConnell et ale Subject: Results of SMA Policy Discussion with Jefferson County 10/10/08.9 pages. 8