HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-395
..rnA
v\l-eb
(;o~t
Page 1 of 1
Jeanie Orr
VI {p I
From:
Sent:
To:
GABRIELLE LAROCHE [SEABRIES@OLYPEN.COM]
Friday, January 30,2009 10:11 AM
Michelle McConnell; #Long-Range Planning; mrcmembers@lists.onenw.org; Phil Johnson;
BOCC; Leslie Locke
Cc: 'Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)'
Subject: MRC comments on the 12/08/08 PDSMP
Importance: High
From: Michael F. Adams [mailto:mrc@mfadams.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:51 AM
To: 'GABRIELLE LAROCHE'
Cc: mrc@shellfishfarm.com
Subject: RE: for your signature
Importance: High
Gabrielle:
Thank you for your assistance. Ple~se send to Michelle and others as you see fit.
Best,
Michael
2/2/2009
January 30, 2009
Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend W A 98368
Attn: Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner
Dear Ms. McConnell:
via email: olanning@co.iefferson.waus
mmcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.us
Re: Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (PDSMP) Comments
I am writing on behalf of the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC).
As you know, we serve in an advisory capacity to the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners and operate under the umbrella of the Northwest Straits Marine
Conservation Initiative. Our purpose is to "achieve the protection and restoration of the
marine resources of Jefferson County and to do so in furtherance of our benchmarks for
performance". Since 1999, the MRC has conducted fish surveys, prepared a Priority
Habitat Study, established a voluntary eelgrass protection zone, planted beaches with
native Olympia Oyster seed, provided technical assistance to property owners for soft
shore protection projects, supported marine shoreline landowner workshops, and much
more.
The MRC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the PDSMP. Because our area of
interest is marine shorelines, we have constrained our comments to elements of the
proposed program that regulate marine shorelines. In preparing these comments we also
recognize the limitations ofthe SMP. First, the policy goals of the Shoreline Manage-
ment Act (SMA) are to:
. encourage water-dependent uses,
. protect shoreline resources, and
. promote public access.
While these goals are intended to provide for balanced use or shoreline resources they
may not always be consistent with the MRC's purpose as stated in the introductory
paragraph. Furthermore, a regulatory land use program that is implemented through
permitting cannot address many of the human activities that impact marine resources.
The Shoreline Master Programs in general regulate new shoreline use and development
including but not limited to: residential development, docks, mooring buoys, beach
stairs, marinas, bulkheads, vegetation management, water-related recreation,
aquaculture, etc. Shoreline Master Programs generally do not regulate existing
uses/developments, development on Tribal or Federal lands, vessels or navigation,
fishing, hunting, or recreational shellfish harvesting, in-stream flows, stormwater, septic
systems or wells. Nevertheless, we appreciate that a regulatory land use program such
as the PDSMP can be one of many valuable tools to protect marine resources. It is with
this in mind we offer the following comments. Our comment is underlined under each
heading with background/context/detail in following paragraphs.
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
W e enco~e DOE. the local iurisdictions and others to consider allocating additional
resources to this element durinfi!: future updates.
The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (SICR) describes processes that shape
shoreline conditions, describes ecology of specific reaches or drift cells, describes existing and
planned land use, includes a map portfolio, provides a basis for assigning environment
designations, and informs shoreline restoration plan and PDSMP policies and regulations. The
MRC believes that this document is a valuable resource and represents a good effort to compile
and analyze existing information within budgetary and time constraints. However, because the
SICR forms the basis for environment designations, policies and regulations we cannot refrain
from conveying our concern that the SICR would be greatly improved by additional fieldwork
and ground-truth surveys.
Public Outreach and Plan Development Process
W e ur~e the Planning Commission to rely on the extensive public process that has gone into
preparinl! this draft and act swiftly.
The public outreach for the PDSMP has been extensive and has included open houses,
neighborhood information booths, mailings, fliers, and a project webpage. There were also two
advisory committees with broad representation. The MRC has had representation on both the
Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee and Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee throughout
the development of this draft. The PDSMP represents a compromise document that balances the
broad interests of Jefferson County while meeting the goals of the SMA. Furthermore, because of
the Supreme Courts Anacortes ruling regarding critical areas, it is important to have a revised
Shoreline Management Program adopted and approved as soon as possible. Once adopted and
approved, it resolves the transfer of authority questions raised by the Anacortes decision with
respect to marine shoreline buffers.
Designations and Classifications
The MRC supports the changes to the Shoreline Environment Desil!nations (SEDs). In particular.
the MRC supports that: the "Natural" desil!nation is applied more widely: development
restrictions are applied to higher percentage of the County shorelines. the "Priority Aquatic"
desil!nation is applied to important salmon and shellfish habitats. and more uses require a
Conditional Use Permit allowing for site specific conditions to be taken into account.
The proposed changes include replacing the old "suburban" and "urban' with "shoreline
residential" and "high intensity", and adding a new designation "priority aquatic". The MRC
believes there is scientific basis for the proposed SEDs including, but not limited to:
· Diefenderfer, H L., K L. Sobocinski, R. M. Thorn, C. W. May, S. L. Southard, A. B.
