HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecommendations Report
Draft
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Recommendations Report
Prepared for April 25, 2016
Jefferson County revised June 14, 2016
Chimacum Creek, upstream of Port Townsend Bay (Credit: WA Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas)
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page i
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2. Methods .......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content ........................................................................ 2
CHAPTER 4. Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 5. Frequently Flooded Areas ................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 6. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas .................................................. 5
CHAPTER 7. Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas .............................................. 6
7.1 Definition of Agricultural Activities ............................................................................... 7
7.2 Exemption for Existing and Ongoing Activities ............................................................. 7
7.3 Options for Current Comprehensive Plan and CAO Update .......................................... 9
7.3.1 Productive Use of Agricultural Lands .................................................................... 13
7.3.2 Protection of Critical Areas .................................................................................... 14
7.3.3 Protection and Enhancement Monitoring Plan ..................................................... 15
7.4 Regulatory Recommendations ................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 8. References ..................................................................................................... 18
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 1
CHAPTER 1. Introduction
Jefferson County is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of
the Growth Management Act (GMA). Per the GMA requirements, the County has performed a review
of current best available science (BAS) for informing policies and regulations that protect and manage
activities in and near critical areas (ESA, 2015). The Best Available Science Report incorporates the
findings of previous review efforts conducted by the County and assesses current regulations for
consistency with current BAS. The County also developed the comprehensive Watershed
Characterization Report that synthesized existing biological and physical data and watershed-based
information relating to critical areas within the eastern portion of the County, with a focus on stream
conditions and agricultural areas (ESA, 2016). Using fine-scale land cover, topography, streamflow, and
other available data, the report assesses trends in environmental quality and ecological functions of
streams, wetlands, floodplains, and fish and wildlife habitat in eastern Jefferson County.
This recommendations report uses the assessment of regulations in the BAS report along with the
watershed analysis to identify specific adjustments to regulations that could improve protection and
management of critical areas in the County. The report provides a set of options (where applicable) and
draft recommendations for revising regulations that pertain to the following topic areas:
Wetlands;
Frequently flooded areas; and
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs).
ESA also reviewed regulations for agricultural activities and accessory uses in JCC 18.20.030 against
current scientific information, case law, and state law.
CHAPTER 2. Methods
To organize our assessment of the County’s CAO, we developed a gap analysis matrix (Appendix A) to
identify gaps and document consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations, relevant
agency guidance, and BAS published since 2005. Since that time new scientific findings have been
published describing methods for improving the success of compensatory wetland mitigation, buffer
effectiveness, and ecological functions of floodplains, among other topics. The gap analysis matrix
provides an assessment of general consistency and the corresponding rationale and source for each gap
identified. In addition to identifying provisions inconsistent with state law or recent science, our review
identified several areas where the protection of critical areas could be improved by adding, removing,
clarifying, and rearranging sections and subsections of the code to make them clearer and easier to
implement. We categorized our assessment as follows:
Gap or Missing protection. New code provision should be added to ensure compliance with
GMA and BAS.
Consistency with BAS and/or GMA. Code provision either does or does not, in our opinion,
meet best available science or state guidance. Existing provision would result in detrimental
impacts to critical areas and their functions and values.
Clarity/ User friendliness. Code provision is difficult to administer due to clarity, readability,
and understandability.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 2 June 2016
Internal consistency. Code provision is redundant (included in multiple sections) or is located in
an inappropriate section.
Item identified by County staff. Code provision has been identified by County staff as needing
adjustment to improve implementation.
Update to reflect current County procedures. Code provision may not accurately reflect the
current administrative procedures used by County staff in implementing the CAO.
The following chapters provide a summary of major gaps and recommendations for revising the actual
code language to achieve compliance or improve consistency. Please see Appendix A for the complete
list of gaps and recommendations.
CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content
In general, the Jefferson County CAO is reasonably clear and contains the majority of required or
recommended content issued in state guidelines from the Department of Commerce (Commerce,
formerly the Community Trade and Economic Development), Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW), and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). However, the code should be
updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with the GMA and its implementing regulations,
best available science, and current agency guidelines as suggested here and in the following chapters.
As documented in the gap analysis matrix (Appendix A), there are several gaps or missing
programmatic standards that should apply to CAO administration under Article II – Administrative
Provisions. Adding or improving existing code language to address the following items would improve
overall consistency with recommended CAO structure guidelines and protection of critical areas:
Provisions that describe the critical area project review process followed by the County for
review of permit applications.
Provisions requiring a “best available science” standard for critical area or special reports and
administrator decisions.
Establish a general mitigation sequencing requirement for all critical areas (the mitigation
sequence is currently only applied to wetlands in JCC 18.22.350).
Provision requiring all exempted activities to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas.
Provisions for County response to unauthorized alterations in critical areas and enforcement of
violations.
List of specific “regulated activities” that apply to all critical areas generally (each individual
critical area section currently includes a list).
For many of the above recommendations, the gap analysis matrix includes suggested language for
revising or adding new provisions. The suggested language is derived from multiple sources including:
the example code provisions in Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the
Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007); example code provisions for
wetlands in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten
et al., 2012); WAC standards; and, best professional judgment.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 3
CHAPTER 4. Wetlands
The County amended its wetlands ordinance in 2014 in response to Ecology’s recent update to the
Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014). The amendment addressed wetland category provisions to be
consistent with the updated Ecology guidance. Prior to this amendment, the wetland provisions were
last updated in 2008 when the City adopted a revised CAO. Based on our review of current scientific
literature and agency guidance, the majority of wetland regulations are still largely consistent with BAS
(ESA, 2015).
