HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-696
pc
Pit"
6J \ 1/ ~ ~
2("1 t.l i
10,000 YEARS INSTITUTE
watershed ecological services. www.10000yearsinstitute.org
360.385.0715. PO Box 1742. Port Townsend, WA 98368
June 17, 2009
Peter Downey, Chairman
Jefferson County Planning Commission
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
Re: Planning Commission Shoreline Master Program Revised Draft
Dear Chairman Downey and Commissioners:
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed update to the
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Revised Draft. 10,000 Years Institute is a non-profit
whose mission is to develop educational, management, and regulatory approaches to
promote sustainable land use practices in forests, rivers, wetlands, and estuaries. Using
science and local knowledge, the Institute works within communities to shape
regulatory priorities and advocate for sustainable land management practices that
protect ecosystem services and provide net environmental benefits. Our staff
participated on the Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) during a period of
1.5 years, and our board and staff have a combined 80 years of experience on shorelines,
forest ecosystems and ecology, and riverine and wetland ecology. We are committed to
the development of effective regulation that incorporates community values and
ecological sustainability, and believe that the original committees' draft better
represents that goal.
The update is critical at this place and time, not only because Jefferson County's SMP is
out of date and compliance, but because we still have an opportunity and the
responsibility to provide safe, healthy, and sustainable shorelines and shoreline
resources to current and future generations. At the western edge of the continent, with
relatively undeveloped shorelines, and the opportunity to provide healthy and
irreplaceable ecosystem services to our citizens and the region, Jefferson County is
'leading the way' for the rest of the State. Even if it were possible to do so, we do not
have the resources to restore or mitigate damage to fish, shellfish, clean water, flood
protection, clean air, healthy soil, forests, beaches, and stable bluffs. Protection of
existing resources is considerably less expensive, and is possible with an effective SMP.
Pagelof6
Regarding the Planning Commission's (PC) draft:
10,000 Years Institute is deeply concerned that some of the important contributions
made by the consultants, staff, and citizen committees, and reviewed and accepted by
all stakeholders during the process, is being discarded. If not reversed, the changes in
the current draft will significantly compromise the ability of this county to meet its legal
mandate to cause 'no net loss of shoreline function'. It also seems to us that significant
recommendations and comments submitted to the PC over the past six months by
tribes, the Department of Ecology, the Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee,
Futurewise, People for Puget Sound and others have been simply ignored. All raised
significant issues supported by science,law, and established policy. These
recommendations are not opinions to be casually discarded - but guidance coming
from experts to be recognized and incorporated.
Following are comments on specific issues raised by the Institute and not addressed in
the PC draft, organized by general topic:
Equal Protection Statute:
As articulated by the County's attorney, David Alvarez, in his memo of 6-03-09, and
provided to the PC in comment period several times by 10,000 Years Institute - the
County must amend its existing SMP to provide a level of protection to critical areas
within shorelines that is "at least equal" to the level of protection provided to critical
areas by the local government's critical areas ordinances (CAOs) adopted under the
GMA. ESHB 1933 Sec. 3(4); Sec. 5(4) [RCW90.58.090(4); 36.70A.480(4)). When adopting
the SMP, the county must assure that the regulatory ordinances used to evaluate and
protect critical areas designated under the CAD provide equal protection to the
resource as would be required under the CAD. Thus buffer areas and other protections
that would have been required under CAD must be required under the SMP. CAO
FWHCA buffers are 150' for forage fish spawning, kelp, eel grass, cOrrullercial shellfish
beds, and habitat for endangered salmon, and these fragile resources have been
mapped and reported in the Inventory and Characterization Report. Salmon use the
entire shoreline during migration, and for feeding. The PC has not addressed this issue,
and is essentially leaving it for for landowners to discover during the permitting
process - where the largest landward buffer will apply according to Article 6 (7) in the
SMP draft as below:
Unfortunately, DCD staff will be hard-pressed to keep up with the difficulty of
applying the FWHCA mapped reaches to each parcel.
Shoreline Designations:
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) policy is restated on Page 1-1 of the Draft SMP.
One of the primary means of protecting these most fragile areas is through the Natural
Page 2 of 6
environment for ecologically -intact upland areas, and the Priority Aquatic environment
for corresponding aquatic areas. The use provisions, such as the Use Table found in the
draft SMP, are the means to provide protection for these areas. The SMP Guidelines
provide that these environments are supposed to be limited to low-intensity uses, and
are supposed to limit structural changes in the environment. The Use Table now
allows many previously prohibited uses, or changes uses that previously needed
conditional use permits into substantial development permits or exemptions. The table
now also allows many structural changes when they were previously prohibited, or
changes structures that needed conditional use permits into substantial development
permits or exemptions. Of particular concern are the changes that allow intense levels of
development in the Priority Aquatic, Natural and Conservancy environments, for
example: industrial! port development in Conservancy, recreational development in the
Priority Aquatic, multi-family residential in Conservancy, major transportation facilities
in the Conservancy. These changes will result in a significant loss vegetation, wildlife
habitat, and aquatic habitat contrary to the policy of the SMA and should be reversed.
