Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-670 f1 . t1 'V-trf D \ \I VC_t \iN' ~(.. f-.. € C (""J-. \ '- ~ b\ \\) a~ 2tl(,~: , June 17, 2009 Jefferson County Planning Commission Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend W A 98368 Attn: Michelle McConnell, Associate Planner Dear Ms. McConnell and Honorable Planning Commissioners: via email: planning@co.iefferson.wa.us mmcconnell@co.iefferson.wa.us Re: Planning Commission Revised Draft Shoreline Master Program (PCSMP) Com- ments I am writing on behalf of the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC). As you know, we serve in an advisory capacity to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and operate under the umbrella of the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative. Our purpose is to "achieve the protection and restoration of the marine resources of Jefferson County and to do so infurtherance of our benchmarksfor peiformance." Since 1999, the MRC has conducted fish surveys, prepared a Priority Habitat Study, established a voluntary eelgrass protection zone, conducted much needed research on native Olympia oysters, provided technical assistance to property owners for soft shore protection projects, supported marine shoreline landowner workshops, and much more. The MRC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the PCSMP. In preparing these comments we have reviewed the PCSMP, June 3, 2009 and the comments that we submitted on the Preliminary Draft Shoreline Master Program (PDSMP), January 30, 2009. A strong Shoreline Master Program is an essential partner in protecting marine resources. Thus, in general, the MRC opposes any weakening of the regulatory tools in the Shoreline Master Program. Our specific comments follow the organization of the document. SHORELINE JURISDICTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATIONS Designations and Classifications The MRC supported the Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) that were proposed in the December 2008 PDSMP and we are pleased to see that there have not been significant changes to the location of the designations. We do note; however, that there have been significant changes made to the shoreline uses that are allowed within each designation as depicted in Table 1 - Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Shoreline Environment Designation (pp. 4-6 to 4-8). These include: aquaculture, beach access structures, boating facilities and boat houses associated with single family struc- tures. Since each of these shoreline uses is addressed again in its own section of the plan, we will address our specific concerns as we offer comments on each of those sec- tions. In general, we are concerned that in attempting to simplify the table, types of uses have been combined resulting in a net decrease in protection of marine shoreline re- sources. The MRC believes there is scientific basis for the SEDs and the associated uses that were proposed in December, including, but not limited to: . Diefenderfer, H L., K L. Sobocinski, R. M. Thorn, C. W. May, S. L. Southard, A. B. Borde, C. Judd, J. Vavrinec, and N. K. Sather. 2006. Multi-Scale Restoration Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A Case Study from Jefferson County, Washington. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington Report No.PNWD-3762. November 22, 2006. . Hirschi, R. 1999. Critical nearshore habitats, Tala to Kala Point, Jefferson County. Prepared for Jefferson County Long Range Planning, Port Townsend, 33 p. . Hirschi, R., T. Doty, A. Keiler, and T. Labbe. 2003a. Juvenile salmonid use oftidal creek and independent marsh areas in North Hood Canal: summary of first year findings. Point No Point Treaty Council. . Hirschi, R., T. Labbe, and A. Carter- Mortimer. 2003b. Shoreline Alterations in Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 03-1. . May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report. . Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Weller. 2006. Historical Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State. Final Report. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 06-1. December 2006. GENERAL PROVISIONS The following three subsections address buffers and related provisions where significant changes have been made between the December PDSMP and the June PCSMP. When considered cumulatively, it is unlikely that the PCSMP can meet the goal of no net loss of ecological function. Marine Shoreline Buffers In January, the MRC supported the marine shoreline buffer of 150' and encouraged the Planning Commission to consider increasing this to 200' on uplands adjacent to the priority aquatic SED. The Inventory and Characterization Report documents loss of ecological function that has already occurred along many reaches of marine shoreline in Jefferson County (ESA Adolfson, 2008). We are deeply concerned to see the PCSMP propose reducing marine shoreline buffers to 50' in shoreline residential and high intensity shoreline environments (pg. 6-5). The SMP provides adequate flexibility and methods to reduce buffers in certain situations such that a reduction of the standard buffer in shoreline residential and high intensity shoreline environments is not only unnecessary but will likely result in a net loss of ecological functions; furthermore, we can find no scientific study that would support a standard buffer ofless than 98 feet along marine shorelines. One hundred and fifty feet is consistent with the buffer