HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment B TF Emails Scoping Doc 2020 10091
Lisa Grueter
From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 9:08 AM
To:Lisa Grueter
Cc:David Wayne Johnson
Subject:FW: Comments on Scoping Document
Attachments:Comments on Draft Scoping Document Phil Andrus.docx
FYI
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Phil Andrus <inthewoods@olympus.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:57 AM
To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Comments on Scoping Document
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings David Wayne,
Not only do I have this to you before the end of the day, not only before the official noon deadline, they’re in your in‐
box before nine. With the day I have ahead of me, it’s nine or never.
Please explain to the group my reason for missing our meeting on Monday.
Best,
Phil
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
Comments on Draft Scoping Document Phil Andrus
Item A
Review Conditional Use
Permits and Variance
Permits for Proper Level of
Review
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.
I support the relaxing of permitting requirements for single family home
expansion, septic system repair and replacement, and other uses of similar
impact. These do not need a conditional use review.
Further, requiring a conditional use permit for beach access trails that require the
installation of minimal structural materials should not require a conditional use
permit. Such uses must adhere to the rest of the provisions of the rest of the
Master Program with respect to ecological functions, etc and their visual impact
is slight.
Where I do think conditional use review is needed is for all trams and for stair
systems longer than ten feet, with the ten feet specification perhaps overly
permissive. Six feet may be more appropriate.
The requirement of a conditional use permit for access structures recognizes that
there is a significant public interest in such structural additions to our shorelines
due to the frequent failures of beach access structures, their impact on shoreline
esthetics and their cumulative impact. Were I able to attend Monday’s meeting, I
would hold firm in my conviction on this aspect of our review.
In light of David’s statement that research activities should require a conditional
review, I think they should continue to be reviewed as conditional uses.
Item B
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.
As a recreational boater (32 ft sailboat) I’m of at least two minds regarding
mooring buoys. In some protected areas within the Salish Sea it had become
quite difficult to find a spot to anchor for the night without risking contact with
permanently moored boats. On the other hand, for several years I’ve been
wishing for a buoy of our own in Mystery Bay.
It’s unlikely that the owners of the boats one sees anchored for extended periods
would be able or willing to afford the cost of a mooring buoy installation even if a
location were available. Every year there are more boats manufactured and few
scrapped except when abandoned along the shoreline. Mooring buoys are not a
solution to poorly anchored and/or abandoned boats.
My suggestion here is that conditional use review be required for mooring buoy
installations for year-round moorage but not for seasonal moorage. My thinking
here is that summer speedboats and the installations for mooring them have less
impact than larger vessels.
Item C
Climate Change
For the purpose of this review, I support Option 2, but only until the county
undertakes a thorough proactive review of the entire Comprehensive Plan,
including the SMP, to help prepare us for the many changes that are to come.
Item D
Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades.
I would like to see a stronger statement here: Ensure SMP permitting processes
encourages the development of marine trades uses where appropriate and
consistent with the entire Comprehensive Plan.
NOTE to Planning Commission: When reviewing this SMP document, cross
check it against zoning for Lower Port Hadlock, Port pf PT property in Quilcene,
and the PT Paper owned shoreline south of the mill.
Item E
Encourage development of new boat launches and improvement of existing boat
launches in SMP.
I assume what we are considering here are public access ramps, not private
ramps serving single family homes.
I sit on a WDFW committee that advises the department on the management of
the recreational crab and shrimp fisheries. The scarcity of launching ramps for
small boats is a significant consideration in the setting of seasons for these
fisheries, especially shrimp, and most especially during the pandemic, where
crowding around the existing ramps is a management concern. While I think that
additional launching ramps are needed, their impact on the shoreline extends
beyond the intertidal area to adjacent areas for trailer and vehicle parking is
sufficient to need review as conditional uses.
Item F
Review how Shoreline Management Act purposes are carried out with use
allowances and permitting.
Please do and tell me what you learn from Hearings Board decisions and the
SMPs of other jurisdictions. As I said in an earlier meeting, it’s never been clear
to me what significance was attached to this provision in the Act and all SMPs.
Item G
Review how Shoreline Management Act purposes are carried out with use
allowances and permitting.
No comment.
Item H
Review net pen policies to expand County capacity for aquaculture.
I do not support net pen aquaculture for any species of finfish in our waters.
While the legislature has addressed some of my concerns with the prohibition of
non-native species, other issues persist, such as the use of antibiotics in feed,
the accumulation of feed under pens, and the hazard net pens pose to migrating
salmon smolts.
I am aware that the Jamestown S’Clallam nation is looking toward black cod and
steelhead culture and, while I have great appreciation for the quality of the work I
see from the Jamestown S’Clallam, I would rather they focus on intertidal
aquaculture.