The following list summarizes the major regulations and definitions that should be updated to reflect
current state law, scientific literature, and guidance provided by regulatory agencies for wetland
protection and includes:
Definition of wetlands (current definition is not entirely consistent with the state definition).
References to the current version of the federal wetland delineation manual (current ordinance
references the incorrect manual in several locations).
Wetland buffer tables (JCC 18.22.330) (minor changes are needed to reflect Ecology’s modified
version of its guidance for “Buffer Alternative 3”; does not include changes to buffer widths).
Provisions for when buffer reduction and/or averaging is or is not allowed could be improved
(current code provides limited standards).
Provision to allow the administrator to increase a wetland buffer, if and when a larger buffer is
necessary to protect wetland functions and values (may occur in implementation, but is not
explicit in current code).
Preference of mitigation actions for permittee-responsible mitigation (code does not specify
compensatory mitigation types).
Allowance for the use of alternative mitigation strategies including mitigation banks and in-lieu
fee programs.
Preference for watershed-based mitigation rather than in-kind and on-site and if an alternative
mitigation approach is used.
Additional suggested changes to the code that could improve the consistency with BAS and guidance,
clarity, and internal consistency include the following topics:
Statute of limitation on wetland determinations (current code does not explicitly require the
five-year standard set by the Corps of Engineers).
Explicit focus on wetland functions and values with regards to wetland impacts, buffer
averaging or reduction proposals, and mitigation proposals.
The three buffer options for development proposals include an “apparent boundary option”,
which is atypical of wetland ordinances and contains vague language that could be clarified.
Explicit focus on wetland impact minimization measures (code does not include list of measures
as provided by Ecology guidance).
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 4 June 2016
Based on the previous watershed characterization analysis (ESA, 2016), the wetland protections are
generally valid for current conditions though some watersheds have impaired water quality and lack
wetland buffer vegetation due to past and ongoing land use practices. In these watersheds, non-
regulatory actions to improve watershed health and habitat conditions should be considered. General
management opportunities for each of the nine watershed analysis units are suggested and described
in the Watershed Characterization Report (ESA, 2016). The suggested management opportunities
address known impairments in the watershed analysis units and include wetland-related actions such
as: protecting existing, high-quality wetlands; incentive programs to engage landowners in
conservation efforts; and, continued efforts to improve water quality through repairing known failing
septic systems and livestock exclusion fencing.
CHAPTER 5. Frequently Flooded Areas
The current CAO provides standards for the protection of frequently flooded areas outside of shoreline
jurisdiction through reference to Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Chapter15.15 JCC). Chapter
15.15 JCC includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection of floodplains, and references
floodplain standards for new development and structures. Chapter15.15 JCC has served the dual-
purpose of satisfying the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and the Floodplain Management
statute (RCW 86.16) since it was adopted in 2006. The Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015)
concluded that the regulations address floodplains and the risks of flooding from a human health and
public safety perspective, and therefore meet the requirements of GMA. However, there is no
consideration of development effects on the ecological functions of floodplains as stipulated by the
2009 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Puget Sound Biological Opinion by the National
Marine Fisheries Services (“FEMA BiOp”) (FEMA, 2013a). The FEMA BiOp affects all development
permits within floodplains and currently the County manages floodplain permit approvals through the
“Door 3” process (case-by-case). The County is considering a path toward to programmatic compliance
(“Door 2”) through regulatory adjustments and documentation of existing floodplain protections
provided by both Chapter 15.15 JCC and Chapter 18.22 JCC. Ecology’s Guidance to Local Governments
on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates in CAOs (Ecology, 2015a) provides direction for local governments
in considering the adequacy of the designation and the protection of frequently flooded areas in the
critical area regulations.
Potential measures recommended by FEMA (2013a) and Ecology (2015a) that are appropriate for
riverine and coastal flooding areas in the County to address ecological functions include:
Requiring compensatory storage for all permitted floodplain fill within the Dosewallips,
Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creek
floodplains (current flood damage code does not include compensatory storage provision).
Protecting high risk channel migration zones (CMZs) from development impacts beyond the
minimal requirements for vegetation retention in JCC 18.22.170 (CMZs are currently included in
the code as a geologically hazardous area).
Considering the revised FIRM scheduled for issue in 2017 by FEMA, which provides updated
information for flood hazard areas in the County that should be considered in conjunction with
local information.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 5
Considering adding requirements to incorporate information about potential impacts from
long-term climate trends on frequently flooded areas, such as addressing rising sea levels,
tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events.
Reviewing all of the provisions in Article IV (Frequently Flooded Areas) to ensure they are
aligned with the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) regulations (many frequently
flooded areas in the County are also regulated under the County’s SMP since they lie within
shorelands).
Reviewing all of the provisions in Article IV (Frequently Flooded Areas) for compliance with the
FEMA BiOp. A key reference for this review is the Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management
under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act produced by FEMA
- Region 10 (FEMA, 2013b).
CHAPTER 6. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas
The County’s FWHCA regulations appear to have been updated during a different time period than
other sections of the CAO based on the consistency between sections and clarity. The initial
designation of FWHCAs include some but not all of the types listed by the GMA and its implementing
regulations (WAC 365-190-130). Further, the County uses the Washington Department of Natural
Resources stream typing system for classifying streams as Type S, F, Np and Ns. This is consistent with
state guidance; however there is no description of the stream types in the code and only a reference to
WAC 222-16-030 is available. Without the description, the division between the two categories of Type
Ns streams in terms of standard buffer requirements is unclear. These and other provisions should be
updated to reflect current state law, scientific literature, and guidance provided by regulatory agencies
as suggested below:
Revise the classifications/designation section (JCC 18.22.200) to be consistent with the
regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types listed in WAC 365-190-130 and in the
example code by CTED (2007) (current code lacks Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres
and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat and Waters of the state as
defined in RCW 90.48.020 and classified in WAC 222-16-030).
