HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-658
Page 1 of 1
2tl(pl
Jeanie Orr
From:
Jeanie Orr
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:01 AM
To: Michelle McConnell
Cc: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins; Jeanie Orr
Subject: FW: Jefferson County Planning Commission - Revised Draft SMP
Attachments: I.Comment.Planning Commission.SMP.061709.pdf
From: Terri Tyni [mailto:ttyni@GordonDerr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 20094:13 PM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Jefferson County Planning Commission - Revised Draft SMP
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached is a comment letter regarding the Jefferson County Planning Commission Revised
Draft SMP which we are submitting on behalf of our clients, Coast Seafoods Company and Penn Cove
Shellfish, LLC. If you have any problems opening this transmission, please contact me at the number
below. Please let Ms. Stock or me know if we need to do anything further with regards to submission of
this comment letter.
Thank you.
Terri A. Tyni
Legal Assistant to Amanda Stock
Terri A. Tyni, Legal Assistant I GordonDerr LLP 12025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140
ttyni@GordonDerr.com I Phone: 206-382-9540 I Fax: 206-626-0675 I www.GordonDerr.com
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential, privileged information. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, please be advised that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error,
please call (206)382-9540 and return this e-mail to GordonDerr at the above e-mail address and delete from your
files. Thank you.
6/18/2009
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
June 17, 2009
Sent via e-mail
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
SMP Comments
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
planniI1g{[!~co. ielTcrson. \Va.us
RE: Jefferson County Planning Commission Revised Draft SMP
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Jefferson County Planning
Commission's Revised Draft SMP ("Draft SMP"). This comment letter, submitted on behalf of
Coast Seafoods Company ("Coast") and Penn Cove Shellfish LLC e'Penn Cove"), addresses the
Jefferson County Planning Commission's proposed revisions to the County's Shoreline Master
Program.
Coast's shellfish hatchery in Quilcene Bay has been in successful operation for 29 years.
The hatchery has 28 employees, making Coast the largest employer in South Jefferson County.
The hatchery is absolutely vital to the economic health and stability of the area. Penn Cove has
existing mussel rafts in Quilcene Bay and has been successfully farming mussels there for over
four years. The mussel farm has six full-time employees. The Quilcene community relies on the
family-wage jobs the hatchery and mussel farm provide. In addition, the associated requirements
for support materials such as utilities, gas, and oil, and equipment and supplies, contribute to the
local economy and the Port of Port Townsend.
This comment letter addresses the Aquaculture section, located in Article 8 of the Draft
SMP, as well as other Draft SMP provisions potentially applicable to aquaculture uses and
activities. These comments focus particularly on provisions affecting hatcheries and mussel
rafts.
Coast and Penn Cove previously submitted ajoint comment letter dated January 29,
2009, during the initial open public comment period on the County's Preliminary Draft SMP
("PDSMP"). This comment letter is attached hereto as Attachment A. As discussed in further
detail below, Coast and Penn Cove support and commend the efforts of the Jefferson County
Planning Commission to address issues and concerns raised in their January 29, 2009, comment
letter. Coast and Penn Cove also appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts clarify
ambiguous language and resolve conflicting language in the Draft SMP. To the extent these
Y\Wl'\CO^STvEl'fl!llSON COIl. COMMENT,lllFFERSON CO,SMP"lJPD^TE FINJ\L.061 709. AMC.OOC
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121-3140 206-382-9540 fax 206-626-0675 www.GllrdonDerLcom
Department of Community
Development - SMP Comments
- 2 -
June 17,2009
issues and concerns were not adequately addressed in the last round of revisions, Coast and Penn
Cove restate those issues and concerns below and request that the Planning Commission address
them in their final recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
I. Coast and Penn Cove commend the Planning Commission for including language to
support and protect aquaculture in Jefferson County, including hatcheries and
mussel rafts, and for responding to issues and concerns raised in their January 29,
2009, comment letter.
Coast and PeM Cove support the following provisions in the Draft SMP:
A. SMP 8.2.A.l-.3, Aquaculture Policies.
These policies appropriately recognize that aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent
use of regional and statewide interest and that aquaculture is important to the long-tenn
economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County. They further
acknowledge the long-term ecological and economic benefits of shellfish farming and direct the
County to identify areas suitable for aquaculture and protect them from conflicting uses that
would threaten aquaculture's long-tenn sustainability.
