Chapter 6
Environmental Protection
SECTIONS:
6.3 Impacts, Mitigation, Bonding and Monitoring
6.6 Critical Saltwater Habitats
6.7 Frequently Flooded Areas and Tsunami Inundation Areas
6.8 Geologically Hazardous Areas
6.1 Introduction
The intent of this chapter is to provide policies and regulations that protect the shoreline environment as well as the critical areas found within the shoreline jurisdiction. These policies and regulations apply to all uses, developments and activities that may occur within the shoreline jurisdiction regardless of the Shoreline Master Program environment designation. They are to be implemented in conjunction with the specific use and activity policies and regulations found in this Master Program. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) mandates the preservation of the ecological functions of the shoreline by preventing impacts that would harm the fragile shorelines of the state. When impacts cannot be avoided, impacts must be mitigated to assure no-net-loss of ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources (WAC 173-26-201(2)(C)). The SMA also mandates that local master programs include goals, policies and actions for the restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time (WAC 173-26-201(f)). The environment protection policies and regulations of this Master Program address general environmental impacts and critical areas. General environmental impacts include effects upon the elements of the environment listed in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11-600 and WAC 197-11-666). This chapter is not intended to limit the application of SEPA. The provisions of Ordinance 3198, May 21, 2018, and codified in Chapter 19.05 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, Critical Areas, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Master Program (Appendix E). The standards contained in the Critical Areas Chapter of the Municipal Code apply equally to critical areas contained within the jurisdiction of this Master Program. It should be noted that reasonable uses exceptions (19.05.050(D)) within shoreline jurisdiction will require a shoreline variance. Furthermore, in cases where definitions, procedures, or standards of this Shoreline Master Program are inconsistent with related provisions in Chapter 19.05, provisions of the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. (Note: A Shoreline Master Program amendment will be required for any future amendments to critical areas provisions incorporated by reference into the PTSMP.)
6.2 Organization
This chapter first presents General Environmental Policies and Regulations including analysis of impacts, mitigation, bonding, and monitoring. Second, policies and regulations protecting the broad elements that comprise the shoreline environment (e.g., earth, air, and water) are provided. And, finally, it presents policies and regulations for “critical areas” including: Wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. These critical areas are also protected under the Critical Areas regulations of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, PTMC Chapter 19.05 (Appendix E). Regulations for the protection of critical aquifer recharge areas are dealt with in the critical areas ordinance.
6.3 Impacts, Mitigation, Bonding and Monitoring
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.3.1 |
Protect the environment through implementation of this Master Program in concert with the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance and through the use of the AMRRC mitigation sequence (Avoid, Minimize, Rectify, Reduce, Compensate) (WAC 173-26-201(e)). |
|
Policy 6.3.2 |
Minimize the adverse impacts of shoreline developments and activities on the natural environment during all phases of development (e.g., design, construction, operation, and management). |
|
Policy 6.3.3 |
Assure, at a minimum, that development and use within the shoreline’s jurisdiction result in no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. Development activities shall protect existing ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes. |
|
Policy 6.3.4 |
Encourage shoreline developments or activities that serve to enhance ecological functions and/or values and those that protect and/or contribute to the long-term restoration of properly functioning conditions for proposed, threatened and endangered species consistent with the fundamental goals of this Master Program. |
|
Policy 6.3.5 |
Ensure, through appropriate monitoring and enforcement measures, that all required conditions are met, improvements installed, and properly maintained. |
Development Regulations
General
|
DR-6.3.1 |
All shoreline development and activity shall be located, designed, constructed, and managed in a manner that avoids, minimizes and/or mitigates adverse impacts to the environment. The preferred mitigation sequence (avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for the environmental impact) shall follow that listed in WAC 173-26-0201((2)(e), see also definition of “Mitigation,” listed in this Master Program). |
|
DR-6.3.2 |
In approving shoreline developments, the City of Port Townsend shall ensure that shoreline development, use, and/or activities will result in no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources, including loss that may result from the cumulative impacts of similar developments over time to the extent consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations on the regulation of private property. To this end, the City may require modifications to the site plan and/or adjust or prescribe project dimensions, intensity of use, and screening as deemed appropriate. If impacts cannot be avoided through design modifications, the City shall require mitigation commensurate with the project’s adverse impacts. |
|
DR-6.3.3 |
Identified significant short term, long term, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts lacking appropriate mitigation shall be sufficient reason for permit denial consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations on such denials. |
Mitigation
|
DR-6.3.4 |
Where mitigation for loss of or impact to shoreline ecological functions is required, a mitigation plan shall be required. Mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional as determined appropriate by the Shoreline Administrator. In addition to the requirements for critical areas special reports contained in Chapter 19.05, the mitigation plan shall contain the following: |
a. Inventory existing shoreline environment including the physical, chemical and biological elements and provide an assessment of their condition.