Add provisions requiring mitigation for impacts to FWHCAs and their buffers (current code
lacks mitigation requirement).
Add provisions allowing the administrator to increase the standard buffer or require buffers
based on set of specific criteria for FWHCAs instead of a standard buffer.
Revise stream and riparian buffers for clarity and potential consistency with BAS (the division
between the two categories of Type Ns streams is unclear).
Provide summary descriptions of stream characteristics and typing according to WAC 222-16-
030.
Additional changes to the code that could improve the consistency with BAS and guidance, clarity, and
internal consistency include the following topics:
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 6 June 2016
Provide clarification in the classifications/designation section that Type S streams, lakes larger
than 20 acres, and marine shorelines are regulated under the County Shoreline Master
Program.
Revise the regulated activities section to incorporate references to the WDFW guidance BAS
documents for fish passage and stream restoration.
Incorporate references to the County-sponsored study Management Strategies for Core Wildlife
Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County (Tomassi, 2004) where relevant (current code does
appear to integrate or codify the wildlife habitat study, but should be incorporated if the
County is using the study or the habitat and corridor maps during development proposal review
or recommending/reviewing mitigation plans.
The watershed characterization analysis incorporated the Tomassi study and summarized the results
for each of the nine watershed analysis units (ESA, 2016). General management opportunities for fish
and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement should refer to this resource and include actions such
as protecting existing Core 1 designated habitats through acquisition or other methods. Additional
actions could include incentive programs to engage landowners in conservation efforts, such as
enhancement of Core 2 or 3 designated habitats or Corridors that connect core areas.
CHAPTER 7. Agricultural Activities In and Near
Critical Areas
The Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015) provides an in-depth summary of the recent agricultural
census data for Jefferson County, the scientific literature concerning critical areas located within or
adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes, and how critical areas can affect or be affected by
agricultural uses. The report also summarizes the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife
Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004) and the Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report
(Gately et al., 2015). The purpose of the BAS Report was to establish a basis for reviewing agricultural
activities provisions of County code to protect critical areas and agricultural uses. The report concludes
that agricultural uses and activities can have impacts on water quality, the flow of water, and wildlife
habitat; however, many of the impacts can be, and have been, minimized through application of
agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) used commonly on farms in Jefferson County,
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) buffers, and other incentive programs. For
efficiency purposes, please refer to the BAS Report for supporting information on these conclusions.
This chapter addresses the regulation of agricultural activities with the intent to protect critical areas
while maintaining agricultural uses and viability. The chapter focuses on the following topics:
The definition of agricultural activities;
History of agricultural exemptions to critical areas regulations;
Recent County activities regarding the CAO update;
Farm stewardship in the County; and
Approaches and options for developing a set of regulations that both maintain agricultural
production and viability while also protecting critical areas in compliance with the GMA.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 7
The chapter concludes with a set of recommended changes to the regulations that incorporates the
above topics and findings from the Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015).
7.1 Definition of Agricultural Activities
Under the current JCC, agricultural activities are divided into two types: existing and ongoing and new.
Existing and ongoing agriculture is defined as:
“activities conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax
program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands (AP-20 and AL-20);
provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during
the five-year period preceding April 28, 2003.”
New agriculture is defined as:
“activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the
definition of ‘existing and ongoing agriculture.’”
New agricultural activities are subject to the critical areas regulations in JCC 18.22. Conversely, existing
and ongoing agriculture is exempt from critical areas regulations, but is subject to the objectives and
standards of JCC 18.20.030 “Agricultural Activities and Accessory Uses” through voluntary compliance.
JCC 18.20.030 is primarily based on a set of BMPs that protect the functions and values of critical areas
from harm or degradation related to agricultural activities.
7.2 Exemption for Existing and Ongoing Activities
Existing and ongoing agriculture has historically been exempt from critical areas regulations
promulgated under the GMA. In 2005, case law established that existing agriculture can generally no
longer be exempted from critical area ordinances (Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board, 2005). An additional Supreme Court case in 2007 clarified multiple key
terms with regards to critical areas protection and agricultural land uses (Swinomish Indian Tribal
Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; 2007). The Swinomish
decision clarified that the GMA does not impose a duty on local governments to enhance critical areas,
but rather, local governments must protect critical areas by maintaining existing conditions and
preventing harm or degradation (the “no harm” standard).
Between 2007 and 2011, a temporary allowance for agricultural exemptions was in place (RCW 70A.560)
while the Ruckleshaus Center examined the conflict between protecting agricultural land and
protecting critical areas under GMA. In 2011, Washington State adopted the Voluntary Stewardship
Program (VSP) (RCW 36.70A.705 – 904) and the temporary allowance ended. The purpose of the VSP is
to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and enhancing the state's
agricultural uses. It encourages voluntary local stewardship efforts as an alternative to critical areas
regulation under the GMA. Counties are not required to implement the VSP until adequate state
funding is available. As described more fully below, farmers and growers in Jefferson County have
voluntarily been implementing agricultural BMPs, which are intended to provide some level of
protection to critical areas.
In 2011 and 2012, Jefferson County considered the VSP program over a series of meetings with County
staff, County Commissioners, stakeholders (agricultural, environmental, and tribal entities), and the
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 8 June 2016
public. The commissioners held a public hearing and various avenues of public comment were made
available. In 2012, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) ultimately decided not to participate in
the program and prepared two letters explaining the rationale behind the decision (Jefferson County
BOCC, 2012). In the letters, the BOCC stated a concern for unknowns and risks associated with
program implementation, but noted positive value in the goals offered by the VSP, including: the
balance between protection of critical areas and maintaining the long-term viability of agriculture in the
County; and, a focus on voluntary incentive programs that encourage stewardship. They also
recognized the use of BMPs and farm plans, coupled with watershed-wide restoration efforts, to
protect critical areas and sustain agricultural activities were ongoing and would continue to be
implemented without adoption of the VSP. They noted that the County uses many of these same tools
and approaches at a local level and in partnership with local stakeholders. The BOCC stated a
willingness to consider the program in the future after funding is made available and if another opt-in
period is made available to Washington communities.
7.3 2014 Ag/CAO Task Force
In 2014, the County, WSU Extension, Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD), and the County
Planning Commission formed an “Ag/CAO Task Force.” The task force was comprised of these four
entities as well as interested citizens with the purpose of crafting critical areas regulations that both
protect critical areas (especially water quality for salmon habitat) while also allowing for the productive
use of agricultural lands. The task force met four times in 2014 and held working sessions as well as a
tour of local farms where conservation practices were occurring alongside agricultural activities. No
formal report of the task force was ever compiled, but the following discussion in Section 7.5 (below)
incorporates potential solutions suggested by the task force as derived from meeting notes, email
communication, and other materials.
7.4 Farmer/Grower Stewardship
As noted in the Jefferson County Farmer Survey 2012 Report (CLF, 2012), there is a high level of
voluntary stewardship exhibited by Jefferson County farmers that are protecting streams and riparian
areas through installation of protective plant hedges along streams and pumping of water for livestock.
Currently, individual stewardship planning is available to operators at no cost by the JCCD and is
encouraged per JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii). The list of resources and BMPs in the code are supported by
the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004), which also
provides a framework for voluntary protection and improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on
agricultural land compatible with maintaining agricultural viability. According to the plan, BMPs should
address five management areas:
(I) Livestock and dairy management
(II) Nutrient and farm chemical management
(III) Soil erosion and sediment control management
(IV) Operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure
(V) Riparian management
Landowners and operators are expected to use BMPs and meet the standards described through
voluntary compliance. The conservation district provides technical assistance to landowners and relies
on NRCS Conservation Practice Standards as distributed in local Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs).
BMPs have been developed and field tested by the NRCS, associated research facilities, and land grant
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 9
colleges, resulting in agricultural practices and tools that are based on current science and are stored
electronically in the FOTG. Conservation practice standards include information on why and where a
practice is applied and sets forth the minimum quality criteria required during application of that
practice for it to achieve its intended purpose. The state FOTGs are the primary scientific references for
determining NRCS standard practices. They contain technical information about the conservation of
soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources. FOTGs are specific to the geographic area for
which they are prepared.
In a recent comprehensive review of surface water monitoring since the implementation of BMPs, the
JCCD concluded that many of the BMPs have been successful at improving water quality and salmonid
habitat (Gately et al. 2015). For more information on this study, see the Best Available Science Report
(ESA, 2015).
7.5 Options for Current Comprehensive Plan and CAO Update
The following sections describe various approaches to regulating agricultural uses and activities in and
near critical areas. The approaches draw from several sources, including: relevant BAS literature; the
policies and regulations of counties in the Puget Sound region with substantial agricultural land that
have also opted-out of the VSP; and, existing VSP work plans (i.e., Thurston County).
As recently as June 2016, Ecology published a new guidance document, Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates (Bunten et al. 2016). The guidance contains specific recommendations for addressing
agricultural activities such as: activities that should not be allowed in wetlands or wetland buffers,
activities that could be allowed under certain criteria, and mitigating potential impacts through BMPs.
Specifically, Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions:
“Existing and ongoing agricultural activities” … should be clearly defined and should not
include removing trees, diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining,
culverting, filling, grading, or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to
wetlands or other aquatic resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be
limited to removing sediment in existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last
maintenance. Conversion of wetlands that are not currently in agricultural use to a new
agricultural use should be subject to the same regulations that govern new
development.”
The use of BMPs, farm conservation plans, and incentive-based programs to improve agricultural
practices in and near wetlands are encouraged by Ecology (2016). The goal of BMPs should be to ensure
that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid
populations, and wildlife habitat.
7.5.1 Standard Buffer Widths
To protect critical area functions and values, new agricultural activities should continue to be subject to
standard critical area buffers as they currently are under JCC 18.22. As summarized in the Best
Available Science Report, agricultural activities within or near critical areas can impact water quality,
surface water movement, and wildlife habitat and standard buffer widths are intended to protect
critical area functions and mitigate impacts from agriculture (ESA, 2015). Much of the impact can be
minimized through application of agricultural BMPs used commonly on farms in Jefferson County. The
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 10 June 2016
Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report provides evidence of improved water quality in
the County as a result of best practices (Gately et al., 2015).
Buffer reductions should not be allowed; however, voluntary farm planning could be used to allow
some activities within the standard buffer. For example, King County will allow new and expanded
agricultural uses in wetland and critical area buffers with a Farm Management Plan (explained in
Section 7.5.3) (King County, 2005). Farm Plans are developed and approved by the King Conservation
District and submitted to King County for confirmation that they comply with CAO regulations (King
County Code Title 21A.24). This option is also provided by Whatcom County, but only for ongoing
agricultural activities and not new agriculture.
7.5.2 Variable Buffer Widths based on Type of Activity/Use
An alternative to a “one-size-fits-all” standard buffer is regulation based on land use intensity (e.g., low,
moderate, high). Whatcom County adopted this approach in 2005 for new agriculture and is proposing
no significant changes in their recent CAO Update (currently ongoing). Specific to wetlands, the
Whatcom CAO provides a varying set of standard buffers based on the intensity of the proposed land
use and the functions and values provided by the wetland. The three categories of land use intensity
are clearly defined in the CAO and are based on factors such as development density, critical areas
impacts, impervious surface, noise, etc.
Based on the three definitions, agricultural activities such as dairies, nurseries, greenhouses, raising and
harvesting crops requiring annual tilling, and raising and maintaining animals are considered “high
intensity” and activities such as orchards and hay fields are considered “moderate intensity. The
following table is from Whatcom County Code Title 16.16.630(D) and is intended to illustrate how
variable buffers are applied to different levels of land use intensity.
Table 1. Example of variable buffer widths applied to different
land use intensity types – Whatcom County CAO
Wetland
Category*
High
Intensity
Moderate
Intensity
Low
Intensity
Buffer Width (feet)
Category I 150 110 75
Category II 150 110 75
Category III 150 100 60
Category IV 50 40 25
*For wetlands that have a moderate level of function for wildlife habitat as
indicated by a habitat function score of 20 to 28 points on the wetland rating
form
Scientific support for variable buffer widths based on site conditions is provided by several BAS
documents including a multi-phased study called Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on
Agricultural Lands – State of Washington, Phase I and II (GEI, 2002 and 2005). The study, funded by the
Washington Agricultural Caucus, Washington Hop Commission, and the Ag Fish Water Process,
concluded that instead of a fixed-width buffer for all agricultural streams, widths for riparian buffers
should be site-specific and based on BAS specific to existing agricultural lands and uses that focus
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 11
mainly on water quality protection. The GEI Phase I and Phase II reports are also summarized in the
Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015).
The GEI reports provide BMP applications specific to Washington agriculture and suggest minimum
riparian buffers based on a BAS literature review. For existing agricultural settings, the Phase II report
suggests three different riparian buffer widths ranging between 25 and 60-feet. The recommendations
are based on three conditions:
Farms demonstrating BMP implementation and that occur on slopes less than 7 percent in drier
areas (18 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state are recommended to have a
minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 25-feet;
Farms demonstrating BMP implementation and that occur on slopes 7 percent or greater in
wetter areas (more than 18 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state are
recommended to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 35-feet;
Farms that do not implement BMPs are recommended to have a minimum vegetated riparian
buffer width of 60-feet.
Both the Phase I and II reports highlight Jefferson County as an example of successful narrow buffer
zone application and agricultural livestock management BMPs implementation that has improved
water quality (reduced fecal coliform levels) in Chimacum Creek.
Other recommendations from scientific literature recommend stream buffer widths from 75 feet to well
over 300 feet to help protect a suite of ecological functions (May, 2003; Knutson and Naef, 1997). May
(2003) is a comprehensive literature review of scientific literature with recommendations for Puget
Sound lowland streams, Stream-riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region: A review of best
available science. Specific to water quality (i.e., sediment and pollutant removal, and water
temperature regulation), the minimum recommended width is 98 feet (30 meters). This buffer width is
suggested for removal of 80% of sediment and pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorous, and fecal coliform)
and to provide adequate shading of the stream. It should be noted that in contrast to the GEI
recommendations above, this riparian buffer recommendation is not based on the incorporation of
BMP implementation or site-specific factors (such as topography).
7.5.3 Allowed Activities
The County could allow some specific ongoing/existing and new agricultural activities in the buffers of
wetlands, streams, and floodplains provided certain conditions are met. Activities such as grazing
livestock and the construction or maintenance of farm pads are examples of common agricultural
activities that either have low impacts, as long as BMPs are installed and maintained, or where impacts
can be avoided or minimized. King County takes this approach and the CAO includes a large table of
allowed activities and their corresponding conditions. The alterations identified in King County Code
21A.24.045 for agricultural activities are allowed when an agricultural activity is currently occurring on
the site and the alteration is in compliance with an approved Farm Management Plan.
For example, the construction or maintenance of a farm pad (i.e., refuge for livestock or small animals,
and for storage of farm vehicles, agricultural equipment and shelter for various farm products) is
allowed in aquatic area (stream) buffers, a grazed or tilled wet meadow or its buffer, or a several
channel migration hazard that is outside of shoreline jurisdiction, if: a) the applicant demonstrates that
adverse impacts have been minimized; b) there is no other feasible location outside of critical area or its
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 12 June 2016
buffer; and c) for proposals in severe channel migration hazard areas, the farm pad is located where it is
least subject to risk from channel migration. These provisions apply to both ongoing/existing and new
activities. See KCC 21A.24.045 in the King County Code Title 21A.24 for other allowed activities and
associated required conditions.
7.5.4 Working Buffers
As summarized in the BAS report, the NOAA Restoration Center, Puget Sound Partnership, the
Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) issued the paper: The Working Buffer Opportunity: A Proposal for
Ecologically Sound and Economically Viable Riparian Buffers on Agriculture Lands (Dittbrenner et al.,
2015). The paper proposes a more flexible approach to buffers (compared to fixed-width buffers) with
the design of an inner riparian buffer zone bordered by an outer working buffer zone in combination
with on-farm runoff management.