This policy language is particularly meaningful for Coast because its hatchery has been
operating in the area for decades and is an integral part of the local economy. This is an essential
facility for the shellfish industry on the West Coast and is essential to the industry's long-term
sustainability. Shellfish farmers throughout the West Coast rely on the hatchery to provide
shellfish seed for their operations. As was recently reported in a front-page article in the Seattle
Times, attached hereto as Attachment B, for the past few years large numbers of oyster larvae
have been dying in many areas along the West Coast, both in the wild and in hatcheries. This
phenomenon, the cause of which is currently unknown, has led shellfish growers to source seed
from the few places that have not been affected, including Coast's Quilcene hatchery. For these
reasons, it is essential now more than ever that the County ensure that its use regulations are
designed to protect the hatchery from conflicting uses and help ensure its continued successful
operation.
B. SMP 8.2.A.6, Aquaculture Policies (stricken).
The PDSMP included an aquaculture policy setting a preference for certain types of
aquaculture operations, including a statement that "[p]rojects that require few land-based
facilities should be preferred over those that require extensive land facilities." SMP 8.2.A.6.iii.
This policy inadvertently created a structure where hatcheries-water-dependent upland facilities
integral to the shellfish fanning process-were not preferred. Given the significant role Coast's
hatchery plays in Jefferson County's economy, this policy was inconsistent with the SMP
policies establishing aquaculture as a preferred use and recognizing the importance of
aquaculture activities to Jefferson County's economy. The Planning Commission appropriately
struck this policy from the Draft SMP.
Y\WP\(;OASTlJEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JCffERSOl'l CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL.06 I 109 AMCDOC
Department of Community
Development - SMP Comments
June 17,2009
C. 8MP 3.7.B.7, .8, Shoreline Use Goals.
Jefferson County should retain these policies, which reserve aquatic lands for water-
dependent uses such as aquaculture and protect Bush and Callow Act tidelands and bedlands
from non-aquaculture uses.
D. 8MP Article 4, Table 1, Environment Designations.
Coast and Penn Cove support the Planning Commission's decision to allow bottom,
hanging, and floating culture, in addition to hatcheries, in the High Intensity shoreline
environment. Coast's hatchery is located in the High Intensity shoreline environment. While
Coast's current hatchery operations primarily consist of upland facilities, there are existing and
potential future activities associated with the hatchery that may fall under the definition of
bottom and hanging aquaculture. These activities are ancillary to hatchery operations.
Therefore, Coast supports the Planning Commission's decision to allow these uses subject to the
policies and regulations ofthe Draft SMP.
Coast and Penn Cove further support the Planning Commission's decision to allow
nurseries, incubators, hatcheries, sorting and staging facilities, as well as bottom, hanging, and
floating culture, in every shoreline environment, subject to limitations and to the policies and
regulations of the Draft SMP. The only exception appears to be the requirement for a
conditional use permit for bottom, hanging, and floating culture in the Shoreline Residential
environment.
E. SMP 10.6, Non-conforming Development.
The Planning Commission appropriately removed the provision that would have
prevented non-conforming development from rebuilding to its original specifications if it was
damaged to an extent exceeding 75% of the replacement cost of the original development. Coast
and Penn Cove support the non-conforming development provisions in the Draft SMP that would
allow non-conforming development that sustains major structural damage to be reconstructed
upon its original site.
H. Sections of the Draft SMP still require clarification; others should be amended or
stricken because they do not appropriately reflect or adequately implement policy
language supportive of and favorable to aquaculture.
A. The definitions related to aquaculture should be amended so that they are
consistent witb the framework set forth in the Shoreline Environment
Designation and Aquaculture sedions of the Draft 8MP.
Coast and Penn Cove support the Planning Commission's decision to divide the
Aquaculture Shoreline Environmental designations into three categories ((i) Bottom
culturelHanging/floating culture; (ii) Net Pens; and (Hi) Nurseries, incubators, hatcheries, sorting
Y'\WP'IC:OASlVEPFERSON COIL COMMENUEFFERSON CO~SMP" UPl>ATE FINAL,06I709,AMC,DOC
Department of Community
Development - SMP Comments
-4-
June 17, 2009
and staging facilities), rather than the five originally proposed. See SMP Article 4, Table 1. For
the sake of consistency, the SMP's definition of "aquaculture" should expressly include this third
category (hatcheries and nurseries). In addition, the definition of "aquaculture activity"
expressly excludes many upland aquaculture uses, including those that are water-dependent or
water-related, such as hatcheries. See SMP 2.A.29. In order to ensure that the preferential and
protective language in the County's policies is effectively carried out, and to ensure that the
Shoreline Environmental designations are consistent with the definitions, the definitions should
be revised as follows:
Aquaculture means the fanning or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic
plants or animals in freshwater or salt.....eter artWl, and may include development
such as structures or rafts, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas.
Aquaculture includes nurseries. incubators. hatcheries. and sorting and staging
facilities. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wildstock geoducks on
state-owned lands. Wildstock geoduck harvest is a fishery.
