HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment E Scoping Document Draft 20201009 TracksShoreline Master Program Periodic Review 2020
Jefferson County | DRAFT Scoping Document
Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Background 2
Scoping Document Framework 2
Public Engagement and Task Force 2
Required and Recommended SMP Periodic Review Topics 3
Task Force Review Elements 3
SMP Periodic Checklist Evaluation 5
County SMP Docket 8
Issues Not Recommended to Be Included in Scope 8
Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Comments 10
Appendix B: Task Force Membership 11
Introduction
BACKGROUND
Jefferson County is undertaking a periodic review of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) as required by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58.080(4). The SMA
requires each SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, on an eight-year schedule established by the Legislature. Jefferson County jointly adopted its current SMP in 2014 with the Washington
Department of Ecology and is due to complete its periodic review by June 2021.
The SMP applies to all marine waters, lakes over 20 acres, and larger streams (over 20 cubic feet per second) as well as associated wetlands and uplands at least 200 feet from the shoreline.
The periodic review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other Jefferson County plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances,
new information and improved data.
SCOPING DOCUMENT FRAMEWORK
This Scoping Document lays out the parameters of the SMP periodic review and revision, identifying potential areas of review that are mandatory or supported by the community, including
shoreline environment topics and shoreline development policies and regulations that should be considered in the SMP review. This document:
Reviews amendments to Chapter 90.58 RCW and Ecology rules (WAC) that have occurred since Jefferson County’s SMP was adopted in 2014.
Identifies potential areas of review to address changing local circumstances, new information or improved data.
Considers potential changes to eliminate redundancies and improve clarity as well as address revisions consistent with regulatory reform (Resolution 17-19).
Considers various constraints such as the requirements of State Law, staffing capacity, and resource.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TASK FORCE
Jefferson County established a public participation plan and solicited the input of members of the public including through a story map and survey. A summary of comments appears in Appendix
A.
An appointed Task Force advised the Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) on the SMP Periodic Review. The meetings were open to the public, and comment opportunities
were provided. The Task Force met weekly in September and October 2020 to serve as a sounding board to consider possible revisions to the current SMP through the lens of regulatory
reform (Resolution 17-19). The Task Force membership is listed in Appendix B: Task Force Membership.
Required and Recommended SMP Periodic Review Topics
TASK FORCE REVIEW ELEMENTS
Following are topics that the Task Force identified as possible subjects for review in the SMP to reflect local conditions, trends, and information.
Exhibit 1. Task Force: Potential SMP Periodic Review Proposals
Item
Topic
Description of SMP Review Element/Approach
Rationale
Review Conditional Use Permits and Variance Permits for Proper Level of Review
Option 1 – Original: Consider appropriate permit review type and criteria to ensure no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function while avoiding undue burdens of permitting. Examples
include but are not limited to: existing single family home expansions, beach access, research, septic systems, or others.
Option 2 – Modified: Consider appropriate permit review type and criteria to ensure no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function while avoiding undue burdens of permitting. Examples
include but are not limited toAreas of focus: existing single family home expansions (where limited in size/percent), beach access (where limited in footprint/width/structure), research,
or septic systems, or others.
Option 3 – Focus on Permitting Levels, Maintain Standards: Maintain protective standards to achieve no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function, but reduce unnecessary CUPs/variances.
Potentially adjust administrative versus discretionary CUPs. Examples include but are not limited to: existing single family home expansions and septic systems.
Option 4 Reduce Permit Burden Keep No Net Loss - Reduce reliance on conditional use permitting by consideration of alternate permit review types and criteria that ensure no-net-loss
of shoreline ecological function while avoiding undue burdens of permitting.
Meet environmental protection and address regulatory reform.
Mooring buoys
Option 1 – Original: Review standards for water access and buoys, including residential mooring buoys. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences
between areas with eelgrass patches and full eelgrass coverage.
Option 2 – Modified: Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other similar shoreline facilities for boating. Consider where there are good locations for buoys. Review
buoy standards versus anchoring, and unintended consequences of SMP regulations. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences between areas with eelgrass
patches and full eelgrass coverage.
Option 3: Consider conditional use review for mooring buoy installations for year-round moorage but not for seasonal moorage.
Staff Suggestion for Option 1 or 2 or 3: Add – Consider limitations on number or density of buoys.
Clarify SMP. Allow best practices that minimize environmental impact. Address regulatory reform.
Mooring buoys
Option 1 – Original: Review standards for water access and buoys, including residential mooring buoys. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences
between areas with eelgrass patches and full eelgrass coverage.