The “inner riparian buffer” zone would be used primarily to enhance stream habitat, but could also be
used for some low impact harvest practices (e.g. small fruit, wild greens, boughs, mushrooms). The
outer “working buffer” zone would protect stream functions and mitigate water quality from on-farm
runoff, while also incorporating agroforestry practices as a source of revenue to landowners.
Agroforestry is the incorporation of trees into crop or livestock farming to increase ecological functions,
increase yield, and diversify farm income. Agroforestry systems can be designed to provide a mix of
ecological services while allowing harvest. The suggested agroforestry practices specific to floodplains
and riparian corridors include: forest farming, alley cropping, silvopasture, and/or short return biomass
(see ESA, 2015).
The working buffers paper concludes that the concept is not appropriate for all situations nor that the
proposed agroforestry techniques will restore all ecological functions and resolve all conflicts, but
rather it suggests working buffers can be “a vital component of a watershed strategy that could foster
partnership between farmers in the business of growing food and public agents working to restore
aquatic ecosystems.”
7.5.5 Voluntary Program of BMPs – “VSP-like” ordinance
To maintain and enhance agricultural viability while also achieving the required protection of critical
areas functions and values, the County could rely upon voluntary stewardship engagement and
practices such as those promulgated by the VSP. An important element of the VSP is that it is
voluntary, not regulatory. Agricultural operators that implement an individual stewardship plan
consistent with the local VSP work plan are presumed to be working toward the protection and
enhancement of critical areas. Further, VSP statutes prohibit county promulgation of new critical areas
regulations related to agricultural land uses during the VSP process.
Based on a review of case law, the VSP statute (RCW 70A.560), and materials prepared by the counties
opting-in to the program (such as Thurston County), a “VSP-like” plan or ordinance would need the
following elements:
Reliance upon voluntary stewardship practices as the primary method of protecting critical
areas as opposed to requiring the cessation or regulation of agricultural activities.
Focus on specific watershed(s) of concern.
Protection of critical areas from harm or degradation by maintaining existing level of functions
and values.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 13
Definition of existing conditions and existing level of functions of values.
Creation of a long-term monitoring plan that includes measureable benchmarks designed to
promote voluntary, incentive-based measures that: 1) provide long-term protection of critical
areas and 2) encourage voluntary enhancements to improve critical areas. This could include
enhancing or adapting the existing JCCD monitoring program to meet the specific needs or
metrics, as determined by Jefferson County.
Identify county funding sources that would allow JCCD to assist landowners with planning and
implementing stewardship plans and monitoring plans.
The ordinance would need to detail how the County would protect critical areas while maintaining and
enhancing agricultural viability within each watershed.
In 2015, Snohomish County updated its regulations with specific provisions for voluntary stewardship
with some County oversight. Like Jefferson, Snohomish County opted not to participate in the VSP.
Under the new regulations, existing, ongoing, and new agriculture is allowed when the following are
implemented (Snohomish County Code 30.62A.620):
1) The best management practices contained in the latest edition of the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG);
2) Other recognized best management practices for such activity that protect the functions and
values of critical areas, where the NRCS FOTG does not provide specific guidance or a best
management practice; or
3) A farm conservation plan that includes provisions addressing critical areas protection specific
to the farm site recommended by the NRCS or the Snohomish Conservation District (SCD),
approved by the county and signed by the landowner. Any confidential or proprietary
information contained in a farm conservation plan may be redacted prior to public disclosure.
Another example is the Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands (CPAL) administered by Whatcom
County. The program is codified in the CAO (Whatcom County Code 16.16) and applies to ongoing
agriculture only (defined as activities associated with the production of crops and livestock [including
hobby farms] that have occurred in the last 5 years). The CPAL program allows for agricultural use of
the critical areas, when the protection of water quality through BMPs can be demonstrated in a farm
plan. Like most counties, technical assistance is provided by the Whatcom Conservation District at no
cost and the county requires a $100 fee to review the farm plan. Not all activities require a farm plan
(see Whatcom County, 2006).
Farm Plan Approvals and Inspections
One of the difficulties of the voluntary farm plan approach is the monitoring element. Historically,
implementation and monitoring of a farm plan is required as part of the voluntary approach and is a key
requirement for allowing activities in critical areas and their buffers. However, most county codes
lacked a requirement for periodic inspections by a county’s staff or the farm plan itself was not available
for review (due to the propriety nature of farm business). Furthermore, the role of conservation
districts is to provide technical assistance and work closely with farmers and growers to improve
agriculture viability and protect natural resources. They are not considered regulatory agencies and are
not, therefore, authorized or required to ensure that agricultural lands are being preserved at the same
time critical area functions and values are being protected from further harm or degradation. Without
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 14 June 2016
specific authorization and ability to view the farm plan or other relevant plans, counties were unable to
review farm plan implementation.
Recently, however, counties have been addressing this issue. The Snohomish County ordinance
mentioned above now requires County review and approval of farm plans in cooperation with the
conservation district (Snohomish County Code 30.62A.640). To address the trademark issue, any
confidential or proprietary information contained in a farm conservation plan may be redacted prior to
public disclosure. Furthermore, the ordinance includes provisions for the right-to-entry by the County
for the purpose of inspection during the entire monitoring and maintenance period. Prior to a site
inspection, the County shall provide reasonable notice to the property owner as to the purpose and
need for entry.