1
Lisa Grueter
From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:46 AM
To:Craig Durgan
Cc:Lisa Grueter
Subject:RE: SMP Task Force - Follow Up Materials - Scoping document
No, not related. JCC 18.20.260 only applies to uses that are not in shoreline jurisdiction.
From: Craig Durgan <durgan@olympus.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 3:19 PM
To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Lisa@berkconsulting.com
Subject: Re: SMP Task Force ‐ Follow Up Materials ‐ Scoping document
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
There was interest in your proposal to allow lateral and vertical expansion of residential homes. How does that
relate to JCC18.20.260 and the allowed expansions therein? Is that something that needs to be pointed out?
From: David W. Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 12:39 PM
To: David W. Johnson
Cc: mailto:Lisa@berkconsulting.com
Subject: SMP Task Force - Follow Up Materials - Scoping document
SMP Task Force,
As promised, attached are follow up materials related to the Scoping document. We were looking for their input on the
Task Force scoping options by noon tomorrow (although I mistakenly to Phil end of day) to help us compile ideas for
review/deliberation on 10/12.
Thanks!
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
1
Lisa Grueter
From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 12:34 PM
To:Lisa Grueter
Subject:FW: Scoping document
Attachments:Scoping thoughts.docx
FYI
From: Richard Hull <richardhull@embarqmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 11:43 AM
To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Scoping document
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi David,
My recommendations are attached.
Richard
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
Richard Hull
10/06/ 2020
Jefferson County Draft Scoping Document Recommendations
It seems to me that most of the discussion to date has been on topics that are beyond the scope of a
scoping document. That said, here are my text wording recommendations.
1A. 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.
1B. Review standards for water access and buoys, including residential mooring buoys. Clarify
permitting standards to allow best practices that minimize environmental impact, especially with
regard to eel grass.
1C. 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.
1D. Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades.
1E. Delete
1F. Delete
1G. Review allowed activities to ensure consistency of uses allowed.
1H. Delete
Drafts of Sections 2 and 3 are fine as presented.
1
Lisa Grueter
From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:07 AM
To:Lisa Grueter
Cc:David Wayne Johnson
Subject:FW: SMP Task Force - Follow Up Materials - Scoping document
Attachments:Attachment E Scoping Document Draft 20201007_Tracks_CDK.docx
FYI
From: Christopher Kelley <cdpwkelley@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 10:40 AM
To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Lisa Grueter (Lisa@berkconsulting.com) <Lisa@berkconsulting.com>
Subject: Re: SMP Task Force ‐ Follow Up Materials ‐ Scoping document
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello David and Lisa:
I have attached my track changes and comments to the draft scoping document, hopefully understanding what you
wanted from us. I also had a couple of suggestions for the story map. I think it would be more useful if the seaward and
the landward SEDs were split into 2 separate layers that the viewer could toggle on or off depending on what they
wanted to look at closely. I am very familiar with ArcGIS but am not very familiar with ESRI story maps so don't know if
they typically restrict viewers from toggling layers. Also, while understanding the desire not to make this too
complicated, I think it might be useful to have some other layers besides just the SEDs and permit applications. For
example, showing the boat launches, current aquaculture sites, mooring buoys(?) and public anchorages would make it
more informative. However I don't know, or have forgotten, who this story map is intended for: the task force, the
general public, people wanting to apply for permits, or all of the above. Anyway, just a thought.
Chris
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 12:39 PM David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> wrote:
SMP Task Force,
As promised, attached are follow up materials related to the Scoping document. We were looking for their input on
the Task Force scoping options by noon tomorrow (although I mistakenly to Phil end of day) to help us compile ideas
for review/deliberation on 10/12.
Thanks!
2
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
DRAFT October 2, 2020 | Amended October 7, 2020
1
Shoreline 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
Note: Track changes on the following pages reflect discussions at the Task Force meeting on October 5,
2020, and some preliminary comments from Ecology on the Periodic Review checklist sent to staff.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 2
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.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 3
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
A. 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.
Meet environmental
protection and
address regulatory
reform.
B. 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
Clarify SMP. Allow
best practices that
minimize
environmental
impact. Address
regulatory reform.
I prefer this option. But what does "adjust" mean?
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 4
Item Topic Description of SMP Review Element/Approach Rationale
unintended consequences of SMP regulations. Clarify
permitting standards surrounding eelgrass beds, including
differences between areas with eelgrass patches and full
eelgrass coverage.
Staff Suggestion for Option 1or 2: Add – Consider limitations
on number or density of buoys.
C. 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.
D. Marine trades and
economic development
Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden
marine trades.