width being proposed and/or adopted in many jurisdictions. Whatcom County's new SMP has 150' as the standard buffer for marine shorelines. King County currently applies a 165-foot buffer to marine shorelines outside of urban growth areas via the King County critical areas ordinance. Kitsap County is also considering a 150 foot marine shore buffer in certain shoreline environment designations. Even Port Townsend with small, historically platted lots, and more urban development, may require 100' in areas where the geotechnical report concludes that a lesser buffer width would result in an increased risk to people or property or impacts to environmental processes. It is also important to recall that Jefferson County has already adopted 150' buffers for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAD). Most, ifnot all of the marine shoreline in the shoreline residential SED would meet the critical area definition of Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area due to the presence of forage fish, eelgrass and other criteria. Jefferson MRC comments on 6/03/09 PCSMP 2 6/1712009 As such the 1 SO' buffer would apply. If the Planning Commission is seeking to streamline and improve the ease of administration of the SMP, the MRC respectfully suggests that setting up this discrepancy between the CAO and SMP is counterproductive. In Jefferson County buffers are necessary to protect water quality and wildlife by providing habitat and travel corridors, microclimate regulation, organic input and to ameliorate the impacts of human disturbance such as light and noise. Bald eagles, kingfishers, and other birds use logs on beaches, tideflats and estuarine channels as perches (which provide visibility for foraging as well as resting areas), and to reduce flight times (energy conservation) between foraging areas and nesting sites. Herons and egrets will use drifted trees that are partially out of the water, as well as floating logs and log rafts for foraging and resting. Cormorants, pelicans, small shorebirds, and some waterfowl also require perches and platforms for rest between periods of foraging to spread their wings, to dry their feathers and for preening themselves. As rotting trees on land near the water become limiting, purple martins and other cavity-nesting birds will use rotting snags on beaches for nesting. Gulls use log beaches and estuarine meadows for breeding. Logs function to visually isolate adjacent nests, provide thermoregulatory benefits for egg development, and cover for newly hatched chicks. Logs enable gulls to spend less time protecting the nest and more time foraging, resulting in increased survival of chicks. The minimum recommended buffer for microclimate protection is 328 feet (May, 2003). Recent studies have shown that riparian vegetation on open marine shorelines may play an important role in producing terrestrial insect prey for juvenile salmon. Eelgrass beds are known to provide habitat for numerous fish and invertebrate species, abundant fish prey production, as well as spawning habitat for herring. Buffer recommendations have not been made for protection of fish prey production function. Shade provided by riparian vegetation along marine shorelines is not likely to influence marine water temperatures due to mixing and tidal fluctuations, but may be an important factor in moderating water temperature in pocket estuaries. Solar radiation is also an important factor determining distribution, abundance, and species composition of upper intertidal organisms (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). Moisture and direct solar radiation also influence egg viability of intertidal-spawning forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (Penttila, 200 I). Buffer recommendations range from 98 to 262 feet for natural temperature regulation and shading as these provide a degree of shading equivalent to a mature forest (May, 2003). References Cited . Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents, Seattle, W A. 27p. . ESA Adolfson, Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. November 2008. Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report ~ Revised, Prepared for: Jefferson County Department of Community Development. . May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report. . Penttila, D. 2000. Documented spawning areas of the pacific herring (Clupea), surf smelt (Hypomesus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes) in East Jefferson County. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division Manuscript Report. Shoreline Setbacks and Height Related to buffers and building setbacks, it is the building setback that helps to ensure that the integrity of the buffer is maintained. The December PDSMP proposed a building setback of ten Jefferson MRC comments on 6/03/09 PCSMP 3 6/1712009 (to) feet on the landward edge of shoreline buffers. The June PCSMP proposes a 5 foot setback (pg. 6-18). The MRC does not support this reduction as it will likely result in an effective loss of buffer width due to building maintenance and other activities that, by their nature, have the potential to compromise the functions of the buffer. Common Line Setback For the purpose of accommodating shoreline views; however, to be adequate and similar to adjacent residences, setbacks and buffers for single family residences may be reduced, without a variance, where there are existing legally-established, non-conforming residences that encroach on the prescribed