Borde, C. Judd, J. Vavrinec, and N. K. Sather. 2006. Multi-Scale Restoration
Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A Case Study from
Jefferson County, Washington. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim,
Washington Report No.PNWD-3762. November 22, 2006.
. Hirschi, R. 1999. Critical nearshore habitats, Tala to Kala Point, Jefferson County.
Prepared for Jefferson County Long Range Planning, Port Townsend, 33 p.
. Hirschi, R., T. Doty, A. Keiler, and T. Labbe. 2003a. Juvenile salmonid use of tidal
creek and independent marsh areas in North Hood Canal: summary of first year
findings. Point No Point Treaty Council.
· Hirschi, R., T. Labbe, and A. Carter- Mortimer. 2003b. Shoreline Alterations in Hood
Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Point No Point Treaty Council
Technical Report 03-1.
· May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report.
· Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Weller. 2006. Historical
Jefferson MRC comments on 12/08 PDSMP
2
1/30/2009
Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood
Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State. Final Report. Point
No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 06-1. December 2006.
Aquaculture
The maiority of the MRC supports local control and involvement through permitting of new
Geoduck and floatingfhanging ooerations.
The MRC is concerned that the regulations proposed in the PDSMP could be duplicative of
existing state regulation and the requirements of the PDSMP will result in additional workload for
a department with limited technical expertise and staff. Nevertheless, the MRC believes that the
benefits of the proposed program outweigh our concerns. Although aquaculture is generally
consistent with healthy marine resources, certain types of aquaculture are not without impact.
Furthermore, many ofthese impacts involve land use conflicts which are best addressed at the
local level. Finally, because best available science varies by location, species and type of
operation, site -specific analysis through permitting ensures that appropriate science is applied.
The MRC recommends that the Planning Commission review the Department of Ecology
Shellfish Aquaculture Regulatory Committee Guidelines for Geoduck Aquatic Operations,
developed under the Authority of Section 4 of Second Substitute House Bill 2200 Chapter 216,
Laws of 2007, January 2009, Publication no. 09-06-001, to ensure that the SMP is consistent
with the most recent guidance. Specifically, the MRC supports: 1) the use of either a Substantial
Development Permit or a Conditional Use Permit, as recommended in the guidlines, to regulate
nIDY. geoduck and floating/hanging operations in some areas, and 2) that all aquaculture must be
sited to prevent damage to eelgrass beds, kelps, etc. and structures tied to bottom must use
anchors that minimize impacts.
Boating Facilities, Bulkheads and Access Structures
The MRC su~oorts the provisions ofthe proposed SMP with resoect to boating facilities.
bulkheads and access structures.
The alteration of nearshore habitat through the construction of docks and bulkheads provides a
striking example of how a localized activity can threaten broad components ofthe ecosystem.
Bulkheads are already present on 11 % ofthe marine shoreline (east Jefferson County). The value
of the shorelines for salmon production, aquaculture and recreation can not be overstated. The
MRC is in the 4th year of its Drift Cell restoration Program which is specifically aimed at halting
proliferation of bulkhead, piers and other structures through education and outreach and restoring
segments of the shoreline that have already been impaired by these structures. The MRC
welcomes a regulatory partner in this effort.
The MRC supports the proposed requirements for docks, piers and lifts as follows: grating/light
penetrating materials are required on walkways in nearshore areas, cumulative effects of dock
proliferation must be considered, the maximum allowance per residence is one of each: lift, dock,
and float, residential docks are prohibited in Priority Aquatic designation and no moored vessel
can be used as a residence.
The MRC supports the proposed requirements for Marinas as follows: marinas must restore part
of the shoreline to improve ecological conditions as a condition of approval and must be located
to avoid need for dredging, excavating or filling wetlands. Open pile and floating breakwaters
are preferred. Armoring must be limited to minimum necessary and bio-stabilization is preferred.
Breach nourishment of down-drift areas may be required if adverse effects on sediment transport
are likely.
Jefferson MRC comments on 12/08 PDSMP
3
1/30/2009
The MRC supports the proposed requirements for mooring buoys. The PDSMP requires County
to coordinate with other agencies regarding placement of buoys, limits the number to four
buoys/acre in enclosed bays and requires helical or other low impact anchor systems to eliminate
damaging anchor chain and watch circles.
The MRC supports the proposed limitations to armoring. The PDSMP allows new structural
armoring for residences only when existing primary structures are in imminent danger caused by
winds, currents, or waves. The proposed SMP requires geotechnical study and mitigation for
impacts. A permit applicant must also demonstrate that bio-stabilization is infeasible or
inadequate to protect the existing structure.