Aquaculture activity means actions directly pertaining to growing, handling, or
harvesting of aquaculture produce including but not limited to propagation, stocking,
feeding, disease treatment, waste disposal, water use, development of habitat and
structures. and water-dependent and water-related. Exell:lded frElm t~is aeflAitieR are
related upland aquacultureeommeroial or indl:lstrial uses sl:le~ as v:helesale aREI Fetail
sales, sorting, staging, hatcheries, taAk fel'ffis, aRa Aael )3raeessing and freezing.
Finally, the definition of structure lists "mussel racks" as an example of a structure. SMP
2.R.41. In contrast to other examples listed - Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping
walls/decorative rockeries "mussel racks" is an undefined and uncommon term, and as such should
not be included as an example of a structure. This term should be stricken from the definition of
"structure":
Structure means a permanent or temporary edifice or building or any piece of work
artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner,
whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for
vessels (W AC 173-27-030). Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping
walls/decorative rockeries, mussel reeks, and similar improvements to real property
are examples of structures. Geoduck tubes are not considered structures for purposes
of this Program.
B. The aquaculture use regulations need clarification as to (i) when they apply
and (ii) when aquaculture may interfere with normal pubic use of surface
waters.
There are two provisions in the general aquaculture regulations (SMP 8.2.0) that are
ambiguous and should be clarified.
V',WPlCOAS1\JEfFEIl.SON COIL COMMENT IEFFEIl.SON CO.SMP UPDATE FINAL061109.AMC.OOC
Department of Community
Development - SMP Comments
-5-
June 17, 2009
First, while the regulations specify when an existing operation must obtain a new permit,
the regulations should more explicitly state that, as a general rule, any new regulations imposed
in a new SMP will apply only to new aquaculture operations. Accordingly, SMP 8.2.D.2 should
be revised to read as follows:
Aquaculture operations in existence as of the date of enactment of the SMP
update shall not be required to comply with the policy and relZulation amendments
resulting from that update. and oQngoing maintenance, harvest, replanting,
restocking or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted
aquaculture operation shall not require a new permit, unless or until. . .
Second, the regulations provide guidance as to when activities may be considered to
interfere with normal public use of surface waters, see SMP 8.2.DA, but use the undefined term
"public waters" in this guidance. Because this term is ambiguous and undefined it could create
confusion in the future for staff, applicants, and decisionmakers. This regulation appears to
focus on concerns related to interference with public use of public facilities such as parks or boat
ramps, as set forth in section ii ofthis provision. If this is the case, section (i) of this provision
could be much clearer and still achieve its intended objective by removing the term "public
waters" and replacing it with more precise language.
Section (ii) of this provision is overreaching and should be amended. Ropes, markers,
barges, floats, and similar apparatus are commonly used in aquaculture operations. In many
instances, use of such equipment does not result in any interference with nonnal public use of
surface waters, let alone a substantial interference. Section (ii) should be revised so that use of
such equipment only results in a finding of substantial interference with normal public use of
surface waters where that equipment is used in a manner that substantially obstructs public
access or passage from public facilities such as parks or boat ramps.
For the reasons stated above, SMP 8.2.DA.i and .n should be revised as follows:
1. They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of puhlie ',vaters
iBehldiag 13'1:ll:Jlie tidelands public facilities such as parks or boat ramps;
and
ii. They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar
apparatus on a regular basis erand in a manner that substantially obstructs
public access, or passage, from public facilities such as parks or boat
ramps; or they exclude the public from more than one acre of surface
water on an ongoing or permanent basis.
c. SMP 7.2.A.ll, Boating Facilities.
Recently, the Washington State Department of Health has taken action and/or stated a
future intent to reclassify several shellfish growing areas in Jefferson County based solely on the
number of mooring buoys andlor transient boats anchored in that shellfish growing area. Such
actions have the potential to temporarily or permanently close aquaculture farms, and
Y'\WPICOAS1\IEFFERSON COIL COMMENT,JSI'fEl\SON CO_SMl'~.UPDATtl FINAl.,06I709.AMC.DOC
Department of Community
Development - SMP Comments
-6-
June 17,2009
aquaculture companies, in Jefferson County. Coast and Penn Cove support the addition of
boating facility policy SMP 7 .2.A.Il, addressing this issue, with one revision. The addition of
mooring buoys to any part of a growing area, not merely to areas immediately adjacent to
existing shellfish beds, has the potential to jeopardize that growing area's health certification.
Therefore, to clarify when the County must consider the cumulative effect of mooring buoys on
the health certification of existing aquaculture farms or facilities, the policy should be revised as
follows:
The installation and use of mooring buoys in marine waters shall be consistent
with all applicable state laws, including state Department of Natural Resources
and Department of Health standards. Before issuing a permit for a mooring buoy
adjacent to in the vicinity of an existing aquaculture farm or facility, the County
shall review the number and spacing of existing mooring buoys to ensure the
cwnulative effect will not jeopardize the health certification of the aquaculture
farm or facility.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
~~
Amanda M. Stock
AMS-SWP:tt
Attachments
cc: Coast Seafoods Company (w/atts.)
