Case inlet shoreline association


Download 471 b.
Sana09.07.2017
Hajmi471 b.


CASE INLET SHORELINE ASSOCIATION


Orcas at Dutcher’s Cove



Entrance to Dutcher’s Cove



Dutcher’s Cove Aerial View

  • Please note the “pocket estuaries” that occur as lagoons in this aerial photo.



501(c)(3) Status Pending

  • Case Inlet Shoreline Association has filed its form 1023 for Tax Exempt Status.

  • Tax Exempt Status has not yet been approved. Tax Deduction Requires Approval.

  • If Tax Exempt Status is approved, contributions made before approval are entitled to be tax deductible.



Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58 et. seq

  • The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.



Pierce County has Adopted Interim Regulations

  • ON October 16, 2007 Pierce County Council adopted Ordinance 2007-34s to place restrictions on the placement and operation of Industrial Aquaculture sites.



Ordinance Under Department of Ecology Review

  • Pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-120, this Ordinance shall not become effective until approved by the Department of Ecology. Upon receiving such approval, the effective date of the Ordinance shall be the date of the Department of Ecology’s letter to Pierce County approving the Shoreline Management Use Regulation amendments set forth in Exhibit A.



Industrial Aquaculture Opposed Ordinance and Vows Appeal

  • “We don’t believe what the [Pierce] county is doing is legal under the RCWs,” said Bill Dewey, spokesman for Taylor Shellfish Farms. “We’re not happy about it.”

  • Stung by last week’s ruling, shellfish industry representatives say that, depending on which way the DOE rules, an appeal could be in the works.

  • Peninsula Gateway, October 24,2007



Shoreline Management Act Encourages Local Control

  • The County has the primary rule in these regulations under the Shoreline Management Act. RCW 90.58.050 (“Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by this chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions of this chapter.”) Id.



Shoreline Management Act Policy and Intent

  • The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation.

  • Unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest.

  • In the implementation of this policy the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. (emphasis supplied)

  • RCW 90.58.020



Key Provisions of Interim Ordinance

  • Limit where Industrial Aquaculture Occurs

  • Limit Hours of Operation (no weekends, no nights within 1000 feet of dwellings).

  • Limit Period Structures will be allowed to remain

  • Requires Flow Studies for Coves

  • Requires a Substantial Development Permit



Intensive Industrial Aquaculture Prohibited in Urban and Rural Residential Areas

  • Urban and Rural-Residential Environments. Aquaculture operations are limited to fishing, raising, holding, and harvesting of wild and planted stocks for recreation and commercial purposes that do not involve the use of tubes, netting, or other materials placed in intertidal areas. Aquaculture operations that do not involve the use of tubes, netting, or other materials placed in intertidal areas will be allowed upon showing the activity will not substantially change the character of the site or adversely affect natural populations and shall be subject to the Standards and Guidelines for Reviewing Substantial Development Permits.



Rural Environment Allow Aquaculture Subject to Substantial Development Permit Review

  • Rural and Conservancy Environments. Aquaculture operations which do not involve the placement of land based structures are permitted subject to the Standards and Guidelines for Reviewing Substantial Development Permits. Aquaculture operations which involve the development of land based structures are allowed as Conditional Uses and subject to the Standards and Guidelines for Reviewing Substantial Development Permits.



No Intertidal Structures in Natural Environments, Development Subject to Strict Review

  • Natural Environment. Aquaculture operations are limited to fishing and the harvesting of wild and planted stocks for recreation and commercial purposes. Operations which do not involve planting in intertidal areas, the placement of structures or fill in the aquatic or terrestrial environment, or the use of tubes, netting, or other materials placed in intertidal areas will be allowed as a Conditional Use, upon showing the activity will not substantially change the character of the site or adversely affect natural populations and shall be subject to the Standards and Guidelines for Reviewing Substantial Development Permits. Operations involving structural developments are prohibited.