Recognize important
sectors that support
economy and water
oriented uses.
E. Boat Launches Option 1 – Original: Encourage development of new 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 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.
F. 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.
A project that is proactively addressing sea level rise
is one that is presumably further inland. Why would
policies and permit standards limit this type of project,
which would no doubt be more conservative than one
which is not addressing sea level rise?
If you are going to include this, you need to precisely
define the term. I realize that boat building and sail
making are marine trades but what other activities
does this term encompass? Are whale watching,
fishing, marine aquaculture all marine trades? Is
marina development a marine trade? Are industries
that use seawater for some purpose (cooling for
example) marine trades? I could not find an
adequate definition of this term on the web.
From checking various websites, there are 10 boat
launches in Jefferson County including 6 maintained
by the Port of Port Townsend, 2 on Marrowstone
Island, and 2 down near Shine Tidelands on Hood
Canal. Why is this considered a lack of boat
launches? Where else are you going to put one?
Dabob?, Port Ludlow? I would suggest this just be
reduced to examining whether improvements can be
made to existing boat launches.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 5
Item Topic Description of SMP Review Element/Approach Rationale
G. Priority Aquatic
Environment
Review allowed activities given purpose of environment.
Review in relation to Aquatic Environment.
Ensure consistency of
uses allowed.
H. 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
1. 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 32. Periodic Review Checklist Items Under Review for Consistency
Item Topic Rationale
2. 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.
3. 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.
If Jefferson County is not interested in finfish netpens,
no problem. However, if the county wants to keep this
door open for this type of aquaculture, then it should
review the 4 possible siting locations found in the SMP.
For example, most of the Port Ludlow site is already
occupied by the marina. Outside of the marina is a
very active anchorage. Why is this even suggested as
a site when it clearly is inappropriate? What is the
effluent from the paper mill like? Is the water hot or
does it have contaminants? Do you really want to
raise food fish adjacent to a very large industrial mill?
Who is going to want to put netpens out in the
exposed strait and in the kelp beds out there? The
only site in my opinion that seems reasonable is the
Mats Mats site.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 6
Item Topic Rationale
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 43. Periodic Review Checklist Optional Amendments
Row Topic Rationale
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 7
Row Topic Rationale
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. 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.
17. 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).
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 8
Row Topic Rationale
18. 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 54. Issues Not Recommended to be Included in Scope
19. Row Topic Rationale
20. 2019 a - OFM adjusted the cost threshold for
building freshwater docks
No action required
21. 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
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 9
19. Row Topic Rationale
25. 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.
26. 2012 a - The Legislature amended the SMA to clarify
SMP appeal procedures.
No action required – the statutory & rule
requirements apply regardless of SMP
inclusion.
27. 2010 a - The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act – Shoreline Management Act
clarifications.
SMP adopted well after 2010 and no
known clarifications are needed.
28. 2009 c - The Legislature added moratoria authority
and procedures to the SMA.
No action required – the statutory
provisions apply regardless of SMP
inclusion.
29. 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
30. 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
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 10
Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Comments
[Insert survey summary here when complete.]
DRAFT October 2 / 7, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 11
Appendix B: Task Force Membership
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 – Taylor Shellfish, 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
1
Lisa Grueter
From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:26 AM
To:Lisa Grueter
Cc:David Wayne Johnson
Subject:FW: scoping document comments
Attachments:SMP Scoping Document.pdf; ATT00001.htm
FYI
From: RON <rrempel2@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:18 AM
To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: scoping document comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking
links, especially from unknown senders.
Here are my comments on the scoping document
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
The following are my comments regarding the Shoreline Master Program Periodic
Review 2020, Draft Scoping Document
Exhibit 1
C Climate change and sea level rise
Option 2 seems to be most protective of our local environment and would
proactively address factors affecting our shorelines in the future. The projected sea
level rise that should be addressed for permanent structures/revetments/shoreline
armoring, etc. should be 50 years plus the number of years until the next update.
Based on the CUPs identified on the interactive map, this will only affect 3-5 projects
during the next review cycle but would help avoid an unanticipated need for new
shoreline armoring associated with those permits over the next 50+ years.