b. A discussion of the project’s impacts and their effect on the ecological functions necessary to support existing shoreline resources.
c. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations which have been developed for wetlands or nearshore species or habitats located on the site;
d. An assessment of habitat recommendations proposed by resource agencies and their applicability to the proposal;
e. A discussion of measures to preserve existing habitats and opportunities to restore habitats that were degraded prior to the proposed land use activity.
f. Planting and soil specifications; success standards; and contingency plans;
g. A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and proposed success criteria;
h. An evaluation of the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of ecological functions;
i. A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction, and, after the project site has been fully developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs;
j. Contingency plan if the mitigation fails to meet established success criteria;
k. Any additional information necessary to determine the impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts.
Mitigation plans and/or Critical Areas special reports shall be forwarded to the appropriate state and/or federal resource agencies for review and comment.
|
DR-6.3.5 |
On-site compensatory mitigation shall be the preferred mitigation option, except where off-site mitigation can be demonstrated to be more beneficial to shoreline ecological functions and values and meets the standard of no net loss. Where appropriate, on-site mitigation within the same drift cell should be considered first when it is mitigation for impacts that disrupt a drift cell. |
|
DR-6.3.6 |
If off-site mitigation is implemented, the applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Shoreline Administrator that the mitigation site will be protected in perpetuity. This may be accomplished through various means including but not limited to dedication of a permanent easement to the city or approved non- profit entity; participation in a publicly sponsored restoration or enhancement program or purchase of credits from a state certified mitigation bank in accordance with Chapter 90.86 RCW 84 (Wetlands Mitigation Banking). |
|
DR-6.3.7 |
Where feasible, replacement mitigation shall be required prior to impact and, at a minimum, prior to occupancy. |
Bonding
|
DR-6.3.8 |
Performance or maintenance bonds or other security may be required by the City to assure that work is completed, monitored and maintained. |
Monitoring
|
DR-6.3.9 |
As a condition of approval, the City may require periodic monitoring for up to five years from the date of completed development to ensure the success of required mitigation. The monitoring period may be extended if the success criteria set forth in the approved mitigation plan fail to be accomplished, or the mitigation plan has a longer horizon. |
|
DR-6.3.10 |
Monitoring plans shall be forwarded, for review and comment, to state and/or federal resource agencies with jurisdiction. |
6.4 Environmental Elements
Management Policy
|
Policy 6.4.1 |
Protect against adverse impacts to the public health, to the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and to waters of the state and their aquatic life. This section provides policies and regulations to address environmental impacts to the elements of the environment listed in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197- 11-600 and WAC 197-11-666). It is not intended to limit the application of SEPA. |
Development Regulations (In Alphabetical Order)
Air
|
DR-6.4.1 |
In approving shoreline development, uses or activities, the Shoreline Administrator may apply conditions to control emissions, including any compounds, chemicals, pollutants, odors, fugitive dust, or vehicle exhaust with the intent of avoiding significant adverse impacts to the legal use of adjoining properties and ensuring adherence to the guidelines, policies, standards and regulations of applicable air quality management programs and related regulatory agencies. |
Archaeological/Historical/Cultural Impacts
Applicability: The following provisions apply to archaeological and historic resources whose presence are either recorded at the State Historic Preservation Office and/or by the City of Port Townsend or such resources that are uncovered during development activities.
