Uphold the Current SMP and Stop Re-Designation of Mitchel Bay

 Mittchel Bay Association

July 27, 2015                                                                                          

To:  Mr. Bob Jarman, San Juan County Council Member for District 1

      Mr. Rick Hughes, San Juan County Council Member for District 2

      Mr. Jamie Stephens, San Juan County Council Member for District 3               

Reference: Shoreline Management Plan Update

             Submission of Public Comments Concerning Re-designation of Mitchell Bay

As residents of San Juan Island and in particular Mitchell Bay, we deeply appreciate the significance of the 1971 Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the importance of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) developed to implement its’ vision. We strongly support the goals and policies of the current SMP and have a vested interest in upholding its’ high standards and designations designed to protect and preserve the shoreline and aquatic ecological value for the long term. The Mitchell Bay Association was formed for that very purpose. Our community vision is to “Preserve and protect the historical and environmental integrity of the Mitchell Bay”. Weare therefore opposed to the recommended update to the SMP specific to Mitchell Bay that in our view will put   the ecological value of Mitchell Bay and its’ adjacent shoreline at risk and inadvertently result in conflicts and violations of core goals, policies and requirements of the SMA and SMP.  

Specifically, we request that the Council:

•          Maintain the designations of Rural Residential/Conservancy (RR/C) and Conservancy (C) where currently assigned in Mitchell Bay and reject the re-designation of a portion of the south shoreline to Ports, Marine and Marine Transport (PMT).


•          Strengthen the policies concerning marinas to ensure that appropriate and comprehensive ecological studies are conducted prior to associated permitting or re-designations, that no marina can be sited in an embayment with poor flushing and that exemptions relating to waste disposal (i.e., pump-outs) be strictly prohibited.


•          Include Mitchell Bay in the SMP’s restoration priorities for the Roche Harbor Management Area (RHMA). 

The following facts, issues and concerns support our request and are respectfully submitted for the council’s consideration as it deliberates on the SMP Update.      

1. The current Mitchell Bay designations of “Rural Residential/Conservancy” and “Conservancy” best embody its current use, ecological value and community vision. Maintaining these designations is critical to upholding the ecological value in Mitchell Bay and the adjacent shorelines. Re-designating a portion of the shoreline to PMT is in conflict with the goals and requirements of the SMP as well as our community vision and should be rejected.  

Current Use:  Mitchell Bay is a small and shallow bay located on the west side of San Juan Island just south of Roche Harbor currently designated RR/C and C. Mosquito Bay marks the narrow and navigationally restricted entrance. The predominant development in Mitchell Bay is private residences.  Over many years and to this day residents enjoy fishing, crabbing, whale and bird watching, kayaking and boating in and around Mitchell Bay. These activities are consistent with the RR/C and C designations and we are highly motivated to preserve for the long term this unique place and environment. We share the bay with Snug Harbor Resort, a “grandfathered” non-conforming development. In other words, the existing marina would never have been allowed had the SMP been in existence at the time of initial development. Notwithstanding its non-conforming status, over many years Snug Harbor has been granted multiple expansions. As it stands today, while providing docking facilities, Snug Harbor does not meet the most critical of requirements of a marina under the regulations. Specifically, it does not provide pump-out facilities[1]. The current shoreline designation of the Snug Harbor development is RR/C. This designation serves to place the appropriate restrictions on a commercial resort located in close proximity to a residential area and aquatic environment with strong conservancy attributes. The SMP update seeks to re-designate the Snug Harbor portion of the shoreline to PMT. This change raises a number of issues and conflicts with the principles of the SMA and requirements of the SMP. In consideration of current use and designations in the greater Mitchell Bay, affording a non-conforming and non-compliant marina a PMT designation without proper review is poor public policy and thwarts the intent of the original SMP designation and accorded value for Mitchell Bay.

Ecological Values:  Mitchell Bay and the immediate adjacent shoreline is a recognized fish habitat with medium to high ecological values and highest priority for salmon recovery[2]^,[3]. Ironically, according to the County’s Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report associated with the SMP update, the portion of the shoreline in Mitchell Bay recommended to be changed from RR/C to PMT (Reach 238) has the highest ecological score in the bay and an above average score compared to the RHMA average[4]. To re-designate the bay’s highest value shoreline from RR/C to PMT is illogical and in conflict with the goals of the SMA and SMP generally. It is also imprudent to re-designate a shoreline with a non-conforming entity from RR/C to PMT without completing the environmental studies commensurate with marina permitting. In a recent decision denying an expansion of Snug Harbor, the State Examiner advised a comprehensive flushing study be conducted[5]. Quoting from the original decision, which was subsequently upheld on a Request for Reconsideration, the examiner stated: “Mitchell Bay is small and largely enclosed with the marina taking up a significant portion of the surface area. Friday Harbor Labs and project opponents have certainly not presented any conclusive evidence, but they have presented enough information to raise a serious concern over whether it would be a good idea to cram more boats into the small enclosed Mitchell Bay with its sensitive shoreline Conservancy designation.”  He furthernoted “There needs to be some expert analysis of the flushing characteristics of the bay and how it relates to water quality to provide reasonable assurance that more boating activity and moorage is appropriate for the proposed location”.

