HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-652
IVlf\
r"\,~\
.4'7
:)-if
7{} I
':--7 L,
Jefferson County
Department of Public Works
([T"
623 Sheridan St.
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(360) 385-9160
Frank Gifford, Public Works Director
Monte Reinders, P.E., County Engineer
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Michelle McConnell
Community Development Department
FROM:
Monte Reinders, PE~gineey11t./
James W. pears;-:JM
June 17,2009
DATE:
RE:
Comments regarding Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Shoreline Master Program as revised by the Planning
Commission (June 3, 2009). The Department has the following comments:
Comment 1
Article 2 Definitions
Flood control (Page 2-16) means developments designed to retard bank erosion. They include
revetments. (See Policies and Regulations in Article 7, Section 5. Flood Control Structures, Page 7-23)
Instream structures (Page 2-21) include flood control structures placed within a river or stream
waterward of the ordinary high water mark that modify water flow. (See Policies and Regulations in
Article 7, Section 6. In-stream Structures, Page 7-27)
Revetments (Page 2-33) are sloped walls constructed of rip rap that are placed on stream banks to retard
bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement. Revetments meet the definitions of flood control
and in-stream structures.
Shore armoring (Page 2-35) includes revetments. (See Policies and Regulations in Article 7, Section 7.
Structural Shoreline Armoring, Page 7-29)
Public Works Department comment:
Based on the definitions listed above, constructing shoreline armoring would be subject to the policies
and regulations regarding flood control and in-stream structures, as well as shoreline armoring.
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining numerous existing public roads within the
shoreline jurisdiction. Some of these roads are subject to or potentially at risk of damage related to
flooding and channel migration. In order to protect these roadways, there are instances where it is
necessary for the Department to construct bulkheads or revetments for shore armoring. The alternative to
shoreline armoring would be to abandon roads. This would result in loss of access for property owners
and the general public.
There are policies and regulations in Article 7, Section 5. Flood Control Structures and Section 6. In-
stream Structures that significantly restrict or prohibit the construction of shoreline armoring to protect
existing public roads and infrastructure.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 1
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments
Public Works Department Recommendation:
Draft SMP Article 7, Section 5. Flood Control Structures and Section 6 In-stream Structures should be
reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that they do not have the unintended effect of prohibiting the
construction of shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and infrastructure. This is discussed in
greater detail below.
As an alternative, the SMP or a statement in the record of the SMP adoption could clarify that
construction of shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and infrastructure is subject to the
policies and regulations in Article 7, Section 7. Structural Shoreline Armoring, but not Section 5. Flood
Control Structures and Section 6. In-stream Structures.
Comment 2
Article 3 Master Program Goals:
8. Transportation, Utilities, and Essential Public Facilities
Goal 5. (Page 3-5) Identify road and public infrastructure developments that interfere with natural
processes, require shoreline armoring, or have exorbitant maintenance needs. Prioritize relocation
of such facilities to more environmentally sustainable and economically sensible locations.
Public Works Department comment:
The Department recognizes the expense and potential environmental affects of constructing shoreline
armoring to protect roads. While the Department generally supports this goal, there are significant
financial and practical constraints on relocating roads away from riparian corridors. Given these
constraints, the Department often has no feasible alternative to constructing shoreline armoring to protect
public roads. The Department works with the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, other
resource management agencies, and affected tribes to design and construct shoreline armoring in a
manner that minimizes impacts to shoreline functions, habitat, and fish and wildlife populations and
provides appropriate mitigation.
Comment 3
Article 4 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designations
Table 1 Uses by Shoreline Environment (Page 4-8) prohibits structural shoreline armoring in the
Priority Aquatic Designation.
Public Works Department comment:
Numerous County Roads are located adjacent to the priority aquatic designation. These include the
Dosewallips and Duckabush Roads that provide access to the Olympic National Forest and Olympic
National Park. Some of these roads are subject to or potentially at risk of damage related to flooding and
channel migration. In order to protect these roads, it may be necessary for the Department to construct
structural shoreline armoring.