|
DR-6.4.2 |
Wherever practicable, consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, public or private developments shall be prevented from destroying or destructively altering potential or recognizable sites having historic, cultural, scientific, or educational value as identified by appropriate authorities. |
|
DR-6.4.3 |
All shoreline permits shall contain provisions that require developers to immediately stop work and immediately notify the State Historic Preservation Officer, appropriate Native American Tribes and the City of Port Townsend if any items of archaeological interest are uncovered during excavation. In such cases, the developer shall allow site inspection and evaluation by a professional archaeologist and tribal representative to ensure that all possible valuable archaeological data are properly salvaged.
Work should not resume until approval is obtained from the Shoreline Administrator. |
|
DR-6.4.4 |
Archaeological sites located both in and outside shoreline jurisdiction are subject to chapter 27.44 RCW (Indian graves and records) and chapter 27.53 (Archaeological sites and records) and development or uses that may impact such sites shall comply with Chapter 25.48 WAC (Archaeological excavation and removal permits) as well as the provisions of this section. |
|
DR-6.4.5 |
Where archaeological or historic sites have been identified, the city may require public access consistent with constitutional and statutory limitations, provided the development is consistent with the provisions for public access and provided further it is determined that public access to the site will not damage or reduce the cultural value of the site. |
Earth
|
DR-6.4.6 |
All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and managed to minimize interference with beneficial natural shoreline processes such as littoral drift, sand and gravel movement, erosion, and accretion. For projects proposing clearing and grading see Section 9.3 Alteration of Natural Landscape – Clearing, Grading and Vegetation Removal, Chapter 9 Specific Modification Policies and Performance Standards. |
|
DR-6.4.7 |
Gravel and sand bars and other accretion shore forms (e.g., Point Wilson and the sand bar protruding northerly from the tip of Point Hudson) are naturally unstable environments. They are valued for recreation and in some cases may provide habitat. Therefore, new development of these shore forms is prohibited and modification shall be allowed only to protect existing occupied structures.
Furthermore, developments that could disrupt the processes benefiting these shore forms shall be carefully evaluated and allowed only when the impacts of such disruption can be adequately mitigated, and where there is a demonstrated public benefit. |
|
DR-6.4.8 |
An erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be submitted with a permit application for activities that involve the removal of vegetation, stockpiling of earth or other materials, or any activity that could result in shoreline erosion or siltation. Said program shall conform to the City of Port Townsend’s Engineering Design Standards and shall at a minimum, utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent shoreline erosion and siltation. |
Noise
|
DR-6.4.9 |
Noise emanating from a shoreline use/activity shall be muffled so as to not to interfere with the designated use of adjoining properties. This determination shall take into consideration ambient noise levels, intermittent beat, frequency, and shrillness. Shoreline developments/activities shall comply with the maximum permissible noise levels and time limits set forth in Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 9.09 (Noise). Exception: This regulation does not apply to foghorns, tsunami warning or other emergency warning systems |
Pesticides and Fertilizers, Application of: (Pesticides include herbicides and algaecides)
|
DR-6.4.10 |
Chemical pesticides using aerial spraying techniques within the shoreline jurisdiction, including over water bodies or wetlands, shall be prohibited unless specifically permitted under the Washington Departments of Agriculture or Public Health. |
|
DR-6.4.11 |
Pesticides, organic or mineral derived fertilizers, or other hazardous substances, if necessary shall be restricted in accordance with the a) state Department of Fish and Wildlife Management Recommendations b) the regulations of the state Department of Ecology as the Environmental Protection Agency’s delegated authority and permitting body for the application of pesticides and herbicides to the waters of Washington State, and c) pesticide labels as per the authority of the state Department of Agriculture. |
|
DR-6.4.12 |
Pesticides shall be used, handled, and be disposed of in accordance with provisions of the Washington State Pesticide Application Act (RCW 17.21) and the Washington State Pesticide Act (RCW 15.57) to prevent contamination and sanitation problems. |
|
DR-6.4.13 |
Pesticide products commercially applied for terrestrial use usually include information on how far to stay away when applying near water. If there were a chance of a product entering the water, the product should be labeled for aquatic use. Only products approved by the Washington State Departments of Agriculture, and Ecology for aquatic use can be applied to Washington State waters.