Community Vision: The Mitchell Bay Association is a community based organization. We represent long-time islanders and newcomers who share a common vision to “Preserve and protect the historical and environmental integrity of the Mitchell Bay”.  We action this vision by working together and in partnership with all users of Mitchell Bay and the County to:

•          Understand and champion the Rural Residential and Conservancy designation requirements


•          Actively and constructively engage in the public processes concerning the SMP and other pertinent regulations


•          Ensure development, zoning and permitting decisions concerning Mitchell Bay uphold its ecological value and recreational safety conditions over the long term


•          Identify publically supported projects to periodically study and maintain, restore and ultimately enhance the ecological value of Mitchell Bay


•          Lend our personal time and effort to achieve our vision

Our vision recognizes that Mitchell Bay is a shallow and restricted bay whose shoreline is largely developed and that over time has seen a decrease in eelgrass and fish species. It also recognizes that the bay’s shallow depth and limited size are poorly suited for a marina. Notwithstanding these limitations, the bay still offers a high degree of ecological and recreational value with its’ immediate proximity to Mosquito Bay, a high priority fish habitat[6]. If future development is thoughtfully managed this value can be maintained and possibly enhanced. The RR/C and C designations are crucial to that goal. Re-designating a portion of the bay’s shoreline to PMT, if only seemingly small, will have big consequences. The PMT designation unlocks and changes numerous restrictions that could have implications not only for that shoreline but the entire bay – from ecological degradation to navigation safety. 

Through meetings with the County, we understand the rationale to propose re-designation of the shoreline bordering Snug Harbor to PMT is nothing more than to simplify and “clean-up” the SMP, limit dual designations and bring the SMP in line with current use. We find this rationale misguided. This would set a dangerous precedent in the case of non-conforming use in Conservancy environments, where by law associated County codes and conditional permits appropriately restrict use and thorough review is required to permit any change. Furthermore the SMP describes the PMT designation as “hubs of the County’s tourist industry” and “essential components of the County’s transportation system” having a “vital economic role within the County” [7].  Surely, Mitchell Bay does not need to serve such a role in the County as Roche Harbor more than fulfils that goal on the islands’ northwest side.

Given the high ecological value of the Mitchell Bay area and the core goal of the SMP to preserve ecological value, the ill-suitability of Mitchell Bay for a PMT designated marina, the non-conforming and non-compliant aspects of the current Snug Harbor development, the lack of required flushing studies, and misalignment with the Mitchell Bay community vision, the SMP designation change from RR/C to PMT on the south shore of Mitchell Bay must be rejected.

2. The policies and requirements for Ports, Marinas and Marine Transport (PMT) designations should be strengthened to increase the likelihood of achieving the ecological value protection goals of the SMP.   

Marinas and ports serve a vital role for island communities and their siting needs to be thoughtful and strategic on many levels – navigational safety, protected moorage and ecological and community impacts. The SMP encompasses many of these requirements. With respect to flushing characteristics of a bay the SMP states “Embayments of poor flushing action should not be considered for marina sites” [8]. We believe the SMP should be more rigid in this regard and suggest the wording be changed to “Marinas are prohibited in embayments of poor flushing action”.  We further request the requirements for PMT designation include “Completion of appropriate studies to determine adequacy of embayment flushing action.”  

3. The high ecological value of shoreline within and adjacent to Mitchell Bay warrants consideration for restoration priority and public funding for environmental study within the Roche Harbor Management Plan (RHMA).   

The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Final Report (April 2013) sets restoration priorities within each management area. Mitchell Bay was not included in the list of priorities for the RHMA at the time of development of the report[9]. We believe there is not a only a strong case to consider Mitchell Bay in restoration and environmental study plans but are willing to offer community involvement and partnership to support the completion of such studies. Answering important questions such as the extent of flushing action and conducting feasibility studies into restoration potential will add to the ecological data base of the area and improve decision making with the goal of initiating action to restore the health and wellbeing of our local marine eco-systems. This partnership vision between the County and our community starts with one simple action – uphold the RR/C designations in Mitchell Bay.   

We appreciate your time and attention to our concerns and input.

Signed by Members of the Mitchell Bay Association

CC:  Mr. Colin Maycock, AICP

Planner IV, San Juan County Community Development and Planning

San Juan County Planning Commission:

Ms. Barbara Thomas -Chair

Ms. Karin Agosta – Vice Chair

Mr. Timothy Blanchard

Mr. Mike Carlson

Mr. Brian Ehrmantraut

Mr. Bob Gamble

Mr. Mike Pickett

Mr.Thomas Starr

Washington State Department of Ecology

Mr. Josh Baldi, Director Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue WA

Mr. Doug Allen, Manager Bellingham Field Office

Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Ms. Brenda Treadwell, Aquatic District Manager
Aquatic Resources Division, Orca-Straits District

State Senator Kevin Ranker

State Representative Kristine Lytton

State Representative Jeff Morris

[1] Shoreline Master Plan Update (Goals and Policies) Draft#5 May 2015 – Comprehensive Plan Section B, Element 3(3.5.B.iii.16)

[2]Friends of the San Juan – Strategic Salmon Recovery Planning in San Juan County Washington: The Pulling it all Together (PIAT) Project  (December 2012) - Mitchell Bay, San Juan Island: Nearshore Marine Resources, Geomorphic Shoreforms, Salmon Recovery Priorities

[3] Table 30B Roche Harbor Management Area Reach Assessment – Habitat Conditions: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Final Report (April 2013) – Reach 227 and 238

[4] Table 30B Roche Harbor Management Area Reach Assessment – Habitat Conditions: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Final Report (April 2013) – Reach 238

[5] Snug Redevelopment –Shoreline Substantial Permit (PS000-14-0016) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision, 22 May 2015

[6] Table 30B Roche Harbor Management Area Reach Assessment – Habitat Conditions: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Final Report (April 2013) – Reach 227

[7] Shoreline Master Plan Update (Goals and Policies) Draft#5 May 2015 – Comprehensive Plan Section B, Element 3(3.3G)

[8] Shoreline Master Plan Update (Goals and Policies) Draft#5 May 2015 – Comprehensive Plan Section B, Element 3 (3.5B.iii13)

[9] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Final Report (April 2013)