The MRC supports the proposed limitations to private beach access structures. The PDSMP
allows private beach access structures with a Conditional Use Permit and will usually require
geotechnical study prior to approval, dimensions are limited to prevent adverse impacts and are
only allowed if there is no other available access within 300 feet. These structures are not
allowed where impacts to feeder bluffs, critical areas, landslides or erosion hazards would occur.
Marine Shoreline Buffers and Vegetation Management
The MRC supports the proposed marine shoreline buffer of 150' and encourages the Planning
Commission to consider increasing this to 200' on uplands adiacent to the priority aquatic SED.
The MRC also supports the vegetation conservation provisions which include: maintenance of
existing native vegetation (80% of buffer must be 'predominantlv natural'; 20% of buffer can be
'active use'). and limited clearing for views and lawns (pruning.limbing is allowed up to 25% per
tree/canopv),
One hundred and fifty feet is consistent with the buffer width being proposed and/or adopted in
many jurisdictions. The City of Port Townsend's recently adopted SMP has 200' buffers along
some of its shorelines, while Whatcom County's new SMP has 150' as the standard buffer for
marine shorelines. King County currently applies a 165- foot buffer to Type S shorelines outside
of urban growth areas via the King County critical areas ordinance. Kitsap County is proposing to
adopt a 150 foot marine shore buffer in certain shoreline environment designations.
Levings and Jamieson (2001) cite findings from the Canadian Ministry of Forestry in British
Columbia recommending buffers of300 to 450 feet for marine shores depending on the type of
shore, wind conditions, and other factors. Depending on the nearshore resources being
protected and the functions being provided by the buffer, recommended widths may differ.
In Jefferson County buffers are necessary to protect: water quality and wildlife by providing
habitat and travel corridors, microclimate regulation, organic input, and to ameliorate the impacts
of human disturbance such as light and noise. Bald eagles, kingfishers, and other birds use logs
on beaches, tideflats, and estuarine channels as perches (which provide visibility for foraging,
resting areas), and to reduce flight times (energy conservation) between foraging areas and
nesting sites. Herons and egrets will use drifted trees that are partially out of the water, as well
as floating logs and log rafts for foraging and resting. Cormorants, pelicans, small shorebirds,
and some waterfowl also require perches and platforms for rest between periods of foraging to
spread their wings to dry their feathers and for preening themselves. As rotting trees on land
near the water become limiting, purple martins and other cavity-nesting birds will use rotting
snags on beaches for nesting. Gulls use log beaches and estuarine meadows for breeding. Logs
function to visually isolate adjacent nests, provide thermoregulatory benefits for egg
development, and cover for newly hatched chicks. Logs enable gulls to spend less time
protecting the nest and more time foraging, resulting in increased survival of chicks. The
Jefferson MRC comments on 12/08 PDSMP
4
1/30/2009
minimum recommended buffer for microclimate protection is 328 feet (May, 2003).
Recent studies have shown that riparian vegetation on open marine shorelines may play an
important role in producing terrestrial insect prey for juvenile salmon. Eelgrass beds are known
to provide habitat for numerous fish and invertebrates, abundant fish prey production, as well as
spawning habitat for herring. Buffer recommendations have not been made for protection of fish
prey production function. Shade provided by riparian vegetation along marine shorelines is not
likely to influence marine water temperatures due to mixing and tidal fluctuations, but may be an
important factor in moderating water temperature in pocket estuaries. Solar radiation is also an
important factor determining distribution, abundance, and species composition of upper intertidal
organisms (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). Moisture and direct solar radiation also influence egg
viability of intertidal-spawning forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (Penttila, 2001).
Buffer recommendations range from 98 to 262 feet for natural temperature regulation and
shading, or providing equivalent shading as a mature forest (May, 2003).
References Cited
. Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian
Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program
Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents, Seattle, W A. 27p.
. Levings, C. and G. Jamieson. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their
role in coastal ecosystems, Pacific region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat,
Research Document 20011109.41 p. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/.
. May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report.
. Penttila, D. 2000. Documented spawning areas of the pacific herring (Clupea), surf
smelt (Hypomesus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes) in East Jefferson County.
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division
Manuscript Report.
Restoration Plan
The Restoration Plan in a new required element of SMPs which identifies opportunities to
improve shoreline conditions over time. The MRC has already used the draft as a means to
identify projects for its 2010-2012 funding cycle and intends to incorporate it into the MRC
strategic plan once the SMP is approved. Although not a regulatory component of the SMP, the
restoration plan can help to provide a focus for coordinated restoration activities in Jefferson
County .
We appreciate your Department's work and leadership in preparing the Draft SMP. The MRC
not only looks forward to working with DCD to implement the restoration plan but to partnering
with other entities to fill the gaps in marine resource protection through education and outreach
and by developing programs that are complimentary and coordinated.
Sincerely,
.---, ...-.--. ....-
--.. ~._..."^
Michael Adams, Chair
Jefferson County MRC
cc: Jefferson County BOCC
Jefferson County MRC
Jeffree Stewart, DOE
Jefferson MRC comments on 12/08 PDSMP
5
1/30/2009