Activities to be conducted using these products should take place under one of the Department of Ecology’s general NPDES permits for aquatic pesticides. In some cases labeling information for commercial products may indicate the need for larger aquatic buffers and other restrictions when used near salmon-bearing waters. See http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/wtc/maps.htm for product details and changes due the lawsuit between the Washington Toxics Coalition and US Environmental Protection Agency. |
|
DR-6.4.14 |
Application of pesticides by commercial applicators requires licensing through the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Information on licensing can be found at http://agr.wa.gov/PestFert/LicensingEd/CaSpiInfo.htm. |
|
DR-6.4.15 |
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) principles shall be used when applying pesticides and herbicides within the shoreline jurisdiction of the SMP. Application of pesticides to areas outside of the SMP shoreline jurisdiction that might have an affect on this jurisdiction should also follow these practices. IPM can be defined as a coordinated decision-making and action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy in an environmentally and economically sound manner to meet pest management objectives. |
Public Health & Safety
|
DR-6.4.16 |
All shoreline developments shall be located, designed, constructed, and operated so as not to be a hazard to public health and safety. |
View Protection/Aesthetics
|
DR-6.4.17 |
The protection of public views of the shoreline is an important shoreline management objective. View protection can include preventing view blockage through height limitations or requiring aesthetic enhancement with landscaping. View protection does not justify the excessive removal of vegetation to create views or enhance partial existing views. Retaining vegetation and “windowing” or other pruning techniques should always be preferred options over vegetation removal. Please refer to Chapter 9, Section 9.3, Alteration of Natural Landscape – Clearing, Grading and Vegetation Removal Chapter 7, Public Access. |
|
DR-6.4.18 |
New development shall be located and designed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to views from public vista points. |
|
DR-6.4.19 |
The height of new or expanded buildings shall be limited consistent with the restrictions of Chapter 5. Private views of the shoreline, although considered during the review process, are not expressly protected. Property owners concerned with the protection of views from private property are encouraged to obtain view easements, purchase intervening property and/or seek other similar private means of minimizing view obstruction. |
|
DR-6.4.20 |
Where lighted signs and illuminated areas are permitted, such illuminating devices shall be shaded and directed so as to prevent light and glare from negatively impacting neighboring properties, streets, public areas or water bodies. |
|
DR-6.4.21 |
New development, uses and activities shall locate and screen trash and recycling receptacles, utility boxes, HVAC systems, electrical transformers, fences and other appurtenances to minimize interference with public views. Exceptions may be permitted for security fencing. |
Water Quality
|
DR-6.4.22 |
The bulk storage of oil, fuel, chemicals, or hazardous materials, on either a temporary or a permanent basis, shall not occur in shorelines without adequate secondary containment and an emergency spill response plan in place. |
|
DR-6.4.23 |
All development activities approved under this Shoreline Master Program shall be designed and maintained consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan and Engineering Design Standards. In addition, the City encourages utilization of Low Impact Development principles and practices such as setbacks, retaining land cover, and reducing impervious areas, and special caution to avoid infiltration of stormwater in shoreline areas along marine bluffs. (See the 2005 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as guidance in this regard.) |
|
DR-6.4.24 |
As a condition of approval of a permit issued in accordance with this master program, the Shoreline Administrator may apply the following conditions to protect water quality: |
a. The development, use or activity shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize any increase in surface runoff and to control, treat and release surface water runoff to protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground water. Such measures may include but are not limited to catch basins or settling ponds, installation and required maintenance of oil/water separators, biofiltration swales, interceptor drains and landscaped buffers.
b. The release of oil, chemicals (including pesticides and herbicides), fertilizer or hazardous materials onto land or into the water is prohibited within the shoreline jurisdiction.
c. Equipment for the transportation, storage, handling, or application of such materials shall be maintained in a safe and leak-proof condition. If there is evidence of leakage, the further use of such equipment shall be suspended until the deficiency has been satisfactorily corrected.