Penn Cove Shellfish (w/atts.)
V:\WPICOAS1\1EFFERSON COIl COMMENTJEffERSON CO_SMJ>_ UPOATE FINAL.<I61709.AMC.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
ATTORNEYS AT lAW
January 29, 2009
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Long Range Planning
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
RE: Jefferson County SMP Update
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed update to Jefferson County's
Shoreline Master Program C'SMP updatej. OordonDerr LLP submits this letter on behalf of our
clients, Coast Seafoods Company ("Coast") and Penn Cove Shellfish LLC ("Penn Cove").
Coast and Penn Cove are both grower members of tile Pacific Coast SheUfish Growers
Association ("PCSOA"), and support and incorporate into these comments the comments
peso A has submitted during the course of this comment period and at public hearing. This
letter is being submitted separately from PCSOA's comments to specifically address those issues
most relevant to Coast's and Penn Cove's operations in Jefferson County. These comments
address the aquaculture section of the draft SMP, located in Article 8, as well as other SMP
provisions potentially applicable to aquaculture uses and activities, and to hatcheries and mussel
rafts in particular.
Coast has a shellfish hatchery in Quilcene Bay that has been in successful operation for
29 years, and is the largest employer in South Jefferson County. The hatchery has 28 employees.
Its continued operation is absolutely vital to the economic health and stability of our area. Penn
Cove has existing mussel rafts in Quilcene Bay and has been successfully fanning mussels there
for over four years. The mussel fann there has 6 full time employees as required for fanning and
harvest operations. The Quilcene community relies on the family wage jobs the hatchery and
mussel farm provide. In addition, the associated requirements for support materials such as
utilities, gas, and oil, and equipment and supplies, contribute to the local economy and the Port
of Port Townsend.
First, Coast and Penn Cove wish to express their support of the County's recognition in
the SMP Aquaculture Policies that aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional
and statewide interest, and that aquaculture is important to the long-tenn economic viability,
cultural heritage and envirorunental health of Jefferson County. SMP S.2.A.I. Coast and Penn
Cove also support the policy language acknowledging the long-tenn ecological and economic
V \WPICOAS'NEFRRSON coo. COMMENT 1EFPERSONCO.SI4P .UPl)Am fm\LOI2W1.AMC.DOC
2025 First Avenue, Suite 500. Seattle. WA 98121.3140 206.382.9540 lu 206-626-0675 www.GordcnDerr.co.
..2..
January 29, 2009
benefits of shellfish fanning. and the language directing the County to identify areas suitable for
aquaculture and protect them from conflicting uses that would threaten aquaculture t S long-tenn
sustainability. SMP 8.2.A.2, .3.
This policy language is particularly meaningful for Coast because its hatchery has been
operating in the area for a long time and is an integral part of the local economy. And, just as
Quiicene relies on Coast's hatchery for its economic health, shellfish fanners throughout the
west coast rely on the hatchery to provide shellfish seed for their operations. This is an essential
facility for the shellfish industry on the west coast and is essential to the industry's long-tenn
sustainability. For these reasons, the County should ensure that its use regulations are designed
to protect the hatchery from conflicting uses and help ensure its continued successful operation.
Although the proposed SMP update does not apply to existing uses such as Coast's
hatchery, Coast has several concerns about the details of how hatcheries fit into the proposed
aquaculture policies and regulations, as well as the definitions and environmental designations
sections. There are inconsistencies and ambiguous language within the SMP, and within the
aquaculture section specifically, as to how and when aquaculture hatchery operations are
regulated. These inconsistencies and ambiguities must be resolved and clarified. In addition.
there are sections of the SMP that do not appropriately reflect the preferential status of
aquaculture as a use of the shoreline or the other policy language supportive of and favorable to
aquaculture.
The definitions related to aquaculture should be amended so that tbey are consistedt with
the framework set forth in the shoreline environmental designations aDd aquaculture
sedioDS oftbe SMP.
The Shoreline Environmental designations divide Aquaculture into five categories: (i)
Bottom culture (geoduck); (ii) Bottom culture (non-geoduck); (Hi) Hanging/floating culture; (iv)
Net Pens; and (v) Floating upwells, hatcheries, sot1ing and staging facilities. SMP Article 4,
Table 1.