This policy would prohibit the Department from using shoreline armoring to protect roads in the Priority
Aquatic designation in the event they are damaged or threatened by flooding or channel migration.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and other Federal and State resource management
agencies have responsibility, expertise, and adopted technical standards intended to protect aquatic
resources. The Department works with these agencies to design and construct shoreline armoring in a
manner that minimizes impacts to shoreline functions, habitat, and fish and wildlife populations and
provides appropriate mitigation. The SMP should not substitute a blanket prohibition for this process.
The alternative to shoreline armoring would be to abandon roads. This would result in loss of access for
property owners and the general public.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 2
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments
Public Works Department Recommendation:
Structural shoreline armoring in the Priority Aquatic Designation to protect existing transportation
infrastructure and essential public facilities should be allowed as a conditional use.
Comment 4
Article 6 General Policies and Regulations
4. Vegetation Conservation
B. Regulations (Page 6-16)
4. Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall maintain existing native shoreline
vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, except that the following activities shall be
exempt from this requirement:
v. Construction of trails for non-motorized use, provided that the trail is no wider than five
feet and the tree/vegetation removal is limited to five feet on either side of the trail....
Public Works Department comment:
This regulation appears to prohibit public access trails wider than five feet or to require a variance to
construct trails wider than five feet. This is an extremely narrow width for functional public access. The
regulation is inconsistent with the following:
· Article 3, Public Access Goal 5. Expand opportunities for physical and visual public access to
shorelines when such access can occur without.. . adverse effects on shoreline functions,
processes...." (Page 3-3)
· Article 6, Public Access, Policy 1. Providing public access to shorelines is a primary goal of the
Shoreline Management Act...lncreasing public access is a priority for the County.(Page 6-11)
· Article 6, Public Access, Regulation 9 (Page 6-14) that requires conformance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
· State and Federal agencies that fund recreational trail development typically require wider trails (10'-
12').
Implementing this regulation would significantly impact the capacity of Jefferson County and other
agencies to provide recreational trails that achieve the public access goals of the Shoreline Act and the
SMP.
Public Works Department Recommendation:
The SMP should not unreasonably restrict the width of public access trails. The SMP should rely on
project location, design, construction, and mitigation to minimize the loss of shoreline vegetation and the
degradation of shoreline functions.
Comment 5
Article 7 - Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations
5. Flood Control Structures
B. Shoreline Environment Regulations (Page 7-24)
1. Priority Aquatic: Flood control structures may be permitted.. .if allowed in the adiacent upland
environment.
3. Natural: Flood control structures are prohibited.
C. Regulations (Page 7-25)
2. When permitted, flood control structures shall be:
ii. Placed landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark....
4. Flood control works are prohibited...in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose
of fish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration.
Public Works Department comment:
See Comment 1 and Comment 3.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 3
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments
Based on the SMP definitions discussed in Comment 1, constructing shoreline armoring to protect
existing public roads and infrastructure would be subject to the policies and regulations regarding Flood
Control Structures and In-stream Structures, as well as Structural Shoreline Armoring. The Flood Control
regulations would prohibit shoreline armoring adjacent to Natural designations and in salmon and trout
spawning areas. This would significantly restrict where shoreline armoring could be constructed to protect
public roads. The regulation would require flood control structures to be placed landward of the OHWM.
This would effectively eliminate constructing shoreline armoring to protect public roads.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife and other Federal and State resource management
agencies have responsibility, expertise, and adopted technical standards intended to protect aquatic
resources. The Department works with these agencies to design and construct shoreline armoring in a
manner that minimizes impacts to shoreline functions, habitat, and fish and wildlife populations and
provides appropriate mitigation. The SMP should not substitute a blanket prohibition for this process.
The alternative armoring would be to abandon roads. This would result in loss of access for property
owners and the general public.
Public Works Department Recommendation:
As per Comment 1 above, Article 7, Section 5. Flood Control Structures should be revised as necessary to
ensure that it does not have the unintended effect of prohibiting the construction of shoreline armoring to
protect existing public roads and infrastructure.
As an alternative, the SMP or a statement in the record of the SMP adoption could clarify that
construction of shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and infrastructure is subject to the
policies and regulations in Article 7, Section 7. Structural Shoreline Armoring, but not Section 5. Flood
Control Structures.
Comment 6
Article 7 - Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations
6. In-stream Structures
A. Policies (Page 7-27)
2. In-stream structures should be approved only when associated with and necessary for an
ecological restoration project, a fish passage project, or an allowed shoreline use/development
such as a utility or industrial facility.
