Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2020 PC Agenda PacketJefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Virtual Meeting (no in-person attendance allowed per Gov. Inslee’s Proclamation 20-28) Phone-in information located at the bottom of this agenda December 2, 2020 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Regular Meeting 5:30pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation • Call to Order/Roll Call • Approval of Agenda • Approval of previous Meeting Minutes • Planning Commissioner Updates • Director’s Update 5:35pm Observer Comment See Observer Comment Conduct, below. Regular Meeting Business • Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Update – SMP Draft Revision ................................................................... David Wayne Johnson • Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle Update/ Review and Process Schedule ................................................... David Wayne Johnson 6:30pm Adjournment Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! Observer Comment Conduct: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is … 1) An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; 2) Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time; 3) Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; 4) May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. Virtual Meeting Phone-in Information: You can dial in using your phone by calling: +1 (646) 749-3122; Access Code: 883-126-605 Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Virtual Meeting (no in-person attendance allowed per Gov. Inslee’s Proclamation 20-28) November 4, 2020 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Regular Business 5:30 pm Welcome (chair) and Overview Presentation  Call to Order/Roll Call District 1 District 2 District 3 Alen: Present Coker: Present Koan: Present Sircely: Unexcused Smith: Excused Richert: Present Hull: Present Nilssen: Present Llewelyn: Unexcused  Approval of previous Meeting Minutes  Minutes for 09-16-2020 were approved. 6 yays; 0 nays; 0 abstentions. Motions Motion # Motion 1st 2nd Yay Nay Abstain 1 I move to appoint Mike Nilssen as acting Chair Smith Nilssen 5 0 0 2 I move to approve the 09-16-2020 minutes. Koan Alen 6 0 0 Observer Comment The Chair opened the floor to public comment and no one spoke. Regular Business  Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update – Task Force Scoping Documents Update/Review .......................................................................... David Wayne Johnson  Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle – 2020 Final Docket  Update/Review and Process Schedule .............. Linda Paralez, David Wayne Johnson 6:36 pm Adjournment  The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 11/18/2020 at 5:30 pm virtually using gotomeeting.com. These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2020. Richard Hull, Chair Nicole Allen, PC Secretary/DCD Office Coordinator Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 1 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 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 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Prepared By Jurisdiction Date draft Jefferson County 11/25/2020 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. Per Ecology, consider the expanded language at WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) with the more explicit citation to RCW 77.55.181. Change proposed to cross reference 173-27-040(2)(p). Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 3 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 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. Ecology suggests changing value or changing to citation; approach up to County but Ecology would require a change. Change proposed to add new value. 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 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 4 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to this program at any state of water level.” 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. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 5 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action (iii) WSDOT facility maintenance and safety improvements. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.356, Washington State Department of 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. 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 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. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 6 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 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 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 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 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 7 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action transmitted by the Department of Ecology to the county and the applicant/proponent. [Ord. 7- 13 Exh. A (Art. X § 17)]” e. Ecology amended forestry use regulations to clarify that forest practices that only involves timber cutting are not SMA “developments” and do not require SDPs. JCC 18.25.460 Forest Practices Regulation #4.b. “Except as provided in subsections (4)(c) and (d) of this section, timber 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.” No action required. 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 a development under the act and may require a substantial development permit, as required by WAC 222-50-020. Change added to draft SMP revisions. 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 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: Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 8 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 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 lands may fall within the external boundaries of federally owned lands (Footnote1)*. *Wording from WAC 173-27- 060(3). 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. 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. g. Ecology clarified “default” provisions for nonconforming uses and development. JCC 18.25.660 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. 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. 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. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 9 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 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. 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. Optional text revision for clarity to add example language: The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. b. Ecology updated wetlands critical areas guidance including implementation guidance for the 2014 wetlands rating system. 18.25.060: SMP adopts critical areas regulations by reference (as of date of adoption) with some exceptions. JCC adequately reflects the most current technical guidance. • JCC 18.22.710Hi (1) references RCW 36.70A.175 regarding federal manual. • JCC 18.22.710 (2) references 2014 manual – determine if edit need since SMP references CAO. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 10 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action • JCC Buffers in Table 18.22.730(1)(a) matches Ecology CAO comment letter 1/21/20 page 2. • Buffer reduction criteria JCC Table 18.22.730(1)(b) matches Ecology CAO comment letter 1/21/20 page 4. 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. 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 & No action required. Optional text revision to sync up terms used and Definitions with RCW 90.58.270. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 11 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action accessory structures), in both 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. 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions. 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, No action required – the statutory & rule requirements apply regardless of SMP inclusion. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 12 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 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 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. 18.25.060: SMP adopts critical areas regulations by reference (as of date of adoption) with some exceptions. See 2016 b. 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 18.25.220 and -440 have been revised to require a CUP for new commercial geoduck aquaculture and to add supporting regulations governing commercial geoduck aquaculture per WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(ii-iv) Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 13 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action JCC 18.25.440 Aquaculture. General Regulations 4.a-f apply, including: • initial siting/planting SDP 5- yr limit + 1-yr extension; • 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 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 14 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action character of those areas are effectively mitigated.” c. The Legislature created a new definition and policy for floating homes permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011. See 2014.a above See 2014.a above 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) Change added. 2010 a. The Legislature adopted Growth Management Act – Shoreline Management Act clarifications. No action required 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. Change added to draft SMP revisions - see new section JCC 18.25.605. b. Ecology adopted a rule for certifying wetland mitigation banks. Referenced potential for wetland mitigation bank in SMP at JCC 18.25.270 (h). Fee in lieu is rereferenced in CAO. Language in JCC 18.25.270(2)(h) meets the Ecology requirement; it could be improved by adding the Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 15 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action word ‘certified’ (i.e., …certified 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 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. The adopted SMP definition is similar to Ecology example language Option 1. Made edits to be identical. 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 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 16 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 Row Summary of change Review Action 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. Two example formats: SMP section Summary of change Review Action County-Proposed Edits: SMP Task Force SMP Section Summary of change Discussion 18.25.660 (8) (9) (10) Task Force A: 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. Result: Removed some CUP limitations on beach access structures. Table 18.25.220, 18.25.350 Task Force B: Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other 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 Clarify SMP. Allow best practices that minimize environmental impact. Address regulatory reform. Result: Shifted buoys from CUP to SDP in SR and C environments. Minimally addressed eelgrass and proposed limit on number of buoys per residential lot to two (DNR allows second buoy to help secure moorage to first buoy). Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 17 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 SMP Section Summary of change Discussion between areas with eelgrass patches and full eelgrass coverage. Consider appropriate number or density of buoys. 18.25.120, 18.25.180, 18.25.190, 18.25.300, 18.25.410(5)(e), 18.25.430, 18.25.520 Task Force C: 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. Result: Most Comprehensive Plan policies added into SMP. Opportunity to request a CUP to add height in response to sea-level rise. Added policy on retreat, accommodate, and protect. Table 18.25.220, 18.25.450 Task Force 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. Result: Reviewed current use matrix; most uses addressed appropriately. Also see edits to bouys and launches. Also added reference to maritime trades definition and maritime education/training as a scientific and educational activity subject to commercial standards. Table 18.25.220, 18.25.350 Task Force E: Encourage development of new public boat launches and improvement of existing boat launches in SMP. Lack of boat launches, condition of existing. Result: Changed CUP to P for public boat launches in Conservancy. This should assist with new launches and modifications/expansions/improvements of existing launches. After conversation with WDFW, added reference to WAC design standards to be used to extent feasible. 18.25.250 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. Result: Addressed policy updates which should apply to all permits. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 18 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 County Proposed SMP Edits: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion 18.25.660 Non-conforming uses/development clarification Clarify with revised definition of nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100. 18.25.270(4)(a)(i) SMP/Critical Area clarification This subsection was intended to mean that critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22 are to be used, but where there are discrepancies (such as those pertaining to buffers, nonconforming development, etc.), then the SMP prevails. Clarify how the SMP subsections pertaining to critical areas interact with critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22. Shoreline Designations for State Parks Review all shoreline designations for State Parks considering designation (conservancy or natural) and shoreline access for conditions and revise where warranted. 18.25.440(4)(d) References subsection (3)(c), but reference for interference should be (4)(c). Change reference to (3)(c) to (4)(c)(i) 18.25.620 & .630 JCC 18.25.630(18) & (19) should be in 18.25.620 as (7) and (8) Move subsections (18) & (19) of 18.25.630 to 18.25.620 and re-number as subsections (7) & (8) Parcel #921000001 on Indian Island is State DNR Land, but does not have a shoreline designation. Appears to have been lumped in with N/A for Federal Exempt Lands. SMP considers Conservancy a default when an area is undesignated. Anticipate collecting information per WAC to assign designation of Conservancy. 18.25.210(3) Clarify that west end rivers are aquatic below OHWM Review and revise where warranted. JCC 18.25.100(19)(w)(i),(ii) and (iv) and JCC 18.25.240 Definition of Shoreline of Statewide Significance are duplicates in JCC 18.25.100(19)(w)(i) and (ii). JC 18.25.100(19)(vii) refers to both (i)and (ii), should ensure the correct subsections are reflected. Delete subsection 18.25.100(w)(ii) and re- number subsequent subsections. Delete reference to (ii) in subsection (vii) (to be new subsection (vi) after re-numbering). Shorelines of statewide significance should be verbatim from WAC 18.25.440(4)(e): 'not' is consistent with (4)(c) and reference change Aquaculture: clarify when a SDP is needed. Review in concert with SMP Periodic Review Checklist. Consider deleting reference to (1) from (4)e to just read (b). Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 19 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion from (1)(b) to say (4)(b) Delete text "or conditional use permit (CUP)" 18.25.100(14)(h), and possibly 18.25.270(5)(a) and (b) Revise nonconforming lot definition from "…minimum lot size…" to "minimum lot depth…", and check how it is used relative to the modest home provision and the common line buffer. Clarify with revised definition of nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100. Change the text "size" to "depth." Incorporate Code Interpretation regarding non-conforming lot if warranted. 18.25.410 Clarify that the applicant must demonstrate erosion from wave energy to approve soft shore stabilization; also, revise policies to include soft shore stabilization. Add soft shore stabilization regulations. Geotechnical report should suffice. 18.25.560(15), (16), and (17) Revise watershed restoration exemptions to be consistent with state law. Exemptions 15 and 17 are definitions, not exemptions. Clarify that exemption 16 has no shoreline permitting fee, per RCW 90.58.515. Revise 18.25.560 Exemptions to consolidate subsections (15), (16) & (17). 18.25.270 Specify report requirements for NNL; consider referencing requirements for CAO report requirements in 18.22. Consultant recommendations: A stand- alone NNL report is not necessary. If desired, it could be limited to CUPs and Variances – and then it should focus on the specific ecological effects, if any (and how they are mitigated), of the conditional use or variance beyond those that would have resulted either without the variance or from another allowed/non-CUP use. The CUP and Variance criteria require applicants to demonstrate no adverse effects, which appears to address NNL. Otherwise, compliance with the SMP, including the mitigation sequencing provisions, should satisfy NNL as was demonstrated in the original Cumulative Impacts Analysis. 18.25.440((4)(b)(i) Clarify area included in 25% increase for both in-water and above OHWM development. Add text, "This applies to both in-water and above OHWM development." Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 20 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) has wrong code reference to flood regulations. Change text reference in JCC 18.25.410(5)(c)(iii) from "JCC 18.30.070" to "JCC 15.15." JCC 18.25.410(6)(h) Review if text should reference fewer than 4 residential lots as it would otherwise be inconsistent. Change text reference in JCC 18.25.410(6)(h) from "more" to "less." Provide guidance on requirements and/or evaluating aesthetic reports. Add text to 18.25.440(6)(b) "including what views in the vicinity would be altered or obstructed and propose measures to reduce impacts," after "aesthetic qualities of the shoreline." JCC 18.25.650 Why is section is silent on notices for Type II permits, but spells out process on Type I and III permits? Add text "II &" to 18.25.650(1)(b) "Type III project permit…". Permit procedures should reference other processes in UDC and not duplicate or create new. JCC 18.25.300(2)(b) Side yard setback language is confusing. SMP does not establish side yard setbacks, and JCC 18.30 does not identify side yard setbacks based off of zoning which makes it confusing for in water. Replace text in 18.25.300(2)(b), "Five feet of the total required side yard setbacks may be provided on one side and the balance on the other side," with, "The standard side yard setback is five feet." Review for consistency with zoning. JCC 18.25.620 Unclear if C(a) permit and SSDP requires a Type III process. What is the process for stand-alone SSDP (yes use, but SSDP required)? JCC 18.25.620(3) & (4) are clear that C(a) and C(d) are processed as Type IIs. Add new subsection that SDPs shall be processed as a Type I permit. Delete text "substantial development permits and," from 18.25.620(2). Re-number existing subsections to include new subsection. JCC 18.25.100 Consider adding in definitions in for waterward and lateral as associated with implementing code language. Add definition under 18.25.100(12) for "Lateral," to define expansion in relation to the OHWM. JCC 18.25.310 Provide clarification on vegetation maintenance requirements and how it is applicable to clearing for new development, such as a single family residence, or just for views. Delete "new" from 18.25.310(2)(d). JCC 18.25.270(4)(l) Revise CASP from a Type III to a Type I process and when it is used in shoreline jurisdiction - current language is awkward. Replace text of last sentence in 18.25.270(4)(l) to read, "such buffer modification shall require a Type I Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 21 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion Substantial Development Permit (SDP).” Address consistency with CAO. JCC 18.25.660(9) Clarify if non-conforming lateral expansion is a C(a) or a C(d) Replace text in 18.25.660(9) that reads, "with a Conditional Use Permit," to read," with a Type I Substantial Development Permit (SDP)" JCC 18.25.660 Non-conforming expansion: change foundation walls to roof line to (8) and (10), and consider adding similar roof line language to (9). Revise text in 18.25.660(8)(b) that reads, "beyond the existing structures' foundation walls," to read, " beyond the structures' legally permitted development footprint." Add revised text above to 18.25.660(9), and revise same to 18.25.660(10)(a). JCC 18.25.270(5) Clarify that expansions to existing residential development can use the modest home provisions; not just new SFR development. Delete the text "New" under 18.25.270(5)(a). JCC 18.25.600; possibly, JCC 18.25.100(3)(q) Clarify if an unclassified conditional use is a C, C(a), or C(d). If it is determined to be a C (i.e., Type III), then the CUP definition in JCC 18.25.100(3)(q) needs to be revised. If there is no C (Type III) in the shoreline regulations, that should be clarified in JCC 18.25.600. Revise text in 18.25.600 that reads, "may be authorized as conditional uses…" to read, "may be authorized as a Discretionary Conditional Use "C(d)" permit, provided…" JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) Need to add a definition for "active use" within the shoreline buffer. Create definition for "active use" in 18.25.100(1) JCC 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) Revise to say …common-line buffer, if applicable... Addition text to 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) to read, "common-line buffer, if applicable; and" JCC 18.25.440(4)(d) Change reference from 3(c) to 4(c) (page 18-168.26) Replace "(3)" in 18.25.440(4)(d) to "(4)." JCC 18.25.340(2) and (4)(j) These two sections contradict each other. If new beach access is prohibited in marine feeder bluffs, why would it be allowed if the project is shown not to adversely affect? Possibly the intent is to allow these structures on feeder bluffs if geotech Redefine "feeder bluff" under 18.25.100(6)(d). Delete subsections 18.25.340(2) and (4)(d)(ii). Revisit the prohibitions for feeder bluffs. Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist 22 July 2019 Jefferson County | Draft | November 25, 2020 SMP Section Summary of Change Discussion says there is no adverse impact. 340(2) is too restrictive. JCC 18.25.270(4)e(iii) Clarify if all streams requires a 150- foot buffer in all shoreline environments or if it is only those identified as "shorelines" in 90.58 RCW (>20cfs) Shoreline buffers apply to S type streams only. Add text to 18.25.270(4)(e)(iii) to read "Stream/River (mean annual flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second) Shores." Similarly, added note to clarify lakes 20 acres or larger have shoreline buffers. JCC 18.25.310(2)(d) Maintenance trimming seems to only be allowed for "new" shoreline uses. Should also extend to existing uses. Delete the text "new" under 18.25.310(2)(d). JCC 18.25.560 and Appurtenance definitions Exempt ADU's as appurtenances. Add the text "Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)," to 18.25.100(1)(aa). City of Bonney Lake is doing this for example. JCC 18.25.660(8) & (9) JCC 18.25.660(8)(9) planting plan needs to be more explicit re: if a habitat management plan by a biologist is required. Define what is needed in a "planting plan" in subsections 18.25.660(8) & (9).Clarify planting plan related to other SMP standards and definitions with attention to regulatory reform to address implementation needs and avoid unnecessary paperwork and expense. Other: Staff discussions and clarifications In limited locations flagged in corresponding SMP edits, made clarifications to respond to staff experience and questions regarding implementation. Various. DRAFT November 24, 2020 1 Example Sea Level Rise Policies and Procedures DRAFT November 17, 2020 | Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Update Sea Level Rise Procedures KING COUNTY King County established a Sea Level Rise Risk Area for Vashon-Maury Island as part of its 2020 update to its Comprehensive Plan. The County provides minimum construction standards for all new, substantially improved, or converted buildings within the County’s designated Sea Level Rise Risk Area (21A.23 Sea Level Rise Risk Area). The code also allows the director to approve variances based on thirteen considerations, including current and future risks from sea level rise conditions anticipated to occur over the next fifty years. County code also requires provision of notice to an applicant for new development or redevelopment located within the shoreline jurisdiction on Vashon and Maury Island that the development may be impacted by sea level rise (SLR) (21A.25.170.M Shoreline stabilization). The notice will recommend that the applicant voluntarily consider setting the development back further than required by this title to allow for future sea level rise. ISLAND COUNTY In March 2020, Island County published a Sea Level Rise Strategy Study developed with the support of graduate students. The report includes a Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook to assist property owners in understanding SLR projections, assessing risk to individual sites, choosing from a toolbox of approaches, and planning for SLR as a neighborhood or community. A series of worksheets include guidance for identifying community values, assets, level of vulnerability, and risk tolerance. Island County’s approach focuses on encouraging and facilitating individual property owners to opt in to SLR adaptations, rather than codifying specific procedures. The report notes: “Given the absence of local government regulation or actionable guidance related to sea level rise adaptation, and the fact that the majority of developed shoreline properties in Island County are privately owned, property owner interest in the preservation of local community assets and values is the impetus for coastal resilience planning. As part of an ongoing initiative to address sea level rise, the Island County Department of Planning and Community Development embarked on an effort to identify ways to encourage property owners in vulnerable areas of the county to engage in planning processes to improve community resilience.” DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 2 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND Bainbridge Island’s 2016 Climate Impact Assessment provides a series of questions to guide decision-making for SLR-based adaptations to land use, water resources, environment, infrastructure, economic development, housing, and social services. Sample questions include: ▪ Are there particular land uses that are likely to be impacted more directly or to a greater extent by climate changes? What special planning considerations can and should be made for these? ▪ If we seek to preserve working waterfronts, will climate change alter conditions so that they can’t function? ▪ If wetland was set aside, will it be wetland in the future? ▪ Are we allowing space for migrating species and habitats? In response to the 2016 assessment, Bainbridge developed a Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool (CCAC), published in December 2018. The CCAC requires evidence that proposed projects are assessed by their future site operating conditions and determined climate readiness, including the avoidance of projected vulnerabilities. The CCAC is applied to any decision that uses public funds, has a life cycle of greater than five years, and can impact public good, such as fiscal expenditures, capital planning, permitting, and infrastructure design and siting. The assessment addresses several factors of climate change beyond sea level rise, including ocean acidification, slope stability, greenhouse gas emissions, and temperature changes. The CCAC process includes three steps, illustrated in Exhibit 1. The SLR portion of the assessment asks property owners to identify if any of the following issues could affect the project over its lifetime and to assess local SLR projections, as illustrated in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 2 Exhibit 1. CCAC Assessment Pathway Source: Bainbridge Island, 2018. DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 2 Exhibit 2. SLR Section of Step 1 of the Bainbridge Island CCAC Assessment Source: Bainbridge Island, 2018. Exhibit 3. SLR Section of Step 2 of the Bainbridge Island CCAC Assessment Source: Bainbridge Island, 2018. DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 2 Retreat, Accommodation, and Protection Policies A 1990 report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established three response categories to protect human life and property from SLR: retreat, accommodation, and protection. Exhibit 4 illustrates the IPCC’s definitions of the three categories. The report also lays out the environmental, economic, sociocultural, legal, and institutional implications of all three response categories. Exhibit 4. IPCC Definitions of Retreat, Accommodation, and Protection Retreat involves no effort to protect the land from the sea. The coastal zone is abandoned and ecosystems shift landward. Accommodation implies that people continue to use the land at risk but do not attempt to prevent the land from being flooded. This option includes erecting emergency flood shelters, elevating buildings on piles, converting agriculture to fish farming, or growing flood- or salt-tolerant crops Protection involves hard structures such as seawalls and dikes, as well as soft solutions such as dunes and vegetation, to protect the land from the sea so that existing land uses can continue. Source: IPCC, 1990. Several subsequent reports build on the IPCC retreat-accommodation-protection framework. In 2019, Marjolijn Haasnoot et al. published a paper that provides example response pathways for different types of coastlines, using a combination of retreat, accommodation, and protection strategies. Exhibit 5 illustrates four of these pathways. In the exhibit, the colored boxes represent adaptation actions, the length of the boxes represent the interval of sea-level rise for which the adaptation measure is effective, and the horizontal axis is a measurement of sea level rise. The axis is time-independent to avoid reference to a specific sea level rise prediction. Exhibit 5. Adaptation Pathways for Four Coastal Archetypes Source: Marjolijn Haasnoot et al, 2019. DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 2 ISLAND COUNTY Island County’s Sea Level Rise Strategy described in the previous section uses the IPCC protect-accommodate- retreat framework to categorize SLR adaptation strategies, as illustrated in DRAFT November 24, 2020 7 Exhibit 6. The County recommends strategies based on four primary factors: Community types: historic beaches, canals, and feeder bluffs. Three timeframe designations: short-term (now-2050), mid-term (2050-2070), and long-term (2070-2100). Permissibility. Scale. DRAFT November 24, 2020 8 Exhibit 6. Island County Protect-Accommodate-Retreat Matrix of Best Practices DRAFT November 24, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program 9 Source: Island County, 2020. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 1/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Sections: Article I. Introduction 18.25.010 Purpose and intent. 18.25.020 Applicability. 18.25.030 Governing principles of this master program. 18.25.040 Title. 18.25.050 Adoption authority. 18.25.060 Critical areas regulations adopted by reference. 18.25.070 Relationship to other plans and regulations. 18.25.080 Liberal construction. 18.25.090 Severability. Article II. Definitions 18.25.100 Definitions. Article III. Master Program Goals 18.25.110 Purpose. 18.25.120 Conservation. 18.25.130 Economic development. 18.25.140 Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. 18.25.150 Public access. 18.25.160 Recreation. 18.25.170 Restoration and enhancement. 18.25.180 Shoreline use. 18.25.190 Transportation, utilities and essential public facilities. Article IV. Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations 18.25.200 Shoreline jurisdiction and mapping. 18.25.210 Shoreline environment designations – Purpose and criteria. 18.25.220 Uses allowed in each shoreline environment designation. Article V. Shorelines of Statewide Significance 18.25.230 Adoption of policy. 18.25.240 Designation of shorelines of statewide significance. 18.25.250 Use preference. Article VI. General Policies and Regulations 18.25.260 Applicability. 18.25.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection. 18.25.280 Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. 18.25.290 Public access. 18.25.300 Shoreline setbacks and height. 18.25.310 Vegetation conservation. 18.25.320 Water quality and quantity. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 2/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Article VII. Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations 18.25.330 Applicability – Purpose. 18.25.340 Beach access structures. 18.25.350 Boating facilities – Boat launches, docks, piers, floats, lifts, marinas, and mooring buoys. 18.25.360 Dredging. 18.25.370 Filling and excavation. 18.25.380 Flood control structures. 18.25.390 In-stream structures. 18.25.400 Restoration. 18.25.410 Structural shoreline armoring and shoreline stabilization. Article VIII. Use-Specific Policies and Regulations 18.25.420 Purpose. 18.25.430 Agriculture. 18.25.440 Aquaculture. 18.25.450 Commercial use. 18.25.460 Forest practices. 18.25.470 Industrial and port development. 18.25.480 Mining. 18.25.490 Recreation. 18.25.500 Residential. 18.25.510 Signs. 18.25.520 Transportation. 18.25.530 Utilities. Article IX. Permit Criteria and Exemptions 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria. 18.25.550 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process. 18.25.560 Exemptions listed. 18.25.570 Statements of exemption. 18.25.580 Variance permit criteria. 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria. 18.25.600 Unclassified uses. Article X. Administration and Enforcement 18.25.610 Administrative authority and responsibility. 18.25.620 Permit application review. 18.25.630 Minimum permit application requirements. 18.25.640 Preapplication conferences. 18.25.650 Notice of application and permit application review. 18.25.660 Nonconforming development. 18.25.665 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance. 18.25.670 Burden of proof. 18.25.680 Permit conditions. 18.25.690 Public hearings. 18.25.700 Expiration of permits and permit exemptions. 18.25.710 Permits and permit exemptions – Effective date. 18.25.720 Satisfaction of conditions required prior to occupancy or use. 18.25.730 Revisions following expiration of original permit or permit exemption. 18.25.740 Extensions – Notice to Ecology. 18.25.750 Notice of decision, reconsideration and appeal. 18.25.760 Initiation of development. 18.25.770 Permit revisions. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 3/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.780 Rescission and modification. 18.25.790 Violations and penalties. 18.25.800 Remedies. 18.25.810 Abatement. 18.25.820 Third-party review. 18.25.830 Inspections. 18.25.840 Master program amendments. 18.25.850 Fees. 18.25.860 Transfer of permits. Article XI. Official Shoreline Map 18.25.870 Official shoreline map. Article I. Introduction 18.25.010 Purpose and intent. (1) The purposes of this shoreline master program are to: (a) Guide the future use and development of Jefferson County’s shorelines in a positive, effective, and equitable manner consistent with the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 197 1 (Chapter 90.58 RCW) as amended; and (b) Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by providing long range, comprehensive policies and effective, reasonable regulations for use and development of Jefferson County shorelines; and (c) Ensure, at minimum, no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes; and (d) Plan for restoring shorelines that have been impaired or degraded in the past; and (e) Adhere to the policies contained in RCW 90.58.020 for shorelines of the state: It is the policy of the State to provide for the management of the shorelines of the State by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner, which, while al lowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the State and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto... In the implementation of this policy the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the State shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the State and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and preventi on of damage to the natural environment or are unique to or dependent upon use of the State’s shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the State, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single fam ily residences, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the State, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the State, and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the State. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the State shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public’s use of the water. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 1)] Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 4/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.020 Applicability. (1) All proposed uses and development, as defined in Article II of this chapter, occurring within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with this program and Chapter 90.58 RCW. This program applies to all uses and developments within shoreline jurisdiction whether or n ot a shoreline permit or statement of permit exemption is required. (2) This program’s shoreline uses and developments shall be classified as follows: (a) Permitted Uses and Developments. Uses and developments that are consistent with this program and Chapter 90.58 RCW. Such uses/developments shall require a shoreline substantial development permit, a shoreline conditional use permit, a shoreline variance, and/or a statement that the use/development is exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit. (b) Prohibited Uses and Developments. Uses and developments that are inconsistent with this program and/or Chapter 90.58 RCW and which cannot be allowed through any permit or variance. (3) Classification of a use or development as permitted does not neces sarily mean the use/development is allowed. It means the use/development may be permitted subject to review and approval by the county and/or the Department of Ecology. Many permitted uses/developments, including those that do not require a substantial dev elopment permit, can individually or cumulatively affect adjacent properties and/or natural resources and therefore must comply with this program in order to avoid or minimize such adverse impacts. The county may attach conditions of approval to any permitted use via a permit or statement of exemption as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Shoreline Management Act and this program. (4) This program shall apply to: (a) All of the lands and waters of Jefferson County that fall under the ju risdiction 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 lands may fall within the external boundaries of federally owned lands1. (5) Federal agencies are subject to this program and Chapter 90.58 RCW, as provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. and WAC 173-27-060(1)). (6) The provisions of this program shall not apply to lands held in trust by the United States for Indian Nations, tribes or individuals. Where tribal concerns are expressed in relation to SMP jurisdiction, those shall be resolved through appropriate government to government consultation in accordance with Washington State Centennial Accord and the RCW. (7) 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. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 2)] 18.25.030 Governing principles of this master program. (1) The goals, policies and regulations of this program are based on the governing principles in WAC 173 -26-186 and the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020. (2) Any inconsistencies between this program and Chapter 90.58 RCW must be resolved in accordance with the RCW. (3) The planning policies of this program may be achieved by diverse means, one of which is regulation. The county may also acquire land, implement capital projects and programs, encourage voluntary measures, c reate incentive programs, or use other means to implement this program’s planning policies. Commented [LG1]: 2017 f Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 5/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (4) When regulating use and development of private property, the county’s actions must be consistent with all relevant legal limitations including constitutional li mitations. This program must not unconstitutionally infringe on private property rights or result in an unconstitutional taking of private property. (5) The regulatory provisions of this program are limited to shorelines of the state, whereas the planning functions of this program may extend beyond shoreline jurisdiction. (6) The policies and regulations of this program must be integrated and coordinated with the policies and rules of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and its impl ementing development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). (7) The policies and regulations of this program are intended to protect shoreline ecological functions by: (a) Requiring that current and potential ecological functions be identified and understood when evaluating new uses and developments. (b) Requiring adverse impacts to be mitigated in a manner that ensures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Mitigation, as defined in Article II of this chapter, sha ll include avoiding first, then minimizing, and then replacing/compensating for lost functions and/or resources. (c) Ensuring that all uses and developments, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from a shoreline substantial development permit, will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (d) Preventing, to the greatest extent practicable, cumulative impacts from individual developments. (e) Fairly allocating the burden of preventing cumulative impacts among development opportuni ties. (f) Including regulations and regulatory incentives to restore shoreline ecological functions where such functions have been degraded by past actions. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 3)] 18.25.040 Title. This document shall be known as the Jefferson Coun ty shoreline master program (“the master program” or “this program”). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 4)] 18.25.050 Adoption authority. This master program is adopted under the authority granted by Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173 -26 WAC. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 5)] 18.25.060 Critical areas regulations adopted by reference. (1) The Jefferson County critical areas regulations contained in Chapter 18.22 JCC are integral and applicable to this program, and are hereby adopted by reference, except that: (a) Nonconforming use and development within shoreline jurisdiction shall be subject to this program and not JCC 18.22.240. (b) Exceptions to critical area and buffer standards shall be allowed as described in Article VI (JCC 18.25.270(5)) of this program. (c) Activities that are exempt from critical areas regulation per JCC 18.22.230 shall comply with this program. Such activities may require a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit unless this pro gram and RCW 90.58.030(3)(e) specifically indicate the activity is exempt from shoreline substantial development permit requirements. This provision shall not apply to agricultural activities on agricultural lands , meeting the critical area exemption at JCC 18.22.230(4)(a), which are also exempt from both JCC 18.22.230 and this program pursuant to RCW 90.58.065. (2) The provisions of Chapter 18.22 JCC shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. Commented [LG2]: 2016 b and 2011 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 6/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (3) Within shoreline jurisdiction, the regulations of Chapter 18.22 JCC shall be liberally construed together with this program to give full effect to the objectives and purposes of the provisions of th is program and Chapter 90.58 RCW. (4) All references to the critical areas ordinance are for the version adopted on March 17, 2008, as Ordinance No. 03-0317-08, and further amended on May 11, 2009, as Ordinance No. 06 -0511-09. (5) Ocean uses and activities conducted within Jefferson County’s and the state of Washington’s jurisdiction shall comply with Chapter 43.143 RCW (Ocean Resources Management Act) and WAC 173 -26-360 (Ocean Management). Nothing in this subsection is intended to expand or modify the appl icability of Chapter 43.143 RCW, WAC 173-26-360, or any subsections thereof, to ocean uses and activities not otherwise governed by those laws, administrative rules, or their subsections. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 6)] 18.25.070 Relationship to other plans and regulations. (1) Uses and developments regulated by this program may also be subject to other provisions of the JCC , the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC), and other local, state and federal laws. (2) Project proponents are responsible for complying with all applicable laws pri or to commencing any use, development or activity. (3) Where this program makes reference to any RCW, WAC, or other state or federal law or regulation, the most recent amendment or current edition shall apply. (4) In the event this program conflicts with other applicable county policies or regulations, all regulations shall apply and unless otherwise stated, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. I § 7)] 18.25.080 Liberal construction. This program is exempt from the rule of strict construction; therefore this program shall be liberally construed to give full effect to its goals, policies and regulations. Liberal construction means that the interpretation of this document shall not only be based on the actual words and phrases used in it, but also by taking its deemed or stated purpose into account. Liberal construction means an interpretation that tends to effectuate the spirit and purpose of the writing. For purposes of this program, liberal construction means that the admini strator shall interpret the regulatory language of this program in relation to the broad policy statement of RCW 90.58.020, and make determinations which are in keeping with those policies as enacted by the Washington State Legislature. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. I § 8)] 18.25.090 Severability. If any section or provision of this program is declared invalid it shall not affect the validity of this program as a whole. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. I § 9)] Article II. Definitions 18.25.100 Definitions. These SMP definitions are derived from multiple sources. Definitions denoted with (*) are from this title. Definitions denoted with (**) are from Chapter 173 -26 WAC. Definitions denoted with (***) are from Chapter 90.58 RCW. Definitions denoted with (****) are from the previously adopted county SMP (this chapter) and/or the proposed but not adopted 2000 Draft SMP. Definitions with no asterisk are derived from other sources or represent the best professional judgment of the authors. (1) A Definitions. (a) *“Abandon” means to terminate the use of a structure by an affirmative act such as changing to a new use; or to cease, terminate, or vacate a use or structure through nonaction. Except for ongoing agricultural activities, there shall be a presumption that a use has been abandoned if it is not undertaken, utilized, implemented or performed for a period of two years from the date of cessation/termination or vacation. (b) *“Abutting” means adjoining with a common boundary line or any portion thereof. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 7/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) *“Accessory dwelling unit” means an additional dwelling unit either in or added to an existing single -family detached dwelling, or in a separate accessory structure on the same lot as the main structure, for use as a complete, independent living facility with provisions wi thin the accessory dwelling unit for cooking, eating, sanitation and sleeping. Such a dwelling shall be considered an accessory use to the main dwelling and be clearly subordinate to the main dwelling. (d) “Accessory structure” means any detached structure that is optional, incidental and subordinate to a primary use and located on the same lot as the primary use. Boathouses, barns, storage sheds, workshops, gazebos, docks, piers, floats, buoys, beach access structures and other similar structures are examp les that are typically accessory to a primary use. (e) *“Accessory use” means use of land or of a building or portion thereof incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located on the same lot with the principal use. Private moorage and other recr eational uses are examples of uses that are accessory to residential development. (f) ****“Accretion” means the slow addition of land by the deposition of water -borne sediment through the net effect of wave action and longshore drift. (g) **“Act” means the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.58 RCW) as amended. (x) “Active use” means lawn, pathway, garden/landscaping for the purposes of JCC 18.25.270. (h) *“Adequate” means acceptable but not excessive. (i) *“Adjacent” means (in addition to abutting) that which is near or close; for example, an industrial district across the road or highway from a commercial district shall be considered as adjacent. (j) *“Adjacent lands, shoreline” means lands adjacent to the shorelines of the state (outside of shoreline jurisdiction). See RCW 90.58.340. (k) *“Administrator” means the Jefferson County department of community development director or a designated representative. (l) *“Adverse impact or effect” means the result of a condition that creates, impose s, aggravates, or leads to inadequate, impractical, unsafe, or unhealthy conditions or reduces ecological functions or values. (m) ****“Advertising” means publicly displayed messages or signs, billboards, placards, or buildings that direct attention to promotion of a business, service, or product. (n) *“Aggrieved party” means a party of record who can demonstrate the following: (i) The land use decision will prejudice the person; (ii) The asserted interests are among those the county is required by county c ode, federal or state law or regulation to consider in making a land use decision; and (iii) A decision on appeal in favor of the person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice alleged to be caused by the land use decision. (o) **“Agricultural activities” means agricultural uses and practices including, but not limited to: producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant as a result of adverse agricultural market conditions; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant because the land is enr olled in a local, state, or federal conservation program, or the land is subject to a conservation easement; conducting agricultural operations; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural equipment; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultura l facilities; provided, that the replacement facility is no closer to the shoreline than the original facility; and maintaining agricultural lands under production or cultivation. Commented [LG3]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #28. Based on May 2010 SMP FAQ. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 8/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (p) **“Agricultural land” means those specific land areas on which agricultu re activities are conducted as of the date of adoption of this master program pursuant to the state guidelines (Chapter 173 -26 WAC) as evidenced by aerial photography or other documentation. After the effective date of the master program, land converted to agricultural use is subject to compliance with the requirements of the master program. (q) *“Agriculture, existing and ongoing” means any agricultural activity conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture o r designated as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan land use designations; provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five -year period preceding April 28, 2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use. (r) *“Agriculture, new” means agricultural activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the definition of existing ongoing agriculture. (s) *“Allowed use” means uses allowed subject to the provisions of this program, including meeting applicable performance and development standards; if a shoreline permit, building permit or other development permit (e.g., stormwater permit) is required, the use is subject to the project review and approval process. (t) “Alteration” means any human induced change in an existing condition of a shoreline and/or its buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to grading; fillin g; channelizing; dredging; clearing (vegetation); draining; constructing structures; compaction, excavation, or any other activity that changes the character of a site. (u) *“Alteration, nonconforming structures” means any change or rearrangement in the su pporting members of existing buildings, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, girders, or interior partitions, as well as any changes in doors, windows, means of egress or ingress or any enlargement to or diminution of a building or structure, horizontally or vertically, or the moving of a building from one location to another. This definition excludes normal repair and maintenance, such as painting or roof replacement, but includes more substantial changes. (v) *“Alteration, nonconforming use” means the e xpansion, modification or intensification of a use that does not conform to the land use regulations of this program. (w) “Anadromous fish” means fish species that spend part of their lifecycle in saltwater, but return to freshwater to reproduce. (x) *“Appeal” means a request by an applicant or citizen that a decision made pursuant to this program be reviewed for its correctness and legality by another person, agency or court of law having jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. (y) *“Applicant” means the owner or owners of record of the property subject to a project permit application under this program, or authorized representative thereof. (z) *“Application” means the forms, plans and accompanying documents required for any project permit approval under this code. (aa) “Appurtenance, normal” means a structure or use that is necessarily connected to a primary use and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark. Normal appurtenances for residential development are garages, accessory dwelling unit, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, as well as driveways, walkways, and fences, plus initial clearing and grading for a new residence which does not exceed 250 cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordi nary high water mark. (bb) “Aquaculture” means the farming or culture of food fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants or animals in freshwater or saltwater, and may include development such as structures, as well as use of natural spawning and rearing areas. Aquaculture does not include the harvest of wildstock geoduck on state -owned lands. Wildstock geoduck harvest is a fishery. (cc) *“Aquaculture activity” means actions directly pertaining to growing, handling, or harvesting of aquaculture produce. Examples include, but are not limited to, propagation, tank farms, hatcheries, Commented [LG4]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #34 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 9/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. incubators/nurseries, stocking, feeding, disease treatment, depuration facilities, waste disposal, water use, development of habitat and structures, sorting, wet storage, and stag ing. Excluded from this definition are related commercial or industrial uses such as wholesale and retail sales, final processing and freezing. (dd) *“Aquaculture facility or farm” means any facility or tract of land used to culture aquatic products. Each geographically separate facility or tract of land used for aquaculture shall constitute a separate facility/farm; provided, that adjoining farms/facilities with separate operators shall be considered separate facilities/farms. (ee) *“Archaeological” means having to do with the scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities. (ff) “Archaeological resource/site” means a geographic locality including, but not limited to, submerged and submersible lands and the bed of the sea that contain s physical evidence of an indigenous and subsequent culture including material remains of past human life, monuments, symbols, tools, facilities, graves, skeletal remains and technological byproducts: (i) That are associated with events that have made a si gnificant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (ii) That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or (iii) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (iv) That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history o r prehistory. (gg) “Archaeologist” is a person listed on the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historical Preservation list of qualified archaeologists. (hh) “Associated wetlands” means wetlands that are in proximity to tidal waters, lakes, rivers or streams that are subject to the Shoreline Management Act and either influence or are influenced by such waters. Factors used to determine proximity and influence include but are not limited to: location contiguous to a shoreline waterbody, formation by tidally influenced geohydraulic processes, presence of a surface connection including through a culvert or tide gate, location in part or whole within the 100 -year floodplain of a shoreline, periodic inundation, and/or hydraulic continuity. (ii) *“Average grade level” means the average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property on that part of the lot to be occupied by the building or structure as measured by averaging the elevations at the center of all exterior walls of the proposed structure. In the case of structures to be built over the water, the average grade level shall be the elevation of the ordinary high water. (2) B Definitions. (a) *“Backshore” means the area landward of the high tid e line wetted by storm tides but normally dry. It may be a narrow gravel berm below a sea bluff or a broader complex of berms, marshes, meadows, or dunes. (b) *“Barrier beach” means an accretion shore form of sand and gravel that has been deposited by long shore drift in front of bluffs, bays, marshes, or estuaries, and functions like a storm barrier. (c) *“Bar” means a marine or river shore form similar to a spit or a hook, though generally not attached to the mainland during periods of high water. (d) *“Beach” means the zone of unconsolidated material that is moved by waves, wind and tidal currents. (e) *“Beach restoration and enhancement” means the alteration of terrestrial and tidal shorelines or submerged shorelines for the purposes of stabilization, recreational enhancement, or aquatic habitat creation or restoration. The materials used depend upon the intended use. For instance, to create a beach for recreational purposes, Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 10/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. various grades of clean sand or pea gravel are often used. To restore or recreate a shore feature or an underwater aquatic environment (e.g., a reef), a combination of a rock matrix and sand or other materials may be used. To restore riparian habitat functions, native vegetation may be used. (f) *“Base flood” means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year; also known as the 100-year flood, as shown on the FIRM maps. (g) *“Base flood elevation” means the elevation for which there is a one percent chance in any given year that flood levels will equal or exceed it. (h) “Beach access structure” means a structural pathway/walkway for purposes of providing pedestrian access to a beach or shoreline area, not for motorized vehicle access. It often includes a stairway, tram, stair tower, platform and/or elevated walkway anchored to the ground surface by structural means. (i) “Beds of navigable waters” or “bedlands” means those lands lying waterward of and below the line of navigability on rivers and lakes not subject to tidal flow, or extreme low tide ma rk in navigable tidal waters, or the outer harbor line where harbor area has been created (RCW 79.105.060(2)). (j) “Bedrock” means a general term for rock, typically hard, consolidated geologic material that underlies soil or other unconsolidated, superficial material or is exposed at the surface. (k) “Berm” or “protective berm” means one or several accreted linear mounds of sand and gravel generally paralleling the shore at or landward of OHWM; berms are normally stable because of material size or vegetation, and are naturally formed by net-shore drift. Also, a linear mound used to screen an adjacent activity (e.g., a parking lot) from transmitting excess noise and glare. (l) *“Best management practices (BMPs)” means systems of practices, schedules of activ ities, prohibitions, maintenance procedures, and management measures that prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the environment. (m) ****“Bioengineering” or “biostabilization” means the practice of using natural vegetative materials to stabilize shorelines and prevent erosion. This may include use of bundles of stems, root systems, or other living plant material, soft gabions, fabric or other soil stabilization techniques, and limited rock toe protection where appropriate. Bioengineering projects often include habitat enhancement measures (e.g., anchored logs, root wads, etc.). Such techniques may be applied to creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and marine waters. Bioengineering may also be applied in upland areas away from the immediate shoreline. (n) *“Board (BOCC)” means the board of county commissioners for Jefferson County. Also referenced as board of commissioners or county commissioners. (o) *“Boat building and repair, commercial” means a commercial establishment where boats are constructed, dismantled, stored, serviced, or repaired, including maintenance work thereon. (p) “Boating facilities” means any public or private facility for storing or launching vessels or watercraft. This includes marinas, open water moorage and anchorage areas, boat launch ramps, boat lifts, mooring buoys, piers, floats and docks or any other similar single -user or shared-use facility for public recreational use or private residential use. For purposes of this program, boathouses, boat repair shops, and other upland boat storage structures are not considered boating facilities. (q) “Boathouse” means an enclosed structure designed and used exclusively for the storage of boats and boating equipment and not used as a dwelling unit. (r) ****“Boat launch” or “boat ramp” means a slab, pad, plank, rail, or graded slope used for launching boats by means of a trailer, hand, or mechanical device. (s) “Boat lift” is an in-water structure used for the dry berthing of vessels above the water level and lowering of vessels into the water periodically. A boat lift as herein defined is used to berth and launch a single vessel, suspended over the water’s surface. A boat lift is generally a manufactured unit without a canopy cover and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 11/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. may be placed in the water adjacent to a dock/pier or as a stand-alone structure. A boat lift may be designed either for boats or personal watercraft. A boat lift is to be differentiated from a hoist or crane used for the launching or haul-out of vessels. (t) “Bottom culture” means all aquaculture systems that are se t 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. (u) ****“Breakwater” means an offshore structure that is generally built parallel to shore that may or may no t be connected to land, and may be floating or stationary. Their primary purpose is to protect harbors, moorages and navigation activity from wave and wind action by creating stillwater areas along shore. A secondary purpose is to protect shorelines from wave caused erosion. Most breakwaters in the Pacific Coast are rip -rap mound construction. (v) “Buffer” or “buffer zone, strip, or area” means the area adjacent to a shoreline or critical area that separates and protects the area from adverse impacts associated with adjacent land uses. A buffer is measured horizontally and perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark, and includes the three -dimensional airspace above. (w) “Building” means any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy as defined in the International Building Code. (x) *“Building envelope” means: (i) A three-dimensional space in which a building or structure may be built meeting septic requirements; (ii) A plat restriction for the purpose of defining building coverage areas for individual lots, or for describing shoreline building setbacks; (iii) The buildable area of a lot, tract or parcel after applicable setbacks, buffers, easements and other restrictions on the lot, tract or parcel are taken into acco unt. (y) ****“Bulkhead” means a wall usually constructed parallel to the shore with the primary purpose of containing and preventing the loss of soil caused by erosion or wave action. Bulkheads are usually constructed of rock, poured-in-place concrete, steel or aluminum sheet piling, wood or wood and structural steel combinations. They may be either thin structures penetrating deep into the ground, or more massive structures resting on the surface. (3) C Definitions. (a) *“Campground and camping facilities” means a facility in which sites are offered for persons using tents or other personal, portable overnight shelters. Campgrounds are for short -term stays and do not include trailer parks. (b) “Canopy” means the collective branches and foliage of a single t ree or group of trees, aggregate or collective tree crowns. A canopy can be closed or partially closed as in a forest or woodland stand, or composed of both individual trees and closed canopy groups as in an urban forest canopy. (c) “Canopy cover” means the drip line area for an individual tree. For a stand of multiple trees it is the sum of the drip line areas of each tree less any overlap. (d) ****“Channel” means an open water either naturally or artificially created to convey water. (e) *“Channel migration zone (CMZ)” means an area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement that is subject to risk due to stream bank destabilization, rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion and shifts in the location of stream channels. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 12/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. “Channel migration zone” includes: (i) The historic channel migration zone (which is the footprint of the active channel documented through historical photographs and maps); and (ii) The avulsion hazard zone (which is an area with the potential for movement of the main riv er channel into a new location); and (iii) The erosion hazard area (which is an area outside the historic channel migration zone and the avulsion hazard zone, and includes an erosion setback for a 100 -year period of time and a geotechnical setback to account for slope retreat to a stable angle of repose). (iv) “High channel migration hazard” (or “high risk CMZ”) for the Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Dosewallips, Duckabush, and Lower Hoh Rivers means those nondisconnected portions of the channel that are likely to migrate within a 50-year timeframe. (v) For the Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Dosewallips, and Duckabush Rivers, “moderate channel migration hazard” (or “moderate risk CMZ”) means those nondisconnected portions of the channel that are likely to migrate within a 50- to 100-year timeframe; and “low channel migration hazard” (or “low risk CMZ”) means those nondisconnected portions of the channel that are likely to migrate beyond a 100 -year timeframe. (vi) For the Lower Hoh River, “moderately high hazard” (or “moderately high risk CMZ”) means those nondisconnected portions of the channel that are likely to migrate within a 50 - to 100-year timeframe, “moderate hazard” means those nondisconnected portions of the channel that are likely to migrate beyond a 100-year timeframe, and “low hazard” means the nondisconnected portions of the channel that are less likely to be affected by channel migration, but is still at risk due to its location on the valley floor. “Channel migration zone” does not include discon nected migration areas, which are areas that have been disconnected from the river by legally existing artificial structure(s) that restrain channel migration (such as levees and transportation facilities build above or constructed to remain intact through the 100-year flood elevation), that are no longer available for migration by the river. “Channel migration zone” may exclude areas that lie behind a lawfully established flood protection facility that is likely to be maintained by existing programs for pu blic maintenance consistent with designation and classification criteria specified by public rule. When a natural geologic feature affects channel migration, the channel migration zone width will consider such natural constraints. (f) “Channelization” means the straightening, relocation, deepening or lining of stream channels, including construction of continuous revetments or levees for the purpose of preventing gradual, natural meander progression. (g) “Clearing” means the destruction or removal, by hand or with mechanical means, of vegetative ground cover, shrubs or trees. Clearing may or may not include removing root material or topsoil. (h) “Cluster development” means a development design technique that groups or clusters buildings in specific areas on a site to minimize environmental impacts related to impervious surface, clearing and other impacts. (i) “Commercial fish” means those species of fish that are classified under the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Food Fish Classification as comme rcial fish (WAC 220-12-010). (j) *“Commercial recreational facility” means a place designed and equipped for sports and leisure -time activities that is operated as a business and open to the public for a fee. (k) *“Commercial sign” means any object, device , display or structure that is used for attracting attention to any commercial use, product, service, or activity. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 13/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (l) *“Commercial use” means a business use or activity at a scale greater than a home business or cottage industry involving retail or wholesale marketing of goods and services. Examples of commercial uses include offices and retail shops. (m) “Community dock” means a dock that serves multiple residential properties including upland and waterfront lots in a subdivision or similar community sett ing. See also “Shared use.” (n) *“Compatible” means uses or activities capable of existing together or in the vicinity of one another without disharmony or without generating effects or impacts which are disruptive to the normal use and enjoyment of surrounding property. (o) “Compensatory mitigation” means replacing resources or functions, at an equivalent or greater level, to offset unavoidable impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization measures have been implement ed. “Compensatory mitigation” includes, but is not limited to, creation, restoration, enhancement, preservation, and rehabilitation of wetlands, buffers, and other habitats or resources. (p) *“Comprehensive Plan” means the Jefferson County Comprehensive Pl an. (q) “Conditional use permit (CUP)” means a permit issued by the county stating that the proposed land uses and development activities meet all criteria and all conditions of approval in accordance with the procedural requirements of this code. The intent of requiring a CUP is to accommodate site -specific allowances while ensuring program requirements are satisfied. As per Chapter 18.15 JCC, a CUP can be administrative (C(a)) or discretionary (C(d)). For this program, criteria are described in Article IX of this chapter and application review processes are described in Article X of this chapter. (r) “Conservation” means the prudent management of rivers, streams, wetlands, wildlife and other environmental resources in order to preserve and protect them. Th is includes the careful use of natural resources to prevent depletion or harm to the environment. (s) *“Conservation district” means a special purpose district, like a fire district or school district, organized in accordance with Chapter 89.08 RCW for the purpose of providing assistance to landowners for the conservation of renewable resources. (t) “Conservation easement” means a legal agreement that the property owner enters into to restrict uses of the land for purposes of natural resources conservation. The easement is recorded on a property deed, runs with the land, and is legally binding on all present and future owners of the property. (u) “Contaminant” means any chemical, physical, biological, or radioactive substance that does not occur naturally in ground water, air, or soil or that occurs at concentrations greater than those in the natural levels (Chapter 172-200 WAC). (v) *“County” means Jefferson County, Washington, its board, commissions, and departments. (w) ****“Covered moorage” means boat moorage, with or without walls, that has a roof to protect the vessel. (x) ****Creek. See “Stream.” (y) “Critical areas” mean the following areas as designated in Chapter 18.22 JCC: (i) Critical aquifer recharge areas. (ii) Wetlands. (iii) Geologically hazardous areas. (iv) Frequently flooded areas. (v) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 14/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (z) “Critical habitat” means habitat areas with which endangered, threatened, sensitive or monitored plant, fish, or wildlife species have a primary association (e.g., feeding, breeding, rearing of young, migrating). Such areas are identified herein with reference to lists, categories, and definitions promulgated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as identified in WAC 232 -12-011 or 232-12-014; in the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, or other agency with jurisdiction for such designations. See also “Habitat of special significance.” (aa) “Cumulative impacts” or “cumulative effects” means the combined impacts of a proposed development action along with past impacts and impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development actions. (bb) “Current deflector” means an angled stub-dike, groin, or sheet-pile structure which projects into a stream channel to divert flood currents from specific areas, or to control downstream current alignment. (cc) *“Current use” means the use of land or improvements a t the time of permit application. (4) D Definitions. (a) “Dam” means a barrier across a stream or river to confine or regulate flow or raise water levels for purposes such as flood or irrigation water storage, erosion control, power generation, or collecti on of sediment or debris. (b) *“DCD” means the Jefferson County department of community development. (c) “Deepwater habitats” means environments where surface water is permanent and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium in whi ch the dominate organisms live. (d) “Degrade” means to scale down in desirability or salability, to impair in respect to some physical property or to reduce in structure or function. (e) ****“Delta” or “river delta” means those lands formed as an aggradati onal feature by stratified clay, silt, sand and gravel deposited at the mouths of streams where they enter a quieter body of water. The upstream extent of a river delta is that limit where it no longer forms distributary channels. (f) *“Density” means the quantity per unit area, such as the number of dwelling units per acre. (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; bul kheading; 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. “Development” does not include dismantling or removing structures if there is no other associated development or re - development. (h) ****“Developed shorelines” means those shoreline areas that are characterized by existing uses or structures located within shoreline jurisdiction. (i) “Development agreement” means a binding legal agreement between a local government and a property owner, managing agent or controlling entity that establishes the standards and other provisions that apply to, govern and vest the development, use and mitigation of real property for the specified duration of time, as consistent with local regulations and Chapter 36.70B RCW. (j) “Diameter at breast height (DBH)” means the diameter of a tree at four and one -half feet above the ground measured from the uphill side. (k) “Dike” means an artificial embankment placed at a stream mouth or delta to hold back sea water. (l) *“Director” means, unless otherwise specified, the director of the county’s department of community development (DCD) or the director’s designee. Commented [LG5]: 2017 b Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 15/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (m) *“Division of land” means the creation of any new lot or lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership (see Chapter 18.35 JCC). (n) “Dock” means a fixed platform structure anchored in and floating upon a water body t hat abuts the shore to provide landing for water dependent recreation or moorage for vessels or watercraft and does not include above water storage. (o) *“Drainage” means surface water runoff; the removal of surface water or ground water from land by drain s, grading, or other means, which include runoff controls to minimize erosion and sedimentation during and after construction or development. (p) “Dredge material disposal” means the depositing of dredged materials on land or into water bodies. (q) “Dredging” means the removal of earth from the bottom of a stream, river, lake, bay, or other water body. This does not include de minimis removal of sediment during harvest of geoduck clams or other shellfish. (r) **“Drift cell, drift sector, or littoral cell” means a particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms accreted by such drift. (s) “Drip line area” means the area measured from the trunk of the tree outward to a point at the perimeter of the outermost branch structure of the tree. (t) *“Driveway” means a strip of land which provides vehicular access to one or two lots. (u) ****“Dune” means a hill or ridge of sand piled up by the wind and/or wave action. (v) “Dwelling unit” means one or more rooms or structures designed for occupancy by an individual or family for living and sleeping purposes. (5) E Definitions. (a) **“Ecological functions” or “shoreline functions” means the work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline’s natural ecosystem. See WAC 173 -26-200(2)(c). Functions include, but are not limited to, habitat diversity and food chain support for fish and wildlife, ground water recharge and discharge, high primary productivity, low flow stream water contribution, sediment stabilization and erosion control, storm and flood water attenuation and flood peak desynchronization, and water quality enhancement through biofiltration and retention of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants. These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority. (b) ****“Ecologically intact shorelines” means those shoreline areas that retain the majority of their natural shoreline functions and values, as evidenced by vegetation and shoreline configuration. Generally, but not necessarily, ecologically intact shorelines are largely free of structura l shoreline modifications, structures, and intensive human activities. (c) “Ecology” means Washington State Department of Ecology. (d) **“Ecosystem processes” means the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. (e) “Emergency activities” are those activities that require immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this program due to an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment (see WAC 173-27-040). Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW and this program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 16/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (f) *“Endangered species” means a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Natural Resources, or the Federal Endangered Species Act. (g) “Enhancement” means actions performed within an existing degraded shoreline and/or buffer to intentionally increase or augment one or more functions or values of the existing area. Enhance ment actions include, but are not limited to, increasing plant diversity and cover, increasing wildlife habitat and structural complexity (snags, woody debris), installing environmentally compatible erosion controls, or removing non - indigenous plant or animal species. (h) *“Erosion” means the detachment and movement of soil or rock by water, wind, ice, or gravity. (i) *“Erosion hazard areas” means areas characterized by soils identified in the USDA Jefferson County Soil Survey as having severe water erosion hazards. (j) *“Essential public facilities” means those important and necessary facilities which provide essential services that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state educational facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in -patient facilities including substance-abuse facilities, mental health facilities, and group homes (RCW 36.70A.200). They do not necessarily include all public facilities or s ervices; they may be, but are not necessarily, publicly owned. Essential public facilities in Jefferson County include airports, large -scale transportation facilities, solid waste handling and disposal facilities, correctional facilities, in -patient treatment facilities including substance-abuse facilities and mental health facilities, state -owned educational facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. (k) “Estuary” means a semi-enclosed coastal water body connected to a larger body of saltwater with one o r more streams/rivers flowing into it. Estuaries are typically the mouths of rivers and have brackish water. (l) *“Excavation” means the mechanical removal of earth, including soil, rocks, bedrock, and/or root material from areas landward of the OHWM of a waterbody. (m) “Exempt development” refers to activities which the legislature identified as not requiring shoreline substantial development permits. Actions in shoreline jurisdiction not requiring such permits are required to be consistent with all the relevant policies and regulations in RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173 -27(040). A letter from the county must be obtained certifying that the development is exempt. Exempt uses may still require conditional use and/or variance permits. (n) *“Existing use” means the use of a lot or structure or improvements at the time of the enactment of this code, unless otherwise specified. (o) “Experimental aquaculture” means aquaculture that cultivates new species, or uses growing methods or harvesting techniques that have not previously been used in the state of Washington and that differ significantly from common practice. (p) *“Extraction” means the commercial removal of naturally occurring materials from the earth, excluding water. (q) ***“Extreme low tide (ELT)” means the lowest line of the land reached by a receding tide. This is the line as estimated by the federal government below which it might reasonably be expected that the tide would not ebb. In the Puget Sound area generally, this point is estimated by the federal gove rnment to be a point in elevation 4.50 feet below the datum plane of mean lower low water (0.0). Along the Pacific Ocean and in the bays fronting thereon and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the elevation ranges down to a minus 3.5 feet in several locations. (6) F Definitions. (a) ****“Fair market value (FMV)” of a development means the open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and facilities, and purchase of the goods, services and materials necessary to accomplish the development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 17/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. development from start to finish, including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility usage, transportation and contractor overhead and profit. The fair market value of t he development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials. (b) **“Feasible” means, for the purpose of this program, that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: (i) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (ii) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (iii) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project’s primary intended legal use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action’s infeasibility, the reviewing agency may weigh the action’s relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short - and long-term time frames. (c) (i) *“Feasible alternative” means an alternative that: (A) Meets the requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations; (B) Attains most or all of the basic objectives of the p roject; (C) Is technically and technologically possible; (D) Can be accomplished at a reasonable cost; (E) Can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time; and (F) Adverse environmental, health, and safety effects are no greater than those of the origin al proposal. (ii) A determination of what is reasonable or feasible is made by the decision -making body on a case-by- case basis, taking into account the: (A) Probable intensity, severity, and cumulative impacts of the original proposal and alternative approaches, and opportunity for the avoidance or reduction in the number, intensity, or severity of significant impacts, or of the aggregate adverse impact; (B) Risk of upset conditions (i.e., the risk that the control and mitigation measures will fail, be overwhelmed, or exceed allowed limits) and the potential severity of the impact should control or mitigation measures be ineffective or fail; (C) Capital and operating costs; (D) Period of time to accomplish, costs of additional time or delay, and time constr aints for completion; and (E) Location and site-specific factors, such as seasonal or topographic constraints, environmentally sensitive areas and habitats, site accessibility, and local community concerns. (d) ****“Feeder bluff” means anyan eroding coastal headland or hill with a broad, steep face experiencing periodic erosion from waves, sliding or slumping bluff that, through natural transportation, delivers a significant amount of sediment to the beach over an extended period of time and contributes eroded earth, sand or gravel material via a driftway to an accretion shoreform.to the local littoral sediment budget . Commented [GU6]: AJS: definition taken from https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/14060 16.pdf Commented [LG7]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #31 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 18/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) “Fill” means the addition of solid or semi -solid material such as soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, wood chips, mining overburden, earth retaining structure, or other material used to create any structure or infrastructure or when placed changes the elevation or grade of a receiving site. (f) “Fill material” means any solid or semi-solid material such as soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, wood chips, mining overburden, earth retaining structure, or other material from mining or other excavation activities, and materials used to create any structure or infrastructure, that when placed, changes the grade or elevation of the receiving site. (g) “Filling” means the act of transporting or placing by any manual or mechanical means fill material from, to, or on any soil surface, including temporary stockpiling of fill material. (h) “Finfish” means a vertebrate organism of the classes Osteichthyes, Agnatha, or Chondrichthyes possessing a bony and/or cartilaginous inner skeleton, including all stages of development and the bodily parts of the fish (RCW 77.08.22). Examples include, but are not limited to, salmon, trout, ling cod, rock fis h, halibut, sole, sablefish, perch, pollock, whiting, tilapia, carp, lamprey, sturgeon, sharks, skates, and rays. In comparison, see “Shellfish.” (i) “Fire hazard” means the accumulation of combustible materials in such a condition as to be readily ignited and in such a quantity as to create a hazard from fire to nearby structures, life and property. (j) “Fish habitat” means a complex of physical, chemical, and biological conditions that provide the life supporting and reproductive needs of a species or life stage of fish. Although the habitat requirements of a species depend on its age and activity, the basic components of fish habitat in rivers, st reams, ponds, and nearshore areas include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) Clean water and appropriate temperatures for spawning, rearing, and holding; (ii) Adequate water depth and velocity for migrating, spawning, rearing, and holding, including off- channel habitat; (iii) Abundance of bank and in-stream structures to provide hiding and resting areas and stabilize stream banks and beds; (iv) Appropriate substrates for spawning and embryonic development. For stream and lake dwelling fishes, substrates range from sands and gravel to rooted vegetation or submerged rocks and logs. Generally, substrates must be relatively stable and free of silts or fine sand; (v) Presence of riparian vegetation as defined in this article. Riparian vegetation c reates a transition zone, which provides large woody debris (LWD), shade, and food sources of aquatic and terrestrial insects for fish; (vi) Unimpeded passage (suitable gradient and lack of barriers) for upstream and downstream migrating juveniles and adults. (k) “Float” means a fixed platform structure anchored in and floating upon a water body that does not connect to the shore, and that provides landing for water -dependent recreation or moorage for vessels or watercraft, and that does not include above water storage. (l) “Floating aquaculture” means aquaculture systems that suspend aquatic organisms in the water column using buoys, rafts, docks, piers or other structure and that extend more than three feet from the bottom into the water column. Floating aquaculture is synonymous with hanging aquaculture. (m) “Floating house”dwellings include the following: (i) "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. Commented [LG8]: 2014 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 19/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) "Floating on-water residence" means any floating structure that is other than a floating home, that: (i) 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 used primarily as a residence on the water and do not qualify as a vessel. A floating structure that is used as a residencehas detachable utilities; and is capable of navigation, but is not designed primarily for navigation, nor is normally capable of self propulsion 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 as a means of transportation, is a floating house, not a vessel per WAC 332-30-103.space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014. (n) *“Flood” or “flooding” means the temporary inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters or from the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters. (o) “Flood control” means all development on rivers and streams designed to retard bank erosion, to reduce flooding of adjacent lands, to control or divert stream flow, or to create a reservoir, including but not limited to revetments, dikes, levees, channelization, dams, weirs, flood and tidal gates. Excluded are water pump apparatus. (p) **“Floodplain” is synonymous with 100-year floodplain and means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Act. (q) “Floodplain management” means a long-term program to reduce flood damages to life and property and to minimize public expenses due to floods through a comprehensive system of planning, development regulations, building standards, structural works, and monitoring and warning systems. (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 whichthat has 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 th at meets the objectives of the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW. The floodway shalldoes 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 . (s) “Forest land” means all land that is capable of supporting a merchantable stand of timb er and is not being actively used, developed, or converted in a manner that is incompatible with timber production. (t) *“Forest management” means forest practices pertaining to protecting, producing, and harvesting timber for economic use. (u) *“Forest practice” means any activity conducted on or directly pertaining to forest land and relating to growing or harvesting of timber, or the processing of timber, including but not limited to: road and trail construction and maintenance; harvest, final and inte rmediate; precommercial thinning; reforestation; fertilization; prevention and suppression of diseases and insects; salvage of trees; and brush control. (v) *“Forest practice, conversion” means the conversion of land to an active use incompatible with timb er growing and where future nonforest uses will be located on currently forested land. (w) *“Frequently flooded areas” means lands subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. (x) “Function assessment” or “functions and values assessment” means a set of procedures, applied by a qualified consultant, to identify the ecological functions being performed in a shoreline or critical area, usually by determining the presence of certain characteristics, and determining how well the are a is performing those Commented [LG9]: 2007 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 20/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. functions. Function assessments can be qualitative or quantitative and may consider social values potentially provided by an area. Function assessment methods must be consistent with best available science. (7) G Definitions. (a) “Gabions” means works composed of masses of rock, rubble, or masonry tightly enclosed usually by wire mesh so as to form massive blocks. They are used to form walls on beaches to retard wave erosion or as foundations for breakwaters or jetties. (b) “Game fish” means those species of fish that are classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as game fish (WAC 232-12-019). (c) “Genetically modified organism (GMO)” means a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic material has been manipulated by a molecular biological engineering technique (such as recombinant DNA technology using transgenic or cisgenic methods) resulting in a genetically distinct organism with an altered hereditary pattern of protein production by the chromosomes. Selective bre eding, cross breeding, and creation of polyploidy are not included. (d) *“Geologically hazardous areas” means areas that because of their susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events are not suited to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. (e) “Geologically unstable” means the relative instability of a shoreform or land form for development purposes over the long term or the intended life of any propose d structure. Soil, slope, ground or surface water, other geologic conditions, vegetation and effects of development are common factors that contribute to instability. Areas characterized by banks or bluffs composed of unconsolidated alluvial or glacial dep osits (till and drift material), severely fractured bedrock, active and substantial erosion, substantially deformed trees and shrubs, or active or inactive earth slides are likely to be considered geologically unstable. (f) “Geotechnical report” or “geotec hnical analysis” means a scientific study or evaluation that includes a description of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusion s and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down -current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and m ust be prepared by qualified engineers or geologists who are knowledgeable about the regional and local geology. (g) *“Grade, existing” means the elevation of the ground or site prior to any work being done or any changes being made to the ground or site. (h) *“Grade, finished” means the final elevation of the ground level after development. (i) “Gradient” means a degree of inclination, or a rate of ascent or descent, of an inclined part of the earth’s surface with respect to the horizontal; the steepness o f a slope. It is expressed as a ratio (vertical to horizontal), a fraction (such as meters/kilometers or feet/miles), a percentage (of horizontal distance), or an angle (in degrees). (j) *“Grading” means stripping, cutting, filling, or stockpiling earth to create new grade. (k) “Groin” means a wall-like structure extending on an angle waterward from the shore. Its purpose is to build or preserve an accretion shoreform or berm on its updrift side by trapping littoral drift. Groins are relatively narrow in width but vary greatly in length. Groins are sometimes built in series as a system, and may be permeable or impermeable, high or low, and fixed or adjustable. (l) “Ground water” means all water that exists beneath the land surface or beneath the bed of any s tream, lake or reservoir, or other body of surface water within the boundaries of the state, whatever may be the geological Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 21/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. formation or structure in which such water stands or flows, percolates or otherwise moves (Chapter 90.44 RCW). (m) *“Growth Management Act (GMA)” means the State of Washington Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, as amended. (n) ****“Guidelines” means those standards adopted under Chapter 173 -26 WAC, as amended, or any successor regulations thereof, that serve as standards for im plementation of the policy of Chapter 90.58 RCW for regulations of uses of the shorelines, and that provide criteria to local governments and the Department of Ecology in developing master programs. (8) H Definitions. (a) *“Habitat” means the place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows. (b) “Habitat of special significance” means eelgrass beds, kelp beds, rocky reef habitat, geoduck beds, hardshell clam beds, habitat having significant populations of or which are impo rtant to the feeding, reproduction or other life stages of Dungeness crabs, herring, lingcod/greenling, true cod, soles and flounders, rock fishes, cabezon and other large sculpins, or sea perch, wildlife refuges and habitats of endangered or threatened species, and other habitat that meets the 1986 Recommended Interim Guidelines for Salmon Net -Pen Culture in Puget Sound, as determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. See also “Critical habitat.” (c) Hanging Aquaculture. See “Floating aquaculture.” (d) ****“Harbor area” means the area of navigable tidal waters as determined in Section 1 of Article 15 of the Washington State Constitution, which is forever reserved for landings, wharves, streets, and oth er conveniences of navigation and commerce. Harbor areas exist between the inner and outer harbor lines as established by the state harbor line commission. Harbor areas are managed by the Department of Natural Resources for the conveniences of navigation and commerce (RCW 79.105.060(5)). (e) “Hazard tree” means any tree that presents a risk to persons or property due to a high probability of falling in the near future because of a debilitating disease, a structural defect, a root ball significantly exposed, or having been exposed to windthrow within the past 10 years. Hazardous trees include, but are not limited to, conditions where a permanent, primary structure or appurtenant or accessory structure is within one and one - half tree lengths of the base of the trunk. Where not immediately apparent to the administrator, the hazard tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by a certified arborist or forester. (f) “Hazardous area” means any shoreline area which is hazardous for intensive h uman use or structural development due to inherent and/or predictable physical conditions; such as but not limited to geologically hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and coastal high hazard areas. (g) “Hazardous materials” means any substance containing such elements or compounds which when discharged in any quantity in shorelines present an imminent and/or substantial danger to public health or welfare; including, but not limited to: fish, shellfish, wildlife, water quality, and other shoreline fea tures and property. (h) *“Hazardous waste” means those solid wastes designated by 40 CFR Part 261, and regulated as hazardous waste by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (i) “Hearings Board” means the State Shorelines Hearings Board referen ced in RCW 90.58.170. (j) *“Height, building” means the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface (cf., International Building Code). (k) ****“Historic” means having considerable importance or influence in history ; historical. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 22/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (l) “Historic preservation professionals” means those individuals who hold a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American architectural history, or a bachelor’s degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation or closely related field plus one of the following: (i) At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or (ii) Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history. (m) *“Historic site, structure or landmark” means a site, structure or building of outstanding archaeological, historical or cultural significance. This is shown by its designation as such by the National or Washington State Register of Historic Places, designation as an historic landmark, or any such structure or feature for which the State Historic Preservation Officer has made a determination of significance pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (n) *“Hotel” (or “lodge”) means a commercial building in which lodging is provided and offered to the public for compensation, and which is open to transient guests, and is not a motel or bed and breakfast inn. (o) *“Household” means one or more related or unrelated perso ns occupying a dwelling unit. (p) “Hydraulic project approval (HPA)” means a permit issued by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife for modifications to waters of the state in accordance with Chapter 75.20 RCW. (9) I Definitions. (a) *“Illegal use” means any use of land or a structure which is inconsistent with current codes and/or was inconsistent with previous codes in effect when the use or structure was established. An illegal use is different than a nonconforming use. (See also “Nonconforming.”) (b) “Impervious surface” means a hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, con crete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and other surfaces. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of this program. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities sha ll be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. (c) *“Incidental” means subordinate to, minor in significance, and bearing a reasonable relationship with the primary use. (d) *“Incompatible” means uses and activities that are not comp atible. (e) “Industrial development” means facilities for processing, manufacturing, and storage of finished or semi - finished goods, including but not limited to oil, metal or mineral product refining, power generating facilities, including hydropower, ship building and major repair, storage and repair of large trucks and other large vehicles or heavy equipment, related storage of fuels, commercial storage and repair of fishing gear, warehousing construction contractors’ offices and material/equipment stora ge yards, wholesale trade or storage, and log storage on land or water, together with necessary accessory uses such as parking, loading, and waste storage and treatment. Excluded from this definition are mining including on -site processing of raw materials, and off-site utility, solid waste, road or railway development, and methane digesters that are accessory to an agricultural use. (f) “Industrial pier” means a fixed platform structure supported by piles in a water body that abuts the shore to provide access to or moorage of vessels or watercraft for industrial purposes, such as, but not limited to, mining, processing raw materials, manufacturing products from natural resources, and operations that include hazardous substances. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 23/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (g) ****“Industry” means the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods or materials. Warehousing and storage of materials or production is considered part of the industrial process. (h) *“Infiltration” means the downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. (i) “Infrastructure” means existing installed facilities and services including capital facilities such as water supply, sewage disposal, and storm drainage systems, and transportation facilities such as public roads. (j) ****“Inner harbor line” means a line located and established in navigable tidal waters between the line of ordinary high water and the outer harbor line, constituting the inner boundary of the harbor area.(k) ****“In - stream structure” means a human -made structure placed within a stream or river waterward of the ordinary high water mark that either causes or has the potential to cause water impoundment, or the diversion, obstruction, or modification of water flow. In-stream structures may include those for hydroelectric generation, irrigation, water supply, flood control, transportation, utility service, transmission, fisheries enhancement, or other purposes. (l) *“Intensification of nonconforming use” means any increase or expansion in the quality or quantity of products, goods, services, structures or adverse impacts upon parcels within the vicinity of the nonconforming use produced, generated, served, created or performed at the site of the legal nonconforming use by the owner or occupant of that legal nonconforming use. (m) *“Intensive” means highly concentrated, very large, or considerable, in terms of Jefferson County standards and environment. (n) *“International Building Code (IBC)” means the building code officially adopted by Jefferson County. (o) ****“Intertidal” means the area waterward of the ordinary high water mark and landward of the line of extreme low tide. (p) “Invasive species” means a species that is (i) nonnative (or alien) to Jefferson County and (ii) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or en vironmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species can be plants, animals, and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions. Includes noxious weeds that, when established, are highly destru ctive, competitive, or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, as per RCW 17.10.010. (q) “In-water finfish aquaculture” means the farming or culture of vertebrate or cartilaginous food fish for market sale when raised in facilities located waterward of the ordinary high water mark in freshwater or saltwater water bodies, in either open-flow or contained systems. This includes net pens, sea cages, bag cages and similar floating/hanging containment structures and is intended to reflect the def inition of “marine finfish rearing facilities” (RCW 90.48.220), but does not include temporary restoration/enhancement facilities used expressly to improve populations of native stocks and that meet the definition of “watershed restoration project” per RCW 89.08.460. (r) ****“Island” means a land mass completely surrounded by water. (10) J Definitions. (a) ****“Jetty” means a structure generally perpendicular to the shore, extending through or past the intertidal zone. Jetties are built singly or in pairs at a harbor entrance or river mouth mainly to prevent accretion from littoral drift in an entrance channel. Jetties also serve to protect channels from storm waves or cross currents and to stabilize inlets through barrier beaches. Most jetties are of rip -rapped mound construction. (b) Joint Use Dock. See “Community dock.” (11) No K definitions. (12) L Definitions. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 24/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) “Lake” means a body of standing water in a depression of land or expanded part of a stream, of 20 acres or greater in total area. A lake is bounded by the OHWM, or where a stream enters the lake, the extension of the lake’s OHWM within the stream. A lake is generally distinguished from marshes, bogs, and swamps by its greater depth. (b) “Land disturbing activity” means any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and nonvegetative) and/or the ex isting soil topography. Land disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, clearing, grading, filling, compaction, and excavation. (c) Landfill. See “Filling.” (d) “Landslide” means a general term covering a wide variety of mass movement landforms and processes involving the downslope transport, under gravitational influence, of soil and rock material en masse; included are debris flows, debris avalanches, earthflows, mudflows, slumps, mudslides, rock slides, and rock falls. (e) *“Landslide hazard” areas means areas potentially subject to risk of mass movement due to a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. (f) *“Landward” means to or toward the land. (x) “Lateral” means of, at, toward, or from the side. (g) “Levee” means a natural or artificial embankment on the bank of a river or stream for the purpose of keeping floodwaters from inundating adjacent land. Some levees have revetments on their sides. (h) “Liberal construction” means that the interpretation of this document s hall not only be based on the actual words and phrases used in it, but also by taking its deemed or stated purpose into account. (i) “Live-aboard” means a seaworthy vessel that was designed primarily for navigation but is used as a residence. A boat or other floating structure is a residence if it is occupied 30 out of 45 days or 90 out of 365 days while moored or anchored in the same area, or if the local government, the marina, or the occupant of the boat defines it as a residence. The phrase “in the same area” means within a radius of one mile of any location where the same vessel previously moored or anchored. A vessel that is occupied and is moored or anchored in the same area, but not for the number of days described in this subsection, is considered a recreational or transient vessel (WAC 332-30-106). (j) “Log storage” means the water storage of logs in rafts or otherwise prepared for shipment in water -borne commerce, but does not include the temporary holding of logs to be taken directly into a vessel or processing facility (RCW 79.105.060(10)). (k) *“Logging” means activities related to and conducted for purposes of harvesting or processing timber. See also “Forest practices.” (l) *“Long-term commercial significance” means lands with the growing capac ity, productivity, soil composition, and economic viability for long -term agricultural, mineral or silvicultural production. (m) *“Lot” means a designated tract, parcel or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, to be separately owned, and utilized. The area below the ordinary high water mark may not be considered a part of the lot area for all purposes. (n) *“Lot of record” means an undeveloped lot, tract or parcel of land shown on an officially recorded short plat or long plat or a parcel of land officially recorded or registered as a unit of property and described by platted lot number or by metes and bounds and lawfully established for conveyancing purposes on the date of recording of the instrument first referencing the lot. The term lot of record does not imply that the lot was created in conformity with the legal regulatory requirements for subdivision of property in accordance with Chapter 58.17 RCW or Chapter 18.35 JCC. Commented [LG10]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #21 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 25/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (o) “Low intensity land use” means a lan d use that has limited impact upon the land, resources and adjoining properties in terms of the scale of development, and frequency, amount, or concentration of use. Low intensity uses are mostly passive uses that do not substantially consume resources or leave noticeable or lasting adverse effects. (13) M Definitions. (a) “Maintenance and repair” means work required to keep existing improvements in their existing operational state. This does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original structure, facility, utility or improved area. (b) “Marina” means a wet moorage and/or dry storage facility for multiple pleasure crafts and/or commercial crafts where goods or services related to boating may be sold commercially. Launching facilities and covered moorage may also be included. Marinas may be open to the general public or restricted on the basis of property ownership or membership. (x) “Marine trades” include a variety of sectors including ship and boat building/maintenance/repair, passenger ship/ charter ship activities, fishing and seafood processing, marina and recreational boating, and maritime education and training. (c) “Mass wasting” means downslope movement of soil and rock material by gravity. This includes soil creep, erosion, and various types of landslides, not includin g bed load associated with natural stream sediment transport dynamics. (d) *“Master planned resort (MPR)” means a self -contained and fully integrated planned unit development in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short - term visitor accommodations associated with a range of on -site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities. A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential us es are integrated into and support the on -site recreational nature of the resort (cf., RCW 36.70A.360). (e) “May” means the action is allowable, provided it conforms to the provisions of this program. (f) “Mean annual flow” means the average flow of a rive r or stream (measured in cubic feet per second) from measurements taken throughout the year. If available, flow data for the previous 10 years should be used in determining mean annual flow. (g) “Minerals” means clay, coal, gravel, industrial minerals, met allic substances, peat, sand, stone, topsoil, and any other similar solid material or substance to be excavated from natural deposits on or in the earth for commercial, industrial, or construction use. (h) (i) “Mining” or “mining operations” means, in accordance with RCW 78.44.031, all mine-related activities, exclusive of reclamation, that include, but are not limited to activities that affect noise generation, air quality, surface and ground water quality, quantity, and flow, glare, pollution, traffic saf ety, ground vibrations, and/or significant or substantial impacts commonly regulated under land use provisions. Mining specifically includes: (A) Extraction of rock, stone, gravel, sand, earth, and other minerals; (B) Blasting, equipment maintenance, sorting, crushing, and loading; (C) On-site mineral processing including asphalt or concrete batching, concrete recycling, and other aggregate recycling; and (D) All methods of transporting minerals to and from the mine (including conveyors, piers, and barges), on-site road maintenance, maintenance of roads used extensively for surface mining activities, traffic safety, and traffic control. (ii) Mining shall not include the following: Commented [LG11]: Task Force Scoping Item D Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 26/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (A) Excavation and grading at building construction sites where such construction is authorized by a valid building permit; or (B) Excavation and grading in public rights -of-way for the purpose of on-site road construction, or in private rights-of-way for the same purpose if authorized by the county; or (C) Excavation and grading for the purpose of developing ponds or manure lagoons for agricultural purposes; or (D) Excavation and grading in connection with and at the site of any creek, river, or flood -control or storm drainage channel for the purpose of enlarging hydraulic capacity or changing the location or constructing a new channel or storm drain where such work has been approved by the county; or (E) Excavation and grading where the excavated material will be used on the same property or on property contiguous to and under the same ownership as the excavation. (i) *“Mitigation” means measures prescribed and implemented to avoid, minimize, lessen, or compensate for adverse impacts. Explicit in this definition is the following order of preference: (i) Avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions; (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action and its implementation; (iii) Rectifying impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) Reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (v) Compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments; and (vi) Monitoring the mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. (j) “Mitigation bank” means a site where wetlands or similar habitats are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to aquatic resources. (k) “Mitigation plan” means a detailed plan indicating actions necessary to mitigate adverse impacts to shorelines and/or critical areas. (l) “Mixed use” means a combination of uses within the same building or s ite as a part of an integrated development project with functional interrelationships and coherent physical design. (m) *“Mobile home” means a factory-built dwelling built prior to June 15, 1976, to the standards other than the HUD Code, and acceptable und er applicable state codes in effect at the time of construction or introduction of the home into the state. Mobile homes have not been built since the introduction of the HUD Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards Act. See also “Manufactured h ome” in Chapter 18.10 JCC. (n) *“Mobile home park” means a development with two or more improved pads or spaces with required improvements and utilities designed to accommodate mobile homes, according to RCW 59.20.030(4). (o) “Monitoring” means evaluating the effects of a development action on the biological, hydrological, pedological, and geological elements of natural systems and/or assessing the performance of required mitigation measures through data collection, analysis and reporting. (p) ****“Mooring buoy” means an anchored floating device in a water body used for the landing or storage of a vessel or water craft. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 27/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (q) *“Motel” means a commercial building or group of buildings in which lodging is provided to transient guests, offered to the public for compensation, and in which access to and from each room or unit is through an exterior door. (r) *“Motor home” means a motor vehicle originally designed, reconstructed, or permanently altered to provide facilities for human habitation, which include lodging, cooking, and sewage disposal, and enclosed within a solid body shell with the vehicle, but excluding a camper or similar unit constructed separately and affixed to a motor vehicle (RCW 46.04.305). (s) ***“Must” means a mandate; the action is required. (t) “Multifamily dwelling” means a single building, or portion thereof, designed for or occupied by three or more families living independently of each other in separate dwelling units on one lot of record and, for the purpose of this program, includes tri plexes, fourplexes, apartment buildings, and residential condominiums. (14) N Definitions. (a) *“National Register of Historic Places” means the official federal list, established by the National Historic Preservation Act, of sites, districts, buildings, structures and objects significant in the nation’s history and prehistory, or whose artistic or architectural value is unique. (b) *“Native vegetation” means plant species that are indigenous to Jefferson County. (c) “Nearshore” means the estuarine delta/ma rine shoreline and areas of shallow water from the top of the coastal bank or bluffs to the water at a depth of about 10 meters relative to mean lower low water. (d) “Net pens” are finfish culturing systems that generally consist of two nets – an interior net to keep fish in and an exterior net to exclude predators. Net pens are typically anchored to the waterbody floor and suspended from the surface with a floatation structure; the netting continues above the water to a degree to stop fish from jumping out. Fish pen structures solely and directly established and managed for purposes of salmon enhancement and/or restoration are not considered net pens for purposes of this program. (e) “No net loss (NNL)” means the maintenance of the aggregate total of the co unty shoreline ecological functions over time. The no net loss standard contained in WAC 173 -26-186 requires that the impacts of shoreline use and/or development, whether permitted or exempt from permit requirements, be identified and mitigated such that there are no resulting adverse impacts on ecological functions or processes. (f) *“Noise” means any sound not occurring in the natural environment which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans. This includes sound s arising from the amplification of noises generated by expected or permitted uses of a lot or structure. (g) “Nonconforming” means a use or development which conformed to the applicable codes in effect on the date of its creation but which no longer complies because of changes in code requirements. Nonconformity is different than and not to be confused with illegality (see “Illegal use”). (h) “Nonconforming lot” means a legal lot of record in existence prior to the effective date of this program and any amendments thereto, on which it is not possible to construct a structure outside of/landward of the shoreline buffer or which does not otherwise meet the minimum lot sizedepth requirements as set forth in this program. Depth of lot is measured as the distance from ordinary high water mark to the inside edge of the frontage setback. (i) *“Nonconforming structure” means a structure which does not conform to the dimensional regulations of this program, including but not limited to setback, buffer, height, lot coverage, density, and building configuration. (j) *“Nonconsumptive use” means a use which does not permanently deplete, degrade, or destroy the resource involved. Commented [LG12]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #10 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 28/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (15) O Definitions. (a) “Off-premises sign” means a sign situated on premises other than th ose premises to which the sign’s message is related. (b) ****“Offshore” means the sloping subtidal area seaward from the low intertidal. (c) “Off-site mitigation” means to replace shoreline resources at a location away from the site that is impacted by development. (d) “On-premises sign” means a sign situated on the premises to which the sign’s message is related. (e) *“On-site waste disposal” means any one of several means for disposal of sanitary waste on the property from which it is generated (e.g., septic tank and drainfield). (f) *“Open record hearing” means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or off icer that creates the record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to the decision on a project permit and is to be known as an open record predecision hearing. An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, and is to be known as an open record appeal hearing, if no open record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit. (g) *“Open space” means lands committed to farming an d forestry uses and any parcel, lot, or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment. (h) *“Open space tax program” means a county program associated with property tax ation. Land being used for agriculture may be enrolled in the tax program through the county assessor. The tax program is independent of land use designation (i.e., zoning) and these development regulations, except in the context of identifying existing and ongoing agriculture, as defined and regulated in this program. (i) *“Operator” means any person who is in actual physical or electronic control of a powered watercraft, motor vehicle, aircraft, off-highway vehicle, or any other engine driven vehicle. (j) ***“Ordinary high water mark” or “OHWM” means that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change hereafter in accordance with permits issued by Jefferson County or the D epartment of Ecology. On a site-specific basis, Department of Ecology has the final authority on determining where the ordinary high water mark is located (RCW 90.58.030). (k) ****“Outer harbor line” means a line located and established in navigable waters as provided in Section 1 of Article 15 of the Washington State Constitution, beyond which the state shall never sell or lease any rights whatsoever to private persons. (l) *“Owner” means an individual, firm, business entity, trust, association, syndicate, partnership, or corporation having sufficient property interest to seek development of land. (m) *“Owner-occupied” means the residential occupancy of a building or property by the owner. (16) P Definitions. (a) *“Park” means a tract of land designated for and used by the public for recreation. (b) *“Parking lot” means an off-street, ground level open area, usually improved, for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 29/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) *“Parties of record” means the land use permit applicant; persons who have testified at the open record hearing; and any persons who have submitted written comments concerning the application that form part of the public record (excluding persons who only signed petitions or mechanically produced form letters). (d) *“Performance standard” means a set of criteria or limits relating to certain characteristics that a particular use or process may not exceed. (e) *“Permit center” means the Jefferson County department of community development. (f) *“Permit review” means the process of reviewing applications for project permits for consistency with the requirements of this program. (g) *“Permittee” means the entity to whom a permit is granted. (h) *“Person” means any individual, owner, contractor, tenant, partnership, corporation, business entity, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal corporation, agency of a state or local governmental unit however designated, public or private institution, or an employee or agent of any of the foregoing entities. (i) *“Pervious surface” means a surface that absorbs water. (j) “Pier” means a fixed platform structure supported by piles in a water body that abuts the shore to provide landing for water-dependent recreation or moorage for vessels or watercraft and does not include above water storage. (k) *“Planned rural residential development (PRRD)” means development characterized by a unified site design, clustered residential units, and areas of common open space pursuant to Article VI -M of Chapter 18.15 JCC. (l) *“Planning department” means the Jefferson County department of community development. (m) *“Plat” means a map or representation of a subdivision or short subdivision of land showing the division of a parcel of land into lots, roads, dedications, common areas, restrictions and easement s, as regulated by Chapter 58.17 RCW and this program. (n) *“Playing field” means a land area designed and used for outdoor games, such as baseball, football, soccer, track events and tennis. It includes public outdoor swimming pools. (o) “Port” means a legal entity established for purposes of acquiring, constructing, maintaining, operating, developing and regulating harbor improvements, rail or motor vehicle transfer and terminal facilities, water transfer and terminal facilities, air transfer and terminal facilities, or any combination of such transfer and terminal facilities, and other commercial transportation, transfer, handling, storage and terminal facilities, and industrial improvements. (p) *“Predecision hearing, open record” means a hearing, conduc ted by the hearing examiner, that creates the county’s record through testimony and submittal of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the county by ordinance or resolution. An open record predecision hearing may be held prior to the cou nty’s decision on a project permit (RCW 36.70B.020). (q) *“Preliminary plat” means a neat and approximate drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the general layout of streets, lots, blocks (if applicable) and other elements of a subdivision consistent w ith the provisions of this program. (r) “Preservation” means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing, ecologically important areas that the county has deemed worthy of long-term protection. (s) “Primary association” means the use of a habitat area by a listed or priority species for breeding/spawning, rearing young, resting, roosting, feeding, foraging, and/or migrating on a frequent and/or regular basis during Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 30/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. the appropriate season(s) as well as habitats that are used less frequently/regularly but which provide for essential life cycle functions such as breeding/nesting/spawning. (t) *“Primary use” means the principal use of a property. (u) “Priority habitat” means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species. An area classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes: comparatively high fish or wildlife density; comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity; fish spawning habitat; important fish and wildlife breeding habitat; important fish or wildlife seasonal range; important fish or wildlife movement corridor; rearing and foraging habitat; refuge; limited availability; high vulnerability to habitat alteration; unique or dependent species; or shellfish bed. A p riority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife (such as oak woodlands or eelgrass meadows). A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage (su ch as old growth and mature forests). Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element (such as talus slopes, caves, snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife (WAC 173-26-020(24)). (v) “Priority species” means wildlife species of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to habitat alteration, as defined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (w) *“Prohibited use” means any use or activity which is specifically not allowed by this program. A prohibited use cannot be authorized through a variance or conditional use permit. (x) “Project” means any proposed or existing activity regulated by Jefferson County. (y) ****“Project area” means all areas at and around a proposed shoreline development that would be affected directly or indirectly by the proposal for which a project proponent is seeking approval under this master program, and not simply the immediate area involved in the p roject. That is, the project area may consist of an area larger than the affected lot or parcel. Direct effects are those caused by the proposed project and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are those caused by the proposed project and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. The shoreline administrator is vested with the authority to define the project area. (z) *“Proof of ownership” means a photocopy of a recorded deed to property and/or a current title insurance policy insuring the status of an applicant as the owner in fee title to real property. (aa) “Proponent” means the owner, sponsor, authorized agent and/or permit applicant of any proposed use or development on or affecting shorelines of the state. (bb) *“Provision” means any written language contained in this program, including without limitation any definition, policy, goal, regulation, requirement, standard, authorization, or prohibition. (cc) “Pruning” means the removal of any of a tree’s living branches. (dd) “Public access” is a goal of the Shoreline Management Act that supports the public’s right to get to, view and use the state’s public waters, both saltwater and freshwater, the water/land interface and associated shoreline area. It includes physical acce ss that is either lateral (areas paralleling the shore) or perpendicular (an easement or public corridor to the shore), and/or visual access facilitated by scenic roads and overlooks, viewing towers and other public sites or facilities. Public access can b e established by easement or other means and may not always include a facility or structure. Public access is intended to connect people to public lands and waters, not to allow trespassing on private property. (ee) *“Public facilities (and services)” means facilities which serve the general public including streets, roads, ferries, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, community water systems, community sewage treatment systems, storm sewer systems, parks and recreational facilities , and libraries (see RCW 36.70A.030). Some public facilities are essential public facilities. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 31/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ff) “Public interest” means the interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from adverse effects of a use or development. (gg) *“Public transportation systems” means public facilities fo r air, water, or land transportation. (hh) “Public use” means the use of any land, water, or building by a public agency for the general public, or by the public itself. (ii) “Public utility” means a use owned or operated by a public or publicly licensed o r franchised agency that provides essential public services such as telephone exchanges, electric substations, radio and television stations, wireless communications services, gas and water regulation stations and other facilities of this nature. (17) Q Definitions. (a) “Qualified professional” or “qualified consultant” means a person with experience and training with expertise appropriate for the relevant subject. A qualified professional/consultant must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. degree or have appropriate education and experience. (b) “Qualified geotechnical engineer” means a professional engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer, licensed in the state of Washington. (18) R Definitions. (a) *“Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species” me ans plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limi ted or threatened with extinction within their native ranges. (b) *“RCW” means the Revised Code of Washington. (c) “Reach” means a section of shoreline and associated planning area that is mapped and described as a unit due to relatively homogenous charact eristics that include land use and/or natural features, such as a drift cell location and other factors. (d) “Reasonably foreseeable,” in the context of this program and the Comprehensive Plan, means predictable by an average person based on existing condi tions, anticipated build-out, and approved/pending permits. (e) “Recharge” means the process involved in the absorption and addition of water from the unsaturated zone to ground water. (f) “Reclamation” means, in accordance with RCW 78.44.031, rehabilitati on for the appropriate future use of disturbed areas resulting from surface mining. (g) *“Recording” means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the county auditor. (h) *“Recreational development” means parks and facilities for camping, indoor a nd outdoor sports, and similar developments. (i) “Recreation, shoreline” means a commercial or public activity intended for personal enjoyment and leisure. Most shoreline recreation occurs outdoors and can be either passive (such as observation or recording activities such as photography, painting, bird watching, viewing of water conditions or shoreline features, nature study and related activities) or active (such as: fishing, clamming, hunting, beach combing, rock climbing; boating, swimming, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, camping, picnicking, and similar activities). Existing rules for health, safety and public conduct are not exempted by an action being deemed recreational. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 32/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (j) “Reestablishment” means measures taken to intentionally restore an altered or damaged natural feature or process including: (i) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, and/or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; (ii) Actions performed to reestablish structural and functional characteristics of the critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management activities, or other events; and (iii) Restoration can include restoration of wetland functions and values on a site wh ere wetlands previously existed, but are no longer present due to lack of water or hydric soils. (k) ****“Rehabilitation” means a type of restoration action intended to repair natural or historic functions and processes. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or other activities that restore the natural water regime. (l) “Renovation” means to restore to an earlier condition as by repairing or remodeling. “Renovation” shall include any interior changes to the building and those exterior changes that do not substantially change the character of the existing structure. (m) “Resident fish” means a fish species that completes all stages of its life cycle within freshwater and frequently within a local area. (n) “Residential development” means development of land with dwelling units for nontransient occupancy including single-family, multifamily, and creation of new residential lots by land division. For the purposes of this program, accessory dwelling units, garages, and ot her similar structures accessory to a dwelling unit shall also be considered residential development (see also “Dwelling unit” and “Accessory dwelling unit”). (o) *“Resource-based industrial” means a forest resource-based industrial land use designation that recognizes existing, active sawmills and related activities. (p) *“Resource lands” means agricultural, forest, and mineral lands that have long -term commercial significance. (q) *“Restoration” means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecologica l shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions. (r) *“Restriction” means a limitation placed upon the use of parcel(s) of land. (s) “Revetment” means a sloped wall constructed of rip -rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement. (t) “Rip-rap” means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conducive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes. (u) “Riparian corridor, zone or area” means the area adjacent to a water body (stream, lake or marine water) that contains vegetation that influences the aquatic ecosystem, nearshore area and/or fish and wildlife habitat by providing shade, fine or large woody material, nutrients, organic debris, sediment filtration, and terrestrial insects (prey production). Riparian areas include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., zone of influence). Riparian zones provide important wildlife habitat. They provide sites for foraging, breeding and nesting; cover to escape predators or weather; and corridors that connect different parts o f a watershed for dispersal and migration. (v) ****“River” means a large natural stream of water emptying into any ocean, lake, or other body of water, and usually fed along its course by converging tributaries. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 33/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (w) *“Road” means an improved and maintained public or private right-of-way which provides vehicular access to abutting properties, and which may also include provision for public utilities, pedestrian access, cut and fill slopes, and drainage. (x) *“Runoff” means water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands as well as shallow ground water. In addition, that portion of rainfall or other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow. (y) *“Rural lands” means the class of land use designations which are intended to preserve the rural character of the county. Rural land designations include the following: rural residential, rural commercial, and rural industrial. (z) *“Rural residential designation” means the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan designed to recognize existing residential development patterns of the rural landscape and provide for a variety of residential living opportunities at densities which maintain the primaril y rural residential character of an area. (19) S Definitions. (a) *“Sale” means the conveyance for consideration of legal or beneficial ownership. (b) *“Saltwater intrusion” or “seawater intrusion” means the underground flow of salt water into wells and aquifers. (c) ****“Scientific and educational facilities” means those sites, structures, or facilities that provide unique insight into our natural and cultural heritage. Water oriented facilities including but not limited to maritime education and training are part of scientific and educational facilities. (d) *“Screening” means a method of visually shielding or obscuring a structure or use from view by fencing, walls, trees, or densely planted vegetation. (e) *“Seaward” means to or toward the sea. (f) ****“Seawall” means a structure whose primary purpose is to protect the shore from erosion by water waves. Seawalls are similar but typically more massive than bulkheads because they are designed to resist the full force of waves. (g) “Sedimentation” means the process by which material is transported and deposited by water or wind. (h) “Setback” means the distance a building structure is placed behind a specified limit such as a lot line or shoreline buffer. (i) “Shared use” means a facility shared by two or more lots/parcels. This can apply to facilities for adjoining lots or facilities shared between waterfront and upland properties; comparable to “Community structure” per JCC 18.10.030. See also “Community dock.” (j) “Shellfish” means invertebrate organisms of the phyla Arthropoda (class Crustacea), Mollusca (class Pelecypoda) and Echinodermata. Shellfish possess a full, partial or vestigial hard outer shell, carapace or exoskeleton. Examples include, but are not limited to, crabs and shrimp, clams, oysters, mussels and other bivalves, snails, limpets, abalone and other single -shelled gastropods, and sea urchins, sea cucumbers, sea stars. (k) “Shellfish habitat conservation areas” are all public and private tidelands suitable for shellfish, as identi fied by the Washington Department of Health classification of commercial growing areas, and those recreational harvest areas as identified by the Washington Department of Ecology as designated as shellfish habitat conservation areas pursuant to WAC 365 -190-80. Any area that is or has been designated as a shellfish protection district created under Chapter 90.72 RCW is also a shellfish habitat conservation area. (l) “Shore armoring” or “structural shoreline armoring” refers to the placement of bulkheads and other hard structures on the shoreline to provide stabilization and reduce or prevent erosion caused by wave action, Commented [LG13]: Task Force D Marine trades and economic development. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 34/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. currents and/or the natural transport of sediments along the shoreline. Groins, jetties, breakwaters, revetments, sea walls are examples of other types of shoreline armoring. (m) ***“Shorelands” or “shoreland areas” means those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from and perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 173 -22 WAC, as may be amended; the same to be designated as to location by the Department of Ecology, as defined by Chapter 90.58 RCW. (n) ***“Shorelines” are all of the water areas of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030, including reservoirs and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them e xcept the following, which are excluded: (i) Shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second (20 cfs) or less and the wetlands associated with such upst ream segments; and (iii) Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. (o) “Shoreline conditional use” means a use, development, substantial development, or unclassified use that, owing to some special characteristics attendant to its typical operation or installation, may be allowed in certain circumstances when consistent with criteria specified herein. (p) “Shoreline conditional use permit” means a permit issued by Jefferson County and approved by Ecology stating that the land uses and activities meet all criteria set forth in this program, and all conditions of approval in accordance with the procedural requirements of this program. (q) “Shoreline jurisdiction” means all shorelines of the state and shorelan ds. (r) *“Shoreline Management Act (SMA)” means the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Chapter 90.58 RCW), as amended. (s) “Shoreline master program” (“SMP” or “program”) means the Jefferson County shoreline master program. (t) **“Shoreline modification activities” means those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a bulkhead, dock or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as cl earing, grading, or filling. (u) “Shoreline permit” means a shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP), a shoreline conditional use permit, or a shoreline variance, or any combination thereof issued by Jefferson County pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. (v) “Shoreline stabilization” means nonstructural modifications to the existing shoreline intended to reduce or prevent erosion of uplands or beaches and/or influence wave action, currents and/or the natural transport of sediments along the shoreline. This includes use of bioengineering and other forms of vegetative stabilization. (w) ****“Shorelines of statewide significance (SSWS)” with respect to Jefferson County are identified as follows: (i) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the state, within Jefferson County and state of Washington jurisdiction, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets. (ii) The area between the ordinary high water mark and the western boundary of the state, within Jefferson County and state of Washington jurisdiction, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets. Commented [LG14]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #8 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 35/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iii(ii) The lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of 1,000 acres or more measured at the ordinary high water mark, including associated wetlands. (iviii) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme low tide, which are Hood Canal from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, south to the Mason-Jefferson County line, including associated wetlands. (viv) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide. (viv) Those natural rivers or segments thereof dow nstream from a point where the mean annual flow is measured at 1,000 cubic feet per second or more. In Jefferson County these rivers include portions of the Bogachiel River, Clearwater River, Hoh River, and Quinault River. (viivi) Those shorelands associated with the areas described in subsection (19)(w)(i ), (ii),) and (iv) of this definition. (x) ***“Shorelines of the state” means the total of all shorelines and shorelines of statewide significance within Washington State. (y) *“Short plat” means a neat and accurate drawing of a short subdivision, prepared for filing for record with the county auditor, and containing all elements and requirements set forth in Chapter 18.35 JCC. (z) *“Should” means that the particular action is preferred unless there is a de monstrated, compelling reason, based on policy of the Act and this program, against taking the action (WAC 173 -26-020(32)). (aa) *“Sign” means any object, device, display or structure, or part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors, which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination or projected images. Excluded from this definition are signs required by law, such as handicapped parking signs, and the flags of national and state governments. (bb) *“Sign, commercial or industrial” means a sign that directs attention to a business or profession, to a commodity or service sold, offered, or manufactured, or to an entertainment offered on the premises where the sign is located. (cc) “Significant vegetation removal” means the removal or alteration of trees, shrubs, and/or ground cover by clearing, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or other activity that causes significant impacts to ecological functions provided by such vegetation. The removal of invasive or noxious weeds does not constitute significant vegetation removal. Tree pruning, not inclu ding tree topping, where it does not affect ecological functions, does not constitute significant vegetation removal. (dd) *“Single-family residence” means a dwelling unit designed for and occupied by no more than one family. (ee) “Site plan approval advan ce determination (SPAAD)” means a review of a proposed development on a particular parcel for site requirements and constraints to allow prospective land buyers, owners or developers a means to obtain a five-year authorization prior to obtaining building permits for the development action. The intent is to reduce costs and aid financing and serves to vest a proposed development to current regulations. (ff) “Slope” means: (i) Gradient. (ii) The inclined surface of any part of the earth’s surface, delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. (gg) *“Small-scale” means of a size or intensity which has minimal impacts on the surrounding area and which makes minimal demands on the existing infrastructure. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 36/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (hh) “Soil” means all unconsolidated materials above bedrock described in the Soil Conservation Service Classification System or by the Unified Soils Classification System. (ii) *“Solid waste” means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semi-solid wastes, except wastes identified in WAC 173-304-015, including, but not limited to, junk vehicles, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, and discard ed commodities, but excluding agricultural wastes and crop residues returned to the soil at agronomic rates. This includes all liquid, solid and semi-solid materials which are not the primary products of public, private, industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural operations. Solid waste includes but is not limited to sludge from wastewater treatment plants and septage from septic tanks, wood waste, dangerous waste, and problem wastes. Unrecovered residues from recycling operations shall be considered s olid waste. (jj) ****“Solid waste handling and disposal facilities” means any land or structure where solid waste is stored, collected, transported, or processed in any form, whether loose, baled or containerized, including but not limited to the following: transfer stations, landfills, or solid waste loading facilities. Solid waste handling and disposal facilities do not include the following: handling or disposal of solid waste as an incidental part of an otherwise permitted use; and solid waste recycling and reclamation activities not conducted on the same site as and accessory to the handling and disposal of garbage and refuse. (kk) *“Solid waste disposal” means the act or process of disposing of rubbish and garbage. (ll) SPAAD. See “Site plan approval advance determination.” (mm) “Spit” means an accretion shoreform that is narrow in relation to length and extends parallel to or curves outward from shore; spits are also characterized by a substantial wave -built sand and gravel berm on the windward side, and a more gently sloping silt or marsh shore on the lagoon or leeward side; curved spits are called hooks. (nn) *“Storage yard, outdoor” means an outdoor area used for the storage of equipment, vehicles or materials for periods exceeding 72 hours. (oo) ****“Stormwater” means rain or snow melt that does not naturally infiltrate into the ground but runs off surfaces such as rooftops, streets, or lawns, directly or indirectly, into streams and other water bodies or through constructed infiltration facilities into the ground. (pp) “Stream” means an area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is an area that demonstrates clear evidence of the annual passage of water and includes, but is not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds, and defined channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water year round. This definition includes drainage ditches or other artificial water courses where natural streams existed prior to human alteration, and/or the waterway is used by anadromous or resident salmonid or other fish populations. (qq) “Strict construction” means an interpretation that considers only the literal words of a writing, as compared to liberal construction. (rr) *“Structure” means a permanent or temporary edifice or building or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels (WAC 173 -27-030). Retaining walls, bulkheads, fences, landscaping walls/decorative rockeries, and similar improvements to real property are examples of structures. Geoduck tubes are not considered structures for purposes of this program. (ss) *“Subdivision” means the division or redivision of land into lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. (tt) “Substantial development” means any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,7187,047 or as adjusted by the state legislature, or any development which materially interferes with the Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 37/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state; except the classes of development listed (a) through (l) under RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). (uu) ****“Substantially degrade” means to cause damage or harm to an area’s ecological functions. An action is considered to substantially degrade the environment under any of the following criteria: (i) The damaged ecological function or functions affect other related functions or t he viability of the larger ecosystem; or (ii) The degrading action may cause damage or harm to shoreline ecological functions under foreseeable conditions; or (iii) Scientific evidence indicates that the action may contribute to damage or harm to ecologica l functions as part of cumulative impacts from similar permitted development on nearby shorelines. (vv) ****“Subtidal” means the area waterward of the line of extreme low tide. (ww) *“Sustainable” means actions or activities which preserve and enhance reso urces for future generations. (20) T Definitions. (a) *“Threatened species” means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Nat ural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act. (b) *“Threshold determination” means the decision by the responsible official under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) regarding the likelihood that a project or other action (WAC 197-11-704) will have a probable significant adverse impact on an element of the environment. (c) “Toe” means the lowest part of a slope or cliff; the downslope end of an alluvial fan, landslide, etc. (d) ***“Tombolo” means a causeway-like accretion spit connecting an offshore rock or island with the main shore, such as the formation that connects Hood Head to the southern shore of Paradise Bay, near the Hood Canal Bridge. (e) “Topping” means the removal of any part of a tree’s main stem. (f) “Trimming” means the removal of living plant matter from any type of vegetation and includes limbing, thinning, shaping, tree pruning and topping. (21) U Definitions. (a) “Unavoidable” means adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures have been implemented. (b) *“Uplands” means dry lands landward of OHWM. (c) *“Urban growth area (UGA)” means an area designated by the county within which urban growth is to be encouraged and outside of which growth is n ot intended to be urban in nature (cf., Chapter 36.70A RCW). (d) *“Use” means the purpose that land or building or structures now serve or for which they are or may be occupied, maintained, arranged, designed, or intended. (e) *“Utility distribution lines” means pipes, wires, and associated structural supports. (f) *“Utility facilities” means facilities directly used for the distribution or transmission of services to an area, excluding utility service offices. (22) V Definitions. Commented [LG15]: 2017 a Periodic Checklist: Ecology suggests changing value or changing to citation; approach up to County but Ecology would require a change. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 38/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) *“Variance (or shoreline variance) permit” means a type of permit that can provide relief from the dimensional requirements of this program. A variance may only be granted when all of the criteria listed at WAC 173-27-170 are met. The variance is intended to allow only a minimu m degree of variation from setback or other standards, just enough to afford relief and to allow a reasonable use of a property. Variances approved by Jefferson County must also be approved, denied, or approved with conditions by Ecology. (b) “Vegetation” means all live plant material, including native and nonnative, woody and herbaceous, deciduous and evergreen, trees and understory groundcover, aquatic and terrestrial. (c) “Vegetative debris” means all dead and downed plant material, naturally expired or portions of a plant removed intentionally, such as by trimming, resulting from native and nonnative, woody and herbaceous, deciduous and evergreen, trees and understory groundcover, aquatic and terrestrial source. Examples include, but are not limited to, leaves, needles, branches, limbs, annual herbaceous growth, and grass clippings. A standing tree snag is not considered vegetative debris for the purposes of this program. (d) “Vegetation removal” means physical extraction, including the whole plant plus its root structure, or trimming in excess of that which a plant can survive even though the root structure is left in place, or chemical expiration of plant material. (e) “Vessel” means a floating structure that is designed primarily for navigation, is nor mally capable of self propulsion and use as a means of transportation, and meets all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to navigation and safety equipment on vessels, including, but not limited to, registration as a vessel by an appropriate government agency as per WAC 332-30-103. (f) *“Vicinity” means, in rural and resource lands, the area within one mile of the exterior boundary of a given parcel (JCC 18.10.220). (g) ****“View protection” means protection of the visual quality of the shoreline res ource and maintenance of view corridors to and from waterways and their adjacent shoreland features. (23) W Definitions. (a) *“WAC” means the Washington Administrative Code. (b) ****“Waste disposal” means refuse composed of garbage, rubbish, ashes, dead an imals, demolition wastes, automobile parts, and similar material. (c) **“Water-dependent use” means a use or portion of a use that requires direct contact with the water and cannot exist at a nonwater location due to the intrinsic nature of its operations. Ferry terminals, public fishing piers, marinas, and shellfish aquaculture are examples of water -dependent uses. Residential development is not a water-dependent use but is a preferred use of shorelines of the state. (d) **“Water-enjoyment use” means a recreational use or other use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general character istic of the use and which through location, design, and operation ensures the public’s ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline- oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. A restaurant or similar use may qualify as a water -enjoyment use, provided it includes public access to the shoreline. (e) “Water-oriented use” means any one or a combination of water -dependent, water-related or water- enjoyment uses and serves as an all-encompassing definition for priority uses under the Act. (f) “Water quality” means the characteristics of water, including flow or amount and related physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related, and biological characteristics. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 39/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (g) **“Water-related use” means a use or portion of a use that is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but depends upon a waterfront location for economic viability because of one of the following: (i) A functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or (ii) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-dependent activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Water -related uses include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a s ignificant factor in the product’s cost; professional services for primarily water -dependent activities and storage of water- transported foods. Other examples of water-related uses may include the warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processi ng plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker, and log storage for water -borne transportation. (h) “Watershed” means a geographic region within which water drains into a pa rticular river, stream or body of water. (i) ***“Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetati on typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. (j) “Windthrow” means a natural process by which trees are uprooted or sustain severe tru nk damage by the wind. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. II)] Article III. Master Program Goals 18.25.110 Purpose. This article describes the overall goals of the master program, which apply to all uses and developments within shoreline jurisdiction regardless of th e designated shoreline environment in which they occur. These goals are informed by Chapter 173-26 WAC and the governing principles described in Article I of this chapter. The general policies and regulations in Article VI of this chapter and the specific use policies and regulations in Articles VII and VIII of this chapter are the means by which these goals are implemented. Achievement of these goals shall be consistent with the state’s policies of avoiding cumulative impacts and ensuring no net loss of sh oreline processes, functions, and values. These goals are not listed in order of priority. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. III)] 18.25.120 Conservation. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(f), the conservation goals address the protection of natural resources, scenic vistas, aesthetics, and vital shoreline areas for fisheries and wildlife for the benefit of present and future generations. (2) Goals. (a) Preserve, enhance and protect shoreline resources (i.e., wetlands, intertidal areas, and other fish and wildlife habitats) for their ecological functions and values, and aesthetic and scenic qualities. (b) Maintain and sustain natural shoreline formation processes through effective shoreline management. (c) Promote restoration and enhancement of areas that are biologically and/or aesthetically degraded while maintaining appropriate use of the shoreline. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 40/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (d) Protect and enhance native shoreline vegetation to maintain water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other ecological functions, values and processes . (e) Foster environmental stewardship, preserve clean air and water, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Anticipate and respond to climate change with mitigation and adaptation strategies. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 1)] 18.25.130 Economic development. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(a), the economic development goals address the location and design of industries, transportation facilities, port facilities, tourist facilities, commerce and other developments that are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines. (2) Goals. (a) Encourage viable, orderly economic growth through economic activities that benefit the local economy and are environmentally sensitive. Such activities should not disrupt or degrade the shoreline or surrounding environment. (b) Accommodate and promote water -oriented industrial and commercial uses and developments, giving highest preference to water-dependent uses. (c) Encourage water-oriented recreational use as an economic asset that will enhance public enjoyment of the shoreline. (d) Encourage economic development in areas already partially developed with similar uses when consistent with this program and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. III § 2)] 18.25.140 Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(g), these goals address protection and restoration of buildings, sites and areas having historic, archaeological, cultural, scienti fic, or educational significance. (2) Goals. (a) Maintain finite and irreplaceable links to the past by identifying, preserving, protecting, and where appropriate, restoring historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific, and educational (HACSE) sites. (b) Protect HACSE sites and buildings identified on national, state or local historic registers from destruction or alteration, and from encroachment by incompatible uses. (c) Acquire, where feasible, HACSE sites to ensure their protection and preservation fo r present and future generations. (d) Foster greater appreciation for shoreline management, maritime activities, environmental conservation, natural history and cultural heritage by educating and informing citizens of all ages through diverse means. (e) Ensure that tribal organizations and the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation are involved in the review of projects that could potentially affect such resources. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. III § 3)] 18.25.150 Public access. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(b), the public access goals address the ability of the public to reach, touch, and travel on the shorelines of the state and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. (2) Goals. (a) Develop, adopt, and implement a shoreline public access plan that incorporates public access into new shoreline development, unifies individual public access points into a comprehensive system, and seeks new waterfront access points that can be acquired for public use. Commented [LG16]: Comp. Plan Framework Goal VI Environmental Conservation Commented [LG17R16]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 41/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Evaluate potential public access opportunities when reviewing all shoreline development projects except for individual single-family residential development projects. (c) Acquire property (i.e., through purchase, donation or other agreement) to provide public a ccess to the water’s edge in appropriate and suitable locations. (d) Regulate shoreline use and development to minimize interference with the public’s use of the water and protect the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines, including views of the water. (e) Expand opportunities for physical and visual public access to shorelines when such access can occur without human health, safety, and/or security risks, and without adverse effects on shoreline functions, processes, values, private property rights, and/or neighboring uses. (f) Incorporate educational and interpretive signage and other tools into public access facilities to enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation of shoreline ecology, cultural history and maritime heritage. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 4)] 18.25.160 Recreation. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(c), the recreation goals address the creation and expansion of water - oriented public recreational opportunities including, but not limited to, parks, tidelands, beaches, and ecological study areas. (2) Goals. (a) Encourage diverse recreational opportunities in shoreline areas that can support such use and development without human health, safety, and/or security risks, and without adv erse effects on shoreline functions, processes, values, private property rights, and/or neighboring uses. (b) Plan for future shoreline recreation needs and acquire (i.e., through purchase, donation or other agreement) shoreline areas that have a high potential to provide recreation areas. (c) Provide for both active and passive recreational needs when developing recreational areas. (d) Support other governmental and nongovernmental efforts to acquire and develop additional shoreline properties for public recreational uses. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 5)] 18.25.170 Restoration and enhancement. (1) Purpose. As required by WAC 173-26-186, the restoration and enhancement goals address reestablishment, rehabilitation and improvement of impaired shoreline ecolo gical functions, values and/or processes. (2) Goals. (a) Improve shoreline functions, processes, and values over time through regulatory, voluntary and incentive - based public and private programs and actions that are consistent with the shoreline master pr ogram restoration plan and other agency adopted restoration plans. (b) Encourage cooperative restoration programs between local, state, and federal public agencies, tribes, nonprofit organizations, and landowners. (c) Provide fundamental support to restora tion work by various organizations by identifying shoreline restoration priorities, and by organizing information on available funding sources for restoration implementation. (d) Implement actions that restore shoreline ecological functions, values and pro cesses as well as shoreline features, improve habitat for sensitive and/or locally important species, and are consistent with biological recovery goals for threatened salmon populations and other species and/or populations for which a recovery plan is available. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 42/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Integrate restoration efforts with other parallel natural resource management efforts including, but not limited to, shellfish closure response plans and water quality cleanup plans. (f) Increase the availability, viability and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon, shellfish, forage fish, shorebirds and marine seabirds, and other species. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 6)] 18.25.180 Shoreline use. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(e), the shoreline use goals address the gener al distribution, location, and extent of housing, business, industry, transportation, agriculture, natural resources, aquaculture, recreation, education, navigation, and other categories of public and private land use. (2) Goals. (a) Ensure that shoreline use patterns are compatible with the ecological functions and values of the shoreline and avoid disruption of natural shoreline processes. (b) Increase protection of shoreline ecological resources by properly siting and regulating water -dependent and residential uses that have preferred status for use of waterfront lands. (c) Encourage appropriate sustainable, low impact, and cluster development practices whenever feasible. (d) Encourage uses that allow for or include restoration so that areas affected by past activities or catastrophic events can be improved. (e) Ensure that all new development is consistent with the Land Use and Rural Element and other pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW). (f) Limit development intensity in ecologically sensitive and fragile areas. (g) Reduce health and safety risks by limiting development in areas subject to flooding, erosion, landslides, channel migration, and other hazards. (h) Reserve aquatic lands including tidelands for water-dependent uses. (i) Protect tidelands and bedlands that were acquired and retained under the Bush and Callow Acts by not permitting unrelated uses on these tidelands. (j) Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise. (k) Allow residential, commercial, and industrial development in a manner that minimizes risk from flooding, earth movement, shoreline erosion, sea level rise, and other natural hazards (l) Ensure that land use decisions consider climate change, and are based on land use ordinances which are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and all applicable state environmental laws. (m) Develop information and action plans regarding im pacts to land use from climate change, including protecting or moving infrastructure from inundation areas; review of hydrologic budgets and water impoundment and conservation measures for changing precipitation patterns; and protection of water quality from seawater intrusion or other pollutants to drinking water quality. (n) Promote climate change adaptation measures that: (i) prioritize retreat measures for new development or new infrastructure investments and allow for feasible planned relocations or realignments of existing development and infrastructure ; (ii) accommodate shoreline uses and activities that are saltwater and flood tolerant; Commented [LG18]: Comp Plan Policy: LU-P-7.2 Commented [LG19R18]: Task Force C Commented [LG20]: Comp Plan Policy LU-P-7.1 Commented [LG21R20]: Task Force C Commented [LG22]: Comp Plan Policy LU-P-7.3 Commented [LG23R22]: Task Force C Commented [LG24]: See research. Retreat, accommodate, and protect. Commented [LG25R24]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 43/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iii) protect existing development and infrastructure that is consistent with this SMP and is infeasible to be relocated or realigned. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 7)] 18.25.190 Transportation, utilities and essential public facilities. (1) Purpose. As required by RCW 90.58.100(2)(d), the transportation and essential public facilities goals addres s circulation and the general location and extent of thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities. (2) Goals. (a) Develop efficient and economical transportation systems and other essential public facilities in a manner that assures the safe movement of people and goods and that effectively provides other essential services without adverse effects on shoreline use and development or shoreline ecological functions, processes, or values. (b) Provide and/or enhance physical and visual public shoreline access along public roads (i.e., turnouts, viewpoints and rest areas) in accordance with the public access provisions of this program. (c) Provide for alternative modes of travel when developing circulation systems and ensure consistency with the Jefferson County nonmotorized transportation and recreational trails plan. (d) Locate, construct and maintain new transportation and other essential public facilities in areas that do not require shoreline stabilization, dredging, extensive cut/fill and other forms of shoreline alteration. (e) Identify road and public infrastructure developments that interfere with natural processes, require shoreline armoring, or have exorbitant maintenance needs. Prioritize relocation of such facilities to more environmentally sustainable and economically sensible locations. (f) Consider potential effects of climate change when making siting decisions for capital facilities, also with consideration of the land use and environment goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 8)] Article IV. Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations 18.25.200 Shoreline jurisdiction and mapping. (1) The provisions of this program shall apply to all shorelines of the state in unincorporated Jefferson County including all freshwater and saltwater shorelines, shorelines of statewide significance and all shorelands as defined in Article II of this chapter and RCW 90.58.030. These areas are collectively referred to herein as “shorelines.” The official shoreline map adopted with this program (Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter) shows the general location and approximate extent of such shorelines. (2) The official shoreline map shows the environment designations that apply to each segment of the shoreline planning area. The official shoreline map is for planning purposes only. It does not necessarily identify or depict the precise lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction or all associated wetlands. The lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction at the parcel level shall be det ermined on a case-by-case basis at the time a shoreline development is proposed. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site -specific evaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. (3) The county shall maintain a Geographic Information Systems database that depicts the coordinates for locating the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction (that is, the location where the mean annual stream flow is at least 20 cubic feet per second). The database shall also show the limits of the floodplain, floodway, and channel migration zones, and such information shall be used, along with site -specific information on the location of the ordinary high water mark and associated wetlands, to determine the late ral extent of shoreline jurisdiction on a parcel -by-parcel basis. The database shall be updated regularly as new information is made available and the public shall have access to the database upon request. Commented [LG26]: Comp Plan Policy CF-P-4.3 Commented [LG27R26]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 44/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (4) All areas within shoreline jurisdiction that a re not mapped and/or not designated shall be designated conservancy until the area is redesignated through a master program amendment, except : (a) within the Quinault Indian Nation reservation where the upland designation shall be natural and the waterward designation shall be priority aquatic. (b) The shoreline environment designation in ocean coastal areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) extending to the westernmost boundary of the state of Washington shall be priority aquatic. (c) Riverine shorelines of the state in the west end shall be aquatic below the OHWM. (5) If disagreement develops as to the exact location of a shoreline environment designation boundary line shown on the official shoreline map, the following rules shall apply: (a) Boundaries indicated as approximately following lot, tract, or section lines shall be so construed. (b) Boundaries indicated as approximately following roads or railways shall be respectively construed to follow their centerlines. (c) Boundaries indicated as approximately parallel to or extensions of features indicated in subsections (5)(a) and (b) of this section. (d) Whenever existing physical features are inconsistent with boundaries on the official shoreline map, the administrator shall interpret the boundaries, with deference to actual conditions. Appeals of such interpretations may be filed pursuant to the applicable appeal procedures described in Article X of this chapter. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IV § 1)] 18.25.210 Shoreline environment designations – Purpose and criteria. (1) Shoreline environment designations have been developed as a part of this program in accordance with WAC 173-26-211. The designations provide a systematic, rational, and equitable basis upon which to guide and regulate use and development within specific shoreline planning areas. (2) Shoreline environment designations are based on the following general factors, not listed in order of priority: (a) The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the November 2008 Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and (b) The county’s goal of having coordinated planning for open space, public access and othe r aspects of shoreline management; and (c) Existing and planned development patterns, including county Comprehensive Plan designations; and (d) The county Comprehensive Plan goals for shorelines; and (e) The requirements outlined in WAC 173 -26-211; and (f) Public demand for state-owned wilderness beaches, ecological study areas, and public access and recreational activities. (3) Shorelines in Jefferson County shall have one or more of the following designations: (a) Priority Aquatic (PA). (i) Purpose. The priority aquatic designation protects to the highest degree possible and, where feasible, restores waters and their underlying bedlands deemed vital for salmon and shellfish. Commented [LG28]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #7 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 45/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) Designation Criteria. The priority aquatic designation is assigned to the mos t vital salmon streams and nearshore areas and the highest value marine shellfish habitats waterward of the ordinary high water mark. These shorelines have one or more of the following qualities: (A) Documented Endangered Species Act -listed salmonid streams and marine habitats (summer chum, chinook, and steelhead); (B) Estuaries that support Endangered Species Act -listed salmonid rearing; (C) Other freshwater shorelines that provide habitat for salmonid species (coho, fall chum, pink, and cutthroat) and are relatively undeveloped; (D) Intact drift cell processes (i.e., sediment source, transport, and deposition); (E) Documented forage fish spawning habitats (herring, surf smelt, sandlance); and/or (F) Important intertidal and subtidal shellfish areas (clam, oyster, crab, shrimp, and geoduck). (b) Aquatic (A). (i) Purpose. The aquatic designation protects, manages, and, where feasible, restores lake, stream, and marine waters and their underlying bedlands that are not designated as priority aquatic. (ii) Designation Criteria. The aquatic designation is assigned to shoreline areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark if the area does not meet the criteria for the priority aquatic designation. (c) Natural (N). (i) Purpose. The natural designation protects from harm or adverse impact shoreline areas that are intact, have minimally degraded functions and processes, or are relatively free of human influence. (ii) Designation Criteria. The natural designation is assigned to shoreline areas landward of the or dinary high water mark if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is mostly ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important or irreplaceable function or process that would be damaged by human activity; or (B) The shoreline, whether minimally disturbed or intact, represents an ecosystem type or geologic feature that is of particular scientific and/or educational interest; or (C) The shoreline contains undisturbed wetlands, estuaries, feeder bluffs, unstable slopes, coastal dunes, and/or accretional spits; or (D) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or processes; or (E) The shoreline has the potential to regain natural conditions with mi nimal or no restoration activity; or (F) The shoreline possesses serious development limitations or human health and safety risks due to the presence of environmental hazards related to flooding, channel migration, erosion or landslides and similar occurrences. (d) Conservancy (C). (i) Purpose. The conservancy designation provides for sustained use of resource lands and other relatively undeveloped shorelines while protecting ecological functions, conserving natural, historic and cultural resources, and providing recreational opportunities. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 46/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) Designation Criteria. A conservancy designation is assigned to shoreline areas landward of the ordinary high water mark if they do not meet the criteria for the natural designation and if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is relatively undeveloped or currently supporting resource -based uses; or (B) The shoreline can support low impact outdoor recreational activities; or (C) The shoreline is predominantly low density rural residential use (R R 1:10, RR 1:20); or (D) The shoreline can support low density residential development and low intensity water -oriented uses, including some commercial and industrial uses, without significant adverse impacts to shoreline functions or processes; or (E) The shoreline is a good candidate for ecological restoration. (e) Shoreline Residential (SR). (i) Purpose. The shoreline residential designation accommodates residential development and accessory structures that are properly located and designed, in areas where high density residential developments and services exist or are planned. (ii) Designation Criteria. The shoreline residential designation is assigned to shoreline areas landward of the ordinary high water mark if they do not meet the criteria for the natural, conservancy or high intensity environments, and if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is within an urban growth area (UGA); or master planned resort (MPR); or designated high density rural residential area (RR 1:5); or (B) The shoreline is predominantly high density (RR 1:5) single -family or multifamily residential development or is planned and platted for high density (RR 1:5) residential development. (f) High Intensity (HI). (i) Purpose. The high intensity designation ens ures continued use of shorelines that are either presently used for commercial, industrial, or other high intensity nonresidential purposes or provide future economic development or recreational opportunities at a higher scale and intensity than can be ach ieved in more ecologically sensitive areas. (ii) Designation Criteria. The high intensity designation is assigned to shorelines landward of the ordinary high water mark if they do not meet the criteria for the natural, conservancy or shoreline residential environments if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is within an urban growth area (UGA), rural commercial area, or rural industrial area and is suitable for high intensity uses; or (B) The shoreline is currently used for industri al, commercial or other high intensity nonresidential uses and is suitable for ongoing high intensity use. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IV § 2)] 18.25.220 Uses allowed in each shoreline environment designation. (1) Each shoreline environment designation shall be managed in accordance with its designated purpose as described in this section. Table 18.25.220 shows the permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibited uses for each environment designation. The requirements governing each use are described in Article s VI, VII and VIII of this program. The permit criteria are described in Article IX of this chapter and the administrative standards including the review procedures are described in Article X of this chapter. Table 18.25.220 is intended to illustrate the t ext of the master program. In the event discrepancies exist, the text shall govern. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 47/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Table 18.25.220 – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by Shoreline Environment Designation P = Use may be permitted subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit o r statement of exemption approval. See Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX and/or X of this chapter for details. C(a) = Conditional use administrative. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. C(d) = Conditional use discretionary. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. X = Prohibited use. * = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section for details. Shoreline Uses Environment Designations Waterward of OHWM Landward of OHWM Priority Aquatic Aquatic Natural Conservancy Shoreline Residential High Intensity Agriculture X X X* P P P Aquaculture: Aquaculture activities other than geoduck, in- water finfish, and upland finfish. P P P P P P Geoduck (new) PC(d)* PC(d)* C(d)* C(d)* C(d)* PC(d)* In-water finfish (including net pens) X C(d) X*/C(d) X X C(d) Upland finfish X C(d) X C(d) X C(d) Beach Access Structures: P P C(a) P P P Public C(a)* C(a)*P C(a)* C(a)P C(a)P C(a)P Private, accessory to single-family residential development X C(a)* X C(a) C(a)P C(a)P Boating Facilities: Boat launches (nonresidential) P* P* C(a)* C(a)P P P Boat launches (residential) X* P* C(a)* C(a) P P Docks, piers, floats, lifts (nonresidential) P* P* C(d)* C(a)* P* P Docks, piers, floats, lifts (residential) X* P* X C(a) P P Float plane moorage X C(d) X C(a) C(a) P Industrial piers P* P* X X X P Marinas X P* X C(d) C(d) P Commented [LG29]: 2011 b Periodic Checklist Commented [LG30]: Task Force A, Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #31 Commented [GU31]: AJS: This row seems to be an error - could not figure out how to remove vertical lines in the online format. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 48/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. P = Use may be permitted subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit o r statement of exemption approval. See Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX and/or X of this chapter for details. C(a) = Conditional use administrative. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. C(d) = Conditional use discretionary. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. X = Prohibited use. * = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section for details. Shoreline Uses Environment Designations Waterward of OHWM Landward of OHWM Priority Aquatic Aquatic Natural Conservancy Shoreline Residential High Intensity Mooring buoys P* P* C(a)* C(a)P C(a)*P P Commercial Development: Water-dependent (recreation) C(d) P C(d) C(d) P P Water-dependent or water-related (nonrecreation) X X X C(d) P P Water-related (recreation) X P X X P P Water-enjoyment X X X C(d) P P Non-water- oriented X X X X* C(d) C(d) Dredging C(d) C(d) X* C(d) C(d) P Dredge Disposal C(d) C(d) X* C(d) C(d) C(d) Filling and Excavation C(d) C(d) X* C(d) P P Flood Control Structures C(d) C(d) X C(d) C(d) C(d) Forest Practices X X P P P P In-Stream Structures C(d) C(d) X* C(d) C(d) C(d) Industrial and Port Development: Water-oriented X C(d) X C(d) C(d)* P Non-water- oriented X X X X* X*/C(d) C(d) Mining X X X* X* X* C(d) Parking: Accessory to permitted use X X X* P/C(d) P/C(d) P/C(d) Primary use X X X X X X Recreation: Water-oriented P* P* P* P* P P Commented [LG32]: Task Force B Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 49/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. P = Use may be permitted subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit o r statement of exemption approval. See Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX and/or X of this chapter for details. C(a) = Conditional use administrative. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. C(d) = Conditional use discretionary. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. X = Prohibited use. * = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section for details. Shoreline Uses Environment Designations Waterward of OHWM Landward of OHWM Priority Aquatic Aquatic Natural Conservancy Shoreline Residential High Intensity Non-water- oriented X X X X C(d) X Underwater parks C(a) C(a) N/A N/A N/A N/A Residential: Single-family (and normal appurtenances) X X C(a) P P P Accessory structures associated with single-family development (other than beach access structures, boating facilities, and boathouses) X X X C(a) P P Boathouses accessory to single-family residences X X X C(a) C(a) C(a) Multifamily X X X P* P P Restoration and Enhancement P P P P P P Shore Armor/Stabilization: Nonstructural stabilization P P P P P P Structural armoring, river and marine – nonresidential C(a)* C(a)* C(a)* C(a)* C(a)* C(a)* Structural armoring, river and marine – residential X X X C(a)* C(a)* C(a)* Structural armoring, lakes X X X X X X Signs P* P* X* P P P Transportation: Serving an allowed use C(d) C(d) X* P P P Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 50/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. P = Use may be permitted subject to policies and regulations of program. May require shoreline substantial development permit o r statement of exemption approval. See Articles VI, VII, VIII, IX and/or X of this chapter for details. C(a) = Conditional use administrative. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. C(d) = Conditional use discretionary. See Articles II, IX and X of this chapter for definition, criteria and process details. X = Prohibited use. * = Exceptions and limitations may apply as noted in this program. See specific section for details. Shoreline Uses Environment Designations Waterward of OHWM Landward of OHWM Priority Aquatic Aquatic Natural Conservancy Shoreline Residential High Intensity Not serving a specific allowed use C(d) C(d) X* C(d)* C(d)* C(d)* Utilities: Essential public facilities C(d)* C(d) X* C(d) P P Oil, gas and natural gas transmission lines C(d)* C(d) X* P* P* P Power/tidal energy generation facilities X C(d) X C(d) C(d) C(d) Desalinization plants X* X* X C(d) C(d) C(d) Sewage systems X* X* X* C(d) C(d) P Water systems X* X* X* C(d) C(d) P Electrical and communication lines C(d) C(d) X* P* P* P [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IV § 3)] Article V. Shorelines of Statewide Significance 18.25.230 Adoption of policy. (1) In accordance with RCW 90.58.020, the county shall manage shorelines of statewide significance in accordance with this section and in accordance with this program as a whole. Preference shall be given to uses that are consistent with the statewide interest in such shorelines. Uses that are not consistent with this section or do not comply with the other applicable policies and regulations of this program shall not be permitted on shorelines of statewide significance. (2) In managing shorelines of statewide significance, Jefferson County shall: (a) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; (b) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (c) Seek long-term benefits over short-term benefit; (d) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 51/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; (f) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and (g) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. V § 1)] 18.25.240 Designation of shorelines of statewide significance. In accordance with RCW 90.58.030(2)(e), the following Jefferson County shorelines are designated shorelines of statewide significance: (1) Shorelines of natural rivers or segments thereof, incl uding portions of the Bogachiel, Clearwater, Hoh, and Quinault Rivers, downstream from a point where the mean annual flow equals 1,000 cubic feet per second or more; and (2) The waters of Hood Canal between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extr eme low tide south of the line between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff; and (3) Those areas of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca and adjacent salt waters north to the Canadian line and lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. V § 2)] 18.25.250 Use preference. To ensure that statewide interests are protected over local interests, the county shall review all development proposals within shorelines of statewide significance for consistency with RCW 90.58.030, thi s program, and the following, which are not listed in priority order preferences and management principles: (1) When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist; (2(1) Use Preference: Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest. Management Principles: (a) State and federal resource agencies, co-managers, and tribes, shall be consulted for development proposals that affect anadromous fish, shellfish, marine birds, and other shoreline resources; (3(b) The County should consider state agencies' policies, programs, and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. (c) Relevant to the proposal’s nature, scale, or rarity, the County should solicit comments, opinions, and advice from individuals with expertise in ecology, oceanography, geology, limnology, aquaculture, and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline management. (2) Use Preference: Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. Management Principles: (a) When shoreline development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of ecological conditions if such opportunities exist; (b) Areas that are subject to commercial timber harvest pursuant to the Forest Practices Act and RCW 90.58.150 should be reforested as soon as possible and in accordance with the Forest Practices Act and the Forest and Fish Report; (4c) Uses that are sustainable, that do not deplete natural resources, and that are compatible with other approved uses shall be preferred over uses that do not have these qualities; (5) Uses that provide long-term benefits shall be preferred over uses that provide only short-term gains; Commented [LG33]: Reorganized under each use preference like Snohomish County. Other additions or changes are based on Whatcom County and Aberdeen as well as Snohomish County. Also, consider which should be "shall" or "should". Commented [LG34]: Task Force F Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 52/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (6) Uses that preserve aesthetic qualities shall be preferred over uses that impact aesthetic qualities; (7(iv) The County should promote upgrade and redevelopment of those areas where intensive development already exists, in order to reduce their adverse impact on the environment and to accommodate future growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into low intensity use or underdeveloped areas. (3) Use Preference: Seek long-term benefits over short-term benefit Management Principles: (a) The range of options for shoreline use should be preserved to the maximum possible extent for succeeding generations. Development that consumes valuable, scarce or irreplaceable natural resources should not be permitted if alternative sites are available. (b) The County should evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of developments in relationship to long-term and potentially costly impairments to the natural environment . (c) The County should actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating new development, redevelopment of existing facilities, or for the general enhancement of shoreline areas. (4) Use Preference: Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; Management Principles: (a) Uses that require a shoreline location shall be preferred over non -water-related uses. Non-water-related uses should be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction or in areas where they will not interfere with or displace preferred uses or public access; (8b) Commercial shellfish beds, areas that support recreation and tourism, and other economic resources of statewide importance shall be protected; (9c) Uses that have the potential to cause significant erosion and sedimentation due to excavation, land clearing, or other activities shall be strictly regulated to prevent adverse impacts to shoreline functions and processes; (10(5) Use Preference: Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline; Management Principles: (a) All public access and recreation use and development shall be designed to protect the ecological resources upon which such activities depend; and (11b) Public and private development shall be encouraged to provide trails, viewpoints, water access points and water-related recreation opportunities where conditions are appropriate for such uses. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. V § 3)] (6) Use Preference: Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline Management Principles: (a) The County should encourage development of facilities for recreational use of the shorelines. (b Development not requiring a waterside or shoreline location should be located inland so that lawful public enjoyment of shorelines is enhanced. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 53/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Article VI. General Policies and Regulations 18.25.260 Applicability. The policies and regulations in this article apply to all uses and developments in all shoreline environments. The policies and regulations are not listed in order of priority. These policies and regulations: (1) Help to implement the master program goals in Article III of this chapter; and (2) Are informed by the governing principles in Article I of this chapter; and (3) Work in concert with all the other policies and regulations contained in this program; and (4) Are based on the state shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173 -26 WAC). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VI)] 18.25.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection. (1) Policies. (a) All shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that avoids and minimizes adverse impacts on the shoreline environment. Uses and developments that may cause the future ecological condition to become worse than current condition should not be allowed. Use and development in areas that are ecologically valuable, hazardous, and/or possess rare or fragile natural features should be discouraged. (b) In assessing the potential for new uses and developments to cause adverse impacts, the county should take into account all of the following: (i) Effects on ecological functions and ecosyst em processes; and (ii) Effects that occur on site and effects that may occur off site; and (iii) Immediate effects and long-term effects; and (iv) Direct effects of the project and indirect effects; and (v) Individual effects of the project and the increme ntal or cumulative effects resulting from the project added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions; and (vi) Compensatory mitigation actions that offset adverse impacts of the development action and/or use. (c) The county should recognize and honor buffers and setbacks established by existing plats, preliminary plats, issued permits, binding site plans (BSPs) and site plan approval advance determinations (SPAADs), and by development agreements that are consistent with Chapter 36.7 0B RCW. (d) The county should work with other local, state, and federal regulatory agencies and resource management agencies to ensure that mitigation actions carried out in support of this program are likely to be successful and achieve beneficial ecological outcomes. This includes assisting applicants/proponents in planning, designing and implementing mitigation. (e) Single-family residential development on nonconforming lots should not substantially impair the view of the adjacent residences. (2) Regulations – No Net Loss and Mitigation. (a) All shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shall be located, designed, constructed, conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 54/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Uses and developments that cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes shall be prohibited. Any use or development that causes the future ecological condition to become worse than current condition sh all be prohibited. (c) Proponents of new shoreline use and development shall employ measures to mitigate adverse impacts on shoreline functions and processes. (d) Mitigation shall include the following actions in order of priority: (i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providin g substitute resources or environments; (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. (e) Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline uses fostered by the policies of the Shoreline Management Act. (f) When compensatory mitigation measures are required, all of the following shall apply: (i) The quality and quantity of the replaced, enhanced, or substituted resources shall be the same or better than the affected resources; and (ii) The mitigation site and associated vegetative planting shall be nurtured and maintained such that healthy native plant communities can grow and mature over time; and (iii) The mitigation shall be informed by pertinent scientific and technica l studies, including but not limited to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Final – Revised November 2008), the Shoreline Restoration Plan (Final October 2008) and other background studies prepared in support of this program; and (iv) The mitigation shall replace the functions as quickly as possible following the impacts to ensure no net loss; and (v) The mitigation activity shall be monitored and maintained to ensure that it achieves its intended functions and values. The monitoring timeframes shall be consistent with JCC 18.22.740. (vi) The county shall require the applicant/proponent to post a bond or provide other financial surety equal to the estimated cost of the mitigation in order to ensure the mitigation is carried out successfully. The bond/surety shall be refunded to the applicant/proponent upon completion of the mitigation activity and any required monitoring. (g) To encourage shoreline property owners to remove bulkheads and perform other beneficial shoreline restoration actions in advance of shoreline development or redevelopment, the county may give mitigation credit to any beneficial restoration action that occurred within five years of the proposed development/redevelopment activity; provided, that: (i) The applicant/property owner can provide conclusive evidence of the pre- and post-restoration conditions using photographs, reports, plans, affidavits, or similar evidence; Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 55/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) The county can confirm via site inspection, photographs, affidavits or other evidence that the restoration actions have improved shoreline conditions; and (iii) The applicant/property owner provides assurances that the restoration area will be maintained in perpetuity. The assurance can be in the form of a notice on title, conservation easement, or similar mechanism. (h) Compensatory mitigation measures shall occur in the vicinity of the impact or at an alternative location within the same watershed or appropriate section of marine shoreline (e.g., reach or drift cell) that provides greater and more sustainable ecological benefits. When determining whether off -site mitigation provides greater and more sustainable benefits, the county shall consider limiting factors, critical habitat needs, and other factors identified by the locally adopted shoreline restoration plan (October 2008 or as updated), or an approved watershed or comprehensive resource management plan. The county may also approve use of alternative mitigation practices such as in-lieu fee programs, certified mitigation banks, and other similar approaches, provided they have been approved and sanctioned by the Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Partnership, the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Army Corps of Engineers . (i) Land that is constrained by critical areas and/or buffers shall not be subdivided to create parcels that are only buildable through a shoreline variance or would be considered nonconforming . (.(3) Regulations – Cumulative Impacts. (a) The county shall consider the cumulative impacts of individual uses and develop ments, including preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, when determining whether a proposed use or development could cause a net loss of ecological functions. (b) The county shall have the authority to require the applicant/propo nent to prepare special studies, assessments and analyses as necessary to identify and address cumulative impacts including, but not limited to, impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, public access/use, aesthetics, and other shoreline attributes. (c) Proponents of shoreline use and development shall take the following factors into account when assessing cumulative impacts: (i) Current ecological functions and human factors influencing shoreline natural processes; and (ii) Reasonably foreseeable future use an d development of the shoreline; and (iii) Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws; and (iv) Mitigation measures implemented in conjunction with the proposed project to avoid, reduce and/or compensate for adverse impacts. (d) The county shall prohibit any use or development that will result in unmitigated cumulative impacts. (4) Regulations – Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers. (a) Critical areas provisions of Chapter 18.22 JCC, dated March 17, 200810, 2020 (Ordinance No. Ord.03- 0317-08), and further amended in May 2009 (Ordinance No. 06 -0511-09), and August 2010 (Ordinance No. 04-0809-10) are 5-20 § 2) is incorporated by reference; however, the following exceptions shall prevail for actions occurring within shoreline jurisdiction: (i) All provisions listed in subsections (4)(b) through (l) and (5)(a) through (d) of this section (e.g., building setback, buffers, CASPs, reasonable use, nonconforming lots, water -oriented use/development) and provisions found in JCC 18.25.660 (i.e., nonconforming development), shall be governed by this program and not Chapter 18.22 JCC; and Commented [LG35]: 2009 b Periodic Checklist Commented [LG36]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #2 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 56/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) Sections of Chapter 18.22 JCC, Article II of this chapter and other sections of JCC Title 18 regarding permit process, administrative, nonconforming use, appeal, and enforcement provisions within shoreline jurisdiction shall be governed by this program and not Chapter 18.22 JCC. (b) In the event development or performance standards in Chapter 18.22 JCC are inconsistent with standards and requirements in this program, this program shall govern. (c) Unless otherwise specified in this program, a buffer zone shall be established landward of a ll shorelines of the state to protect and maintain ecological functions and processes and to minimize risks to human health and safety. All buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly natural, undisturbed, undeveloped, and vegetated condition. Buffers shall not extend across lawfully established paved roads or hardened surfaces to include areas which are functionally isolated from the shoreline or critical area. (d) Building Setback. As established in Chapter 18.22 JCC, all new uses and developments, inc luding preferred uses and uses exempt from shoreline permit requirements, shall be located landward of the standard buffer plus a 10-foot-wide building setback unless otherwise specified in this program. (e) Standard Buffer. The standard buffer shall be me asured landward in a horizontal direction perpendicular to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the shoreline water body, and is a three dimensional space that includes the airspace above, as follows: (i) Marine Shores. A minimum buffer of 150 feet shall be maintained in all shoreline environments. (ii) Lake (20 acres or greater) Shores. A minimum buffer of 100 feet shall be maintained in all shoreline environments. (iii) Stream/River (mean annual flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second) Shores. A minimum buffer of 150 feet shall be maintained in all shoreline environments . (f) The county shall recognize and apply a buffer or setback established by an existing plat, preliminary plat, issued permit, binding site plan (BSP), site plan approval adva nce determination (SPAAD), or a development agreement that is consistent with Chapter 36.70B RCW. (g) Multiple Buffers. In the event that buffers for any shorelines and/or critical areas are contiguous or overlapping, the landward-most edge of all such buffers and setbacks shall apply. (h) Buffer Condition. The area within a required shoreline buffer shall be kept in a sufficiently vegetated condition so as to ensure it protects and maintains the existing ecological functions. Existing native vegetation shall be retained, and planting of native vegetation is preferred. (i) Buffer Usage. When located to avoid areas of noted sensitivity and habitat, an area shall be permitted for “active use” within an approved buffer, provided the area does not exceed 20 perc ent of the required buffer area or is configured to span at least 15 linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater. This regulation shall not apply retroactively to existing uses except when new use or development is proposed. The repair and/or siting of failed legally permitted septic and/or stormwater systems may locate in the buffer with a Shoreline Exemption JCC 18.25.560(2). (j) Buffer Reduction or Averaging. Proposals that request a decrease in the standard shoreline buffer of this program shall not require a shoreline variance if all of the approval criteria in JCC 18.22.640(1) and (2) are met. All other shoreline buffer reduction or shoreline buffer averaging proposals shall require a shoreline variance. (k) Increased Buffers. An increase in buffer width shall be required upon determination that the development would be: (i) Susceptible to severe erosion resulting in adverse impacts to the shoreline; or (ii) Susceptible to health and safety risks caused by stream or river channel migration; or Commented [LG37]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #32 Commented [LG38]: Code interpretations Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 57/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iii) Susceptible to health and safety risks caused by flooding – from sea, river/stream; or (iv) On steeply sloped (greater than 25 percent) land adjacent to the ordinary high water mark. (l) Alternative Protection via Critical Areas Stewardship Plans (CASPs). If a proponent of a shoreline use or development proposes to modify the buffer width requirement of an SMA -regulated waterbody using the CASP standards described in Article IX of Chapter 18.22 JCC, such buffer modification shall require a shoreline variance. If the proposed CASP buffer modification is for a wetland or habitat conservation area that is physically separated from the SMA-regulated waterbody, no shoreline variance shall be required.Type I Shoreline Substantial Development (SDP) permit . (5) Regulations – Exceptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffer Standards. (a) Nonconforming Lots – Development Allowed without a Variance (Modest Home Provision). New singleSingle-family development on any legal lot in shoreline jurisdiction that is nonconforming with respect to the required buffer standards may be allowed without a shoreline variance when: (i) The depth of the lot (distance from the ordinary high water mark to the inside edge of the frontage setback) is equal to or less than the standard shoreline buffer as indicated in subsection (4)(e) of this section; and (ii) The building area lying landward of the shoreline buf fer and interior to required sideyard setbacks is not more than 2,500 square feet and the driveway is not more than 1,100 square feet. The building area means the entire area that will be disturbed to construct the home, normal appurtenances (except drainfields), and landscaping; and (iii) All single-family residences approved under this section shall not extend waterward of the common - line buffer;, if applicable; and (iv) Appropriate measures are taken to mitigate all adverse impacts, including using lo w impact development measures such as pervious pavement for driveways and other hard surfaces; and (v) Opportunities to vary the side yard and/or frontage setbacks are implemented to reduce the nonconformity when doing so will not create a hazardous condition or a condition that is inconsistent with this program and Chapter 18.30 JCC; and (vi) The residence is located in the least environmentally damaging location relative to the shoreline and any critical areas; and (vii) There is no opportunity to consolidate lots under common ownership that will alleviate the nonconformity; and (viii) The lot is not subject to geologic hazards; and (ix) All structures are as far landward as possible and not closer than 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark; and (x) At least 80 percent of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition. (b) Nonconforming Lots – Common Line Buffer. For the purpose of accommodating shoreline views to be adequate and comparable to adjacent residences, but not necessarily equivalent, the administrator may redu ce the standard buffer for a new single -family residence on nonconforming lots consistent with the following criteria: (i) The proposed residence must be located within 300 feet of an adjacent legally established single -family residential primary structure constructed prior to adoption of this program that encroaches on the standard buffer. The mere presence of nearby shacks, sheds or dilapidated buildings does not constitute the Commented [LG39]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #23 Commented [GU40]: DWJ Hard Copy notes from Staff meeting. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 58/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. existence of a residence, nor can such structures be used to determine a commo n line buffer. The nearest corners of the adjacent residences are those closest to the side -yard property line of the proposed residence. (ii) Existing Homes on Both Sides. Where there are existing residences adjacent on both sides of the proposed residence, the buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line drawn between the nearest corners of each adjacent residence (see Figure 18.25.270(1)), or (B) a common line calculated by the average of both adjacent residences’ existing setbac ks (i.e., (y+z)/2=x buffer; see Figure 18.25.270(2)). (iii) Existing Home on One Side. Where there is only one existing residence adjacent to the proposed residence, the common line buffer shall be determined as the greater of either (A) a common line draw n between nearest corner of the foundation for the adjacent residence and the nearest point of the standard buffer on the adjacent vacant lot (see Figure 18.25.270(3)), or (B) a common line calculated by the average of the adjacent residence’s setback and the standard buffer for the adjacent vacant lot (i.e., (y+z)/2=x buffer; see Figure 18.25.270(4)). (iv) Figures 18.25.270(1) through (4) illustrate examples of the common line buffer allowance. When discrepancy between the text and the graphic exists, the text shall govern. Graphics are for illustration only, buffer shall be measured perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark as per this section. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 59/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Figures 18.25.270(1) – (4) Figure 18.25.270(1) Figure 18.25.270(2) Figure 18.25.270(3) Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 60/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Figure 18.25.270(4) (c) Nonconforming Lots – Development Requiring a Variance. Development on nonconforming lots that do not meet the requirements of subsection (5)(a) or (b) of this section require a shoreline variance. (d) Water-Oriented Uses/Development. When otherwise consistent with this program and Chapter 18.22 JCC, the following water-oriented uses/developments may be permitted within a shoreline buffer without a shoreline variance. The amount and extent of buffer modification shall be the minimum needed to accommodate the allowed use/development. This allowance for water -oriented uses/developments within shoreline buffers without a shoreline variance may apply to the primary use and/or to the following accessory uses/structures: (i) Primary uses and structures that meet the definition of a water -dependent or water-related use/development as defined in Article II of this chapter. (ii) Boating facilities accessory to a single -family residential development including rails, docks, piers and floats; (iii) Boathouses accessory to a single-family residential development; provided, that all of the following are met: (A) The boathouse is used to store watercraft and shall not be used as or converted to a dwelling unit. The county shall require a notice on title indicating such; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 61/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (B) The boathouse has a maximum footprint of 300 square feet and a maximum height of 15 feet above average grade; and (C) The primary doorway/entryway faces the water; and (D) The structure is located entirely landward of the ordinary high water mark. (iv) Public or private beach access structures accessory to residential, commercial, industrial, port or other allowed uses/development; and (v) Public access structures, including but not limited to docks, piers, floats; and (vi) Certain utilities and essential public facilities as specified in JCC 18.25.530. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 1)] 18.25.280 Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources. (1) Policies. (a) Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational (HACSE) sites and resources should be protected, preserved, and where possible, restored. All use and development on sites containing HACSE resources should be planned and carried out so as to prevent adverse impacts to the resource(s). (b) To prevent adverse impacts on HACSE resources, proponents of all new shoreline use and development should consult the county department of community development prior to beginning any project or activity. (c) Tribal, federal, state, educational institutions and local governments should cooperate to maintain an inventory of all known significant local HACSE sites and resources. (d) The location of historic, cultural and/or archaeological sites/resources should not be disclosed to the general public, consistent with applicable state and federal laws. (e) When HACSE sites/resources occur on public lands they should be accessible to the public and used for research or educational purposes consistent with the public access provisions of this program and applicab le tribal access policies. Private owners of HACSE sites/resources are encouraged to provide access and educational opportunities when appropriate. (f) If development is proposed adjacent to an identified HACSE site/resource, then the proposed development should be designed and operated so as to be compatible with continued protection of the site/resource. (2) Regulations – General Regulations. (a) Proponents of new shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses exempt from permit requirements, shall: (i) Preserve and protect historic, archaeological and cultural resources that are recorded by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and resources that are inadvertently discovered during use or development activities; and (ii) Consult the county department of community development, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and/or other appropriate agencies prior to beginning development so there is ample time to assess the site and make arrangements to preserve historical, cultural and archaeological resources; and (iii) Comply with all state and federal regulations pertaining to archaeological sites. (b) All feasible means shall be employed to ensure that data, structures, and sites having historical, archaeological, cultural, scientific, or educational significance are preserved, extracted, or used in a manner commensurate with their importance. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 62/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) Excavations for archaeological investigations or data recovery may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. (d) The county shall prohibit any use or development that poses a threat to a HACSE resource. Alternatively the county shall require the development to be postponed to allow for: (i) Coordination with potentially affected tribes and/or the State Department o f Archaeology and Historic Preservation; and/or (ii) Investigation of public acquisition potential; and/or (iii) Retrieval and preservation of significant artifacts. (3) Regulations – Procedural Requirements. (a) When the county receives a permit application or request for a statement of exemption for development on a property within 500 feet of a known or probable historic, archaeological, or cultural site, the county shall: (i) Notify and inform affected tribes and agencies such as the State Depa rtment of Archaeology and Historic Preservation of the proposed activity including timing, location, scope, and resources affected; and (ii) Require the applicant to provide a cultural resource site assessment prior to development unless the administrator determines that the proposed development activities do not include any ground disturbing activities and will not impact a known HACSE site/resource. (b) If a cultural resource site assessment identifies the presence of significant historic or archaeologica l resources, a cultural resource management plan (CRMP) shall be required. The plan shall include: (i) An analysis of actions to be taken by the property owner, developer, archaeologist, or historic preservation professional, in the event that an inadverte nt discovery of historic, archaeological, or cultural sites or artifacts occurs during site development; and (ii) An explanation of why the proposed activity requires a location on, or access across and/or through, a significant historic or archaeological resource; and (iii) A description of the historic/archaeological resources affected by the proposal; and (iv) An assessment of the historic/archaeological resource and an analysis of the potential adverse impacts as a result of the activity; and (v) Recommended measures to prevent adverse impacts; and (vi) Comments from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and affected tribes. (c) Site assessments and CRMPs required by this section shall be prepared by a professional arc haeologist or historic preservation professional, as applicable. The landowner or project proponent shall be responsible for any professional service fees. (d) The administrator may reject or request revision of the conclusions reached in a CRMP when she/h e can demonstrate that the assessment is inaccurate or does not fully address the management concerns involved. (e) Where public access is provided to any private or publicly owned building or structure of historic, archaeological or cultural significance, a public access management plan shall be developed in consultation with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes and/or other agencies, to address the following: Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 63/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (i) The type and/or level of public access that is consistent with the long-term protection of both historic resource values and shoreline ecological functions and processes; and (ii) Types and location of interpretative signs, displays and other educational materials; and (iii) Site- and resource-specific conditions, including hours of operation, interpretive and/or directional signage, lighting, pedestrian access, and/or traffic and parking. (f) If any phenomena of possible historic, archaeological and/or cultural interest are inadvertently discov ered during any new shoreline use or development, the proponent shall immediately stop work and comply with all of the following: (i) Notify the county department of community development, Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and other appropriate agencies; (ii) Prepare a site assessment pursuant to this section to determine the significance of the discovery and the extent of damage to the resource; (iii) Distribute the site assessment to the Washington Stat e Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes for a 30 -day review to determine the significance of the discovery; (iv) Maintain the work stoppage until the county determines that the site is considered significant by the above listed agencies or governments, or if the above listed agencies or governments have failed to respond within the applicable review period following receipt of the site assessment; and (v) Prepare a CRMP pursuant to this section if the county determines that the site is significant. (g) Upon inadvertent discovery of human remains, the county sheriff, coroner, and State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) must be immediately notified. (h) In the event that unforeseen factors constituting an emergency as defined in RCW 90.58.030 necessitate rapid action to retrieve or preserve historic, archaeological and/or cultural resources, the project may be exempted from the requirement to obtain a permit. The county shall notify the State Department of Ecology, the State Attorney General’s Office, potentially affected tribes, and the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation of such a waiver within 30 days of such action. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 2)] 18.25.290 Public access. (1) Policies. (a) Providing public access to public shorelines is a primary goal of the Shoreline Management Act. Jefferson County actively supports public and private efforts making better use of existing facilities/opportunities. Strategic efforts to find and fund new shoreline public access are encouraged to meet increasing demands by a growing populace. Increasing all types of public access is a priority for the county. (b) The county should prepare a comprehensive shoreline public access plan in cooperation with appropriate local, state, tribal and nongovernmental agencies/organizations, and the general public. (c) The county should work with appropriate agencies and individuals to acquire lands that can provide physical access to public waters for public us e. (d) Shoreline development by public entities, such as local governments, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, should provide public access as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible with this program due to reasons of safety, security, or adverse impacts to shoreline functions and processes. (e) Shoreline development by private entities should provide public access when the development would either generate a demand for one or more forms o f such access, and/or would impair existing legal access opportunities or rights. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 64/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (f) Single-family residential developments with four or fewer lots/units should not be required to provide public access. (g) Public health and safety concerns associated with public access sites should be adequately mitigated and appropriate precautions taken to prevent adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions and/or processes. (h) Efforts to implement the public access provisions of this section should be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property. (i) Public access requirements on privately owned lands should be commensurate with the scale and character of the development and should be reasonable, effective and fair to all affected parties including but not limited to the landowner and the public. (j) Where feasible, providers of shoreline public access should: (i) Locate and design public access improvements in a manner that is compatible with the natural shoreline character and avoids adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes; and (ii) Ensure public access improvements and amenities are safe, respect individual privacy, and avoid or minimize visual impacts from neighboring properties; and (iii) Provide maps and orientation information to inform the public of the presence and location of privately held tidelands, especially those adjacent to public access and recreational areas; and (iv) Incorporate programs, signage and informational kiosks into public access locations, where appropriate, to enhance public education and appreciation of shoreline ecology and areas of historical or cultural significance. (2) Regulations. (a) Single-family residential developments consisting of four or fewer residential lots or dwelling units shall not be required to provide public access. (b) Opportunities to provide visual and/or physical public access shall be considered during the review and conditioning of all proposed commercial and industr ial shoreline developments and residential developments involving more than four residential lots or dwelling units. (c) Physical public access shall be incorporated into all development proposals on public lands, all public and private commercial and industrial uses/developments, and all residential subdivisions of greater than four lots unless the project proponent demonstrates that any of the following conditions exist: (i) Unavoidable public health or safety hazards exist and cannot be prevented through reasonable means; or (ii) The use/development has inherent security or cultural sensitivity requirements that cannot be mitigated though reasonable design measures or other solutions; or (iii) The cost of providing the access, easement or an alternative a menity is disproportionate to the total long-term cost of the proposed development; or (iv) The public access will cause unacceptable environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated; or (v) The access would create significant, undue, and unavoidable conflic ts with adjacent uses that cannot be mitigated. (d) To be exempt from the public access requirements in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the project proponent must demonstrate that all feasible alternatives have been considered, including, but not necess arily limited to: Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 65/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (i) Regulating access through means such as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; and (ii) Separating uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one -way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.). (e) When physical public access is deemed to be infeasible based on considerations listed in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the proponent shall provide visual access to the shore or provide physical access at an off -site location geographically separated from the proposed use/de velopmental (e.g., a street end, vista, or trail system). (f) Public access shall be located and designed to be compatible with the natural shoreline character, to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes, and to ensure public safety. (g) When otherwise consistent with this program, public access structures shall be exempt from the shoreline buffer requirements of this program, meaning that such structures shall be allowed to encroach into the shoreline buffer when necessary to provide physical and/or visual access to the water’s edge. (h) Public shoreline access provided by public road ends, public road rights -of-way, public utilities and rights- of-way shall not be diminished by the county, neighboring property owners, or other citizens, unless the property is zoned for industrial uses in accordance with RCW 36.87.130. (i) Public access sites shall be directly connected to the nearest public street and shall include improvements that conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when feasible and appropriate. (j) Opportunities for boat-in public access and access to primitive shorelines not accessible by automobile shall be provided where feasible and appropriate. (k) When required for public land, commercial, port or industrial use/development as per subsections (2)(b) and (c) of this section, public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use prior to final occupancy of such use or development. (l) Public access easements and permit conditions shall be recorded on the deed of title and/or the face of a short or long plat as a condition running, at a minimum, for a period contemporaneous with the duration of the authorized land use. Recordation shall occur at the time of final plat approval or prior to final occupancy. (m) The location of new public access sites shall be clearly identified. Signs with the appropriate agency’s logo shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the project pr oponent in conspicuous locations at public access sites and/or along common routes to public access sites. The signs shall indicate the public’s right of access, the hours of access, and other information as needed to control or limit access according to c onditions of approval. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 3)] 18.25.300 Shoreline setbacks and height. (1) Policies. (a) Standards for density, setbacks, height, and other provisions should ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and/or processes and preserve the existing character of the shoreline consistent with the purpose of the applicable shoreline environment designation. (b) Proponents of a development on no-bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure’s foundation higher than the level of expected future sea -level rise. (2) Regulations. (a) A building setback of 10 feet shall be established on the landward edge of the shoreline buffers required by this program. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 66/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Sideyard setbacks shall be measured from all property lines that intersect the shoreline side of a lot or tract. Five feet of the total required sideyard setbacks may be provided on one side and the balance on the other side.Sideyards shall be consistent in depth with underlying zoning require ments. (c) Pursuant to RCW 90.58.320, no permit may be issued for any new or expanded building or structure more than 35 feet above average grade level when such a height will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on or adjoining such shorelines. Height is measured according to the definition in Article II of this chapter. The project proponent shall be responsible for providing sufficient information to the administrator to determine that such development will not obstruct views as des cribed. (d) Applicants for heights greater than 35 feet may seek a Conditional C(a) Use Permit in order to address sea level rise when:1 (i) the applicant has demonstrated that it is infeasible to otherwise retreat, accommodate, or protect the structure; (ii) the added height is no greater than that necessary to accommodate the projected sea level rise as determined by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the Shoreline Administrator ; and (iii) the added height will not obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines. The County may require a visual impact analysis of views from various locations to determine if the shoreline view for adjacent properties will be significantly obstructed as part of a development proposal; and (iv) overriding consideration of the public interest will be served . (d) Power poles and transmission towers associated with allowed uses and developments are not subject to height limits but shall not be higher than necessary to achieve the intended purpose. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 4)] 18.25.310 Vegetation conservation. (1) Policies. (a) Maintaining native shoreline vegetation is an important goal of this program. The policies and regulations of this section are intended to ensure well-vegetated, stable shorelines that provide habitat and other ecological benefits and resemble natural, unaltered shorelines. (b) New uses and/or developments should be designed to preserve native shoreline vegetation to maintain shoreline ecological functions and processes and prevent direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts of shoreline development. (c) New uses and/or developments should establish native shoreline vegetation such that the composition, structure, and density of the plant community resemble a natural, unaltered shoreline as much as possible. (d) Maintaining well-vegetated shorelines is preferred over clearing vegetation to create views or provide lawns. Limited and selective clearing for views and lawns may be allowed when slope stability and ecological 1 Add similar edit to zoning code: 18.30.050 Table 6-1. Density, Dimension and Open Space Standards Building Height7,8, 20 (feet) 20. An applicant may request an increase in height above 35 feet as a Type III decision considering conditional use permit criteria in order to address sea level rise in shoreline jurisdiction per JCC 18.25.300. Commented [LG41]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #19 Commented [LG42]: Tacoma and Pierce County allow for similar height increases. Commented [LG43R42]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 67/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. functions are not compromised, but landowners should not assume that a n unobstructed view of the water is guaranteed. Trimming and pruning are generally preferred over removal of native vegetation. Property owners are strongly encouraged to avoid or minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. (e) Shoreline landowners are encouraged to preserve and enhance native woody vegetation and native groundcovers to stabilize soils and provide habitat. Maintaining native plant communities is preferred over nonnative ornamental plantings because native plants have greater ecological value. Nonnative vegetation that requires use of fertilizers, herbicides and/or pesticides is discouraged. (f) Prior to granting a shoreline permit or determining that a proposed use/development is exempt from permitting, the county should evaluate site plans to determine the extent to which the vegetation is conserved. As needed, the county may require special reports regarding vegetation and shall condition approval of new developments to ensure the following: (i) Native plant communities on marine, river, and lake shorelines are preserved; and (ii) Overhanging trees along shorelines are kept intact to provide shading and other ecological functions; and (iii) Established areas of native plants are preserved to maintain slope stability and p revent surface erosion; and (iv) Structures and associated development are placed in areas that avoid disturbance of established native plants, especially trees and shrubs; and (v) Clearing and grading near bluff edges and other erosion - or landslide-prone areas are minimized to prevent slope instability; and (vi) Shoreline development proposals should incorporate provisions for removing invasive or nonnative species and planting native species when doing so would improve ecological functions and processes. (2) Regulations. (a) Unless otherwise specified, all shoreline use and development, including preferred uses and uses exempt from permit requirements, shall comply with the buffer provisions of this program and Chapter 18.22 JCC to protect and maintain shoreline vegetation. (b) Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall demonstrate that site designs and layouts are consistent with the policies of this section to ensure shoreline functions, values, and processes are maintained and preserved. A shoreline permit or written statement of exemption shall not mandate, nor guarantee, unobstructed horizontal or lateral visibility of the water, shoreline or any specific feature near or far. (c) View Maintenance. Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall use all feasible techniques to maximize retention of existing native shoreline vegetation while allowing for shoreline views. (i) Vegetation Trimming. Techniques shall include selective pruning, windowing and other measures that preserve native plant composition and structure. No more than 25 percent of a single tree’s leaf bearing crown may be removed and no more than 25 percent of the canopy cover of any stand of trees may be removed for view preservation. If additional trimming is req uested in subsequent years, the cumulative removal may not exceed 25 percent. Limbing or crown thinning shall comply with Tree Care Industry Association pruning standards, unless the tree is a hazard tree as defined by this program. Tree topping is prohibited when main stem/trunk is over three inches diameter at breast height (DBH). (ii) Vegetation Removal. All vegetation removal within the buffer area must comply with JCC 18.25.270(4)(h). In no instance shall vegetation removal exceed 20 percent of the req uired buffer area or 15 linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater. Outside the buffer, vegetation removal shall be the minimum necessary for maintaining shoreline views from the primary structure and to provide lawns Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 68/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. or ground cover, and must comply with other applicable requirements such as clearing and grading, forest practices, and protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat. (iii) The administrator may deny a request or condition approval of vegetation management proposals for view maintenance if it is determined the action will result in an adverse effect to any of the following: (A) Slope stability; (B) Habitat value; (C) Health of surrounding vegetation; (D) Risk of wind damage to surrounding vegetation; (E) Nearby surface or ground water; or (F) Water quality of a nearby water body. (d) Proponents of all new shoreline uses or developments shall maintain existing native shoreline vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, except that the following activities shall be exempt from this requirement: (i) Existing and ongoing agricultural activities on agricultural lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or on lands designated as agricultural lands of long -term commercial significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan land use designations; (ii) Buffer enhancement by removal of noxious weeds, based on consultation with the Jefferson County noxious weed board, and/or planting native vegetation; (iii) Maintenance of existing residential landscaping, such as lawns and gardens, pursuant to JCC 18.22.230(4)(m); (iv) Maintenance trimming of the limbs or branches on a tree or shrub that has a main stem less than three inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); (v) Construction of pervious surface trails for nonm otorized use, provided the trail is no wider than five feet and the vegetation trimming is limited to five feet on either side of the trail except where an arborist report indicates that additional vegetation trimming or removal is required for safety reas ons; (vi) Harvest of wild crops that does not significantly affect the viability of the wild crop, or adversely affect shoreline functions of the area; (vii) Removal of a hazard tree, as defined in Article II of this chapter, where trimming is not sufficie nt to address the hazard. In such cases, the downed tree shall be retained on site to provide wildlife habitat and enhance in-stream or marine habitat if present. The location of retained materials placed on site shall reflect firewise program guidance for defensible space and fire safety. Where not immediately apparent to the administrator, the hazard tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by an arborist or forester. (e) The county may impose conditions on new shoreline use and/or development as needed to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic weeds. Aquatic weed removal and disposal shall occur in a manner that minimizes and mitigates adverse impacts to native plant communities and shoreline ecological functions. (f) When restoring or enhancing shoreline vegetation, proponents shall use native species approved by the county that are of a similar diversity, density, and type to that occurring in the general vicinity of the site prior to any shoreline alteration. The vegeta tion shall be nurtured and maintained to ensure establishment of a healthy and sustainable native plant community over time. Commented [LG44]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #22 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 69/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (g) The vegetation conservation regulations of this program do not apply to commercial forest practices as defined by Article II of this chapter when such activities are covered under the Washington State Forest Practices Act (Chapter 76.09 RCW). Where such activities are associated with a conversion of forest lands to other uses or other forest practice activities, the vegetation con servation requirements shall apply. (h) Vegetation conservation standards shall not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments, although property owners are strongly encouraged to voluntarily improve shoreline vegetation conditions over the long term. (i) Vegetative debris shall be properly managed by mulching/leaving in place as habitat and soil amendment, composting on-site, or removing and disposing of off -site. The dumping of vegetative debris, including grass clippings and yard waste, in shoreline areas is strongly discouraged, especially when slope stability and water quality would be threatened. (j) Vegetative debris in the buffer that creates a fire hazard to existing structures may be reduced by chipping if the chipped material is returned to the original location. Fallen tree trunks may not be removed or chipped. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 5)] 18.25.320 Water quality and quantity. (1) Policies. (a) The location, construction, operation, and maintenance of all shoreline uses and developments should maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of surface and ground water over the long term. (b) Shoreline use and development should minimize, through effective education, site planning and maintenance, the need for chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or other similar chemical treatments that could contaminate surface or ground water or cause adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and values. (c) Appropriate buffers along all wetlands, streams, lakes, and marine wate r bodies should be provided and maintained in a manner that avoids the need for chemical treatment. (d) Potential adverse effects of agricultural activities on water quality should be minimized by implementing best management practices, buffers and other a ppropriate measures. (e) Effective erosion control and water -runoff treatment methods should be provided for all shoreline development and use in accordance with JCC 18.30.070. (f) Encourage pervious materials and other appropriate low impact development t echniques where soils and geologic conditions are suitable and where such practices could reduce stormwater runoff. (2) Regulations. (a) All shoreline uses and activities shall use effective erosion control methods during both project construction and operation. At a minimum, effective erosion control methods shall require compliance with the current edition of the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual, NPDES General Permit requirements, and the stormwater management provisions of JCC 18.30.0 70. (b) To avoid water quality degradation by malfunctioning or failing septic systems located within shoreline jurisdiction, on-site sewage systems shall be located and designed to meet all applicable water quality, utility, and health standards. (c) All materials that may come in contact with water shall be composed of nontoxic materials, such as wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals. Materials used for decking or other structural components shall be approved by applicable state agencies for contact with water to avoid discharge of pollutants from wave splash, rain, or runoff. Wood treated with creosote, copper chromium arsenate or pentachlorophenol is prohibited in s horeline water bodies. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 70/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (d) Solid and liquid wastes and untreated effluents shall not be allowed to enter any ground water or surface water or to be discharged onto land. The release of oil, chemicals, genetically modified organisms or hazardous materials onto land or into the water is prohibited. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VI § 6)] Article VII. Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations 18.25.330 Applicability – Purpose. The policies and regulations in this article apply to all types of shoreline modific ation, with specific standards defined for each shoreline environment. They are not listed in order of priority. These policies and regulations: (1) Help to implement the master program goals in Article III of this chapter; and (2) Are informed by the guiding principles in Article I of this chapter; and (3) Work in concert with all the other policies and regulations contained in this program; and (4) Are based on the state shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173 -26 WAC). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII)] 18.25.340 Beach access structures. (1) Policies. (a) Beach access structures, as defined in Article II of this chapter, should be located, designed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on shoreline ecology. (b) Jefferson County recognizes a balance has to be found between enabling pedestrian access to beach areas and protecting fragile shoreline ecosystems. (c) Neighboring property owners are encouraged to combine resources to collectively propose beach access structures in appropriate locations for shared use. (d) Beach access structures should not be permitted until and unless their adverse effects on stream, lake or marine shoreline functions and processes, including any significant adverse effects on adjoining lands and properties, are fully evaluated and mitigated. All proposals for structures that link upland areas with adjacent beaches shall be carefully evaluated by the criteria and regulations in this section. (e) Beach access structures may not be appropriate in some areas because of safety hazards or sensitive ecological conditions. The county should not permit these structures in areas where there are expected risks to human health and safety or adverse effects on shoreline functions and processes. Some properties will have view-only access to the neighboring waters. (f) Beach access structures should conform to the existing topography, minimize adverse impacts on shoreline aesthetics, and minimize clearing and grading to the maximum extent feasible. (g) Beach access structures should not be allowed if there is a reasonable likelihood that they will require erosion control structures or armoring in the future. (h) Beach access structures should be designed to minimize the amount of clearing, grading, excavation, and other forms of shoreline alteration so that they don’t require substantial bank or slope modifications. (i) Beach access structures should only be allowed where it provides access to a publicly owned beach or where the same party owns both the uplands and adjoining tidelands or an easement is granted by the tideland owner to the upland owner for access. (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. Beach access structures shall be prohibited from marine feeder bluffs in all environment designations. (3(2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. Commented [LG45]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #31 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 71/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) Priority Aquatic. Public beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use, provided they are associated with a water-dependent use that includes public access to the shoreline, and provided they are consistent with policies and regulations of this program and are allowed in the adjoining upland designation. Private beach access structures accessory to single-family residential development shall be prohibited. (b) Aquatic. Public beach access structures may be permit ted as a conditional use, provided they are associated with a water-dependentoriented use that includes public access to the shoreline, and provided they are consistent with policies and regulations of this program in the adjoining upland designation. Priv ate beach access structures accessory to single-family residential development may be permitted as a conditional use when they are allowed in the adjoining upland designation. (c) Natural. Public beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional us e, provided they are associated with a water-dependentoriented use that includes public access to the shoreline, and provided they are consistent with policies and regulations of this program. Private beach access structures accessory to single - family residential development shall be prohibited. (d) Conservancy. Public and privatebeach access structures may be permitted, provided they are associated with a water-oriented use that includes public access to the shoreline. Private beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use, provided they are consistent with the provisionspolicies and regulations of this program. (e) Shoreline Residential. Public and private beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use, provided they are consistent with the provisionspolicies and regulations of this program. (f) High Intensity. Public and private beach access structures may be permitted as a conditional use, provided they are consistent with the provisionspolicies and regulations of this program. (43) Regulations. (a) Beach access structures may be permitted only when consistent with the provisions of this program. (b) Public beach access structures shall be subject to this section, JCC 18.25.290 (Public access) of this program, and conform to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. (c) When permitted, beach access structures shall be located, designed and operated to avoid critical areas and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, including, but not limited to: (i) Habitat; (ii) Slope stability; (iii) Sediment transport; and (iv) Water quality. (d) The county shall have the authority to require specific design standards based on the configuration of th e site including existing topography, vegetation, soils, drainage and other factors. (e) When allowed, beach access structures may be located within the shoreline buffer; provided, that: (i) The clear width of any walkway, staircase, tower or tram shall be at least three feet, and not exceed five feet; and (ii) The structure shall not extend more than 12 vertical feet above the top of the bank or slope;, and is located to minimize native vegetation removal and prioritize tree preservation; and (iiiii) There is no other available public beach access within 500 feet of the proposed access site. Commented [GU46]: DWJ hard copy notes for clarity on potential view obstruction - 18.25.270(1)(e) in concurrence with Rebecca Rothwell with Ecology. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 72/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (f) No portion of a beach access structure shall be constructed waterward of the ordinary high water mark unless there is no other feasible alternative. (g) When in-water or over-water construction is allowed in accordance with this section it shall be limited to a small pier or pile-supported pedestrian landing platform of 25 square feet or less that is otherwise consistent with the provisions of this program. (h) New residential subdivisions of more than four units or lots shall include a restriction on the face of the plat prohibiting individual beach access structures. Shared access structures may be permitted in these subdivisions when consistent with the provisions of this program. (i) Existing lawfully constructed nonconforming beach access structures may be repaired or replaced in kind as a nonconforming use as consistent with other provisions of this program. (j) Beach access structures shall be prohibited if any of the following apply: (i) The structure would adversely impact a critical area or marine feeder bluff, or increase landslide or erosion hazards; or (ii) The structure is likely to interfere with natural erosion and accretion processes; or (iii) The bank slope where the structure is placed is likely to require shoreline stabilization/shoreline defense works in the future; or (iv) Substantial bank or slope modification is required. (k) Prior to approving a permit for a beach access structure, the count y shall require the project proponent to demonstrate that the project is consistent with this program. Information to be provided by the proponent will include, but not be limited to: (i) Existing conditions at the site related to erosion, slope stability, drainage, vegetation, and coastal processes; and (ii) Probable effects of the access structure on the stability of the site over time; and (iii) Potential effects of the access structure on shoreline processes such as net -shoreline drift, sediment transport, mass wasting, and erosion; and (iv) Methods for maintaining the structure over time that will preclude the need for a bulkhead or other type of stabilization in the future; and (v) Potential effects on fish and wildlife habitats and other shoreline eco logical functions; and (vi) Measures needed to ensure/maintain slope stability, maintain coastal processes, and prevent erosion in the long term. (l) The county may require proposals for pedestrian beach access structures to include geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer or geologist and/or biological analysis prepared by a qualified biologist. The county will require proposals for pedestrian beach access structures on feeder bluffs to include geotechnical analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer or geologist and a biological analysis prepared by a qualified biologist [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 1)] 18.25.350 Boating facilities – Boat launches, docks, piers, floats, lifts, marinas, and mooring buoys . (1) Policies. (a) Boating facilities as defined in Article II of this chapter should be located, designed, constructed and operated with appropriate mitigation to avoid adverse effects on shoreline functions and processes and to prevent conflicts with other allowed uses. Commented [LG47]: Task Force B and E Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 73/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Boating facilities should not be located or expanded where they would: (i) Impact critical habitats; or (ii) Substantially interfere with currents and/or net -shoreline drift; or (iii) Cause significant adverse effects on aquatic habitat, bi ological functions, water quality, aesthetics, navigation, and/or neighboring uses. (c) Docks and piers should not be allowed where shallow depths require excessive overwater length. (d) The county should protect the natural character of the shoreline and prevent adverse ecological impacts caused by in-water and overwater structures by limiting the number of new docks/piers/floats and by controlling how they are designed and constructed and where they are located. Wood coated or treated with toxic materials should not be allowed. (e) To prevent the impacts associated with private docks, piers, floats, lifts and launch ramps and rails accessory to residential development: (i) Mooring buoys are generally preferred over docks, piers or floats; and (ii) Shared docks/piers/floats serving multiple properties are preferred over single -user docks/piers/floats serving a single property or parcel; and (iii) Public boat launches are preferred over private launch facilities. Rail and track launch systems are preferred over ramps. (f) Boating facilities associated with commercial, industrial, or port uses, residential subdivisions and multifamily housing should include public access and contribute to the public’s ability to view, touch, and travel on the waters of the state in accordance with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (g) The county should identify areas that are suitable for development and/or expansion of marinas and public boat launches and prevent them from being developed with non -water-dependent uses having less stringent site requirements. This should be accomplished in a timely manner. (h) Development of new marinas and public boat launch facilities should be coordinated with public access and recreation plans and should be co -located with port or other compatible water-dependent uses where feasible. Affected parties and potential partners should be included in the planning process. (i) When reviewing proposals for new or expanded marinas and public boat launches, the county should seek comment from public recreation providers, adjacent cities/counties, port districts, Washington State Parks, and the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Health, and Natural Resources, and area tribes to ensure that local as well as regional recreation needs are addressed. (j) The county should support the use of innovative and effective methods for protecting, enhancing, and restoring shoreline ecological functions and processes during the design, development and operation of new or expanded boating facilities. Such methods may include public facility and resource planning, education, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, and incentive programs. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. (i) Boat Launches – Nonresidential. Only public and private launches serving water -dependent commercial, industrial, port or other primary uses may be permitted if the primary use is permitted in the adjacent upland shoreline environment subject to the provisions of this program. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 74/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) Docks, Piers, Floats and Lifts – Nonresidential. Only public and private docks, piers, floats and lifts serving water-dependent commercial, industrial, port or other primary uses are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program if the primary use is permitted in the adjacent upland shoreline environment. (iii) Boat Launches, Docks, Piers, Floats, and Lifts – Residential. Single-user docks, piers, floats, lifts and boat launches accessory to residential or private recreational development are prohibited. Shared boating facilities accessory to residential or private recreational development may be permitted. (iv) Marinas are prohibited. (v) Moorage used for float planes is prohibited. (vi) Mooring buoys are allowed subject to the adjacent upland shoreline designation and the policies and regulations of this program. (b) Aquatic. (i) Public and private boat launches are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program if allowed in the adjacent upland shoreline environment. (ii) Public and private docks, piers, floats, and lifts are allowed if allowed in the adjacent upland shoreline environment. (iii) Marinas are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program if allowed in the adjacent upland shoreline environment. (iv) Moorage used for float planes may be allowed with a conditional use permit if permitted in the adjacent upland designation. (v) Mooring buoys are allowed subject to the adjacent upland shoreline designation and the policies and regulations of this program. (c) Natural. (i) Boat launches for hand launching of small watercraft (such as kayaks, small sailboats, and other nonmotorized watercraft) may be allowed with a conditional use permit, subject to policies and regulations of this program, if materials and design are compatible with the site. (ii) A public dock, pier or float for recreational use may be allowed with a conditional use permit. (iii) Mooring buoys that are accessory to water-dependent uses such as aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(a)). (iv) All other boating facilities, including boating facilities accessory to residential development, are prohibited. (d) Conservancy. (i) BoatResidential boat launches may be allowed with a conditional use permit subject to policies and regulations of this program. (ii(ii) Public boat launches are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (iii) Docks, piers, floats and lifts may be allowed wi th a conditional use permit subject to policies and regulations of this program, except industrial piers are prohibited. (iiiiv) Marinas may be permitted as a conditional use. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 75/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ivv) Moorage used for float planes may be permitted as a conditional use. (vvi) Mooring buoys are allowed with a conditional use permit (C(a)) subject to policies and regulations of this program. (e) Shoreline Residential. (i) Boat launches are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (ii) Docks, piers, floats and lifts are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program, except industrial piers are prohibited. (iii) Marinas may be permitted as a conditional use. (iv) Moorage used for float planes may be permitted as a conditional use. (v) Mooring buoys are allowed with a conditional use permit (C(a)) subject to policies and regulations of this program. (f) High Intensity. All boating facilities are allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (3) Regulations – Boat Launches – Public. (a) Public boat launches may be permitted when they are located, designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on coastal or fluvial processes, biological functions, aquatic and riparian habitats, water quality, navigation, and/or neighboring uses. Rail and track systems shall be preferred over concrete ramps or similar facilities. (b) When permitted, public boat launches shall be: (i) Located in areas where there is adequate water mixing and flushing action; (ii) Designed so as not to retard or reduce natural shoreline flushing characteristics; (iii) Designed and constructed using methods/technology that have been recognized and approved by state and federal resource agencies as the best currently available . To the existent feasible, boat launches in marine waters shall follow the design standards in WAC 220 -660-390 and in fresh waters shall follow the design standards in WAC 220-660-150; (iv) Designed so that existing or potential public access along beaches is not blocked or made u nsafe, and so that public use of the surface waters is not unduly impaired; and (v) Developed and maintained to support waterfront access for watercraft. In those limited instances where separate or associated uses are permitted, other than restrooms and/o r sewer/septic facilities, only uses that are water-dependent and/or afford public access uses shall be approved. (c) Public boat launches on river shores shall be located downstream of accretion shoreforms, or on stable banks where no or minimal current d eflections will be necessary. (d) Public boat launches shall provide adequate restroom and sewage and solid waste disposal facilities in compliance with applicable health regulations. (e) When overwater development is proposed in association with a public boat launch facility, it may be permitted only where such use requires direct water access, and/or where such facilities will significantly increase public opportunities for water access. (f) Public boat launches shall be located and designed to prevent tr affic hazards and minimize traffic impacts on nearby access streets. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 76/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (g) Public boat launch sites shall include parking spaces for boat trailers commensurate with projected demand and shall comply with the transportation provisions of this program. (4) Regulations – Boat Launches (Ramps and Rails) – Private. (a) Private boat launches shall be allowed only when public boat launches are unavailable within a reasonable distance. (b) When permitted, private boat launches including launches accessory to resident ial development shall be designed and constructed using methods/technology that have been recognized and approved by state and federal resource agencies as the best currently available. Rail and track systems shall be preferred over concrete ramps or similar facilities. To the existent feasible, boat launches in marine waters shall follow the design standards in WAC 220-660-390 and in fresh waters shall follow the design standards in WAC 220 -660-150. (c) No more than one private boat launch facility or structure shall be permitted on a single parcel or residential lot. (5) Regulations – Docks, Piers and Floats – Nonresidential. (a) Docks, piers and floats, as defined in Article II of this chapter, associated with commercial, industrial, port or public recreational developments should only be allowed when ecological impacts are mitigated in accordance with this program, and: (i) The dock/pier/float is required to accommodate a water -dependent use; and/or (ii) The dock/pier/float provides opportunities for the public to access the shoreline. (b) New commercial, industrial, port or public recreational docks, piers and floats shall be designed and constructed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the impacts to nearshore habitats and processes. (c) The length, width and height of nonresidential docks, piers and floats shall be no greater than that required for safety and practicality for the primary use. (d) New and substantially expanded nonresidential docks, piers and floats shall be constructed o f materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Materials for any portions of the dock, pier, float, framing, or decking that come in contact with water shall be approved by applicable state agencies for use in water. For example, wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other similarly toxic materials is not allowed. (e) To minimize adverse effects on nearshore habitats and species caused by overwater structures that reduce ambient light levels, the following shall apply: (i) The width of docks, piers and floats shall be the minimum necessary. Materials that will allow light to pass through the deck may be required where width exceeds four feet; and (ii) Grating to allow light passage or reflective panels to increase light refraction shall be used on walkways or gangplanks in nearshore areas; and (iii) The maximum structure height above water shall be employed, consistent with safety and usability. (f) Commercial, industrial, port or public recreational docks, piers and floats shall be spaced and oriented to shoreline in a manner that avoids or minimizes: (i) Hazards and obstructions to navigation, fishing, swimming and pleasure boating; and (ii) Shading of beach substrate below; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 77/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iii) Any “wall” effect that would block or baffle wave patterns, currents, littoral drift, or movement of aquatic life forms. A north-south orientation is generally optimal. (g) Fill waterward of OHWM shall be limited to the minimum necessary to match the upland w ith the elevation of the nonresidential dock or pier when consistent with JCC 18.25.370 (Filling and excavation). (h) Dredging shall be limited to the minimum necessary to allow boat access to a nonresidential dock or pier when consistent with JCC 18.25.360 (Dredging). (i) Covered moorage associated with nonresidential docks, piers, and floats shall be prohibited. (6) Regulations – Docks, Piers, Floats and Lifts – Accessory to Residential Development. (a) Docks, piers, floats and lifts accessory to residential development/use shall only be allowed when: (i) Ecological impacts are mitigated in accordance with this program; and (ii) The moorage platform is designed for access to private watercraft; and (iii) The cumulative effects of dock, pier, float and lift proliferation have been identified and shown to be negligible. (b) If allowed under this program, no more than one dock/pier and one float and one boat/ski lift may be permitted on a single lot owned for residential use or private recreational use. (c) In-water fixed platform structures supported by piles that do not abut the shoreline shall be prohibited. (d) If permitted, new docks, piers, floats, lifts accessory to residential development/use shall be: (i) Designed and constructed to avoid or, if that i s not possible, to minimize shading and other impacts on nearshore habitats and processes; and (ii) Constructed of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Materials for portions of the dock, pier, float, framing and decking in contact with water shall be approved by applicable state agencies for use in water. For example, wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other similarly toxic materials is not allowed; and (iii) Spaced and oriented to shoreline in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to navigation, fishing, swimming, and pleasure boating; and (iv) Designed to avoid the need for maintenance dredging. The moorage of a boat larger than provided for in original moorage design shall not be grounds for approval of dredging; and (v) Spaced and oriented to minimize shading and avoid a “wall” effect that would block or baffle wave patterns, currents, littoral drift, or movement of aquatic life forms. A north -south orientation is generally optimal. (e) The length of docks and piers accessory to residential use/development shall be the minimum demonstrated necessary for safety and practicality for the residential use. The maximum length for residential docks or piers shall be limited to 100 feet as measured horizontally from the ordinary high water mark. The administrator may approve a different dock or pier length when needed to: (i) Avoid known eelgrass beds, forage fish habitats, or other sensitive nearshore resources; or (ii) Accommodate shared use. (f) Floats accessory to residential use shall not exceed 200 square feet in area or three feet in height as measured from the mean lower low water (MLLW). Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 78/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (g) Floats shall only be used where there is sufficient water depth to pr event grounding at low tide. The county may require the use of stoppers or other measures to ensure compliance with this standard. (h) To avoid and minimize adverse effects on nearshore habitats and species caused by overwater structures that reduce ambient light levels, the following shall apply: (i) The width of docks and floats shall be the minimum necessary. Materials that will allow light to pass through the deck may be required where width exceeds four feet; and (ii) Grating to allow light passage or reflective panels to increase light refraction shall be used on walkways or gangplanks in nearshore areas; and (iii) The maximum structure height above water should be employed, consistent with safety and usability. (i) Residential developments with more than four lots or dwelling units may be granted permits for community docks that are shared by at least one other owner. No more than one dock/pier or float may be permitted for each three adjoining waterfront lots, with necessary access easements to be re corded at the time of permitting. (j) Single-user docks, piers and floats for individual residential lots may be permitted in existing subdivisions approved on or before January 28, 1993, only where a shared facility has not already been developed. Prior t o development of a new single -user dock/pier/float for a single residential lot, the applicant shall demonstrate that: (i) Existing facilities in the vicinity, including marinas and shared moorage, are not adequate or feasible for use; and (ii) On marine shorelines alternative moorage, such as one or more mooring buoys or a buoy in combination with a small dock sized to accommodate a tender vessel, are not adequate or feasible. (k) Single-user moorage for private/recreational float planes may be permitted a s a conditional use where construction of such moorage: (i) Is limited to the smallest size necessary to accommodate the float plane. (ii) Will not adversely affect shoreline functions or processes, including wildlife use. (iii) Includes ecological restoration, in addition to mitigation, to compensate for the greater intensity of use associated with the float plane moorage. (l) Covered moorage associated with single -family residential development shall be prohibited, except that the county may allow a small covered area up to 100 square feet in size, maximum height of 10 feet, and with vertical walls on up to three sides on the overland portion of a dock/pier only. (m) Single-user docks/piers/floats shall be located within side yard setbacks for residential development (both onshore and offshore); provided, that a shared dock/pier may be located adjacent to or upon a shared side property line upon filing of an agreement by the affected property owners. (n) Fill waterward of OHWM shall be limited to the minimu m necessary to match the upland with the elevation of the residential dock or pier when consistent with JCC 18.25.370 (Filling and excavation). (o) Dredging for construction or maintenance of docks, piers and floats accessory to residential use shall be prohibited waterward of OHWM. (p) No single-user or shared dock/pier/float may be constructed to within 200 feet of OHWM on the opposite shoreline of any lake or semi -enclosed body of water such as a bay, cove, or natural channel. (q) Boating facilities shall be marked with reflectors, or otherwise identified to prevent unnecessarily hazardous conditions for water surface users during day or night. Exterior finish shall be generally nonreflective. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 79/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (r) Boating facilities shall be constructed and maintained so that no part of them creates hazardous conditions nor damages other shoreline property or natural features during flood conditions. (s) No dock, pier, float, or watercraft moored thereto shall be used for a residence. (t) Storage of fuel, oils, and other toxic materials is prohibited on residential docks, piers and floats except in portable containers that have secondary containment. (7) Regulations – Marinas. (a) Marinas may be permitted on marine and river shorelines when they are consistent with this program and when the proponent demonstrates to the county’s satisfaction that all of the following conditions are met: (i) The proposed location is the least environmentally damaging alternative; and (ii) Potential adverse impacts on shoreline processes and ecological functions are mitigated to achieve no net loss; and (iii) The project includes ecological restoration measures to improve baseline conditions over time; and (iv) The area has adequate water circulation and flushing action; and (v) The proposed location will not require dredging or excavation/filling of wetlands; and (vi) Suitable public infrastructure is available or can be made available to support the marina. (b) Marinas shall be prohibited in all of the following locations: (i) Lake shores; and (ii) River point and channel bars or other accretional beaches; and (iii) Areas of active channel migration; and (iv) Where a flood hazard will be created or exacerbated; and (v) Shorelines with a priority aquatic environmental designation; and (vi) River mouths. (c) Where marinas are permitted they shall be designed, constructed and operated according to the following: (i) Open pile or floating breakwater designs shall be used unless the proponent demonstrates that there are specific safety considerations that warrant alternative approaches or unless rip -rap or other solid construction is shown to have fewer impacts on shoreline ecology over the short and long term. (ii) Shoreline armoring shall be limited to the minimum necessary to protect marina inf rastructure and shall consist of softshore bio-stabilization unless such stabilization is demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis to be infeasible or inadequate to protect the site. (iii) Floating structures shall be designed to prevent grounding on tidelands. Floats shall only be used where there is sufficient water depth to prevent grounding at low tide. The county may require the use of stoppers or other measures to ensure compliance with this standard. (iv) Piers and other structures shall be loca ted, sized and designed to minimize shading of nearshore aquatic habitats and species. (v) Solid structures shall be designed to provide fish passage through and along the shallow water fringe. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 80/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (vi) Floating piers shall be required in rivers unless the pro ponent can demonstrate that fixed piers will cause substantially less impact on geo-hydraulic processes. (vii) Marinas shall be sited to prevent restrictions in the use of commercial and recreational shellfish beds and in compliance with Washington Departm ent of Health guidelines and National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards. (viii) Marina development shall generally be required to include public access amenities. Consistent with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access), public access siting and design sh all be determined based on what is appropriate to a given location and the needs/desires of the surrounding community. Public access shall be designed to be environmentally sound, aesthetically compatible with adjacent uses, and safe for users. (ix) Live-aboard vessels may occupy up to 20 percent of the slips at a marina. Marinas that accommodate live-aboards shall provide and maintain adequate facilities and programs to address waste disposal and sanitary disposal. (x) New or expanded marina development ma y include fill waterward of the ordinary high water mark only when necessary for the water-dependent portions of the marina facility. Such fill activities shall conform to JCC 18.25.370 (Filling and excavation) and this section. Filling solely for the crea tion of marina parking areas shall be prohibited. (xi) If new or expanded marina facilities adversely affect net shoreline drift or other coastal processes to the detriment of nearby beaches or habitats, the county may require the marina operator to replen ish the substrate in these areas periodically or take other measures to offset adverse impacts. (d) New or expanded development appurtenant to marinas shall be designed and constructed to avoid and, where avoidance is not possible, minimize impacts on shor eline functions and processes. Facilities shall be clustered and located in the least environmentally damaging portion of the site to reduce clearing and grading impacts. (e) To meet the regulations in subsection (7)(d) of this section, the following standards shall apply to new or expanded development appurtenant to marinas: (i) Accessory uses at marinas shall be limited to water -oriented uses and uses that provide physical or visual shoreline access for substantial numbers of the general public. Acce ssory development includes, but is not limited to, parking, open air storage, waste storage and treatment, stormwater management facilities, utility and upland transportation development. (ii) Water-oriented accessory uses reasonably related to marina oper ation may be located over water or near the water’s edge by conditional use permit if an overwater or water’s -edge location is essential to the operation of the use and if opportunities are provided for substantial numbers of people to access the shoreline. (iii) Parking shall be located away from the water’s edge and landward of shoreline buffers prescribed by this program unless no feasible alternative location exists. (iv) Parking areas shall meet county stormwater management standards and shall, where f easible, incorporate low impact development practices such as pervious surfaces and bioswales. (v) Dry moorage and other storage areas shall be landscaped with native vegetation to provide a visual and noise buffer for adjoining uses. (vi) Pump-out, holding, and/or waste treatment facilities and services shall be provided at all marinas. Pump-out facilities shall be conveniently located and sited to ensure easy access, prevent lengthy queues and allow full compliance with waste disposal regulations. Vessel -mounted pump-out services and hard- plumbed stations at each slip shall be preferred over portable pump -out equipment. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 81/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (vii) Marinas shall provide adequate restroom and sewage disposal facilities in compliance with applicable health regulations. Restrooms shall be available 24 hours a day for use by any patron of the marina facility; the need for restrooms shall be determined based on the number of slips and percentage of live - aboard vessels within the marina. (viii) Garbage and recycling receptacles shall b e provided and maintained by the marina operator at several locations convenient to users. (ix) Marina operators shall post all regulations pertaining to handling and disposal of waste, sewage, fuel, and oil or toxic materials where all users may easily read them. (x) Boat washing facilities shall be provided to minimize transfer of invasive aquatic species between water bodies. (f) When reviewing proposals for new or expanded marina facilities, the county shall require the proponent to prepare and implement appropriate technical studies and plans that are not already required via another regulatory review process. Examples of studies and plans that may be required include, but are not limited to: (i) A maintenance plan for maintaining pump -out and waste/sewage disposal facilities and services. (ii) A spill response plan for oil and other spilled products. Compliance with federal or state law may fulfill this requirement. (iii) An operational plan that, at a minimum, describes procedures for fuel handling and storage; measures, including signage, for informing marina users of applicable regulations; measures for collecting garbage and recyclables; measures and equipment for ensuring public safety. (iv) A visual assessment of views from surrounding residential properties, public viewpoints, and the view of the shoreline from the water surface. (v) An assessment of existing water -dependent uses in the vicinity including but not limited to, navigation, fishing, shellfish production and harvest, swimming, beach walking, and picnicking and shall document potential impacts and mitigating measures. The county shall evaluate impacts on these resources and impose specific conditions to mitigate impacts as necessary. (8) Regulations – Mooring Buoys. (a) Commercial or recreational mooring buoys may be permitted; provided, that they are consistent with this program and that individually or cumulatively: (i) They do not impede the ability of other landowners to access private property; and (ii) They do not pose a hazard to or obstruct navigation or fishing; and (iii) They do not contribute to water quality or habitat degradation; and (iv) They do not pose a threat to a commercial shellfish growing area classification or reduce the ability to upgrade the classification. (b) The installation and use of mooring buoys (including commercial and recreational buoys) in marine waters shall be consistent with all applicable state laws, including Chapter 246 -282 WAC, the current National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards, and other State Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Health, and/or Natural Resources standards. (c) Private recreational mooring buoys on state -owned aquatic lands shall not be used for residential (living on the boat) or commercial purposes. (d) Mooring buoys shall be located to: Commented [LG48]: Task Force B Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 82/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (i) AvoidMinimize disturbance of eelgrass beds and other valuable aquatic and nearshore habitat areas to the extent feasible; and (ii) Prevent obstruction to navigation. (e) Mooring buoys shall use neutral buoyancy rope, mid -line float, helical anchors, or other state-approved designs that have minimal adverse effects on aquatic ecosystem and fish. Only if the substrate prohibits use of embedded anchors, may a Corps-approved alternative anchor (i.e., concrete block) be used. (f) Mooring buoys shall not be allowed on lake shorelines of the state. (g) Mooring buoys shall be clearly marked and labeled with the owner’s name and contact information and permit number(s). (h) The county shall plan for and coordinate with other agenci es to control the placement and number of mooring buoys within bays and other areas to protect water quality and/or habitat and ensure that transit channels are maintained. (i) Under no circumstances shall mooring buoy density exceed State Department of Health guidelines and National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) standards. (ii) Residential lots may have up to two buoys to support moorage of a single boat. (i) The capacity of each mooring buoy may not exceed one boat and its appurtenant shore acc ess craft. [Ord. 7- 13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 2)] 18.25.360 Dredging. (1) Policies. (a) Dredging, as defined in Article II of this chapter, and disposal of dredge material should only be allowed when alternatives are infeasible and when the dredging/dredge disposal is: (i) Necessary to support an existing legal use or a proposed water -dependent use or essential public infrastructure/facility; or (ii) Part of a clean-up program required under the Model Toxics Control Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; or (iii) Part of an approved ecological restoration or enhancement project; or (iv) Part of an approved beach nourishment project; or (v) Required to provide public access for a substantial number of people; or (vi) Required to provide water-oriented public recreation for a substantial number of people. (b) When required to support an allowed use or development, dredging/dredge disposal should be the minimum needed to accommodate the allowed use or development for a reaso nably foreseeable period of time. (c) When allowed, dredging and disposal operations should be planned, timed and implemented to minimize: (i) Adverse impacts to shoreline ecology; and (ii) Adverse impacts to in-water and adjacent upland uses; and (iii) Interference with navigation. (d) Dredging and dredge disposal should be consistent and coordinated with appropriate local, state and federal regulations to minimize duplication during the review process. Commented [GU49]: AJS: this language consistent with WDFW, WDNR, and USACE regs. Commented [GU50]: AJS: This provision is from DNR rules. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 83/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Dredging and dredge disposal should not occur where they would interfere with existing or potential ecological restoration activities. (f) Dredging and dredge disposal should occur where they will provide ecological benefits. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Dredging and dredge disposal may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (b) Aquatic. Dredging and dredge disposal may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (c) Natural. Dredging and dredge disposal are prohibited except dredging and dredge disposal may be permitted as an essential element of an approved shoreline restoration project/program. (d) Conservancy. Dredging and dredge disposal may be permitted subje ct to a conditional use permit. (e) Shoreline Residential. Dredging and dredge disposal may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit. (f) High Intensity. Dredging may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. Dredge disposal may be allowed with a conditional use permit. (3) Regulations – Dredging. (a) Proponents of new development shall locate and design such development to avoid or, if avoidance is not possible, to minimize the need for new dredging and maintenance dredging. (b) The county may permit dredging only when the project proponent demonstrates the activity is consistent with this program and that there are no feasible alternatives to dredging. (c) Dredging shall only be allowed when necessary to support the following uses and developments: (i) Approved harbors, marinas, ports, and water -dependent industries; (ii) Development or maintenance of essential public infrastructure and facilities; (iii) Environmental clean-up activities required by the Model Toxics Contr ol Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; (iv) Underground utility installation requiring trenches when boring, directional drilling, and other installation methods are not feasible; (v) Maintenance dredging for the p urpose of restoring a lawfully established use or development; (vi) Maintenance dredging for the purpose of restoring previously permitted or authorized hydraulic capacity of a stream or river; (vii) Maintenance of existing irrigation reservoirs, drains, canals, or ditches; (viii) Establishing, expanding, relocating or reconfiguring navigation channels and basins where necessary to assure the safety and efficiency of existing navigational uses; (ix) Ecological restoration and enhancement projects benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat; or (x) Public access and public water-oriented recreational developments/uses, including construction of public piers and docks that benefit substantial numbers of people. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 84/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (d) The county may permit dredging for flood management purposes only when the project proponent demonstrates that: (i) The dredging is a required component of a county -approved comprehensive flood management plan; or (ii) The dredging has a long-term benefit to public health and safety and will not cause a net loss of ecological functions and processes. (e) When conducting reviews of dredging proposals, the county shall first consider how the proposed activity has been regulated by other agencies, note same as a reference, and then establis h what further information is needed for local review. The county may require information to ensure: (i) The project is designed, located, and timed to mitigate impacts on legally established neighboring uses and developments; and (ii) Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the activity will not interfere with fishing or shellfishing; and (iii) Appropriate measures are taken to minimize adverse effects on recreation, public access, and navigation; and (iv) The activity shall not adversely impact natural processes such as channel migration, marine bluff erosion and/or net-shoreline drift; and (v) Appropriate best management practices are employed to prevent water quality impacts or other forms of environmental degradation; and (vi) Upstream and upgradient sediment sources that create the need for dredging have been investigated and where feasible, mitigated; and (vii) Appropriate measures are employed to protect public safety and prevent adverse impacts on other approved shoreline uses; and (viii) The proposed activity complies with applicable federal, state, and other local regulations. (f) Dredging for the primary purpose of obtaining material for landfill, upland construction, or beach nourishment shall be prohibited. (g) Maintenance dredging may not be approved under exemption except within the existing footprint in accordance with previous approved plans. (4) Regulations – Dredge Disposal. (a) The county may permit disposal of dredge material only when the project proponent demonstrates the activity is consistent with this program and that there are no feasible alternatives to dredge disposal. (b) When dredge material is deposited on land it shall be considered fill and subject to all applicable fill regulations. (c) All unconfined, open water dredge disp osal activities shall comply with the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) criteria and guidelines and other applicable local, state and federal regulations. (d) 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 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 85/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iv) To remediate contaminated sediments. (e) Proposals for dredged material disposal shall be evaluated for their potential to cause adverse environmental impacts. Dredged material disposal shall be permitted only when the proponent demonstrates all of the following: (i) The proposed action will not cause significant and/or ongoing damage to water quality, fish, shellfish and/or other biological resources; and (ii) The proposed action will not adversely alter natural drainage, water circulation, sediment transport, currents, or tidal flows or significantly reduce floodwater storage capacities; and (iii) The proposed action includes all feasible mitigation measures to protect marine, estuarine, freshwater and terrestrial species and habitats. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 3)] 18.25.370 Filling and excavation. (1) Policies. (a) Filling, as defined in Article II of this chapter, should only be allowed waterward of the ordinary high water mark when alternatives are infeasible and when the filling is: (i) Necessary to support an approved water-dependent use or essential public infrastructure/facility; or (ii) Part of an approved ecological restoration or enhancement project; or (iii) Part of an approved aquaculture operation when the fill is required to improve production; or (iv) Part of an approved beach nourishment project; or (v) Required to provide public access for a substantial number of people; or (vi) Required to provide water-oriented public recreation for a substantial number of people. (b) Filling and excavation should n ot be allowed where structural shoreline stabilization would be required to maintain the materials placed or excavated. (c) When allowed, filling and excavation should be conducted so that water quality, habitat, hydrology, natural erosion rates, and runoff/drainage patterns are not adversely affected. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Filling may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (b) Aquatic. Filling may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (c) Natural. Filling and excavation is prohibited, except filling and excavation may be permitted as an essential element of an approved shoreline restoration project/program . (d) Conservancy. Filling and excavation may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (e) Shoreline Residential. Filling and excavation may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. (f) High Intensity. Filling and excavation may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 86/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (3) Regulations. (a) Filling and/or excavation shall only be allowed as part of an approved shoreline use and/or development activity and shall be subject to the requirements of the primary use/development. (b) Excavation below the ordinary high water mark shall be considered dredging and shall be subject to JCC 18.25.360 (Dredging). (c) When allowed, filling and/or excavation s hall be located, designed, and carried out in a manner that: (i) Minimizes adverse impacts on the shoreline environment; and (ii) Blends in physically and visually with natural topography, so as not to interfere with appropriate use, impede public access, or degrade the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline; and (iii) Does not require shoreline armoring or stabilization to protect materials placed unless it is part of an approved shoreline restoration project and shoreline armoring or stabilization measures are needed to keep the material in place. (d) Fill materials placed within shoreline jurisdiction shall be from an approved source and shall consist of clean sand, gravel, soil, rock or similar material. The use of contaminated material or construction deb ris shall be prohibited. (e) Fill placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall only be permitted when alternatives are infeasible and when the filling/excavation is necessary to support one or more of the following: (i) Approved marinas, ports, and other water-dependent industries where upland alternatives or structural solutions including pile or pier supports are infeasible. (ii) Development or maintenance of essential public infrastructure and facilities. (iii) Environmental clean-up activities required by MTCA and CERCLA. (iv) Maintenance of a lawfully established use or development. (v) Ecological restoration and enhancement projects benefiting water quality and/or fish and wildlife habitat. (vi) Public access and public water -oriented recreation projects benefiting substantial numbers of people. (vii) Part of an approved shoreline stabilization, flood control or in -stream structure project when consistent with this program. (f) Filling in areas of special flood hazard shall conform to the floo d damage prevention provisions of Chapter 15.15 JCC. (g) The following information shall be required for all proposals involving fill or excavation unless the county determines that issues are adequately addressed via another regulatory review process: (i) A description of the proposed use of the fill area; and (ii) A description of the fill material, including its source, and physical, chemical and biological characteristics; and (iii) A description of the method of placement and compaction; and (iv) A description of the location of the fill relative to natural and/or existing drainage patterns; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 87/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (v) A description and map of the fill area and depth relative to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM); and (vi) A description of proposed means to control ero sion and stabilize the fill; and (vii) A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan; and (viii) A description of proposed surface runoff control measures. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 4)] 18.25.380 Flood control structures. (1) Policies. (a) The county should prevent the need for flood control works by limiting new development in flood -prone areas. (b) New or expanded development or uses in the shoreline, including subdivision of land, that would likely require flood control structures within a str eam, channel migration zone, or floodway should be prohibited. (c) Construction of new flood control structures should only be allowed where there is a documented need to protect an existing structure and mitigation is applied, consistent with this program . New development should be designed and located to preclude the need for such flood control structures. (d) When evaluating the need for flood control structures such as traditional levees and/or dams, opportunities to remove or relocate existing developments and structures out of flood-prone areas should be pursued to the maximum extent feasible. Alternative measures, such as overflow corridors and setback levees, that may have less adverse impact on shoreline ecology should be considered before structura l flood control measures can be approved. (e) Probable effects on ecological functions and processes should be fully evaluated for consistency with this program before flood control structures are permitted. (f) Flood control structures are a necessary and appropriate means of protecting existing development only when all of the following are met: (i) The primary use being protected is consistent with this program; and (ii) Nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and (iii) Where such structures can be developed in a manner that is compatible with multiple use of streams; and (iv) Where shoreline resources such as fish and wildlife habitat and recreation are protected in the long term. (g) When proven necessary, flood control structures should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that: (i) Minimizes adverse effects on shoreline ecology; and (ii) Is compatible with navigation and recreation, especially in shorelines of statewide significance; provided, that public safety and ecological protection are fully addressed; and (iii) Incorporates native vegetation to enhance ecological functions, creates a more natural appearance, improves ecological processes, and provides more flexibility for long -term shoreline management. (iv) Nonregulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions and processes and other shoreline resources should be encouraged as an alternative to flood control structures. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 88/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Nonregulatory methods may include public facility and resource planning, land or easement acquisition, education, voluntary protection and enhancement projects, or incentive programs. (h) The county should continue to develop long-term, comprehensive flood hazard management plans in cooperation with other applicable agencies and persons to prevent flood damage, maintain the natural hydraulic capacity of streams and floodplains, and conserve or restore valuable, limited resources such as fish, water, soil, and recreation and scenic areas. (i) Planning and design of flood control structures should be consistent with and incorporate elements from adopted watershed management plans, restoration plans and/or surface water management plans. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Flood control structures may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (b) Aquatic. Flood control structures may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (c) Natural. Flood control structures are prohibited. (d) Conservancy. Flood control structures may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (e) Shoreline Residential. Flood control structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (f) High Intensity. Flood control structures may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (3) Regulations. (a) Flood control structures shall be permitted only when there is credible engineering and scientific evidence that: (i) They are necessary to protect existing, lawfully established development; and (ii) They are consistent with Chapters 15.15 and 18.30 JCC and the county Comprehensive Plan; and (iii) Nonstructural flood hazard reduction measures are infeasible; and (iv) Proposed measures are consistent with an a dopted comprehensive flood hazard management plan if available. (b) When permitted, flood control structures shall be: (i) Constructed and maintained in a manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters or the habitat value associated with the in-stream and riparian area; and (ii) Placed landward of the OHWM except for weirs, current deflectors and similar structures whose primary purpose is to protect public bridges and roads; and (iii) Placed landward of associated wetlands and designated habi tat conservation areas, except for structures whose primary purpose is to improve ecological functions; and (iv) Designed based on engineering and scientific analyses that provide the highest degree of protection to shoreline ecological functions or processes; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 89/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (v) Designed to allow for normal ground water movement and surface runoff. Natural in -stream features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps should be left in place unless they are actually causing bank erosion or higher flood stages; and (vi) Designed to allow streams to maintain point bars and associated aquatic habitat through normal accretion so that the stream can maintain normal meander progression and maintain most of its natural storage capacity. (c) When permitted, dikes and levees shall be limited to that height required to protect adjacent lands from the predictable annual flood unless it can be demonstrated through hydraulic modeling that a greater height is needed and will not adversely impact shoreline ecological functions and proces ses. (d) Flood control works are prohibited on estuary or embayment shores, on point and channel bars, and in salmon and trout spawning areas, except for the purpose of fish or wildlife habitat enhancement or restoration. (e) Flood control structures and stream channelization projects that damage fish and wildlife resources, recreation or aesthetic resources, or create high flood stages and velocities shall be prohibited. (f) Use of solid waste such as motor vehicles, derelict vessels, appliances, or demoli tion debris; construction of flood control works is prohibited. (g) Flood control structures shall not adversely affect valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point and channel bars, islands, and braided banks. (h) The county shall require flood control structures to be professionally engineered and designed prior to final approval. The design shall be consistent with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Habitat Guidelines and other applicable guidance and regulatory requirements. (i) No flood control structure shall be installed or constructed without the developer having obtained all applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals, including but not limited to a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. (j) Removal of beaver dams to control or limit flooding shall be allowed; provided, that the project proponent coordinates with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and obtains all necessary permits and approvals from the state. (k) To determine that the provisions of this section are fully addressed, the county may require one or more technical studies/reports at the time of permit application for flood control structures unless the county determines that issues are adequately addressed vi a another regulatory review process. Technical reports required pursuant to this section shall address the following: (i) An analysis of the flood frequency, duration and severity and expected health and safety risks as a rationale and justification for the proposed structure. (ii) A hydraulic analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer that describes anticipated effects of the project on stream hydraulics, including potential increases in base flood elevation, changes in stream velocity, and the potential for redirection of the normal flow of the affected stream. (iii) A biological resource inventory and analysis prepared by a qualified professional biologist that describes the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources. (iv) Proposed provisions for accommodating public access to and along the affected shoreline, as well as any proposed on-site recreational features. (v) A description of any proposed plans to remove vegetation and revegetate the site following construction. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 90/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (l) To ensure compliance with the no net loss provisions of this program, the county may require the proponent to prepare a mitigation plan that describes measures for protecting shoreline and in -stream resources during construction and operation of a flood control structure. The required mitigation shall be commensurate with the value and type of resource or system lost. Mitigation activities shall be monitored by the proponent to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation plan. In instances where the ex isting mitigation measures are found to be ineffective, the proponent shall take corrective action that satisfies the objectives of the mitigation plan. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 5)] 18.25.390 In-stream structures. (1) Policies. (a) Large-scale in-stream structures such as hydroelectric dams and related facilities are discouraged in Jefferson County. Such facilities should not be permitted except in the rare instance where there is clear evidence that the benefits to county residents outweigh any potential adverse ecological impacts. (b) In-stream structures should be approved only when associated with and necessary for an ecological restoration project, a fish passage project, or an allowed shoreline use/development such as a utility or industrial facility. (c) When necessary, in-stream structures should be located, designed, operated and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the stream functions and processes. (d) Proposals for new in-stream structures should be evaluated for t heir potential adverse effects on the physical, hydrological, and biological characteristics as well as effects on species that inhabit the stream or riparian area. (e) When necessary, in-stream structures should be planned and designed to be compatible with navigation and recreation, especially in shorelines of statewide significance; provided, that public safety and ecological protection are fully addressed. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. In-stream structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (b) Aquatic. In-stream structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. (c) Natural. In-stream structures are prohibited, except that in-stream structures (such as large woody debris) whose primary purpose is restoration of shoreline ecological conditions may be permitt ed subject to the provisions of this program. (d) Conservancy. In-stream structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (e) Shoreline Residential. In -stream structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (f) High Intensity. In-stream structures may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program and a conditional use permit. (3) Regulations. (a) Dams and associated power generating facilities shall not be permitted except in the rare instance where there is clear evidence that the benefits to county residents outweigh any potential adverse ecological impacts. The criteria for approving such facilities will depen d on the specific location including its particular physical, cultural, and ecological conditions. Prior to approving or denying such facilities, the county shall consult citizens and appropriate agencies to evaluate in-stream structure proposals. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 91/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) In-stream structures whose primary purpose is flood control shall be subject to JCC 18.25.380 (Flood control structures) and this section. In -stream structures whose purpose is power generation shall be subject to the policies and regulations for JCC 18.25.470 (industrial use) and this section. (c) When permitted, in-stream structures and their support facilities shall be: (i) Constructed and maintained in a manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters or the habitat value associated with the in-stream and riparian area; and (ii) Located and designed based on reach analysis to avoid the need for structural shoreline armoring. (d) All in-water diversion structures shall be designed to permit the natural transport of bedload materials. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction shall be disposed of in such a manner that prevents their entry into a water body. (e) In-stream structures shall not impede upstream or downstream migration of anadromous fish. (f) Small-scale power generating microturbines may be placed in streams, provided they do not create impoundments and there are no adverse effects on shoreline functions and processes, including but not limited to, stream flow, habitat structure, temperature, and/or water quality. The county shall take appropriate measures and precautions to prevent the proliferation of small -scale power generating apparatus as necessary to prevent cumulative adverse impacts. (g) The county shall require any proposed in-stream structure to be professionally engineered and designed prior to final approval. (h) No in-stream structure shall be installed without the developer having obtained all applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals, including but not limited to a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (i) The county shall require the proponent of any in -stream structure proposal to provide the following information prior to final approval unless the county determines that the issues are ade quately addressed via another regulatory review process: (i) A site suitability analysis that provides the rationale and justification for the proposed structure. The analysis shall include a description and analysis of alternative sites, and a thorough di scussion of the environmental impacts of each; and (ii) A hydraulic analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer that describes anticipated effects of the project on stream hydraulics, including potential increases in base flood elevation, changes in stream velocity, and the potential for redirection of the normal flow of the affected stream; and (iii) A biological resource inventory and analysis prepared by a qualified professional biologist that describes the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources; and (iv) For hydropower facilities, the proposed location and design of powerhouses, penstocks, accessory structures and access and service roads; and (v) Proposed provisions for accommodating public access to and along the affected shoreline, as well as any proposed on-site recreational features; and (vi) A description of any plans to remove vegetation and/or revegetate the site following construction; and proposed mitigation plan that describes, in detail, provisions for pr otecting in-stream resources during construction and operation, and measures to compensate for impacts that resources that cannot be avoided. (vii) A description of sites proposed for the depositing of debris, overburden, and other waste materials generated during construction. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 6)] Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 92/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.400 Restoration. (1) Policies. (a) Protection of existing resources is the best way to ensure the long -term health and well-being of Jefferson County shorelines. Restoration should be used to complement the protection strategies required by this program to achieve the greatest overall ecological benefit. (b) This program recognizes the importance of restoring shoreline ecological functions and processes. Jefferson County supports cooperative restoration efforts by strategically organizing programs between local, state, and federal public agencies, tribes, nonprofit organizations, and landowners to improve shorelines with impaired ecological functions and/or processes. (c) Restoration actions should restore shoreline ecological functions and processes as well as shoreline features and should be targeted toward meeting the needs of sensitive and/or regionally important plant, fish and wildlife species. (d) Restoration should be integrated with and should support other natural resource management efforts in Jefferson County and in the greater Puget Sound region. (e) Priority should be given to restoration actions that meet the goals and objectives contained in JCC 18.25.170 (Restoration and enhancement). (f) When prioritizing restoration actions, the county should give highest priority to measures that have the greatest chance of reestablishing ecosystem processes and creating self -sustaining habitats. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this program. (b) Aquatic. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this program. (c) Natural. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this program. (d) Conservancy. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this program. (e) Shoreline Residential. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this program. (f) High Intensity. Restoration may be permitted subject to provisions of this progr am. (3) Regulations. Restoration shall be carried out in accordance with an approved restoration plan and in accordance with the policies and regulations of this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 7)] 18.25.410 Structural shoreline armoring and shoreline stabilization. (1) Policies. (a) The county should take active measures to preserve natural unarmored shorelines and prevent the proliferation of bulkheads and other forms of shoreline armoring. (b) Nonstructural stabilization measures including relocating structures, increasing buffers, enhancing vegetation, managing drainage and runoff and other measures are preferred over structural shoreline armoring. (c) Structural shoreline armoring should only be permitted when necessary to support a primar y structure associated with an approved shoreline use/development, public infrastructure, and/or essential public facilities when other alternatives are infeasible. (d) Where beach erosion threatens an existing use or development, proposals for new structu ral shoreline armoring should evaluate a range of options and designs. On a reach -specific basis, causes of erosion as well as Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 93/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. effects should be evaluated. Beach management issues such as sediment conveyance, geohydraulic processes, and ecological relationships all should be considered in arriving at a design to minimize disturbance. (e) Shoreline stabilization and shoreline armoring for the purpose of leveling or extending property or creating or preserving residential lawns, yards or landscaping should no t be allowed. (f) When structural shoreline armoring is determined necessary to protect public infrastructure and primary structures, it should be located, designed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on shoreline ecology, including effects on the project site, adjacent properties, and sediment transport to downdrift areas. (g) Before approving shoreline armoring structures, the county should require the proponent to identify, address and mitigate probable effects on shoreline process es and functions. (h) Shoreline armoring structures should be located and designed based on an understanding of long -term physical shoreline processes. The structural shoreline armoring should fit the physical character and hydraulic energy of a specific shoreline reach, which may differ substantially from adjacent reaches. (i) Vertical concrete or rock walls should be avoided whenever possible and only be used to protect shorelines as a last resort and only when extreme measures are required. (j) Structural shoreline armoring should not interfere with existing or future public access to public shorelines nor with other appropriate shoreline uses such as navigation, seafood harvest, or recreation. (k) When seeking approval for new structural shoreline armori ng, the project proponent should include public access that is consistent with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (l) Proponents of new structural shoreline armoring should coordinate with other affected property owners and public agencies to address ecological and geo-hydraulic processes, sediment conveyance and beach management issues for the whole drift sector (net shoreline -drift cell) or shoreline reach where feasible. (m) Where feasible, any failing, harmful, unnecessary, or ineffective structural shoreli ne armoring should be removed, and shoreline ecological functions and processes should be restored using nonstructural methods. (n) In addition to conforming to the regulations in this program, nonregulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions and other shoreline resources should be encouraged. Nonregulatory methods may include public facility and resource planning, technical assistance, education, voluntary enhancement and restoration projects, land acquisition and resto ration, or other incentive programs. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. New structural shoreline armoring is prohibited, except to protect existin g public transportation infrastructure and essential public facilities, in which case it may be allowed as a conditional use. (b) Aquatic. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. Structural shoreline armoring to protect existing public transportation infrastructure and existing essential public facilities may be allowed as a conditional use if allowed in the adjacent upland environment. Structural shoreline armoring to protect new residential developments is prohi bited. (c) Natural. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. Structural shoreline armoring is prohibited except that structural shoreline armoring to protect existing public transportation infrastructure and existing essential public facilities may be allowed as a conditional use. (d) Conservancy. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. Shoreline armoring structures may be permitted as a conditional use. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 94/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Shoreline Residential. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of this program. Shoreline armoring structures may be permitted as a conditional use. (f) High Intensity. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted subject to the provisions of thi s program. Shoreline armoring structures may be permitted as a conditional use. (3) Regulations – Existing Structural Shoreline Armoring. (a) Existing structural shoreline armoring, as defined in Article II of this chapter, may be replaced in kind if there is a demonstrated need to protect public transportation infrastructure, essential public facilities, and primary structures from erosion caused by currents, tidal action, or waves and all of the following apply: (i) The replacement structure is designed, located, sized, and constructed to assure no net loss of ecological functions. (ii) The replacement structure performs the same stabilization function of the existing structure and does not require additions to or increases in size. (iii) The replacement structure shall not encroach waterward of the ordinary high water mark or existing structure unless the residence was occupied prior to January 1, 1992, and there are overriding safety or environmental concerns. In such cases, the replacement structure shal l abut the existing shoreline stabilization structure. (b) Removal of older structures is required as new ones are put in place. Exceptions may be made by the administrator only in cases where removal would cause more ecological disturbance than leaving th e remnant structure in place. (4) Regulations – Subdivisions and Existing Lots without Structures. (a) Land subdivisions shall be designed tousing geotechnical analysis to assure that future development or use of the established lots will not require structural shoreline armoring. (b) Use of a bulkhead, revetment or similar shoreline armoring to protect a platted lot where no primary use or structure presently exists shall be prohibited. Where such shoreline armoring already exists, property owners are strongly encouraged to remove it. (c) Structural shoreline armoring for the sole purpose of leveling or extending property or creating or preserving residential lawns, yards, or landscaping shall be prohibited. Where such shoreline armoring already exists, property owners are strongly encouraged to remove it. (5) Regulations – New or Expanded Shoreline Armoring, When Allowed. (a) Structural shoreline armoring shall be prohibite d in or adjacent to lakes and other low energy environments such as bays, and accreting marine shores. Where such shoreline armoring already exists, property owners are strongly encouraged to remove it. (b) New structural shoreline armoring may be permitte d and existing structural shoreline armoring may be expanded only when one or more of the following apply: (i) When necessary to support a project whose primary purpose is enhancing or restoring ecological functions. (ii) As part of an effort to remediate hazardous substances pursuant to Chapter 70.105 RCW. (iii) When necessary to protect public transportation infrastructure or essential public facilities and other options are infeasible. Commented [GU51]: AJS: added per WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(A) Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 95/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iv) When necessary to protect an existing, lawfully established prim ary structure or water-oriented use, including a residence but not including a boathouse or other accessory structure, that is in imminent danger of loss or substantial damage from erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves. (c) Proposals for new or expanded structural shoreline armoring allowed under subsection (5)(b) of this section shall clearly demonstrate all of the following before a permit can be issued: (i) The erosion is not being caused by upland conditions, such as the loss of vegetation or poor drainage. (ii) The structural shoreline armoring design is the least environmentally damaging alternative. (iii) The shoreline armoring complies with the flood damage prevention regulations in JCC 18.30.07015.15. (iv) Adverse impacts are fully mitigated according to the prescribed mitigation sequence such that there is no net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes. (v) Alternatives to structural shoreline armoring including vegetative shoreline stabilization, flexible/natural materials and methods, beach nourishment and other forms of bioengineering are determined to be infeasible or insufficient. (d) When evaluating the need for new or expanded structural shoreline armoring, the administrator shall require the applicant to examine and implement alternatives to structural shoreline armoring in the following order of preference: (i) No action (allow the shoreline to retreat naturally). (ii) Increased building setbacks and/or relocated structures. (iii) Use of flexible/natural materials and methods, vegetation, beach nourishment, protective berms, or bioengineered shoreline stabilization. Soft approaches shall be used unless demonstrated not to be sufficient to protect primary structures, dwellings, and businesses. (e) The county shall require applicants for new or expanded structural shoreline armoring to provide credible evidence of erosion in a geotechnical analysis as the basis for documenting that the primary structure is in imminent danger from shoreline erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves., or sea level rise. The evidencegeotechnical analysis shall: (i) Demonstrate that the erosion is not due to landslides, sloughing or other forms of shoreline erosion unrelated to water action at the toe of the slope; and (ii) Include an assessment of onDemonstrate that the erosion is not due to on-site drainage and vegetation characteristics, and their effects on slope stabilitycannot be addressed through on -site drainage improvements or vegetation planting; and (iii) Be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or geologist or other qualified professional with appropriate credentials. (6) Regulations – New or Expanded Shoreline Armoring, Design Standards. (a) New or expanded shoreline armoring shall be designed by a state licensed professional geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist and constructed according to applicable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements and/or State Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Habitat Guidelines. (b) The size of structural shoreline armoring shall be limited to the minimum necessary to protect the primary use or structure that it is intended to protect. Commented [GU52]: AJS: added per WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(E) Commented [GU53]: AJS: added per WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(B)(II) Commented [LG54]: Sea Level Rise reference: Similar to SMPs for South Bend Commented [LG55R54]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 96/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) When shoreline armoring is permitted, isit shall be constructed of erosion resistant, environmentally safe and durable materials that are easy to maintain. (d) Shoreline armoring shall be designed and constructed with gravel backfill and weep holes so that natural downward movement of surface or ground water may continue without ponding or saturation that could compromise the surrounding soil stability. (e) All forms of structural shoreline armoring shall be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters. The county may require setbacks, buffers, and/or other measures to achieve these objectives. (f) Shoreline defense structuresarmoring shall not be constructed with waste materials such as demolition debris, derelict vessels, tires, concrete or any other materials which might have adverse toxic or visual impacts on shoreline areas. (g) Gabions are prohibited as a means of stabilizing shorelines because of their limited durability and the potential hazard to shoreline users and the shoreline environment. (h) Proposals, other than single -family residential developments of moreless than four lots, that involve new or expanded shoreline armoring shall incorporate public access features consistent with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (7) Regulations – Bulkheads. (a) Bulkheads shall comply with the regulations noted in subsection s (2) through (6) of this section. (b) Bulkheads shall meet all of the following criteria: (i) They shall be located generally parallel to the shoreline. Adequate bank toe protection shall be provided to ensure bulkhead stability without relying on additio nal rip-rap; and (ii) They shall be located so as to tie in flush with existing bulkheads on adjoining properties, except when adjoining bulkheads do not comply with the design or location requirements set forth in this program. (8) Regulations – Revetments. (a) Revetments shall comply with the regulations noted in subsections (2) through (6) of this section. (b) Revetments shall meet all of the following criteria: (i) Revetments shall be placed landward of associated wetlands; and (ii) Revetments shall be located sufficiently landward of the stream channel to allow streams to maintain point bars and associated aquatic habitat through normal accretion; and (iii) Revetments shall be prohibited on estuarine shores, in wetlands, on point and channel bars, and i n salmon and trout spawning areas. (c) Revetments or similar structures that have already cut off point bars from the stream shall be relocated if feasible. (d) When requesting a permit for a revetment along a stream or river, the applicant shall provide a geotechnical analysis of stream geomorphology both upstream and downstream of the proposed revetment site to assess the physical character and hydraulic energy potential of the specific stream reach and adjacent upstream or downstream reaches. The purpose of such analysis is to assure that the physical integrity of the stream corridor is maintained, that stream processes are not adversely affected, and that the revetment will not cause significant damage to other properties or shoreline functions and proce sses. Commented [LG56]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #16 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 97/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (9) Regulations – Breakwaters, Jetties, and Seawalls. (a) Breakwaters, jetties, and seawalls shall comply with the regulations noted in subsections (2) through (6) of this section. (b) Breakwaters, jetties, and seawalls shall only be allowed when sho wn to be necessary: (i) For purposes of navigation, or fisheries or habitat enhancement; or (ii) To protect from strong wave action public water -dependent uses such as a harbor, marina, or port that are located seaward of the existing shoreline; or (iii) When adverse impacts on water circulation, sediment transport, fish and wildlife migration, shellfish, and aquatic vegetation can be effectively mitigated. (c) Open-pile, floating, portable, or submerged breakwaters, or several smaller discontinuous structu res that are anchored in place, shall be preferred over fixed breakwaters. (10) Regulations – Application Requirements. To verify that the provisions of this section are fully addressed, the county may require information to support a permit application fo r any type of shoreline stabilization. Application information required pursuant to this section shall address the urgency and risks associated with the specific site characteristics and shall include: (a) A scaled site plan showing: (i) existing site topography and (ii) the location of existing and proposed shoreline stabilization, shoreline armoring structures, and any fill including dimensions indicating distances to the OHWM; and (b) A description of the processes affecting the site and surrounding areas, including but not limited to: tidal action and/or waves; slope instability or mass wasting; littoral drift; channel migration; and soil erosion, deposition, or accretion; and (c) A description of alternatives to structural approaches, and a thorough discussion of the environmental impacts of each alternative; and (d) A description of any proposed vegetation removal and a plan to revegetate the site following construction; and (e) A hydraulic analysis prepared by a licensed professional engineer that describes anticipated effects of the project on water and wave elevations and velocities; and (f(f) If required per subsections (4) and (5) above, a geotechnical report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The report shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization to protect a primary structure by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and assessing the urgency associated with the specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions should not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as three years, that report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures . (g) A biological resource inventory and an alysis prepared by a qualified professional biologist that describes the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources; and (gh) A description of opportunities for providing public access to and along the affected shoreline, as well as any proposed on-site recreational features if applicable; and Commented [GU57]: AJS: added per WAC 173-26- 231(3)(a)(iii)(D) Commented [LG58]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #11 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 98/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (hi) A description of any waste and debris disposal sites for materials generated during construction; and (ij) Any other information that may be required to demonstrate compliance with the review criteria referenced in this section. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VII § 8)] Article VIII. Use-Specific Policies and Regulations 18.25.420 Purpose. This article describes policies and regulations that apply to specific uses and developments in the shoreline jurisdiction. The policies and regulations are intended to work in concert with the master program goals (Article III of this chapter) and the general policies and regulations (Article IV of this chapter). Policies and regulations that address specific shoreline modifications (e.g., bulkheads, piers, dredging, etc.) that may be associated with, or accessory to, a specific use are in Article VII of this chapter. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII)] 18.25.430 Agriculture. (1) Policies. (a) Agriculture is important to the long-term economic viability of Jefferson County. Consistent with WAC 173-26-241(3)(a)(ii), this program should not modify or limit ongoing agricultural activities oc curring on agricultural lands. (b) New agricultural uses and development, as defined in Article II of this chapter, proposed on land not currently in agricultural use, and conversion of agricultural lands to non -agricultural uses, should conform to this program. (c) New agricultural use and development should be managed to: (i) Prevent livestock intrusion into the water; (ii) Control runoff; (iii) Prevent water quality contamination caused by nutrients and noxious chemicals; (iv) Minimize clearing of riparian areas; (v) Prevent bank erosion; and (vi) Assure no net loss of ecological functions and avoid adverse effects on shoreline resources and values. (d) New agricultural use and development should preserve and maintain native vegetation between tille d lands and adjacent water bodies. The width of the native vegetation zone should vary depending on site conditions with the overall goal being to limit clearing of riparian corridors. (e) Intensive residential, industrial and commercial uses and uses that are unrelated to agriculture should be located so as not to create conflicts with agricultural uses. (f) The county should promote cooperative arrangements between farmers and public recreation agencies so that public use of shorelines does not conflict with agricultural operations. (g) Existing and new agricultural uses are encouraged to use best management practices to prevent erosion, runoff, and associated water quality impacts. (h) The county recognizes the importance of local food production, both on land and in water areas, when properly managed to control pollution and prevent environmental damage. As consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70A.030, and 90.58.065, upland finfish aquaculture is considered agricultural production. However, for purposes of this program, upland finfish aquaculture should instead be managed as aquaculture and aquaculture activities, as defined in Article II of this chapter. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 99/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (i) Collaborate with partners such as North Olympic Development Council (NODC), Washington State University (WSU), and Jefferson County Conservation District to assess likely impacts of climate change on agriculture and to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies suited to Jefferson County’s soils and farm economy. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. New agricultural activities are prohibited, except upland finfish aquaculture per the aquaculture policies and regulations of this program. (b) Aquatic. New agricultural activities are prohibited, except upland finfish aquaculture per the aquaculture policies and regulations of this program. (c) Natural. New agricultural activities are prohibited, except that low intensity agricultural activities such as grazing may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program; provided, that such low intensity agriculture does not expand or alter agricultural practices in a manner inconsistent with the purpose of this designation. All other agricultural activities are prohibited, except upland finf ish aquaculture per the aquaculture policies and regulations of this program. (d) Conservancy. New agricultural activities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (e) Shoreline Residential. New agricultural activities may be all owed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (f) High Intensity. New agricultural activities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. (3) Regulations. (a) In accordance with RCW 90.58.065, this program shall not rest rict existing agriculture on agricultural land. (b) New agricultural use and development on lands not meeting the definition of agricultural land shall comply with this program and all of the following regulations: (i) Manure spreading shall be conducted in a manner that prevents animal wastes from entering water bodies or wetlands adjacent to water bodies. Manure spreading shall not be allowed within the floodway or within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark of any shoreline, whichever is greater. (ii) Confinement lots, feeding operations, lot wastes, manure storage or stockpiles, and storage of noxious chemicals shall not be allowed within floodways or within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of any shoreline, whichever is greater. (iii) A buffer of naturally occurring or planted native vegetation shall be maintained between the shoreline and areas used for crops or intensive grazing. The width of the buffer on marine, river, and lake shorelines shall correspond to the standards of this program. (iv) Bridges, culverts and/or ramps shall be used to enable livestock to cross streams without damaging the streambed or banks. (v) Stock watering facilities shall be provided so that livestock do not need to access streams or lakes for drinking water. (vi) Fencing or other grazing controls shall be used as appropriate to prevent bank compaction, bank erosion, or the overgrazing of, or damage to, shoreline buffer vegetation. (c) Upland finfish aquaculture use and development shall be subject to the Aquacul ture policies and regulations (JCC 18.25.440). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 1)] Commented [LG59]: Comp Plan: Policy NR-P-8.6 Commented [LG60R59]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 100/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.440 Aquaculture. (1) Policies. (a) Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest that is important to the long-term economic viability, cultural heritage and environmental health of Jefferson County. (b) The county should support aquaculture uses and developments that: (i) Protect and improve water quality; and (ii) Minimize damage to important nearshore habitats; and (iii) Minimize interference with navigation and normal public use of surface waters; and (iv) Minimize the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, such as those resulting from in -water structures/apparatus/equipment, land -based facilities, and substrate disturbance/modification (including rate, frequency, and spatial extent). (c) When properly managed, aquaculture can result in long -term ecological and economic benefits. The county should engage in coordinated planning to identify potential aquaculture areas and assess long -term needs for aquaculture. This includes working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFWWDFW), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), area tribes and shellfish interests to identify areas that are suitable for aquaculture and protect them from uses that would threaten aquaculture’s long -term sustainability. (d) Aquaculture use and development shou ld locate in areas where biophysical conditions, such as tidal currents, water temperature and depth, will minimize adverse environmental impacts. Individual aquaculture uses and developments should be separated by a sufficient distance to ensure that sign ificant adverse cumulative effects do not occur. (e) The county should support tideland aquaculture use and development when consistent with this program and protect tidelands and bedlands that were acquired and retained under the Bush and Callow Acts by n ot permitting non-aquaculture use and development on these tidelands. (f) Intensive residential uses, other industrial and commercial uses, and uses that are unrelated to aquaculture should be located so as not to create conflicts with aquaculture operatio ns. (g) The county should promote cooperative arrangements between aquaculture growers and public recreation agencies so that public use of public shorelines does not conflict with aquaculture operations. (h) Experimental forms of aquaculture involving the use of new species, new growing methods or new harvesting techniques should be allowed when they are consistent with applicable state and federal regulations and this program. (i) The county should support community restoration projects associated with aq uaculture when they are consistent with this program. (j) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas including shellfish habitat conservation areas are critical habitats. Shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bedland s are allowed uses. Such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest. (k) Chemicals and fertilizers used in aquaculture operations should be used in accordance with state and federal laws, and this program. (l) The county recognizes upland finfish aquaculture is considered a type of agricultural production by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, RCW 36.70A.030, and 90.58.065. However, for purposes of this program, upland finfish aquaculture shou ld instead be managed as aquaculture and aquaculture activities, as defined in Article II of this chapter. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 101/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (m) Finfish aquaculture that uses or releases herbicides, pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, non - indigenous species, parasites, viruses, genetically modified organisms, feed, or other materials known to be harmful into surrounding waters should not be allowed unless significant impacts to surrounding habitat and conflicts with adjacent uses are effectively mitigated. (n) The county should prefer all finfish aquaculture use and development (in -water and upland) that operates with fully contained systems that treat effluent before discharge to local waters over open systems. (o) The county should allow in-water finfish aquaculture in the open waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca only when the area seaward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which is subject to the county’s jurisdiction extends a considerable distance, and when consistent with other provisions of this program. (p) The county should prohibit in-water finfish aquaculture in waters of Jefferson County where there are habitat protection designations in place and/or water quality issues documented. (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. (a) In-water finfish aquaculture use/development, including net pens as defined in Article II of this chapter, shall be prohibited in the following areas due to established habitat protection designations and/or water quality issues: (i) Protection Island aquatic reserve or within 1,500 feet of the boundary; (ii) Smith and Minor Islands aquatic reserve or within 1,500 feet of the boundary; (iii) Discovery Bay, south of the boundary of the Protection Island aquatic reserve; (iv) South Port Townsend Bay mooring buoy management plan area; a nd (v) Hood Canal, south of the line extending from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff, including Dabob and Tarboo Bays. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Aquaculture activities, except for new geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment, except all finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) is prohibited. New geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). (b) Aquatic. Aquaculture activities, except for new geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the adjacent upland shoreline environment. New geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). (c) Natural. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. GeoduckNew geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). All finfish aquaculture is prohibited, except in-water finfish aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)) where the area within the county’s jurisdiction extends seaward more than eight miles from the OHWM, as measured perpendicularly from shore. This does not require f acilities to locate eight miles offshore; see other provisions of this section for siting requirements and supplemental maps for additional information. (d) Conservancy. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to poli cies and regulations of this program. GeoduckNew geoduck and upland finfish aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). In -water finfish aquaculture is prohibited. (e) Shoreline Residential. Aquaculture activities, except for geoduck aquaculture, may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. GeoduckNew geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). All finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) is prohibited. Commented [LG61]: 2011 b Periodic Checklist Commented [GU62]: AJS: Requirements for CUP for new commercial geoduck aquaculture added per WAC 173-26- 241(3)(b)(iv)(A) Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 102/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (f) High Intensity. Aquaculture activities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program, except all finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) and new geoduck aquaculture may be allowed with a conditional use permit (C(d)). (g) For a summary and graphic approximation of the above shoreline environment regulations allowance of in - water finfish aquaculture, see Figure 18.25.440. Figure 18.25.440 – Summary and Maps of SED Allowance for In-Water Finfish Aquaculture Shoreline Environment Designations (SEDs) Waterward OHWM Landward Priority Aquatic Aquatic Natural Conservancy Shoreline Residential High Intensity Would in-water finfish aquaculture be allowed to locate in this SED? No Yes No No No Yes Notes But only when the adjacent upland SED allows Except when there is 8+ miles of seaward jurisdiction Geographic Limitations: 1 Not within the Protection Island Aquatic Reserve, the Smith and Minor Islands Aquatic Reserve or within 1,500 feet of their boundary 2 Not in Discovery Bay, south of the boundary for the Protection Island Aquatic Reserve, due to significant water quality concerns 3 Not within the South Port Townsend Bay mooring buoy management plan area or within 1,500 feet of the boundary, due to significant water quality concerns 4 Not in Hood Canal, south of the line from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff (Kitsap County), due to significant water quality concerns Possible Siting Locations: 1 Strait of Juan de Fuca 2 Glen Cove 3 Mats Mats 4 Port Ludlow NOTE: Proposals also have to meet all conditional use permit (CUP) performance standards and other applicable provisions of this program. Approximate siting locations are illustrated in the following four maps: Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 103/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 104/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 105/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 106/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (4) Regulations – General. (a) When a shoreline permit is issued for a new aquaculture use or development, that permit shall apply to the initial siting, construction, and/or planting or stocking of the facility or farm. If the initial approval is a Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 107/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. shoreline substantial development permit, it shall be valid for a period of five years with a possible one -year extension. If the initial approval is a conditional use permit, it shall be va lid for the period specified in the permit. (b) Ongoing maintenance, harvest, replanting, restocking of or changing the species cultivated in any existing or permitted aquaculture operation is not considered new use/development, and shall not require a new permit, unless or until: (i) The physical extent of the facility or farm is expanded by more than 25 percent or more than 25 percent of the facility/farm changes operational/cultivation methods compared to the conditions that existed as of the effective date of this program or any amendment thereto. If the amount of expansion or change in cultivation method exceeds 25 percent in any 10 -year period, the entire operation shall be considered new aquaculture and shall be subject to applicable permit requiremen ts of this section; or. This calculation of 25% expansion applies to both in-water and above OHWM development; or (ii) The facility proposes to cultivate species not previously cultivated in the state of Washington. (c) Aquaculture uses and activities involving hatching, seeding, planting, cultivating, raising and/or harvesting of planted or naturally occurring shellfish shall not be considered development, as defined in Article II of this chapter, and shall not require a shoreline substantial developme nt permit, unless: (i) The activity substantially interferes with normal public use of surface waters; or (ii) The activity involves placement of any structures as defined in Article II of this chapter; or (iii) The activity involves dredging using mechani cal equipment such as clamshell, dipper, or scraper; or (iv) The activity involves filling of tidelands or bedlands. (d) The county shall assess the potential for interference described in subsection (34)(c) )(i) of this section on a case-by-case basis. All proposed new aquaculture uses or developments shall submit a joint aquatic resources permit application (JARPA) and SEPA checklist to enable assessment by the county. Activities shall not be considered to substantially interfere with normal public use of surface waters, unless: (i) They occur in, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of public tidelands; and (ii) They involve the use of floating ropes, markers, barges, floats, or similar apparatus on a regular basis and in a manner that substantially obstructs public access, or passage from public facilities such as parks or boat ramps; or they exclude the public from more than one acre of surface water on an ongoing or permanent basis. (e) Aquaculture activities not listed in subsection (4)(c) of this section and listed activities that fail to meet any of the criteria in subsection (14)(b) of this section shall require a shoreline substantial development permit (SDP) or conditional use permit (CUP), and shall be subject to all of the following regu lations: (i) Subtidal, intertidal, floating, and upland structures and apparatus associated with aquaculture use shall be located, designed and maintained to avoid adverse effects on ecological functions and processes. (ii) The county shall consider the location of proposed aquaculture facilities/farms to prevent adverse cumulative effects on ecological functions and processes and adjoining land uses. The county shall determine what constitutes acceptable placement and concentration of commercial aquacultur e in consultation with state and federal agencies and tribes based on the specific characteristics of the waterbody, reach, drift cell, and uplands in the vicinity of the farm/facility. (iii) Upland structures accessory to aquaculture use that do not requi re a waterside location or have a functional relationship to the water shall be located landward of shoreline buffers required by this program. Commented [LG63]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #14 Commented [LG64]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #4 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 108/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iv) Overwater work shelters and sleeping quarters accessory to aquaculture use/development shall be prohibited. (v) Floating/hanging aquaculture structures and associated equipment shall not exceed 10 feet in height above the water’s surface. The administrator may approve hoists and similar structures greater than 10 feet in height when there is a clear demonstrati on of need. The 10-foot height limit shall not apply to vessels. (vi) Floating/hanging aquaculture facilities and associated equipment, except navigation aids, shall use colors and materials that blend into the surrounding environment in order to minimize visual impacts. (vii) Aquaculture use and development shall not materially interfere with navigation, or access to adjacent waterfront properties, public recreation areas, or tribal harvest areas. Mitigation shall be provided to offset such impacts where there is high probability that adverse impact would occur. This provision shall not be interpreted to mean that an operator is required to provide access across owned or leased tidelands at low tide for adjacent upland owners. (viii) Aquaculture uses and developments, except in-water finfish aquaculture, shall be located at least 600 feet from any National Wildlife Refuge, seal and sea lion haulouts, seabird nesting colonies, or other areas identified as critical feeding or migration areas for birds and mamm als. In-water finfish facilities, including net pens, shall be located 1,500 feet or more from such areas. The county may approve lesser distances based upon written documentation that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected tribes support the proposed location. (ix) Aquaculture use and development shall be sited so that shading and other adverse impacts to existing red/brown macro algae (kelp),) and eelgrass beds are avoided. (x) Aquaculture uses and developments that require attaching structures to the bed or bottomlands shall use anchors, such as helical anchors, that minimize disturbance to substrate. (xi) Where aquaculture use and development are authorized to use public facilities, such a s boat launches or docks, the county shall reserve the right to require the applicant/proponent to pay a portion of the maintenance costs and any required improvements commensurate with the applicant’s/proponent’s use. (xii) Aquaculture use and development shall employ nonlethal, nonharmful measures to control birds and mammals. Control methods shall comply with existing federal and state regulations. (xiii) Aquaculture use and development shall avoid use of chemicals, fertilizers and genetically modified organisms except when allowed by state and federal law. (xiv) Non-navigational directional lighting associated with aquaculture use and development shall be used wherever possible and area lighting shall be avoided and minimized to the extent necessary to c onduct safe operations. Non-navigational lighting shall not adversely affect vessel traffic. (xv) Aquaculture waste materials and by-products shall be disposed of in a manner that will ensure strict compliance with all applicable governmental waste disposa l standards, including but not limited to the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401, and the Washington State Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). (f) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging aquaculture use and development or bottom cul ture 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. (5) Regulations – Finfish. (a) The culture of finfish, including net pens as defined in Article II of this chapter, may be allowed with a discretionary conditional use approvalpermit (C(d)) subject to the policies and regulations of this program. All finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) shall meet, at a minimum, state-approved administrative guidelines Commented [GU65]: AJS: This is repeated (and modified) in (7)(b) below, which seems to be the most appropriate location. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 109/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. for the management of net pen cultures. In the event there is a conflict in requirements, the more restrictive requirement shall prevail. (b) All in-water finfish aquaculture (in-water and upland) proposals for facilities/operations shall: (i) Provide the county, at the applicant’s/operator’s expense, a site characterization survey, baseline surveys, and annual monitoring as described in the 1986 Interim Guidelines, or subsequent documents approved by the state. The applicant/operator shall also provide the county with copies of all survey and monitoring reports submitted to Washington Departments of Ecology, Fis h and Wildlife, and Natural Resources. (ii) Submit an operations plan that includes projections for: (A) Improvements at the site (e.g., pens, booms, etc.) and their relationship to the natural features (e.g., bathymetry, shorelines, etc.); (B) Number, size and configuration of pens/structures; (C) Schedule of development and maintenance; (D) Species cultured; (E) Fish size at harvest; (F) Annual production; (G) Pounds of fish on hand throughout the year; (H) Average and maximum stocking density; (I) Source of eggs, juveniles, and broodstock; (J) Type of feed used; (K) Feeding method; (L) Chemical use (e.g., anti-fouling, antibiotics, etc.); and (M) Predator control measures. (iii) Provide county with documentation of adequate property damage and personal injury commercial insurance coverage as required by Washington Department of Natural Resources and other agencies. (iv) Where the county does not have expertise to analyze the merits of a report provided by an applicant, the applicant may be required to pay for third-party peer review of said report. (c) Bottom Sediments and Benthos. (i) The depth of water below the bottom of any in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall meet the minimum required by the 1986 Interim Guidelines (i.e., 20 to 60 feet at MLLW ), as based on facility production capacity (Class I, II or III) and the mean current velocity at the site, measured as noted in the Guidelines or by more current data/methodology. (ii) In-water finfish aquaculture operations shall be prohibited where mean current velocity is less than 0.1 knots (five cm/sec). (iii) The pen configuration (e.g., parallel rows, compact blocks of square enclosures, or clusters of various sized round enclosures, whether oriented in line with or perpendicular to the prevailing c urrent direction) Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 110/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. of any in-water finfish aquaculture facility shall be designed and maintained to minimize the depth and lateral extent of solids accumulation. (iv) The use of unpelletized wet feed shall be prohibited to minimize undigested feed reaching the benthos or attracting scavengers in the water column. (v) Anchoring or mooring systems shall utilize adequately sized helical devices or other methods to minimize disturbance to the benthos. (d) Water Quality. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid adverse impacts to water temperature, dissolved oxygen and nutrient levels, and other water quality parameters. Facilities must comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES) requirements. (ii) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall monitor water quality and net cleaning activities to comply with state requirements (including WAC 173 -201A-210), especially during periods of naturally high water turbidity. Additional net cleaning activities shall be performed, as needed, to ensure state water quality standards are met. (e) Phytoplankton. (i) In-water finfish aquaculture facility production capacity shall be limited in nutrient sen sitive areas to protect water quality and shall not exceed 1,000,000 pounds annual production per square nautical mile. The following shall apply for specific geographic areas: (A) In the main basin of Puget Sound (area south of the sill at Admiralty Inlet extending to the line between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff, including Port Townsend Bay, Kilisut Harbor, and Oak Bay, and extending to the county’s boundary midway to Whidbey Island), annual production shall be limited by the site characteristics in compliance with this program. (ii) Applicants shall demonstrate through field and modeling studies that the proposed fish farms will not adversely affect existing biota. (f) Chemicals. (i) Only FDA-approved chemicals shall be allowed on a case -by-case basis for anti-fouling, predator control and other purposes. The use of tributyltin (TBT) is prohibited and all chemical use shall be reported to the state as required. (ii) When necessary, vaccination is preferred over the use of antibiotics. Only FDA -approved antibiotics shall be used and such use shall be reported to the state as required. Operator shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that nearby sediments and shellfish do not accumulate significant amounts of antibiotics. (g) Food Fish and Shellfish. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located to avoid adverse impacts to habitats of special significance (as defined in Article II of this chapter) and populations of food fish and shellfish as follows, as determined on a case-by-case basis: (A) When adjacent to any wildlife refuge, sanctuary, aquatic reserve or similar area intended to protect threatened or endangered species, locate a minimum of 300 feet in all directions from such protected areas; (B) When water depth is less than 75 feet, locate at least 300 feet down-current and 150 feet in all other directions from significant habitats; Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 111/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (C) When water depth is greater than 75 feet, locate at least 150 feet from significant habitat. (ii) The county shall designate protective buffer zones around habitats of special significance in accordance with marine area spatial planning efforts led by the state, when such guidance and methodologies are available. (h) Importation of New Fish Species. All in -water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with existing state and federal regulations to ensure importation of new and/or nonnative species does not adversely affect existing and/or native species. (i) Genetic Issues. (i) In compliance with state and federal requirements, in -water finfish aquaculture facilities that propose to culture species native to local waters should use stocks with the greatest genetic similarity to local stocks. (ii) When there is increased risk of interbreeding or establishment of naturalized populations of the cultured species that would be in conflict with native stocks, only sterile or mono -sexual fish shall be allowed. (iii) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum distance from river mouths where wild fish could be most vulnerable to genetic degradation, as determined on a case-by-case basis or by state guidance. (j) Escapement and Disease. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall comply with state and federal requirements to control pests, parasites, diseases, viruses and pathogens and to prevent escapement including, but not limited to, those for certified eggs, approved import/transport and live fish transfer protocols, escapement prevention, reporting and recapture plans, and disease inspection and control per RCW 77 .15.290, Chapter 77.115 RCW, Chapters 220-76 and 220-77 WAC and other requirements as appropriate. (ii) The use of regional broodstock is preferred. (iii) As consistent with the above mentioned Washington statutes and administrative rules, and other applicable authorities, all in-water finfish aquaculture facility operators shall provide the county with a disease response plan to detail specific actions and timelines to follow when an outbreak is detected. The plan shall address transport permit denial, quarantine, confiscation, removal, and other possible scenarios, identify what agencies will be notified or involved, what alternate facilities may be used, a public information/outreach strategy and other appropriate information. (k) Marine Mammals and Birds. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall locate a minimum of 1,500 feet from habitats of special significance for marine mammals and seabirds. (ii) Only nonlethal techniques (e.g., anti-predator netting) shall be allowed to prevent pre dation by birds and/or mammals on the cultured stocks. (l) Visual Quality. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall conduct a visual impact assessment to evaluate and document the following siting and design variables in order to minimize visual i mpacts to adjacent and surrounding uses: (i) Locate offshore from low bank shorelines rather than high bluff areas where angle of viewing becomes more perpendicular to the plane of water making the facility more visually evident. (ii) Locate offshore a minimum of 1,500 feet from ordinary high water mark, or a minimum of 2,000 feet when higher density residential development (rural residential 1:5, urban growth area, master planned Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 112/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. resort, and preexisting platted subdivisions with density equivalent/greater to such) is present along the adjacent upland. The county may require a greater distance as determined by a visual impact assessment. (iii) Facilities shall be designed to maximize a horizontal profile to repeat the plane of the water surface rather than project vertically above the water surface. Vertical height shall be the minimum feasible, not to exceed 10 feet from the surface of the water. (iv) Facilities shall be designed so that the overall size and surface area coverage does not exceed 10 percent of the normal cone of vision, dependent on the foreshortening created by the offshore distance and the average observation height. (v) Facilities shall be designed to borrow from the form of structures and materials already in the environment (e.g., pilings, docks, marinas) and to blend with the predominate color schemes present (i.e., blue, green, gray, neutral earth tones). The colors of white and black shall be minimized as they have highly variable appearance in response to lighting conditions. Bright co lors such as red, yellow, and orange shall be avoided, unless required for safety purposes. The use of a variety of materials or colors shall be limited and ordered. (vi) Facilities proposed to locate in the vicinity of existing in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall evaluate the aggregate impacts and cumulative effects of multiple operations in the same area. (vii) Facilities shall be designed and located so that the surface area of individual operations does not exceed two acres of surface coverage and no more than one operation per square nautical mile. (viii) Land based access for parking, staging, launching, and storage associated with any in -water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be evaluated for visual impacts and conflicts with adjacent up land uses. (m) Navigation, Military Operations and Commercial Fishing. (i) When appropriate, in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located close to shore and near existing navigational impediments (i.e., marinas, docks). (ii) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to avoid conflict with military operations. (iii) The county shall notify, as appropriate, marinas, ports, recreational and commercial boating/fishing organizations, and local tribes about co mment opportunities during the permit review process, especially regarding proposed location of fish farm and related navigational aids. (n) Human Health. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to: (i) Ensure adequate water quality compatible with good husbandry practices; (ii) Report any known bacteriological characteristics of fish food used; (iii) Ensure proper storage of fish food to avoid alteration or degradation of feed quality; (iv) Regularly monitor and report presence of parasites in farmed fish; and (v) Comply with federal, state and local food safety requirements including, but not limited to, source identification and country of origin labeling, and hazard analysis and critical control points plan. (o) Recreation. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall ensure compliance with state and federal requirements, especially when location is proposed near underwater park facilities. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 113/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any recreational shellfish beach, public tidelands, public access facilities (e.g., docks or boat ramps) or other areas of extensive or established recreational use. (iii) In-water finfish aquaculture operators shall in form the Notice to Mariners and other appropriate entities for nautical chart revisions and notify other sources that inform recreational uses (e.g., boaters, divers, shellfish harvesters). (p) Noise. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to: (A) Ensure compliance with state and federal noise level limits; (B) Require mufflers and enclosures on all motorized fish farm equipment; (C) When appropriate, prefer electric motors over internal combustion engines. (ii) The county may require an acoustical study, conducted at the applicant’s/operator’s expense, to ensure any audible impacts are identified and adequately addressed. (q) Odor. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and ope rated to: (i) Ensure compliance with state limits regarding nuisances and waste disposal; (ii) Follow best management practices including, but not limited to: (A) Daily removal and disposal of dead fish and other waste; (B) Regular cleaning of nets and apparatus; (C) Storage of food in closed containers; (D) Walkway design and use allows spilled food to fall into the water. (iii) Maximize the distance between the facility and nearby residential use/development, downwind location preferred, to minimize impacts resulting from foul odors. (r) Lighting and Glare. (i) Facilities shall comply with USCG requirements for operational and navigational lighting. The height of the light source above the water surface shall be the minimum necessary, not to exceed 80 inch es, unless otherwise specified by state or federal requirements. (ii) Facilities shall be designed so that any glare or shadows caused by the solar orientation are minimized. (iii) Facilities shall utilize materials that minimize glare caused by sunlight o r artificial lighting. (s) Upland Shoreline Use. All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to minimize incompatible uses and degradation of upland area. (t) Local Services. (i) All in-water finfish aquaculture facilities shall be designed, located and operated to: (A) Provide estimates of high, average, and low volumes of waste to be produced, including catastrophic events; Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 114/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (B) Provide a waste management plan to include the m ethod and frequency of collection, storage and disposal; and (C) Ensure compliance with local, state, federal waste disposal requirements. (ii) Equipment, structures and materials shall not be discarded in the water and shall not be abandoned in the upland. (65) Regulations – Geoduck. (a) Conditional use permits. (i) CUPs are required for new commercial geoduck aquaculture only. Where the applicant proposes to convert existing nongeoduck aquaculture to commercial geoduck aquaculture, the requirement for a conditional use permit is at the discretion of local government. (ii) All subsequent cycles of planting and harvest shall not require a new conditional use permit. However, planting, growing, and harvesting of farm -raised geoduck clams at an existing permitted facility requires a substantial development permit if a specific project or practice would substantially interfere with normal public use of the surface waters. (iii) Conditional use permits must take into account that commercial geoduck operato rs have a right to harvest geoduck once planted. (iv) A single conditional use permit may be submitted for multiple sites within an inlet, bay or other defined feature, provided the sites are all under control of the same applicant and within the same shoreline permitting jurisdiction. (v) The CUP issued by the county shall include monitoring and reporting requirements necessary to verify that geoduck aquaculture operations are in compliance with shoreline limits and conditions set forth in the CUP and to support cumulative impacts analysis. (vi) The county shall review the considerations listed in WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(L)(I)-(XII) during development of permit conditions necessary to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. (b) Siting and design. (i) Aquaculture should not be permitted in areas where it would result in a net loss of ecological functions, adversely impact eelgrass and macroalgae, or significantly conflict with navigation and other water - dependent uses. (ii) Aquacultural facilities should be designed and located so as not to spread disease to native aquatic life, establish new nonnative species which cause significant ecological impacts, or significantly impact the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Impacts to ecological functions shall be mitigated according to the sequence identified in JCC 17.25.200(13(i). (ii) Commercial geoduck aquaculture should only be allowed where sediments, topography, and land and water access support geoduck aquaculture oper ations without significant clearing or grading. (7) Regulations – Application Requirements. (a) Prior to issuing a permit for any proposed aquaculture use or development, the county may require copies of permit applications and/or studies required by state and federal agencies to(a) To ensure provisions of this program are met, including, but not limited to,applicants must submit the following information: (i) Anticipated(i) A baseline ecological survey of the proposed site to allow consideration of the ecological effects. Commented [LG66]: 2011 b Periodic Checklist Commented [GU67]: AJS: Requirements for CUP for new commercial geoduck aquaculture added per WAC 173-26- 241(3)(b)(iv)(A) Commented [GU68]: AJS: Modifications made to address application requirements for geoduck. These seemed like appropriate requirements for all aquaculture, so integrated into this existing section. See WAC 13-26-241(3)(b)(iv)(F) Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 115/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ii) A narrative description and timeline of anticipated planting and harvest cycles and potential plans for future expansion or change in species grown or harvest practices. (iiiii) Number, types and dimensions of structures, apparatus or equipment. (iiiiv) Predator control methods. (ivv) Anticipated levels of noise, light, and odor and plans for minimizing their impacts. (vvi) Potential impacts to animals, plants, and water quality due to the discharge of waste water from any upland development. (vi(vii) Measures to achieve no net loss of ecological functions consistent with the mitigation sequence described in WAC-173-26-201 (2)(e). (viii) Management practices that address impacts from mooring, parking, noise, lights, litter, and other activities associated with operations. (ix) Proof of application for an aquatic lands lease from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or proof of lease or ownership if bedlands are privately held. (viix) Department of Health (DOH) Shellfish Certification Number. (viiixi) Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFWWDFW) commercial aquatic farm or noncommercial, personal consumption designation. (ixxii) Proof of application for any permits required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Health, or other agency. (xxiii) Proof of application for any state and federal permits/approvals including any required federal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., ESA). (b(b) To reduce redundancy, applicants are encouraged to submit supporting permit applications and studies required by state and federal agencies to provide the information required by the county in subsection (a). The county may require submittal of these materials. (c) Prior to approving a permit for floating/hanging or upland 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. including what views in the vicinity would be altered or obstructed and proposed measures to reduce impacts . The analysis shall demonstrate that adverse impacts on the character of those areas are effectively mitigated. [Ord . 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 2)] 18.25.450 Commercial use. (1) Policies. (a) Commercial development should be located, designed and operated to avoid and minimize adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes. (b) Water-related commercial uses should not displace existing water-dependent uses, and water -enjoyment commercial uses should not displace existing water -related or existing water-dependent uses, unless there are compelling reasons in the public interest. (c) Restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions and processes should be encouraged as part of commercial development. (d) Commercial development should be visually compatible with adjacent noncommercial properties. Commented [LG69]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #17 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 116/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Commercial uses located in the shoreline should provid e public access in accordance with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. Commercial parking as a primary use shall be prohibited within the shoreline jurisdiction. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Commercial use and development is prohibited, except that small -scale, low intensity water-dependent commercial recreational use and development may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. (b) Aquatic. Water-dependent and water-related commercial recreational use and development may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. Water-enjoyment and non-water-dependent commercial use/development is prohibited. (c) Natural. Commercial use and development is prohibited, except that small -scale, low intensity water - dependent commercial recreational use and development may be allowed through a conditional use permit. (d) Conservancy. Water-dependent and water-related commercial use and development may be allowed as a conditional use subject to policies and regulations of this program. Non -water-dependent and non-water-related commercial uses/developments are prohibited, except that small-scale, low intensity recreational/tourist development/use may be allowed with a conditional use permit; provided, that a portion of the use/development is water-dependent or water-related. (e) Shoreline Residential. Water-oriented commercial use and development may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Non -water-oriented commercial uses may be allowed as a conditional use. (f) High Intensity. Water-oriented commercial use and developme nt may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Non-water-oriented commercial uses may be allowed as a conditional use. (4) Regulations – Application Requirements. (a) The county shall require proponents of all commercial use and development to provide the following information at the time of permit application: (i) Site plans showing the boundaries of the property and any existing structures, indication of existing vegetation and topography, locations of adjacent structures, roads or other infrastructure, and the ordinary high water mark and/or floodway boundary. For comparison, proposed structures and uses shall be overlaid on a site plan of existing conditions; and (ii) A description of the specific nature and character of the commercial activity (e.g., water-dependent, water-related, water-enjoyment, non-water-oriented, or mixed-use), including a description of the specific components of the proposal; and (iii) A description of the reason for needing a shoreline location; and (iv) Any proposed measures to enhance the relationship of the activity to the shoreline; and (v) A description of the proposed provisions for providing public visual and/or physical access to the shoreline; and (vi) A description of mitigation measures propos ed to ensure that the development will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. (b) For mixed-use proposals, at least one alternative design depicting a mixture of uses and activities, structural location, site design, bulk and dimensional configuration, and an alternative approach to public visual and physical access to the shoreline. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 117/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (5) Regulations – Water-oriented Use/Development. (a) Water-oriented commercial use and development shall be allowed when the proponent demonstrates that it will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes, or have significant adverse impact on other shoreline uses, resources and/or values such as navigation, recreation and public access. (b) A use or development shall not be considered water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment until the county determines that the proposed design, layout and operation of the use/development meet the definition and intent of the water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment designation. (c) Where existing water-oriented commercial uses are located in shoreline jurisdiction, any undeveloped and substantially unaltered portion of the waterfront not devoted to water -dependent use shall be maintained for future water-related use. (6) Regulations – Non-Water-Oriented Use/Development. (a) Non-water-oriented commercial uses are prohibited on the shoreline unless they meet the following criteria: (i) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water-dependent uses and provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act’s objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration; or (ii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site and the commercial use provides a significant public benefit with respect to the Shoreline Management Act’s objectives such as providing public access and ecological restoration. (b) When permitted pursuant to subsection (5)(a) of this section, non -water-oriented uses shall provide public access and/or restore shoreline ecological functions as follows: (i) When part of a mixed-use development, 80 percent of the shoreline buffer area shall be restored to provide shoreline ecological functions and processes that approximate the functions provided by the site in undisturbed or nondegraded conditions. (ii) When not part of a mixed-use development, the county shall determine the type and extent of public access and restoration on a case-by-case basis according to the opportunities and constraints provided by the site. (c) The county may waive the requirement to provide public access and/or restoration when: (i) The site is designated as a public access area by a shoreline public access plan, in which case public access consistent with that plan element shall be provided; or (ii) The county finds that the size of the parcel and/or the presence of adjacent uses preclude restoration of shoreline ecological functions. In such cases, where on -site restoration is infeasible, equivalent off-site restoration shall be provided consistent with the policies and regulations of this program. (d) Where restoration is provided pursuant to this section, buffers protecting the restored area shall be sized and designed as appropriate to protect shoreline resources based on a specific restoration plan. The buffer width may differ from the shoreline buffers required in JCC 18.25.270 so as not to encumber adjacent properties, unduly constrain the development site, or create a disincentive for restoration. (e) Existing non-water-dependent and non-water-related commercial use or development on shorelines that conform to this program may be permitted to expand landward, but not waterward of existing structures, provided the expansion otherwise conforms to this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 3)] (f) Policies and regulations for commercial developme nt shall apply to scientific and educational facilities. Commented [LG70]: Task Force D Marine Trades - maritime education added to definition of scientific and educational facilities. There was no use matrix reference. Example agencies treat similar to commercial (e.g. Pacific County). Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 118/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.460 Forest practices. (1) Policies. (a) To be consistent with WAC 173-26-241(3)(e), the county should rely on the Forest Practices Act (Chapter 76.09 RCW), its implementing rules, and the 1999 Forest and Fish Report as adequate management of commercial forest uses within shoreline jurisdiction, except for forest conversion activities. (b) Forest lands should be reserved for long-term forest management and other such uses that are compatible with forest management. (c) Forest practices should maintain natural surface and ground water movement patterns and protect the quality of surface and ground water. (d) Forest practices should minimize damage to fish and wildlife species and terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic habitats. (e) Forest practices should aim to maintain or improve the quality of soils and minimize erosion. (f) Where slopes are steep or soils are subject to sliding, erosion or high water table, special practices should be employed to minimize damage to shoreland and water bodies, and adjacent properties. (g) Forest practices should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the aesthetic qualities of shorelines. (h) Proper road and bridge design, location, and constru ction and maintenance practices should be used to prevent adversely affecting shoreline resources. (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. Forest practices below ordinary high water mark on all shorelines are prohibited. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Forest practices are prohibited. (b) Aquatic. Forest practices are prohibited. (c) Natural. Forest practices may be allowed with conditional use approval, subject to the policies and regulations of this program. (d) Conservancy. Forest practices may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program. (e) Shoreline Residential. Forest practices may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program. (f) High Intensity. Forest practices may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this program. (4) Regulations. (a) Timber harvesting and forest practices activities that do not meet the definition of development in Article II of this chapter shall be conducted in accordance with the W ashington State Forest Practices Act (Chapter 76.09 RCW), WAC Title 222, and the 1999 Forest and Fish Report, and any regulations adopted pursuant thereto. (b) Except as provided in subsections (4)(c) and (d) of this section, timber harvesting and forest p ractices 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. 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 a development under the act and may require a substantial development permit, as required by WAC 222-50-020. Commented [LG71]: 2017 e Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 119/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) Selective commercial timber cutting on shorelines of statewide significance shall not exceed 30 percent of the merchantable trees in any 10-year period as required by RCW 90.58.150. The county may allow exceptions to the 30 percent limit with a conditional use permit in accordance with WAC 173 -26-241(3)(e). (d) Forest practices roads on slopes that exceed 35 percent shall require a conditional use permit. (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 othe r 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. (f) Conversion of forest land to nonforestry uses (Class IV Conversion Forest Practices Permit) shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions for the proposed nonforestry use and the general provisions in Article VI of this chapter and shall be subject to any permit requirements associated with the nonforestry use. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 4)] 18.25.470 Industrial and port development. (1) Policies. (a) In securing shoreline locations for industrial or port development, preference should be given first to water - dependent industrial or port development, then to wate r-related industrial or port development. (b) Restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions and processes should be encouraged as part of industrial and port development. (c) Industrial and port development should be visually compatible with adjac ent noncommercial properties. (d) Industrial and port uses located in shoreline jurisdiction should provide public access in accordance with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (e) Shorelines suitable for deep-water harbors with access to adequate rail, highway and utility systems should be reserved for water-dependent or water-related industrial and port development. (f) Port facilities should be designed to allow the public to view harbor areas and should provide public facilities that do not interfere with port operations or endanger public health and safety. (g) Where feasible, transportation and utility corridors serving industrial and port uses should be located away from the water’s edge to minimize ecological impacts and to reduce the need for waterfron t signs and other infrastructure. (h) Industrial or port development at deep -water sites should be limited to those uses that produce long -term economic benefit and minimize environmental impact. (i) Industrial and port development should be protected from encroachment or interference by incompatible uses such as residential or commercial uses, which have less stringent siting requirements. (j) Private and public entities should be encouraged to cooperatively use piers, cargo handling, storage, parking and other accessory facilities in waterfront industrial/port areas. (k) Log storage is not a desired use of the county’s shoreline and should be allowed only when adequate measures are taken to minimize adverse impacts. Upland log storage is preferred over in -water storage. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Industrial/port use and development are prohibited. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 120/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Aquatic. Water-dependent and water-related industrial/port use and development may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. Uses and developments that are not water -dependent or water-related are prohibited. (c) Natural. Industrial/port use and development are prohibited. (d) Conservancy. Only low intensity water -dependent and water-related industrial/port use and development may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to policies and regulations of this program. Uses and developments that are not water-dependent or water-related are prohibited, except that industrial/port use and development that meet the criteria in subsection (5)(a) of this section may be allowed as a conditional use. (e) Shoreline Residential. Only low intensity water -dependent and water-related industrial/port use and development may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Uses and developments that are not water-dependent or water-related are prohibited, except that industrial/port use and development that meet the criteria in subsection (5)(a) of this section may be allowed as a conditional use. (f) High Intensity. Water-dependent and water-related industrial/port use and development may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Uses and developments that are not wat er-dependent or water-related may be allowed as a conditional use. (3) Regulations – General. (a) Where industrial and port use/development is allowed, it shall be located, designed, and constructed in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to shoreline r esources and shall include mitigation to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. (b) Accessory development that does not require a location at or near the water’s edge shall be located upland of the water-dependent portions of the development and outside the shoreline buffer. (c) Industrial noise caused by volume, frequency, or rhythm shall be muffled or otherwise controlled. Tsunami, air raid and other public safety warning sirens are exempt from this requirement. No vibration s hall be permitted that is discernible without instruments on any adjoining non -industrial/port property. The county may require an acoustical study, vibration assessment, and mitigation as needed to address potential noise or vibration impacts. (d) Industrial and port facilities shall minimize direct or reflected glare and noxious odors discernible without instruments from adjacent properties, streets, or water areas, and must comply with Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) standards. (e) Docks, piers, pilings and launching facilities accessory to industrial and port development may be permitted; provided, that they serve a water -dependent or water-related use, and comply with JCC 18.25.350 (boating facilities). (f) Storage or disposal of industrial and port wastes shall be prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction. (g) Non-water-dependent industrial/port uses may be permitted to occur at facilities previously approved for water-dependent uses under the following conditions: (i) A specific occupancy plan has been approved that allows interim uses for a specific period while the market for water-dependent uses is being developed and the proposed interim use is consistent with the occupancy plan. (ii) The period of interim lease or commitment of the space sha ll not exceed five years. At the end of five years, a new application for interim use shall be submitted. (iii) The proponent/applicant has made a good faith effort to obtain water -dependent uses. The period of the search for water-dependent uses, the notice of availability, listing or advertising employed, and any inquiries received shall be documented. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 121/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iv) No permanent improvements will be made to the space that require more than five years of occupancy to repay the investment. No permanent improvements will be made that will reduce the suitability of the space for water-dependent use. (4) Regulations – Water-oriented Use/Development. (a) Water-oriented industrial/port use and development shall be allowed when the proponent/applicant demonstrates that it will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or have significant adverse impact on other shoreline uses, resources and/or values such as navigation, recreation and public access. (b) A use or development shall not be considered water -dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment until the county determines that the proposed design, layout and operation of the us e/development meet the definition and intent of the water-dependent, water-related or water-enjoyment designation. (c) Where existing water-oriented industrial/port uses are located in shoreline jurisdiction, any undeveloped and substantially unaltered portion of the waterfront not devoted to water-dependent use shall be maintained for future water-related use. (d) Water-dependent industry and port facilities shall be located and designed to minimize the need for initial or recurrent dredging, filling or ot her harbor and channel maintenance activities. (5) Regulations – Non-water-oriented Use/Development. (a) Non-water-oriented industrial/port uses are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction unless they meet the following criteria: (i) The site is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right -of-way; or (ii) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes an associated water -dependent use; or (iii) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site; or (iv) The industrial/port use provides a significant public benefit in the form of public access and/or ecological restoration. (b) When permitted pursuant to subsection (5)(a) of this section, non -water-oriented uses shall provide public access and/or restore shoreline ecological functions. The county shall determine the type and extent of public access and restoration on a case -by-case basis according to the opportunities and constraints provided by the site. (c) The county may waive the requirement to provide public access and /or restoration when: (i) The site is designated as a public access area by a shoreline public access plan, in which case public access consistent with that plan element shall be provided; or (ii) The county finds that the size of the parcel and/or the pre sence of adjacent uses preclude restoration of shoreline ecological functions. In such cases, where on -site restoration is infeasible, equivalent off-site restoration shall be provided consistent with the policies and regulations of this program. (d) Where restoration is provided pursuant to this section, buffers on the restored area shall be designed as appropriate to protect shoreline resources based on a specific restoration plan. The buffer width may differ from the shoreline buffers required in JCC 18.25.270 so as not to encumber adjacent properties or unduly constrain the development site. (e) Existing non-water-dependent and non-water-related industrial/port development on shorelines that conforms to this program may be permitted to expand landward, but not waterward of existing structures provided the expansion otherwise conforms to this program. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 122/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (6) Regulations – Log Storage. (a) In-water storage or rafting of logs is prohibited unless all of the following conditions are met: (i) There is no feasible upland location; and (ii) State water quality standards can be met at all times; and (iii) The storage does not create an impediment to navigation or interfere with other water -dependent uses; and (iv) The storage occurs in deep water beyond the photic zone to reduce shading impacts; and (v) Overland transportation of logs would cause unacceptable transportation impacts; and (vi) Depths are sufficient to prevent grounding; and (vii) Easy let-down devices are employed for placing logs in the water. Free-fall or dumping of logs into water shall be prohibited. (b) Dredging to create log storage facilities shall be prohibited. (c) Log storage facilities shall be located in existing developed areas to the greatest extent feasible. If a new log storage facility is proposed along an undeveloped shoreline, an alternatives analysis shall be required. (d) Existing in-water log storage facilities in habitats used by federally listed threatened or endangered species shall be reevaluated if use is discontinued for two years or more or if substantial repair or reconstruction is required. (e) Offshore log storage shall only be allowed on a temporary basis, and should be located where natural tidal or current flushing and water circulation are adequate to disperse po tential contaminants/pollutants. (f) Appropriate bark and wood debris control, collection and disposal methods shall be employed at log storage areas, log dumps, raft building areas and mill-side handling zones to prevent wood debris from entering the water. (g) Where water depths will permit the floating of bundled logs, they shall be secured in bundles on land before being placed in the water. Bundles shall not be broken again except on land or at mill -side. (7) Regulations – Ship Building and Repair Yard Regulations. (a) Ship and boat building and repair yards shall employ best management practices to control, collect and treat surface runoff to protect the quality of affected waters in accordance with Chapter 90.48 RCW. (b) Cleaning, surfacing or resurfacing operations occurring over water that may result in the entry of debris into water shall employ fully intact tarps temporarily affixed to the hull above the water line. Prior to removing the tarps, the accumulated contents shall be removed and properly disposed of. (c) Impervious pavement is required for ship building and repair yards where the wet season water table is less than four feet below surface level. (8) Regulations – Application Requirements. The county shall require proponents of all industr ial use and development to provide the following information at the time of permit application: (a) Site plans showing the boundaries of the property and any existing structures, indication of existing vegetation and topography, locations of adjacent structures, roads or other infrastructure, and the ordinary high water mark and/or floodway boundary. For comparison, proposed structures and uses shall be overlaid on a site plan of existing conditions; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 123/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) A description of the specific nature and character of the industrial activity (e.g., water-dependent or water- related), including a description of the specific components of the proposal; and (c) A description of the reason for needing a shoreline location; and (d) Any proposed measures to enhance the re lationship of the activity to the shoreline; and (e) A description of the proposed provisions for providing public visual and physical access to the shoreline; and (f) A description of potential noise impacts including an acoustical analysis; and (g) A description of mitigation measures including screening, fencing, and other measures to ensure that the development will not cause significant adverse environmental impacts. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 5)] 18.25.480 Mining. (1) Policies. (a) Mining, as defined in Article II of this chapter, should be located and conducted so as to provide long -term protection of water quality, fish and wildlife species and habitat, to cause the least amount of disruption to the natural shoreline character, resources and ecology, and to avoid net loss of ecological functions in accordance with this program and other applicable laws. (b) Mining should not be located and conducted where unavoidable adverse impacts to other uses or resources equal or outweigh the benefits from mining. (c) Mining should not interfere with public access or recreation on the shoreline. (d) Mining should only be permitted when the proponent provides appropriate studies and detailed operation plans demonstrating all of the following: (i) Fish habitat, upland habitat and water quality will not be adversely affected; (ii) The operation will not adversely affect geo-hydraulic processes, channel alignment, nor increase bank erosion or flood damages; (iii) The operation will provide all feasible measures to protect aquatic resources and anadromous fisheries from pollution related to mining including, but not limited to, sedimentation and siltation; chemical and petrochemical use and spillage, and storage or disposal of wastes and spoils. (e) Mining operations should be located, designed, and managed so that adjoining properties do not experience adverse impacts from noise, dust or other effects of the operation. The mine operator should be required to implement mitigation measures to minimize adverse proximity impacts. (f) Mining proposals that result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat for priority species are preferred over proposals that do not create or improve priority habitat. (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. Commercial and industrial extraction and processing of quarry rock, sand, gravel, cobbles or other minerals along any marine or freshwater lake shoreline, or waterward of the ordinary high water mark on any stream/river shoreline, are prohibited. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Mining use and development are prohibited. (b) Aquatic. Mining use and development are prohibited. (c) Natural. Mining use and development are prohibited, except for transportation of minerals by roa d. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 124/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (d) Conservancy. Mining use and development are prohibited, except for transportation of minerals by road. (e) Shoreline Residential. Mining use and development are prohibited, except for transportation of minerals by road. (f) High Intensity. Mining use and development may be allowed as a conditional use (CUP). (4) Regulations. (a) All mining activities shall be conducted to ensure compliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act (Chapter 78.44 RCW), with JCC 18.20.240, 18.30.070, and 18.40.073 , and with the no net loss provisions of this program. (b) As defined in Article II of this chapter, the regulations contained in this section shall apply to all mining operations, including the extraction, primary processing and transport of naturally occ urring materials. For the purposes of this section, primary processing shall be construed to include screening, crushing, and stockpiling of materials removed from the site where the processing activity is located. Transport of minerals shall include conveyor systems and barge terminals that are specifically dedicated to transport of mined materials from the site to the marketplace. (c) No material (such as mining overburden, debris and tailings) or equipment shall be placed in water bodies, critical areas, or floodways and shall be stored so as to prevent erosion or seepage to surface and ground waters. (d) To minimize noise, dust, vibration, glare and other adverse impacts, a buffer of at least 100 feet wide shall be maintained between any mining site, including accessory facilities, and adjacent properties not used for mining operations. The buffer shall consist of undisturbed soils and native vegetation and shall only include land owned or leased by the mine operator. (e) The proposed subsequent use of reclaimed mined property shall be consistent with the provisions of the environment designation in which the property is located and that reclamation of disturbed shoreline areas shall provide appropriate ecological processes and functions consistent with the setting. Approved reclamation programs shall be initiated within 60 days following the completion of the mineral extraction operations, in consultation with Washington Department of Natural Resources. (f) Equipment or apparatus associated with mining operations such as machinery, machine parts, filters, grease and oil containers and rope shall be removed in a timely manner to an appropriate upland location. Proposals for mineral extraction and processing shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a li censed professional geotechnical engineer that includes a description of all of the following: (i) Types of materials present on the site; (ii) Quantity and quality of each material; (iii) Lateral extent and depth of mineral deposits; (iv) Depth of overburden and proposed depth of mining; (v) Cross section diagrams indicating present and proposed elevations and/or extraction levels; (vi) Existing drainage patterns, seasonal or continuous, and proposed alterations to drainage patterns; (vii) Proposed means of controlling surface runoff and preventing or minimizing erosion and sedimentation; (viii) The location and sensitivity of any affected flood hazard areas; (ix) The overall mineral extraction and processing plan, including scheduling, seasonal changes in activity levels, and daily operation schedules; Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 125/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (x) Proposed screening, buffering or fencing plans consistent with the requirements of this program; (xi) Anticipated impacts to aquatic and riparian habitat; measures to mitigate or offset adverse impacts; and (xii) A proposed reclamation plan that, at a minimum, meets the requirements of Chapter 78.44 RCW. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 6)] 18.25.490 Recreation. (1) Policies. (a) Public recreation on public lands is a preferred use of the shoreline. Recreati onal uses and developments that facilitate the public’s ability to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline are preferred. Where appropriate, such facilities should be dispersed along the shoreline in a manner that supports more frequent recreational access and aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of people. (b) Jefferson County should develop a comprehensive shoreline public access plan in collaboration with federal, state, and local organizations whose missions include facilitating public access and recreation opportunities. (c) Recreational use and development should facilitate appropriate use of shoreline resources while also conserving them. (d) Linkages between shoreline parks, recreation areas and public access points with linear systems (e.g., water trails, hiking paths, bicycle paths, easements and/or scenic drives) should be provided where feasible. (e) Recreation facilities should incorporate ade quate orientation information and public education regarding shoreline ecological functions and processes, the effect of human actions on the environment and the importance of public involvement in shoreline management. Opportunities to incorporate educati onal and interpretive information should be pursued in design and operation of recreation facilities and other amenities such as nature trails. (f) Recreational use and development should be supported by adequate utility and road facilities, or located where such facilities may be provided without significant damage to shore features commensurate with the number and concentration of anticipated users. (g) The county should encourage the use of street ends and publicly owned lands for shoreline public acc ess to and development of recreational opportunities. (h) Recreation use and development should be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding properties. (i) Recreational developments are encouraged to use low impact developme nt techniques including but not limited to pervious pavements, to minimize effects associated with stormwater runoff. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Water-oriented recreational use and development is allowed subject to the reg ulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. Underwater parks may be allowed as a conditional use. Non-water-oriented recreation is prohibited. (b) Aquatic. Water-oriented recreational use and development is allowed subject to the regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. Underwater parks may be allowed as a conditional use. Non-water-oriented recreation is prohibited. (c) Natural. Non-water-oriented recreation is prohibited. Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program and the following criteria: Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 126/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (i) Essential minor structures such as trails, stairs, small picnic areas, primitive roads, viewpoints, restrooms or other appropriate sanitary facilities, interpretive facilities, or development that will not adversely affect shoreline ecological functions and processes are permitted, subject to policies and regulations of this master program. (ii) Any necessary landscaping shall use native vegetation. (iii) Recreational development requiring extensive structures or substantial alterations to topography or native vegetation is prohibited. (d) Conservancy. Non -water-oriented recreation is prohibited. Low intensity water -oriented recreational use and development is allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program and the following criteria: (i) Structures on sites of one acre or less shall not result in more than five percent building coverage, and total impervious surface shall not exceed 10 percent. (ii) Structures on sites greater than one acre will not result in more than 10 percent building coverage, and total impervious surface will not exceed 20 percent. (iii) Alteration of topography shall be limited to the minimum n ecessary to accommodate allowed use and development. (iv) Recreational use and development will not result in visitor patterns that degrade shoreline ecological functions. (e) Shoreline Residential. Water-oriented recreational use and development is allowe d subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. Non -water-oriented recreation may be allowed as a conditional use. (f) High Intensity. Water-oriented recreational use and development is allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. Non-water-oriented recreation is prohibited. (3) Regulations. (a) Water-oriented recreational use/development is a preferred use of the shoreline and shall be allowed when the proponent demonstrates that it will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or have significant adverse impact on other shoreline uses, resources and/or values such as navigation and public access. (b) Recreation areas or facilities on the shoreline shall provide physical or visual p ublic access consistent with JCC 18.25.290 (Public access). (c) Underwater parks may be permitted when properly sited and associated with adequate access, restroom facilities and parking. Underwater parks should be located adjacent to existing parks where feasible. (d) Non-water-oriented recreational facilities with playing fields or with extensive impervious surfaces are not preferred, and if permitted shall incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion, control the amount of runoff and prevent harmful concentrations of chemicals and sediment from entering water bodies. (e) New recreational use/development shall be located landward of the shoreline buffers required by this program except that components of the recreational use or development that are water-dependent or water- related may be allowed within the shoreline buffer. (f) Signs indicating the public’s right to access shoreline areas shall be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at recreational facility points o f access and entrances. (g) When a public recreation site abuts private property/tidelands, signs and other similar markers shall also indicate geographic limits of public access to minimize conflicts with adjacent use/development. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 127/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (h) Where appropriate, recreational development proposals shall include provisions for nonmotorized access to the shoreline (e.g., pedestrian, water access and bicycle paths). (i) Proposals for recreational use and development that involve any clearing, grading or impervious surf ace shall include a landscape plan that uses species approved by the county. Native, self -sustaining vegetation shall be used as often as possible. The removal of on -site native vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the development of campsites, selected viewpoints or other permitted structures or facilities and shall be subject to JCC 18.25.310 (Vegetation conservation). (j) Proposals for recreational development shall include adequate facilities for water supply, sewage and garbage disposal, and recycling commensurate with the intensity of the proposed use. Remotely located sites shall encourage visitors to implement best management practices (BMPs) such as the tread lightly and leave no trace principles of low impact recreation. (k) Recreational use and development shall incorporate appropriate mitigation to minimize light and noise impacts on adjoining land uses. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, fencing, screening, and related measures. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 7)] 18.25.500 Residential. (1) Policies. (a) Residential use is not water-dependent but is a preferred use of the shorelines when such development is planned and carried out in a manner that protects shoreline functions and processes to be consistent with the no net loss provisions of this program. (b) All residential use and development should be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological functions, water quality and quantity, aesth etics, navigation, and neighboring uses. (c) All residential use and development should be properly managed to avoid damage to the shoreline environment and prevent cumulative impacts associated with shoreline armoring, overwater structures, stormwater runoff, septic systems, introduction of pollutants, and vegetation clearing. (d) New residential development should be limited to densities that are consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, zoning restrictions, and this prog ram. The density per acre of development should be appropriate to local natural and cultural features. (e) Low impact development practices and clustering of dwelling units and accessory structures should be implemented as appropriate to preserve natural features, minimize physical impacts and reduce utility and road construction and maintenance costs. (f) New residential development should be planned and built in a manner that avoids the need for structural shore armoring and flood hazard reduction in accordance with JCC 18.25.380 (Flood control structures) and 18.25.410 (shoreline stabilization) of this program and other applicable plans and laws. (g) Residential development should be designed to: (i) Maintain or improve ecological functions and processes; and (ii) Preserve and enhance native shoreline vegetation; and (iii) Control erosion; and (iv) Protect water quality; and (v) Preserve shoreline aesthetic characteristics; and (vi) Minimize structural obstructions to public views and normal public use of the shoreline and the water. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 128/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (h) Creation of new residential lots through land division should be designed, configured and developed to ensure that no net loss of ecological functions and processes occurs from the plat or subdivision, even when all lots are fully built-out. (i) Residential developments are encouraged, but not required, to provide public access to the shoreline. New multi-unit residential development, including subdivision of land into more than four parcels, is strongly encouraged to provide public access/open space area equal to at least 30 percent of the total development/subdivision area for use by development residents and the public. (j) Whenever possible, nonregulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological funct ions should be encouraged for residential development. (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. (a) In-water, overwater or floating residences or accessory dwelling units, including structures located in or on marshes, bogs, swamps, lagoons, tidelands, ecologically sensitive areas or open water areas, are prohibited. (b) Residential development that can be reasonably expected to require structural shore armoring during the useful life of the structure or within 100 years, whichever is greater, is prohib ited. (c) Residential development within a channel migration zone or floodway that can be reasonably expected to require structural flood protection during the useful life of the structure or within 100 years, whichever is greater, is prohibited. (d) Land division and boundary line adjustments in shoreline jurisdiction are prohibited when such actions will result in lot configurations that are likely to require: (i) Significant vegetation removal; (ii) Structural shore armoring; (iii) Shoreline modification for erosion control; (iv) Flood hazard protection; or (v) Result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes at the time of development of the subdivision and/or during the useful life of the development or within 100 years, whichever is greater. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Residential development is prohibited. (b) Aquatic. Residential development is prohibited. (c) Natural. Residential development consisting of one single -family residence per existing le gal lot of record may be allowed as a conditional use. Accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited. (d) Conservancy. Single-family and duplex development may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. All other residential development may be allowed as a conditional use. (e) Shoreline Residential. Residential development is allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. (f) High Intensity. Residential development is allowed subject to the policies and regulatio ns of this master program. (4) Regulations – Primary Residences and Property Subdivision. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 129/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) Residential use and development shall be planned, designed, located, and operated to avoid adverse impacts on shoreline processes, aquatic habitat, biological fun ctions, water quality, aesthetics, navigation, and neighboring uses. (b) The buffer requirements in Article VI of this program apply to residences, normal appurtenances, and accessory dwelling units, except that docks, floats, and beach access structures and other water-dependent and water-related structures accessory to residential use may be permitted to encroach into the buffer in accordance with the applicable provisions of this program. Accessory structures must be sited and designed to not require shoreline armoring within 100 years. (c) Cluster development and appropriate low impact development practices shall be required for development sites constrained by critical areas and/or shoreline buffers. (d) When zoning regulations allow, proposals for mul ti-story residential development greater than 35 feet above average grade must include an analysis of how the structure would impact the views of surrounding residents. If the proposed residence would block or significantly compromise the view of a substan tial number of residences on adjoining areas, the county shall limit the height to 35 feet, or require design revisions or relocation to prevent the loss of views to neighboring properties. (e) New multi-unit residential development, including subdivision of land into more than four parcels, shall provide public access/open space for use by development residents and the public. The county may alter the recommended area threshold per constitutional limits or waive this requirement if public access is infeasi ble due to incompatible uses, safety, impacts to shoreline ecology or legal limitations. The county may require alternatives to on-site physical access if on-site physical access is infeasible for the reasons noted. (f) As per Article VI of this chapter, new or expanded subdivisions and planned unit developments comprised of four or more lots or units shall provide public access to publicly owned shorelines or public water bodies unless: (i) The site is designated in a shoreline public access plan for a gre ater component of public access; or (ii) The public access is demonstrated to be infeasible or inappropriate. (g) New or amended subdivisions, except those for lot line adjustment and lot consolidation purposes, shall provide public access as required in Article VI of this chapter. (h) When required for multi-lot/multi-unit residential development, the amount of public access/open space area shall be determined by site analysis per constitutional limits. The county may waive this requirement if public access is infeasible due to incompatible uses, risks to health or safety, impacts to shoreline ecology or legal limitations. In such cases, the county may require alternatives to on -site physical access if on-site physical access is infeasible for the reasons noted. (i) The type and configuration of public access required for multi -unit/multi-lot residential development shall depend on the proposed use(s) and the following criteria: (i) Subdivisions within shoreline jurisdiction that have views of water areas sh all at a minimum provide an area from which the public can view the shoreline. (ii) Subdivisions adjacent to public waterways or tidelands shall provide physical access to public waters/tidelands that are accessible at low tide or low water. (5) Regulations – Accessory Structures/Uses. (a) Accessory dwelling units may be permitted when the primary residential use is allowed pursuant to, and only when, other provisions of this program are met. (b) Accessory structures and uses such as boating facilities, ped estrian beach access structures, shore armoring and shore stabilization shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Article VII of this chapter. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 130/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) A single water-dependent boathouse, as defined in Article II of this chapter, accessory to single -family residential development may be allowed with a conditional use permit and in accordance with JCC 18.25.270(5)(d)(iii) and other provisions of this program. (d) A shoreline substantial development permit or conditional use permit shall be required for all accessory development that is not considered a normal appurtenance. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 8)] 18.25.510 Signs. (1) Policies. (a) Signs should be located, designed and maintained to be visually compatible with local shoreline scenery as seen from both land and water, especially on shorelines of statewide significance. (b) Sign location and design should not significantly impair shoreline views. (c) To avoid continued proliferation of single purpose signs, communities, districts, and/or multi -use or multi- tenant commercial developments are encouraged to erect single, common use gateway signs to identify and give directions to local premises and public facilities. (d) Signs of a commercial or industrial nature should be limited to those areas or premi ses to which the sign messages refer. (e) Off-premises signs (including billboards) should not be located on shorelines except for approved community gateway or directional signs. (f) Signs near scenic vistas and viewpoints should be restricted in number, location, and height so that enjoyment of these areas is not impaired. (g) Freestanding signs should be located to avoid blocking scenic views and be located on the landward side of public transportation routes which generally parallel the shoreline. (h) To minimize negative visual impacts and obstructions to shoreline access and use, low profile, on -premises wall signs are strongly preferred over freestanding signs or off -premises wall signs. (i) Signs should be designed mainly to identify the premises an d nature of enterprise without unduly distracting uninterested passersby. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Only wall signs and low profile freestanding signs under 30 inches in height for water - dependent uses may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. No one premises may maintain more than two signs in a priority aquatic shoreline area. (b) Aquatic. Only wall signs and low profile freestanding signs unde r 30 inches in height for water-dependent uses may be allowed subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. No one premises may maintain more than two signs in an aquatic shoreline area. (c) Natural. Sign development is prohibited, except for trail marking, hazard warnings, or interpretive scientific or educational purposes and personal signs. Such allowed signs shall be limited in size and number to those required to effect their purpose. (d) Conservancy. Signs may be permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. (e) Shoreline Residential. Signs may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. (f) High Intensity. Signs may be allowed subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 131/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (3) Regulations. (a) Signs shall comply with JCC 18.30.150 and exemptions listed there also apply in this program. (b) Plans and designs for non-exempt signs must be submitted for review at the time o f shoreline permit application. (c) All signs shall be located and designed to minimize interference with vistas, viewpoints, and visual access to the shoreline. (d) Overwater signs or signs on floats or pilings shall be prohibited, except when related to navigation or a water-dependent use. (e) Illuminated signs shall be hooded, shaded, or directed so as to eliminate glare when viewed from surrounding properties or watercourses. (f) No signs shall be placed in view corridors required as a condition of perm it approval under this master program. (g) The following types of signs may be permitted, subject to the provisions contained within this section: (i) Water navigational signs and highway and railroad signs necessary for operation, safety and direction; (ii) Public information/interpretive signs directly relating to a shoreline resource, use or activity; (iii) Off-premises, free signs for community identification, information, or directional purposes; (iv) Signs with changing messages; provided, that the information displayed is limited to time, temperature or date or public noncommercial messages; (v) National, state or institutional flags or temporary decorations customary for special holidays and similar events of a public nature; and (vi) Temporary directional signs to public or quasi -public events if removed within 10 days following the event. (h) The following types of signs are prohibited: (i) Signs that impair visual access through view corridors; (ii) Off-premises, detached outdoor advertising sign s; (iii) Signs that incorporate spinners, streamers, pennants, flashing or blinking lights and moving devices, except for public highway and railroad signs; (iv) Signs placed on trees or other natural features; and (v) Commercial signs for products, services or facilities located off site. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 9)] 18.25.520 Transportation. (1) Policies. (a) Major new roads, railroads and parking areas should be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction whenever feasible. (b) Maintenance and repair of existing roads in shoreline jurisdiction shall use all reasonable methods to minimize adverse impacts on nearby shorelines. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 132/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) Road and railroad locations should be planned to fit the topographical characteristics of the shoreline to minimize alterations to natural shoreline conditions. (d) New transportation facilities should be designed and located to minimize the need for the following: (i) Structural shoreline protection measures; (ii) Modifications to natural drainage systems; and (iii) Waterway crossings. (e) Planning for transportation and circulation corridors shall consider location of public access facilities, and be designed to promote safe and convenient access to those facilities. (f) Pedestrian trails and bicycle paths along shorelines are encouraged where they are compatible with the natural character, resources, and ecology of the shoreline. (g) When transportation corridors are necessary within shoreline jurisdiction, joint -use corridors are preferred and encouraged for roads, utilities, and motorized forms of transportation/circulation. (h) Parking in shoreline areas should be limited to that which directly serves a permitted shoreline use. (i) Parking facilities should be located and designed to minimize adverse environmental impact s to the following, including, but not limited to: (i) Stormwater runoff; (ii) Water quality; (iii) Visual qualities; (iv) Public access; and (v) Vegetation and habitat. (j) Parking areas should be planned to achieve optimum use. Where feasible, parking ar eas should serve more than one use (e.g., recreational use on weekends, commercial use on weekdays). (k) Transportation facilities should employ pervious materials and other appropriate low impact development techniques where soils and geologic conditions are suitable and where such measures could measurably reduce stormwater runoff. (l) The County should evaluate all transportation, plans and projects for opportunities to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change (2) Uses and Activities Prohibited Outright. (a) Parking as a primary use shall be prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction. (b) Parking is prohibited on structures located in or over water. (3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. Transportation facilities that provide access to water-dependent or water-related uses may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. New or expanded stream crossings serving non -water-dependent or non-water-related uses may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. Commented [LG72]: Comp Plan Policy TR-P-9.7 Commented [LG73R72]: Task Force C Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 133/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (b) Aquatic. Transportation facilities that provide access to water -dependent or water-related uses may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. New or expanded stream crossings for non -water-dependent or non-water-related uses may be allowed as a conditional use subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. (c) Natural. Transportation facilities are prohibited, except to access approved public recreational development. (d) Conservancy. Transportation facilities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Transportation facilities not serving a specific approved use, including roads, railways, and parking areas, may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. (e) Shoreline Residential. Transportation facilities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Transportation facilities not serving a specific approved use, including roads, railways, a nd parking areas, may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. (f) High Intensity. Transportation facilities may be allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. Transportation facilities not serving a specific approved use, including roads, railways, and parking areas, may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside of the shoreline. (4) Regulations – Design and Operation. (a) New transportation facilities in shoreline jurisdiction shall be located to be as far away from shoreline features as possible and shall be designed to generally follow natural topography, to minimize cuts and/or fills, and to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and processes, including channel migration zones (CMZs). Wherever roads or railway embankments cross waterways including remnant stream channels and oxbow bends, crossings of ample cross -section shall be provided to span the feature. (b) Raised arterial roads or railways shall be built outside the floodway except for necessary crossings. If built in the floodplain, such routes shall be designed to avoid obstructing floodwaters. Any parking areas required along such roads shall be located to prevent or minimize the need for flood control or shoreline armoring. Local access roads in floodplains shall be built so that floodwaters are not obstructed nor diverted. (c) Transportation facilities shall be designed so that no significant loss of floodway c apacity nor measurable increase in predictable flood levels will result. Such facilities shall avoid placing structures within the channel migration zone or any dynamic, shifting channel area. (d) In instances where water crossing is required, roads shall cross shoreline areas and water bodies by the shortest, most direct route feasible unless such route would cause more damage to the environment. (e) When an in-water or overwater development or structure is required for construction, operation or maintenance of transportation facilities, it shall meet all provisions of this section and this program. (f) Bridge supports and abutments shall be designed and spaced so they do not act as walls baffling or blocking flood waters, or interrupting stream channel pro cesses or littoral drift. (g) Bridges and culverts shall be used in accordance with WDFW guidance to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes. Transportation crossings over ordinary high water in floodways shall be constructed on open piling, support piers, culverts, or other similar measures to preserve hydraulic processes. (h) Parking facilities shall only be permitted in shoreline jurisdiction to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternative loc ations away from the shoreline. (i) Transportation facilities shall be constructed of materials that will not adversely affect water quality or aquatic plants and animals over the long term. Elements within or over water shall be constructed of materials approved by applicable state agencies for use in water for both submerged portions and other components to avoid discharge of pollutants from splash, rain or runoff. Wood or pilings treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or other similarly toxic materials are prohibited. Preferred materials are concrete and steel. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 134/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (j) Transportation development shall be carried out in a manner that maintains or improves state water quality standards for affected waters. (k) Pervious materials and low impact development techniques shall be used to manage stormwater runoff where feasible and where conditions are appropriate. (l) Non-emergency construction and repair work shall be scheduled for that time of year when seasonal conditions (weather, streamflow) permit optimum fea sible protection of shoreline ecological functions and processes. (m) Transportation shall be required to make joint use of rights -of-way and to consolidate crossings of water bodies where adverse impact to the shoreline can be minimized by doing so. (n) Roads and railroads shall be located to minimize the need for routing surface waters into and through culverts. (5) Regulations – Parking. (a) Parking shall only be permitted in shoreline jurisdiction when necessary to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline. Parking facilities shall be buffered from the water’s edge and less intense adjacent land uses by vegetation, undeveloped space, or structures developed for the authorized primary use to the maximum practicable extent. (b) Parking areas shall be developed using low impact development techniques whenever possible including but not limited to the use of permeable surfacing materials. (c) Parking facilities shall be designed and located to minimize adverse impacts upon abutting properties. Landscaping shall consist of county-approved vegetation species planted prior to completion of the parking area. Landscape plantings shall be selected, planted and maintained to provide effective screening within three years of project completion and through maturity of the species. (d) Parking facilities serving individual buildings shall be located landward of the principal building being served, except when the parking facility is located within or beneath the structure and is adequately screened, or in cases when an alternate location would have less environmental impact on the shoreline. (e) Parking facilities for shoreline uses shall be designed to provide safe and convenient pedest rian circulation within the parking area and to the shorelines. (f) Parking facilities shall be provided with facilities adequate to prevent surface water runoff from contaminating water bodies, using best available technologies. A parking facility mainten ance program shall be required to assure the proper functioning of drainage facilities over time. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 10)] 18.25.530 Utilities. (1) Policies. (a) New public or private utilities should be located inland from the land/water interface, preferably outside of the shoreline, unless: (i) The utility requires a location adjacent to the water; or (ii) Alternative locations are infeasible; or (iii) Utilities are required for permitted shoreline uses consistent with this program. (b) Utilities should be located and designed to avoid public recreation and public access areas and significant historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific or educational resources. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 135/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (c) Pipeline and cable development should be designed and sited to avoid cr ossing aquatic lands. If a water crossing is unavoidable, it should be located in an area that will cause the least adverse ecological impact, be installed using the methods that minimize adverse impacts, and be the shortest length feasible. (d) Utility facilities of all kinds that would require periodic maintenance activities should avoid shoreline locations to prevent disruption of shoreline ecological functions. (e) New utilities should use existing transportation and utility sites, rights -of-way and corridors, rather than creating new corridors. (f) New utility installations should be planned, designed and located to eliminate the need for structural shoreline armoring or flood hazard reduction measures. (g) Utility facilities and corridors should be planned, designed and located to protect scenic views. Where feasible, conveyance utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges, unless doing so would cause greater ecological impact or harm. (h) Power generating facilities and other ut ilities using emerging technologies such as tidal energy generators should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the potential impacts are fully understood. Before approving such facilities, the county should consider whether the benefits to the public out weigh the potential impacts. The county should ensure such facilities are designed and located to protect ecological functions and shoreline resources. (2) Shoreline Environment Regulations. (a) Priority Aquatic. (i) Submarine electrical and communications cables, water lines, sewer lines, fuel pipelines, sewer outfalls, overwater public utility lines consisting of local distribution lines, water intakes, and desalinization facility intakes/outfalls may be allowed as conditional uses subject to policies and regulations of this program and subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. (ii) All other utility development is prohibited. (b) Aquatic. (i) Submarine electrical and communications cables, wat er lines, sewer lines, fuel pipelines, sewer outfalls, overwater public utility lines consisting of local distribution lines, water intakes, and desalinization facility intakes/outfalls may be allowed as conditional uses subject to policies and regulations of this program and subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. (ii) Submarine water and sewer lines, fuel pipelines, and sewer outfalls may be allowed as conditional uses subject to the use and development regulations of the abutting upland shoreline environment designation. (iii) Tidal generating facilities may be allowed as a conditional use. (iv) All other utility development is prohibited. (c) Natural. (i) Utility development is prohibited. (ii) Maintenance of existing utilities is allowed; provided, that the operator makes every effort to protect shoreline ecological functions and the natural features therein. Removal of existing utilities is preferred over time. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 136/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (iii) Utilities accessory to and serving permitted uses are allowed. (d) Conservancy. Utility development consisting of local distribution facilities is allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. The following may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is n o feasible location outside shoreline jurisdiction: sewage outfalls and treatment plants, overwater communication or power lines, fuel pipelines, and other types of hazardous material pipelines, regional facilities, including transmission facilities serving customers outside of Jefferson County, desalinization facilities, and power generating facilities. Freestanding communication towers are prohibited. (e) Shoreline Residential. Utility development consisting of local distribution facilities is allowed sub ject to policies and regulations of this program. The following may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside shoreline jurisdiction: regional facilities, including transmission facilities serving customers outside of Jefferson County, desalinization facilities, and power generating facilities. (f) High Intensity. Utility development consisting of local distribution facilities is allowed subject to policies and regulations of this program. The following may be allowed as a conditional use, provided there is no feasible location outside shoreline jurisdiction: regional facilities, including transmission facilities serving customers outside of Jefferson County, desalinization facilities, and power generating facilities. (3) Regulations – General. (a) All underwater pipelines transporting liquids intrinsically harmful to aquatic life or potentially injurious to water quality are prohibited, except in situations where no other feasible alternative exists. In those limited instances when permitted, automatic shut-off valves shall be provided on both sides of the water body, and pipe sleeves shall be used to facilitate repair without future encroachment on surface waters and wetlands, unless more feasible or technically superior alternatives exist that provide equivalent protection, as deemed by the administrator. (b) Utilities that are not water-dependent shall be located outside shoreline buffers unless it is demonstrated that alternative locations and alternative technology ar e infeasible. (c) The construction, operation and maintenance of utilities shall not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or processes or adversely impact other shoreline resources and values. (d) The following information shall be required for all proposals for utility facilities: (i) A description of the proposed facilities; and (ii) The rationale and justification for siting the proposed facility within shoreline jurisdiction; and (iii) A discussion of alternative locations considered and r easons for their elimination; and (iv) A description of the location of other utility facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project and any plans to include facilities or other types of utilities in the project; and (v) A plan for the reclamation of areas disturbed both during construction and following decommissioning and/or completion of the useful life of the facility; and (vi) A plan for the control of erosion and turbidity during construction and operation; and (vii) An analysis of alternative technologies; and (viii) Documentation that utilities avoid public recreation areas and significant natural, historic or archaeological or cultural sites or that no alternative is feasible and that all feasible measures to reduce harm have been incorporated into the proposal. (ix) When feasible, utility lines shall use existing rights -of-way, corridors and/or bridge crossings and shall avoid duplication and construction of new or parallel corridors in all shoreline areas. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 137/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Utility facilities shall be constructed using techniques that minimize the need for shoreline fill. When crossing water bodies, pipelines and other utility facilities shall use pier or open pile construction. (f) Vegetation clearing during utility installation or maintenance shall be minimized, and disturbed areas shall be restored or enhanced following project completion consistent with the requirements of this program. (4) Regulations – Water Systems. (a) Components of water systems that are not water -dependent shall be located away from the shoreline. Private and public intake facilities should be located where there will be no net loss in ecological functions or adverse impacts upon shoreline resources, values, natural features, or other users. (b) Desalinization facilities shall be located outside of critical areas and landward of shoreline buffers, except for water-dependent components such as water intakes. (5) Regulations – Essential Public Facilities. (a) Essential public facilities shall be located, developed, managed, and main tained in a manner that protects shoreline ecological functions and processes. (b) Essential public facilities shall be designed to enhance shoreline public access and aesthetics. (c) Essential public facilities shall be located outside of shoreline jurisd iction unless they require a waterfront location or unless there is no feasible alternative. (6) Regulations – Sewage Systems. (a) Outfall pipelines and diffusers are water -dependent but shall be located to minimize adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions and processes or adverse impacts upon shoreline resources and values. (b) Septic tanks and drain fields are prohibited where public sewer is readily available. (7) Regulations – Solid Waste Facilities. (a) Facilities for processing and storage an d disposal of solid waste are not normally water -dependent. Components that are not water-dependent shall not be permitted on shorelines. (b) Disposal of solid waste on shorelines or in water bodies has potential for severe adverse effects upon ecological processes and functions, property values, public health, natural resources, and local aesthetic values, and shall not be permitted. (c) Temporary storage of solid waste in suitable receptacles is permitted as accessory to a permitted primary use or for litter control. (8) Regulations – Oil, Gas and Natural Gas Transmission. (a) Oil, gas and natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines and related facilities shall not be located in shoreline areas unless alternatives are demonstrated to be infeasible. (b) Local natural gas service lines shall not be located in shoreline areas unless serving approved shoreline uses. Crossings of shorelines shall not be approved unless alternatives are demonstrated to be infeasible. (c) Developers and operators of pipelines and related facilities for gas and oil shall be required to demonstrate adequate provisions for preventing spills or leaks, as well as established procedures for mitigating damages from spills or other malfunctions and shall demonstrate that periodic m aintenance will not disrupt shoreline ecological functions. (9) Regulations – Electrical Energy and Communication Systems. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 138/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) Systems components (including substations, towers, and transmission and distribution lines) that are not water-dependent shall not be located on shorelines unless alternatives are infeasible. (b) Underground placement of lines shall be required for new or replacement lines that are parallel to the shoreline, and do not cross water bodies. New or replacement lines that cross water or critical areas may be required to be placed underground depending on impacts on ecological functions and processes and visual impacts. Poles or supports treated with creosote or other wood preservatives that may be mobile in water shall not be used along shorelines or associated wetlands. (10) Regulations – Power Generation Facilities. Power generation facilities involving emerging technologies such as tidal energy shall not be permitted until and unless the county determines that the adverse effects can be fully mitigated and the public benefits clearly outweigh the risks to the shoreline environment. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. VIII § 11)] Article IX. Permit Criteria and Exemptions 18.25.540 Substantial development permit criteria. To be authorized, all uses and developments shall be planned and carried out in a manner that is consistent with this program and the policy of the Act as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), regardless of whether a shoreline permit, statement of exemption, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit is required. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 1)] 18.25.550 Exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit process. (1) Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the p recise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemptions from the substantial development permit process. (2) An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or this program, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of this program and the Act. (3) A use or development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this program or is an unlisted use or development, must obtain a conditional use permit even if the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. (4) When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional a nd/or performance standards of this program, such development or use shall only be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance even if the development or use does not require a substantial development permit. (5) The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt is on the applicant/proponent of the exempt development action. (6) If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project. (7) All permits or statements of exemption issued for development or use within shoreline jurisdiction shall include written findings prepared by the administrator, including compliance with bulk and dimensional standards and policies and regulations of this program. The administrator may attach conditions to the approval of exempt developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Act and this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 2)] 18.25.560 Exemptions listed. The following activities shall be considered exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with RCW 90.58.030 and WAC 173 -27-040: (1) Fair Market Value. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $6,416 or7,047or as adjusted by WAC 173-27-040, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. For the purpose of determining whether or not a permit is required, the total cost or fair market value shall be based on the value of development that is occurring on Commented [LG74]: 2017 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 139/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials. (2) Maintenance and Repair. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. Normal maintenance includes those usual a cts to prevent a decline, lapse or cessation from a lawfully established condition. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction except where repa ir causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreli ne resources or the environment. (3) Residential Bulkhead. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single -family residences. A normal protective bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single -family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion. A normal protective bulkhead is not exempt if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstructed, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used for backfill. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by construction of a vertical wall fronti ng the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineering erosion control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any st ructural elements are consistent with the above requirements and when the project has been approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (4) Emergency Construction. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the eleme nts. An emergency is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety or the environment that requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this program. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure s hall be removed or any permit that would have been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, Chapter 173 -27 WAC or this program, shall be obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW an d this program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. (5) Agriculture. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranchi ng activities, including agricultural service roads and utilities, construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures including, but not limited to, head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. A feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a commercial nature, or alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered n ormal or necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for l ivestock feeding and/or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering operations. (6) Drainage. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on June 4, 1975, that were created, developed or utilized, primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system. (7) Navigation Aids. Construction or modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. (8) Single-Family Residences. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single - family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level and that meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 140/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. jurisdiction thereof. Single-family residence means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments wi thin a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance as defined in Article II of this chapter. (9) Residential Docks. Construction of an individual/single -user or shared dock for private noncommercial pleasure craft, for use by the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single-family or multifamily residence. The private dock exemption applies to dock construction cost as specified in RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). (10) Irrigation. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of system waters including return flow and artificially stored ground water for the irrigation of l ands; provided, that this exemption shall not apply to construction of new irrigation facilities proposed after December 17, 2003. (11) State Property. The marking of property lines or corners on state owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. (12) Energy Facilities. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW. (13) Site Exploration. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisi te to preparation of a development application for authorization under this program, if: (a) The activity does not interfere with the normal public use of surface waters; (b) The activity will have no significant adverse impact on the environment including but not limited to fish, wildlife, fish or wildlife habitat, water quality and aesthetic values; (c) The activity does not involve the installation of any structure and, upon completion of the activity, the vegetation and land configuration of the site ar e restored to conditions existing before the activity; (d) A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides other evidence of financial responsibility to the administrator to ensure that the s ite is restored to preexisting conditions; and (e) The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550. (14) Noxious Weeds. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology jointly with other state agencies under Chapter 43.21C RCW. (15) Watershed Restoration. Watershed restoration projects as defined herein and by RCW 89.08.460. The administrator shall review the projects for consistency with this program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within 45 days of receiving a complete application form from the applicant/proponent. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing applications for watershed restoration projects as defined in this section. For the purposes of this exception, the following definitions apply: (16a) “Watershed restoration project” means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements the plan or part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (ai) A project that involves less than 10 miles of stream reach, in which less than 25 cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional plantings; (bii) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis on using native vegetation to control erosive forces of flowing water; or Commented [LG75]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #12 Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 141/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (ciii) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use b y all of the citizens of the state; provided, that any structures, other than a bridge or culvert or in -stream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than 200 square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark. (17b) “Watershed restoration plan” means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, the Department of Transportation, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority, a city, a county or a conservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, recreation, or enhancement of the natural resource character and ecology of a stream, stream segment , drainage area or watershed for which agency and public review has been conducted pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. (1816) 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: pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(2)(p). (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 designe d and sited to 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 prog ram. The administrator shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent.(17) The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with the Americans with d isabilities act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) or to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 3)] 18.25.570 Statements of exemption. (1) The administrator is hereby authorized to grant or deny requests for statements of exemption from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement for uses and developments within shorelines that are specifically listed above. Such statements shall be applied for on forms pro vided by the administrator. The statement shall be in writing and shall indicate the specific exemption of this program that is being applied to the development, and shall provide a summary of the administrator’s analysis of the consistency of the project with this program and the Act. As appropriate, such statements of exemptions shall contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of this program and Act. A denial of an exemption shall b e in writing and shall identify the reason(s) for the denial. The administrator’s actions on the issuance of a statement of exemption or a denial are subject to appeal pursuant to the appeal provisions in Article X of this chapter. (2) Exempt activities related to any of the following shall not be conducted until a statement of exemption has been obtained from the administrator: dredging, flood control works and in -stream structures, archaeological or historic site alteration, clearing and ground disturbing activities such as landfill or excavation, dock construction, shore stabilization, freestanding signs, or any development within a priority aquatic, aquatic or natural shoreline designation; provided, that no separate written statement of exemption is req uired for the construction of a single - family residence when a county building permit application has been reviewed and approved by the administrator; provided further, that no statement of exemption is required for emergency development pursuant to WAC 17 3-14- 040(1)(d). (3) No statement of exemption shall be required for other exempt uses or developments unless the administrator has cause to believe a substantial question exists as to qualifications of the specific use or development for the exemption, or the administrator determines there is a likelihood of adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. (4) Whenever the exempt activity also requires a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or a Section 4 04 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, a copy of Commented [LG76]: 2019c Periodic Checklist: Ecology has recommended the County consider the expanded language at WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) with the more explicit citation to RCW 77.55.181. As it is very long, suggest cross- referencing to the exemption and not repeating here. Commented [LG77]: 2016 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 142/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. the written statement of exemption shall be sent to the applicant/proponent and Ecology pursuant to WAC 173 -27- 050. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 4)] 18.25.580 Variance permit criteria. (1) The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in this program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant/proponent or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Use restrictions may not be varied. In authorizing a variance, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects of the proposed use. Final authority for variance permit decisions shall be granted by the Department of Ecology. (2) Variances will be granted in any circumstance where denial would result in a thwarting of th e policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (3) Variances may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk or dimensional criteria set forth in this program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property; (b) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s/proponent’s own actions; (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects on adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; (f) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be mate rially interfered with by the granting of the variance; and (g) Mitigation is provided to offset unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the proposed development or use. (4) In the granting of all variances, consideration shall be given to the cumulative env ironmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce significant adverse effects to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. (5) Other factors that may be considered in the review of variance requests include the conservation of valuable natural resources and the protection of views from nearby roads, surrounding properties and public areas. In addition, variance requests based on the applicant’s/proponent’s desire to enhance the view from the subject development may be granted where there are no l ikely detrimental effects to existing or future users, other features or shoreline ecological functions and/or processes, and where reasonable alternatives of equal or greater consistency with this program are not available. In platted residential areas, variances shall not be granted that allow a greater height or lesser shore setback than what is typical for the immediate block or area. (6) Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under other county codes shall not be construed as shoreline permits under this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 5)] 18.25.590 Conditional use permit criteria. (1) The purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in administering the use regulations of this program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the Department of Ecology to control any undesirable Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 143/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. effects of the proposed use. Final authority for conditional use permit d ecisions rests with the Department of Ecology. (2) Uses specifically classified or set forth in this program as conditional uses and unlisted uses may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program. (b) That the proposed use will not interfere with normal public use of public shorelines. (c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area. (d) That the proposed use will not cause adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located. (e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. (3) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumst ances exist, the sum of the conditional uses and their impacts should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce a significant adverse effect to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users. (4) Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under county zoning or subdivision code requirements shall not be construed as shoreline variances under this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 6)] 18.25.600 Unclassified uses. Other uses not specifically classified or set forth in this program, including the expansion or resumption of a nonconforming use, may be authorized as conditional uses, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate that the proposal will satisfy the criteria set forth above, and th at the use clearly requires a specific site location on the shoreline not provided for under this program, and extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 7)] 18.25.605 Regulatory Relief for Restoration 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 cri teria and procedures in WAC 173 - 27-215. Article X. Administration and Enforcement 18.25.610 Administrative authority and responsibility. (1) Administrator. The director of the Jefferson County department of community development or his/her designee (the administrator) is vested with authority to: (a) Administer this master program; (b) Recommend to the hearing examiner approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any permit applications or revisions in accordance with the policies and regulations of this master program and the provisions of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code; (c) Grant written permit exemptions from shoreline substantial development permit requirements of this master program; (d) Determine compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW; Chapter 197 -11 WAC); Commented [LG78]: 2009 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 144/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (e) Specify the required application forms and submittal requirements including the type, details and number of copies; (f) Advise interested citizens and project proponents of the goals, policies, regulations and procedures of this master program; (g) Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this master program and the Shoreline Management Act; (h) Collect applicable fees; (i) Determine that application submittals are substantially complete; (j) Make field inspections as necessary; (k) Submit substantial development permit, variance permit and conditional use permit applications and make written recommendations and findings on such permits to the hearing e xaminer for his/her consideration and final action; (l) Assure that proper notice is given to appropriate persons and the public for all hearings; (m) Provide technical and administrative assistance to the hearing examiner as required for effective and equitable implementation of this master program and the Act; (n) Provide a summary report of the shoreline permits issued in the past calendar year to the hearing examiner and the Jefferson County board of county commissioners; (o) Investigate, develop and pr opose amendments to this master program as deemed necessary to more effectively and equitably achieve its goals and policies; (p) Seek remedies for alleged violations of this master program, the provisions of the Act, or of conditions of any approved shoreline permit issued by the county; (q) Coordinate information with affected agencies; and (r) Forward any decision on any permit application to the Washington State Department of Ecology for filing or action. (2) Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner is vested with the authority and responsibility to: (a) Approve, condition, or deny shoreline substantial development permits, variance permits and conditional use permits after considering the findings and recommendations of the administrator; (b) Decide local administrative appeals of the administrator’s actions and interpretations, as provided in this program and the county Unified Development Code; (c) Consider shoreline substantial development permit, variance permit and conditional use permit application s and administrative appeals of the administrator’s actions on regular meeting days or public hearings; (d) Review the findings and recommendations for permit applications or appeals of the administrator’s actions and interpretations; (e) Approve, approve with conditions, or deny substantial development permits, variance permits and conditional use permits; (f) Conduct public hearings on appeals of the administrator’s actions, interpretations and decisions; (g) Base all decisions on shoreline permits or administrative appeals on the criteria established in this master program; and Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 145/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (h) At his or her sole discretion, require any project proponent granted a shoreline permit to post a bond or other acceptable security with the county, conditioned to assure that the project proponent and/or his or her successors adhere to the approved plans and all conditions attached to the shoreline permit. Such bonds or securities shall have a face value of at least 150 percent of the estimated development cost including attach ed conditions. (3) Board of Commissioners. (a) The Jefferson County board of county commissioners (the BOCC) is vested with the authority to approve any revisions or amendments to this master program in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Ac t and the Washington Administrative Code. (b) The BOCC shall review and act upon any recommendations of the shoreline administrator for amendments to, or revisions of, this master program. The BOCC shall enter findings and conclusions setting forth the fac tors it considered in reaching its decision. To become effective any amendment to this master program must be reviewed and adopted by the Department of Ecology pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and Chapter 173 -26 WAC. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 1)] 18.25.620 Permit application review. (1) Determinations of the administrator regarding the geographic applicability of this master program, permit exemptions and application submittal requirements shall be processed as Type I decisions pursuant to Chapter 18.40 JCC. (2) Applications for substantial development permits and varianceshall be processed as a Type I permit decision . Variance permits shall be processed as Type III decisions pursuant to the Chapter 18.40 JCC. (3) Applications for uses/development listed as an administrative conditional use permit (i.e., “C(a)”) in Table 18.25.220 shall be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article IV of Chapter 18.40 JCC. (4) Applications for uses/developments listed as discretionary conditional use permits (i.e., “C(d)”) in Table 18.25.220 shall, at a minimum, be processed according to the procedures for Type II land use decisions established in Article IV of Chapter 18.40 JCC. However, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 JCC, the administrator may on a case-by-case basis refer a discretionary conditional use permit application to the hearing examiner to be processed according to the procedures for Type III land use decisions establi shed in Article IV of Chapter 18.40 JCC. (5) All amendments to this master program shall be processed as Type V decisions pursuant to Chapter 18.40 JCC. (6) Whenever the administrator issues a determination or recommendation and/or conditions of approval o n a proposal which will result in the denial or substantial alteration of a proposed action, such determinations will be provided in writing stating the relationship(s) between the ecological factors, the proposed action and the condition(s). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 2)] (7) The administrator may vary or waive the requirements in subsection 18.25.630 of this section on a case-by-case basis according to administrative application requirements. (8) Where other approvals or permits are required for a use or development that does not require an open record hearing, such approvals or permits shall not be granted until a shoreline approval or permit is granted. All shoreline approvals and permits shall include written findings prepared by the administrator documenting compliance with bulk and dimensional standards and other policies and regulations of this program. (9) Developments not required to obtain shoreline permits or local reviews. Requiremen ts 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 Commented [GU79]: Based on staff discussion - Type III requires a public hearing with hearing examiner decision. Did not seem necessary for most SDPs. If Ecology needs approval over proposed use, should probably be a CUP, not an SDP. Commented [LG80]: Instead of 18.25.630(1) which seems like it is not much to waive. Commented [LG81]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #5 Commented [LG82]: 2017 c Periodic Review Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 146/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 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 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. 18.25.630 Minimum permit application requirements. A complete application for a substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain, as a minimum, all of the information required in an y applicable section of this program, all of the information required in JCC 18.40.100, and any other information the administrator deems pertinent, including at a minimum: (1) The name, address and phone number of the applicant/proponent, applicant’s repr esentative, and/or property owner if different from the applicant/proponent. (2) The property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or longitude and latitude to the nearest minute. (3) The name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with. (4) A general description of the property as it exists at the time of application including its use, physical and ecological characteristics, improvements and structures. (5) A general description of the project vicinity including adjacent uses, structures and improvements, development intensity, and physical characteristics. (6) A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties. (7) A site plan and/or engineered drawings identifying existing conditions consisting of photographs, text, maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to clearly depict all r equired information. (8) Location of the ordinary high water mark of all water bodies within or adjacent to the project boundary. For any development that requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark, the applicant/proponent shall provide a survey and describe the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the ordinary high water mark of the adjacent shoreline. (9) Existing land contours at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property. Areas within the project boundary that will not be altered by the development may be ind icated as such and contours approximated for that area. (10) Critical areas as designated in Chapter 18.22 JCC. (11) A general description of the character of vegetation found on the site. (12) A description of the existing ecological functions and process es affecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline at/near the project site. (13) The dimensions and locations of all existing structures and improvements. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 147/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (14) The dimensions and locations of all proposed structures and improvements including but not limited to buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drain fields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities. (15) Proposed land contours overlain on existing contours. The contours shall be at int ervals sufficient to accurately determine the extent of proposed change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the project boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area. (16) A summary characterization of the effects of the project on existing ecological functions and processes in the vicinity of the project. If the project is likely to have adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions or processes, a mitigation plan shall be provided demonstrating measures that will be taken to offset impacts. (17) On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and use. (18) The administrator may vary or waive the requirements in subsection (1) of this section on a case -by-case basis according to administrative application requirements. (19) Where other approvals or permits are required for a use or development that does not require an open record hearing, such approvals or permits shall not be granted until a shoreline approval or permit is granted. All shoreline approvals and permits shall include written findings prepared by the administrator documenting compliance with bulk and dimensional standards and other policies and regulations of this program. X § 3)] 18.25.640 Preapplication conferences. (1) Preapplication conferences are required in accordance with JCC 18.40.090(2) for projects including, but not limited to: (a) All Type II and Type III project applications. (b) Type I project applications proposing impervious surfaces of 10,000 square feet or more and/or non-single- family structures of 5,000 square feet or more. (c) All projects involving in-water work or work below the ordinary high water mark. (2) Preapplication conferences for all types of applications not listed in subsection (1) of this se ction or specified by JCC 18.40.090(2) are strongly encouraged, and requests for conferences will be considered by the administrator on a time-available basis. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 4)] 18.25.650 Notice of application and permit application review . (1) Public notice requirements shall occur in accordance with Chapter 18.40 JCC, Article III and the following: (a) Type I permits (statements of exemption) shall not require notice of application or open record hearing consistent with JCC 18.40.040. However, if a Type I permit is not categorically exempt under SEPA, then a notice may be required. (b) The administrator shall issue a notice of application on all Type IIIII project permit applications in accordance with Chapter 18.40 JCC, Article III. (c) The administrator shall issue a notice of application on all Type III project permit applications in accordance with Chapter 18.40 JCC, Article III. (2) Permit application review shall occur in accordance with Chapter 18.40 JCC, Article IV ., except as provided in Subsection (3). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 5)] (3) Special procedures for WSDOT projects. Commented [LG83]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #5 Commented [LG84]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #18 Commented [LG85]: 2015 a Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 148/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (a) 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. (b) 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. 18.25.660 Nonconforming development. The following shall apply to nonconforming uses and developments, as defined in Article II of th is chapter: (1) Legally established uses, buildings, structures and/or lots of record that do not meet the specific standards of this program are considered legal nonconforming and may continue as long as they remain otherwise lawful, and meet the following criteria: (a) Existing, Permitted, or Vested. The use, building, structure, or lot was existing on the effective date of initial adoption of this program (December 20, 1974), or any subsequent amendment thereto, or was authorized under a permit or approval issued, or is otherwise vested to this program; or (b) Variance. A structure for which a variance has been issued; or (c) Conditional. The existing use is designated as a conditional use under this program and existed prior to the adoption of this program or the adoption of an applicable amendment hereto and which has not obtained a conditional use permit; or (d) Abandoned. As per JCC 18.20.260, the use or structure is not discontinued or abandoned for a period more than two years. A property owner may be allowed three years if they demonstrate a bona fide intention to sell or lease the property. For purposes of calculating this time period, a use is discontinued or abandoned upon the occurrence of the first of any of the following events: (i) On the date when the land was physically vacated; (ii) On the date the use ceases to be actively involved in the sale of merchandise or the provision of services; or (iii) On the date of termination of any lease or contract under which the nonconforming use has occupied the land. (e) Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following are considered a conforming structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density. (2) Normal maintenance and repair of a nonconforming structure may be allowed in accordance with JCC 18.25.560, and other provisions of this program. (3) Any repair, replacement, relocation or expansion/enlargement of a bulkhead shall conform to the provisions in Article VII of this chapter. (4) If a nonconforming use or structure is discontinued or abandoned per this section the nonconforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall be conforming. (5) New single-family residential development on lots whose dimensions do not allow a residence to be constructed outside the standard shoreline buffer may be allowed without a variance in accordance with th e provision in JCC 18.25.270 (nonconforming lots). Commented [LG86]: 2011 d Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 149/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (6) Rebuilding After Damage. If a nonconforming development sustains major structural damage due to fire, flood or other natural disaster, it may be reconstructed upon its original site and to the configur ation existing immediately prior to the damage, provided: (a) The rebuilt structure will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or to the shoreline environment; and (b) The site is geologically stable; and (c) No horizontal or vertical expansion or enlargement of the footprint or height, or any degree of relocation, will occur; and (d) No degree of relocation will occur, except to increase conformity, in which case the structure shall be located as far landward as possible or in the least environm entally damaging location relative to the shoreline or any critical area; and (e) The submittal of applications for permits necessary to restore the development is begun within six months of the damage. The administrator may waive this requirement in situations with extenuating circumstances such as resolution of an estate, or widespread economic or natural disaster; and (f) The reconstruction is commenced within two years of the issuance of permits. Administrator may allow a one year extension. (7) In-Water/Overwater. When a use or development is not prohibited, replacement of nonconforming structures or buildings or portions thereof within the aquatic or priority aquatic shoreline area is allowed and shall comply with program requirements for materials that come in contact with the water pursuant to Article VI of this chapter. In - water and overwater use/development not allowed by this program shall not be replaced in -/overwater. (8) Expansion/Enlargement without Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline Varian ce – Single-family Residential. The administrator may allow a one -time landward enlargement or expansion of nonconforming single -family residences by the addition of space to the exterior of the main structure or the addition of normal appurtenances withou t a shoreline conditional use permit or shoreline variance, provided, and subject to, the following: (a) The structure is located landward of the ordinary high water mark; and (b) No lateral or waterward enlargement or expansion beyond the existing structure’s foundation walls legal impervious surface will occur; and (c) The increase/expansion in total footprint area does not threaten critical areas; and (d) The increased height does not significantly impair the public’s view of the shoreline. (e) Enlargements, expansions or additions that increase the total footprint of the existing structure(s) by up to 10 percent shall be allowed, provided the expansion or addition will not adversely affect critical areas, significantly impair the ability of a substantial number of people to view the shoreline, or increase the degree of nonconformity. (f) Enlargements, expansions or additions that increase the total footprint of the existing structure(s) greater than 10 percent but no more than 25 percent or increase the structure height up to the limits allowed by this program shall be allowed; provided, that the addition will not adversely affect critical areas, significantly impair the ability of a substantial number of people to view the shoreline, or increase the degree of nonconformity, and further provided, that an equivalent area of shoreline buffer is enhanced through planting of native vegetation. The administrator shall require a planting plan to ensure this standard is implemented . (g) Lateral expansions, without associated vertical expansions, greater than 25 percent provided, that the addition will not adversely affect critical areas, significantly impair the ability of a substantial number of people to view the shoreline, or increase the degree of nonc onformity. Commented [LG87]: Task Force A Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 150/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (h) Area enlargements, expansions or additions under subsection (f) of this section require that an equivalent area of shoreline buffer be enhanced through planting of native vegetation. The planting plan should include removal of non-native or invasive vegetation and installation of a mix of trees, shrubs and groundcovers with a species diversity and spacing typical of native Puget Sound or Pacific Coast forest. Trees shall be planted on 12-foot centers and shrubs planted on 6-foot centers. If the enhancement area already contains some native vegetation, the planting area should be expanded to accommodate the equivalent number of trees and shrubs as would be installed on bare ground. Applicants may develop a planting plan with or without professional assistance so long as it includes the following information: (i) A description and photo of the existing conditions in the proposed enhancement area , to include identification of any invasive or non-native species to be removed and any native vegetation to be preserved. The boundaries of the proposed planting area should be marked and visible in the photograph. (ii) A site plan showing the location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures, the proposed planting area, and the shoreline buffer. (iii) A plant schedule listing the species and proposed numbers of trees, shrubs , and groundcovers.(9) Expansion/Enlargement with a Conditional C(d) Use Permit. (a) The administrator shall require a conditional use permit for any of the following: (i) Enlargement or expansion of nonconforming single -family residences by the addition of space to the exterior of the main structure or normal appurtenances where the total footprint will increase by more than 25 percent or the expansion/enlargement occur s vertically, laterally or landward, but not waterward, of the structurebeyond the limits in paragraph (8) above . (ii(ii) The structure expansion/enlargement occurs vertically and has the potential to significantly impair the public’s view of the shoreline. (iii) Enlargement or expansion of single -family residences where the addition of space to the exterior of the main structure is likely to adversely affect critical areas, or is likely to obstruct the view of an adjacent development. (iii) When allowed,(iv) When an expansion is likely to adversely affect critical areas per (a)(iii), an equivalent area of shoreline buffer area shall be enhanced through planting of native vegetation, plus additional mitigation to be required as appropriate. The administrator shall require a planting plan as outlined in subsection (8)(h) of this section to ensure this standard is implemented. (v) When the height of a non-conforming single-family residence increases above the limits established by this program. (b) Changing an Existing Nonconforming Use. A structure that is being or has been used for a nonconforming use may be used for a different nonconforming use only upon the approval of a conditional use permit, provided all the following criteria are met: (i) No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical because of the configuration of the s tructure and/or the property; and (ii) The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the Act and this program and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting use; and (iii) The use or activity is enlarged, intensified, increased or altered only to the minimum amount necessary to achieve the intended functional purpose; and (iv) The structure(s) associated with the nonconforming use shall not be expanded in a manner that increases the extent of the nonconformity including encroachment into areas, such as setbacks and/or buffers established by this program, where new structures, development or use would not be allowed; and Commented [GU88]: AJS: Added guidance re: simple planting plan requirements. Intended to be implementable by property owners without professional help. Commented [GU89]: AJS: Separated the planting plan requirements from (f) since it didn't seem like the height increase was intended to have a planting plan requirement(not sure how the area is calculated). Also easier to reference in 9(a)(iii) below. Commented [LG90]: Staff Docket/Code Interpretations #35 Commented [GU91]: DWJ - Per consultation with Rick Mraz with Ecology by email Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 151/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (v) The vegetation conservation standards of Article VI of this chapter are met; and (vi) The change in use, remodel or expansion will not create adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions and/or processes; and (vii) Uses which are specifically prohibited or which would thwart the intent of the Act or this program shall not be authorized. (viii) Nonconforming structures with conforming uses within commercial or mixed -use developments may be expanded or enlarged within the existing building footprint as a conditional use. (10) Expansion/Enlargement with a Shoreline Variance . (a) Single-Family Residential. Enlargement or expansion of single -family residences that extends waterward beyond the existing residential foundation wallslegal impervious surfaces, further into a critical area, or further into the minimum required side yard setback, or that increases the structure height above beyond the limits established by this program shall require a variance. (b) Non-Single-Family Residential. Nonconforming structures, other than nonconforming single -family residences, that are expanded, enlarged or relocated, must obtain a variance or be brought into conformance with this program and the Act. Any nonconforming development that is moved any distance must be moved to comply with the bulk and dimensions requirements of this program. (c) Where an expansion other than for height is proposed per subsections (a) and (b), the proponent shall provide an equivalent area of shoreline buffer enhancement through planting of native vegetation consistent with an enhancement plan prepared per section (8)(h) except that the enhancement plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 6)] 18.25.665 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance. (1) Whenever an application for shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, shoreline conditional use permit, or statement of exemption is subject to the rules and regulations of SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW), the review requirements of SEPA, including time limitations, shall apply, where applicable. (2) Applications for shoreline permit(s) or approval(s) that are not categorically exempt shall be subject to environmental review by the responsible official of Jefferson County pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 197-11 WAC). (3) As part of SEPA review, the responsible official may require additional information regarding the proposed development in accordance with Chapter 197-11 WAC. (4) Failure of the applicant/proponent to submit sufficient information for a threshold determination to be made sha ll be grounds for the responsible official to determine the application incomplete. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 7)] 18.25.670 Burden of proof. Permit applicants/proponents have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Act and this program. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 8)] 18.25.680 Permit conditions. In granting, revising, or extending a shoreline permit, the administrator may attach such conditions, modifications, or restrictions thereto regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed development deemed necessary to assure that the development will be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Act and this program as well as the supplemental authority provided in Chapter 43.21 RCW as applicable. In cases involving unusual circumstances or uncertain effects, a condition may be imposed to require monitoring with future review or reevaluation to assure conformance with the Act and this program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 9)] Commented [LG92]: Task Force A Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 152/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.690 Public hearings. (1) Public hearings shall occur in accordance with JCC 18.40.230 and 2.30.090. (2) Public hearing requirements for permit appeals shall be processed according to JCC 18.40.330; provided, that appeals of a determination regarding a statement of exemption shall occur in accordance with JCC 18.40.390. The fee for such appeal shall be as set forth in the Jefferson County fee ordinance and must be paid by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 10)] 18.25.700 Expiration of permits and permit exemptions. The following time requirements shall apply to all permit exemptions, substantial development permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a variance permit or conditional use permit: (1) Construction shall be commenced or, where no construction is involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of the permit or permit exemption; provided, that the administrator may authorize a single extension based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. (2) Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate f ive years after the effective date of a permit or permit exemption; provided, that the shoreline administrator may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed befor e the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Department of Ecology. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 11)] 18.25.710 Permits and permit exemptions – Effective date. (1) The effective date of a shoreline permit or permit exemption shall be the date of the last action required on the shoreline permit or permit exemption and all other government permits and approvals that authorize the development to proceed, including all administrative and legal actions on any su ch permit or approval. (2) It is the responsibility of the project proponent to inform the administrator of the permit applications filed with agencies other than Jefferson County and of any related administrative and legal actions on any permit or approva l. If no notice of the permits or approvals is given to the administrator prior to the date established by the shoreline permit, permit exemption, or the provisions of this section, the expiration of a permit shall be based on the shoreline permit or permit exemption. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 12)] 18.25.720 Satisfaction of conditions required prior to occupancy or use. When permit or permit exemption approval is based on conditions, such conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure or prior to commencement of a nonstructural activity; provided, that an alternative compliance limit may be specified in the permit or permit exemption. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 13)] 18.25.730 Revisions following expiration of original permit or permit exemption. Revisions to permits and permit exemptions may be authorized after original permit or permit exemption authorization has expired; provided, that this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit or permit exemption time requirements or to authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit or permit exemption. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 14)] 18.25.740 Extensions – Notice to Ecology. The shoreline administrator shall notify the Department of Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a substantial development permit, variance permit or conditional use per mit as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit or permit exemption other than those authorized by this section shall require a new permit application. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 15)] 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: Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 153/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (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 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 act ions 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. (2) A notice of decision for shoreline statements of e xemption shall be provided to the applicant/proponent and any party of record. Such notices shall also be filed with the Department of Ecology, pursuant to the requirements of WAC 173-27-050 when the project is subject to one or more of the following feder al permitting requirements: (a) A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. (The provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act generally apply to any project occurring on or over navigable waters; specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.); or (b) A Section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (the provisions of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act generally apply to any project which may involve discharge of dredge or fill material to any water or wetland area; specific applicability information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers). (3) This program shall only establish standing for parties of record for s horeline substantial development permits, shoreline variances, or shoreline conditional use permits. Standing as a party of record is not established by this program for exempt actions; provided, that in such cases standing may be established through an as sociated permit process that provides for public notice and provisions for parties of record. (4) The applicant/proponent or any party of record may request reconsideration of any final action by the decision maker within 10 days of notice of the decision. Such requests shall be filed on forms supplied by the county. Grounds for reconsideration must be based upon the content of the written decision. The decision maker is not required to provide a written response or modify his/her original decision. He/she may initiate such action as he/she deems appropriate. The procedure of reconsideration shall not preempt or extend the appeal period for a permit or affect the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, unless the applicant/proponent requests the abeya nce of said permit appeal period. (5) Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a decision on a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit may be filed by the applicant/proponent or any aggrieved party pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 within 21 days of filing the final decision by Jefferson County with the Department of Ecology. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 16)] (6) 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 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: Commented [LG93]: 2017 d Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 154/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (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. 18.25.760 Initiation of development. (1) Development pursuant to a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, or conditional use shall not begin and shall not be authorized until 21 days after the “date of filing” or until all review proceedings before the Shoreline Hearings Board have terminated. (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)] 18.25.770 Permit revisions. (1) A permit revision is required whenever the applicant/pro ponent proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditi ons of the permit, this program or the Act. Changes that are not substantive in effect do not require a permit revision. (2) An application for a revision to a shoreline permit shall be submitted to the administrator. The application shall include detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. The county decision maker that approved the original permit may approve the request upon a finding that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with this program and the Act. (3) “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following: (a) No additional overwater construction is involved except that a pier, dock or floating structure may be increased by 10 percent over that approved under the original permit; (b) Ground area coverage and/or height may be increased a maximum of 10 percent over that approved under the original permit; provided, that the revised permit does not authorize development to exceed the height, lot coverage, setback or any other requirements of this program except as authorized under a variance granted for the original development; (c) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original permit and with this program; (d) The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and (e) The revision will not cause adverse environmental impacts beyond those originally authorized in the permit. (4) Revisions to shoreline permits may be authorized after the original permit authorization has expired. Revisions made after the expiration of the original permit shall be limited to changes that are consistent with this program and that would not require a permit under this program. If the proposed change is a substantial development as defined by this program, then a new permit is required. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be used to extend the time requirements or to authorize substantial development beyond the time limits or scope of the original permit. (5) A new permit shall be required if the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions in combination would constitute development beyond the scope and intent of the original permit. Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 155/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. (6) Upon approval of a permit revision, the decision maker shall fil e with the Department of Ecology a copy of the revised site plan and a detailed description of the authorized changes to the original permit together with a final ruling and findings supporting the decision based on the requirements of this section. In add ition, the decision maker shall notify parties of record of the action. (a) If the proposed revision is to a development for which a shoreline conditional use or variance was issued, the decision maker shall submit the revision to the Department of Ecology for approval with conditions or denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this paragraph. Under the requirements of WAC 173-27-110(6), the Department of Ecology shall render and transmit to the decision maker and the applicant/proponent its final decision within 15 days of the date of the Department of Ecology’s receipt of the submittal from the decision maker. The decision maker shall notify parties on record of the Department of Ecology’s final decision. Appeals of a decision of the Department of Ecology shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-27-110(8). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 18)] 18.25.780 Rescission and modification. (1) Any shoreline permit granted pursuant to this program may be rescinded or modified upon a finding by the hearing examiner that the permittee or his/her successors in interest have not complied with conditions attached thereto. A specific monitoring plan may be required as a condition of a permit with specific repor ting requirements. If the monitoring plan is not implemented, the permittee may be found to be noncompliant. The results of a monitoring plan may show a development to be out of compliance with specific performance standards, which may be the basis for findings of noncompliance. (2) The administrator shall initiate rescission or modification proceedings by serving written notice of noncompliance to the permittee or his/her successors and notifying parties of record at the original address provided in application review files. (3) The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing no sooner than 15 days following such service of notice, unless the applicant/proponent files notice of intent to comply and the administrator grants a specific schedule for compliance. If compliance is not achieved, the administrator shall schedule a public hearing before the hearing examiner. Upon considering written and oral testimony taken at the hearing, the hearing examiner shall make a decision in accordance with the above proce dure for shoreline permits. (4) These provisions do not limit the administrator, the prosecuting attorney, the Department of Ecology or the Attorney General from administrative, civil, injunctive, declaratory or other remedies provided by law, or from abatement or other remedies. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 19)] 18.25.790 Violations and penalties. (1) In addition to incurring civil liability under JCC 18.50.110 and RCW 90.58.210, pursuant to RCW 90.58.220, any person found to have willfully engaged in activities on shorelines of the state in violation of the provisions of the Act or of this program, or other regulations adopted pursuant thereto, shall be punished by: (a) A fine of not less than $25.00 or more than $1,000; (b) Imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 90 days; or (c) Both such fine and imprisonment; provided, that the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five-year period shall not be less than $500.00 nor more than $10,000; provided further, that fines for violations of RCW 90.58.550, or any rule adopted thereunder, shall be determined under RCW 90.58.560. (2) Any person who willfully violates any court order or injunction issued pursuant to this program shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment or both, neither of which shall exceed the maximum fine or imprisonment stated in RCW 9.92.020 as currently enacted or as may hereafter be amended. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 20)] 18.25.800 Remedies. (1) The Jefferson County prosecuting attorney, or administrator, where autho rized, shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to ensure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state located Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 156/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. within Jefferson County in conflict with the provisions of this program, the Act, or other regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this program. (2) Any person subject to the regulatory provisions of this program or the Act who violates any provision thereof, or permit or permit condition issued pursuant thereto, sh all be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its conditions prior to violation. The Jefferson County prosecuting attorney shall bring suit for damages under thi s section on their own behalf and on the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by a violation, the court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished w ithin a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including money damages, the court in its discretion may award attorney’s fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. (3) A person who fails to conform to the terms of a substantial development permit, conditional use permit or variance issued under RCW 90.58.140, who undertakes a development or use on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit, or who fails to comply with a cease and desist order may b e subject to a civil penalty. The penalty shall be imposed pursuant to the procedure set forth in WAC 173 -27-280 and become due and recovered as set forth in WAC 173-27-290(3) and (4). Persons incurring a penalty may appeal the same to the Shoreline Hearin gs Board or the BOCC pursuant to WAC 173-27-290(1) and (2). [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 21)] 18.25.810 Abatement. Structures or development on shorelines considered by the administrator to present a hazard or other public nuisance to persons, properties or natural features may be abated by the county under the applicable provisions of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition or successor as adopted by Jefferson County, or by other appropriate means. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 22)] 18.25.820 Third-party review. The administrator shall determine when third-party review shall be required. Third -party review requires any technical studies or inventories provided by the project proponent to be reviewed by an independent third party , paid for by the project proponent, but hired by the administrator. A qualified professional shall conduct third -party review. In determining the need for third -party review, the administrator shall base his/her decision upon, but shall not be limited to, such factors as whether there has been incomplete submittal of data or apparently inadequate design work, whether the project is large scale, or whether the development site is complex. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 23)] 18.25.830 Inspections. Whenever it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this master program or whenever the administrator has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building, or upon any premises, any condition that constitutes a violation of t his master program, the administrator shall take any action authorized by law. The Jefferson County prosecuting attorney shall provide assistance to the administrator in obtaining administrative search warrants or other legal remedies when necessary. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 24)] 18.25.840 Master program amendments. The County will conduct the SMP periodic review process consistent with requirements of RCW 90.58.080 and WAC 173-26-090. 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 Hearings Board. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 25)] 18.25.850 Fees. Required fees for all shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline conditional use permits, shoreline variances, statements of exemption, appeals, preapplication conferences and other required approvals shall be paid to the county at the time of application in accordance with the Jefferson County unified fee schedule in effect at that time. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. X § 26)] Commented [LG94]: 2017 h Periodic Checklist Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.25 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Page 157/157 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 06-0817-20, passed August 17, 2020. 18.25.860 Transfer of permits. An approved substantial development permit, conditional use permit or variance permit may be t ransferred from the original project proponent to any successor in interest to the project proponent; provided, that all of the conditions and requirements of the approved permit or variance shall continue in effect as long as the use or activity is pursue d or the structure exists unless the terms of the substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance permit are modified in accordance with the relevant provisions of this master program. [Ord. 7 -13 Exh. A (Art. X § 27)] Article XI. Official Shoreline Map 18.25.870 Official shoreline map. The official shoreline map shows the Article IV shoreline environment designations (SEDs) that apply to each segment of the shoreline planning area under SMP jurisdiction. It does not necessarily ide ntify or depict the precise lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction or all associated wetlands. The lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction at the parcel level shall be determined on a case -by-case basis at the time a shoreline use/development is pro posed. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site-specific evaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. The county shall maintain a Geographic Information Systems database that depicts th e coordinates for locating the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction (that is, the location where the mean annual stream flow is at least 20 cubic feet per second). The database shall also show the limits of the floodplain, floodway, and channel migrat ion zones, and such information shall be used, along with site -specific information on the location of the ordinary high water mark and associated wetlands, to determine the lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction on a parcel -by-parcel basis. The database shall be updated regularly as new information is made available and the public shall have access to the database upon request. Appendix A, attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, depicts the SEDs in two formats: (1) Official Shoreline Map. An overview map showing all of Jefferson County (image sized for large format printing). (2) A collection of 18 break-out maps at closer range to allow greater details (images sized for 11 -inch by 17-inch printing). Western Jefferson County is depicted in a single break-out map (Map No. 18). Eastern Jefferson County is broken into separate images (Map Nos. 1 through 17) as shown in Appendix A of the ordinance codified in this chapter. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Appx. A)] 1 Wording from WAC 173-27-060(3). October 12, 2020 1 Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review 2020 Jefferson County | 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 .......................................................................................................................... 4 County SMP Docket ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Issues Not Recommended to Be Included in Scope ............................................................................... 7 Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Comments ........................................................................... 9 Appendix B: Task Force Membership .................................................................................................. 10 October 12, 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. October 12, 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 Review Conditional Use Permits and Variance Permits for Proper Level of Review 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. Mooring buoys Review permit type and standards for buoys compared to other 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. Consider appropriate number or density of buoys. Clarify SMP. Allow best practices that minimize environmental impact. Address regulatory reform. Climate change and sea level rise 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 Ensure SMP permitting process does not unduly burden marine trades. Recognize important sectors that support economy and water oriented uses. Boat Launches Encourage development of new public boat launches and improvement of existing boat launches in SMP. Lack of boat launches, condition of existing. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 4 Item Topic Description of SMP Review Element/Approach Rationale 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. 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 3. 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 Currently double checking consistency. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 5 Item Topic Rationale geoduck aquaculture. 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 4. 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. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 6 Row Topic Rationale 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. 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 Optional revision to add text implementing October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 7 Row Topic Rationale classify existing structures as conforming. 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 5. 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 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. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 8 Row Topic Rationale 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 October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 9 Appendix A: Summary of Public Scoping Comments [Insert survey summary here when complete.] October 12, 2020 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Scoping Document 10 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 Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool: Moving communities from planning to implementation IDENTIFY EVALUATE DETERMINE ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners ConsultingDECEMBER 2018 Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting - 32 - Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting Does this project use or seek to use public funds or require a permit? Is the intended life cycle of the proposed project/investment greater than 5 years? Complete STEP 1: Identification of Climate Change Risk Factors This is the entry point into the CCAC process and is a checklist to be completed by any project proponent or applicant. --------------------------------- Are one or more boxes checked “Yes,” indicating that the project is expected to be impacted by climate change? Complete STEP 2: Evaluation of Climate Impact on a Project This step explores potential impact in the context of available data. Analysis, mapping and calculations are conducted as appropriate. --------------------------------- Do Step 2 results indicate any impact from climate change? Complete STEP 3: Determination of Project Review Results may be: r Deny as proposed r Redesign to reduce risk and approve r Relocate/re-site and approve r Require bond or fee for future remediation and approve r Approve with signatures indicating informed consent of risk Climate change has implications for both the effectiveness and hazard potential of many of the projects undertaken by local and regional governments today. Failing to properly evaluate the potential vulnerability of any project prior to approval can lead to missed opportunities to improve design, optimize siting or avoid risk. The Climate Change Adaptation Certification (CCAC) Tool is for use during regulatory or procedural review processes being carried out as a matter of regular, ongoing community business. It is recommended that the CCAC become embedded as a regulatory requirement; alternatively, the CCAC could be a discretionary review tool used to evaluate an idea and inform all parties of expected impacts from a changing climate on a project during its lifecycle. Potential liabilities associated with a course of action could be identified prior to permitting or funding, which should enable decision makers to drive climate savvy and sustainable choices. Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool Climate Change Adaptation Certification (CCAC) Pathway to Climate Savvy Planning No CCAC required. No further CCAC steps required. STEP 1 documentation becomes permanent record on file. Complete STEP 3. Result may be: r Approved as proposed. No CCAC required. YES NO NO YES What “project” should apply the CCAC? The CCAC should be applied to any decision that uses public funds, has a life cycle of greater than five years and can impact public good. This includes, but is not limited to: • Fiscal Expenditures • Capital Planning • Permitting • Infrastructure Design and Siting The objective of applying the CCAC to these decisions is to: • Explicitly evaluate the implication of future conditions on project function and longevity • Understand the long-term sustainability of a project at the funding or permitting phase • Reduce community risk from actions today that become a liability under future conditions Who should apply the CCAC? The CCAC can be used by local government, elected officials, businesses and individuals to enable climate savvy decision making. The CCAC informs any proponent of a publicly funded capital project, fiscal decision or privately-funded development of the climate change risks faced by the project, and to guide them toward reducing that risk. The CCAC process includes the following: STEP 1: Identification of Climate Change Risk Factors Completing this step will identify if climate change impacts could affect a project over its lifetime. Step 1 provides a series of impact indicators that steer a proponent to think about how eight anticipated change factors have the potential to affect a project area. If any indicator is marked as present, then the change factors could be relevant to a project’s long-term success. Therefore, it will have a “Yes” for that factor, requiring Step 2. STEP 2: Evaluation of Climate Impact on a Project If Step 1 detects likely impacts from climate change risks to a project area, then Step 2 asks a project proponent to dive deeper into existing climate data. Narratives, mapping and calculations will be sought to evaluate the project relative to future conditions and assess whether, as proposed, the project will involve (and should therefore avoid) future risk. Results of Step 2 are used by decision makers in Step 3 to inform a determination for the project. STEP 3: Determination of Project Review The CCAC review steps should allow a project to move forward only when it is expected to function sustainably over time; in other words, if it has avoided, minimized or mitigated future negative performance. A project should only proceed when awareness and accountability of risk is accepted. Thereby, a community will not be blindly on the hook for the costs to replace, retrofit, decommission or litigate responsibility for future damage, harm or poor project performance. Step 3 provides evidence that responsible parties are aware of climate change impacts and implication to the project they are either allowing or undertaking. Using the CCAC will enable community services, infrastructure, ecosystems (and thereby local economies) to better anticipate and respond to climate change impacts by protecting public funds from climate risk or future community exposure to risk under altered conditions.NO YESNO YES Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting - 54 - Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting Climate Change Risk Factors · Identify if the following issues could affect the project over its lifetime. · Check all that apply. · If one or more of these boxes is checked, check YES in Column 3. Climate Change Risk Identified For PRECIPITATION Changing patterns will result in different and greater extremes, duration, and intensity. My project or access to it: r involves proper sizing of stormwater infrastructure to treat and accommodate run-off. r involves diversion or impoundment of surface water. r involves culverts, bridges, retaining walls or other structures within a riparian area to convey water or prevent flooding. r relies on a predictable and reliable water supply. r is within or near a mapped flood zone. r is affected by nuisance, localized or chronic flooding that is known generally to occur, though not mapped. r may be vulnerable to erosion or landslides. r relies on a predictable, reliable, and affordable power supply and other utilities. r is located within a Wildland-Urban Interface boundary or may be vulnerable to wildfire. r relies on sanitary sewers or community/private septic systems. r intersects with the multimodal transportation system. r other possible effects of precipitation changes (attach information and explanation). PRECIPITATION r YES r NO TEMPERATURE Changes will include more extremes and prolonged highs or lows. My project or access to it: r relies on a predictable and reliable water supply. r may be vulnerable to wildfire. r uses energy generated by fossil fuel combustion (on site or from a power utility). r will have a maintenance budgets for repairs and replacements. r relies on good air quality. r intersects with the multimodal transportation system. r involves habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement that relies on current temperature levels for successful implementation. r other possible effects of temperature changes (attach information and explanation). TEMPERATURE r YES r NO SEA LEVEL RISE Relative sea level changes will result in intermittent or permanent inundation. My project or access to it: r is located within the coastal zone. r relies on a stable shoreline. r is within or adjacent to a mapped flood zone. r is within or may be affected by an area known to be vulnerable to flooding. r involves dock or harbor infrastructure. r relies on groundwater that may suffer from saltwater intrusion over time. r requires healthy and properly functioning tidal marsh, estuaries, or other tidal ecosystems. r relies on proper functioning of a sanitary sewer system regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). r relies on a septic system that is within or near the coastal zone. r intends to enhance tidal ecosystems. r other possible effects of sea level rise (attach information and explanation). SEA LEVEL RISE r YES r NO Climate Change Risk Factors · Identify if the following issues could affect the project over its lifetime. · Check all that apply. · If one or more of these boxes is checked, check YES in Column 3. Climate Change Risk Identified For VEGETATION CHANGES Long-term temperature and precipitation changes will cause shifts in regional vegetation. My project or access to it: r could be affected by changes in vegetation. r could be affected by changes to transportation corridor buffers and impacts to roadways (brush fires, deadfall, water flow, etc.). r could be affected by increased fuel load and wildfire risk (e.g., potential for dead-wood and detritus as die-off occurs increasing the fuel load and risk for wildfires). r has energy demands for heating and cooling that could increase if the percentage of tree-cover/ canopy changes. r other possible effects of vegetation changes (attach information and explanation). VEGETATION CHANGES r YES r NO SLOPE STABILITY Sea level and precipitation changes compromise once stable slopes. My project or access to it: r relies on the integrity of nearby slopes. r proposes development or investment on or near a slope. r other possible effects of slope instability (attach information and explanation). SLOPE STABILITY r YES r NO OCEAN ACIDIFICATION Changes in ocean pH will have implications on permitted discharge and ocean health. My project or access to it: r relies on sanitary sewer that is subject to a NPDES permit. r relies on or affects shellfish within our local water. r other possible effects of ocean acidification (attach information and explanation). OCEAN ACIDIFICATION r YES r NO POPULATION CHANGES Climate migration and regional population changes may have local/regional implications. My project or access to it: r relies on a stable population. r is designed and built to serve the current population. r could be adversely affected if population were to increase or decrease in our region. r could be affected by future climate migrants. r other possible effects of population changes (attach information and explanation). POPULATION CHANGES r YES r NO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Mitigation of future greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel dependence are driven in part by local/ regional permitting decisions. My project or access to it: r does not take cars off the road or decrease idling times. r neither improves nor increases access to non-motorized transportation options. r is dependent on fossil fuel and does not use renewable energy sources sufficient to cover demand. r other possible effects of greenhouse gas emissions (attach information and explanation). GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS r YES r NO STEP 1: Identification of Climate Change Risk Factors STEP 1 will determine applicability of further CCAC review of a project. It should be completed by a project proponent with review by the appropriate project review authority. r PRECIPITATION r TEMPERATURE r SEA LEVEL RISE r VEGETATION CHANGES r SLOPE STABILITY r OCEAN ACIDIFICATION r POPULATION CHANGES r GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CHECK ALL YOUR “YES” FACTORS • For each Climate Change Risk Factor that indicated “YES” to climate risk, evaluation of the project is now required. • Proceed to STEP 2 and answer each Evaluation Question marked as Required. • If you did not check any “YES” factors, no further CCAC steps are required. STEP 1 documentation becomes permanent record on file. Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting - 76 - Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting STEP 2: Evaluation of Climate Impact on a Project Check your “YES” factors from STEP 1 Climate Change Risk Factor Complete the Evaluation Questions for Each Checked Factor A B C D E F G H I J r PRECIPITATION ✘✘✘✘✘✘ r TEMPERATURE ✘✘✘✘✘ r SEA LEVEL RISE ✘✘ r VEGETATION CHANGES ✘✘✘✘✘ r SLOPE STABILITY ✘ r OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ✘✘ r POPULATION CHANGES ✘ r GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ✘✘ 1. Map your project area (inclusive of its access corridors, key utility infrastructure, and associated multimodal transportation infrastructure) in relation to flood zones and frequently flooded areas (both episodic and chronic) using: · Local flood zone data; · Local wetland data; · Project site assessment data; · Regional flood zone data; · Regional flood mapping tools: - The NOAA Coastal Flood Exposure Mapper online visualization tool (https://coast.noaa.gov/floodexposure/#/map) supports communities that are assessing their coastal hazard risks and vulnerabilities by creating a collection of user-defined maps that show the people, places, and natural resources exposed to coastal flooding. The tool is currently unavailable for the west coast (see https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/flood- exposure.html for more information). Use if available to your project area; - Use FEMAs Flood Map Service Center (MSC) portal (https://msc.fema.gov/ portal/search) by entering your project address and reviewing maps it produces to identify any potential flooding impacts. MSC is the official public source for flood hazard information produced in support of the National Flood Insurance Program. 2. Provide a narrative review explaining your projects’ overlap with mapped flood areas. Also, document that you have contacted City or County engineering and public works’ staff and incorporate their knowledge of whether your project area is affected by nuisance, localized or chronic flooding that is generally known to occur, though not necessarily mapped. RESULT: r Project unaffected by flooding or flood zones. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): STEP 1 concluded that your project is subject to impacts from at least one of eight Climate Change Risk Factors (evidenced by a “YES”). Next, complete STEP 2 to evaluate any potential long-term climate change impact to your project’s success. • Use this chart below to determine which evaluation questions are required to be answered. • In Column One check all Climate Change Risk Factors that had a “YES” result in STEP 1. • Complete Evaluation Questions A-J accordingly. STEP 2: Evaluation Questions A Evaluate project susceptibility to flooding and determine impact. 1. Get local sea level rise projections for 2100: · If options exist, use high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (e.g., RCP8.5 or similar), likely or 50% assessed probability of exceedance for 2100. Also consider the impact of the 99 and 0.1% values because, while these have a lower likelihood, they are assumed possible and a project should know these potential risks. Examples include: · Washington Coastal Resilience Project: http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/wcrp-documents.html · State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance: opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/ agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf · Unified Sea Level Rise Projections- South Florida Compact: southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015- Compact-Unified-Sea-Level-Rise-Projection.pdf 2. Apply these values on a sea level rise viewer: · NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr. NOAA’s tool only shows estimates up to 6 feet. If your scenario shows >6 feet, use Surging Seas: https://riskfinder.climatecentral.org. 3. Compare the sea level rise viewer output(s) with project site map or local GIS data layers to evaluate vulnerability of: · project footprint · project related dock and harbor infrastructure · transportation corridors needed to access your project · utilities (e.g., power transmission, sewer/septic, stormwater/drainage, water/wells) · any other essential elements of the project 4. Provide a narrative review explaining inundation, interaction with tides, erosion with or without slope stability issues, and any interaction with upstream flows. RESULT: r Project unaffected by sea level rise. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): B Evaluate local sea level rise projections relevant to project area and determine impact. Once submitted to the appropriate Project Review Authority (permitting agency, board or other personnel authorized to act on or allow the project to proceed), responses to STEP 2 Evaluation Questions will provide the information necessary for them to make a climate savvy determination in STEP 3. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting - 98 - Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting 1. Map your project area and show it in relation to: · Regional and/or local aquifer recharge area maps (e.g., Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas maps) · Wellhead Protection Area mapping · Watershed boundaries · Identify National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted outfalls or discharges 2. Provide a narrative review that: · Demonstrates a predictable, reliable and affordable water supply for the lifespan of your project under future predicted precipitation and temperature patterns. · Explains any water saving measures your project employs. · Explains your leach field or sewer outfall drainage basin in the context of its over-saturation or dehydration (either of which can render a septic/sewer ineffective). · If your project will utilize a discharge facility subject to an NPDES permit, explain your understanding of the relationship between stormwater and sewage discharge permits and ocean acidification, which may compromise stormwater and sewage discharge compliance making capital projects/ investment for additional siting or capacity necessary. RESULT: r Project unaffected by either the provision or failure of basic utilities. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): 1. Calculate: · Insulation requirements based on projected future winter lows and summer high temperatures; · Anticipated maintenance budget for items (e.g., HVAC systems) vulnerable to unplanned heavy service demands due to more extreme weather (e.g., if future use becomes greater than currently budgeted, what will be the cost to future owners/operators?). 2. Provide a narrative review explaining: · A comparison of insulation requirements and effectiveness due to calculations based on historical versus future temperature projections; · All sources of energy upon which your project will depend, including back-up generators; · Use of renewable energy, or site design/features that enable renewables to be used or later installed (e.g., is your energy generated by fossil fuel combustion? Is there an opportunity to produce power on site and is your project designed to facilitate that? Did you situate/orient structures on site to maximize its ability to employ on-site renewable energy generation such as passive or active solar?); · If relying on tree canopy for passive heating or cooling, explain your energy needs as they may change over time with changes in tree-cover/canopy (e.g., active heating and cooling needs will increase as vegetation on-site matures or dies off); · How your project will decrease idling times, improve access to non-motorized transportation, or otherwise improve the transit system itself; · Any existing greenhouse gas inventories to which your proposed project would be a contributor (positive or negative). RESULT: r Project unaffected by changes in energy demand, access, or cost. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): 1. Map your project and its access corridors (project area) using local Geological Hazardous Areas Maps for slope stability or landslide (e.g., Washington Department of Natural Resources Geologic Information Portal: https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/#natural_hazards) to produce a map with landslide data layers overlaying your project area. 2. Provide narrative review of your project in relation to slope stability. Understanding that resilient infrastructure relies on slope stability, if mapping shows your project area could be affected by landslides explain how you plan for it in design and/or avoid steep slopes for location of critical infrastructure or public investment where an alternative is possible. RESULT: r Project unaffected by landslides and other geologic hazards. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): STEP 2: Evaluation Questions STEP 2: Evaluation Questions D E F Evaluate project vulnerability to landslides and other geologic hazards. Evaluate project dependence on and access to the reliable provision of basic utilities (water supply, septic/sewer) that function over time without compromising the health of relevant ecosystems. Evaluate project dependence on and access to the reliable provision of a power supply and its source. 1. Calculate stormwater design based on: · Projected flow rates for 2050. Because most hydrological models (e.g., 2012 Western Washington Hydrology Model) used for development of local Stormwater Manuals are based on historical and not future flows, project proponents must calculate flows with future precipitation flow rates as inputs. 2. Provide a narrative review comparing infrastructure sizing requirements to accommodate historical flows versus anticipated future flows. Show your understanding of the likely future precipitation changes that will affect your project and its infrastructure. RESULT: r Project unaffected by future hydrologic conditions. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): C Evaluate project stormwater infrastructure design and its ability to accommodate future hydrological conditions. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting - 1110 - Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool | www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification | ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting STEP 3: Determination of Project Review 1. Proponents assessment of the proposed project under future conditions: 2. Staff assessment of the proposed project under future conditions (include reference to any existing local, regional, and state natural hazard vulnerability assessments, climate vulnerability assessments, and/or climate action plans): 3. CCAC Determination: r Project approved as proposed. Low risk from future climate conditions. r Project denied. High risk that cannot be minimized or avoided with project alterations. r Project redesigned to reduce risk and approved. · Explain how risk was reduced due to the components of the redesign. r Project relocated/sited in alternate location and approved. · Explain how risk was reduced because of this move. Explanation should include a review of new site to ensure vulnerabilities do not exist at the new location. r Project approved with conditions. Applicant required to assume responsibility for anticipated future remediation necessitated due to permitting/funding/approving this now despite the known vulnerabilities. · Bond required in the amount of $_____________. · Fee required in the amount of $_____________. · Explain and document the expected remediation. r Project approved with informed consent regarding the risk. · Describe the risk. ___________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ Project Review Authority Project Proponent Name: Name: Date: Date: STEP 2 results indicate climate change risk to the project during its expected life cycle. Complete STEP 3 to decide conditions of approval. Provide a narrative review explaining how motorized and non-motorized transit will be influenced by your project. Will non-motorized and/or public transit be increased or supported by this project (e.g., creation of bike lanes, sidewalks, or non-motorized paths)? Will this project increase automotive miles driven or idle times? RESULT: r Project will facilitate multimodal transportation. r Assessment indicates no accommodation of multimodal transit. r Assessment indicates that multimodal transit could be accommodated by: 1. Map your project’s proximity to the Wildland Urban Interface and/or wildfire hazard areas. Overlay the following data layers on your project area: · Regional or local GIS layers showing Wildfire Hazard Area or any available wildfire risk mapping 2. Provide a narrative review demonstrating your understanding of how long-term temperature and precipitation trend changes may cause shifts in vegetation and habitats affecting your project area’s vulnerability to wildfire. RESULT: r Project unaffected by wildfire risk. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): Provide a narrative review explaining your project as it relates to: · Marine discharge permits. Altered seawater pH may adversely affect compliance if discharge cannot be adjusted under these changing water chemistry conditions. · Locally managed or harvested shellfish and whether the decline in shellfish populations affect your project or deem it unsustainable. · Any other marine activities that affect or are affected by altered pH or related water chemistry changes. RESULT: r Project unaffected by changes in ocean chemistry. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): Provide a narrative review explaining how your project will function over time relative to population change. Will either increases or decreases (possibly due to climate migration) affect the long-term success of your project? Do your anticipated outcomes depend on certain local or regional population statistics? RESULT: r Project unaffected by population. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to project that cannot be avoided. r Assessment indicates climate change risk to the project, but risk could be minimized by (explain here or in attachment): STEP 2: Evaluation Questions G H Evaluate project connection to multimodal transportation. Evaluate project area susceptibility to wildfire. I J Evaluate project connection to a healthy ocean environment. Evaluate the connection between the project and local and regional population. __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting developed the Climate Change Adaptation Certification project, process, and 3-Step Tool in order to advance nascent local conversations around climate change adaptation to tangible implementation actions. This work began in the Puget Sound region of Washington where they also developed guidance for anyone wanting to understand why and how to incorporate climate considerations into local Comprehensive Planning—addressing planning for both adaptation and mitigation. This guidance is also available: Climate Change Adaptation through Local Comprehensive Planning: Guidance for Puget Sound Communities. Hansen, L.J., S.J. Nordgren and E.E. Mielbrecht. 2017. EcoAdapt. Bainbridge Island, WA. www.CAKEx.org/documents/climate-change-adaptation-through-local-comprehensive-planning-guidance-puget-sound-communities The Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool was developed to support communities beyond planning—helping them implement their updated Comprehensive Plan. Using this 3-Step CCAC Tool for rapid implementation of climate savvy planning goals and policies will enable community services, infrastructure, ecosystems, and economies to better anticipate and respond to the effects of climate change. We would like to thank Jennifer Sutton (City of Bainbridge Island), James Rufo Hill (Seattle Public Utilities) and James B. Hansen (California Fish and Wildlife) for their time and insight as reviewers of this tool and its applicability to planning processes across a variety of circumstance. In order to make this product useful and used, the authors surveyed community adaptation efforts and interviewed local, regional, and state employees around the Puget Sound to identify regulatory or discretionary processes already in place where one could integrate climate change adaptation into permitting—something beyond planning goals and policies. We would also like to thank (in alphabetical order) all those who took the time to inform us through interviews, including Mike Burnham (Thurston Regional Planning Council), Eileen Canola (Snohomish County), Christy Carr (City of Bainbridge Island), Ryan Dicks (Pierce County), Lisa Dulude (Snohomish County), Gary Idleburg (Washington State Department of Commerce), Jennifer Lee (Puget Sound Partnership), Kelly McGourty (Puget Sound Regional Council), Tracy Morgenstern (City of Seattle), Phillip North (Tulalip Tribes), Allison Osterberg (Thurston County), Joyce Phillips (City of Olympia), Jennifer Pouliotte (Puget Sound Partnership), Carol Lee Roalkvam (Washington State Department of Transportation), Dara Salmon (Snohomish County), Joseph Tovar (Tovar Planning), Lara Whitely-Binder (King County), and Manuela Winter (Snohomish County). Sample resource they shared included: · Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)—Guidance for Project-Level Climate Change Evaluations for NEPA and SEPA demonstrates how WSDOT should address climate change in its environmental documents/reviews · King County—Sustainable Infrastructure ScoreCard used to meet the requirements of Seattle’s Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance · Seattle Public Utilities—Stage Gate process used internally by employees during project development · Snohomish County’s Puget Sound Initiative—Climate Change Decision Support Tool used by public works employees to consider climate change related impacts in their own project planning This project was made possible by generous support from: Recommended Citation: Justus Nordgren, S., and L.J. Hansen. 2018. Climate Change Adaptation Certification Tool: Moving Communities from Planning to Implementation. EcoAdapt. Bainbridge Island, WA. www.CAKEx.org/adaptation-certification EcoAdapt provides support, training, and assistance to make planning and management less vulnerable and more Climate Savvy. EcoAdapt, founded by a team of some of the earliest adaptation thinkers and practitioners in the field, has one goal—creating a robust future in the face of climate change. We bring together diverse players to reshape planning and management in response to rapid climate change. www.EcoAdapt.org Foresight Partners Consulting works to build societies’ capacity to proactively address the effects of a changing climate. We work with practitioners to help them incorporate climate change considerations into programs, planning, and decision-making processes. We specialize in comprehensive community planning for climate change · hazard mitigation planning · philanthropic program strategy development and portfolio review. www.ForesightOnLine.org Climate Change Adaptation through Local Comprehensive Planning: Guidance for Puget Sound Communities Lara J. Hansen, Stacey Justus Nordgren & Eric E. Mielbrecht February 2017 Bainbridge Island, WA www.EcoAdapt.org Climate Change Adaptation Certification Resources and Acknowledgments ©2018 EcoAdapt and Foresight Partners Consulting Lara J. Hansen, Ph.D., EcoAdapt Stacey Justus Nordgren, M.A., Foresight Partners Consulting Eric E. Mielbrecht, M.S., EcoAdapt Bainbridge Island, WA ~ 2016 www.EcoAdapt.org Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment Acknowledgements: EcoAdapt would like to thank the Bainbridge Community Foundation for their generous support and belief in the importance of this project. We are also grateful to Sustainable Bainbridge and the City of Bainbridge Island staff, City Council and Planning Commission for their partnership in conducting the community elicitation workshop in November 2015. Thanks to the 54 community members who participated in that workshop, sharing their time, wisdom and ideas to make the Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment more informed. This Assessment would also not be what it is were it not for our reviewers Michael Cox and Cami Apfelbeck. Finally, we dedicate this report to the past, current and future members of the Bainbridge Island community. Our aim is that the Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment will sustain the legacy of our past, challenge the imagination of our present and foster the survival of our future. Preferred citation: Hansen, L.J., S.J. Nordgren and E.E. Mielbrecht. 2016. Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment. EcoAdapt, Bainbridge Island, WA. Cover photo credit: Lara Hansen Mitigation and Adaptation There are essential roles for both climate mitigation and adaptation strategies in Bainbridge Island’s actions relating to climate change, including in our Comprehensive Plan. “Mitigation responses aim to reduce the rate and extent of climatic change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, while adaptation responses address the effects of climate change by increasing resilience and/or decreasing vulnerability. Combined, these two approaches create a comprehensive, integrated strategy for addressing climate change.” (Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy 2015) Mitigation can be achieved through approaches such as higher-density development, reducing vehicle miles traveled, non-motorized transit, green building techniques, and renewable energy sourcing. Adaptation addresses the effects of climate change (including sea level rise, altered precipitation pattern with related flood and drought, increasing temperature) through approaches such as low-impact development; climate certified zoning, permitting & procurement; and climate-savvy hazard mitigation. i Executive Summary Why does Bainbridge Island need a Climate Impact Assessment? By explicitly considering climate change in local planning and decision-making, Bainbridge Island will be on a path to a resilient future. These actions must start today as the decisions currently being made will set the stage for our ability to respond in the future. The broader vision and hope for this Climate Impact Assessment is that the guidance contained herein will enable the City of Bainbridge Island (COBI) to effectively adapt to the implications of a changing climate in the coming decades. Communities need to know how to begin planning for climate change. One guiding premise of this Assessment is that: Communities can make good decisions when they have information and know what questions to ask. Let’s break that down. Communities: That means all community members, not just City Council members, not just City department staff, but every member of the community in whatever their capacity — teacher, retailer, physician, developer, emergency service provider, landscaper, student, you name it. Good decisions: Good decisions are the ones that get you to good outcomes now and into the future. They don’t trade short-term gains for long-term problems. They demonstrate prudent use of community time and money in order to achieve community benefit and meet our collective goals. Information: This means not just reflecting on what you want or what you think, but doing research to learn what is the state of knowledge and analysis to determine how that knowledge applies to local conditions and goals. Questions: Sometimes the best place for a community to use information is by asking the questions that will illuminate the path to a good decision. The Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment (BICIA) is a resource to guide the community to the relevant and applied information to help us ask the questions that will lead us to climate-informed decisions. Users of the BICIA should be able to find pertinent climate information, formulate questions to help them evaluate the implications of climate change for their own work or interests, and make climate-savvy decisions that will generate the best long-term outcomes for our community — its businesses, schools, services, recreation, ecosystems and individuals. What is within this Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment (BICIA)? Using the framework of local comprehensive planning, the Washington State Comprehensive Plan requirements, and the existing 2004 Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan, which is actively undergoing an update and review by the City, this Climate Impact Assessment was developed to enable the understanding and inclusion of anticipated climate change impacts into the local long-range planning by Bainbridge Island government officials and citizens. This Assessment is presented in three main sections: 1. Impacts of Climate Change for Bainbridge Island. This report summarizes the climate change impacts expected to affect Bainbridge Island in terms of six impact areas: temperature, precipitation/storminess, sea level rise, vegetation change, ocean acidification and slope stability. Table 1, Climate Change Implications for Comprehensive Plan Elements, identifies the impacts of each of these six areas on the element areas within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. ii There will always be uncertainty in climate information, however this should not stop or delay action. Climate change will alter the circumstances upon which everyone makes decisions; to continue making durable and resilient choices one needs to overlay the expected impacts onto an issue area, determine what the implications of climate change will be, and then to act in a way that will allow for durable and resilient choices, development and investment. 2. Climate Change Implications for Various Areas of Interest. Climate adaptation planning requires one to understand how climate change will impact the baseline information used to make decisions within any area of expertise. Then, to understand how that baseline information will change over time. Lastly, in order to adapt to climate change local government officials and others need to accommodate that change in their planning, permitting, and fiscal decision- making. This section of the Assessment is organized by Comprehensive Plan element. It provides details about each climate impact and how it will have implications on an elements’ concerns (see Tables 2–8, Implications from Climate Change). Questions are provided for each element that should be asked and discussed by the community at large and local decision-makers. Doing so will imbed climate change into our thinking and enable us to adapt to likely implications. 3. What we need to do Now: Take Actions with Real Impact. This Assessment leads up to what is perhaps the most important section – suggested actions for Bainbridge Island. Table 9, Adaptation Planning Implementation, lays out climate adaptation implementation measures that are called for. Three are called out as the primary actions that will begin to allow for future adaptation. They are: Action One: Create a Climate Change Task Force. This involves designation of the leaders, managers and staff that should incorporate climate change and community resilience into their duties. This will enable climate change considerations to be mainstreamed into the actions and decisions of Bainbridge Island into the future. Action Two: Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification (CAC). This requires evidence that any project proponent (including the City of Bainbridge Island) has assessed future site/operating conditions and determined climate readiness, including the avoidance of projected vulnerabilities. Such certification should be applied to and required prior to any fiscal or permitting decision. Action Three: Apply your understanding of how climate change will affect Bainbridge Island. Use the BICIA and Table 9 in particular to support these efforts. 1. Integrate climate information into all decision-making processes and continuously update access and understanding of the latest climate-relevant information. 2. Map all known and future vulnerable areas, showing overlays/intersections with critical facilities, ecosystems and infrastructure. This visual tool will enable us to apply our understanding of the climate changes that will have a locational effect on Bainbridge Island. Many implications of climate change cannot be mapped, however for those that can be pinpointed they should be made clear. 3. Track the application and efficacy of climate-savvy actions in order to modify and update as needed to keep Bainbridge Island on a path to resilience. How can local government use the BICIA? The BICIA offers focused, applicable products and process for developing climate-savvy local planning and management. Figure 1 below shows the process undertaken to develop the BICIA. Major components included a community elicitation process, whereby local knowledge and community values iii were gathered to infuse the BICIA with innovative community-driven solutions. The community workshop (held at Bainbridge Island City Hall on November 18, 2015) enabled citizen access to informational materials and one-on-one engagement that helped to build local capacity and climate literacy and began to help individuals apply that to what they each care about. An intended outcome of this workshop and this project is to provide information and guiding questions so the community can create a more resilient Bainbridge Island in the face of climate change. If used, it can lead the City to effectively manage the changing conditions in the decades to come. Figure 1. The BICIA process, shown here, uses existing information that is freely accessible by all community members and community engagement in order to provide a tool for use by all Bainbridge Islanders in their own work, as well as in the update of the Comprehensive Plan. This process will also provide guidance for other communities. Rather than creating a stand-alone climate change plan for the City of Bainbridge Island (COBI), this process encourages the integration of climate change information directly into existing decision-making processes such that all decisions are climate informed and can benefit from the latest information, because climate change is a topic of emerging information and has implications for virtually every facet of our lives. What is the intent of this Climate Impact Assessment? The BICIA provides the foundation for the City and its citizens to create a more resilient Bainbridge Island in the face of climate change, by giving a framework for regular integration of climate impacts and implications into all local activities, including the update of the Comprehensive Plan. As individuals, as a community and as a society, we need to plan for climate change, just as we plan for future growth, social needs and economic trends. Doing so within a community’s Comprehensive Plan is logical and appropriate. The BICIA is intended to guide both government and citizens to incorporate climate change considerations into all activities. COBI can use the BICIA to do the following: • Inform the Comprehensive Plan update and implementation processes; • Assist with planning and decision making, such as siting, improvements, finance and project design undertaken by local government agencies including City of Bainbridge Island, Bainbridge Island Police Department, Bainbridge Island School District, and Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District; and, • Assist with public/private partnerships, such as business improvement, transportation, and housing. Local government decisions can help improve local community outcomes, but the decisions each citizen makes have implications for their own lives as well as our collective community resilience. The BICIA contains information and ideas that can help us all make more informed and effective decisions in light of climate change. See the following box, What Can Community Members Do, for ideas. iv WHAT CAN COMMUNITY MEMBERS DO? 1) Inform yourself. Resources to get you started include: • An interview with Dr. Lara Hansen, EcoAdapt, by Bainbridge Community Broadcasting, providing information on climate change and Bainbridge Island (bestofbcb.org/cafe-031-ecoadapt-helps-cobi- comp-plan-to-adapt-to-climate-change/); • Guides to evaluating the climate vulnerability of a Comprehensive Plan element. See Element Briefs available at EcoAdapt.org/workshops/BICIA-workshop; • Puget Sound regional climate change impacts reports (Mauger et al. 2015), available at cses.washington.edu/picea/mauger/ps-sok/PS-SoK_2015.pdf; • Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association’s website, including their “Ten Big Ideas,” the first of which is to address climate change: www.washington-apa.org/address-climate-change. 2) Help the City incorporate climate change into all activities: • Encourage the Planning Commission to add all climate-savvy recommendations into the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. • Ensure that the Comprehensive Plan recommendations become part of local code and practice. • Be the voice that asks about climate change when decisions are being made. 3) Make your own climate-savvy decisions at home, school and work • Consider how you can make a contribution to mitigation and adaptation on Bainbridge Island. There are goals, policies and actions within the BICIA that translate to your business or home. Modify what you see here for your own needs. Make your personal ecosystem climate savvy and durable. • Take every opportunity you have to plan for climate change in building, maintenance and transportation choices, including:  energy efficiency,  landscape and lawn care choices,  facilities siting and design,  encouraging non-motorized transport and car-pooling, and  conservation measures including reducing consumption and selecting smallest-footprint products. • Encourage your child’s school to:  Have a climate change curriculum that includes understanding of climate-relevant STEM topics, implications of climate change for society and opportunities to improve outcomes for their future. • Encourage your community groups (e.g. religious or social organizations) to:  Make community projects climate savvy for long-term success, including activities across the spectrum from social service support to recreational planning. • Ensure that your business is climate savvy:  Improve your energy and water efficiency to reduce current and future costs;  Work to improve or select for a more stable supply chain, including transportation links;  Plan for climate change in building, maintenance and transportation choices, including energy efficiency, landscape choices and other conservation measures and  Incorporate the premise that a stable, less climate-vulnerable local economy could benefit your business. Table of Contents Impacts of Climate Change for Bainbridge Island ............................................................................................ 1 Temperature ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Precipitation/Storminess .............................................................................................................................. 2 Sea Level Rise ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Vegetation Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Ocean Acidification ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Slope Stability (confounded by climate change) ........................................................................................ 7 Climate Change Implications for Various Areas of Interest ........................................................................... 11 A Framework for Adaptation: Considering impacts and implications ...................................................... 11 Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Questions to Consider for Land Use Adaptation .................................................................................... 15 Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Questions to Consider for Water Resources Adaptation ..................................................................... 19 Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Questions to Consider for Environmental Adaptation.......................................................................... 22 Infrastructure - Transportation, Capital Facilities and Utilities ................................................................. 23 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Capital Facilities ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Questions to Consider for Infrastructure Adaptation ........................................................................... 28 Economic Development ............................................................................................................................... 31 Questions to Consider for Economic Adaptation .................................................................................. 33 Housing ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Questions to Consider for Housing Adaptation .................................................................................... 36 Social Services (inclusive of human services and cultural resources) ...................................................... 37 Questions to Consider for Social Services Adaptation .......................................................................... 39 Actions with Real Impact: What We Can Do Now ......................................................................................... 40 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix 1: The How and Why to the Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment .............................. 48 Project Activities ......................................................................................................................................... 48 Why did EcoAdapt conduct the BICIA? ...................................................................................................... 49 1 Impacts of Climate Change for Bainbridge Island The effects of climate change relevant to Bainbridge Island can be categorized in terms of six impact areas: temperature, precipitation/storminess, sea level rise, vegetation change, ocean acidification and slope stability. Temperature Regional climate has warmed over the past century, with increasing warming in the past thirty years (Mauger et al. 2015)1. This pattern is expected to continue in the 21st century with an increase of double to ten times as great. In degree terms, the historic average temperature for the Puget Sound lowland region was 50.3° F between 1950 and 1999, with 1.3° F of warming by 2014. This is trend is consistent throughout the region. Along with this warming, the frost-free season has grown longer by 30 days. Between now and mid-century, average annual air temperatures have a +4-5.5° F projected increase, with even greater warming possible in the years after. This warming, unlike warming observed to date, which has not substantially affected spring temperatures, will affect all seasons, with the greatest increase in summers. Figure 2. Regional projections for changes in temperature and precipitation. Note current emissions trajectory matches the RCP 8.5 curve on this graph. From Mauger et al. 2015. Increasing temperature has implications for Bainbridge Island in many aspects of our community and personal lives. Increasing temperatures may affect our demand for water, and it will certainly increase the need for water by Island vegetation (natural systems, agriculture and landscaping). Increasing temperatures will also affect our terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems. They will also increase 1 State of Knowledge: Climate Change in the Puget Sound, Mauger et.al. 2015, is a report prepared by the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group with a focus on the Puget Sound region and therefore with results applicable to the Bainbridge Island. 2 local incidence of heat-related illness, increase likelihood of diminished air quality, and add thermal stress to the list of things degrading local infrastructure such as road and bridges. (Table 1) Precipitation/Storminess To date there has not been a long-term change in regional precipitation. However, there has been a “modest increase” in rainfall events that are considered heavy. Going forward, year-to-year variation is expected to be the dominant factor in precipitation for all seasons except summer, which is expected to see declining precipitation (Mauger et al. 2015) (Figure 3). Additionally, there is an expectation for more intense (+22%) and more frequent extreme winter precipitation events (seven events per year, up from two events per year historically). Figure 3. Projected percentage difference in precipitation by season for the Pacific Northwest based on six climate scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.0; SRES B1 and A1B). From the Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington. Increasingly intense winter precipitation events have significant implications for all things affected by episodic flooding. This includes homes, businesses and critical infrastructure. For example, increasing “storminess” has the ability to overwhelm stormwater infrastructure that was designed to handle lower flows. Intensity of precipitation also negatively affects groundwater recharge rates (faster-moving water has less time to infiltrate) and surface water quality (heavier, faster rains pick up contaminants, nutrients and sediments, enabling them to travel). Declining precipitation during the summer, already our dry season, may result in decreased groundwater recharge rates as well. These decreased rates may not be offset by more intense winter precipitation, because periods of high flow often result in a greater percentage of the water running off into the Sound, increased risk of vegetation or wild fires (which do already occur on Bainbridge Island; Figure 4), and a change in the types of vegetation that can thrive on our Island. Another concern with respect to changing precipitation patterns are the approximately 6,900 onsite septic systems on Bainbridge Island, whose function will be affected by climate change because either too much water or too little water adversely affects their ability to function. The remaining 1,500 of the approximately 8,400 developed properties on-island are connected to sewer systems. The function and use of septic systems is important to understand because their use impacts groundwater recharge. Additionally, “increased precipitation or sea level rise may certainly affect septic system performance 3 due to their impacts on shallow groundwater levels and soil saturation” (J. Kiess, Assistant Environmental Health Director, Kitsap Public Health District, Pers. Comm., June 17, 2016). Additional aspects of the implications of changing precipitation and storminess patterns for Bainbridge Island are outlined in Table 1. Figure 4. Wildfire hazards as identified in the Bainbridge Island Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. This map was created in 2010 based on an assessment and ranking of spatial hazards, proximity to a hydrant, and past occurrence of vegetation fires, which in part is related to annual precipitation and weather. The hazard shown here is based on past conditions; climate changes on top of this can result in increased occurrences or intensity of wildfires in some areas. From BIFD 2012. 4 Sea Level Rise Global sea level rise and local factors are influencing sea level rise around Bainbridge Island. Over the next century, conservative estimates show sea level rising 14 to 54 inches in our region (Mauger et al. 2015). Variability is largely due to our understanding of ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica, as global sea level rise is due to thermal expansion as the ocean waters warm and increased volume as terrestrial ice sources (especially Greenland and Antarctica) melt into the world’s oceans. Increases at even the lower end of this range could seriously affect Bainbridge Island ecosystems and infrastructure, inundating coastal habitat, flooding roads and structures, and compromising the function of stormwater, septic and sewer systems. Areas of particular interest include the head of Eagle Harbor, Point Monroe and Lynwood Center, as well as Bill Point, home of the former Wyckoff Company and now an EPA Superfund site (Figure 5). Figure 5. Point Monroe, Lynwood Center and Eagle Harbor with a projected 3m of sea level rise. From NOAA 2015. It should be noted that shoreline planning will be directly affected by sea level rise. Shoreline Master Programs (SMP) are local land use policies and regulations designed to manage shoreline use in Washington State. They are prepared collaboratively by the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) and each shoreline community, and must comply with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Program Guidelines. SMPs are intended to “protect natural resources for future generations, provide 5 for public access to public waters and shores, and plan for water-dependent uses” (WA Department of Ecology, n.d.a website). Currently, the SMA does not require consideration of or planning for sea level rise, and the Bainbridge Island SMP does not either. At the time of this report, the DOE was considering updating the rules that implement the SMA. Part of the scope under consideration is to include a new section on planning for sea level rise, as evidenced by an April 1, 2016, DOE workshop on this topic (Talebi, Bobbak. 10 March 2016. “Re: Ecology Sea Level Rise Workshop Invitation.” Message to Christy Carr, COBI. E-mail.). Guidelines could be amended to provide technical or procedural recommendations for jurisdictions that elect to voluntarily address future conditions resulting from sea level rise. Another effect of sea level rise is the potential for seawater/saltwater intrusion into Bainbridge Island’s aquifers. The combination of rising sea level, increased extraction of water (due to population growth and increased temperatures, each increasing demand) and decreasing recharge (due to declines in summer precipitation, intensity of storm events, and reduced permeable surfaces) can increase the risk of saltwater intrusion into our aquifers. Saltwater compromising an aquifer reduces or precludes that aquifers’ utility as a source of drinking or agricultural water, possibly increasing local conflict and cost for water resources. On Bainbridge Island there has been one reported potential occurrence of saltwater intrusion detected in a nearshore community well causing it to be decommissioned and a new well drilled (Bannister et al. 2016). Funding and studies are now needed to confirm whether the cause was seawater intrusion, which would lead to mitigative or remedial actions to protect the drinking water supply in that area (C. Apfelbeck, COBI, Pers. Comm. June 27, 2016). In order to better understand groundwater resources, as well as future potential for saltwater intrusion, COBI contracted with Aspect Consulting for a groundwater assessment and modeling project to: 1) review recent groundwater data; 2) review and recommend updates and changes needed to the 2011 Bainbridge Island groundwater model by the United States Geological Survey (USGS 2011), and; 3) evaluate scenarios supporting land-use planning including a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area assessment and an aquifer system carrying capacity assessment (Bannister et.al. 2016). This third phase included climate change projections by “considering three concurrent stressors on the aquifer system”: 1) decreased groundwater recharge rates; 2) a 4-foot increase in mean sea level by the year 2100, and; 3) increased groundwater withdrawal rates to reflect population increases (Bannister et al. 2016). Predictive model results indicate that “groundwater from the Bainbridge Island aquifer system flows to Puget Sound and keeps the freshwater/seawater interface at a distance from the Bainbridge Island shoreline,” and that the “100-year simulated model results indicate no seawater intrusion and groundwater level decreases were less than [Bainbridge] Early Warning Levels” (Bannister et al. 2016). However, there are policy and planning implications that should follow from these findings that are discussed below in the Water Resources section. Specifically, future conditions may prove to be different from model parameters (e.g., future stressors may be greater than modeled) and seawater intrusion could result locally. It should also be noted that Bainbridge Island is home to a coastal Superfund site that involves soil and groundwater contamination. The Wyckoff site, located at the mouth of Eagle Harbor, was evaluated for vulnerability from climate change, especially sea level rise (EPA 2016a). Site managers are working with the knowledge that local sea level rose approximately “8.6 inches from 1900 to 2008” and is projected to rise up to 9.5 inches by 2030, up to 19.7 inches by 2050 and up to 60.7 inches by 2050. Over the past several decades, projections of sea level rise have steadily increased. Therefore, prudence suggests planning for the higher-end projections while preparing for even higher potential increases. This is especially relevant since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has made estimates of water-level impacts from the combination of sea level rise and 100 year extreme water levels, which have inundation at 6 between 8 and 13 feet. To date there has not been any use of hydrological models to assess the implications of sea level rise and storm events on the aquifers in the vicinity of the Wyckoff site in the evaluation of treatment options. However, considerations around flooding and rainwater runoff have been evaluated and are anticipated to be addressed with possible changes in outfall pipe diameter (H. Bottcher, USEPA, Pers. Comm., June 1, 2016). Additional aspects of the implications of sea level rise for Bainbridge Island are outlined in Table 1. Vegetation Changes Changes in our local climate (e.g., increasing temperatures, decreasing summer precipitation) will affect local vegetation — forests, horticulture and agriculture. Forest distribution is projected to reduce Douglas fir in the Puget Sound region by mid-century, with possible expansions of western hemlock, whitebark pine and western red cedar across the Pacific Northwest (Mauger et al. 2015). Currently Bainbridge Island has a maritime evergreen needle leaf forest; climate change is projected to result in transition to temperate evergreen needle leaf forest or subtropical mixed forest. Summer water stress will decrease tree growth and increase fire risk. These changing conditions (e.g. climatological, heat and water stressed plants) are also likely to cause changes in pests. Therefore, while length of our growing season may increase, more extreme stressful conditions (heat, drought, flooding), coupled with pest pressure by new species and at different times may adversely affect agriculture and landscaping species. Figure 6. Projected vegetation changes for Bainbridge Island, based on MC1 models of A2 SRES emission scenarios. (From DataBasin) Local marine habitat will also see changes in flora and fauna. One area of particular concern is increasing magnitude and frequency of Harmful Algal Blooms, which can adversely affect shellfish, marine foodwebs and air quality. This is expected due to increasing temperature and altered pH (Mauger et al. 2015). Additional aspects of the implications of vegetation changes for Bainbridge Island are outlined in Table 1. Maritime evergreen needle-leaf forest Temperate evergreen needle-leaf forest Subtropical mixed forest Temperate warm mixed forest Warmer & Wetter Future 2070-2099 Modeled Historic Vegetation 1971-2000 Warmer & Drier Future 2070-2099 7 Ocean Acidification As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere, more of carbon dioxide is absorbed by the world’s oceans, resulting in acidification of the Puget Sound. Measurable declines in pH have already occurred and are expected to continue (Mauger et al. 2015). The impacts of ocean acidification on Puget Sound may be further compounded by changes in circulation and salinity due to changing runoff (heavy precipitation, declining snowpack) and water temperatures, and hypoxia (diminished dissolved oxygen). All of this has implications for water quality compliance and activities that affect or rely on water quality, including aquaculture and municipal sewage discharge compliance. Our understanding of the ramifications of ocean acidification is just beginning, with new revelations being made regularly. Our community will need to monitor this issue in order to plan and respond effectively. In addition to staying up to date on the emerging science and management practices in relation to ocean acidification, we can also find out what is happening locally by using the closest ocean acidification monitoring buoy to Bainbridge Island, located in Dabob Bay (Dabob NANOOS ORCA buoy http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Dabob ). This site provides a local picture of how ocean conditions are changing and may help advise local decisions, such as marine resource management, aquaculture planning and permitting, and run-off and discharge issues. Additional aspects of the implications of ocean acidification for Bainbridge Island are outlined in Table 1. Slope Stability (confounded by climate change) Climate change has the potential to affect slope stability by increasing saturation (due to altered precipitation intensity and timing), altering the vegetation that holds slopes together (due to altered precipitation and increasing temperatures), increasing erosion (due to sea level rise and altered precipitation) and undermining hillsides (due to sea level rise and flooding). As a result, it is necessary to consider how planning, conservation and development may need to be modified due to changing slope stability. According to the most recent building exposure risk analysis, Bainbridge Island has a significant number of buildings (177, valued at $55 million) located within the landslide zone. Clearly this is not an insignificant concern for local planners (FEMA 2015). Since slope instability can threaten public and private infrastructure and natural resources, and endanger lives, stability should be understood prior to any local permitting. Currently there are tools provided by the Washington Department of Ecology intended to guide regional land use decisions, although in most cases these do not incorporate climate change concerns. However localities can apply their own knowledge of changing precipitation and sea level rise to shoreline slope stability mapping products (Figure 7)(Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington 1979). 8 Figure 7. Figure 7. Shoreline Stability and Future Sea Level Rise. Some of the areas potentially impacted by simulated two feet sea level rise (light blue, circled in red; center). Sample areas showing slope stability concerns (outer). Sea level rise and associated coastal erosion are likely to exacerbate shoreline stability. From the Washington Department of Ecology (ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/femaweb/kitsap.htm) and NOAA (coast.noaa.gov/slr). Additional aspects of the implications of changing slope stability due to climate change for Bainbridge Island are outlined in Table 1. The following Climate Change Implications for Comprehensive Plan Elements table (Table 1) identifies the climatic implications that Bainbridge Islanders can expect to affect the interests considered in each local comprehensive plan element. This table, however, is not just useful for community planning; anyone can use it to understand which climate impacts will affect their personal, organizational or business choices, development decisions, capital expansions, future markets, landscaping, conservation actions, etc. 9 Table 1. Climate Change Implications for Comprehensive Plan Elements Table 1 IMPACTS ELEMENT Temperature Precipitation/ Storminess Sea Level Rise Vegetation Changes Ocean Acidification Slope stability Water Resources • Increased temperature results in increased water use/extraction rates • Increased evaporation rates • Diminished water quality • Changes in groundwater recharge rates • Alter storm water retention & infrastructure needs and effects on stormwater discharge compliance • Flooding effects on water quality • Effects on proper function of septic & sewage systems • Risk of saltwater inundation of some aquifers and surface waters • Risk of salt/seawater intrusion into aquifers • Risk of inundating shoreline aquatic resources and habitat • Changing vegetation may require more water, alter hydrograph or limit groundwater recharge • Loss of riparian buffer function or composition • May affect sewage and stormwater discharge compliance • May negatively affect aquaculture • Potential negative impacts to and loss of flora/fauna, particularly shellfish • Loss of flora or new species may alter slope stability Land Use and Housing • Greater need for water due to higher temperatures • Increased agricultural stress • Increased temperature in buildings • Regional population growth due to impacts in other regions • Groundwater recharge may be diminished and further limited by impermeable surfaces • Potential risk to housing stock (flooding, leaks) • Stormwater retention and infrastructure needs may change • Effects on proper function of septic & sewage systems • Risk of saltwater inundation of septic systems and wells • Loss of some land and property • Affect Shoreline Master Plan efficacy • Change in buffer and green space condition • Limit suitability of lands for some uses Economy • Increased costs associated with cooling, water and some resources • Possible changing needs of heating & cooling • Changes in tourism patterns • Change in fisheries • Increased costs associated with water and some resources (food) due to less water • Risk of flooding events • Tourism disruption • Service disruptions • Increases in insurance costs • Increased costs for energy • Issues for boating and ferries • Cost of infrastructure repair/retrofit • Insurance costs • May affect cost of water if supply diminished • Changing agriculture costs, output and composition • Altered energy needs due to changes in plant cover • Change in fisheries • May affect cost of sewage and stormwater treatment • Loss/damage to facilities and infrastructure 10 Table 1 IMPACTS ELEMENT Temperature Precipitation/ Storminess Sea Level Rise Vegetation Changes Ocean Acidification Slope stability Environment • Thermal stress on local habitat • Diminished water quality (including nearshore marine, including hypoxia and harmful algal blooms) • Change in fisheries • Decreased seasonal stream flow, affects native fish • Stormwater systems overwhelmed • Recharge surface may become insufficient • Floodplain protection may need to increase • Altered fire risk • Altered hydrograph of estuaries and streams • Diminished water quality due to septic and sewage inundation • Possible loss of some protected or iconic flora (forest, agriculture) • Change in fisheries • Potential negative impacts to and loss of flora/fauna, particularly shellfish • Erosion • Critical habitat loss Transport • Roads and bridges adversely affected by thermal stress • Smog-related air quality hazards increase • Heat may reduce non-motorized transport • Increased risk of flooding • More drought may increase non-motorized transport, while strong rain events may increase auto dependence • Inundation of coastal roads • Dock/harbor infrastructure affected • Altered canopy cover may reduce protection for non- motorized transport • Loss or change of vegetation near roads may affect road condition (water flow, erosion) • Loss or change of vegetation may affect slope stability near roads Utilities and Capital Facilities • Changing energy demand • Changing energy availability • Capital facilities not designed for higher temperatures • Increased risk of flooding and fire • More wind storms increases risk of power outage • Septic and sewage systems affected by both heavy precipitation and low-flow drought events • Inundation of coastal infrastructure • Energy demand increases with different % canopy cover • May affect sewage and stormwater discharge compliance • Infrastructure placed in unstable locations Cultural Resources and Human Services • Increased incidence of heat-related illness (including respiratory due to adverse air quality) • Introduction of new disease-bearing pests • Potential risk to housing stock (flooding, leaks) • Drought and changes in water supply leading to rising costs • Heightened risk of waterborne pathogens and bacteria from flooding • Loss of coastal art and artifacts • Changing agriculture costs, output and composition • Loss of art and artifacts 11 Climate Change Implications for Various Areas of Interest The preceding section provided an overview of the climatic changes forecast to impact our local environment. This section intends to help Bainbridge Islanders begin adaptation planning by enabling you to ask and answer the initial appropriate question: What are the climate issues of concern for my area of interest and how will those issues affect what I am planning to do? Climate change will alter the circumstances upon which everyone makes decisions. To continue making informed decisions one needs to overlay the expected impacts onto an issue area and determine what the implications of climate change will be. For example, if you are an infrastructure planner, you need to know about site conditions such as slope stability. If you are planning for a capital investment near the shoreline, you would want to know about future flooding and sea level rise impacts. If you are permitting or constructing housing you should need to know about changes in average seasonal temperatures and the impact on energy consumption. Transportation systems generate stormwater and their function depends on its management; therefore transportation engineers and planners need to know projected precipitation to properly design durable facilities. If you are a local first responder, you need to know the hazards to which your community is vulnerable. This list goes on. Climate adaptation planning asks you to think about what baseline information you depend on to make decisions within your area of expertise. Next, you are asked to understand how that baseline information will change over time due to climate change. And lastly, you are asked to accommodate that change in your planning. A Framework for Adaptation: Considering impacts and implications Arguably the most important goal of climate adaptation planning is to integrate climate- informed thinking and apply the implications of climate projections into everyday decision- making. Effective planning in the face of climate change seeks to reduce a community’s contribution to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and increasing community resilience to the manifestations of climate change (adaptation) as central organizing principles of local policymaking. According to the APA Washington Chapter, there are three valid methods for fitting climate change into the planning process: 1) integrating future climate considerations into all long- term projects, 2) integrating climate change adaptation and resilience into existing planning practices, and 3) developing a climate adaptation/resilience plan (American Planning Association-Washington Chapter. 