6.5 Critical Areas - General
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.5.1 |
Protect unique, rare, and fragile environments, including wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas from impacts associated with development. |
|
Policy 6.5.2 |
Locate and design development to minimize risks to people, property and other critical areas associated with geologic and flood hazard areas. |
|
Policy 6.5.3 |
Provide a level of protection to critical areas that is equal to or greater than the level of protection provided by the adopted Port Townsend critical areas regulations. Recognizing this, the City explicitly elects to make its critical areas regulations as adopted by Ordinance 3198, May 21, 2018, and codified in Chapter 19.05 PTMC applicable to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. It should be noted that while activities in shorelines jurisdiction are subject to compliance with critical areas regulations, critical area permits (19.05.040) are not issued in shoreline jurisdiction, and that reasonable uses exceptions (19.05.050(D)) within shoreline jurisdiction will require a shoreline variance. Furthermore, in cases where definitions, procedures, or standards of this Shoreline Master Program are inconsistent with related provisions in Chapter 19.05, provisions of the Port Townsend Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. Additional limitations to how the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) wetland provisions (19.05.110) apply within shoreline jurisdiction are detailed in Section 6.9 below. (Note: A Shoreline Master Program amendment will be required for any future amendments to critical areas provisions incorporated by reference into the PTSMP.) |
Development Regulations
|
DR-6.5.1 |
Development and uses proposed within the shoreline shall meet the requirements of the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance 3198, May 21, 2018, and codified in Chapter 19.05 PTMC, Critical Areas in addition to the requirements of this Master Program (Appendix E). |
6.6 Critical Saltwater Habitats (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas)
This section provides policies and regulations that apply to critical saltwater habitats as defined by WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii). These policies and regulations apply in addition to the critical areas protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas found in PTMC Chapter 19.05.
Kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas, smelt and sand lance spawning areas and other critical saltwater habitats are classified as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and are designated as “critical areas” in WAC 365-190-080(5)(a)(6). The guidelines for classifying critical areas also include commercial and recreational shellfish areas. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified the following habitats of special concern: kelp beds, eelgrass beds, herring spawning areas, sand lance spawning areas, smelt spawning areas, juvenile salmonid migration corridors, rock sole spawning beds, rockfish settlement and nursery areas, and lingcod settlement and nursery areas.
In addition, it’s important to give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries, such as juvenile salmon (RCW 36.70A.172), some of which are classified as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include, but are not limited to, areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a “primary association” (see WAC 365-190-080(5)(a)(i)). Critical Saltwater Habitats include these “primary association” areas. Examples of “primary association” areas include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Shallow water/low gradient habitats along shorelines
b. Migratory corridors that allow juvenile salmon to move within and between habitats (e.g., beaches, as well as eelgrass, kelp, etc.). In addition, a diversity of shoreline habitats is essential for providing adequate functions for juvenile salmon.
Appendix F provides a list of critical salt-water habitats. Those that are known to occur along the shores of Port Townsend have been marked accordingly. Critical habitats were mapped in conjunction with the City’s Shoreline Inventory (2002) and Atlas (2002) prepared in conformance with WAC 173-26-201.