However, it is unclear whether the definition of "aquaculture" in the SMP includes the
category "Floating upweUs, hatcheries, sorting and staging facilities" set forth in the Shoreline
Environmental designations. See SMP 2.A.28. The definition of "aquaculture activity"
expressly excludes many upland aquaculture uses, including those that are water-dependent or
water-related, such as hatcheries. See SMP 2.A.29. In order to ensure that the preferential and
protective language in the County's policies is effectively carried out, and to ensure that the
Shoreline Environmental designations are consistent with the definitions, the definitions should
be revised as follows:
Aqua(:ultUTe means the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic
plants or animals in freSM"l'tIter aT salwltlter 8:1'ea5, and may include development
such as structures or rafts, as wen as use of natural spawning and rearing areas.
Aquaculture includes floating upwells. hatcheries. and sorting and suuzinsz
facilities. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wildstock geodueks on
state-owned lands. Wildstock geoduck harvest is a fishery.
Y"\~R$Otf COIl. ~ JlFPeR$OW CO"SMP J"DATE fINAL.OI2l1CW.AMC.OOC
-3.
January 29, 2009
Aquaculture activity means actions directly pertaining to growing, handling, or
harvesting of aquaculture produce including but not limited to propagation, stocking,
feeding, disease treatment, waste disposal. water use, development of habitat and
structures. and water-dependent and water.related. GJlelltEleEl {!'ElM this deBAitieR aN
FelaleEt upland aquacultureeeMR\ereial SF iRElwswiaJ uses slfeh as whslesate aREl retail
sales, s0t'tiRg, staging, Ra",heries, taRJl f~s, 1"8 finel I'Feeeseiflg IREI freeziRg.
Finally, the defmition of strUcture lists "mussel racks" as an example of a strUcture. SMP
2.R.4I. In contrast to other examples listed - Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping
walls/decorative rockeries - "mussel racks" is an undefined and uncommon tel'lll; and as such should
not be included as an example of a structure. This tenn should be stricken from the definition of
"structure" :
Structure means a permanent or temporary edifice or building or any piece of work
artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner,
whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for
vessels (WAC 173-27-030). Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping
walls/decorative rockeries, ""15&11 reel", and similar improvements to real property
are examples of structures. Geoduck harvest tubes are not considered structures for
purposes of this Program.
The County.s shoreline regulations for aquaculture in the High Intensity environment
should be revised to allow Aquaculture, a preferred use of the shorelines, wbile still
accounting for health concerns.
Coast's hatchery is located in the High Intensity shoreline environment. While Coast's
current hatchery operations primarily consist of upland facilities, there are existing and potential
future activities associated with the hatchery that may fall muter the definition of bottom and
hanging aquaculture. These activities are ancillary to hatchery operations.
As currently written, the County's Shoreline Regulations for Aquaculture in the High
Intensity environment prohibit bottom and hanging aquaculture uses and developments, with the
exception that floating upwell systems and shellfish restoration projects where shellfish are not
intended for direct human consumption may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of the
8MP. SMP 8.2.C.6. This language may inadvertently and adversely affect hatchery operations
in a manner that does not further health concerns, the apparent intent of this provision.
Given the County's concern over aesthetic impacts, as evidenced by other requirements
in this section, it is unclear exactly why the County would prohibit aquaculture in the Hiah
Intensity shoreline environment, where aesthetic impacts are logically less of a concern. In fact,
according to another section of the SMP. aquaculture uses excepting floating upwells, hatcheries,
and sorting and staging facilities are the only shoreline uses prohibited in the High Intensity
environment. See Article 4, Table I. It is inconsistent to prohibit a preferred shoreline use
outright while allowing, either outright or conditionally, aU other listed shoreline uses.
If the County's concern is related to bealth issues, such concern is fulJy addressed by
existing applicable laws and regulations such as the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and
V,WI'\(OASl\IEfJUSOM COIl. CONMEKT.IEFfERSON co stoeP UPl)A'T& FDW..OI29Ot.AMC DOC
January 29, 2009
the Department of Health's Shellfish program. Therefore. we suggest SMP 8.2.C.6 be revised to
read:
Aquaculture is pennitted in the High Intensity Environment so long as it complies
with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program and the Department of Health's
SbellflSh program.
Article 4, Table I, should then be revised for consistency with this regulation by
indicating that Aquaculture in the High Intensity environment is permitted subject to policies and
regulations of the SMP.
The aquaculture policies appropriately amowledge the need to proteet aquaculture due to
the important role it plays in JeffenoD County's economy; to ensure these polities are
earried out one policy should be revised to eDsure that tbe County's most significant
aquaculture faciUties are preferred and proteeted.
As noted above, Coast and PeM Cove support the policies favoring aquaculture at SMP
8.2.A.I-.3. In addition to these favorable policies, the SMP aquacuJture policies establish
preferences for certain types of aquaculture operations. See SMP 8.2.A.6. These preferences
include a statement that "[p]rojects that require few land-based facilities should be preferred over
those that require extensive land facilities." SMP 8.2.A.6.iii. This policy, we believe
inadvertently. creates a stnJcture where hatcheries-water-dependent upland facilities integral to
the shellfish farming process-are not preferred.
Given the preferred status of aquaculture as a shoreline use. the strong role that Coast's
hatchery facility plays in the regional economy, and the recognition that aquacultme activities in
general are an important contributor to the economy of Jefferson County. this policy should be
stricken. Alternatively. it should be edited to read:
With the exceotion of hatcheries. pProjects that require few land-based facilities
should be preferred over those that require extensive land facilities...
The aquaculture use regulatioDs Deed el.rilleatioD as to (i) wben tbey apply and (ii) wben
aquaculture may Interfere with nonnal pubic use of surface waten.
There are two provisions in tbe general aquaculture regulations (8.2.D) that are
ambiguous and could use clarification.
First, while the regulations specify wben an existing operation must obtain a new permit.
the regulations should more explicitly state that as a general rule any new regulations imposed in
a new SMP will apply only to new aquaculture operations. To achieve this, SMP 8.2.D.2 sbould
be revised to read as follows:
Aauaculture Qperations in existence as of the date of enactment of the SMP
update shall not be reauired to comDlv with the policy and rellUJltion amendments
resultini from that undate. and oGngoing maintenance. harvest, replanting,
Y'.IIo?ICOAS'NEfl'!RSON COIL COMMeNT JEI'l'ERSOtI co SMP ImlA 11 flMAl..OI2tllUMC.DOC
- 5-
January 29, 2009
restocking or changing the species cultivated in any existing or pennitted
aquaculture operation shall not require a new permit, unless or until. , .
Second, the regulations provide guidance as to when activities may be considered to
interfere with nonnal public use of surface waters, see 8.2.0.4, but use the undefmed tenn
"public waters" in this guidance. Because this tenn is ambiguous and undefined it could create
confusion later on for staff, applicants, and decisiorunakers. The concern expressed through this
regulation appears to relate to interference with nonnal public use of public tidelands. If this is
the case, SMP 8.2.D.4.i could be much clearer and still achieve its intended objective by
removing the term "public waters":
They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of flHsJie ':;atM iaell:ldiAg
public tidelands...
Conditional Use Permit Criteria
Despite the County's recognition that aquaculture is a preferred use of the shoreline, the
County SMP update requires Conditional Use Permits for some types of aquaculture in the
Natural, Conservancy, and Shoreline Residential environments. We understand that the County
desires to include a Conditional Use Permit requirement on some forms of aquaculture, including
geoduck.
However, the Conditional Use Pennit criteria set forth in the SMP contains ambiguous
wording that could potentially preclude all or nearly all shoreline uses and developments that
require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the SMP:
Uses specifically classified or set forth in this Program as conditional uses and
unlisted uses may be authorized provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all
of the following:
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public
shorelines.
Surely the County cannot intend that any interference with normal public use of
public shorelines prevents the issuance of a Conditional Use pennit. If this were the case,
it would prevent many shoreline activities from being permitted, including many
activities unrelated to aquaculture. However, we are particularly concerned that this
language subverts a preferred use (aquaculture) to other uses of the shoreline (any public
use), and potentially prevents that prefened use from being pennitted. This provision
should be stricken, or in the alternative revised to read:
2. That the proposed use will not substantiallv interfere with normal public use of
public shorelines.
Y \\VPICOASTVEfFERSOl' COIL COMMIfIT JllFF&llSONCO_SMl'_UPOAn P1N......lllml9.AMC,l)OC
w6~
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Amanda M. Carr
AMC-SWP:tt
cc: Coast Seafoods Company
Perm Cove Shellfish
v ,WPlCQI\SNS.FI!A$('IN COIl. ~T JlFl'M3ON C'O,SMP)J'OATI! F1NALOI1909 AMC DOC
~
January 29, 2009
ATTACHMENTB
Local News I Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific Ocean's chemistry killing sea life? I Seattle Times News... Page t of 4
<<t}e$eattle<<tmes
Monday, June 15, 2009 - Page updated at 11:38 AM
Permission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personal use, must be obtained from The Seattle Times. Call
206-464-3113 or e-mail resale@seattletimes.com with your request.
Corrected version
Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific
Ocean's chemistry killing sea life?
By Craig Welch
Seattle Times environment reporter
WILLAPA BAY, Pacific County-
The collapse began rather unspectacular1y.
In 2005, when most of the millions of Pacific oysters in this tree-lined
estuary failed to reproduce, Washington's shellfish growers largely
shrugged it off.
