Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-641 ~cct Pc P't\ Co\ \ 1 \ () CJ ' Taylor Shellfish Farms 130 SE LYNCH ROAD, SHELTON, WA 98584 PHONE: 360.426.6178 FAX: 360.427.0327 WWW.TAYLORSHELLFISH.COM June 17,2009 Michelle McConnell Jefferson County DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, W A 98368 Re: Comments on Jefferson County 6/3/09 Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP Dear Ms. McConnell: I would like to extend our sincere appreciation to the Jefferson County Planning Commission and staff for their considerable effort on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments. It is evident that a substantial amount of time and effort have been dedicated to considering public comments and amending the SMP. As noted in our January 31, 2009 comments 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. As farmers of shellfish we are particularly interested in portions of the SMP that regulate where our farms are located and how they are operated as well as portions which address impacts on our operations from other shoreline development. We previously expressed concern that changes to the aquaculture regulations in the 12/3/08 Draft would stifle growth of the shellfish aquaculture industry. The 6/3/09 Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP addresses many of these concerns. In addition, amendments made to the aquaculture policy section (8.2.A) in the 6/3/09 draft continue to improve the tone of the document. A reader of the 6/3/09 Draft might actually conclude that aquaculture is embraced and encouraged by Jefferson County. While we currently have no interest in finfish culture, it improves the tone of the section by at least allowing consideration of it and not just banning it all together. A popular international trend is towards what is referred to integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMT A). This approach combines finfish, seaweed, shellfish and other species into one aquaculture project. Impacts from waste products are mitigated by using them to the benefit of other species being propagated. The policy and regulation amendments proposed would allow such a forward thinking project in Jefferson County. In our January 31, 2009 comments on the 12/3/08 draft we raised concerns that requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) for geoduck aquaculture in all shoreline environments TAYLOR SHELLFISH CO. TAYLOR RESOURCES INC. TAYLOR TIMBER INVESTMENT CO. TAYLOR RESTAURANTS INC. Taylor Shellfish Comments on 6/3/09 Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP Page 2 was contrary to the aquaculture policies and would stifle the growth of this segment of the industry. We appreciate that the Planning Commission 6/3/09 draft has addressed this concern by eliminating this requirement for all but the Shoreline Residential environment. Alternatively and appropriately the Planning Commission draft relies on Attorney General Opinion (AGO) 2007 No.1 and a review of interference with the public's normal use of the surface water to determine whether there is a need for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. We believe a similar review of interference with the public's normal use ofthe surface water would be appropriate for the Shoreline Residential environment rather than automatically requiring a CUP for shellfish aquaculture in this environment. Related to their reliance on AGO 2007 No.1 the Planning Commission has provided some excellent and necessary guidance for assessing substantial interference with the public's normal use of the surface water in 8.2.C.5.ii on page 8-7. In section 8.2.C.5 we offer what in our opinion are two critical amendments. First, we believe section 8.2.C.5 i. should be amended as follows to reflect interference with surface water not tideland use: "They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public facilities such as parks or boat ramps which support significant public use of the surface waters including public tidelands; and". "Public waters" is not defined and if left could be interpreted to mean all waters. The second critical change that should be made is in subsection ii of 8.2.C.5. In this subsection the second "or" should be changed to "and" (. . . on a regular basis ef and in a manner...). Many shellfish farming operations utilize markers, barges or floats routinely but may well be able to use them in a manner that does not substantially obstruct public access or passage. Section 8.2.C.2 still needs additional clarification. In our January 31 st comments we asked that this section be clarified such that it is absolutely clear that if a SSDP is required that it is only for the initial siting and construction of the farm and not for on- going operation ofthe farm. We noted in our January comments that depending on the size of the farm and the crop being planted it may not be practical to get the entire 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. On-going shellfish farming operations, including seeding of even the initial crops should not require coverage by a shoreline permit. We would proposed 8.2.C.2 be amended as follows: "When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall apply only to the initial siting, and construction, and/or planting of stocking of the facility or farm. It does not apply to the planting or stocking of crops or on-going farming operations. If the initial approval is siting and construction of an aquaculture use or development is determined to require a shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five (5) years with a possible one-year extension. If the Taylor Shellfish Comments on 6/3/09 Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP Page 3 initial approval is a conditional use permit, it shall be valid for the period specified in the permit." It appears that the chart on page 4-6 needs to be amended to be consistent with the narrative in section 8.2. To be consistent with the narrative it should say "bottom and floating/hanging aquaculture". The narrative in 8.2 includes molluscan shellfish nurseries and hatcheries however these uses are not included in the chart. The row above net pens in the chart should be deleted all the way across. The shoreline use (Hanginglfloating culture) has been deleted but the columns have letters that have not been deleted. For net pens the X should be replaced with a C in Conservancy, Shoreline Residential and High Intensity. In light of the problems posed by boats moored in Mystery Bay, we appreciate the Planning Commission's attempt to address this issue with a new section 7.2.A.11 on pages 7-5 and 7-6. We would propose strengthening this section by amending it as follows: Before issuing a permit for a mooring buoy adjacent to an existing aquaculture farm or facility, the County shall review the number and spacing of existing mooring buoys in the area to ensure the cumulative effect will not jeopardize the health certification of the any aquaculture farm or facility or recreational shellfish beds. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for the County's considerable effort to date on this amendment process. Sincerely, ~m~ Bill Dewey Taylor Shellfish Company