Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-637 Comments on Jefferson County SMP - June 3, 2009 Draft (,j}\A ._ j-f . <I"~ I,,~/k'\ " Jeanie Orr Page 1 of 1 'Llj &? I From: Jeanie Orr Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:06 PM To: Michelle McConnell Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr Subject: FW: Comments on Jefferson County SMP - June 3, 2009 Draft Attachments: JeffCtySMP-PFPS0609.pdf From: Cyrilla Cook [mailto:ccook@pugetsound.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:38 AM To: #Long-Range Planning Cc: AI Bergstein Subject: Comments on Jefferson County SMP - June 3, 2009 Draft Hi DCD: Attached please find People For puget Sound's comments on the Jefferson County SMP. Planning commission draft. Please enter them into the official publiC record, and do not hesitate to call me should you have questions. Thank you. Cyrilla Cook, AICP Shorelines Program Manager People for puget Sound (206) 382-7007 ccook@pugetsound.org 6/17/2009 - - 4 r4:.. June 17, 2009 pugetsound.org DCD - SMP Comments 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Sent via email toplanning@co.jefferson.wa.us. Dear Jefferson County Planning Commissioners and DCD: Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update dated June 3, 2009. People For Puget Sound is a citizen-based, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect and restore Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits. We have actively participated on the Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SP AC), and we thank DCD staff and consultants for their stellar work in drafting the SMP update, as well as engaging committee members throughout the process. While we appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts to improve the draft, we are disappointed that the work of the citizen committees seems to have been ignored. Over the last three years, SP AC members have contributed a considerable amount of time towards gaining a clear understanding of the purpose of the update, reviewing its content, and addressing concerns of the Port, development community, business owners, the environmental community, Tribal representatives, aquaculture farmers and residential property owners. SP AC members have worked very hard to suggest language to balance competing interests, and we have diligently worked with staff to make the state rules for SMP updates work at the local level. Weare extremely concerned that a significant number of policies and regulations to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes have been proposed for deletion. These provisions are essential towards ensuring Jefferson County shorelines remain healthy and vibrant as new growth and development occurs. Proposed Revisions We Support We support the changes made to page 10-6 to streamline the process for homeowners to replace their existing home damaged by fire so long as it is on the existing footprint. Proposed Revisions We do Not Support Chapter 6 DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 2 Page 6-1: Policy 1.A.3 has been deleted, which required that uses and development be discouraged in areas that are ecologically valuable, hazardous, or that possess rare or fragile natural features. Please reinstate this policy. Page 6-4: Regulation C.3.ii has been deleted, which requires that cumulative impact assessments take into account reasonably foreseeable future use and development of the shoreline. Evaluation of the impacts of future use and development is a key requirement in the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-201 ,3( d)3iii) towards meeting the no net loss goal. Please reinstate this regulation. Page 6-4: Regulation D.3 has been deleted, which required that all development comply with the adopted CAO. Please reinstate this regulation. Page 6-5: Regulation D.5. changed the 10 foot setback to a 5 foot setback. Ten feet is a more reasonable setback to ensure that homeowners have enough room to maintain their homes without having to place ladders or equipment within the buffer. Page 6-5: Regulation D.5 The 150 foot buffer for shoreline residential and high intensity environmental designations has been reduced to 50 feet. We urge you not to reduce these science-based buffers, which were carefully considered as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance Revisions adopted by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners last year. We agree the County needs a cheap and easy process for permitting single family development on nonconforming lots. However, applying a 50 foot buffer to over 60 miles of shoreline is an unacceptable solution here, as it will result in inadequate building setbacks that put buildings at risk by erosion and sea level rise, and will result in significant harm to fish and wildlife habitat, species, and Puget Sound water quality. The county should adopt 1 50-foot shoreline buffers to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, and develop criteria and a streamlined process that allows for reduced buffers, so long as habitat protection is provided equivalent to the protection provided by the150 foot buffer. This could be accomplished through limits on shoreline clearing, enhanced planting, and other techniques. The majority of Jefferson County's marine shorelines proposed for the 50 foot buffer provide migratory and rearing habitat for threatened salmon species. Best available science shows that the smaller the vegetated buffer, the less effective they become in maintaining habitat functions, as well as removing sediments and pollutants (a buffer of 50 feet only removes about 60% of pollutants), 1 putting shellfish, eelgrass beds, and human health at risk. Permitting multiple vegetation alteration or clearing activities within a given area adjacent to the shoreline will result in incremental cumulative effects that may increase over time.' I Desbonnet, A. Pogue, P., Lee, V., Wolff. N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the Coastal Zone: A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Narraganset, RI. 2 Enviro Vision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide (October 2007). Available at: http://wdfw .wa.gov/hab/nearshore_guidelines/ . Page 11-14. DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 3 The table below provides a summary of just a few of the many important functions these shorelines provide, which are documented in the Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report - Revised November 2008. Due to time constraints, the table includes marine shorelines only. Area proposed for 50 Documented habitat and species Inventory foot buffer and Analysis, Feb. 2008 Quilcene Bay Eelgrass is continuous throughout the northern end of Quilcene Bay Page 4-29 and herring use it for spawning. Large concentrations of waterfowl are found in northern Quilcene Bay including trumpeter swans, brant, and diving ducks. Quilcene Bay NSE is a Category A salmonid refugia. The NSE includes the estuaries of the Big Quilcene River, Indian George Creek, Devil's Lake Creek, numerous small streams, and the nearshore areas linking these habitats. The east shore of Quilcene Bay is a year-round haulout site and seasonal pupping site for harbor seals. Riparian vegetation is heavy through reach Discovery Bay Herring use eelgrass in Bay for spawning Page 4-84 Sand lance spawning habitat is continuous along Adelma Beach, and surf smelt spawn at the southern end of this reach Tarboo Bay and Hood Within Reach I, over half of drift cell JE-25 has overhanging Canal vegetation. There are patchy eelgrass beds near the southern terminus of the drift cell. Patchy areas of Sargassum are mapped within Reach I. Sand lance spawn on the beaches just north of Pleasant Harbor's mouth Within Reach J herring spawn in the eelgrass from the mouth of Turner Creek up into Right Smart Cove. Patches of barnacles and oysters are found along this entire segment of shoreline. Sand lance spawn on the beach at terminus of this drift cell Toandos Peninsula Thorndyke Bay shoreline is one of the least developed areas on Page 4-47 Hood Canal and as result is considered one of the top priorities for estuarine conservation in the Puget Sound region Sand lance spawn both south of South Point and north along the outside of the spit. Surf smelt spawn on the shore just north of the spit. In the nearshore, eelgrass beds are continuous along the outside and the inside of the South Point Spit and patchier farther north to the point mentioned above. The characteristics of this reach are unique. A small stream enters Squamish Harbor near the middle of this drift cell and is presumed cutthroat trout habitat Squamish Harbor Sand lance spawn along the western end of this reach (Reach W) Page 4-47, and herring spawn in the eelgrass beds offshore 4-48 Squamish Harbor and the Shine Creek estuary is a Category A NSE salmonid refugia. The intertidal marsh, mud flat, sand pit and other features of the harbor and estuary provide habitat diversity that increases their ecological value. The NSE refuge provides highly productive rearing habitat for salmon and other species. Kilsut Harbor Eelgrass occurs in patchy beds throughout drift cell JEF-6. Herring p. 4-65 spawn on eelgrass throughout Kilisut Harbor. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn along most of drift cell JEF-7 The depositional beach in Reach PP encloses a salt marsh. This DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 4 part of Kilisut Harbor is also an important overwintering area for brant and other waterfowl. Eelgrass is continuous along Reach RR. Surf smelt and sand lance use this shoreline for spawning. This is an important overwintering area for waterfowl and spawning grounds for herring (herring roe is important food for diving ducks). There is commercial aquaculture in Scow Bay The proliferation of homes built 50 feet from the shoreline will also likely result in increased demand to build shoreline armoring structures or emergency erosion control structures3. This is both because of the perception of risk, as well as the removal of vegetation that stabilizes the shoreline. Building too close to the shoreline can result in vegetation removal, which can result in reduced bluff and beach stabilization, and puts buildings at risk. Riparian vegetation, once established, provides self-perpetuating and increasingly effective erosion control. For all shorelines (particularly those in areas with steep bluffs), native vegetation is usually the best tool for keeping the bluff intact Building too close to the shoreline also puts homes at risk to flooding from climate change related sea level rise. It can also increase proposals for hard shoreline stabilization, which can harm shoreline ecological processes, exacerbate shoreline erosion on adjacent properties 4, and be costly to property owners. For all these reasons we request that you incorporate the adopted CAO buffers into the SMP update. Page 6-6: Regulation E. 1 eliminates the county's ability to require a variance