Shoreline Buffers:
Shoreline buffers must be established for multiple use - not single use - i.e. pollution
filtration only. It is clearly established in the existing SMP draft and cited literature that
shorelines are best protected by native vegetation and intact native soils. Marine
riparian buffers provide the following functions, to different degrees in different places:
. slope stability
· interception of rain so soils don't become saturated and fail
. shade (this is not always an issue when the tide goes way out, but important still)
. food web support and physical habitat structures - leaves, insects, large wood
. perching, denning, roosting, nesting for wildlife and birds
. pollution filtration
. sediment filtration
While desirable for simplicity and views, it is not possible to provide the smallest exact
widths or prescriptions for buffer sustainability while still providing all functions. The
PC has not provided sufficient science or policy support to the argument that Shoreline
Residential Designation should receive 50' buffers. Ecosystems are inherently dynamic
places, with complex and interconnected environmental conditions that change over
time, but the established literature on buffers and their functions for this region and
across the country is clear that there's a range - with 150' being toward the low end of
recommended widths to provide multiple functions as outlined above. 150' buffers are
supported by the science, and passed in Whatcom County's SMP update despite legal
challenges. 150' is a compromise made to provide balance to a society that is used to
seeing the below image as the desired development model:
Page 3 of 6
Single family residential platting covers about 43 miles of shoreline - per the table
Figure 4. Miles of Marine, River, and Lake Shoreline in each Shoreline Environment
Designation - East Jefferson County from page 37 of the Characterization and
Inventory Report. High Intensity is about 11 miles. That represents a considerable
amount of shoreline with development. Single family residential may be a preferred
use under the SMP, but it is also essentially a high intensity use - as in the County's
CAO - 18.22 UDC. Without language requiring low impact development and
stormwater management for all development, net loss of shoreline function results from
clearing and impervio~s, or semi-impervious surfaces such as lawns.
Geo-Hazards in the SMP:
High bluffs are inherently dangerous places to build, and buffers of native vegetation
provide safety and stability to homes and people. High bluffs comprised of erodable
materials (other than bedrock) erode over time to a stable angle of repose (-45 degrees).
A boat trip along the shoreline of north Jefferson County will demonstrate the increased
rate of erosion under developments and clearings. The existing UDC Chapter 18.25.410
on the 1:1 rise! run formula would be applied during construction - and the largest
buffer will apply once a building permit is applied for, but the danger is that the land
will have already been cleared before this review takes place, leaving the landowner
and the shoreline vulnerable to the impacts seen all too frequently along our shorelines.
It.
(j) The standard setback for residential structures, includin
structures such as ara es and worksho s shall be 30 feet or
When the bank's hei
be measured from the ordinary high water mark.
The Natural Designation is applied where feeder bluffs have been identified along with
the other criteria in the designation, but geo-hazards and unstable slopes occur in many
Page 4 of 6
other places. Landowners will likely be required to produce expensive geo-technical
reports - an option which is already in place under CEU variances and the CASP
provision.
The only reference to unstable slopes and bluffs is in Article 6 as follows. This puts
increased burden on the Administrator, and is insufficient to provide safety to people,
and stability (or slow the release of bluff material) to the shoreline environment.
10. Increased Buffers: The Administrator may increase the required buffer widths when a
larger buffer width is necessary to protect the structure, function and/or character of the
shoreline. The buffet:" may be increased or other protections required when necessary to
prevent adverse environmental impacts or address hazards associated with the site or the
proposed land use or develo ment activi
1.
or
2. There is evidence of a migrating stream or river channel and increased protection
will be necessary; or
3. There are potential flooding risks, including risks associated with sea level rise; or
4. The land adjacent to the ordinary high water mark is steeply sloped (25 percent
slope or greater).
Sea Level Rise:
Low bluffs and low-lying shorelines and development will be impacted by sea level rise
in the relatively near future. This is a critical issue not addressed in the PC SMP draft,
which, when adopted, will be in force for seven years. It is considered in the Inventory
and Characterization report and has been discussed in comments by tribes and others.
This issue needs attention!
In additio~, low bank shorelines often require bulkheading to protect from erosion after
clearing, which impairs aquatic vegetation, and nearshore sediment migration, as well
as other riparian functions and processes. Reducing buffers for SR to 50' from 150' is
not sufficient for these areas.
Specific Comments:
The word "noxious" below should be changed to "toxic".
1. Agriculture
A. Policies
3. New agricultural use and development should be managed to:
iLPrevent water quality contamination caused by nutrients and chemicals;
iiLMinimize clearing of riparian areas;
iv.Assure no net loss of ecological functions and avoid adverse effects on shoreline
resources and values.
Page 5 of 6
The distance of 25 feet for manure spreading is not sufficient, even by the PC's
discussed standards of 50' required for filtration of pollutants, to eliminate the risk of
fecal coliform pollution to water. The distance should be established per slope, soils,
hydrology, and condition of the riparian forest - but in the absence of such specificity, a
minimum of 100' should be maintained.
C. Regulations
2. New agricultural use and development on lands not meeting the definition of agricultural
land shall comply with this Program and all of the following regulations:
D. Manure spreading shall be conducted in a manner that prevents animal wastes from
entering water bodies or wetlands adjacent to water bodies. Manure spreading shall not
be allowed within the floodway or within of the ordinary high water
mark of any shoreline, whichever is greater.
The prohibition for fin fish aquaculture should be re-established. There is considerable
and sufficient evidence that we do not know how to conduct fin fish aquaculture
without significant impact to native wild fish populations, which are largely already
endangered here - below from the PDSMP draft:
2. Aquaculture
B. Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright
1. Net pens, as defined in Article 2, and finfish aquaculture that uses herbicides, pesticides,
antibiotics, fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, or feed are prohibited.
Language should be added to 6. Mining A. Policies to prohibit gravel mining within the
Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) of any stream or river, not just the Ordinary High
Water Mark, and floodplain. Gravel resources exist within CMZs, but migration into
the mines is a common danger and is ecologically damaging to shoreline resources.
Finally, we want to recognize the significant contributions made by the State, County,
and local community to this process; and applaud the County DCD's staff's efforts to
track, organize, communicate, and make accessible the complex and voluminous
products that have been developed during the three-plus years this update has been in
process.
Thank you for your serious consideration of these comments and hope that they are
useful. We appreciate the time and effort you've expended to develop the SMP.
Page 6 of 6