Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutScoping Topics 1 Handouts_2020_0924SMP Periodic Review Task Force: September 21, 2020 9/21/2020 1 Meeting Objectives 2 REVIEW PURPOSE OF PERIODIC REVIEW AND ROLE OF TASK FORCE. BEGIN IDENTIFYING KEY TOPICS FOR SCOPING DOCUMENT. 9/21/2020 Agenda Time Topic of Discussion Presenter(s) 5:30 –5:45 pm Roundtable Welcome and Introductions Greg Brotherton, BOCC All 5:45 –5:55 pm Review overall project purpose: what is a periodic review?David Wayne Johnson, Jefferson County DCD 5:55 –6:10 pm Review purpose and structure of Task Force: Specific ask of Task Force: what is a scoping document? Task Force resolution, operating principles, and expectations Four-part meeting arc Lisa Grueter, BERK 6:10 –6:20 pm Review Public Participation Plan and existing public engagement opportunities, including: Survey and Story Map David, Jefferson County DCD Lisa, BERK 6:20-6:35 pm Review Periodic Review Checklist Findings David, Jefferson County DCD Lisa, BERK; Amy Summe, S&W 6:35-6:45 Break All 6:45 –7:10 pm Group Discussion –Scoping: Changes to Local Conditions Regulatory Reform Opportunities All 7:10-7:20 pm Public Comment Public Attendees 7:20 –7:30 pm Questions, Next Steps, and Adjourn Lisa, BERK 39/21/2020 Introductions •SMP Periodic Update Project Manager •David Wayne Johnson, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development (DCD), Jefferson County360-379-4465 | djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us •Consultant Team •Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal, BERK, Consultant PM and Facilitator •Amy Summe, PWS, Shannon & Wilson, Biology and Aquatic Elements •Julia Tesch, BERK, Engagement & Planning Support •Kevin Gifford, BERK, Mapping & Evaluation 49/21/2020 Task Force Participants 1.Arlene Alen, Planning Commission Member, District 1 2.Lorna Smith, Planning Commission Member, District 2 3.Richard Hull, Planning Commission Member, District 3 4.Cliff O’Brien –Port Ludlow Associates, Residential/Commercial Construction & Development 5.Gordon King –Coast Seafoods, Aquaculture 6.Amy Leitman –Marine Surveys & Assessments, Marine Biologist 7.Chris Kelley –Oceanographer, Aquaculture 8.Brent Vadopalas –Citizen at large District 1, Aquaculture 9.Phil Andrus –Citizen at large District 2, former County Planning Commissioner 10.David Wilkinson –Climate Action Committee, Atmospheric Science 11.Craig Durgan –Citizen at large District 3, PUD#1 12.Ron Rempel –Citizen at large District 2, Wildlife Biologist 59/21/2020 Shoreline Master Program •Required by the State Shoreline Management Act 1971 •Subject to laws and rules (RCW 90.58 and 365-196 WAC) •Jointly adopted by County and Washington Dept. of Ecology in 2014 •Sets forth standards for shoreline permit system •Balances: Shoreline Use, Ecological Protection, and Public Access •Contains Policies & Regulations 69/21/2020 Shoreline Master Program (cont.) •SMP applies to: •All marine waters •Lakes over 20 acres •Streams over 20 cubic feet per second •Associated wetlands and uplands at least 200 feet from the shoreline •Shoreline environment designations serve as management areas for shorelines uses, public access, and environmental conservation. •Shorelines have one or more of the following designations: -Priority Aquatic (PA)-Aquatic (A)-Natural (N)-Conservancy (C)-Shoreline Residential (SR)-High Intensity (HI) 79/21/2020 Periodic Review •Review per schedule in Shoreline Management Act: once every eight years. •Statute by June 30, 2020 or 2 years from grant •Grant approved Summer 2020 •Completion targeted Summer 2021 89/21/2020 Scoping •Early deliverable = scoping document. •Focus of periodic review: •Review amendments to Chapter 90.58 RCW and Ecology rules (WAC) that have occurred since the Jefferson County’s SMP was adopted in 2014. •Identify potential areas of review to address changing local circumstances, new information or improved data. •Consider potential changes to eliminate redundancies and improve clarity as well as address revisions consistent with regulatory reform (Resolution 17-19). •Consider various constraints such as the requirements of State Law, staffing capacity, and resource. 99/21/2020 Task Force Purpose •Task Force members will advise Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) on the SMP Periodic Review. •The Task Force will serve as a sounding board to consider possible revisions to the current SMP through the lens of regulatory reform (Resolution 17-19). •The product of the Task Force will be a Scoping Document that lays out the parameters of the SMP periodic review and revision, identifying potential areas of review that are mandatory or community supported. 109/21/2020 Task Force Meetings •Four meetings planned @ 5:30 pm, virtual •September 21 & 28 •October 5 & 12 •Goal to finish before end of October •Links and agenda posted at the project website •Topics •Meeting 1: Overview & Begin Identification of Scoping Topics •Meeting 2: Identify additional issues to address in scoping •Meeting 3: Review compiled draft scoping document •Meeting 4: [TBD, if needed] Review and discuss final draft scoping document 119/21/2020 Task Force Expectations (sum.) •Review and provide comments on draft Scoping Document and supporting material. Read materials provided in advance of meetings. •Come to meetings prepared to discuss the specific issues identified in the meeting agenda. Keep comments and discussion focused on the meeting agenda topics... •Speak honestly and respectfully. Maintain civil discussion, listen to those speaking, and refrain from side conversations. •Avoid interrupting or talking over others, and raise hand before speaking (use virtual tools). •Respect the role of the facilitator. •Commit to keeping the project moving toward a successful conclusion and outcome. •Formulate recommendations during open discussion at scheduled meetings to ensure transparency and allow for effective public participation. •Attend all Task Force meetings and contribute constructively to discussions. Consider and discuss issues from a countywide perspective, as well as that of particular stakeholders. •Understand / articulate Task Force’s purpose, responsibilities, and work plan to community. •Provide feedback to county staff and consultant team on Task Force’s process and progress. 129/21/2020 Operating Principles •The Task Force will operate by consensus. •All members’ positions will be respected and considered, and the group will work collaboratively to reach consensus on its advice. •Consensus is defined as majority opinion, with the objective of achieving unity rather than unanimity. •Task Force meetings will start and end on time. •E-mail communication protocols. •E-mails should be used for logistics and coordination purposes, and to share agendas and materials in advance of Task Force meetings. •Substantive issues should be discussed in the meetings, and not through e-mail dialogue. •The Task Force will be “principals only” –no alternates please. 139/21/2020 Public Participation & Project Schedule 14 August 2020 Web Page Sept/Oct 2020 Survey, Task Force, Scoping Document Nov/Dec 2020 Draft Amendments January- Feb. 2021 Planning Commission & Ecology Review –30-day comment period and hearing Feb-Jun 2021 Planning Commission BOCC Meetings, Deliberation, Action 9/21/2020 Public Participation Program •Website •https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review •Story Map & Survey •Link on project website •Task Force •Established in resolution •Residents, Business Owners, Shoreline Experts, PC members •Approximately 4 meetings in September and October •Focus Groups or Interviews, e.g. Tribes •Share scoping documents with other State agencies •Joint Review with Ecology •Legislative Meetings: Planning Commission & BOCC 159/21/2020 Story Map & Survey 16 See Tabs Link at project website: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us /1481/Shoreline-Master- Program-Periodic-Review 9/21/2020 Story Map & Survey (cont.) 17 Explore shoreline map –zoom in, click on area of interest 9/21/2020 Story Map & Survey 18 Link at project website: https://www.co.jeffe rson.wa.us/1481/Sh oreline-Master- Program-Periodic- Review 9/21/2020 Periodic Review Checklist •State law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments. •Revision to clarify permit filing procedures per 2011 statute •Optional clarifications to exemptions, exceptions, special procedures (e.g. WSDOT, forest practices) •Optional clarifications to definitions •Optional reference to relief procedures for restoration and Ordinary High Water Mark 19 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water- Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal- management/Shoreline-coastal- planning/Shoreline-planners-toolbox 9/21/2020 Permit System •Exemptions •Smaller activities with known conditions •Must meet SMP •Shoreline Substantial Development Permits (SDP) •Permitted uses,subject to permit & SMP •Conditional Use Permit (CUP) •Uses/activities requiring closer review •Discretionary •Meet CUP criteria & SMP •Variance (VAR) •Changes to dimensional standards •Discretionary •Meet CUP criteria & SMP •Local government has the primary responsibility for exemptions, and SDPs. •Local governments and Ecology must approve shoreline conditional use permits and variances. 20 45 permits Jan 2015-Feb 2020 26 SCUP 10 SDPs/CUP 4 SVAR 1 SDP/CUP/VAR 3 SDP 1 SDP Revision 9/21/2020 Permitting Types Category Description Number/Permit Type Residential SF Expansion of Non-conf Structures 11 CUP New Residential Structures 3 VAR, 1 SDP/CUP/Var Access Stairs, trams, trails 2 SDP, 4 SDP/CUP, 2 CUP, 1 VAR Buoy Residential mooring buoys 7 CUP Research Ocean acidification and steelhead monitoring 2 CUP Bulkhead New, repair, or expanded bulkhead 2 SDP/CUP, 2 CUP Dredging Marina maintenance dredging 2 SDP/CUP Septic System Replacement or expansion 1 SDP/CUP (commercial) 1 CUP (residential Miscellaneous 4 projects 219/21/2020 Group Discussion •Changes to Local Conditions •Regulatory Reform Opportunities 229/21/2020 Public Comment 239/21/2020 Next Steps •Meeting 2: Identify additional issues to address in scoping •September 28, 2020, 5:30 PM 249/21/2020 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 1 July 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW Periodic Review Checklist This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) to conduct the “periodic review” of their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the SMA at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology’s rule outlining procedures for conducting these reviews is at WAC 173-26-090. This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted between 2007 and 2019 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews. How to use this checklist See the associated Periodic Review Checklist Guidance for a description of each item, relevant links, review considerations, and example language. At the beginning of the periodic review, use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i). Ecology recommends reviewing all items on the checklist. Some items on the checklist prior to the local SMP adoption may be relevant. At the end of your review process, use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b). Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 2 July 2019 Prepared By Jurisdiction Date draft Jefferson County 2/2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 2019 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for building freshwater docks JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed #9 reads: “Residential Docks. … The private dock exemption applies to dock construction cost as specified in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e).” No action required b. The Legislature removed the requirement for a shoreline permit for disposal of dredged materials at Dredged Material Management Program sites (applies to 9 jurisdictions) JCC 18.25.360 Dredging Dredge Disposal Regulation #4.d reads: “When consistent with this program, disposal of dredged materials in water areas other than PSDDA sites may only be allowed for the following reasons: (i) To restore or enhance habitat; or (ii) To reestablish substrates for fish and shellfish resources; or (iii) To nourish beaches that are starved for sediment; or (iv) To remediate contaminated sediments.” DMMP not applicable to Jefferson County No action required c. The Legislature added restoring native kelp, eelgrass beds and native oysters as fish habitat enhancement projects. JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed #18 reads: “A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: (a) The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to No action required Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 3 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action accomplish the intended purpose; (b) The project received hydraulic project approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Chapter 75.20 RCW; and (c) The administrator has determined that the project is consistent with this program. The administrator shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 3)]” 2017 a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold for substantial development to $7,047. JCC 18.25.100 Definition #19.tt reads: “Substantial Development…$5,718 or as adjusted by the state legislature…” JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed #1. Fair Market Value reads: “…does not exceed $6,416 or as adjusted by WAC 173-27-040…” No action required. Optional revision to replace both outdated figures with current value of $7,047 for clarity & document improvement. b. Ecology permit rules clarified the definition of “development” does not include dismantling or removing structures. JCC 18.25.100 Definition #4.g reads: “(g) ***“Development” means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this program at any state of water level.” No action required. Optional revision to add text “Development” does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re- development for clarity & document improvement. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 4 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action c. Ecology adopted rules clarifying exceptions to local review under the SMA. JCC 18.25 does not address these exceptions from WAC 173-27-044 No action required - the exceptions apply regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add the example language for clarity and to ensure consistent implementation: Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review to implement the Shoreline Management Act do not apply to the following: (i) Remedial actions. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70.105D RCW, or to the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70.105D RCW. (ii) Boatyard improvements to meet NPDES permit requirements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.355, any person installing site improvements for storm water treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system storm water general permit. (iii) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 5 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action Transportation projects and activities meeting the conditions of RCW 90.58.356 are not required to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other local review. (iv) Projects consistent with an environmental excellence program agreement pursuant to RCW 90.58.045. (v) Projects authorized through the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council process, pursuant to chapter 80.50 RCW. d. Ecology amended rules clarifying permit filing procedures consistent with a 2011 statute. JCC 18.25.750 Notice of decision, reconsideration and appeal. #1. A notice of decision for action on a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit shall be provided to the applicant/proponent and any party of record in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 18.40 JCC and at least 10 days prior to filing such decisions with the Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. Decisions filed with the Department of Ecology shall contain the following information: (a) A copy of the complete application; (b) Findings and conclusions that establish the basis for the decision including but not limited to identification of shoreline environment Revision required to clarify current standards for date of filing by permit type, concurrent filings, ECY notice by phone/email & written, and submittal to ECY by return receipt requested. Incorporate example language: After all local permit administrative appeals or reconsideration periods are complete and the permit documents are amended to incorporate any resulting changes, the County will mail the permit using return receipt requested mail to the Department of Ecology regional office and the Office of the Attorney General. Projects that require both Conditional Use Permits and or Variances shall be mailed simultaneously with any Substantial Development Permits for the project. (i) The permit and documentation of the final Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 6 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action designation, applicable master program policies and regulations and the consistency of the project with appropriate review criteria for the type of permit(s); (c) The final decision of the local government; (d) Where applicable, local government shall also file the applicable documents required by SEPA, or in lieu thereof, a statement summarizing the actions and dates of such actions taken under Chapter 43.21C RCW; and (e) When the project has been modified in the course of the local review process, plans or text shall be provided that clearly indicate the final approved plan. JCC 18.25.760 Initiation of Development #2 “Date of Filing. “Date of filing” of a substantial development permit is the date of actual receipt of the decision by the Department of Ecology. The “date of filing” for a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit shall mean the date the permit decision rendered by the Department of Ecology is transmitted by the Department of Ecology to the county and the applicant/proponent. [Ord. 7- 13 Exh. A (Art. X § 17)]” local decision will be mailed together with the complete permit application; a findings and conclusions letter; a permit data form (cover sheet); and applicable SEPA documents. (ii) Consistent with RCW 90.58.140(6), the state’s Shorelines Hearings Board twentyone (21) day appeal period starts with the date of filing, which is defined below: (A) For projects that only require a Substantial Development Permit: the date that Ecology receives the County decision. (B) For a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Variance: the date that Ecology’s decision on the CUP or Variance is transmitted to the applicant and the County. (C) For SDPs simultaneously mailed with a CUP or VAR to Ecology: the date that Ecology’s decision on the CUP or Variance is transmitted to the applicant and the County. e. Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA JCC 18.25.460 Forest Practices Regulation #4.b. “Except as provided in subsections (4)(c) and (d) of this section, timber No action required. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 7 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action “developments” and do not require SDPs. harvesting and forest practices activities that do not meet the definition of development in Article II of this chapter shall not be regulated by this program and shall not require a shoreline permit.” … #4.e “Other activities associated with timber harvesting, such as filling, excavation, and building roads and structures, that meet the definition of development shall be regulated according to the general provisions (Article VI of this chapter), shoreline modification provisions (Article VII of this chapter) and/or the other applicable use-specific provisions (this article) of this program and shall require a shoreline substantial development permit or conditional use permit as specified in this program.” Optional text revision to incorporate example language: A forest practice that only involves timber cutting is not a development under the act and does not require a shoreline substantial development permit or a shoreline exemption. A forest practice that includes activities other than timber cutting may be Periodic Review Checklist Guidance 8 July 2019 a development under the act and may require a substantial development permit, as required by WAC 222-50-020. f. Ecology clarified the SMA does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction JCC 18.25.020 Applicability #4. This program shall apply to: (a) All of the lands and waters of Jefferson County that fall under the jurisdiction of Chapter 90.58 RCW; and (b) Every person, individual, firm, partnership, association, organization, local or state governmental agency, public or municipal corporation, or other nonfederal entity; and (c) All nonfederal uses and developments undertaken on federal lands and on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease, or easement, even though such Exclusive Federal Jurisdicition in Olympic National Park per RCW 37.08.210) is not explicitly addressd. Optional text revision for clarity to add example language: Areas and uses in those areas that are under exclusive federal jurisdiction as established through federal or state statutes are not subject to the jurisdiction of chapter 90.58 RCW, including Olympic National Park. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 8 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action lands may fall within the external boundaries of federally owned lands (Footnote1)*. *Wording from WAC 173-27- 060(3). g. Ecology clarified “default” provisions for nonconforming uses and development. h. Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews. JCC 18.25.840 Master program amendments does not address periodic review. No action required – the periodic review requirements apply regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add example language for clarity: The County will conduct the SMP periodic review process consistent with requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090. i. Ecology adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state public comment period. JCC 18.25.840 Master program amendments does not address the optional joint review process. No action required – the optional joint review process per WAC 173-26-104 applies regardless of SMP inclusion. j. Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments. JCC 18.25 does not address Ecology submittal requirements. No action required – the submittal requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and -120 apply regardless of SMP inclusion. 2016 a. The Legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption for retrofitting existing structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed does not include the new ADA exemption. No action required – the SDP exemption applies regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision for clarity to add example language: The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 9 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action purpose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities. b. Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system. 2015 a. The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects. Neither JCC 18.25.520 Transportation nor JCC 18.25.650 Notice of application and permit application review specify this timeline target. No action required – the review timeline target applies regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add example language. Special procedures for WSDOT projects. (i) Permit review time for projects on a state highway. Pursuant to RCW 47.01.485, the Legislature established a target of 90 days review time for local governments. (ii) Optional process allowing construction to commence twenty-one days after date of filing. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, Washington State Department of Transportation projects that address significant public safety risks may begin twenty-one days after the date of filing if all components of the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 2014 a. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating on-water residences legally established before 7/1/2014. JCC 18.25.220 Use Table does not specify Floating Homes or FOWRs, but does prohibit Single-Family Residential use (including appurtenances & accessory structures), in both No action required. Optional text revision to sync up terms used and Definitions with RCW 90.58.270. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 10 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action the Priority Aquactic and the Aquatic SEDs. JCC 18.25.100 Definition #6.m. “Floating house” means any floating structure that is designed, or has been substantially and structurally remodeled or redesigned, to serve primarily as a residence. “Floating houses” include house boats, house barges, or any floating structures that serve primarily as a residence and do not qualify as a vessel. A floating structure that is used as a residence and is capable of navigation, but is not designed primarily for navigation, nor is normally capable of self propulsion and use as a means of transportation, is a floating house, not a vessel per WAC 332-30-103. "Floating home" means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though it may be capable of being towed. "Floating on-water residence" means any floating structure other than a floating home, that: (i) Is designed or used primarily as a residence on the water and has detachable utilities; and (ii) whose owner or primary occupant has held an ownership interest in space in a marina, or has held a lease or sublease to use space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014. 2012 a. The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures. JCC 18.25.840 Master program amendments. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and 36.70A.280, a decision by the Jefferson County board of county commissioners to amend this master program shall not constitute a final appealable decision until the Department of Ecology has made a decision to approve, reject, or modify the proposed amendment. Following the decision of the Department of Ecology regarding the proposed amendment, the decision may be appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management No action required – the statutory & rule requirements apply regardless of SMP inclusion. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 11 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action Hearings Board. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 25)] 2011 a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring that wetlands be delineated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual. b. Ecology adopted rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture. JCC 18.25.100 Definitions #2.t “Bottom culture” means all aquaculture systems that are set on or securely and rigidly attached to the tidelands or bedlands and do not extend higher than six feet from the bottom (excluding hoists and similar apparatus). Bottom culture includes but is not limited to geoduck tubes, oyster longlines, clam netting, oyster rack and bags, and clam bags. Bottom culture does not include aquaculture suspended from rafts or buoys or contained in floating net pens. JCC 18.25.220 Use Table Geoduck aquaculture is allowed in both the Priority Aquatic and Aquatic SEDs, requires an SDP when adjacent to High Intensity SED, and requires a CUP when adjacent to Natural, Conservancy, and Shoreline Residential SEDS. JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture. General Regulations 4.a-f apply, including: • initial siting/planting SDP 5- yr limit + 1-yr extension; Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 12 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action • ongoing operations allowance; • 25% / 10-yr expansion limit; • activities allowed w/o SDP, unless public use interference, structures, mechanical dredging, or filling; • JARPA & SEPA submittals to allow case-by-case assessment of use interference w/ exceptions; • Standards e(i – xv) re: adverse impacts, cumulative effects, nonWO structures, OW sleeping quarters, height limits, visual impacts, interference w/ Nav, Public Access, Tribal harvest, 600 - 1500 from NWR/other protected areas, shading kelp, helical anchors, compensate use of public facilities, predator control methods, chemicals/GMOs, non-Nav lighting, waste disposal; • f. “Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging aquaculture’ use and development or bottom culture involving structures, the county may require a visual analysis prepared by the applicant/proponent describing effects on nearby uses and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively mitigated.” c. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally See 2014.a above Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 13 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action established prior to January 1, 2011. d. The Legislature authorizing a new option to classify existing structures as conforming. JCC 18.25.660 Nonconforming development. JCC 18.25.500 Residential. No action required. Optional revision to add text implementing WAC 173-26- 241(3.j) at (6.A) 2010 a. The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act clarifications. 2009 a. The Legislature created new “relief” procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in Ordinary High Water Mark. JCC 18.25.170 Restoration and enhancement – Purpose & Goals JCC 18.25.400 Restoration Separate but related: JCC 18.25.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection – Regulations #2.g allows an advance restoration credit No action required – the process may be used regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add either version of example language (i.w. option 1 below): The County may grant relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations resulting from shoreline restoration projects within urban growth areas consistent with criteria and procedures in WAC 173-27-215. b. Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. c. The Legislature added moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA. JCC 18.25 does not address moratoria No action required – the statutory provisions apply regardless of SMP inclusion. 2007 a. The Legislature clarified options for defining "floodway" as either the area that has been established in FEMA maps, or the floodway criteria set in the SMA. JCC 18.25.100 Definitions #6.r. “Floodway” means the area of a river valley that conveys flood waters with reasonable regularity, although not necessarily annually. At a minimum, the floodway is that which has Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 14 July 2019 Row Summary of change Review Action been established in Federal Emergency Management Act flood insurance rate maps or Federal Emergency Management Act floodway maps. Other data and information, including topography, changes in soil or vegetation, and other indicators of past flooding, may be used to define and map a floodway that meets the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW. The floodway shall not include those lands that can reasonably be expected to be protected from 100-year flood waters by flood control devices maintained by or maintained under license from the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state. b. Ecology amended rules to clarify that comprehensively updated SMPs shall include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. JCC 18.25.870 Official Shoreline Map ICR List of Waterbodies? No action required c. Ecology’s rule listing statutory exemptions from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects that conform to the provisions of RCW 77.55.181. JCC 18.25.560 Exemptions Listed #18 “A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: …” No action required Additional amendments Modify this section, as needed, to reflect additional review issues and related amendments. The summary of change could be about Comprehensive Plan and Development regulations, changes to local circumstance, new information, or improved data. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 15 July 2019 Two example formats: SMP section Summary of change Review Action SMP Section Summary of change Discussion Page 1 of 1 N Marine Shorelines of Statewide Significance (SSWS) 4 Three Delineation Schemes a: 2 3 Blue SSWS lie between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the State, and include their "shorelands". RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)(i) and (vi). '~fqt Green SSWS lie seaward of the extreme low tide line. This excludes their tidelands and °shorelands'. RCVd 90.58.0*34J(2)(e)(iii) Brown SSWS lie between the ordinary high water mark and the extreme low tide line, and Include their 'shorelands". RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)(ii) and (vi). t. Birch Bay - from Point Mitehorn to Birch Point 2. Padilla Bay- from March Point to Wiliam Point 3. Skagit Bay -from Brown Point to Yokeko Point 4. Nisqually Delta -from DetMlf Bight to Tat solo Point 5. Hood Canal - from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff file:///C:/Users/AmandaB4/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%2... 1/16/2015