setback/buffer on either side of the proposed residence. While there is no resource protection justification for this type of buffer reduction, the MRC could support the December PDSMP which established a maximum distance of 50 feet for adjacent non- conforming residences to be used in the establishment of a common line setback. The June PCSMP proposes increasing the distance to 300 feet when establishing a common line setback (pg. 6-19). This proposed change to the Shoreline Master Program will have significant consequences to marine shoreline buffer widths and is therefore not supported by the MRC. SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Beach Access Structures The MRC is concerned to see the June PCSMP remove the distinction between private and public beach access structures (pp. 4-6; 7-1). The purpose of distinguishing between public and private is to minimize the proliferation of these developments. Public access, by definition, serves the public and therefore serves a greater number of people with potentially the same or similar impacts as a private structure which may serve only one residence. The MRC does support the increase in distance between public access and the proposed access from 300 feet to 500 feet (pg. 7-3). Boating Facilities: Boat Launches, Docks, Piers, Floats, Lifts, Marinas, and Mooring Buoys As indicated above with regard to beach access, the MRC is concerned to see the June PCSMP remove the distinction between private and public boating facilities (pp. 4-6; 7-6 to 7-13). As indicated above, public facilities should be preferred to private facilities as they serve a greater number of people thereby limiting the potential loss of ecological function by reducing this type of development. Structural Shoreline Armoring and Shoreline Stabilization The MRC supported the proposed limitations to armoring in the December PDSMP and is pleased to see there were no significant changes proposed by the Planning Commission in the June PCSMP (pp. 4-7; 7-29). The alteration of nearshore habitat through the construction of bulkheads provides a striking example of how a localized activity can threaten broad components of the ecosystem. Bulkheads are already present on 11 % of the marine shoreline in east Jefferson County. The value of unaltered shorelines for salmon production, aquaculture and recreation can not be overstated. The MRC is completing the 4th year of its Drift Cell restoration Program which is specifically aimed at halting the proliferation of bulkheads and other structures through education and outreach and restoring segments of the shoreline that have already been impaired by these structures. The MRC welcomes a regulatory partner in this effort. Jefferson MRC comments on 6/03/09 PCSMP 4 6/17/2009 USE-SPECIFIC POLICIES AND REGULATIONS Aquaculture The majority of the MRC supported the local control and involvement through permitting of new Geoduck and floating/hanging operations that was proposed in the December 2008 PDSMP. The MRC is concerned that the PCSMP (pp. 4-6; 8-3 to 8-9) relaxes requirements for all aquaculture, including finfish net pens, except when adjacent to the residential designation. ADMINISTRA liON AND ENFORCEMENT Non-conforming Development Although the MRC did not previously comment on the provisions for non-conforming uses, we are concerned that the provisions proposed in the June PCSMP (pp. 10-6 to 10-8) undermine the very concept of non-conforming uses. In theory, non-conforming uses will live out their life expectancy and come into compliance with current standards over time. By allowing any non- conforming home damaged by fire, flood or natural event to be rebuilt on original footprint, evert when sufficient lot size would allow for relocation in conformance with new standard buffer requirements, rather than the December PDSMP's proposal to require an excessively damaged home (over 75%) to relocate in conformance with new standard buffer when lot size allows, will ensure that non-conformities continue in perpetuity to the detriment of marine shoreline resources. Ideally, the determination of whether to allow the reconstruction of a damaged property would be linked to a performance-based standard rather than a prescriptive one such as 75%; however, this type of standard is expensive to implement and subject to interpretation. This issue is politically sensitive and represents a difficult balance between active resource protection and property rights issues. While the MRC does not have a specific solution for this situation, we are available to consult regarding long-range protections, best available science and alternative solutions as envisioned and/or approved by other agencies or jurisdictions. While we appreciate the Planning Commission's work in preparing the PCSMP we are concerned that the proposed changes do not adequately protect marine shoreline resources. The MRC respectfully requests that the Planning Commission reconsider the aforementioned changes when preparing their final recommendation to the BOCC. The MRC not only looks forward to working with DCD to implement the restoration plan but to partnering with other entities to fill the gaps in marine resource protection through education, outreach and stewardship and by developing programs that are complimentary and coordinated. Sincerely, -~=E.;;7~7('" Michael Adams, Chair Jefferson County MRC cc: Jefferson County BOCC Jefferson County MRC Jeffree Stewart, DOE Jefferson MRC comments on 6/03/09 PCSMP 5 6/17/2009