The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About030526_JeffCoCAOcomments STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Southwest Region Office PO Box 47775, Olympia, WA 98504-7775 • 360-407-6300 March 5, 2026 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Submitted via email to JeffBoCC@co.jefferson.wa.us; carolyn@co.jefferson.wa.us SUBJECT: Comments on proposed Critical Areas Ordinance update – wetlands; shorelines Dear Chair Brotherton and Commissioners Eisenhour and Dudley-Nollette, Ecology appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the 2/13/2026 draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance (Draft CAO) update amending Chapter 18.22 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC 18.22). We previously provided comments during the Planning Commission’s CAO review, including feedback regarding wetland and shoreline issues in the draft Articles I, II and VII provided to us. Herein I’m including a few last items from our wetlands team’s CAO Coordinator Emily Atkins and providing additional shoreline-related feedback. SMP – CAO Intersection Under the Growth Management Act (GMA) Ecology doesn’t have legislative authority over CAOs, but the County’s current, effective Shoreline Master Program (SMP) adopts the 2009 CAO by reference for application in shoreline jurisdiction. Review of the Draft CAO found the term ‘shoreline’ occurs nearly fifty times throughout the document. Concurrently, the County’s SMP periodic review is underway and to date it seems the County’s intent is to revise the SMP to rely on the newest CAO. Because of this SMP-CAO intersection, we urge the County to address the shoreline issues now in this CAO update to avoid carryover into the SMP where they would need to be addressed after the fact. When the County proposes SMP revisions to rely on this new CAO, Ecology would be unable to approve it as written. In 2010, the WA Legislature revised both the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.610 and the GMA at RCW 36.70A.480 to clearly establish that once an SMP is comprehensively 2 updated, critical areas located within shoreline jurisdiction are regulated solely by the SMP. The County’s SMP comprehensive update was completed in 2014 therefore the CAO should no longer include shoreline-specific regulations. While the SMP relies on the 2009 CAO for required critical area protections within shoreline jurisdiction, any critical areas regulations specific to the shoreline area must be established in the SMP not the CAO. When CAO provisions, which were prepared to meet GMA requirements, are pulled into an SMP they become shoreline provisions, as necessary to meet SMA requirements. Under the SMA any provisions that apply within shoreline jurisdiction must be reviewed and approved by Ecology. Ecology Review and Feedback For the following wetlands and shorelines feedback, Ecology’s suggested edits are shown in red strikethrough/underline. Shorelines Review - As the Regional Shoreline Planner assigned to Jefferson County, my review of the Draft CAO found specific locations where corrections are needed for statutory compliance, and a general need for global changes throughout the document to more accurately clarify the SMP-CAO relationship. The most substantive issues include the following: Article II. Administrative Requirements. • 18.22.230 Exemptions from all types of critical area requirements. (3)(d) On-Site sewage system activities – The CAO should not establish shoreline-specific requirements; Ecology suggests text revision as follows: “…of an on-site sewage system shall not further encroach upon a shoreline and critical area and their associated buffers without obtaining written authorization or a permit from DCD.” Companion edits to the SMP can address shoreline-specific aspects of this CAO exemption or others, as consistent with SMA. Article VI. FWHCAs • 18.22.630 Protection standards. (1) Stream Buffers and (2) Buffers for non-stream FWHCAs – Shorelines of the state (RCW 90.58.030) are regulated solely by the SMP; Per the GMA (RCW 36.70A.480(5)), shorelines of the state are not critical areas, therefore the CAO should not establish buffers for Type “S” streams or lakes over 20 acres. Ecology suggests revisions to ensure statutory consistency as follows: Stream Type Buffer Requirement Width (feet) Type “S” – Shoreline Streams 150 feet Regulated by JCC 18.25 Shoreline Master Program 3 FWHCA Type Buffer Requirement Width (feet)1 Shoreline Natural Ponds and Lakes (20 Acres and Larger) (along with any submerged aquatic beds serving as fish or wildlife habitat) 100 Regulated by JCC 18.25 Shoreline Master Program Game Fish Planted by a Governmental or Tribal Agency (lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers) Ponds under 20 acres – buffers shall extend 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Lakes 20 acres and larger – buffers shall extend 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark; provided, where wetlands are associated with the shoreline, the wetland buffer requirements shall also apply. Streams and rivers – see Table 18.22.630(1). • 18.22.630 Protection standards. (13) Bank stabilization. Criteria (d) - Shorelines of the state are regulated solely by the SMP; the CAO should not establish shoreline-specific requirements; Ecology suggests text revisions as follows: (d) Bluff, bank and shoreline stabilization shall follow the standards of chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program), the geologically hazardous areas provision in this chapter, and chapter 15.15 JCC (Flood Damage Prevention. Bluff, bank and shoreline stabilization within shoreline jurisdiction shall follow the standards of chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program), Global revisions throughout the CAO In addition to the substantive items above, the term ‘shoreline’ appears throughout the CAO, as a courtesy reference or similar indirect use. We encourage the County to review the whole document for cleanup revisions to better distinguish the SMP-CAO intersection consistent with both the GMA and SMA. A couple examples include the following: • 18.22.200 Applicability (7) “…Any critical area occurring within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act also shall follow the policies and regulations requirements in Cchapter 18.25 JCC.” • 18.22.730 Protection standards. (8) Buffer averaging allowed. (a) Criteria for administrative buffer averaging up to 25% (iv) The buffer averaging is necessary due to parcel size, existing development, shoreline or other critical area requirements, or other site constraints such as slope, soils, or protecting existing native vegetation (e.g. mature conifers); Wetlands Review – Ecology wetlands staff review of the Draft CAO found a few remaining items of consideration: Article VII Wetlands 4 • 18.22.710 Classification and designation – Two related issues are identified; The existing language appears to be based on the GMA wetland definition, which all CAOs are required to use, as written with no changes. Ecology is not outright opposed to the minor edits at the second paragraph, but we note that they make the language both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with GMA. o GMA Consistency - The Unified Development Code definition of “Wetland/s” at JCC 18.10.230 relies on an external citation to WAC 365-190.030(22). While similar, we note the WAC definition differs slightly from the GMA’s statutory definition (RCW 36.70A.030(52)). To aid implementation and ensure statutory consistency, Ecology suggests replacing the external WAC citation with the GMA statutory definition in full, as follows: “Wetland” or “wetlands” has the same meaning as in WAC 365-190-030(22) means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. o Internal Consistency - The edits at .710 result in language that differs from the 18.10/GMA definition. Ecology suggests the County do one of the following options:  Either omit the edits at .710 for consistency with 18.10/GMA.  Or add a clarifying edit at .710 to better establish that 18.10 is the definition and the .710 language is just a similar related explanation. The clarifying edit could be simple, as follows: …Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass- lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds for agricultural activities, and landscape amenities, farmed wetlands, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, the definition at JCC 18.10.230 prevails. • 18.22.740 Impact Assessment and Mitigation. (5) Compensatory wetland and buffer mitigation – Type, Location, and Timing. Items (a)(iii) and (iv) – The order of preference for compensatory mitigation methods is not consistent with the recommended order, which is as follows: 1. Restoration 2. Creation 3. Preservation 4. Enhancement 5 This order is based on the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 - Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 2) and Ecology strongly recommends text revision to correct the order presented to be consistent with this guidance for wetland mitigation. Please let me know if you or DCD staff have any questions or want to further discuss these issues. I look forward to continuing work with the County on the SMP periodic review. Sincerely, Michelle McConnell Regional Shoreline Planner Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program CC: Jeremy Willammee, DCD Director Greg Ballard, DCD Emily Atkins, Ecology