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.6.1 |
Protect critical salt-water habitats in recognition of their importance to the marine ecosystem of the City of Port Townsend and the State of Washington. These habitats provide critical reproduction, rearing and migratory nursery areas for valuable recreational and commercial species. They provide habitat for many marine plants, fish and animals. |
|
Policy 6.6.2 |
Prohibit, with limited exceptions, uses, activities and structures in critical saltwater habitats. Exceptions may be allowed for public or semipublic facilities (e.g. water-dependent recreational or transportation facilities or utilities) where no alternative location is available. |
|
Policy 6.6.3 |
Protect the composition of the beach and bottom substrate. Developments within or adjacent to the shoreline jurisdiction where critical salt water habitats exist, should not directly or indirectly change the composition of the beach and bottom substrate. Habitat enhancement and restoration projects should change beach or bottom substrata only when appropriate to restore or enhance these habitats. |
|
Policy 6.6.4 |
Avoid indirect impacts on critical saltwater habitats by appropriately locating and designing developments beyond the standard setback. |
Development Regulations
|
DR-6.6.1 |
Structures, developments, and uses, including marinas, docks, piers, mooring areas, underwater parks, utilities, and shoreline modifications, shall not intrude into or be built over critical saltwater habitat unless the applicant can show that all of the following criteria can be met: a. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible. b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on critical saltwater habitats and the shoreline environment. c. Impacts to critical saltwater habitat functions are mitigated to result in equal or better ecological function. d. The facility is a public or semipublic facility (e.g., water-dependent recreational or transportation facility or utility) and is in the public interest. |
|
DR-6.6.2 |
In areas not previously identified as critical saltwater habitat, the project proponent shall submit appropriate reconnaissance-level studies to determine whether critical saltwater habitats exist, whenever the following two conditions are applicable: |
a. The proposed development, use or activity has the potential to cause significant adverse affects to a critical saltwater habitat; and
b. The beach or saltwater area that may be impacted by the proposed development, use or activity is the type of environment in which a critical saltwater habitat typically occurs.
|
DR-6.6.3 |
Except as a habitat improvement or restoration measure, aquatic herbicide treatments, mechanical removal of vegetation and aquatic pesticide treatments shall not be used on critical salt-water habitats. |
|
DR-6.6.4 |
Sand, gravel or other materials shall neither be added nor removed from critical salt-water habitats, except when part of an approved restoration effort or as allowed in DR-6.6.1, above. |
|
DR-6.6.5 |
New outfalls (including stormwater and sewer outfalls) and discharge pipes shall not be located in critical salt water habitats or areas where outfall or discharge will adversely affect critical salt water habitats unless the applicant can show that all of the following can be met: |
a. There is no alternative location for the outfall or pipe.
b. The outfall or pipe is placed below the surface of the beach or bed of the water body.
c. The outfall discharges waterward of the subtidal zone
d. The disturbed area will be revegetated with native plants.
e. The discharge point(s) on the outfall or discharge pipe is located so the discharges, including nutrients in the discharge and currents, do not adversely affect critical salt-water habitats.
6.7 Frequently Flooded Areas and Tsunami Inundation Areas
Portions of Port Townsend’s shoreline are subject to periodic flooding that may result from factors including, but not limited to, unusual amount of rainfall over a short period of time, high tides, and wind driven waves. Tsunamis also pose a less frequent, but potentially more hazardous, type of flooding event.
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.7.1 |
Ensure that new development in areas prone to periodic flooding comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention standards (Chapter 16.08, PTMC) to minimize health hazards and property damage due to flooding. |
|
Policy 6.7.2 |
Develop, enhance, and implement education programs aimed at mitigating natural hazards, and reducing the risk to citizens, public agencies, private property owners, businesses and schools. |
|
Policy 6.7.3 |
Encourage development of acquisition and management strategies to preserve open space for flood mitigation, fish habitat, and water quality in frequently flooded areas. |
|
Policy 6.7.4 |
Coordinate and support the development of improved tsunami warning systems. |
Development Regulations
|
DR-6.7.1 |
All new development and new uses within the jurisdiction of this Master program shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 16.08 Flood Damage Prevention, PTMC and the Critical Areas Ordinance (Appendix E). |
6.8 Geologically Hazardous Areas
Geologically hazardous areas are areas susceptible to severe erosion; slide activity, or other geologic events. In the Port Townsend shoreline, high marine bluffs are the most visible type of geologically hazardous area, although seismic, tsunami and erosion hazards have also been mapped.