Option 2 – Modified: Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other similar shoreline facilities for boating. Consider where there are good locations for buoys. Review
buoy standards versus anchoring, and unintended consequences of SMP regulations. Clarify permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including differences between areas with eelgrass
patches and full eelgrass coverage.
Option 3: Consider conditional use review for mooring buoy installations for year-round moorage but not for seasonal moorage.
Staff Suggestion for Option 1 or 2 or 3: Add – Consider limitations on number or density of buoys.
Clarify SMP. Allow best practices that minimize environmental impact. Address regulatory reform.
Climate change and sea level rise
Option 1: Integrate Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan climate change and sea-level rise policies into the SMP. Monitor State guidance and rules and adaptively amend SMP in future
as needed.
Option 2: Add in Comprehensive Plan climate policies like Option 1. Plus, strive for consistency with Port Townsend’s SMP. Ensure that policies and permit standards do not limit projects
that are proactively addressing projections in sea level rise due to climate change. Consider elevation, not just distance from the ordinary highwater mark, for shoreline permitting.
Proactively address climate change and sea-level rise particularly for activities with long-life.
Marine trades and economic development
Option 1: Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades.
Option 2: Ensure SMP permitting processes encourages the development of marine trades uses where appropriate and consistent with the entire Comprehensive Plan.
Recognize important sectors that support economy and water oriented uses.
Boat Launches
Option 1 – Original: Encourage development of new public boat launches and improvement of existing boat launches in SMP.
Option 2 – Amended: Review the interface of County SMP and state agency permit procedures for [public] boat launches (e.g. WDFW). Review example boat launch applications (e.g. Port Whitney)
to consider if SMP should be adjusted.
Staff Suggestion for Options 1 or 2: Clarify this is in reference to “public” boat launches.
Lack of boat launches, condition of existing.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Review how Shoreline Management Act purposes are carried out with use allowances and permitting.
Clarify how SMP is carried out on shorelines identified for optimal implementation of SMP.
Priority Aquatic Environment
Option 1. Review allowed activities given purpose of environment. Review in relation to Aquatic Environment.
Option 2. Review allowed activities to ensure consistency of uses allowed.
Ensure consistency of uses allowed.
Aquaculture*
Review net pen policies to expand County capacity for aquaculture.
Recognize important industry.
*This does not appear feasible/timely given pending State guidance. It is possible a general review of marine trades (D) could look holistically at water dependent uses and allowances
including these.
SMP PERIODIC CHECKLIST EVALUATION
The following items appear to be required to address in the SMP Periodic Review following evaluation with the Washington Department of Ecology Periodic Checklist that identifies recently
amended state laws applicable to SMPs.
Exhibit 2. Periodic Review Checklist Required Amendments
Item
Topic
Rationale
2017 d - Ecology amended rules clarifying permit filing procedures consistent with a 2011 statute.
Match State rule.
The following items are under review for a consistency evaluation with the Washington Department of Ecology Periodic Checklist; the items may move to other exhibits as required or as
not necessary to carry forward, accordingly. Ecology will review for consistency as well as Jefferson County, and some items may require adjustment in SMP.
Exhibit 2. Periodic Review Checklist Items Under Review for Consistency
Item
Topic
Rationale
2016 b – Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system.
SMP adopts critical areas regulations by reference with some exceptions. Determine if updated reference is needed. The new critical areas ordinance does address 2014 wetlands rating
system.
2011 a - Ecology adopted a rule requiring that wetlands be delineated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual.
SMP adopts critical areas regulations by reference with some exceptions. Determine if updated reference is needed. Reference new critical areas ordinance which does address manual.
2011 b - Ecology adopted rules for new commercial geoduck aquaculture.
Currently double checking consistency. Given date of rules and date of SMP adoption, likely in alignment.
2009 b - Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks.
Allowance for mitigation bank in SMP. Critical areas ordinance recently amended addresses in lieu fee. SMP adopts critical areas regulations by reference with some exceptions.
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.
It appears the adopted SMP definition is similar to Ecology example language. Consider reviewing for consistency with CAO as well. Ecology indicates County can choose the example definition
option but a change for further consistency would need to be made in the SMP.
The following items are not required amendments, but are optional amendments identified as a result of the SMP Periodic Review Checklist that could assist with SMP implementation or
clarity. They could be supportive of the County’s Regulatory Reform initiative.
Exhibit 3. Periodic Review Checklist Optional Amendments
Row
Topic
Rationale
2017 a - OFM adjusted the cost threshold for substantial development to $7,047.
Optional since SMP references a threshold “or as adjusted” by state legislature. Would improve clarity. Ecology suggests changing value or changing to citation; approach up to County
but Ecology would require a change.