for those nonconforming lots requesting buffer flexibility. As noted above, the county needs a streamlined process for nonconforming lots that ensures there will be no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Please reinstate the regulation. Page 6-19: Regulation B-2. The criteria for the common setback line provision was changed from 50 feet to 300 feet. This defeats the purpose of common setback lines, which allow reasonable flexibility for property owners, while striving to gain larger buffers. Please change this back to 50 feet. Chapter 7 Page 7-1: Policies A.1, AA and A. 5. The word "significant" has been added to describe the adverse effects of beach structures that need to be avoided or mitigated towards shoreline ecology or adjacent properties. The result is that impacts that are adverse, but less than significant on an individual basis will cumulatively add up to a net loss of ecological functions on Jefferson County shorelines. The SMP Guidelines (173-26-231) require that master programs reduce the adverse effects of shoreline modifications, and assure that shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively will not adequately protect ecological functions. Please remove the word "significant" in these policies. ] Johannessen, J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and Bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007-04. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, W A. 4 Brennan, J.S. 2007. Marine Riparian Vegetation Communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report No. 2007 -02. Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Page IS DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 5 Page 7-2: The environmental designations have been revised so that beach structures are allowed outright, rather than by conditional use permit, along over 81 % of Jefferson County shorelines. Further, they are now allowed in the aquatic and priority aquatic designation, which means that beach access structures may be built over eelgrass, salmon and forage fish habitat. This, when coupled with the rollback of the protective policies and regulations below, will result in a major loss of shoreline ecological functions. The DPSMP draft required conditional use (administrative) review, which reduced the costs and timing for the applicant, while ensuring that impacts to ecological functions and neighboring properties would be properly mitigated through adequate review and mitigation conditions. Please reinstate the original draft language. Page 7-3. Regulation C.4 was deleted, which required that beach access structures that require the least amount of clearing, grading, excavation, or other forms of shoreline alteration shall be preferred over structures that require substantial bank or slope modification. Beach access structures, if not properly built and the shoreline properly replanted with vegetation, can prompt erosion and landslides along the shoreline. WAC 173-26-231 (2)( d) requires that the no net loss of ecological functions shall be achieved by "giving preference to those shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions and requiring mitigation of identified impacts resulting from shoreline modifications". This policy needs to be reinstated. Page 7-6: Environmental designations were changed to eliminate the prohibition on private boat launches in priority aquatic. Boat launches, if not properly sited and designed, can interrupt sediment transport processes and fish spawning and migration. This change is inconsistent with the purpose of the priority aquatic designation. The purpose of the priority aquatic designation (per page 4-2) is supposed to be to "protect to the highest degree possible, and where feasible, restore waters and their underlying bedlands deemed vital for salmon and shellfish." It is assigned to the most vital salmon streams and nearshore areas as well as marine shellfish habitats whose qualities include: documented endangered species and their estuarine and freshwater habitat, intact drift cell processes, documented forage fish spawning habitat, and important intertidal and subtidal shellfish areas. Please reinstate the prohibition. Page 7-11: The dock section has been substantially compressed, but it appears that substantial protections for ecological resources from docks and piers have been eliminated. The requirements for height, orientation, and length to minimize impacts has been eliminated. Please reinstate. Piers, docks, mooring floats and other types of overwater structures have the potential to alter the physical characteristics of nearshore environments both at the site and beyond the footprint ofthe structure5. By altering the physical processes that operate in the nearshore environment, such as light penetration, wave energy, and sediment transport, 5 EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide (October 2007). Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/nearshore_guidelines/. Page III-3 DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 6 overwater structures can promote changes in habitats. Once habitats are altered, the species using those habitats and the way those habitats are used may also change. The shaded, deep-water environment under piers can create a favorable habitat for predatory fish. Juvenile salmon ids tend to migrate around structures that shade the water column and into deeper water where they can be exposed to predation as they migrate near the edges of the piers. Overwater structures can also impair habitat function. For example, by shading the nearshore environment and altering wave energy and sediment transport characteristics, overwater structures can degrade eelgrass habitat, which is an important refuge for a variety of important marine species. Page 7-29 The bank stabilization policy was removed requiring that new development and uses be designed to avoid need for bank stabilization. The adverse impacts of bank stabilization on freshwater and marine habitats has been well documented. Preventing the need for new shoreline armoring through smart site design is a key strategy for both protecting property owners from harm and helping save Puget Sound. It results in a win- win for private property owners, by keeping their homes risk-free and allowing them to save money on costly shoreline armoring, and it is good for the environment. It is also a requirement of the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-231 )(2)a). This policy should be reinstated. Chapter 8 Page 8-3. Policy 3 was removed, which required that new aquaculture be sited to avoid significant impacts to ecological processes and functions. Avoidance is a key strategy to ensuring no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The State Aquaculture Regulatory Committee, which was convened by the legislature last year and represented industry, shoreline property owners, and environmental groups, reached consensus that new aquaculture should be subject to critical areas review and protections. The SMP needs to clearly state that glLnew or expanded aquaculture activities must comply with the policies to protect critical saltwater habitat and mitigate unavoidable impacts located. This policy should be reinstated. Page 8-3. Policy 6 was removed, established a hierarchy of preferred uses for aquaculture according to their increasing impacts on shoreline functions and adjacent land uses. Please reinstate. Page 8-4. Policy 4 was removed, which prohibits net pens. These uses have been documented to harm wild stocks of salmon and cause water quality problems. Fish nurseries and hatcheries are now more broadly allowed, including the conservancy environment. There are no standards to address how hatcheries should be designed and operated to ensure no netloss of shoreline ecological functions. What kind of hatcheries will be allowed? Does this include fish hatcheries? Fish hatcheries and net pens should not be allowed in areas of high waterfowl concentrations or seal haulouts, as this type of wildlife will be attracted to the hatcheries and pens and get harmed by predator exclusion devices. Salmon hatcheries and pens should not be allowed in areas that may subject wild salmon to disease. Will water intakes or outfalls be needed? How will waste products be DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 7 addressed? What predator exclusion devices will be needed and how will the proponent ensure that birds and other wildlife are not harmed? Please modify the draft to require an adequate review process to ensure environmental protection and avoidance of land use compatibility conflicts. Page 8-13. Environmental designations for forest practices. The provisions for regulating selective timber cutting on shorelines of statewide significance have been removed from the natural and conservancy designations. Forest cover provides important ecological functions for shorelines in these environments, by allowing for recruitment of large wood y debris and a source of terrestrial insects for salmon, and moderating temperature in salmon streams and forage fish spawning grounds. Please reinstate the selective timber harvest practices. Page 8-16. Industrial. Please reinstate the language for preference for industry that has most economic value with least ecological and neighborhood impact. Industrial land uses, if not carefully sited and designed, can degrade shoreline habitat and water quality. The SMP Guidelines require standards to ensure that land uses will be located only in areas appropriate for the physical conditions of the shoreline and where no net loss of ecological functions can be achieved. Page 8-16. Regulations 3 and 5 were removed, which would manage noise and odor associated with industrial development in shorelines. These policies should be reinstated to avoid future land use conflicts between industrial and nonindustrial users. Policy 8-18: Regulation 2 was removed, which would require that industrial development that is part of a mixed-use development (that is, contains non-water related uses), be required to restore eighty percent (80%) of the shoreline buffer area to provide shoreline ecological functions and processes that approximate the functions provided by the site in undisturbed or non-degraded conditions. This regulation helps implement the SMA goal of reserving shorelines for water-related uses. The removal of this regulation is inconsistent with SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-231), which requires that mixed use projects provide a significant public benefit, such as habitat restoration or public access. Please reinstate this policy. Page 8-20: Policies 1 and 4 for mining were removed. These policies need to be reinstated as they provide the policy basis for regulations to ensure no net loss of ecological shoreline functions related to mining. In the environmental designations, mining is allowed in the aquatic and conservancy environments. With removal of these policies, shoreline critical areas, including freshwater