In a region that prOVides one-sixth of the nation's oysters - the
epicenter of the West Coast's $111 million oyster industry - everyone
knows nature can be fickle.
But then the failure was repeated in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It spread to
an Oregon hatchery that supplies baby oysters to shellfish nurseries
from Puget Sound to Los Angeles. Eighty percent of that hatchery's
oyster larvae died, too.
Now, as the oyster industry heads into the fifth summer of its most
unnerving crisis in decades, scientists are pondering a disturbing theory.
They suspect water that rises from deep in the Pacific Ocean - Icy
seawater that surges into Willapa Bay and gets pumped into seaside
hatcheries - may be corrosive enough to kill baby oysters.
If true, that could mean shifts In ocean chemistry associated with carbon-
dioxide emissions from fossil fuels may be impairing sea life faster and
more dramatically than expected.
STEVE RINGMAN I TIMES
Oysters' failure to reproduce wlllead workers like Northern
Oyster Co.'s Glldardo Mendoza to collect far more of their
product from a state .oyster preserve" in Willapa Bay.
Pacific oysters haven't successfully reproduced in the wild
since 2004.
STEVE R1NGMAN I THE SEATTLE TIMES
Wild oyster larvae are dying before they can attach to
shells like the one on top. Whether reared in the wild or in
hatcheries, dozens of larvae typically settle onto existing
shells, forming .seed."
And it would vault a key Washington industry to the center of International debate over how to respond to marine changes
expected to ripple through and undermine ocean food webs.
Scientists seeking to explain what's plaguing these coastal oysters say the link to more corrosive water is strong but
anecdotal. It could be just one of several factors.
But the possibility leaves some shellfish farmers uneasy about more than just their future business.
Indications that ocean acidification may already playa role in the dedlne of oysters are a "sign of things being out of balance,
and that scares the living daylights out of me," said third-generation oysterman Brian Sheldon.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlcgi-bin/PrintStory.pl ?document id=200933 645 8&zsection id"""2003925... 6/17/20m
Ruffling his 8.year.old son Jebediah's head, he added, "for this guy."
Local News I Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific Ocean's chemistry killing sea life? Seattle Times News... Page 2 of 4
"Growers are scrounging"
Pacific oysters aren't native to Willapa Bay, but shellfish growers have
farmed them here since the 1920s. It's about the only place left on the
West Coast where growers look to the wild to get their oysters.
Normally, oysters spawn in the water, producing larvae that swim and
eventually attach to a hard surface - typically other oyster shells. This
creates oyster seed, called a "set." These succulent mollusks are then
moved by hand throughout the bay and take two to five years to fatten
up.
But somewhere between the larval stage and settling on a shell, these
embryonic oysters are dying. And since only a few young have survived
since 2005, "we're running out of oysters in the bay," said Bill Dewey,
spokesman for Taylor Shellfish Farms. "Growers are scrounging for
whatever they can find."
Standing ankle-deep in sea-
water on a south Willapa sandbar last week, Sheldon, owner of Northern
Oyster Co., watched his workers gather shellfish at low tide from one of
the few places that still had some: a state "oyster reserve," a sort of
shellfish bank growers can lease and draw upon to s\Jbsidize their own
crops.
For the first time since his grandfather started the company in 1934,
Sheldon plans this year to spend thousands buying oyster seed -
larvae attached to shells - from hatcheries, rather than counting solely
on wild reproduction. He expects he'll make only half as much as he
would in a normal year.
"It perplexes me that we are still, as a country, and really, globally,
denying that there is something going on," he said. "I don't have the
background in the natural sciences to tell you it's one thing or the other. I
can just say that over the last 10 years it's clear to me ... something's
changing. There's no doubt in my mind."
Researchers at first blamed an explosion of Vibrio tubiashii, an ocean-
borne larvae-killing bacteria. When researchers sampled the marine
waters that get sucked directly into the hatcheries from the sea, they
found bacteria counts nearly 100 times above normal. Even after
installing extensive microbe-killing ultraviolet water-treatment systems,
larvae died.
Then they noticed the water's pH - the scale measuring acidity and
alkalinity - sometimes dropped below normal, becoming more acidic.
STEVE RINGMAN !THE SEATTLE TIMES
Above. Eric Hall. ofTaylor Shellfish Farms. counts the
seeds that have settled on a shell.
STEVE RnNGMAN I THE SEATTLE TIMES
One-sixth of the nation's oysters come from Willapa Bay,
epicenter ofthe West's $111 million oyster Industry.
STEVE RiNGMAN I THE SEATTLE TIMES
Growers rely on wild oysters. which typically grow in
clusters like this. Third-generation shellfish farmer Brian
Sheldon now must turn to oysters started in hatcheries.