In Clallam County, the proposed CAO updates also include provisions that allow review and approval of
farm plans by the County’s Department of Community Development. The proposed code also includes
a “presumption of compliance with the no harm or degradation” standard for those Agricultural
Owners and Operators that have implemented extra protection measures (through dairy nutrient
management plans, resource management plans, or CREP program). This provision includes an
enforcement authorization if the “County obtains credible evidence that the agricultural operation is
not meeting the no harm or degradation standards.” For more on the proposed changes to the Clallam
CAO, see the County’s webpage: http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/AGinCA.html.
Protection of Critical Areas – the “no harm” standard
As previously mentioned, the standard established by case law (Swinomish decision) for the protection
of critical areas is the “no harm” standard. The “no harm” standard protects critical areas by
maintaining existing conditions. A key component of this standard is defining existing conditions,
which serves as the protection baseline. For the VSP, the definition of existing conditions for “no new
harm/no further degradation” standard was effectively codified in 2011 by VSP statute. Therefore, July
22, 2011 became the protection baseline for counties participating in the program.
The current Jefferson County regulations governing agricultural activities (JCC 18.20.030) already
includes a “no harm or degradation” standard defined as:
(I) Maintaining or improving documented water quality levels, if available.
(II) Meeting, or working towards meeting, the requirements of any total maximum daily load
(TMDL) requirements established by the Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 90.48
RCW.
(III) Meeting all applicable requirements of Chapter 77.55 RCW and Chapter 220-110 WAC
(Hydraulics Code).
(IV) No evidence of degradation to the existing fish and wildlife habitat characteristics of the
stream or wetland that can be reasonably attributed to adjacent agricultural activities since
March 2008.
For a “VSP-like” ordinance, this definition may be sufficient although, the first and fourth items would
benefit from additional information. The first item should provide a reference to documented water
quality levels (agency and/or specific report). The fourth item is vague and seemingly impossible to
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 15
measure or confirm. The item should be revised to be more specific about the “characteristics” that are
being considered and/or evaluated.
In addition, this same code section defines “existing functions and values” in JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii)(F)
as follows:
(I) Water quality, as documented in a given watershed by the Jefferson County conservation
district or other management agency.
(II) The existence or absence of large woody debris within a stream, as documented in the
“Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors” analyses completed by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) between 2000 and 2003 for the Water Resource
Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 16, 17, 20, and 21, or other relevant studies.
(III) The existing riparian buffer characteristics and width, including, but not limited to, the
existing amount of shade provided by the existing riparian buffer, as documented in the
“Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors” analyses completed by WDFW between 2000
and 2003 for the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 16, 17, 20, and 21, or other relevant
studies.
(IV) The existing channel morphology as documented with year 2000 Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Aerial Photography.
With some updates to the references listed, this section could serve as support for the establishment of
a protection baseline for maintenance of existing conditions. Establishing a specific date may also be
necessary for GMA compliance.
As clarified in the Swinomish decision, restoration or enhancement of degraded critical areas is
encouraged, but it is not required under the GMA. However, a key element of the decision is the
support for overall protection of critical areas at the aggregate or watershed level from new harm or
degradation. This allows harm or impact to critical areas in one area of a watershed to be offset by
enhancement in another portion of the specified watershed. Previous planning in the Chimacum
watershed (Latham, 2004) provides habitat improvement recommendations for each stream reach that
would be relevant for determining the County’s approach to protecting critical areas at the watershed
level (Chimacum watershed in this case).
Protection and Enhancement Monitoring Plan
Lastly, a “VSP-like” ordinance would need to document and confirm that agricultural lands are being
preserved at the same time critical area functions and values are being protected from further harm or
degradation. The monitoring plan should include a set of goals and benchmarks for voluntary
enhancements and other stewardship activities implemented since the established protection baseline
date. The plan should assess actions at the watershed scale and not site-specific scale to keep the
aggregate level of critical area protection from degrading below the protection baseline (as discussed in
the last section). The VSP program requires the use of goals and benchmarks. The benchmarks include
metrics that serve as criteria for monitoring the impacts and progress made towards the goals from the
implementation of the VSP. Benchmarks represent steps in the desired direction measured over time
and metrics are the tools for measurement.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 16 June 2016
To track progress, the County or conservation district could track implementation of measures
intended to demonstrate progress of conservation and restoration actions. The draft Thurston County
VSP Work Plan suggests that tracking the extent of the types of NRCS practices and number of
conservation/stewardship plans can demonstrate protection and voluntary enhancement of critical
areas as the maintenance and improvement of agriculture in Thurston County beyond the established
baseline for the VSP (Thurston County, 2014). Example practices include: Prescribed Grazing, Nutrient
Management, Cover Crop, Pasture and Hayland Planting, Fence, Tree/Shrub Establishment, off-
channel watering facilities for livestock, and Upland Wildlife Habitat Management.
The County could protect critical areas through land acquisition and conservation easements, and
improve critical area functions and values through restoration and enhancement actions as
documented in the Habitat Work Schedule or other databases. The following are examples of
measureable stewardship actions that could be tracked and monitored to demonstrate protection of
critical areas and farmland:
Acres of farmland protected via easements
Acres of habitat protected via easements
Riparian feet protected via easements
Miles of streambank protected
Fish barriers removed/blockages corrected
In-stream LWD structures installed
Acres of riparian plantings
River miles (or stream feet) with vegetated buffers
Acres of riparian area treated for plant removal/control
The County could also use trend information gathered through its Surface Water Monitoring Program
to corroborate improvements in riparian conditions from restoration and enhancement actions.
