The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-664 C iJ lit 1/ 1"Yl+1'" ,r' '-'v I . ~, " ,"""-,, ,," Page 1 of 1 Jeanie Orr ? ~'I From: Jeanie Orr Sent: Thursday, June 18, 20098:03 AM To: AI Scalf; Stacie Hoskins Cc: Jeanie Orr Subject: FW: WDFW comment on Jefferson Draft SMP Attachments: WDFW comment on Draft Jefferson SMP _PC Revisions_6 17 09,pdf From: Knight, Katie M (DFW) [mailto:Katie.Knight@dfw.wa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 20094:56 PM To: #Long-Range Planning Cc: Michelle McConnell Subject: WDFW comment on Jefferson Draft SMP Please find our comment letter attached. We appreciate this opportunity for involvement in your SMP update. Thank you, Katie Knight WDFW Environmental Planner Puget Sound and Olympic Peninsula (360) 902-2618 katie. knight@dfW. wa. gov 6/18/2009 State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091, (360) 902-2200, TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia WA June 17,2009 Mr. Peter Downey Jefferson County Planning Commission 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, W A 98368 SUBJECT: WDFW comments on the Planning Commission June 3, 2009 Draft Shoreline Master Program Dear Mr. Downey: The State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Jefferson County Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We have been involved in this update, providing both technical and policy recommendations at the committee level. We have reviewed the June 3, 2009 amendments to the policy and technical committee SMP draft and have some concerns with these changes. We focus our comments on the uses allowed in shoreline environment designations and shoreline buffers and defer to the Department of Ecology's comments on other issues, including amendments that allow non-conforming lot development without a variance. Article 2 - Definitions The definition for hazard tree has been amended to remove "residential or residential accessory" before the term "structure." As proposed, a dying or dead tree within a tree length of any structure, including "landscaping walls/decorative rockeries" could be considered hazardous and in need of removal. Dying, diseased, or compromised trees provide important habitat benefits, such as nesting sites for cavity nesting species and sources of large woody debris. To maintain a focus on public safety, we recommend reinstating the condition that hazardous trees are those that pose a threat to a "residential or residential accessory structure." Article 4 - Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Several amendments have been made to Table 1, p. 4-6, to permit shoreline uses in sensitive environments, such as natural and priority aquatic designations. WAC 173-26- 211 defines a "Natural" environment designation as one with, ".. .shoreline functions intolerant of human use,..." The June 3, 2009 amends development of boat launches, WDFW Comments on Jefferson County June 2009 Draft SMP June 17,2009 Page 2 of 4 docks, piers, floats, lifts, mooring buoys, and uses including transportation and aquaculture from requiring a conditional use permit to being permitted outright "with limitations" and accessory structures have been amended from prohibited to allowed with a conditional use permit. We recommend against these amendments to reduce permit review and authority in sensitive natural areas and encourage the Planning Commission to reinstate the PDSMP December 2008 language that provided review and permit authority consistent with the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26) as well as the purpose for "Natural" environment designation in the Jefferson Draft SMP at Article 3, Section 2 (C)(3)(i). The amendments made to the "Priority Aquatic" environment designation also appear inconsistent with the Draft Jefferson SMP purpose statement, "The Priority Aquatic designation protects to the highest degree possible and, where feasible, restores waters and their underlying bedlands deemed vital for salmon and shellfish. " Shoreline modifications and uses including water-oriented recreation, boat launches and mooring buoys are now permitted without a conditional use permit and the county's ability to "protect or restore waters and their underlying bed lands deemed vital for salmon and shellfish" is limited by this proposal. We recognize the asterisk indicates permitting comes with limitations, but it is unclear how these limitations will be determined. Article 6 - General Policies and Regulations Section 1 (A), Critical Areas, Shoreline Buffers, and Ecological Protection, Policy 3 has been stricken. We recommend reinstating this statement, "Use and development should be discouraged in areas that are ecologically valuable, hazardous, and/or that possess rare or fragile natural features. " This policy is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) goal to protect the quality of water and the natural environment. We recommend including the statement "to track and monitor the results of mitigation activities" that has been stricken from the revised Policy 3. To ensure mitigation is actually achieving no net loss, as directed by the SMP Guidelines, monitoring is essential. Section 1 (B), No Net Loss and Mitigation, we recommend reinstating, "including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements." This statement will help ensure that cumulative impacts are being assessed and mitigated for all activities, including exempt activities such as hazard tree removal and trail construction. Both of these activities can result in significant habitat loss