Shoreline Key





N.O.A.A. FUNDS AQUACULTURE

  • Recipients of the 2006 NOAA National Marine Aquaculture Initiative Grants

  • Washington

  • Daniel Cheney – Principal Investigator

  • Pacific Shellfish Institute – Grant Recipient.

  • Alternative Shellfish Production Methods

  • $285,583 Amount of Grant



South Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Group

  • Narrative to South Puget Sound 3-Year Project List

  • The goal of the South Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Group is to use an ecosystembased,

  • multi-species approach to restore Chinook, coho and other salmon species in the

  • South Sound to a sustainable, harvestable level by ensuring that there are properly

  • functioning nearshore and freshwater habitats that serve their spawning, rearing, refuge,

  • feeding, physiological transition, and migratory needs.

  • http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/watersheds/3-year08/SouthSound.pdf



For the short term, the plan addressed threatened Chinook salmon and bull trout in nearshore habitats. The South Sound Recovery Plan identified the following action objectives to address the human- induced stressors that are contributing to the status of the salmon in the nearshore and there hypothesized effect on the Viable Salmonid Population:

  • For the short term, the plan addressed threatened Chinook salmon and bull trout in nearshore habitats. The South Sound Recovery Plan identified the following action objectives to address the human- induced stressors that are contributing to the status of the salmon in the nearshore and there hypothesized effect on the Viable Salmonid Population:



Threats Identified

  • Shoreline Armoring

  • Overwater Structures and Ramps

  • Stormwater and wastewater

  • Riparian Loss

  • Wetland and Estuarine Modification

  • Invasive Species

  • Shellfish Aquaculture

  • http://www.sharedsalmonstrategy.org/watersheds/3-year08/SouthSound.pdf



Army Corp Permit Application



Army Corp (cont.)



Army Corp (cont.)



Dutcher’s Cove Proposal



Stratford Site on Crescent Beach Rd.



Meyer Site on Crescent Beach Road



Documented Salmon Runs

  • The primary anadromous species found in streams on the Peninsula are the coho (Silver) and chum (Dog) salmon although five species of salmon, sea-run cutthroat and steelhead trout can be found in the waters that surround the plan area. Specifically, Rocky Creek supports chinook, coho, and chum salmon runs. Dutcher Creek supports a run of coho salmon. Minter Creek support runs of chinook, coho, chum and pink salmon. Lackey Creek is home to a chum salmon run. Steelhead trout have been documented in the Rocky, Minter and Lackey Creek drainages. Native runs of sea-run cutthroat trout are present in most of the perennial streams on the Peninsula. The Washington State salmon hatchery at Minter Creek, salmon enhancement efforts of several volunteer organizations as well as the efforts of many private property owners support the continued runs of anadromous fish within the plan area.

  • http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/property/pals/pdf/kpcpnaturalcond.pdf



Pentec Report

  • In July, 2003, an environmental report for Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Environmental Services, Water Programs, Report 12570-01 by Pentec Environmental, for the purpose of identifying and conserving high quality salmon habitats to be considered for protection, lists Dutcher Cove as especially remarkable. The following is a quote from page 21:

  • ".Dutcher Cove, as well as other accessible protected areas, provide important refuge and epibenthic foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids migrating along the western shoreline of Key Peninsula. This is reflected in the overall habitat scores, with Dutcher Cove scoring highest in terms of relative habitat value".



KEY PENINSULA-ISLANDS BASIN PLAN

  • Of the streams surveyed, Dutcher Creek, Kingman Creek, Lackey Creek, and Muck Creek, all received a rating of 100% good aquatic habitat. Other streams in good condition include Rocky Creek and Knackstedt Creek, with more than 96% of the aquatic habitat rated in good condition; Schoolhouse Creek (Anderson Island), Huge Creek, and Minter Creek were all rated with 70% or more of the aquatic habitat in good condition. Rocky Creek has the greatest amount, 18,380 linear feet, of aquatic habitat in good condition.