B. Shoreline Environment Regulations (Page 7-27)
1. Priority Aquatic: In-stream structures may be allowed. ..if allowed in the adjacent upland
environment.
2. Aquatic: In-stream structures may be allowed...if allowed in the adjacent upland environment.
3. Natural: In-stream structures are prohibited, except...in-stream structures (such as large woody
debris) whose primary purpose is restoration of shoreline ecological conditions....
B. Regulations (Page 7-28)
2. In-stream structures whose primary purpose is flood control shall be subject to Article 7, Section
5 Flood Control Structures and this section.
Public Works Department comment:
See Comment 1 and Comment 3.
Based on the SMP definitions discussed in Comment 1, constructing shoreline armoring to protect
existing public roads and infrastructure would be subject to the policies and regulations regarding Flood
Control Structures and In-stream Structures, as well as Structural Shoreline Armoring. The In-stream
Structures regulations would prohibit shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and
infrastructure and prohibit shoreline armoring adjacent to Natural designations.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 4
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments
Public Works Department Recommendation:
As per Comment 1 above, SMP Article 7, Section 6. In-stream Structures should be reviewed and revised
as necessary to ensure that they do not have the unintended effect of prohibiting the construction of
shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and infrastructure.
As an alternative, the SMP or a statement in the record of the SMP adoption could clarify that
construction of shoreline armoring to protect existing public roads and infrastructure is subject to the
policies and regulations in Article 7, Section 7. Structural Shoreline Armoring, but not Section 5. Flood
Control Structures and Section 6. In-stream Structures.
Comment 7
Article 7 - Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations
7. Structural Shoreline Armoring and Shoreline Stabilization
B. Shoreline Environment Regulations (Page 7-31)
1. Priority Aquatic: New structural shoreline armoring is prohibited.
Public Works Department comment:
See Comment 3 above regarding Article 4, Table 1 Uses by Shoreline Environment.
Public Works Department Recommendation:
New structural shoreline armoring is prohibited. except to protect existin1!: public transportation
infrastructure and essential public facilities in which case it may be allowed as a conditional use.
Comment 8
Article 8 - Use-specific Policies and Regulations
10. Transportation
A. Policies (Page 8-34)
11. Public transportation facilities should employ pervious materials and other appropriate low
impact development techniques where soils and geologic conditions are suitable....
Public Works Department comment:
The Department supports the use of low impact development techniques that are appropriate for the type
of development and the setting. The SMP should not mandate the use of specific LID techniques. This
policy should apply to all developments in the shoreline jurisdiction, not solely to public transportation
facilities.
Because of structural constraints, pervious pavements are typically used for local access streets,
recreational trails, and parking areas. Even where soils conditions are optimal, they are not typically used
for higher speed and higher volume roads.
Public Works Department Recommendation:
The policy should be revised as follows and moved to Article 6 General Policies and Regulations, Section
5 Water Quality and Quantity: Shoreline developments should employ low impact development
techniques when appropriate for the proposed development and where soils and geologic conditions
are suitable....
Comment 9
Article 8 - Use-specific Policies and Regulations
10. Transportation
D. Regulations (Page 8-35)
6. Bridges or bottomless culverts or other similar structures shall be used in accordance with
WDFW guidance to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 5
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments
Public Works Department Comment:
The proposed regulation would require the use of bridges and bottomless culverts in all instances within
the shoreline jurisdiction. This would impose an unwarranted expense on Jefferson County, other
agencies, individuals, and businesses.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife's guidelines ensure that stream crossings provide
adequate hydraulic capacity and do not impair functions such as fish passage and sediment transport. In
some instances, construction of a bridge and bottomless culvert may be required. However, where roads
cross smaller drainages, these functions can be maintained using pipe culverts.
Instead of imposing a blanket standard, the SMP should rely on the authority and expertise ofWDFW to
determine the appropriate design for a particular stream crossing.
Public Works Department Recommendation:
Bridges and culverts shall be designed and constructed in accordance with WDFW guidance to
protect shoreline ecological functions and processes.
Draft Shoreline Master Program, June 3, 2009 6
Jefferson County Public Works Department Comments