Dear Commissioners Garrido, Walters, and Rolfes,
We are happy to provide a summary of our July 22nd comments as Commissioner Rolfes requested. We seek protection of critical areas and buffers and effective enforcement of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).
Towards those goals, we present a checklist of items that presently reduce the effectiveness of, or even block, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). These items are mostly external to the Ordinance itself and cannot be fully addressed by amending the code. Nonetheless, they need to be corrected for the CAO to be effective.
- The DCD permitting process must be open and transparent to the public.
County values require openness on the part of agencies. Presently, the permit process is very opaque. Following a project requires attempting to track multiple permit numbers and make frequent public records requests. Citizens and neighbors adjacent to developments need a system that easily allows one to follow a project throughout the myriad steps and permits.
- The public must have access to all documents.
The DCD document handling system needs to be completely rebuilt. A file naming convention is required that indicates the type of document and the date submitted or amended. Currently, documents are stored in different locations, to the point that the internal search system fails to fulfill public records requests. The Permit Application Portal only includes documents from the first submittal and that document set is not always complete. It should be added that citizens cannot request documents that are not known to exist.
- The public must have the ability to find applications and permits, and to monitor project status in a timely fashion.
The route now is to look up permit numbers for individual parcels via Parcel Search, then look up the individual permits on the Permit Application Portal. Since documents frequently apply to multiple permits, a specific permit may not contain all relevant documents. Staff reports, staff decisions, and hearing examiner decisions are not available. We suggest the goal should be one-point access to all information–documents, applications, permits, reports, and decisions–for a project.
Timeliness is essential. The current process has a time lag, between submittal of a permit application and posting to Parcel Search, that can be 30 days or longer. In the context of an expedited permitting schedule, such a time lag becomes a larger barrier to public access.
- Public notification of projects must be improved.
There are too many complaints when citizens are surprised by sudden clearcuts. The County has to up its game in notifying local neighbors and residents of applications, decisions, and permits. We recommend that all Type I decisions require notification. Any buffer reduction must require public notification.
- Regulatory capture of DCD needs to end.
Simply put, staff must follow the code. It is not appropriate for staff to just agree with any code-busting idea that a developer proposes. We suggest the remedy is culture change at DCD. Selection of new leadership is an opportunity for the Commissioners to instill new values in the department.
- The No Net Loss criteria must be defined and implemented.
Environmental assessment of development impacts requires that the No Net Loss standard and process be defined and that experts perform actual analysis of impacts and mitigations. The No Net Loss standard is present in the existing code, specifically for riparian buffers and effectively for wetland buffers via “great or greater functions” and “no adverse impact” tests. However, typical wetland and/or habitat management reports lack actual identifications, comparisons, and analyses of impacts and mitigations. It should not be acceptable for a report to simply say an acre of lost buffer is balanced by replanting a half-acre of protected buffer, without any discussion of why that imbalance is warranted. Changing these reports will require primarily a culture change at DCD, but can be strengthened with code changes. Chapter 4 of Ecology’s Shoreline Master Programs Handbook may be a useful reference for creating useful tools for streams and wetlands. The danger is that “No Net Loss” just becomes “Slow Net Loss.” The County’s task is to assure and prioritize environmental integrity.
- Wetland, stream, and buffer data are inadequate and create a fatal flaw in the proposed permit system.
The proposed “Parcel Report” tool relies on County’ databases for identifying possible critical areas concerns. That process depends on accurate environmental databases. However, existing databases are far from adequate for several reasons. For example, a wetland search relies on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and on hydric soil mapping. The NWI is based on remote sensing, but expert opinion is that field work is required in western Washington. Hydric soil is not considered reliable for presence/absence determination. In addition, County reports that field-map wetlands are not being integrated into the parcel search or critical areas maps. Small stream and pond identification is similarly weak.
The proposed permit system contains a fatal flaw for critical area and buffer evaluation: Without a complete database for a Parcel Report and lacking a requirement to search for critical areas on or near a parcel, critical areas and buffers will be overlooked. A fix has not been identified. Both County-wide critical area mapping and requiring specific parcel searches are options, but have limitations. In addition, let’s note a temporal constraint: Experts recommend that wetland delineations be performed only in the spring.
- Buffer reductions allowed by DCD are excessive.
Per Ecology, recommended buffer widths are moderate. We support the tribal positions that no buffer reduction over 25% should be allowed.
Also, DCD is proposing 25% smaller stream buffers in urban growth areas compared to other areas (Table 19.300.315). This reduction is not supported by the Best Available Science. Ecology concluded that urban streams deserve protection similar to streams in rural areas. In fact, Ecology argued that the benefits of preserving wetlands and habitats are relatively more significant in degraded urban areas (Ecology, 2021, Publication 21-06-003, pp 103-104).
- Protection of amphibians is required.
Current state and county laws undervalue the importance of small, temporary, or ephemeral wetlands. Neither Kitsap County nor state law protect amphibians, which are a vital element of our ecological systems.
- Groundwater and streamflow
Monitoring and maintenance of groundwater levels and streamflows is of vital importance to the water resources of a precipitation dominated peninsula. We recommend that chapter 19.600 be amended to start addressing water quantity issues, especially in the face of increased population, development, and climate change. The goal is for regular aquifer studies and on-going monitoring to ensure (1) water resources are not being depleted and (2) anticipated population increases will not overstress the resources. Development should not be allowed without adequate water resources as determined by appropriate studies.
- Monitoring, analysis, and enforcement are required.
Without follow-up, mitigation site and buffer protections become meaningless. The CAO is only words if there is no commitment to follow-through by DCD staff. The protection the CAO can provide is only viable if DCD actually follows the codes with each development. When there is no monitoring, analysis, or enforcement, the code is worthless. If DCD staff allow large variances or ignore instances of defiance of code communities lose precious natural resources that the County is mandated to protect.
- Best available science must be used.
We have pointed out that Ecology’s recommendations do not always rely on the best available science. When this occurs, a burden is placed on the County when citizens raise science-based arguments. We urge the County to be forward-thinking and embrace the newest science in its codes and practices.
Yours,
Joe Lubischer, Kathie McGirr-Lustig, Beth Nichols, and David Onstad