  • http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/environ/water/ps/basinplans/keypen/KI-Chap5-FINAL.pdf



Barriers Pose a Threat

  • Barriers are particularly deleterious to anadromous or migratory fish, which spend most of their life in the ocean, but return to spawn in their native freshwater streams. Anadromous fish that use small streams may be denied access to streams reaches that provide suitable spawning and rearing habitat due to impassable barriers. Fish passage barriers may also prevent the movement from one stream reach to another by resident species, such as cutthroat trout. The salmonid species that inhabit small streams in the KI Basin are in decline and some are listed as threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

  • http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/services/home/environ/water/ps/basinplans/keypen/KI-Chap5-FINAL.pdf



Dutcher’s Cove is Key Habitat

  • According to the Puget Sound Action Team's recent (2007) Washington State South Sound salmon recovery report, (please see appendix E-11, Figure E-11.5, Dutcher Cove is specifically singled out as a target for protection and restoration. The following is a quote from the report in reference to Dutcher Cove: "..should be considered for protection through aggressive landowner education and regulatory protection from Pierce County because of its importance in maintaining the broad intertidal shelf of this shoreline".

  • http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/salmon_recovery/Appendix%20E-11.pdf



Site South of Herron Island



Taylor Appeal

  • Key Issues:

    • Are Permits Perpetual?
    • Are Permits Required for Industrial Aquaculture?


Key Questions Regarding Industrial Aquaculture

  • What is the environmental impact of setting up a monoculture of geoducks in a diverse ecosystem?

  • What safety concerns are raised by installing plastic pipes, nets and iron rebar rods in an area frequented by power boaters, row boaters, sailors, skiers, kayakers, beach combers, and others who may find themselves ensnared in this trap that may lie just below the surface or upon the beach at low tide?

  • What is the impact upon property values by the introduction of a major industrial operation into a pristine waterfront community?

  • How will the safety and police activity of introducing an itinerant work force into a community with scarce or non-existent law enforcement protection?

  • Should the maximum number of geoduck that can survive in a given space be the appropriate standard for development or should a less intense usage that maintains a diverse ecosystem be required?



Key Questions Regarding Industrial Aquaculture

  • What type of odors will be associated with the existence of the massive quantities of shell fish and the putrefaction of the substrata of the beach associated with the water jet harvest of the geoducks?

  • What will be the impact of shoreline erosion associated with any changes in currents or shifting structures as a result of this operation?

  • What will be the impact upon water quality of the introduction of approximately 43,000 geoduck tubes with four geoducks in each tube per acre over a several acre site? On a ten acre site this level of concentration could be as high as 1,720,000.



Industrial Aquaculture is Not Farming

  • Advocates for Industrial Aquaculture say they’re “farmers.”



Industrial Aquaculture is Not “Farming”



What You Can Do

  • Get Involved – Join Our Association

  • Contact your Elected and Appointed Officials with any concerns you have

  • Act Promptly -when you become aware of any project that threatens Case Inlet –notify as many groups as you can identify

  • Document your current environment; photograph, video, sound recording, wildlife logs

  • Donate funds



Partnership for Puget Sound

  • The Puget Sound Partnership is a state agency established in 2007 to lead efforts to protect and restore Puget Sound and its spectacular diversity of life, now and for future generations. The Partnership replaces the Puget Sound Action Team and, as of Jan. 1, 2008, will assume the functions now performed by the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound.

  • Restoring the Sound to health. The Partnership will create a long-term plan called the 2020 Action Agenda by September 2008. The Action Agenda will identify and prioritize actions, name those responsible, identify funding, track progress and report the results publicly. In the meantime, the state’s 2007-2009 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan is in effect.



Sign Up For Newsletters

  • http://www.psp.wa.gov/news/subscribe.htm



Attend Public Hearings



CASE INLET SHORELINE ASSOCIATION

  • PRESERVING AND PROTECTING PRISTINE CASE INLET FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, FOCUSING ON COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP, EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH




Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:


Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2017
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling