HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. Exhibit D. Final Integration Strategy 8'06Jefferson County
Shoreline Master
Program Update
Integration Strategy
Prepared for:
Jefferson County Department
of Community Development
August 2006
PREPARED BY:
Adolfson Associates, Inc.
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Ste 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
206.789.9658
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................i
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code .................................2
1.1 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan ...................................................................................2
Integration Issues: Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................5
2.1 Unified Development Code (UDC).........................................................................................5
Integration Issues: UDC ................................................................................................................6
3.1 Integration Strategies: Comprehensive Plan and UDC ...........................................................7
Stand Alone ....................................................................................................................................7
Incorporation by Reference ..........................................................................................................10
Full Integration ............................................................................................................................10
Combination .................................................................................................................................10
Integration Opportunities: Other Plans ....................................................................................11
4.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................11
5.1 Integration Opportunities ......................................................................................................11
Jefferson County Draft Surface Water Management Plan......................................................12
6.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................12
7.1 Integration Opportunities ......................................................................................................12
Jefferson County 2006-2011 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program ....................13
8.1 Overview and Integration Opportunities ...............................................................................13
Other Integration Issues ..............................................................................................................13
9.1 Ocean Management (WAC 173-26-360)..............................................................................13
10.1 Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative .................................................................14
11.1 Watershed Planning...............................................................................................................14
12.1 Issues from the 1989 SMP ....................................................................................................15
Integration Recommendations and Considerations .................................................................16
Plan or Regulation .......................................................................................................................17
References .....................................................................................................................................19
List of Figures
Figure 1. Relationship of SMP to Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.....9
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Integration Opportunities ................................................................................17
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Compilation of SMP Interviews with County Staff ...........................................1
August 2006 page i Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Introduction
Jefferson County has initiated a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to
comply with the requirements of the State’s SMP Guidelines, WAC 173-26. One of the key
considerations in developing and administering a new SMP is recognizing its relationship to
other plans, programs and regulations. As one of many planning instruments in Jefferson
County, the updated SMP ideally should not overlap or conflict with other plans, programs and
regulations, but rather complement and support them.
In accordance with recent state legislation and the shoreline guidelines contained in WAC 173-
26, this report provides an Integration Strategy for the update of the Jefferson County SMP.
Using the County’s Draft 2000 SMP as a reference point, this report includes a review and
analysis of potential gaps, duplications and opportunities to more closely integrate existing
County plans, programs and regulations with the SMP update.
Shoreline master program goals and policies are considered an element of local comprehensive
plans. In 2000, Jefferson County staff, with significant public input, prepared a draft update to
the County’s 1989 Shoreline Master Program. The 2000 Draft SMP represented a significant
revision of the 1989 SMP to be consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan in
place at that time. The 2000 Draft SMP was the first comprehensive revision of the SMP since
1977 (Shoreline Citizen Advisory Committee, 2000) (by comparison, the ’89 update did not
represent major changes from the ’77 document.) However, in anticipation of the new state
shoreline guidelines, the County did not formally adopt this plan.
As specified in WAC 173-26-191(e), shoreline management is most effective and efficient when
accomplished within the context of comprehensive planning. For cities and counties planning
under the Growth Management Act (GMA), Chapter 36.70A RCW requires mutual and internal
consistency between comprehensive plan elements and development regulations. In accordance
with these GMA requirements and ESHB 1933, this Integration Strategy primarily focuses on
integration with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code, but also
addresses County plans related to parks and recreation, surface water management, and
transportation.
Jefferson County’s existing SMP has been in place since 1989, and County staff members have
learned much about the opportunities and challenges in administering the current SMP during
this time. As a result, this report also includes summaries of a series of interviews with several
County staff members to identify such challenges and opportunities to provide input to this
Integration Strategy as well as the overall SMP update process. A summary of interview results
is provided in Appendix A.
The following sections identify major County plans, programs and regulations, and discuss
opportunities to provide better integration between them and the updated SMP. Each major
County plan, program or regulation is summarized, along with a brief description of
opportunities to better link each of them with the SMP update process. The report then includes
a brief synopsis of findings from the results of interviews with County staff regarding the 1989
SMP, followed by a compiled summary of integration opportunities.
August 2006 page 1 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and Unified
Development Code
1.1 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
The 1990 GMA requires that cities and counties prepare comprehensive plans to manage
population and employment growth for the next 20 years. Jefferson County’s Comprehensive
Plan includes goals, policies, and strategies to assist the County in achieving its desired land
uses. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is a legal document that serves as a decision-making
guide for both officials and citizens, and as a tool for guiding future growth in the County
(Jefferson County, 2004).
Like all comprehensive plans, Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan must include, at a
minimum, a land use element, a rural element (for rural counties), a housing element, a capital
facilities element, a utilities element and a transportation element. Other elements may also be
included. The County’s Comprehensive Plan must also be consistent with Countywide planning
policies, which ensures that the County’s Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
comprehensive plans of incorporated cities in the County (Port Townsend). More recent
legislative amendments to the GMA also specify that goals and policies of an SMP should be
considered an element of a comprehensive plan. As a result, a primary focus on integration
strategies is to ensure mutual and internal consistency between the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and SMP.
While several associations can be drawn between the SMP and Comprehensive Plan, the goals
and policies in Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan that most closely relate to shoreline
planning are primarily found in the Plan’s Land Use, Natural Resources, and Environment
Elements. The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element includes three policies that directly
address shoreline management issues or shoreline planning. These include the following:
LNP 14.2: Allow residential, commercial, and industrial development in a manner that
minimizes risk from flooding, earth movement, shoreline erosion, and other natural
hazards.
LNP 14.4 Ensure that land use decisions along Jefferson County shorelines protect the
shoreline environment, facilitate public access, recognize the needs of water-oriented
activities and cooperate with regional plans for protection and management of
shorelines. In areas of the County under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management
Act (Chapter 90.58RCW), activities which are water-oriented will be preferred over
those activities which are not, all other factors being equal, consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act, and the land use designations, goals, and policies of this
Comprehensive Plan.
LNP 24.13 New or expanded existing master planned resorts must be located in areas of
existing shoreline development, such as marinas and shoreline lodges, which promote
public access to developed shorelines, and/or locations which promote public access and
use of National Parks and National Forests.
The Comprehensive Plan’s Natural Resources Element also addresses issues related to shoreline
management, particularly addressing the issues of forest management and aquaculture. Relevant
policies include the following:
August 2006 page 2 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
NRP 5.4 Establish standards for conversions and Conversion Option Harvest Plans
which carry out the provisions of the Washington State Forest Practices Act and the State
Environmental Policy Act and are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance, the
Shoreline Management Master Program, the Storm Water Management Ordinance, and
other County land use and development standards.
NRP 11.2 Encourage the conservation of aquaculture lands through the designation of
long term commercially significant lands, tax incentive programs and the regulation of
adjacent land uses.
NRP 11.3 Minimize conflicts with adjacent land uses to protect continued productive
aquaculture activities in marine waters associated with fish hatcheries and shellfish
habitat.
NRP 11.4 Address the cumulative impacts of land use activities on or adjacent to
shellfish habitat through the Shoreline Management Master Program, Comprehensive
Plan amendments, and County land use ordinances.
NRP 11.5 Minimize adverse impacts on the quantity and quality of water resources by
encouraging land- based and marine aquaculture operations to utilize best management
practices.
NRP 11.6 Net pens, which are not designated resource lands, shall be regulated under
the Shoreline Management Master Program under regulations for aquaculture activities.
Such regulations will be updated during the SMMP revision for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan will then be amended to incorporate the SMMP as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan. Until the revised SMMP is adopted, where a
regulatory provision is inconsistent with other County ordinances, the more restrictive
provision shall apply.
The Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan is of particular relevance to shoreline
management, containing the following goals and policies:
GOAL ENG 4.0 Preserve the long-term benefits of shoreline resources.
Relevant policies include the following:
ENP 4.1 Shorelines of statewide significance shall be managed according to the
following order of preferred uses as established in the Shoreline Management Act (RCW
90.58.020):
1. Recognize and protect state-wide over local interests;
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
3. Achieve long-term over short-term benefits;
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline;
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public on the shorelines; and,
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 and deemed
appropriate or necessary.
August 2006 page 3 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
ENP 4.2 The County shall revise the Shoreline Master Program to establish and
implement policies and regulations for land use that are consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act, the Growth Management Act, and the Comprehensive Plan. The goals
and policies of the revised Shoreline Master Program shall be incorporated as an
element of the Comprehensive Plan, while the development regulations of the SMP shall
be integrated with the critical areas protections and other standards in the Unified
Development Code. Until the revised SMP is adopted, where a regulatory provision is
inconsistent with other County ordinances, the more restrictive provision shall apply.
ENP 4.3 Coordinate to incorporate local, state and federal laws into the
recommendations of cooperatively-developed, comprehensive watershed and habitat
conservation plans in shoreline planning processes.
ENP 4.4 Promote public access on shorelines in a manner that preserves or enhances the
characteristics of the shoreline.
ENP 4.5 Increase shoreline physical and visual public access in transportation planning,
especially in the development of viewpoints and trails.
ENP 4.6 Shoreline management decisions should preserve sites having historic, cultural,
scientific, and archaeological value as identified under the appropriate authorities
designated by state and federal law.
ENP 4.7 Encourage and participate in projects and programs that foster a greater
understanding of shoreline protection and hazards, maritime activities and history, and
environmental conservation.
GOAL ENG 5.0 Allow development along shorelines that is compatible with the
protection of natural processes, natural conditions, and natural functions of the shoreline
environment.
ENP 5.1 Regulate shoreline land use activities based on the best available scientific
information.
ENP 5.2 Protect nearby properties and the shoreline environment from the individual or
cumulative effects of development that may interfere with the functions of sediment
transport systems along the shoreline.
ENP 5.3 Establish a preference for the use of non-structural rather than structural
solutions in projects for shoreline stabilization, mitigation, rehabilitation, restoration,
and enhancement.
ENP 5.4 Coordinate with Department of Ecology water resources management and
comprehensive watershed plans in order to protect water resources along shorelines, and
to prevent, minimize, and mitigate salt water intrusion of coastal aquifers.
ENP 5.5 Coordinate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife habitat and other marine resources.
ENP 5.6 Manage shoreline hazard areas such as unstable bluffs and erosion and coastal
flood hazard areas to protect public safety and public and private property.
ENP 5.7 Manage storm water for proposed and existing development in a manner
consistent with Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington.
August 2006 page 4 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
ENP 5.8 Promote best management practices to protect shorelines in land use
regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry,
and other development.
The Comprehensive Plan also provides continued support for the inventory and mapping of
critical areas, and the identification of shoreline areas of risk such as unstable coastal bluffs and
areas of erosion and coastal flood hazard. Goals also call for the designation and protection of
shoreline drift cell functions and values, and establishment of restrictions for uses and activities
to protect public safety (Jefferson County, 2004).
Integration Issues: Comprehensive Plan
As noted in the discussion above, there are several goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan
that directly or indirectly relate to the SMP. As is evident in the policy language, many of these
goals and policies have been developed to provide policy support for the 1989 SMP as an interim
measure until the County could prepare and adopt a revised SMP. As discussions about goals and
policies progress as part of the SMP update process, it is likely that several new goals and
policies will be developed that overlap with the goals and policies of the current Comprehensive
Plan, particularly those in the Environment Element. As a result, revision or deletion of these
overlapping goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan would result in better integration of
the updated SMP with the Comprehensive Plan.
Part of the SMP update process also entails preparation of a Restoration Plan. While the future
SMP will likely provide some goal and policy support for restoration, the Comprehensive Plan
could provide further support for protection and restoration planning, particularly in the
Environment Element, but also in the Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Historic
Preservation Element. Even the County’s Capital Facilities Element could be amended to
include a restoration opportunities identified in the SMP Restoration Plan.
2.1 Unified Development Code (UDC)
Jefferson County’s UDC (Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code) provides regulations for
development activities in the County, including but not limited to specific land uses, protection
of critical areas, clearing and grading, and stormwater management. For critical areas in
particular, Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1933 calls for protection of critical areas in
SMPs to be “at least equal” to an adopted and valid critical areas ordinance.
Jefferson County’s regulations for the protection of critical areas (or environmentally sensitive
areas) are contained in several articles following Article VI-D of the UDC1. These include
regulations for the following critical areas:
• Article VI-E: Aquifer Recharge Areas;
• Article VI-F: Frequently Flooded Areas;
• Article VI-G Geologically Hazardous Areas;
• Article VI-H: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas; and
1 Jefferson County is in the process of updating its Critical Areas regulations. The existing regulations are under
review and a new ordinance is scheduled to be adopted in early 2007.
August 2006 page 5 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
• Article VI-I: Wetlands.
Other sections of the UDC with particular relevance the SMP include the following:
Section 18.20.030, Agricultural Activities and Accessory Uses: This section of the UDC
provides regulations for agricultural activities. Among other provisions, the section notes that
agriculture is exempt from standard wetland and stream buffers, and it relies on voluntary best
management practices (BMPs) and farm management plans to protect wetlands and fish and
wildlife habitat in watersheds. Agriculture is also exempt from stormwater management
requirements.
Section 18.20.160, Conversion Option Harvest Plans: This section addresses conversions of
forestland to non-forestry uses; the section references that such requirements must also comply
with the County’s SMP provisions. No more than 40 percent of trees may be harvested under a
Conversion Option Harvest Plan, and the regulations require that the landowner minimize the
number and size of clearcut areas.
Section 18.20.240, Mineral Extraction, Mining, Quarrying, and Reclamation: Among other
provisions, the regulations require that landowners employ BMPs and deposit spoils outside the
shoreline jurisdiction.
Section 18.30.060, Grading and Excavation Standards: Among other provisions, this section
requires that landowners retain natural vegetation and incorporate BMPs for erosion control from
the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Stormwater must also be
managed according to Ecology’s Stormwater Manual for Western Washington.
Section 18.30.130, Landscaping: This section requires, among other provisions, the development
of a landscape plan that identifies natural features or vegetation to be left in a natural state.
Section 18.30.160, Archaeological Resources: This section is intended to ensure protection of
known archaeological and historic resources, and requires that work stop if archaeological
resources are found during construction.
Integration Issues: UDC
While there are several policies in the 2000 Draft SMP supporting critical area management,
specific regulations for many critical areas or references to existing regulations in the UDC are
absent (Adolfson, 2006). There are no specific regulations or references to UDC regulations for
wetlands, geologic hazard areas, aquifer recharge areas, or frequently flooded areas. The 2000
Draft SMP does, however, include regulations for critical saltwater habitats and policies for
critical freshwater habitats.
Both the UDC and 2000 Draft SMP contain a number of overlapping definitions. Providing
consistency between definitions in the UDC and SMP for terms such as “agriculture,”
“aquaculture,” “critical habitat” and the several definitions applying to wetlands in the UDC will
help to better integrate both the UDC and SMP.
Other options for better integrating the UDC and the 2000 Draft SMP include the following:
• Reference UDC regulations for aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas,
and geologically hazardous areas in the SMP, or develop a separate but
complementary set of regulations for these critical areas in the SMP.
• Clarify definitions for critical saltwater and freshwater habitats in the 2000 Draft
SMP and the definitions for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in the UDC.
August 2006 page 6 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
At present, the definitions in each document differ, creating the potential for gaps
and overlaps as the regulations are interpreted and implemented.
• Incorporate wetlands regulations from the UDC into the SMP, or develop a
complementary set of regulations for wetlands in the SMP.
• Reference grading and excavation, erosion control, and stormwater management
standards from UDC in the SMP, or develop a complementary set of regulations for
the SMP.
• Ensure the consistency of 18.20.030, agricultural activities and accessory uses with
goals, policies and regulations for agriculture in SMP; and of 18.20.160,
Conversion Harvest Option Plans, with forest practices policies and regulations in
the SMP.
• For archaeological and historic resources, consider integrating Sections 3.080 and
8.040 of the 2000 Draft SMP and Section 18.15.090 of the UDC to eliminate
overlaps in the management of archaeological and historic resources.
• Ensure that enforcement provisions in the SMP and UDC are consistent and
compatible.
The UDC can also help to support restoration planning called for as part of the SMP update
process. Incentives for restoration can be incorporated into the UDC; for example, certain
restoration activities could be exempt from sections of the UDC or be subject to flexible
development standards. In addition, the permit process could be expedited for restoration
projects.
3.1 Integration Strategies: Comprehensive Plan and UDC
There are three options that the Department of Ecology recognizes for the integration of SMPs
with local comprehensive plans and development codes. The options include stand-alone SMPs,
stand-alone SMPs that include adoptions by reference, and fully integrated SMPs. The three
approaches to SMP integration are described below. Figure 1 shows the general relationships
between the elements of an SMP, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Unified Development Code.
Stand Alone
One option for integrating the updated SMP with the County’s Comprehensive Plan is the
adoption of a stand-alone SMP, similar to the existing 1989 SMP. Under this option, Jefferson
County would continue to have a discrete SMP that contains separate goals, policies, and
regulations and covers shoreline management issues in much the same manner it does today.
An updated stand-alone SMP would be a document “physically separate” from the
Comprehensive Plan and UDC. The goals and policies of the SMP, which according to the
GMA must be considered an element of the Comprehensive Plan, could then be adopted by
reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Regulations in the SMP would cover a range of issues
that are also addressed in the UDC such as critical areas, stormwater management, clearing and
grading, and setbacks. This would essentially create two sets of “parallel” regulations; one set
that applied specifically to the shoreline jurisdiction, and one set that applied to all other areas of
the County outside of the shoreline jurisdiction.
August 2006 page 7 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Under the stand-alone option, a separate SMP could assist County staff in administering the SMP
by avoiding the need to constantly cross-reference SMP regulations for critical areas, as one
example, with regulations contained in the UDC. The stand-alone option could also be
appropriate if the attributes, functions and values of critical areas in the shoreline jurisdiction
(e.g., wetlands) warrant a different regulatory approach than critical areas outside of the
shoreline jurisdiction.
August 2006 page 8 Integration Strategy
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Update
Fi
gu
r
e
1
.
R
e
l
ati
on
s
h
i
p of S
MP
t
o
Comprehe
n
s
i
ve Pl
an
a
n
d
Unified
D
eve
l
opme
n
t
Code
Aug
u
st
2
0
0
6
page 9
Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
A major challenge of the stand-alone option would be to continually ensure internal consistency
between the SMP’s policies and regulations and the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and
UDC development regulations. By maintaining SMP goals and policies separate from the
Comprehensive Plan, there is greater opportunity for SMP policies to overlap with goals and
policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly in the Land Use, Natural Resources,
and Environment Elements. Similarly, while separate regulations for critical areas may provide
an opportunity to tailor regulations for conditions inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction,
dual and parallel regulations may create challenges, for example, where critical areas are
contiguous inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction, or where a landowner with property both
inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction must comply with two sets of regulations.
Incorporation by Reference
Shoreline master programs often address issues, such as clearing and grading, setbacks, or
protection of critical areas that are already addressed in development regulations. Under this
approach, the SMP would incorporate by reference regulations from the UDC that also pertain to
the shoreline jurisdiction. For example, rather than having a discrete set of regulations for critical
areas in the shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP would simply incorporate by reference critical area
regulations from the UDC. In interviews conducted for this Integration Strategy, staff indicated
that the goal of a single unified wetland regulation program should be pursued between the
critical area regulations and SMP to reduce regulatory and administrative confusion (Appendix
A).
An advantage of this approach is that the SMP remains focused on shoreline management issues,
helping to streamline the document and avoid redundancy. It should, however, be noted that
when referenced codes in the UDC are amended, these amendments would require the SMP to
go through an amendment process.
Full Integration
The third option would be to fully integrate SMP policies and regulations into the
Comprehensive Plan and applicable sections of the UDC. Under this approach, the County
would no longer have a discrete SMP document; rather, SMP goals and policies would become a
distinct element incorporated into the text of the Comprehensive Plan, while SMP regulations
would be woven into applicable sections in the UDC.
One advantage of this approach is that shoreline management issues could be fully integrated
into other applicable regulations in the UDC. For example, clearing and grading provisions of the
UDC might include one section of regulations for parcels both within and outside the shoreline
jurisdiction.
Although the County would no longer have a discrete SMP, County staff would be responsible
for fully understanding where each SMP provision existed within the Comprehensive Plan and
UDC because the Department of Ecology would review these documents for compliance with
the Shoreline Management Act and the guidelines in WAC 173-26.
Combination
The fourth option would be a combination of stand-alone and full integration as described above.
With this option, a “convenience document” would be included with all the SMP components in
one place for easy reference. The “convenience document” would contain goals, policies,
regulations, environment designations, and a restoration plan. These elements would also be
fully integrated incorporated in the CP/UDC as described in option three.
August 2006 page 10 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Integration Opportunities: Other Plans
Jefferson County Non-motorized Transportation and Recreational Trails Plan and Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan
4.1 Overview
Jefferson County’s Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and its companion document, the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan provide existing facility inventories; forecast demand; and
provide guidance for the development of future trails, bikeways, parks and open space in
Jefferson County. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan addresses road bicycle routes and
lanes, sidewalks, multi-purpose trails used for transportation, and recreational trails. The Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan addresses public and private parks, open space, and recreation
facilities.
Both plans provide an inventory of existing facilities and identify potential new facilities.
Existing facilities relating to shoreline planning include trails providing access to shorelines,
trails along bluffs overlooking bays, and trails to beaches. Also identified are hand-carried boat
launch sites on lakes and rivers, and along marine shorelines. Both plans also note the
contributions to the County of shoreline facilities owned and managed by the Washington State
Department of Transportation, Parks and Recreation Commission, Department of Fish and
Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources, as well as private shoreline recreational facilities
such as those associated with Port Ludlow.
Providing additional shoreline trails is a component of the 20-year vision for the Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan. The Plan notes that the public has expressed an interest in additional
saltwater hand-carry sites, particularly on Discovery Bay, Hood Canal, and Dabob Bay, all of
which are also important shellfish production areas. The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan
also calls for identifying public tideland walking and hiking routes linking communities with
state and local parks, particularly where private landowners are in agreement, as well as
developing additional access points for saltwater and freshwater trails along with limited
services, such as shelters and camps (Jefferson County, 2002a).
The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan’s land and facility demand analysis also identifies
potential new acquisitions and facilities along the County’s shorelines. It calls for set-asides of
additional conservancy zones along shoreline and wetland areas, and for the development of
additional waterfront resource activities such as boating, fishing, swimming, and camping.
Finally, the Plan identifies a number of goals and policies relating to shoreline management that
include preservation of streams, rivers, and lakes; providing greater public access to lakes; and
linking and extending trails along shorelines (Jefferson County, 2002b).
5.1 Integration Opportunities
Both plans offer several opportunities to integrate the goals, policies, and regulations of the SMP
to support the recommendations provided by these companion documents. Goals and policies for
public access can be developed to support the specific demands for facilities identified in these
documents, while regulations for new shoreline development could include specific conditions or
August 2006 page 11 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
mitigation measures that support increasing public access opportunities to specifically meet
opportunities and demands identified in each plan.
Jefferson County Draft Surface Water Management
Plan
6.1 Overview
Jefferson County’s 2005 Draft Surface Water Management Plan is intended to guide the
development of a future County Surface Water Management Program. The Draft Plan identifies
surface water issues and attributes such as flooding, salmonid habitat, shellfish, marinas, on-site
septic systems, and low dissolved oxygen in Hood Canal. It also discusses impacts to surface
waters from a variety of activities, from rural resource activities to urban development (Jefferson
County Department of Public Works, 2005).
The Draft Plan provides recommendations for both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to
surface water management, with an emphasis on non-regulatory approaches. It discusses several
activities that could be components of a future Surface Water Management Program including
landowner education, erosion control initiatives, stormwater management for new development,
low-impact development, flood hazard management, watershed planning, and monitoring. The
Plan’s goals and policies call for:
• Maintaining and restoring water resources;
• Supporting partnerships for surface water management;
• Providing public education and technical assistance;
• Encouraging low-impact development;
• Providing incentives to maintain forest cover; and
• Increasing floodplain and floodway capacity.
The Draft Plan also identifies as a goal the relocation of roads in western Jefferson County out of
riparian areas.
7.1 Integration Opportunities
The Draft Plan offers several opportunities for improved integration with the updated SMP.
Education and technical assistance programs identified in the Draft Plan could be coordinated
with goals and policies in the SMP intended to support non-regulatory approaches to shoreline
management. Incentives to retain forest cover called for in the Draft Plan could be coordinated
with vegetation conservation policies and regulations in the SMP to help meet the vegetation
conservation requirements the WAC 173-26.
Through policy support, the SMP could also further support low-impact development in
shorelines to help maintain and restore water quality. Policies and regulations for floodways and
floodplains could be developed in the SMP to address ways to increase floodplain and floodway
capacity along with new development in the shoreline jurisdiction; floodway and floodplain
capacity could also be addressed as elements of the SMP Restoration Plan.
August 2006 page 12 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Finally, County staff have identified emergency repair of roads in western Jefferson County as
an issue of concern to be addressed in the SMP update; relocation of such roads as discussed in
the Draft Plan could be incorporated as an option into the SMP (Appendix A).
Jefferson County 2006-2011 Six Year Transportation
Improvement Program
8.1 Overview and Integration Opportunities
The Jefferson County Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) identifies priorities
for road maintenance and repair, bridges and other transportation improvements in the County
(Jefferson County, 2005). The TIP does not propose any new roads or bridges. All road projects
are improvements to existing roads and/or bridge replacements. There are also several culvert
replacements.
Once the SMP is complete, the TIP could be revisited to ensure that proposed road/bridge
improvements are compatible with the protection of ecological functions of the shoreline. The
SMP can also include policies and regulations to minimize and mitigate impacts of future County
road and bridge projects.
Other Integration Issues
9.1 Ocean Management (WAC 173-26-360)
The Ocean Resources Management Act was enacted in 1989 by the Washington state legislature
and requires the Department of Ecology to develop guidelines and policies for the management
of ocean uses and to serve as the basis for evaluation and modification of local shoreline
management master programs of coastal local governments, including Jefferson County. The
guidelines are intended to clarify state shoreline management policy regarding use of outer
coastal resources, address evolving interest in ocean development and prepare state and local
agencies for new ocean developments and activities.
Ocean uses are activities or developments involving renewable and/or nonrenewable resources
found in Washington's coastal waters. Activities and developments include their associated
offshore, nearshore, inland marine, shoreland, and upland facilities and supply, service, and
distribution activities, such as crew ships, circulating to and between the activities and
developments. Ocean uses involving nonrenewable resources include such activities as
extraction of oil, gas and minerals, energy production, disposal of waste products, and salvage.
Ocean uses that generally involve sustainable use of renewable resources include commercial,
recreational, and tribal fishing, aquaculture, recreation, shellfish harvesting, and pleasure craft
activity.
Local governments and the department may permit ocean or coastal uses and activities as a
substantial development, variance or conditional use only if there is a demonstrated significant
local, state, or national need; there is no reasonable alternative; there will be no likely long-term
significant adverse impacts to coastal or marine resources or uses; and all reasonable steps are
taken to avoid and minimize adverse environmental impacts. Special protection is provided for
the marine life and resources including those of Olympic National Park.
August 2006 page 13 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
Western Jefferson County’s ocean beaches are under the jurisdiction and management of
Olympic National Park, the Hoh Tribe, and the Quinault Tribe. As a result, the County’s SMP
goals, policies and regulations do not apply to Jefferson County’s outer coastal beaches.
10.1 Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative
In 1997, Senator Murray and Representative Metcalf initiated a strong bipartisan alliance to help
protect the marine waters of Washington state. After a year of research and discussion, the
Murray-Metcalf Northwest Straits Citizens Advisory Commission concluded that a coordinated
effort, blending well-founded science with grassroots consensus building, would be the best
approach. The result is the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative, authorized by
Congress in 1998.
This federally funded program takes a "bottom-up" approach to protecting and restoring the
marine resources of the Northwest Straits. It blends well-founded science with grassroots
consensus building through the actions of seven marine resources committees (MRCs). The
Northwest Straits currently falls under the jurisdiction of the state of Washington and Clallam,
Jefferson, Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island and Snohomish counties. A 13-person Northwest
Straits Commission has been formed to help guide and offer financial and technical resources to
the marine resources committees in each of the seven counties. By coordinating county-level
efforts and establishing priorities for scientific research, the Northwest Straits Commission
ensures that activities will address broad issues of ecosystem health. It also strives to
complement work being done by state agencies, rather than duplicate efforts. State agencies
involved in protecting the Northwest Straits include the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
and the departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources.
The Jefferson County MRC is advisory to the Board of County Commissioners and operates
under the umbrella of the Northwest Straits Commission as administered by the Department of
Ecology. With access to County Commissioners and federal funding it is uniquely positioned to
assist in developing and implementing the restoration component of the SMP. By fostering
MRC participation in the development of the restoration component of the SMP, county-level
restoration planning can be better integrated, complimenting both SMP and MRC efforts and
avoiding duplication.
11.1 Watershed Planning
There is an increasing recognition of the importance of integrating shoreline planning with local
and regional watershed planning and salmon recovery efforts. This recognition is founded in the
realization that activities in watersheds affect the ecological functions of shorelines, and that the
restoration planning called for in WAC 173-26 should be closely linked with the many existing
and ongoing watershed and marine restoration planning efforts.
There are particular opportunities to integrate watershed plans and recovery efforts with SMP
restoration planning. Integration opportunities could focus on coordination with WRIAs 16 and
17, and to the extent appropriate WRIAs 20 and 21 watershed planning efforts, salmon recovery
planning under ESHB 2496, and the activities of the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Similar
to the UDC, SMP regulations could also include incentives such as exemptions, flexible
development standards or expediting of permits to better integrate restoration planning and
encourage restoration in the shoreline jurisdiction.
August 2006 page 14 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
12.1 Issues from the 1989 SMP
While this Integration Strategy has been developed using the 2000 Draft SMP as a reference
point, County staff currently administer the County’s SMP adopted in 1989. Appendix A
includes a summary of findings from County staff interviews, but the following are some of the
highlights emerging during the staff interviews regarding the challenges in administering the
1989 SMP:
• Stormwater: The 1989 SMP lacks provisions for or references to specific
stormwater management practices. Staff indicated that Ecology’s Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington could be referenced consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and UDC.
• Vegetation Conservation: Vegetation is currently protected under UDC regulations
for geologically hazardous areas. Regulations require native or locally compatible
vegetation, as well as maintenance of undisturbed or native vegetation. The 1989
SMP, however, does not directly include vegetation conservation regulations.
• Stairs to the Beach: Many of the shoreline permits issued by the County address
stairs down bluffs and to beaches. Conflicts arise in that while a building permit and
building codes may require multiple landings, the SMP provisions give preference
to free standing stairs to maintain bluff integrity.
• Roads and Emergency Repairs: While emergency repairs are exempt from the need
for a shoreline permit, there are many roads in western Jefferson County that
frequently wash out. Often the road is in the riparian area, bounded by Forest
Service or Wilderness lands. Road, and repair and maintenance can be detrimental
to shoreline function. Emergency repair options often include rebuilding in the
river or riprap to protect from high flow damage. Currently, there is no mechanism
in the SMP to consider relocation instead of repair of these roads.
• Restoration and Incentives: There are opportunities to incorporate a more proactive
approach to education in the SMP. Existing and ongoing incentives and restoration
opportunities that could support the SMP include Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, open space taxation, transfer of development rights, land
acquisition or easements, small forest landowner riparian easement programs, and
floodplain acquisition programs.
• Aquaculture: The definition of aquaculture in the SMP has been challenging to
implement. There are opportunities to work on this aquaculture definition and the
definition of “extensive” aquaculture.
• Mooring Buoys: Unpermitted mooring buoys have been identified as an issue.
• Non-Conforming and Secondary Uses: Expansion of non-conforming uses in the
1989 SMP is considered a conditional use, but has been identified as an issue.
Expansion of non-conforming uses is permitted if the use does not expand the non-
confirming use closer to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Secondary uses
are those uses that are not automatically deemed as being preferable in the scope of
definition or policy of a particular shoreline designation. County staff members
August 2006 page 15 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
have suggested that the secondary use classification could be removed from the
SMP.
Integration Recommendations and Considerations
Aside from resolving the conflicts between policies and regulations that will occur as a result of
the SMP update, the County could strive to integrate the SMP with the Comprehensive Plan,
UDC and other plans in a way that is clear and efficient for staff, mutually and synergistically
supportive, and more user-friendly for citizens and landowners. Table 1 provides a summary of
integration opportunities.
August 2006 page 16 Integration Strategy
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Update
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
Su
m
ma
r
y o
f
I
n
t
e
gr
a
t
i
on
O
p
p
ort
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
o
r
R
e
g
u
la
t
i
o
n
Re
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
t
o
S
M
P
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
A.
C
o
m
pre
h
e
nsiv
e
P
l
a
n
Con
t
ai
ns
g
oal
s a
n
d
po
l
icies
fo
r
se
v
era
l
e
l
e
m
en
ts
;
g
oals
a
n
d
poli
c
i
e
s
in
th
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
,
N
a
t
ura
l
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
en
t
a
l
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
o
f
mo
s
t
re
l
e
v
ance
t
o
t
h
e
S
M
P
.
1.
Revi
si
t C
ompre
h
e
n
sive
Pl
an
l
and
u
se
de
s
i
gnation
s
(a
n
d corresponding zoning) to
more
a
p
pr
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
e
c
o
l
o
gica
l
f
u
n
cti
o
n
s i
n t
h
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e jurisdiction and to
en
s
ure
c
ons
i
stenc
y
w
i
th S
M
P en
v
i
ro
nm
en
t
d
esi
gn
a
t
ions
.
2.
In
c
orp
o
r
a
t
e
a
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
El
e
m
en
t
i
n
to
t
h
e
C
o
mpre
h
e
n
s
i
v
e Plan.
3.
Up
da
t
e t
he L
a
nd
U
s
e
E
l
em
en
t
p
o
l
icies
t
o r
e
mov
e
o
v
e
rl
ap
s
and ensure
co
ns
i
s
t
e
n
cy
w
i
th
S
M
P
po
li
c
i
e
s
.
4.
Up
d
ate
t
h
e
N
a
t
ura
l
R
e
s
o
u
rce
s
E
l
e
m
en
t
p
oli
c
i
e
s
t
o
re
m
ove redundancy and ensure
co
n
sistenc
y
f
or t
he
m
ana
g
e
m
ent
o
f a
gri
culture,
f
ore
st
r
e
s
ources, and aquaculture.
5.
Am
en
d t
h
e
En
v
iro
nmen
t
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
m
ove
a
n
y
poten
ti
a
l
l
y
r
e
d
u
ndant language;
in
co
r
p
o
rat
e
r
e
l
evant g
o
al
s
an
d
p
oli
c
i
e
s
in
to t
h
e
SM
P
go
als and policies.
6.
Am
en
d
O
p
e
n Sp
a
c
e
,
P
a
rk
s
a
nd
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
H
i
s
t
or
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Element to
prov
id
e
grea
t
e
r
s
u
p
po
r
t
f
o
r
a
c
q
uisi
t
i
o
n
opp
o
rt
u
nit
i
e
s
a
n
d
conservation incentives
fo
r
t
h
e
s
h
or
e
l
i
n
e
j
u
ri
s
d
ic
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
7.
In
te
g
rat
e
s
p
ec
i
fi
c
p
r
o
j
ec
t
s
i
den
ti
f
i
e
d
i
n t
h
e
R
est
o
rat
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
i
n
to the Capital
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
E
l
e
men
t.
B.
U
n
if
i
e
d
De
v
elo
p
men
t
C
o
de
Pr
o
vides
d
e
v
e
l
op
m
en
t
re
g
ula
t
i
o
n
s
a
nd s
t
a
n
da
r
ds
fo
r
cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
,
c
lea
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
gr
a
ding,
s
t
ormwat
er
mana
g
e
m
ent
,
a
n
d
s
e
ve
r
a
l
ot
he
r
ac
t
i
v
it
i
e
s
a
n
d us
e
s
.
1.
En
s
ure
c
o
ns
i
stenc
y
b
e
t
wee
n
de
f
i
ni
tion
s
i
n UD
C
a
nd
S
M
P.
2.
Refe
r
e
nc
e
UD
C r
e
g
ulations
f
or a
q
ui
fe
r
r
e
c
har
g
e
a
r
e
a
s
,
f
requently flooded areas,
an
d
g
e
ol
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
t
he
SM
P
,
o
r
de
ve
l
o
p
c
omplementary set of
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns i
n
t
h
e
S
M
P
.
3.
Cl
a
r
i
f
y
d
efi
nit
i
o
ns f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
sa
l
t
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
h
a
bitats in the SMP and
fi
s
h
a
n
d
wi
l
d
li
f
e
h
abit
a
t
c
o
n
ser
v
ati
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
i
n UD
C
.
4.
Refe
r
e
nc
e
UD
C w
e
t
land r
e
gulat
ion
s
i
nto t
he S
M
P,
or de
v
e
l
op a complementary
se
t
o
f r
e
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns i
n t
h
e
S
M
P
.
5.
Re
f
e
r
e
nc
e
UD
C
g
r
a
din
g
a
nd
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
on,
er
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
,
a
nd stormwater control
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns i
n
t
h
e
S
M
P
,
or d
evelo
p
a
c
o
mple
m
e
n
tar
y
s
e
t
o
f
regulations.
6.
En
s
ure
c
o
ns
i
s
t
enc
y
o
f UDC
r
egu
l
a
t
i
o
ns
fo
r
ag
r
i
c
ult
u
r
e
a
n
d forestry with those in
th
e
S
M
P
.
7.
Re
f
e
r
e
nc
e
UD
C
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
r
c
hae
o
l
og
i
ca
l
a
n
d
h
i
s
t
oric resources in the SMP,
or
c
r
e
a
t
e
c
omple
ment
a
r
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
8.
Ad
d
i
nce
n
ti
v
e
s
f
o
r
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
UD
C
.
Aug
u
st
2
0
0
6
page 1
7
Integration Strategy
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Update
Pl
a
n
o
r
R
e
g
u
la
t
i
o
n
Re
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
t
o
S
M
P
In
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
C.
N
o
n
-
M
oto
r
i
z
e
d
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
rta
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
/P
a
r
k
s,
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
P
l
an
Pl
an
s
i
den
t
ify de
m
and
s
a
nd
ne
e
d
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
i
l
s
,
p
a
rk
s
,
op
e
n
sp
a
c
e
a
nd
wa
t
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
al
on
g
s
hor
e
l
ines.
1.
Pr
o
v
i
de
S
M
P
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o support identified
ne
e
d
s
f
o
r
t
r
a
i
l
s
,
p
a
rk
s
a
nd
w
a
t
er
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
2.
Re
v
isi
t
p
lan
s
t
o
e
n
su
re
t
hat
s
p
ec
i
f
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
d
en
ti
f
i
e
d
i
n Plans are appropriate
fo
r
a
gi
ve
n
sh
orel
ine
e
nv
i
ro
nmen
t
d
e
s
i
gnat
ion a
n
d
a
ppl
icable SMP regulations.
D.
S
u
rf
a
c
e
W
ater
Mana
ge
m
ent
Pl
a
n
Pr
o
v
ides
poli
c
i
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
ent
o
f
s
urf
a
c
e
wa
t
e
r
s
,
incl
ud
i
ng
t
hos
e
t
hat
m
ay
di
sc
h
a
rg
e
t
o re
gu
l
at
ed
s
horel
ines
.
1.
Coordi
na
t
e e
duca
t
ion
a
nd t
ec
h
ni
ca
l
a
s
s
i
st
a
n
ce
p
r
o
g
ra
m
s identified in the Draft
Pl
an
wi
th go
a
l
s a
n
d
policies
i
n t
he S
M
P i
ntend
e
d
t
o s
upp
ort non-regulatory
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
t
o
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
m
ana
ge
m
ent
.
2.
Co
or
d
inate
i
n
ce
n
ti
v
es
t
o r
e
t
a
i
n fo
r
e
s
t
c
o
ver
ca
l
l
e
d
f
o
r
i
n the Draft Plan with
vegeta
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
ati
o
n
po
li
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns i
n
t
h
e
SMP to meet the
ve
g
e
t
ation
c
onser
v
a
t
ion
re
qu
i
re
m
ent
s
W
A
C
17
3-26.
3.
Su
p
port l
o
w
-
i
mpac
t
d
evelo
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
s
h
or
e
l
i
n
es
t
hro
ug
h
t
h
e
S
M
P
t
o help maintain
an
d
r
e
s
t
ore
w
a
t
er
quali
t
y
.
4.
De
v
elop
p
o
li
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns i
n
t
h
e
SM
P
t
o
a
d
dr
e
s
s
w
a
y
s
t
o
increase
fl
oodplain a
nd
fl
oodway
c
a
pa
ci
ty a
l
on
g
wi
th n
e
w
s
horel
ine substantial
de
v
e
l
op
m
en
t
.
5. F
l
o
od
w
ay
an
d
floo
dp
la
i
n
ca
pa
c
i
t
y
c
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
be
a
ddr
e
s
s
e
d as elements of the
Rest
or
a
t
ion
P
l
an.
E.
T
r
a
n
sp
o
rta
t
i
o
n
I
m
prov
em
ent
Pl
a
n
Ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
br
i
d
g
e
s
i
n s
hor
e
l
i
n
e
su
bj
ec
t
t
o S
M
P
p
o
li
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns.
1.
En
su
re
t
h
at
S
M
P
p
o
li
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns a
d
eq
u
ate
l
y
a
d
d
ress ways to minimize
impac
t
s
f
rom r
oad
s
a
n
d
b
r
id
g
e
s
i
n
t
he
s
h
or
el
in
e
j
u
r
isd
ic
t
i
o
n
.
2.
En
s
ure
t
hat
i
dentified
ro
a
d an
d
br
i
dg
e
i
mpr
o
v
e
m
ent
s
i
n t
he shoreline are
co
n
sistent
w
i
th a
n
d
a
pprop
ri
at
e
f
or
e
nvi
ron
m
en
t
d
e
si
gnation and applicable
re
g
u
la
t
i
o
ns.
F.
O
t
h
e
r
Ge
n
e
ra
l
s
horel
ine
m
ana
g
e
m
ent
an
d
p
rot
ec
t
ion
.
1.
In
c
l
ud
e
i
nce
nt
ive
pr
ovisions f
or n
on-reg
ul
at
or
y
m
ana
g
e
m
ent and protection of
sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
a
nd
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r a
pp
l
i
ca
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
op
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
t
a
xa
t
i
o
n
,
t
ransfer of
de
v
e
l
op
m
en
t
r
i
gh
t
s, a
nd s
i
mila
r
pr
og
ra
m
s
Aug
u
st
2
0
0
6
page 1
8
Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
References
Adolfson Associates. 2006. Memorandum, Consistency Report, Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program Update. Prepared for Jefferson County Department of Community
Development.
Jefferson County Public Works Department. 2005. Jefferson County Surface Water
Management Plan (Draft). Port Townsend, WA.
Jefferson County, 2004. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Port Townsend, WA.
Jefferson County, 2005. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Port Townsend, WA.
Jefferson County. 1989. Shoreline Management Master Program for Jefferson County and Port
Townsend, Washington.
Jefferson County. 2002a. Jefferson County Non-Motorized Transportation and Recreational
Trails Plan. Port Townsend, WA.
Jefferson County. 2002b Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Port
Townsend, WA.
Shoreline Citizen Advisory Group. 2000. Memorandum: Advisory group report on the draft
shoreline master program. Unpublished.
August 2006 page 19 Integration Strategy
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update
APPENDIX A – COMPILATION OF SMP INTERVIEWS WITH
COUNTY STAFF
August 2006 Appendix A
Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program Update 2006
1. What regulatory inconsistencies or conflicts exist between the SMP and UDC
(setbacks, subdivisions, parking requirements, landscaping, etc.)? How could these
inconsistencies be best resolved? Are they better addressed in the UDC, or the SMP?