2017 b - Ecology permit rules clarified the definition of “development” does not include dismantling or removing structures.
Optional revision to add text for clarity & document improvement.
2017 c - Ecology adopted rules clarifying exceptions to local review under the SMA.
Optional text revision to add language for clarity and to ensure consistent implementation.
2017 e - Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA “developments” and do not require shoreline substantial
development permits.
Make optional text revision to incorporate example language to ensure consistent implementation.
2017 f - Ecology clarified the SMA does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction
Optional text revision for clarity. Per Ecology: Olympic National Park is one of two such locations established by statute and County is encouraged to address this issue, likely in
JCC 18.25.020 Applicability.
2017 h - Ecology adopted rule amendments to clarify the scope and process for conducting periodic reviews.
The periodic review requirements apply regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add example language for clarity.
2016 a - The Legislature created a new shoreline permit exemption for retrofitting existing structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Optional text revision for clarity to add example language. Ecology suggests including in full like other exemptions or changing to citations. Jefferson County can determine approach.
Change of some kind would likely be required.
2015 a - The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects.
The review timeline target applies regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add example language.
2015 a - The Legislature adopted a 90-day target for local review of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects.
The review timeline target applies regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision to add example language.
2014 a - The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating on-water residences legally established before 7/1/2014.
Optional text revision to sync up terms used and Definitions with RCW 90.58.270. Per Ecology, though none exist and the SMP prohibits new residential in/over water, County may want
to revise the existing term ‘floating house’ and definitions to reflect these terms defined by statute/WAC
2011 c - The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011.
Same as above.
2011 d - The Legislature authorizing a new option to classify existing structures as conforming.
Optional revision to add text implementing WAC 173-26-241(3.j) at (6.A).
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.
The process may be used regardless of SMP inclusion. Optional text revision.
COUNTY SMP DOCKET
In addition to the optional text revisions above, County staff have developed a list of SMP Docket items meant to address SMP inconsistencies or discrepancies found during the first
five years of implementing the SMP.
Issues Not Recommended to Be Included in Scope
The following items have been evaluated in the SMP Periodic Review Checklist and results showed no action was required to address the subject in the SMP.
Exhibit 4. Issues Not Recommended to be Included in Scope
Row
Topic
Rationale
2019 a - OFM adjusted the cost threshold for building freshwater docks
No action required
2019 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)
No action required
2019 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)
No action required
2019 c - The Legislature added restoring native kelp, eelgrass beds and native oysters as fish habitat enhancement projects.
No action required. Per Ecology, consider the expanded language at WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) with the more explicit citation to RCW 77.55.181.
2017 i - Ecology adopted a new rule creating an optional SMP amendment process that allows for a shared local/state public comment period.
No action required – the optional joint review process per WAC 173-26-104 applies regardless of SMP inclusion.
2017 j - Submittal to Ecology of proposed SMP amendments.
No action required – the submittal requirements of WAC 173-26-110 and -120 apply regardless of SMP inclusion.
2017 g - Ecology clarified “default” provisions for nonconforming uses and development.
No action required due to State rule. This rule is a default rule that only applies if a local government has no provisions in its local SMP addressing nonconforming uses. However,
Jefferson County may clarify its SMP with revised definition of nonconforming in JCC Article II, 18.25.100.
2012 a - The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify SMP appeal procedures.
No action required – the statutory & rule requirements apply regardless of SMP inclusion.
2010 a - The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act clarifications.
SMP adopted well after 2010 and no known clarifications are needed.
2009 c - The Legislature added moratoria authority and procedures to the SMA.
No action required – the statutory provisions apply regardless of SMP inclusion.
2007 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.
No action required
2007 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.
No action required
Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Comments
[Insert survey summary here when complete.]
Appendix B: Task Force Membership
Arlene Alen, Planning Commission Member, District 1
Lorna Smith, Planning Commission Member, District 2
Richard Hull, Planning Commission Member, District 3
Cliff O’Brien – Port Ludlow Associates, Residential/Commercial Construction & Development
Gordon King – Taylor Shellfish, Aquaculture
Amy Leitman – Marine Surveys & Assessments, Marine Biologist
Chris Kelley – Oceanographer, Aquaculture
Brent Vadopalas – Citizen at large District 1, Aquaculture
Phil Andrus – Citizen at large District 2, former County Planning Commissioner
David Wilkinson – Climate Action Committee, Atmospheric Science
Craig Durgan – Citizen at large District 3, PUD#1
Ron Rempel – Citizen at large District 2, Wildlife Biologist