Seawater typically is slightly alkaline, but when oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - as they have by the
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrinlStory.pl?document id=2009336458&zsection id=2003925... 6/1 71200~
Local News I Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific Ocean's chemistry killing sea life? Seattle Times News... Page 3 of 4
hundreds of billions of tons since the Industrial Revolution - they
become more corrosive.
Climate modelers predicted greenhouse gases would make marine
waters more acidic by century's end. They expected to notice it first in
deep water, some of which hasn't circulated to the surface in 1,500
years and has therefore accumulated more atmospheric carbon
dioxide. And deep waters already run higher in carbon dioxide
because dying plants, animals and fish sink and decay.
But two years ago, oceanographers Richard Feely and Chris Sabine,
both with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, found more
acidified waters already reaching the surface.
The north winds that blow off Washington's coast push marine surface
waters off shore. Those waters are replaced by the icy-cold, more
corrosive seawater welling up from hundreds of meters below.
Throughout 2008, researchers at Oregon's Whiskey Creek ShellfISh
Hatchery noticed a trend: Their die-offs tended to come after north
winds pushed those very same deep waters into the pipes that feed
the hatchery.
"There seems to be a strong correlation," Feely said.
Ripple effects for fish
In a sense, that's exactly what scientists expected - just not so soon.
STEVE RINGMAN I THE TIMES
Hatchery oysters face problems, too. since they're
spawned In water piped from the ocean. Eric Hail, of
Taylor Shellfish, now spends much more money on
producing oyster seed.
t. Washington's troUbled shellfish Indusby
Corrosive waters can dissolve clam shells, eat away at corals and kill
fish eggs. Already, scientists have taken pteropods, tiny marine snails
that swim in the open ocean, from the Gulf of Alaska and exposed them to slightly acidified marine water in a laboratory.
Their protective shells immediately dissolved.
Those creatures make up 60 percent of the food for Alaska's juvenile pink salmon. Similar creatures support many of the
major fish species in Alaska's North Pacific, which in turn supports the billion-dollar Seattle-based industry that provides half
the nation's catch of fish.
"The fish we depend on - salmon and pollock and herring - when they're in the first year of their life, they all depend on
shellfish for survival," Feely said. "Early models suggest a 10 percent loss in pteropods can cause a 20 percent loss in weight
of a fish:
Just last month, Smithsonian scientists published a paper suggesting that in the next century more acidified oceans will
threaten the world's shellfish. Oyster larvae, they pointed out. are particularly susceptible. Their early shells are made from an
easily eroded form of calcium carbonate.
Researchers believe that might be part of what's already happening on the Northwest coast. If oyster larvae are swimming in
marine waters - whether pumped from the sea Into a hatchery or in the bay - as deep, acidified water is pushed toward
shore. "that could be a problem," said Simone Alin, a NOAA scientist who works with Sabine and Feely.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlcgi-binlPrintStory .pI ?document id-2009336458&zsection id=ZOO3925... 611 7/200S
Local News f Oysters in deep trouble: Is Pacific Ocean's chemistry killing sea life? Seattle Times News... Page 4 of 4
In addition, Vibrio tubiashiithrives in this more corrosive environment. "It becomes the dominant pathogen," Feely said.
Still, it's too soon to say for certain if these Issues are localized or part of a broader phenomenon. The hatchery is not far from
a low-oxygen dead zone off the Oregon coast. There also isn't sophisticated enough equipment in place to get precise pH
read In9s.
But it all suggests significant ocean changes are coming fast, if they're not here already.
'We're not saying we're killing all life in the ocean," Sabine said. "There will be winners and losers. But this is not something
that's off in the future. This is not something for our children's children. It's happening now."
Asking for help
Already the oyster indUStry is seeing job losses and other effects. In the last year, Taylor spent $500,000 just trying to get
oysters to attach to shells in a secondary hatchery, said Willapa Division Manager Eric Hall.
The industry has asked Congress for help replumbing hatcheries and developing monitoring systems to track upwelling
events and the quality of incoming seawater. Without intervention. its economic contribution to the region could drop another
30 percent just this year, said Robin Downey, director of the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association.
So far in 2009, hatcheries have been able to improve production because of fewer upwelling events. Combined with new
piping and technology, oyster production could stabilize before consumers notice a change.
But without major changes in the marine environment, small operators who count entirely on nature, like Sheldon, will likely
continue to struggle. "' hope you have your fingers crossed for us,. he said.
He wants desperately to pass his business to his son, so he plans to keep on hunting for oysters.
But now he'll do so with one eye trained on the coast's north winds.
Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com
Copyright @ 2009 The Seattle Times Company
http://seattletimes.nwsource.comlcgi-binJPrintStory.pl ?document id=20093 3645 8&zsection id'~2003925... 6/171200~