Type 1 freshwater shorelines are regulated through the UDC, & have 150 foot natural
buffers
Type 1 marine waters are regulated by the SMMP, and have a 30 ft from OHWM – low bank
& 1’horizontial for each 1’ of vertical height for high bank. (see 4.160 of SMMP). We have
provisions for getting closer through shoreline averaging. The shoreline designation does
not make a difference in the setback for residential structures except in the natural
designation where we do not permit residences within shoreline jurisdiction (should be
careful where natural designation is apply because it is very restrictive). Different
shorelines types should have specified setbacks.
We have more authority to keep the shoreline bluff naturally vegetated if we have landslide
hazard through 18.15.275 (geologically hazardous areas). Trees are primarily protected
trough 18.15.275 & through 18.15.315 (fish & wildlife areas –eagle habitat) of JCC. If
there is not eagles or landslide hazard it is hard to require trees & vegetation to be kept
except through discretion shoreline permits. Could use more criteria/teeth in the SMP.
Stairs and decks can encroach natural buffers – easier to control if there is a hazard.
SMP is “one size fits all” need criterion specific to type of shoreline, conditional use and
secondary use permit – secondary should be phased out.
-
The setback issues and critical areas. Marine setback issue. 30’ setback interpretive policy
– see shoreline info sheet on website, 30’ buffer but code type I waters (marine shoreline)
no table for marine setbacks. SMP is a goal of GMA integrated to the point where it is user
friendly.
"Vegetation management is an issue." We need clear guidance in the SMP about vegetation
(retention, management, etc.) along shorelines, both freshwater riparian and marine
shorelines. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area section of our critical areas regs
contains some language on this issue. There appears to be a prohibition on removing
vegetation, except that "minor pruning for views is allowed," or something like that. We
need better guidance. There was talk at one point of having a reference to National Arbor
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 1
August 2006
Foundation standards or something more specific and/or objective. No sure if our
consultants have come across useful provisions elsewhere.
t
)
Bainbridge Island and/or Kitsap County has some provisions on vegetation management, I
think.
A related issue is "danger trees" along shorelines and what people need to go through to
manage them. Who makes the judgment as to whether a tree is a danger tree? Is it DNR?
The County? The landowner? Can a landowner fall a danger tree without consultation with
any of these agencies and/or WDFW, if the area is an eagle area or along a beach?
IN the future DCD plans to propose for adoption amendments to the code that allow
for/promote LID -- the material that the County received recently from AHBL on behalf of
the Puget Sound Action Team. There is also a model clearing and grading ordinance that
CTED released last year. DCD will want to see whether the model clearing and grading
ordinance should replace the UDC sections 6.6 and 6.7 (clearing/grading and stormwater
management). In doing so, would DCD create any inconsistencies with the "vegetation
management" and/or "clearing and grading" sections within the SMP regs?
(Community Development)
SMP is 20 years old, not user-friendly, poor formatting (Public Works).
2. Are County clearing and grading and storm drainage regulations consistent with
SMP? Are there opportunities to better integrate these provisions into the SMP?
No, SMP needs to be updated per stormwater manual (Public Works).
There are no specific requirements in the SMMP that require buffers to be naturally
vegetated. We try and apply the Fish & Wildlife 18.15.315 of JCC to keep the natural
vegetation. If we have a shoreline we condition them to keep natural vegetation. We also
let decks go into the shoreline setback. There are just general language about drainage in
SMMP, but we have to go to UDC for specifics 18.15.275 (geohazards), 18.30.060 (grading)
& 18.30.070 (stormwater .
Vegetation management, 30’ fish and wildlife habitat areas, pruning for views, demand for
shoreline views, shoreline hearings board provides more oversight on implementation. SMP
has more teeth. (Community Development)
Jefferson Co. adopted the 2001 DOE stormwater manual. DOE has since upgraded their
stormwater manual in 2004. WDFW recommends adopting the new guidance manual. WDFW
also recommends adopting PSAT guidance: "Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management,
2005" document available at the web link below.
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_studies/LID_approaches.htm
(WDFW)
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 2
August 2006
3. Are there conflicts, gaps, duplications between the goals and policies in the SMP,
Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Plan, draft Surface Water Plan, or other County
documents? Are there opportunities to better integrate goals and policies from other
elements of the Comprehensive Plan with the SMP?
Look at comp plan and 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan. (Public Works)
The processing of shoreline permits typically only focuses on UDC requires and not these
other plans.
98 comp plan envisioned a sooner SMP update – comp plan document needs to be pulled into
SMP. E.g. Fish and wildlife habitat section of the code re: bulkheads (Community
Development)
4. Are public access provisions in the SMP consistent with County Park future plans?
Are there better opportunities to integrate public access provisions of the SMP with
future plans for County parks and trails?
Look at Non-motorized transportation plan (Public works)
Probably over 75% of our shoreline projects are stairs to the beach. Stairs are not
considered accessory uses to a residence but are considered unclassified uses & require a
shoreline conditional use permit. We have no specific policies & performance standards for
stairs & try and apply the Residential 4.160 standards since they are most similar. Would
be nice to have provisions that allow stairs to the beach to be an easier process (like
substantial development permit instead CUP) if they meet some performance standards
(such as not impacting geologically hazardous areas, not removing native vegetation, not
requiring shore defense, base located landward or OHWM, not causing visual impact, &
design minimizing impacts to shoreline (such as tower, trams & free spanning). Would be
nice to have a section similar to the Kitsap SMMP that indicates that access to the beach
should be encouraged if done properly. There is a conflict with the UBC regarding rise/run
– try to minimize footprint and would like to be clear that beach access stairs don’t have to
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 3
August 2006
meet UBC standards. Permit cost ($1800) encourages people to avoid permit, which makes
things worse (Community Development)
5. Are there any conflicts with the siting and construction of County roads and bridges in
the shoreline jurisdiction, or with road and parking standards for private development?
Are there opportunities to better integrate the County's transportation plan and the SMP?
There are many roads in Jefferson County that provide primary access to the Olympic National
Park (Upper Hoh, Oil City, Dosewallips, South Sore of Quinalt). The County maintains these
roads yet they are in locations (floodplains) where they constantly wash-out. Is there a way to
get at county/fed transportation planning to identify corridor alternatives through the SMP via
federal consistency? This is a complicated issue that should be considered during development of
the SMP, but several factors are involved. Some roads on West end are of very limited County
interest (very few residences) but more importantly serve to provide access to the Nat’l Park. In
some places where the road is in the riparian area, and adjacent to a Forest Service or
Wilderness boundary there’s nowhere to move the road, and repair & maintenance are
detrimental to shoreline function. Emergency repair options are rebuild in the river or riprap to
protect from high flow damage. Because of financial, environmental and recreational issues,
Public Works is pushing for recognizing the regional/national importance of these roads
including funding support for relocation/repair. SMP should echo this stance to make for
stronger more consistent voice (Public Works)
There are many new roads & bridges being constructed within the shoreline areas.
However, there are many emergency repair projects of existing roads and bridges
(especially in the west end of county). Typically we will allow these roads and bridges to be
repaired through a shoreline exemption under 3.402 (6) & require the projects to have fish
enhancement elements approved by WDFW, but there is no specific authority to require
this. It would be appropriate to have a section in the exemptions that require the repair of
developments to improve the shoreline environment and process.
This issue became very pertinent during recent storm events where it was easier to permit
replacement/repair of roads/trails with rip-rap than to permit new soft bank alternative
armoring techniques. (Community Development)
WDFW recommends utilizing PSAT Low Impact Development Manual for developments within
shorelines. WDFW also recommends minimizing bridges and roads within shorelines to avoid
impacting instream and/or nearshore fish and wildlife habitats. (WDFW)
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 4
August 2006
7. ESHB 1933 requires that critical areas in the shoreline be regulated by the SMP, and that
regulations in the SMP be at least as protective as the Critical Areas Ordinance. This may be
accomplished by a single ordinance, or two separate ordinances. What would be the most
effective way to link the CAO and SMP? Are there any conflicts now between management of
critical areas within and outside the shoreline jurisdiction? (The County is currently updating its
CAO, so perhaps these questions can be directed towards the proposed regulations.)
I believe that the SMMP is the only jurisdiction that has Secondary uses, which we process
very similar to conditional uses but have not criteria in WAC 173-27. Should probably
eliminate secondary use & just use the CUP process.
Per WEC settlement six months to update shorelines and critical areas within the code,
buried in the overlay districts, needs better organization, group shoreline and CA together
one example – language in SMA to protect agriculture, GMA does for existing AG, transition
as you go from shoreline to type 2 stream – could be more restrictive upstream – weird.
What about extending 100 year flood?
The use table allows many uses (like a pier into Hood Canal in the Conservancy environment)
(Community Development)
WDFW recommends following the recent bill regarding GMA/SMA integration and ultimately
protect shoreline critical areas under the SMP. (WDFW)
8. Are there any other suggestions to clarify or improve goals, policies, or regulations of the
SMP? Are there issues that should be addressed in the SMP that are not currently included?
The Conservation district does restoration work in the County. The exemption for woody
debris, bank stabilization and fish passage is important and should be maintained, possibly
expanded to cover a broader range of restoration activities.
Need clarification that when streams, such as Chimacum Creek, that have been ditched are
subsequently restore and re-meandered that the adjoining property owner is not penalized
by a re-interpretation of the buffer requirements. (Conservation District)
9. In the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process, are there difficulties in interpreting
sections of the SMP, or other SMP provisions that provide permitting challenges for both public
and private projects? What could be done to address these issues?
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 5
August 2006
Typically for stairs we want to cause minimal disruption to the bluff, which may require
steep free-spanning stairs. If a building permit is required then the standards for landing,
guardrails, and steepness apply. IF building requirements require multiple landing this cause
more disruption to the bluff. Also whether building permits are required for piers, ramps, &
floats
Nice to have the aquacul ure section of the SMMP clarified to address whether the
placement of PVC pipes in the substrate, longlines and oyster baskets requires a shoreline
permit. Desalinization plants need to be specifically addressed
t
t
t
Mooring buoy issue , for Kilisut Harbor, Mystery Bay, develop grid system for location,
distance between buoys and scope, discontinued use, same issue applies to docks as well,
(Community Development).
10. Are there any specific ongoing County non-regulatory incentives that could be integrated with
and support the goals, policies and regulations of the SMP or restoration plan? These might
include elements like current use taxation, education programs, technical assistance, and the like.
Conservation Futures and Farmland Protection programs should be considered (Conservation
District).
The Surface Water Management Plan is non-regulatory and should be considered in the SMP
update Public Works).
The Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee would be a good example of an ongoing
non-regulatory program that should be integrated with the SMP and particularly the
restoration plan. The relationship between the Coastal Programs and the Sanctuary
programs already exists a the federal level (within NOAA they are both administered by
the Office of Oceans and Coastal Resource Management) and it is a natural fit a the
County level. Note that the Marine Resource Committees are effectively a replacement for
a Northwest Straits Sanctuary and are in fact funded with NOAA Coastal Zone
Management Act Section 310 funds. The Marine Resource Committee could offer
educational program and technical assistance to implement elements of the SMP,
particularly the restoration plan.
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 6
August 2006
WDFW recommends investigating open space tax exemption and Transfer of Development Rights
program. (WDFW)
11. Are there any conflicts between County flood hazard management regulations or septic
system regulations with the SMP, and opportunities to better integrate these?
Review the WEC Settlement Agreements for CAO and Channel Migration issues
(Conservation District).
Flood hazard mapping is inadequate. Perhaps FEAM funds could be used to improve and better
integrate Public Works).
12. other issues? List of issues to be examined from Community Development:
When is the SDP Final? Who hears the appeal? SHB or AP Examiner?
Who issues the permit decisions for Public Notice on SDP/CUP? DOE? or Jefferson County
3 definitions: wetland, lagoon, pond, puddle, pool (swimming) – what about artificial? These
have been issues at Port Ludlow Resort.
The issue of concern here is the example of the Port Ludlow Resort where the lack of clarity in
the definitions has lead to code interpretation/application conflicts. There are many man-made or
highly altered wetlands and ponds in association with the golf course and developments in the
resort. How should these be treated? Should they be treated the same as natural features?
Sometimes it is hard to tell what is a natural feature versus what is man-made as it is often
gradational. Where is the cut-off between natural, slightly modified, highly altered and just a plain
old retention pond. The code should provide clear direction as to what standards (setbacks, etc)
apply where.
Clearing in the upland area: how much? Any? Trees over vegetation? For views? Pruning?
Leaving small trees? Need clarification.
SMP & CAO/F&W/Landslide/Wetlands
Setting OHW: DOE or Jefferson County?
Non-conforming uses : SMP and UDC need to be coordinated
Repair and Maintenance: When is a structure too far gone to be considered repair?
Where is OHW? Flood way/plain as part of shoreline jurisdiction?
WDFW Exemption – what about SDP and SEPA?
Public Use – vs – natural function, balancing trails and parks
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 7
August 2006
What about ADA access to shorelines? Is it required? When? And How?
Shoreline (water) dependent – if the mine has alternative means of access are the barges and
piers really water dependent?
Forest Practice impacts, upland development
Agricultural uses within shoreline areas and buffers – how to resolve GMA w/SMP?
Saltwater intrusion issues & SMP, well drilling and public water – interface with CAO and GMA
Marina Uses – expansions – cumulative impacts – competition with neighbors – impacts
associated with dry system (chemical) fire protection
Kayak parks – how are these permitted
Residential development within or near OHW
Conflicts among agency reviewers: when WDFW says “x”, Jefferson county Says “y”, DOE says
“z” how is this rectified?
Should the shoreline exemption be processed as a permit or as an admin. approval – need
clarification
Permit expiration: 5 years +1 when requested, need criterion and clarification
Need clarification – SDP for subdivision, but once lots are sold development is exempt?
Need a coordinated permit assistance program – WSDOT/DOE/WDFW
Clarify how to review and process projects that cross county boundaries: e.g. Jefferson/Kitsap –
2 permits or one???
Re: Guidelines
3 the designations
3 property rights – what does this mean?
3 priority to SFR, why? At a net loss? RCW 90.58.020 seems to be in conflict with this
3 shoreline erosion – the emergency ( e.g. Beckett Pt., Quinalt, Hoh, Big Quil) need a
better process with better guidelines
3 no net loss concept, explain how it works on the ground
3TDR’s in the SMP????
3 Economic Development?
3 Use element
3 County/City consistency
Re: Formatting
Suburban and conservation have definitions and policies whereas urban has
performance standards –this causes conflict
Need to review hearing examiner decisions to see where problems arise
e.g. Mooring Buoy Case @ Port Ludlow
Shoreline Permit for subdivision, then permit details did not get on the plat, then
10-12 years later, an individual permit was approved, then rescinded.
What if WDFW said not to the HPA?
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 8
August 2006
SMP needs to better address derelict vessels (e.g. Randy Felt vessel)
Appendix A - Jefferson County SMP Integration Survey 9
August 2006