7.6 Regulatory Recommendations
We reviewed Chapter 18.22 JCC and JCC 18.20.030 in light of current GMA requirements, case law, and
the above suggested options for the County’s approach to maintain agricultural viability while also
protecting critical areas. The following bullets summarize our recommendations and suggestions:
Revise agricultural activities exemption from JCC 18.22.070 to limit when the exemption can be
used.
Add provisions indicating allowances for farmed wetlands to Article VII Wetlands (of
Chapter18.22 JCC) with a reference to JCC 18.20.030. Note that existing farms with actively
farmed wetland areas need to complete a stewardship/conservation plan.
Continue application of standard critical area buffers on new agricultural activities.
Consider application of variable buffer widths to various levels of land use intensity (i.e.,
agricultural activity).
Allow site-specific stewardship/conservation plans in all zoning categories (not just
agriculturally zoned areas).
Allow site-specific stewardship/conservation plans to include off-site mitigation that
contributes to a comprehensive watershed-level restoration plan.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 17
Add provisions to require County involvement and approval of Farm Plans, inspection authority,
and enforcement authority.
Review and consider revising the definitions for “agriculture” and “agricultural activities” to be
consistent with RCW 90.58.
Throughout JCC 18.20.030, revise references to Chapter 18.15 JCC (some of which has been
repealed) to be Chapter18.22 JCC.
Investigate potential for using Farm Plans to document restoration or enhancement activities.
Consider promotion of the working buffer concept as appropriate for the County.
Remove some limitations on who can use the CASP process.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 18 June 2016
CHAPTER 8. References
Bunten, D., R. Mraz, L. Driscoll, and A. Yanke. 2016. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. Western
Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001.
June 16. Olympia, WA. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html
Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Court of Appeals of
Washington, Division 2. No. 31283-2-II. October 25, 2005.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for
Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; Regulatory Guidance
Letter. No. 02-2. December 24, 2002. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGL2-02.pdf.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Report No.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. May 2010. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046494.pdf.
Corps and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008.
Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70):
19594-1970.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007.
Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth Management Act. January 2007. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf.
Dittbrenner, C., P. Cereghino, E. Hagan. 2015. The Working Buffer Opportunity: A proposal for
ecologically sound and economical viable riparian buffers on agricultural lands. Snohomish
Conservation District.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation
Evaluation Study Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Publication No. 02-06-009. January 2002.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0206009.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the
Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018. December 2008. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 19
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012a. Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation.
Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. December 2012.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012b. Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance
Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015a. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance
for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/FloodedAreaGuidance.html.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015b. Wetland Mitigation Banking. How to
become a wetland mitigation bank sponsor. Accessed November 2015. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/sponsor.html
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—
Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. 06-06-011a. March 2006.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011a.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—
Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b. March 2006.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011b.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible
Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf.
ESA (Environmental Science Associates). 2015. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update –
Best Available Science Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, December 2015.
ESA. 2016. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update – Watershed Characterization Report.
Prepared for Jefferson County, May 2016.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013a. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat
Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August 2013. Available at:
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383598118060-
e34756afe271d52a0498b3a00105c87b/Puget_Sound_R10_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013b. Model Ordinance for Floodplain
Management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act
Produced by FEMA - Region 10. January 2012. Available at: https://www.fema.gov/media-
library-data/1383597893424-
4747f702310a2bbc7e04ea83d66f73f5/NFIP_ESA_Model_Ordinance.pdf
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Page 20 June 2016
Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, C. Schrader. 2015. Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes:
A Comprehensive Review. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock,
WA.
GEI Consultants, Inc. 2002. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of
Washington Phase I. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. October 2002.
GEI Consultants, Inc. 2005. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of
Washington Phase II. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. July 2005.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005.
Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-008. April 2005. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506008.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 04-06-025. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0406025.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 10-06-011. March
2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 13-06-011. October 2013. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1306011.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 14-06-029. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406029.pdf.
Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0906032.pdf
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 2012. Letter to interested parties and
stakeholders re: ESHB 1886 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated
February 6, 2012. BOCC members Phil Johnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port
Townsend, WA.
King County. 2005. Fact Sheet: The Critical Areas Ordinance Package as applied to Agricultural
Practices in Unincorporated King County. King County Department of Environmental Services.
Seattle, WA. Available at: www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/permitting-environmental-
review/dper/documents/cao/pdfs/factAgriculture.ashx?la=en
Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
June 2016 Page 21
Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats:
Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181pp.
Latham, A. 2004. Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan. Prepared by
Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA.
May, C.W. 2003. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-Region: A Review of
Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC. 76 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Final Biological Opinion Implementation of the
National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document – Puget
Sound Region. Bothell, WA.
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting
Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting,
Inc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP). Available at:
http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain_Management_Report%20Judge%20
Final-July%202010.pdf.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-006. March 2005. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506006.pdf.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
Supreme Court of Washington. No.76339-9. September 13, 2007.
Thurston County. 2014. Voluntary Stewardship Plan – Work Plan Draft. Dated June 30, 2015.
Prepared by the Thurston County Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, WA.
Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County.
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 2014.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas.
WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery.
October 2009. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
Whatcom County. 2006. Conservation Program on Agricultural Lands (CPAL) – Frequently Asked
Questions and Standard Farm Plan Checklist. Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services. Available at: http://www.whatcomcounty.us/745/Farm-Plans
APPENDIX A
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVIEW
AND GAP ANALYSIS MATRIX