Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-685 COAST SEA:~-~~~I/~~~;?NY QUILCENE OFFICE P.O. Box 327 Quilcene, WA 98376-0327 (360) 765-3345 or (360) 765-3474 FAX (360) 765-3045 ~ . ,"'- )> .._r'" ~., C', . ... ' [. , 1 &' I i'/~' June 17,2009 ( k '6(; \ / ,,-,~ Jefferson County Department of Community Development SMP Comments 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 planning@co.jefferson.wa.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 ("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 6 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, and to hatcheries and mussel rafts in particular. 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, and to clarify ambiguous language and resolve conflicting language in the Draft SMP. To the extent these issues and concerns were not adequately addressed in the last round of revisions, V.\WP\COAS1\JEFFERSON COIL COMMENTJEFFERSON CO_SMP_UPDATE FINAL012909.AMCDOC - 2 - June 17,2009 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, including hatcheries and mussel rafts, in Jefferson County, and for responding to issues and concerns raised in their January 29, 2009 comment letter. Coast and Penn 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-term 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-term sustainability. 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. 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 farming 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:IWPICOAST\JEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JEFFERSON CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL.012909.AMC.DOC - 3 - June 17,2009 c. SMP 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. SMP 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 of the Draft SMP. Coast and Penn Cove further support the Planning Commission's decision to allow nurseries, incubators, hatcheries, sorting and staging facilities; and bottom, hanging, and floating culture in every shoreline environment, subject to limitations and to the policies and regulations of the Draft SMP, with the exception of requiring 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. II. 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 with the framework set forth in the Shoreline Environment Designation and Aquaculture sections of the Draft SMP. Coast and Penn Cove support the Planning Commission's decision to divide the Aquaculture Shoreline Environmental designations into three categories ((i) Bottom culture/Hanging/floating culture; (2) Net Pens; and (3) Nurseries, incubators, hatcheries, sorting 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. 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. Y:IWPICOASTlJEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JEFFERSON CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL.OI2909AMC.DOC - 4 - June 17,2009 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 farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals in freshv/ater or saltwater areas, 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. Excluded from this definition are related upland aquaculturecommercial or industrial uses such as wholesale and retail sales, sorting, staging, hatcheries, tank farms, and final processing 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 (WAC 173-27-030). Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping walls/decorative rockeries, mussel racks, 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.D) that are ambiguous and could use clarification. 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. To achieve this, SMP 8.2.D.2 should be revised to read as follows: Y:IWPICOASTVEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JEFFERSON CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL.012909.AMC.DOC - 5 - June 17, 2009 Aquaculture operations in existence as of the date of enactment of the SMP update shall not be required to comply with the policy and regulation amendments resulting from that update, and oGngoing 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 later on for staff, applicants, and decision makers. The concern expressed through this regulation appears to relate to interference with normal public use of public tidelands. If this is the case, this provision could be much clearer and still achieve its intended objective by removing the term "public waters." This condition is also overbroad. SMP 8.2.DA should be revised as follows: 1. They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public '.vaters including public tidelands; and 11. They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar apparatus on a regular basis er-and 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 and/or transient boats anchored in that shellfish growing area. Such actions have the potential to temporarily or permanently shut down aquaculture farms, and aquaculture companies, in Jefferson County. Coast and Penn Cove support the addition of boating facility policy SMP 7 .2.A.11, 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 cumulative effect will not jeopardize the health certification of the aquaculture farm or facility. Y:\WP\COAS1\JEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JEFFERSON CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL.OI2909.AMC.DOC - 6- June 17, 2009 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Very truly yours, Amanda M. Stock AMS-SWP:tt cc: Coast Seafoods Company Penn Cove Shellfish Y:IWPICOAS'NEFFERSON COIL COMMENT.JEFFERSON CO_SMP _UPDATE FINAL012909.AMC.DOC