if not mitigated appropriately. Weare pleased to see that hazard trees are to remain on-site in order to provide wildlife habitat and enhance in-stream or marine habitat. Many jurisdictions also require replanting when hazardous trees are removed to ensure no net loss of ecological function. Section 1 (D), Regulations - Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers, includes a building setback amendment from 10 feet to five feet. We recommend a building setback of 15 feet, to offset impacts associated with construction and building. A shoreline buffer is an area to be protected to maintain ecological functions. Allowing development within five feet of a shoreline buffer is insufficient to avoid encroaching on sensitive habitat areas. WDFW Comments on Jefferson County June 2009 Draft 8MP June 17,2009 Page 3 of4 Fifteen feet is the recommended setback for critical areas from the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. In this same section, an amendment to marine shoreline buffers has reduced the buffer width from 150 feet to 50 feet for Shoreline Residential and High Intensity Shoreline Environments. We sympathize with your efforts to implement flexibility in these higher density shoreline areas. However, these marine shoreline buffers are not consistent with best available science. A biological opinion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2008 BiOp) states that protection is greatest when riparian areas are protected with buffers consistent with WDFW riparian management recommendations (Knutsen and Naef 1997). Consistent with these sources of best available science, riparian buffers are recommended as follows: . 250 feet measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water for Type S (Shorelines of the State) streams, · 200 feet for Type F streams (fish bearing) greater than 5 feet wide and marine shorelines, · 150 feet for Type F streams less than 5 feet wide, for lakes. · Type N (nonsalmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal streams a 150 foot or 225 foot buffer applies, depending on slope stability (the 225 foot buffer applies to unstable slopes), the Channel Migration Zone plus 50 feet; and the mapped Floodway. We also note that your provisions as stated provide site-specific buffer flexibility (Regulations 7-9). We recommend that approval of buffer averaging, reductions, conditions, or usage must still ensure no net loss consistent with the best available science to maintain habitat value and function. We suggest restating Regulation 7, Buffer Condition to ensure that "sufficiently vegetated" is adequately defined and therefore, "protects and maintains the existing ecological functions." Section 7 - Common Line Setback, the regulatory screening distance has been increased from 50 feet to 300 feet. This change would potentially increase the number of new structures that can be sited closer to the shoreline than best available science would support for the protection of marine riparian functions. This will have overall adverse cumulative impacts to the shoreline environment, increasing the overall number of non- conforming structures at a time when many state and local resources are being devoted to shoreline restoration and Puget Sound recovery. Article 7 - Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations Section 7, Structural Shoreline Armoring and Shoreline Stabilization, we recommend reinstating Policy A(2) that encourages proactive planning to avoid the need for structural shoreline armoring. Shoreline armoring is a significant contributor to the loss of nearshore habitat in the Puget Sound, and causes the most significant impact to bluff erosion by deterring the transport of sediment that is vital habitat for forage fish, a key food source for federally listed salmon ids (Envirovision et al. 2007). WDFW Comments on Jefferson County June 2009 Draft SMP June 17,2009 Page 4 of 4 Article 8 - Use Specific Policies and Regulations Section 2, Aquaculture, we recommend reinstating Policy A(3) that aquaculture is to avoid significant adverse impacts on ecological functions. This is an important policy to ensure a balance is struck between shoreline use and natural environment protection. Again we thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Planning Commission Draft SMP. We look forward to providing additional technical assistance throughout your update process. Please contact myself, Katie Knight, with any questions or requests for additional information. Sincerely, ~7~ /w- Katie Knight Land Use and Environmental Planner Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, W A 98501-1091 Phone: 360.902.2618 E-mail: katie.knight@dfw.wa.gov cc: Steve Kalinowski, Regional Habitat Program Manager, WDFW Jennifer Davis, Technical Assistance Section Manager, WDFW Margie Schirato, Area Habitat Biologist, WDFW Michael Blanton, Watershed Steward, WDFW Anita McMillan, Wildlife Biologist, WDFW Jeffree Stewart, Shoreline Planner, Ecology Citations: Enviro Vision, Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. October 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide: http://wdfw . wa. gOY /hab/nearshore guidelines/ Knutsen, K.C. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ripxsum.htm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2008. Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document - Puget Sound Region. NMFS Tracking No.: 2006-00472. A vailab Ie at: https://pcts.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/pcts- pub/biop query?reg inclause in=('NWR')&s region=. 213 pp.