The more severe hazard areas are not suitable for placing structures or locating intense activities or uses due to the inherent threat to public health and safety. Vegetation removal during construction and development of adjacent properties alters surface runoff and ground water infiltration patterns that can lead to increased slope instability.
A certain level of erosion of shorelines and marine bluffs is natural to the Puget Sound area. Erosion from “feeder bluffs” is the primary source of sand and gravel found on beaches including accretion beaches (gravel bars, sand pits and barrier beaches). Extensive “hardening” of feeder bluff areas can eventually starve beaches down drift of the bluff, resulting in lowered beach profiles and the potential for increased erosion. Changes in the beach substrate resulting from reduced sediment deposition may result in negative habitat impacts. Erosion and accretion are natural processes that provide ecological functions and thereby contribute to sustaining the natural resource and ecology of the shoreline.
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.8.1 |
Ensure that new development or the creation of new lots does not cause any foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development. |
|
Policy 6.8.2 |
Permit development in such a manner and only in locations where no slope protection (e.g. bulkheads, rip-rap, retaining walls, etc.) is necessary or where nonstructural protection (e.g., vegetated buffers) is sufficient for the life of the project (75 years) |
|
Policy 6.8.3 |
Ensure that proposals are designed and constructed in a manner that does not increase or result in slope instability or sloughing. |
|
Policy 6.8.4 |
Allow shoreline modifications or other measures to protect existing primary structures only when they are demonstrated to be necessary, when no alternatives including relocation or reconstruction of existing primary structures are found to be feasible, and when the modifications are found to comply with the policies and regulations of this Master Program for modifications
(See chapter 9) as well as the requirements of WAC 173-26-231 (Shoreline Modification requirements). Preference should be given to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions. Assure that modifications individually and cumulatively will result in no net loss of ecological functions. |
Development Regulations
Applicability: In addition to the critical areas protection standards for Geologically Hazardous Areas are set forth in the Critical Areas Ordinance (Appendix E), the following shall apply for areas within shorelines jurisdiction. Note that in addition to the buffers applied therein, vegetation preservation may be required by Chapter 9 Specific Modification Policies and Performance Standards.
|
DR-6.8.1 |
Section 19.05.100E(3) of the PTMC allows for reduced buffers for existing platted lots when necessary to allow development of a single-family residence. In no case shall the reduced buffer width be less than a distance equal to the sum of the bluff erosion rate over at least 75 years plus 20-feet from the crest; or ten-feet from the sides and the toe of a marine bluff. |
|
DR-6.8.2 |
Pursuant to the critical areas ordinance, surface drainage shall be directed away from marine bluffs. When no other solution is feasible, surface drainage piping may be located on the face of a steep slope when contained in a tight line (closed, non-leaking pipe) and in such a way that erosion will not be exacerbated and that physical access along the shoreline is not degraded. Furthermore, conditions may be applied to mitigate for aesthetic impacts of drainage systems as viewed from public areas. |
6.9 Wetlands
Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. A wetland directly impacts water quality and stormwater control by trapping and filtering surface and ground water. Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. Because of the difficulty in replacing these rare and valuable areas, these regulations control development adjacent to and within wetlands, and limit the amount of wetlands, which may be altered. The purpose of these regulations is to protect the public from harm by preserving the functions of wetlands and streams as recharge for ground water, flood storage, floodwater conveyance, habitat for fish and wildlife, sediment control, pollution control, surface water supply, aquifer recharge and recreation. Wetlands in Port Townsend are characterized by hydric soils, water-tolerant plants (hydrophytes), and surfaces that are either saturated or inundated with water for a specified period of time.