D. Marine trades and economic development
Include a note that this issue needs to also be addressed in the comprehensive plan
to be effective
E. Boat Launches
Insert “public” after new
Exhibit 2
No comments
Exhibit 3
17- Option to reclassify some structures as conforming
What are the consequences of doing this in regards to the Jefferson Co. SMP? The
SMP and our discussions seem to use non-conforming parcels and non-conforming
structures interchangeably. If a project gets a CUP, etc. is the new structure
considered conforming since they complied with the permit requirements or does it
continue to be classified as non-conforming? Is any structure on a non-conforming
parcel considered non-conforming or only those structures that are within or
extend into the 150’ buffer. Based on looking at many residences, most owners don’t
consider uses landward of permitted structures –pathways, gazebos, lawns, decks
etc. to be a non-conforming use and in fact don’t think the SMP applies to those
areas. Should the SMP be cleaned-up in this regard or should the County just accept
that landward of existing buildings will generally be managed as desired by the
landowner. Would changing the definition of an existing legally build structure
create the opportunity to fix the problem of unenforced and probably unenforceable
violations of the SMP?
Shoreline Master Program Docket/Code Interpretations
1. Non-conforming uses/development clarification
What is the current issue DCD is trying to fix with this item? The scoping document
should state it clearly so we can have an informed discussion.
6. Parcel 921000001
On the County’s Tax Parcel Viewer, this is lumped with parcel 921063013 which
shows it as Jefferson County land. Does the parcel map attribute file for this parcel
need to be cleaned up along with giving it a shoreline designation since it is not
federal land? What designation is DCD proposing for this area since it is heavily used
by the public and includes public recreation facilities.
10. Revise nonconforming lot definition … lot depth instead of lot size.
Will using depth vs. size create multiple definitions of nonconforming within
different portions Jefferson County codes? What are the consequences of doing
this?
24. Lateral expansions
What is DCD specifically trying to accomplish with the proposed language change?
25. Non-conforming expansion
This proposes using the term “footprint” instead of foundation walls to define
existing development. Currently site plan requirements do not require the
identification of “footprint” nor do any of the plan submittal requirements. This
seems to create a new requirement for other codes without a clear definition that
can be practically implemented. How will walkways and driveways be addressed in
this context. if an expansion of a building is proposed on an existing driveway (they
are considered impervious surfaces for building purposes) would the expansion be
considered as within the footprint? This may be opening a can or worms.
28. Defining “active use”
Is DCD trying to segregate “active” uses from ”passive uses’? What does DCD
propose parameters that will be used for an environmental impact filter to
differentiate between “active” and other uses. Will it include areal extent, location
and temporal factors?
35. Habitat Management Plan substituted for planting plan.
The contents of a Habitat Management Plan is specified in the Critical Areas
Ordinance and the development of one consistent with those requirements is time
consuming and costly, potentially months and $3000-$10,000 depending on the
parcel size (not necessarily the project size) and the amount of fluff it includes. I
define fluff as needless descriptions of irrelevant species and their
habitats/ecological niches. An example is a discussion of the biology and habitats of
the ferruginous hawk (a grassland steppe species, primarily an eastern Washington
species) in a Habitat Management Plan for a Jefferson County SMP CUP.
In trying to understand the HMP vs planting plan issue better I selected three
different projects from the SMP permit interactive map cross referenced them to the
County’s Parcel Map Viewer. I then reviewed the permitting documents for the three
projects primarily focusing on the mitigation requirements. The three I reviewed
were: SDP19-00011 (approximately 800 square feet of disturbed vegetation
landward of an existing structure); SDP16-00025 (75 square feet of disturbed
vegetation and bare ground lateral to the shoreline) and SDP19-00004 (15 square
feet of impact, primarily Himalayan blackberry along the low bluff).
For SDP19-00004, the no net loss mitigation requirement was the planting was 20-1
gallon native shrubs in a 15 square foot area. Annual performance criteria (survival
but not growth) were specified for five years.
For SDP16-00025 the no net loss mitigation requirement was planting 17 native
shrubs in a 150 square foot area. The revegetation requirements were specified as
voluntary and there were no performance criteria.
For SDP19-00004 the mitigation requirement was the planting of 140 shrubs and 8
trees in two depicted but un-quantified areas with existing vegetation. No
performance criteria were specified but the report alluded to there being some kind
of performance criteria.
As a professional biologist with over 50 years of experience formulating, reviewing
approving and implementing restoration plans for hundreds of thousands of acres
of habitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive and general interest wildlife species,
the plans associated with the above SDPs were likely costly to the landowner, poorly
thought out and/or expressed in the document but probably fairly cheap to
implement. Where monitoring was required, it likely cost over time more than it di
to do the plantings. Requiring planting plans include the required elements in the
CAO or be called out as Habitat Management Plans (with the required contents) will
not result in improved mitigation but will surely increase their cost.
I would be happy to work with DCD and other biologists/botanists to develop
standards for planting plans that make ecological and economic sense. More pages
of paper does not equal better restoration/environmental outcomes. Seldom do
species, ecological functions and ecological/habitat values benefit from more permit
paperwork. They actually benefit from improved conditions on the ground.