and saltwater habitats, will not be adequately protected; therefore, mining should be prohibited in these environmental designations. Mining should not be allowed upland of priority aquatic habitat designation. Page 8-27 Residential. Policy 3 was removed, which would allow for management of DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 8 development to prevent cumulative impacts from shoreline modifications and water pollution, such as septic tanks, and shoreline armoring. This policy should be reinstated, as it provides the policy basis for the County to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, as well as protect the public from health and safety risks and water pollution. Page 8-28. Policy 3 was changed to allow accessory dwelling units in Natural designations. This leads to the need for more clearing of vegetation and increases in impervious surfaces that will result in net ecological loss to shoreline functions. Please reinstate this policy. Page 8-28. Policy 4 was changed to allow new subdivisions in conservancy when configured in a way that would require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modifications or result in net loss of ecological functions. The easiest and most effective way for the County to implement its mandate of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions is to require that new subdivisions and development be designed to avoid areas that have ecological resources, such as conservancy environment. This policy needs to be revised consistent with the original draft. Page 8-29. Regulation C.2 was revised to eliminate the prohibition on building within channel migration zones, floodways, or eroding shorelines that would require shoreline armoring during the useful life of the structure, or 100 years. This regulation needs to be reinstated to protect public health and safety. Page 8-30. Regulation 5 and 7 was eliminated, which would place height limits on residential development, including multifamily, and require these developments to provide open space for their residents. Jefferson County should be promoting livable communities, by ensuring that new development provides open space proportional to that generated by the development. Use Table Pages 4-6 through 4-8. The revised use table is confusing and many of the changes contradict the changes made to the policies and regulations. Further, the changes have weakened environmental protections and will create land use conflicts. Beach access structures are now allowed outright, while the policies have been removed that prevent ecological impacts to shorelines. There is no longer a distinction between the public benefit provided by public beach structures versus private structures. Docks, piers, and floats proposed in the natural and conservancy environments should be required to get conditional use permits. The dock policies and regulations have been weakened, and now docks are allowed outright. Docks can result in significant harm to aquatic habitats and species if not properly designed. Please reinstate the conditional use permit requirements. DCD - SMP Comments June 17, 2009 Page 9 Mooring buoys are now allowed outright in priority aquatic and natural environments. Proliferation of mooring buoys can result in navigational conflicts as well as shoreline degradation. An administrative conditional use permit should be required. Dredge disposal is now allowed outright in conservancy, shoreline residential, and high intensity designations, without a conditional use permit. The conditional use requirement needs to be reinstated to ensure that such activities can reviewed carefully to ensure impacts to adjacent land uses and ecological processes are avoided. Industrial uses are now allowed outright in the conservancy environment. This is inconsistent with the conservancy designation, whose goal is sustained use of resource lands and other relatively undeveloped shorelines while protecting ecological functions, conserving natural, historic and cultural resources, and providing recreational opportunities. Some industrial development is too intense for the conservancy environment, and will result in shoreline degradation. Conditional use permits will assure appropriate review and mitigation of industrial proposals. Please reinstate the conditional use permit requirement. Boating facilities and boathouses should not be allowed outright in the conservancy environment. They require removal of shoreline vegetation and placement of impervious surface in shoreline buffers. An administrative conditional use permit should be required to ensure ecological impacts are avoided. Multifamily development is now allowed in the conservancy environment outright. They can be too intense for conservancy shorelines, as they require removal of shoreline vegetation and placement of impervious surface in shoreline buffers. An administrative conditional use permit should be required to ensure ecological impacts are avoided. Transportation facilities not serving a specific allowed use are now allowed outright in the conservancy category. Transportation facilities, by nature, result in significant impacts to the shoreline. They require clearing and grading of natural topography, and placement of impervious surface in shoreline buffers. Transportation facilities that are not serving an allowed use should be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions at 206 382-7007, or email at ccook@pugetsound.org. Sincerely, Cyrilla Cook, AICP Shorelines Program Manager