Management Policies
|
Policy 6.9.1 |
Preserve and protect wetland ecosystems, and mitigate impacts, so that there is no net loss of wetland acreage and functions. Where feasible, improve wetland quality. Maintaining or restoring vegetated buffers is the preferred method for protecting/improving wetland functions. |
|
Policy 6.9.2 |
Prevent adverse impacts to wetland functions by controlling all activities that could potentially affect wetland ecosystems whether the activity is located within or adjacent to shorelines jurisdictional wetlands or their buffers. |
|
Policy 6.9.3 |
Encourage in-kind replacement of functional wetland values as the preferred mitigation. Where in- kind replacement is not feasible or practical due to the characteristics of the existing wetland, provide ecological resources of equal or greater value, preferably within the same hydrologic sub-basin. |
|
Policy 6.9.4 |
Coordinate proposals for mitigation, creation, or enhancement with appropriate resource agencies to ensure adequate design and consistency with local, state and federal regulatory requirements. |
|
Policy 6.9.5 |
Develop wetland education programs to increase awareness of the importance of wetlands and to inform the citizenry of protective wetland regulations. The City of Port Townsend should distribute wetland education materials to the public, including schools, landowners, and developers in the Port Townsend area. |
|
Policy 6.9.6 |
Seek regional solutions to wetland mitigation through coordinated planning with state and federal agencies, Jefferson County, port authorities and the public. |
Development Regulations
Applicability: In addition to the regulations set forth in the Critical Areas Ordinance (Appendix E), the following shall apply for activities proposed within shorelines jurisdiction:
|
DR-6.9.1 |
All development, development proposals and alterations that are located within or adjacent to shoreline jurisdictional wetlands or their buffers, or that are likely to significantly impact shoreline jurisdictional wetlands (regardless of their location, and regardless of whether or not a critical areas permit is specifically required for the activity under PTMC 19.05.040) shall prepare a wetland analysis [PTMC 19.05.030(C)]. The wetland analysis shall include the wetland rating (using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014) or as revised by Ecology), a functional assessment of potential buffers (based on Ecology’s best available science for wetlands), and notes of any water features and other critical areas and their related buffers in the proximity of the wetland. |
|
DR-6.9.2 |
In those limited circumstances where alteration of a wetland or its buffer is allowed, the proponent shall provide mitigation to achieve no net loss of wetland function or acreage, according to an approved mitigation plan prepared consistent with this Master Program and Chapter 19.05 PTMC. |
|
DR-6.9.3 |
Specific CAO provisions (19.05.110 Critical Areas 5 – Wetlands) are modified as follows for application within shoreline jurisdiction: a. B. Classification; 4(b) Category II Wetlands - (i) Estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre or coastal lagoons smaller than 1/10-acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre or disturbed coastal lagoons larger than 1/10-acre; b. D. Performance Standards for Development; 5. Exemptions from Avoidance Requirement - (a)(iv) Do not score 6 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication # 14-06-029, or as revised); c. D. Performance Standards for Development - 6. 6. Stormwater Management. A wetland or its buffer may be physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID, Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP only if all of the following criteria are met: a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3-5 points, and b. There will be “no net loss” of functions and values of the wetland, and c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species, and d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of Chart 5 in the “Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach,” (available here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals identified in the Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional watershed plan, and e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural routing, and f. All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils shall be appropriately permitted. Existing functions and values that are lost shall be compensated/replaced. Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However, these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site-specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is feasible at the project site; d. Table A Buffer Widths; Category I Wetlands - High level of function for water quality improvement (8-9 points) and low for habitat (less than 6 points); Category II Wetlands - High level of function for water quality improvement and low for habitat (score for water quality 8 – 9 points; habitat less than 6 points); e. G. Buffers and Setbacks; 6. Buffer Width Averaging - (c) In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 25 percent of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet. f. H. Compensatory Mitigation Requirements - 2. Mitigation shall be required, and the applicant shall demonstrate such actions, in the following order of preference: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or f. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. |