2015). It is also reasonable to use a combination of these methods, thereby tackling adaptation from many angles at once. Because Bainbridge Island is updating its Comprehensive Plan, this is an excellent opportunity to use an active planning process to integrate climate change into the plan, achieving methods 1 and 2, and thereby eliminating the need for a separate climate action planning process (method 3). As an umbrella for incorporating climate change into a Comprehensive Plan, it is important to have an overarching frame that provides perspective. To this end, a guiding principle for climate change in local planning could be: 12 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation) and increase the community’s climate resilience (adaptation) in the face of shifting conditions (e.g. sea level rise, changing precipitation patterns, increasing temperatures and more extreme weather events) and the effects they cause (e.g., altered vegetation, changing water demands, economic shifts). One should also remember that climate adaptation planning is not only about dealing with negative circumstances, though it is often framed in terms of avoiding loss and safeguarding people, places, and things. There is opportunity to increase resilience and to construct a more sustainable and climate-conscious community and economy. This section explores seven community planning areas and provides questions to steer one toward climate-savvy decision making. Areas include: land use, water resources, environment, infrastructure (including transportation, capital facilities and utilities), economic development, housing, and social services (including cultural resources and human services). Land Use Most if not all of the implications of climate change come into play in work related to land use and land use planning. For example, sea level rise, changing precipitation patterns, increasing temperatures, vegetation changes and our responses to those changes will all affect the suitability and success of all land use decisions, and changes in these conditions alter the foundation upon which most decisions are made today. Local development patterns provide opportunities to either benefit or compromise both climate mitigation and adaptation for the long term. The City should use its Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use goals to give a clear directive to enact mitigation and adaptation strategies: • Mitigation measures include reducing vehicle miles traveled, encouraging non- motorized transportation, taking other actions that will reduce consumption of fossil fuels, establishing green building incentives or regulations, and preserving vegetated/forested areas. • Adaptation measures include shifting development and infrastructure from flood- prone and other hazard areas, improving and integrating hazards planning, requiring drought-tolerant plantings in drought-prone areas and other efficient uses of climate- sensitive resources, Low-Impact Development, implementing economic development strategies that are sustainable in future climates, and encouraging energy-saving buildings, multimodal transportation, and redevelopment/retrofitting. Land use decisions and local planning are in large part about protecting public health, safety and welfare; therefore overarching most local government functions. Similarly, dealing with the impacts of climate change spans all disciplines and elements of any comprehensive plan. Several things should be acknowledged about climate change any time our community makes a land use decision, including: • Municipal officials will be called upon to address both the causes and consequences of climate change; • These same officials can be responsible for development of climate-aware goals and actions within each element of the local Comprehensive Plan and its implementation; 13 • The groundwork for a climate-savvy local plan needs to be laid down within the goals and policies of the Land Use – or overriding – element; • Regulations should acknowledge that climate change will impact future conditions and should be factored into all decision-making today; • Proactive climate-aware strategies and responses should be developed by all local actors, not just the local government; and that, • Bainbridge Island is, in fact, an island. We are bound by distinct borders and have a finite carrying capacity. In order to make land use decisions and investments today that will prove lasting in the future, we must understand and acknowledge what our future may look like (e.g., what resources and conditions will be present). Studies to determine components of this future should be undertaken. When they are it will be critical that climate change and future climatic scenarios be incorporated into any analysis. For example, if a City (or homeowner developing a supply well) undertakes a water study, parameters should be given for scenarios of supply and demand that consider altered precipitation patterns over time based on best available climate predictions (e.g. through longer study time horizons). Efforts should be made to evaluate potential future conditions to the degree possible. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and their subsequent implementing actions, encourages communities to integrate hazard mitigation planning into local comprehensive planning in order to establish “resilience as an overarching value of a community and provid[e] opportunity to continuously manage development in a way that does not lead to increased hazard vulnerability” (FEMA, n.d.b). Climate adaptation planning follows this same reasoning and asks the same of communities. Resilience can be built through land use policies and regulations that take into consideration “information of the location, frequency, and severity of hazards ... and setting forth recommendations that influence development in a way that does not increase risks to life and property” (FEMA, n.d.b. Web). Basic questions about future climate must be asked when considering any development proposal, investment, maintenance, or new project. See Table 2, Land Use Implications from Climate Change, to determine what future climate related changes will affect land use. 14 Table 2. Land Use Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT LAND USE IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure. o stormwater inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated run off, erosion and landslides o increased maintenance needed • Changing patterns and extremes will cause shifts in overall vegetation types and habitats on the Island. • Groundwater recharge may be diminished and further limited by impermeable surfaces. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts: o changes in growing seasons affects commercial agriculture and recreational gardening o increased demand for water o increased risk of wildfire (conflicts at the wildland-urban interface) • Long-term temperature trend changes will cause shifts in vegetation and habitats on the Island. Vegetation changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Changes can occur in buffer and green space conditions due to vegetation shifts. • There is the potential for deadwood and detritus as die-off occurs, which will increase the fuel load and risk for wildfires. • Changes can be seen in flora and fauna habitat suitability. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. o Roadways could be undermined by shoreline instability and land loss. Mapping should be done to identify vulnerable local infrastructure and critical community facilities. Consider linkages with Hazard Mitigation Planning. o outright loss by inundation of land • There is a risk of saltwater intrusion and its effect on the groundwater and drinking water supply of the Island. • There is a risk of saltwater inundation of septic and sewer systems. • The efficacy of the Shoreline Management Plan will be affected if it too doesn’t adapt to sea level rise. Slope Stability  Sea level and precipitation pattern changes will compromise once stable slopes • There is the potential for limited suitability of lands for some uses (both coastal and inland) due to changing slope stability and associated conditions (temperature, precipitation, sea level rise). RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THE ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Will climate lead to larger or smaller population on-Island? Population projections are an important piece of data in long- range planning. It is thought that regional population growth will occur due to impacts in other regions. Transportation plans  Vehicle miles traveled is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions • Sprawling versus compact development is fueled by transportation infrastructure, which will have a direct role in the Island’s ability to address local greenhouse gas emissions and the long-term costs of infrastructure maintenance. 15 Questions to Consider for Land Use Adaptation The implications identified above in Table 2 should make it obvious that responsible planning and development requires decisions be considered through a climate change lens. Prior to any land use decision, we should ask: 1. Are our community and all stakeholders aware of effects on Island land uses from today’s precipitation, temperatures, and sea levels? • If these climate factors were to be altered, how would that affect our land use? • How would alterations affect land use investments? 2. Will future conditions prevent or hinder a proposed system/infrastructure/use/parcel from working as expected? Will they remain durable in the face of future climate? 3. Are our land use regulations sufficiently requiring compact, low-impact development patterns? • Does our community employ a host of land use tools that result in sustainable development? 4. Are there particular land uses that are likely to be impacted more directly or to a greater extent by climate changes? What special planning considerations can and should be made for these? • If we seek to preserve working waterfronts, will climate change alter conditions so that they can’t function? • If wetland was set aside, will it be wetland in the future? • Are we allowing space for migrating species and habitats? 5. Does hazard mitigation factor into land use decisions? • Does the permitting process explicitly require considering present and future vulnerable site conditions? • What hazard planning is required to be undertaken and how are vulnerability or risk assessments used in decision-making? o Are we as a community asking, “If development is allowed in a coastal zone that is subject to future sea level rise, and therefore becomes vulnerable to shoreline instability and localized flooding, is the City liable for any resulting harm?” (After all, they allowed the development in a known/projected hazard area.) Questions like this are beginning to be asked nationally (even by insurers), and it is important for planners and City leaders to get out in front. • If we do allow development in high-hazard areas, should we require bonding of the property by the developer to avoid future cost to the community that may be incurred by the risky development? Water Resources Water is an essential part of our Island life — for both natural and built environments — and its health is linked to the sustainability of both people and ecosystems on the Island. Bainbridge Island had chosen to add a Water Resources element to their 2004 Comprehensive Plan in order to elevate its importance and provide space to focus on it appropriately. This element includes consideration of surface water (including marine and 16 freshwater aquatic resources), stormwater, and groundwater. Typically in Washington community water supply resources are discussed in Comprehensive Plan Land Use elements where state statute requires that they “shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies” (RCW 36.70A.070(1)). The 2004 Water Resources element (COBI 2004) states, Adequate protection of the important [water] resource requires an understanding of what can affect the quality and quantity. Also of great importance is the management of the resource by guarding against potential impacts and monitoring the resource to ensure that water quality and quantity is in fact maintained at high standards. In March 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency designated the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System a sole source aquifer. According to that designation (EPA 2016b), [a] sole source aquifer is an underground water supply designated ... as the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area. The system EPA designated encompasses the entire Bainbridge Island area and is made up of six principal aquifers. One hundred percent of the current population on Bainbridge Island obtains their drinking water from the designated aquifer. There are no other sources of drinking water nearby that would be economically feasible to supply all residents in the area. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that there is a direct link between climate and the health and abundance of our water resources. According to the 2015 Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy, “natural and built systems are at risk from the effects of a changing climate, including increased average temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, altered hydrology (e.g., decreased snowpack, flow patterns), altered oceanic and atmospheric circulation, sea level rise, and changes in water chemistry and quality,” and these changes will stress water supplies and quality (ROSS 2015). The local Comprehensive Plan has a 20-year time horizon for planning. However, like many decisions a comprehensive plan informs, water resource decisions made in the past, present, and near future will affect the resource well beyond 20 years from now. How is this reconciled so that the community can ensure sustainable water resources? One part of the answer needs to be the factoring of future climate conditions (changing precipitation, temperatures, and sea level rise) into today’s decision-making. The Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Master Program (SMP) deals with water resources in the nearshore and is a local document that drives policy and regulations affecting coastal development. Unfortunately, climate change impacts, including sea level rise, are not addressed or planned for by the SMP. The City has an opportunity within its Comprehensive Plan to address this omission by requiring holistic shoreline management under present and future conditions. Recent groundwater modeling studies done by Aspect Consulting for COBI provide new information the City can use to better protect its groundwater resources (Bannister et al. 2015, Bannister et al. 2016, Scrafford et al. 2015). This recent work clearly indicates that there are policy and planning changes needed to protect groundwater resources, and they will be especially important in light of climate change. In particular, while study results do not 17 project the freshwater-saltwater interface being pulled closer to shore (Bannister et al. 2016), achieving future groundwater conditions that align with the study parameters that stave off seawater intrusion, will require both water conservation and on-site recharge being maximized. To avoid degradation of our groundwater, a paradigm shift in planning around water must occur with a regulatory system that maximizes recharge, conservation, and reuse. This includes stormwater, sewer discharge, and all other wastewater stream runoff that historically have been managed to be removed from the water cycle on-island (C. Apfelbeck, COBI, Pers. Comm., May 31, 2016). See Table 3, Water Resource Implications from Climate Change, to determine how climate change has the potential to affect both the health and supply of Bainbridge Island's surface and groundwater resources. 18 Table 3. Water Resource Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT WATER RESOURCE IMPLICIATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • More intense and frequent storms or heavier rainfall events can cause stormwater inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff (degrading water quality), erosion, landslides, sediment loading and siltation downstream and in the Island’s embayments and other nearshore habitat/areas. • Stormwater systems may be undersized and development may have to accommodate greater flows and retrofit. • Undersized stormwater systems and flood events lead to runoff that may degrade water quality. • Changes in precipitation patterns will lead to changes in groundwater recharge rates (i.e., more intense events of shorter duration will decrease recharge; because water will simply run off before it has a chance to infiltrate). • Discharge compliance of sanitary and stormwater discharge may be affected. • Flow flashiness can cause erosion that degrades instream habitat and negatively impacts macroinvertebrate diversity and health. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases in temperature results in: o increased water use/extraction rates o rising surface water temperature that may affect aquatic species (e.g. salmon, macroinvertebrates, plankton) o increased evaporation rates that will affect surface habitat and groundwater recharge rates o diminished water quality Vegetation Changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Species composition in natural areas will change as precipitation and temperature changes. • Changes in water retention/recharge will affect wetland ecosystem functions, and result in the loss of riparian buffer function or composition. • Changing vegetation may require more water, alter the hydrograph or limit groundwater recharge. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Changes to coastal zone resources and shoreline stability o Shoreline instability and potential land loss can affect water pumping stations, sewer/septic and stormwater infrastructure as well as water supply wells. • Inundation risk to aquifers (intrusion), surface waters (overwash and increased tidal ranges), shoreline ecosystems and habitat. Slope Stability  Sea level and precipitation pattern changes will compromise once stable slopes • As vegetation changes and shifts there could be a loss of flora or addition of new species that alter slope stability. Slope failure may impact water infrastructure and negatively affect wetland ecosystem function. • Die-back and loss of root systems supporting slopes could lead to instability in highly vulnerable areas. Ocean Acidification  decreasing pH of the waters of Puget Sound • This has the potential to affect stormwater discharge compliance as toxicity is affected by pH. • Aquatic species may be affected by acidification due to climate change. RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for any anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Climate change may increase population on-Island (climate migrants). o An increase in population will increase water use/extraction rates and require more sanitary disposal, as well as causing additional pressure on local aquatic habitat integrity. 19 Questions to Consider for Water Resources Adaptation The implications identified above in Table 3 should make it obvious that responsible use and preservation of Island surface and groundwater resources should be considered through a lens of climatic changes. We should ask: 1. Are current precipitation patterns fully understood as to how they impact water resources, wastewater systems, and stormwater management on-island? • If precipitation were to increase, decrease or change in intensity and duration, would it affect local water resources? • What in-stream flow impacts will result during both during wet and dry season base flow levels? 2. How will the many facets of climate change and our responses to it affect the islands aquifer systems and water budget? 3. Will our groundwater recharge pathways be affected by altered precipitation patterns? Will existing or proposed development and impermeable surfaces further confound this? 4. If sea level were to rise, would it affect our water resources? Do current tidal ranges have an impact on coastal lands, shoreline stability, and infrastructure in the coastal zone? • Do we know where vulnerable systems are located? • How would sea level rise affect our groundwater/drinking water supply? Is saltwater intrusion a risk under future conditions and what needs to be done to avoid the risk? 5. If average seasonal temperatures were to shift would it affect our water resources and the aquifers on which we depend? Are there currently any seasonal/temperature related impacts? Do isolated high-heat or cold days have an effect? Does use change with increasing temperatures? Does the efficiency of our water system change? 6. What is the appropriate planning horizon that should be applied to decisions in order to protect and sustain groundwater resources? If that timeframe is longer than a decision’s effective time horizon, should we conduct appropriate analysis and modeling so that we understand, as best we can, what state the resource is likely to be in 50 years? 100 years? 7. Are water resource conservation measures being fully implemented? 8. Can the Island use the Comprehensive Planning process and the Water Resources element to address precipitation change, sea level rise and other climate-related impacts, including altered patterns of use, which the Shoreline Master Program does not? 9. Has the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, which has a role to play in water resources protection, been reviewed under the climate lens? Are there protections that can be strengthened or employed in this ordinance that will help reduce the impacts of anticipated climate change? 10. Under current climate conditions, are there any locations on the Island that are currently nearing or exceeding allowed discharge per sanitary or stormwater permits? What are the current concerns and will they be exacerbated by expected future climate? 20 Environment Changing climatic conditions are anticipated to alter the long-term function of our natural systems —plants, pests, animals, surface water, fires, forests, agriculture, and everything else in the natural world around us (WA Department of Ecology, n.d.b website). Planning how we will adapt to and accommodate these changes is what Bainbridge Islanders should be starting today, and the Environmental Element of the Comprehensive Plan is an obvious place to start. Various landscapes and ecosystems of the island should be considered holistically as “environmental resources” of Bainbridge Island, including water resources, critical areas, wellhead and aquifer recharge areas, agricultural lands, open spaces (forests, fields), as well as the built environment and areas within it that form ecosystem corridor connections. One part of our local environment (and a noted priority for Islanders) is our open space/natural lands. There is opportunity to value and prioritize these natural areas beyond their aesthetic or community character value if we think about them as the climate adaptation tools that they are. The Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS 2015) argues for the thoughtful preservation of open space as one strategy to both mitigate and adapt to climate changes. ROSS (ROSS 2015) defines open space as: A diverse spectrum of lands across a rural and urban continuum on large and small scales. Traditionally open space may be imagined as wilderness lands or public parks, but it also encompasses resource lands for agricultural and timber production, wetlands and water bodies, local and regional recreational trail systems, as well as urban green spaces like parkways, rain gardens, and green roofs. Careful planning and acknowledgement of the importance of these open space resources on Bainbridge Island should be a main goal of our local community planning. Natural resource design standards will make natural systems and ecosystems more resilient to changing local conditions. In 2006, Bainbridge Island Mayor Darlene Kordonowy appointed the 2025 Growth Advisory Committee and asked them to develop recommendations on how to accommodate the City’s projected growth in a way that satisfied the mandates of the Growth Management Act, the spirit of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the community’s values and vision. The Committee produced the 2008 Bainbridge Island Open Space Study that presents an assessment of high- priority open space areas for conservation and gives a multi-pronged approach for preservation that includes both regulatory strategies and landowner incentives (Bainbridge Island Open Space Study 2008). The Open Space Study should be revisited and updated so that it can serve as a guidance document to the Comprehensive Plan and be made climate savvy itself. See Table 4, Environmental Implications from Climate Change, to determine what future climate related changes will have local effects on our environment. 21 Table 4. Environmental Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to cause stormwater inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff, erosion and landslides, which have the potential to affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure and to degrade water quality and local environments. • Changing patterns and extremes will cause shifts in overall vegetation types and habitats on the Island. • Groundwater recharge may be diminished by flow rates and increased speed of runoff, and further limited by insufficient recharge surface area. • Drought and flood will cause alterations to the wildfire hazard risk. • Floodplain protection may need to increase and current floodplain delineations may become inaccurate. • Changes in seasonal streamflow will affect native fish. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts. • Changes in growing seasons will affect commercial agriculture and recreational gardening. • Increased demand for water will result from drought, lower flows, etc. • As temperatures increases, longer drought periods result in increasing wildfire risk (conflicts at the wildland-urban interface). • Thermal stress will affect local habitats, and also local fisheries. • Inland and nearshore water quality will diminish as temperatures change, causing hypoxia and harmful algal blooms. Vegetation changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Long-term temperature and precipitation trend changes will cause shifts in vegetation and habitats on the Island. • Changes can occur in buffer and green space conditions due to vegetation shifts. • There is the potential for deadwood and detritus as die-off occurs, which will increase the fuel load and risk for wildfires. • Changes can be seen in flora and fauna habitat suitability, leading to possible loss of some protected or iconic flora. • Agricultural operations and recreational gardeners will need to adapt to changes in crop suitability and species tolerance. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. Outright loss of floodplain and other critical habitat area will result from inundation of today’s shoreline. • Saltwater intrusion can affect groundwater and drinking water supply of the Island. • Water quality can be affected by saltwater inundation/flooding of sanitary sewer and septic systems. • The efficacy of the Shoreline Management Plan will be affected if it too doesn’t adapt to sea level rise. • Alterations to the Island’s hydrograph will affect estuaries and streams. Slope Stability  sea level & precipitation pattern changes will compromise once stable slopes • Erosion of slopes can cause loss and damage to critical habitat. Ocean Acidification  decreasing pH of the waters of Puget Sound • Changes will occur in local fisheries. RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Increases in Island population will place increased demands and stress upon all environmental resources. Transportation plans  Vehicle miles traveled is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions • Transportation projects and associated development patterns will have a direct role in the Island’s ability to address local greenhouse gas emissions. Vehicle miles traveled will directly impact Island air quality and ground level ozone (see Environmental Goal 13). 22 Questions to Consider for Environmental Adaptation In order to comprehend the climate vulnerability of the environment and apply climate change realities to decision-making, we should ask: 1. How do current precipitation patterns affect our environment? How will alterations in precipitation patterns affect our local environment? (E.g., if water recharge set-asides or permeability standards are devised, they would need to be sufficient under changing precipitation patterns.) 2. Are there currently any seasonal/temperature-related impacts (e.g., do isolated high-heat or cold days have an effect on our environment)? If average seasonal temperatures and patterns were altered, would it affect our local environment? • What effects will occur locally as the growing season changes? Will there be impacts for crop suitability, including species tolerance, water needs and pest management? 3. How do sea level and associated conditions (high tides, inundation and frequency) affect the Island today? • How does sea level affect our coastal zone and nearshore environmental resources? • Does this have an impact on sanitary sewers, septic systems, and stormwater drainage? And how do the proper functioning of all these systems affect the Island’s environment? 4. Do changing patterns have the potential to affect critical area and habitat location and function? Will natural resource lands and open space areas be affected? • Should we prioritize areas likely to serve as climate refuges for local and migrating flora and fauna (areas likely to maintain more stable conditions over time)? • Do we need to look to yet-unprotected or unidentified lands in order to avoid future flooding? To accommodate vegetation and habitat (e.g. wetlands) migration? • Are local regulations sufficient to prevent or promote development that is desirable and resource protective? 5. What effects would the Island experience if there are shifts in vegetation composition (die- off, migration, new species) in natural areas? • How can we ensure future ecosystem function under changed conditions? • What effects will be seen on the type and quality of open space and the function of our natural resource lands? Will it matter if these areas change? • If a wetland, or other area, is protected or restored will it serve that function in the future? Will areas we protect today hold the same resource values under changed conditions? 6. As temperature and precipitation patterns change (more frequent and prolonged drought) the risk of wildfire may increase. (Note: Bainbridge experiences vegetation fires every year – according to the Bainbridge Island Fire Department Hazard Vulnerability Assessment, from 1989-2009 there were 454 reported vegetation fires.) • What actions should be taken now to prepare for this risk? • Is it important to identify vulnerable forests and their interface with developed areas? • What are the consequences of fires and firefighting efforts (e.g., physical breaks, chemical use, water needed) for our local environment and community? 23 7. How is local air quality today? Will Bainbridge Island exceed air quality standards in the future, either due to warmer summers resulting in more ground level ozone, or colder winters resulting in greater local fuel use? Infrastructure - Transportation, Capital Facilities and Utilities Infrastructure is a category that includes myriad capital facilities and services that a government typically provides to its citizens, including utilities, roads, transportation systems, public buildings, schools, parks, water, sewer and stormwater systems, and first responder services. Climate change may significantly alter the proper functioning, longevity, and fiscal responsibility of local infrastructure. Climate-savvy planning for infrastructure would ensure that climate vulnerabilities/variabilities inform infrastructure improvements, siting and design. Transportation Land use and transportation are clearly linked: good outcomes in one can allow good outcomes in the other. If land use development patterns result in compact development, then multi-modal transportation systems that generate lower numbers of vehicle miles traveled can flourish. Low-impact modes such as walking and biking become more practical. Transportation infrastructure and use patterns are directly linked to production of greenhouse gas emissions and local air quality. Therefore, when they are managed to reduce motorized transit they foster climate change mitigation. On Bainbridge Island there are homes and businesses that are indeed spread out across the island, and for many, transportation seems dependent on car trips. Improvements and expansions in the non-motorized pathways and trail systems (if done well, such that they provide routes to where people need to go) could reduce car dependence while increasing safety, decreasing traffic, improving environmental quality and improving public health. Every opportunity should be taken by the City to invest in non-motorized transportation infrastructure (e.g., pedestrian and bicycle trail expansions, improvements, and linkages). Additionally, great effort should be taken to improve public transportation, which reduces traffic, improves environmental quality (think hybrid and electric buses), and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, public transit and non-motorized transit corridors can be designed to be more resilient to climate change, being built out of harm's way from expected risks and vulnerabilities. Capital Facilities Hazard mitigation and climate adaptation strategies overlap perhaps nowhere else as obviously as they do when thinking about capital facilities. Providing public facilities or services and making capital expenditures in areas that are vulnerable to hazards is simply not good public policy. FEMA recognizes that “a community’s facilities and infrastructure policies are directly linked to land use patterns and community development” (FEMA n.d.a). Resilience will be improved when policies limit or exclude facilities, services and capital expenditures in present or future hazard areas. It is critical to ensure long-term durability and continued function by not investing in climate vulnerable locations. Additionally, it is important to ensure that any ongoing hazard identification and risk assessment on which planning is based fully incorporates climate change impacts and implications. Plans relevant 24 to Bainbridge Island include the 2012 Bainbridge Island Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment by Bainbridge Island Fire Department & Western Washington University, the 2015 Risk Report prepared by FEMA for Kitsap County, and the 2012 Kitsap County Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan by the Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management. Updates of these should all be informed by climate change implications. Communities make major investment in stormwater infrastructure, which is quite vulnerable to climate change due to its ability to function during low and high flow periods. Both of these are likely to be more common on Bainbridge Island due to climate change. The Washington Department of Ecology will soon begin to require Low Impact Development (LID) Municipal Stormwater Permitting (also known as Green Stormwater Infrastructure). Bainbridge Island will be required to incorporate LID best management practices into local codes, ordinances, and standards. LID is “a stormwater and land use management strategy that strives to mimic pre-disturbance hydrologic processes by emphasizing conservation, use of on-site natural features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices ... that are integrated into a project design” (WA Department of Ecology, n.d.c website). LID best management practices include infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration through the use of bio retention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and rainwater harvesting. Bainbridge Island should utilize this opportunity and require the use of LID to the greatest extent possible and design LID standards such that they are responsive to the changes we will see in the coming decades. Utilities Conversion and conservation are key words when it comes to developing climate resilient and durable utilities. The reliance on and continued use of fossil fuels in the production of energy is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. A community can work to reduce its overall reliance on fossil fuels by increasing requirements on utility providers for conservation of fossil fuels and conversion to renewable sources of energy. Communities with an opportunity to switch to a utility provider that relies on renewable energy should take every available opportunity to do so, as it is the most efficient and rapid path to reduced carbonization. Additionally, an overall reduction in energy use and water use is a climate adaptation strategy; if we need less, we can thrive when there is less. Other opportunities in the utility sector for resilience include improved energy efficiency, grid redundancy and “smart” control design coupled with renewable energy. Forward-thinking communities are undertaking measures to change their energy footprint. For example, the Metropolitan Council of Minnesota, the regional planning agency for the Twin Cities area, is encouraging inclusion of climate change in local plans, and has developed a regional plan, Thrive MSP 2040, that encourages resilience. The Resilience Plan provides suggested implementation measures, such as suggesting “natural resource design standards to make natural systems and ecosystems more resilient to development” (Metropolitan Council 2016). Community forests, for example, will help to mitigate urban heat island effects. Local Twin Cities’ governments are required by state law to include an element in their Comprehensive Plan for protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems (a mitigation measure). Other communities have also prioritized maximizing their local generation and renewable potential. Lancaster, Calif., for example, has created a locally run, not-for-profit power program to promote local generation and use of 25 sustainable energy, and aims to be the first net-zero city in the United States (City of Lancaster n.d.). The city has also set in place high energy efficiency requirements and incentives for all local development (residential and commercial), as well as incentives for local generation (Center for Sustainable Energy n.d.). Future climatic conditions and impacts on infrastructure must be considered in order to effectively plan any long-term investment, maintenance, or new infrastructure project. See Table 5, Infrastructure Implications from Climate Change, to determine what climate related changes will have an impact on Bainbridge Island infrastructure. 26 Table 5. Infrastructure Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT INFRASTRUCTURE: TRANSPORTATION, CAPITAL FACILITIES AND UTILITIES IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to cause inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff, erosion and landslides, which will affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure and the provision of utilities (including stormwater inundation and localized flooding, more frequent power outages as transmission lines are compromised, and structural damage to critical facilities from erosion and landslides). • Predicted “storminess” includes the potential for more wind storms, which increases the risk of power outages and disruption to the provision of other utilities. • Drought and flood will cause alterations to the wildfire hazard risk, necessitating increases in fire department services and infrastructure and potential costs associated with land management to prevent wildfire. • Sanitary sewers and community/private septic systems will be impacted by both heavy precipitation and low-flow drought events. • New infrastructure (capital projects) may be needed to remedy system failure or capacity. • More rain or extreme storms may lead fewer people to use non-motorized transportation; the desirability of the bike/walker culture may be affected. This shift would increase greenhouse gas emissions, degrade local air quality and increase Island ground- level ozone. It may also impact demand patterns for other modes. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts, leading to increased demand for water. New infrastructure may be needed to remedy system failure or increase capacity (capital projects). • As temperatures increase and there are longer drought periods, there is an increased risk of wildfire, necessitating increases in fire department services and infrastructure and potential costs associated with land management to prevent wildfire. • Longer seasons, hotter hots and colder colds will change energy demand from what it is today and may change the availability of certain types of energy. Additional and differentiated energy sources may be needed and will result in capital projects and costs, as well as new or expanded infrastructure. • Excessive or prolonged heat degrades infrastructure more quickly, necessitating increased maintenance budgets for repairs and replacements (thermal stress). • Smog-related air quality hazards may increase. • The desirability of the bike/walker culture may be affected and more extreme temperatures (colder colds, hotter hots) may lead fewer to use non-motorized transportation (thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions, degrading local air quality and increasing Island ground level ozone). This may also impact demand patterns for other modes. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean: 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. o Outright loss of floodplain and other critical habitat area will result from inundation of today’s shoreline and low-lying areas. o Roadways can be undermined by shoreline instability, land loss, and inundation. o Dock and harbor infrastructure will be compromised by rising seas, necessitating increased maintenance, retrofitting or replacement. • Saltwater intrusion can affect groundwater and drinking water supply of the Island. • Water quality can be affected by saltwater inundation of sanitary sewer and septic systems or untreated stormwater runoff. • The efficacy of the Shoreline Management Plan will be affected if it too doesn’t adapt to sea level rise. Vegetation changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Long-term temperature and precipitation trend changes will cause shifts in vegetation and habitats on the Island. (If these changes occur in transportation corridor buffers, they could impact roadways (brush fires, deadfall, water flow, etc.) • There is the potential for deadwood and detritus as die-off occurs, which will increase the fuel load and risk for wildfires. • Energy demand for heating and cooling will increase if the percentage of tree-cover/canopy changes over time. 27 Table 5. Infrastructure Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT INFRASTRUCTURE: TRANSPORTATION, CAPITAL FACILITIES AND UTILITIES IMPLICATIONS Slope Stability  Sea level and precipitation pattern changes will compromise once stable slopes • Loss or change of vegetation, precipitation patterns, and rising sea level may affect slope stability near and under roadways or other infrastructure, causing structural failure and necessitating repairs. Ocean Acidification  decreasing pH of the waters of Puget Sound • Ocean acidification may compromise stormwater and sewage discharge compliance, making capital projects necessary. RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • It is uncertain whether climate changes will lead to increased or decreased population on-Island: • Increases in population will place increased demands and stress upon all capital facilities and utilities across the island, including requiring additional transportation infrastructure; and • Reductions in population may affect abilities to provide cost-effective public modes. Transportation projections, TIP projects, other proposals vehicle miles traveled contributes to greenhouse gas emission • All future transportation projects will have impacts related to Island air quality and local greenhouse gas emissions. Know what new contributing sources may arise, and what to do about them. Projects including those that take cars off the road, decrease idling, improve and increase non-motorized use and access, or use and develop alternative/green fuels use will help mitigate future climate change by decreasing emissions. 28 Questions to Consider for Infrastructure Adaptation The implications identified in Table 5 should make it obvious that responsible infrastructure development or commitment of resources should be considered through a lens of these changes. In order to responsibly provide durable infrastructure, climate vulnerability should be fully understood. We should ask: 1. Will future climatic conditions prevent existing or proposed infrastructure from working as expected? 2. How do current precipitation patterns affect infrastructure on the Island? As precipitation patterns are altered, how will they impact local infrastructure? • What effect would an increase in intensity of rainfall/storminess have on Island infrastructure? • What effect would periods of drought have on island infrastructure? • Are we prepared to respond and recover from infrastructure failures that may result from “storminess”? (E.g., too wet and too dry are both conditions under which septic systems fail.) • Does precipitation cause any transportation impacts, including delays or changes in levels of service, street flooding, changes in commuting/mobility patterns? (e.g., if it’s rainier do fewer commuters bike and more drive instead?) • Are Low Impact Development stormwater management techniques sufficiently addressing concerns? Are they being used? Are they sufficient as designed? Do they need to be updated? 3. Are there currently any seasonal/temperature related impacts to Island infrastructure? If average seasonal temperatures were to shift, how might it impact our infrastructure? • Do isolated high-heat or cold days affect our infrastructure? • Are our capital facilities designed to function efficiently under altered temperature scenarios? • Can the community absorb increased costs of heating and cooling? • Can we provide adequate energy to meet those needs? • Do temperatures affect transportation patterns, e.g. fewer bikers and walkers? 4. How do sea level and associated conditions (high tides, inundation and frequency) impact the Island today? Would sea level changes impact infrastructure? • What community facilities and infrastructure are in places that may experience inundation or storm surge? • Which community facilities and infrastructure may experience functional impairment due to sea level rise or storm surge? • Are there transportation systems, locations, levels of service, or patterns that are affected by coastal conditions? Do current tides have an impact? 5. How does existing vegetation affect infrastructure and utilities today? Will shifts in vegetation composition (die-off, migration, new species) impact infrastructure and utilities? • As temperature and precipitation patterns change (more frequent and prolonged drought), the risk of wildfire may increase. What actions should be taken now to 29 prepare for this future risk? Does this involve capital projects and/or increases in public safety infrastructure? • Is it important to identify infrastructure and utilities that are located in or near wildfire risk areas? • What are our fire abatement techniques and what are the possible implication of these actions given climate change (e.g., use of chemicals, need for water, vegetative management)? 6. Does the community know where its vulnerable infrastructure is located? Is it likely that today’s problems will be exacerbated by climate changes? Will stable infrastructure become vulnerable? • Do we know where our high hazard/vulnerable areas are and what critical facilities and infrastructure lie within that area? What infrastructure may be located in a future hazard area? • Can we create a “watch list” for infrastructure that already exhibits climate vulnerability? Which facilities or systems are likely to become more vulnerable under future conditions (some may even become less problematic)? • Does the City participate fully in ongoing hazard mitigation planning processes and utilize those findings in their land use, capital facilities, and economic development planning? • Are we ensuring that any active hazard identification and vulnerability assessment work includes climate change and its implications as hazards? • If we do allow infrastructure development in high-hazard areas, should we require bonding of the property by the developer (even if the “developer” is the City) to avoid future cost to the community that may be incurred by the risky development? 7. Are there local mechanisms that Bainbridge Island should employ now to diversify the provision of energy in the future? • Can the City do anything to act in advance of the fact that climate change may dictate significant cost structure changes and supply issues that are yet unknown and necessitate the need to abandon fossil fuel use and turn to renewables? 8. What mechanisms can the City use to address any climate vulnerability identified in our infrastructure? How can we require infrastructure investments that are designed to function in future climate scenarios? • Can any changes be made to the local building code and design requirements? • Can we create a “climate-secure certification process” whereby infrastructure must demonstrate consideration of present and future conditions and increased climate vulnerability in any capacity calculations, studies, siting, and permit approvals? Such a process could require inclusion of future projected conditions/climate scenarios to understand future resource conditions, including groundwater recharge rates, stormwater runoff calculations, supply conditions, location within a vulnerable area, and sustainable power supply. 9. Does our community prioritize alternatives to fossil fuel based systems, thereby acknowledging and demonstrating through action that our transportation and utility infrastructure can play a role in climate change mitigation? 30 • Is COBI doing all it can and should to support and plan for non-greenhouse gas emitting transit? • Is COBI developing infrastructures for low carbon, alternative green energy based fuel systems? • Are we supporting and enabling Low Impact Development techniques and green transportation infrastructure sufficiently and without unnecessary barriers? 10. Does our community prioritize actions within the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan to help address climate change? • Are there potential climate impacts to non-motorized infrastructure that will diminish its durability? 31 Economic Development Clearly, not all consequences of climate change are environmental, and impacts to the environment are not without ramification to our cities and economy. “Potential costs to Washington families, businesses and communities are projected to reach nearly $10 billion per year by 2020 if Washington state and other states and nations fail to drive reductions in climate-changing greenhouse gas pollution” (WA Department of Ecology, n.d.d website). Potential costs to Washington economies include lost natural water storage from snowpack decline, increased public health costs, reduced salmon populations, increased energy costs, increased wildfire costs, lost recreation opportunities, coastal and storm damage, reduced food production and increased infestation of pests in forests. Additionally, one close to home example of economic impact is to Washington’s shellfish industry, which leads the nation in the production of farmed oysters, clams and mussels. Even by 2011, shellfish producers in Washington had already experienced declines in oyster production, due at least in part to the increasing acidity of our marine waters due to increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels (WA Department of Ecology, n.d.d website). Conditions are not getting any better. The Comprehensive Plan gives Bainbridge Island an opportunity to address future economic challenges from climate change and to plan for economic strength and diversity. Climate adaptation strategies and policies can bring about economic benefit, and other communities are beginning to recognize this and act. This is not a new idea, and is being done around the country by forward-thinking, climate-savvy communities. The Metropolitan Council of Minnesota (mentioned above as an energy leader) is encouraging planning for climate change in local plans, and states within their Local Planning Handbook that “[a] diverse local economy that strategically uses local resources is less vulnerable to economic volatility and regional or global recession. Minimizing exposure of city budgets to the risk of property value fluctuations or development cycles will help cities be better prepared for circumstances beyond normal operations…” (Metropolitan Council 2016). Consider actions taken by the City of Lancaster, Calif., to create economic incentives by decreasing local power costs with renewable power generation (City of Lancaster website). Bainbridge Island can position itself for a sustainable economic future by working toward energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. There is a clear link to be understood between climate and economy. See Table 6, Economic Implications from Climate Change, to determine what future climate related changes will affect our local economy. 32 Table 6. Economic Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to cause stormwater inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff, erosion and landslides. This will affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure and lead to degraded water quality and local environments. All island residents, businesses and governments depend on the proper functioning of these systems. • Water supply may be reduced, which will likely increase the cost of water for all users. • Floodplain protection may need to increase and current floodplain delineations may become inaccurate, leading to additional insurance costs for businesses, residents, and local government. • Changes in seasonal streamflow will affect native fish and fisheries. • If tourism is largely weather-dependent, changes in precipitation patterns may result in changes in tourism numbers and patterns. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts. • Increases and seasonal changes will affect the costs associated with indoor climate control, leading to higher costs for heating or cooling. • Changes in growing seasons will affect commercial agriculture and recreational gardening, as well as associated businesses. • Increased demand and rising costs for water will result from drought, lower flows, etc. • Thermal stress will affect local habitats, and also local fisheries. • If tourism is weather-dependent, changes in temperature patterns may result in changes in tourism numbers and patterns. Vegetation changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Long-term temperature and precipitation trend changes will cause shifts in vegetation and habitats on the Island. • Agricultural operations and recreational gardeners will need to adapt to changes in crop suitability and species tolerance. o Changes in production costs, output and composition may result in higher food prices. o Changes in recreational gardening needs may boost related business, but may also increase resources required. • If canopy and/or ground cover change, it could lead to altered energy needs for indoor climate control. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. Outright loss of floodplain and other critical habitat area will result from inundation of today’s shoreline. Water dependent uses will be adversely affected. • Saltwater intrusion can affect the groundwater and drinking water supply of the Island – affecting costs and availability for all water consumers. • Water quality can be affected by saltwater inundation/flooding of sanitary sewer and septic systems. • Shoreline infrastructure (docks, piers, drainage systems, roads) will be negatively affected, resulting in costs for repair, maintenance, retrofitting, and loss of use. • Changes in the coastal zone translates to changes in costs for coastal property owners (insurance, maintenance, loss of use). Slope Stability  sea level & precipitation pattern changes may compromise once stable slopes • Erosion of slopes can cause loss and damage to facilities and infrastructure. Ocean Acidification  Decreasing pH of the waters of Puget Sound • Changes will occur in local fisheries (recreational and commercially viable). • Ocean acidification may affect the cost of sewage and stormwater treatment due to changes required to maintain compliance with discharge permits). RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Increases in Island population could place increased demands and stress upon all economic and environmental resources. 33 Questions to Consider for Economic Adaptation The implications identified in Table 6 should make it obvious that economic sustainability depends on creating a flexible and durable economy in the face of climate change. In order to comprehend the climate vulnerability of the economy and to plan future resilience, we should ask: 1. Do current precipitation patterns affect our economy, and what will happen if precipitation patterns change? Consider the economic impact of: • increasing costs associated with water, food, transportation and energy; • precipitation on tourism; • increased risk of flooding, storm damage, wildfire (other impacts); and • changes in precipitation (more flood-prone areas, more frequent flooding events) and that effect on business costs (maintenance, insurance, continuity of service). 2. Do current average seasonal temperatures affect our local economy and what will happen if temperature patterns change? Consider the economic impact of high-heat or cold days and longer seasons: • will they have an effect on our economy and the resources that drive it; • will they affect personal and business operations and expenses (changes in energy needs, increased cost of water); and • does the weather affect tourism? Should we care? 3. Do sea level and associated conditions (high tides, inundation, etc.) affect the Island today? • If sea level rise affects our coastal zone and nearshore environmental resources, will this affect our local economy (consider shellfish production, boating infrastructure, homes, businesses, transportation, etc.) • Does sea level affect proper functioning of drinking water wells, sanitary sewers, septic systems, and stormwater drainage? And how would failures compromise the Island’s economy (unanticipated expenses to business, government and taxpayers)? 4. Are there sectors of our local economy that are based on today’s climatic conditions? Consider: • economic implications of losing/lessening value of working waterfronts/shorelines; • effects that will occur locally as the growing season changes; • agriculture/aquaculture (crop suitability, including species tolerance, water, pests); • water dependence (use of in processing, proximity to); and • tourism (an important local economic factor). 5. Do we understand our climate-economy link (at the global, regional, and then local scale)? • Is the Bainbridge Island economy vulnerable to changes elsewhere (e.g., supply locations for food and other products, transportation corridors)? Can we take action locally to reduce these vulnerabilities? • Will changes on Bainbridge Island affect people elsewhere? For example, will we receive and accommodate tourists at desired levels? • Is there local support for the long-term sustainability, including extreme weather event recovery, of local businesses? 34 6. Does local economic policy support an economy that is based on business that will help reduce community vulnerability to climate change (e.g., those that prioritize increased efficiency of resource use such as water and energy, promotion of sustainability elements, adaptable businesses as conditions change)? 7. Does the Island discourage a local economy that is vulnerable to climate change by avoiding businesses that will exacerbate community vulnerability (e.g., excessive water dependence, harmful land use change, transportation dependence, high greenhouse gas emissions, and high energy use)? 8. Are we encouraging use of durable assets (natural elements, renewable resources) in development of economy and community? Housing Housing is a basic human need that must be affordable and accessible to everyone. Changing climatic conditions have the potential to greatly affect Bainbridge Island housing stock, particularly in terms of location within vulnerable areas and energy efficiency of its basic design. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element gives us an opportunity to address both adaptation and mitigation in our housing decisions. Climate mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) will be affected by increases in sustainable and green building design that improve efficiency and lower consumption (less water and energy use, less need for heating and cooling through improved insulation, energy efficient appliances, alternative energy access, drought-tolerant plantings), as well as transportation patterns associated with location of housing (locations closer to non-motorized and public transit corridors could decrease emissions). In the future, sustainable design and access to non-motorized and public transit will help homeowners adapt to rising costs of resources because they will need to consume less. Planning for an adaptive housing stock would also require development of affordable housing that remains affordable over time. If homes are not energy efficient under future climate scenarios, affordability may not be lasting, or it may pass costs onto future inhabitants. Similarly, adaptive housing should be located in areas associated with non- motorized and public transportation, providing residents with climate-savvy choices. Location of housing within a known or projected hazard area is a true indicator of vulnerability. Just as we should consider the location of a home within a known or potential future floodplain or tidal inundation zone, we should understand its susceptibility to other climate related hazards as well. For example, wildfire is a hazard that already exists on the Island, has the potential to affect housing stock, and may increase over time as temperature and precipitation patterns change. Bainbridge Island experiences vegetation fires every year; from 1989-2009 there were 454 reported vegetation fires (BIFD 2012). Identifying the vulnerability of the existing housing stock to wildfire involves mapping wildfire risk areas and locating the wildland-urban interface (WUI). WUI is something that Bainbridge Island homeowners should be aware of, and homeowners should know their risk (Luke Carpenter, BIFD, Pers. Comm., April 29, 2016). See Table 7, Housing Implications from Climate Change, to determine what future climate related changes will affect housing. 35 Table 7. Housing Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT HOUSING IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to cause stormwater inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff, erosion and landslides, which have the potential to affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure and to lead to degrading water quality and local environments. Development and design standards should accommodate future conditions to avoid failure, as well as increased maintenance, repair and other associated costs to homeowners and the community. • Drought and flood will cause alterations to the wildfire hazard risk and affect housing stock at the wildland-urban interface. • Floodplain protection may need to increase, and current floodplain delineations may become inaccurate. Be sure not to locate new housing in future hazard zones. • Localized flooding and heavy rains can affect low quality, older, or poorly located housing stock. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Increases and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts. • As temperatures increase and there are longer drought periods, there is an increased risk of wildfire (conflicts at the wildland- urban interface). • Local temperature fluctuations and new seasonal averages will affect energy use and a home’s ability to maintain a stable, habitable climate in an affordable way. • Local and regional greenhouse gas emissions may increase due to rates and types of home heating/cooling energy consumption. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. Outright loss of land can occur. Housing stock may be vulnerable. Slope Stability  Sea level and precipitation pattern changes will compromise once stable slopes • Housing stock located on coastal and inland slopes may be in danger if instability develops or increase. RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Increases in Island population will place increased demands and stress upon all types of housing stock. 36 Questions to Consider for Housing Adaptation The implications identified in Table 7 above make it clear that the provision of durable and/or affordable housing can be adversely affected by changing climatic conditions. As community housing decision are being made, the following questions should be asked: 1. If precipitation were to increase or decrease, how would it affect our housing stock? How do current precipitation patterns affect housing? • How does precipitation and “storminess” affect infrastructure related to housing? Will changes in precipitation have an impact on sanitary sewers, septic systems, and stormwater drainage? How do the proper functioning of all these systems affect the Island’s housing stock and affordability? 2. If average seasonal temperatures are altered, would it affect our housing? Are there currently any seasonal/temperature related impacts on housing? • Do isolated high-heat or cold days have an effect on housing? What will happen if patterns change? • Does the community support and employ energy efficiency measures? (Future conditions may necessitate them even more – retrofits and upgrades are expensive.) • Is affordability affected by temperature extremes? 3. If sea level were to rise, would it affect our housing stock? How do sea level and associated conditions (high tides, inundation, etc.) affect Island homes today? • Should we continue the permitting of housing in high-hazard areas without requiring a climate assessment and analysis of the resilience of the house and its systems into the future? • If we do allow building in high-hazard areas, should we require bonding of the property by the developer to avoid future cost to the community that may be incurred by the risky development? 4. Do we understand the connections between climate impacts and housing affordability? • Are there some climate-vulnerable locations on-island that should be recognized as unsuitable for affordable housing? • Should the community acknowledge that climate vulnerability could cancel out the intended affordability (i.e., avoid locations susceptible to systems failure due to changing climate or show a preference for locations where alternative energy is more easily accessed)? • Should affordable housing be co-located with access to non-motorized and public transit corridors (thereby also making transit affordable, and reducing further greenhouse gas emissions)? 5. Are lands vulnerable to wildfire known and what is the area of interface with developed areas/housing stock? 6. Are we supporting and enabling low-impact development techniques and residential green infrastructure sufficiently and without unnecessary barriers? Are we incentivizing it? 37 7. Are there state or local “green” residential building requirements that can be employed on Bainbridge Island to reduce energy demand and water consumption? 8. Does COBI utilize any regulations and incentives to ensure the long-term durability and efficiency of its housing stock? 9. Should priority and incentives be given to housing development near non-motorized and public transit corridors? Social Services (inclusive of human services and cultural resources) The health, safety, welfare and quality of life of Islanders should be the priorities for our local government. By electing to include the optional elements of human services and cultural resources in the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan, the City has an opportunity to raise awareness about the connection between land use planning and long-term community resilience. They also have the opportunity now to address the connection between climate change and long-term community resilience. Fostering a healthy community (both physically and mentally) will serve to increase local adaptive capacity as systems change and become strained. For example: • planning for a sustainable local food system can insulate us locally from fluctuations in global food or fuel prices or long periods of drought in other areas; • increasing conservation measures in housing stock and increasing walkability can strengthen our population and reduce local dependence on fossil fuel; • education about climate change and its impacts on health, safety and welfare should be undertaken now so that our future citizenry is prepared for the climate-changed future; and, • climate migrations to our area can occur such that social service providers could be stretched beyond capacity. As regional and international systems are stressed by climate change, our local systems will be better positioned to provide basic human needs if the community makes climate-savvy choices now. According to the 2004 COBI Cultural Resources element, the general purpose of the element is to link community cultural planning to large community issues — all shape the quality of life on Bainbridge. Also, according to the element, arts and humanities are tools for accomplishing larger community goals such as economic vitality, quality education, and community planning and design. Climate change is certainly a large community issue; therefore the cultural resources element can be applied to matters of education and awareness of its impacts and implications. Additionally, existing cultural resources can be vulnerable to changes on the ground. For example, sea level rise and slope stability may threaten art and artifacts in the coastal zone. It may be necessary for the Island to assess and locate art/artifacts and determine their climate vulnerability. See Table 8, Cultural and Human Services Implications from Climate Change, to determine what future climate related changes may affect these planning areas. 38 Table 8. Cultural and Human Services Implications from Climate Change CLIMATE IMPACT CULTURAL AND HUMAN SERVICES IMPLICATIONS Precipitation  changing patterns and extremes, longer duration, and greater intensity • Changing patterns have the potential to cause inundation and localized flooding, chronic flooding, non-infiltrated runoff, erosion and landslides, which have the potential to affect the proper functioning of local infrastructure and lead to environmental degradation. Localized flooding and heavy rains can disproportionately affect low quality, older, or poorly located housing stock and increase costs for maintenance and repair. • Predicted “storminess” includes the potential for more wind storms, which increases the risk of power outages and disruption to the provision of other utilities. This can impact the provision of fair and equitable distribution of basic human services. • Sanitary sewers and community septic systems will be impacted by both heavy precipitation and low-flow drought events. New infrastructure may be needed to remedy system failure or capacity (capital projects). Rising costs may impact the equitable distribution of basic human services. Temperature  more extremes and prolonged summer highs • Higher temperatures and seasonal changes will increase the frequency and duration of droughts leading to increased demand for water. Water shortages and/or increased costs for supply may result. Water as “an essential life need,” should be a concern of the human services element. • As temperatures increase and there are longer drought periods, there is an increased risk of wildfire. Cultural resources and human service providers may be affected. • Stress and changes to agriculture and food production systems may result from changes in the growing season caused by increasing temperatures. Sea Level Rise  Projected Mean 2030: +2.6 in. (+/- 2.2 in) 2050: +6.5 in. (+/- 4.1 in) 2100: +24.3 in. (+/- 11.5 in) • Coastal zone resources and shoreline stability are likely to be compromised by rising seas. Outright loss of shoreline lands may result from inundation. Coastal art and artifacts may be vulnerable. Human service facilities may be vulnerable. • Saltwater intrusion can affect groundwater and drinking water supply and result in water shortages. Water quality can be affected by saltwater inundation/flooding of sanitary sewer and septic systems. Water as “an essential life need,” should be a concern of the human services element. Vegetation changes  shifts will occur in habitat suitability as a factor of changing temperature and precipitation • Long-term temperature and precipitation trend changes will cause shifts in vegetation and habitats on the Island, which will impact agricultural operations and recreational gardeners alike, both of which will need to adapt to changes in crop suitability and species tolerance. • Changes in agriculture production costs, output and composition may result in higher food prices. RELEVANT NON-CLIMATE DATA THAT MAY AFFECT THE GOALS OF THIS ELEMENT Population changes  account for anticipated increase or decrease due to climate refugees • Increases in Island population will place increased demands and stress upon all human services. 39 Questions to Consider for Social Services Adaptation The implications identified in Table 8 should raise awareness of the fact that the provision of human services and our links to cultural resources that help define us are at risk. In order to comprehend the climate vulnerability of cultural resources and human services on Bainbridge Island we should ask: 1. If precipitation patterns were to increase or decrease, how might they impact cultural resources or human services? How does current precipitation (patterns and amounts) affect them? • What would be the effect of an increase in intensity of rainfall/storminess? • What would be the effect of increased periods of drought on these community resources? 2. If average seasonal temperatures were to shift, how might they impact our cultural resources or human services? • Are there currently any seasonal/temperature related impacts? • Do isolated high-heat or cold days impact cultural resources or human services? • Can the community absorb increased costs of heating and cooling? Is this a human services issue to consider? 3. How do sea level and associated conditions (high tides, inundation, etc.) impact the Island today? If sea level were to rise how might it impact our cultural resources or human services? • Are there stationary cultural resources located within the high-hazard coastal zone? • Are there human services or cultural facilities located in places that may be subjected to inundation or storm surge? 4. Population growth places more demands on human services, as does a more stressed, displaced, underprivileged, or under-employed population. Climate refugees or migrations may affect Bainbridge Island, thus increasing the demand for human services. Is there any pre-planning or capacity building that should be undertaken? 5. If food systems become stressed by climate factors, prices will increase, placing stress on lower-income families who are less financially resilient, triggering a need for more services. Is there any pre-planning or capacity building that should be undertaken? 6. As temperature and precipitation patterns change (more frequent and prolonged drought) the risk of wildfire will increase. Are cultural or human service resources and facilities located in or near wildfire risk areas? 7. Can we create a “watch list” of cultural resources and human services that exhibit climate vulnerability? What facilities and systems will be affected as conditions change over time? 8. Is our educational system preparing students for citizenship and employment in a climate- changed future? 40 Actions with Real Impact: What We Can Do Now There are three action steps that should be paramount and undertaken by the City of Bainbridge Island immediately. They are not small or easy steps, but they will begin the adaptation planning process and enable a foundation on which Bainbridge Island has the chance to build a climate-savvy and resilient community. They are: Action One: Create a Climate Change Task Force. This involves designation of the leaders, managers and staff that should incorporate climate change and community resilience into their duties. This will enable climate change considerations to be mainstreamed into the actions and decisions of Bainbridge Island into the future. Action Two: Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification (CAC). This requires evidence that any project proponent has assessed future site/operating conditions and determined climate readiness, including the avoidance of projected vulnerabilities. Such certification should be applied to and required in any City fiscal or permitting decision. Action Three: Apply your understanding of how climate change will affect Bainbridge Island. Use the BICIA and Table 9 in particular to support these efforts. 1. Integrate climate information into our decision-making processes and continuously update access and understanding of the latest information. 2. Map all known and future vulnerable areas, showing overlays/intersections with critical facilities, ecosystems and infrastructure. This visual tool will enable us to apply our understanding of the climate changes that will have a locational effect on Bainbridge Island. Many implications of climate change cannot be mapped, however for those that can be pinpointed they should be made clear. 3. Track the application and efficacy of climate-savvy actions in order to modify and update as needed to keep Bainbridge Island on a path to resilience. By explicitly considering climate change in our local planning and decision-making, Bainbridge Island will be on a path to a resilient future. However, these actions must start today as the decisions we are currently making will set the stage for our ability to respond in the future. An initial suite of implementation recommendations for our community can be found in the following table, Table 9: Adaptation Planning Implementation. We invite the community to waste no time in bringing these actions to life and making Bainbridge Island climate savvy. 41 Table 9. Adaptation Planning Implementation Planning Sector Main actions in this sector that will effect Mitigation Main actions in this sector that will support Adaptation Implementation / Tool Kit Actions (implementing authorities in addition to COBI are listed in italics) Government Operations • Create a Climate Change Task Force to oversee and organize climate change preparation and response strategies across the Island. (BIFD, BIPD, BIMPRD, BISD) • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification (CAC). Such CAC should be required before any fiscal or permitting decision could be final. A CAC would be evidence that any government action, project proponent, fiscal decision, etc. has assessed future climate conditions and determined durability of a choice, including the avoidance of projected vulnerabilities. Criteria for determination are suggested in the planning sector rows that follow here. Land Use Conserve natural resource lands and ecosystem functions by preventing land conversion to sprawling or incremental development. Focus all new growth as infill or compact development. Reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Locate all new growth outside of future hazard prone area. Assess any proposed project for its ability to function in the long term under climate change. Minimize or avoid potential for future threats to the people, property, environment and economy of Bainbridge Island. Utilize all Island-based hazard mitigation planning, shoreline and floodplain management processes, and capital facilities planning to identify and address local climate change concerns. • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification. Include criteria for Land Use: o Require use of the Bainbridge Island Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (BIHIVA) and create other local hazard identification processes as tools to determine suitability of a site for development or investment. (BIFD, BISD, BIMPRD) • Analyze Floodplain Management Plans and Hazard Mitigation Plans to be sure climatic scenarios are adequate and considered in analysis. • Promote compact development through tax incentives and other tools. • Promote walkability and prioritize multimodal, non-fossil fuel dependent transportation. • Require the use of well-designed ecosystem based Cluster, Open Space Residential Design, or Conservation Subdivision regulations for any residential subdivision on-island. • Create specific climate-informed Low Impact Development regulations and require use in all new or re-development. • Participate fully in the Kitsap County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (MHMP) planning and update processes (due to be updated in 2017) and integrate the findings into local decision-making. (BIFD, Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management, FEMA) o Work to have Climate Change included as a hazard category in the future MHMP updates (currently climate change is not included as a hazard category in the county’s plan). • Participate in the process and fully incorporate climate change hazards into the BI Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment (BIHIVA) (to be updated by BIFD in 2016). (BIFD, FEMA) • Utilize available land use tools to increase the preservation of land for future 42 Planning Sector Main actions in this sector that will effect Mitigation Main actions in this sector that will support Adaptation Implementation / Tool Kit Actions (implementing authorities in addition to COBI are listed in italics) agriculture, resource migration, open space, and population changes (including an Agricultural Resource zoning classification). • Update and implement the recommendations of the 2008 Bainbridge Island Open Space Study. (BIMPRD, Bainbridge Island Land Trust) Transportation Reduce consumption of fossil fuels. Link to land use and reduce sprawling development. Prioritize walkability, non- motorized transit and mass transit, and discourage single occupancy vehicle use. Promote compact development. Place transportation infrastructure in locations that will not be affected by climate impacts • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification. Include criteria for Transportation: o Require any new transportation infrastructure to be located outside of vulnerable areas (ensure long-term function). o Projects must include non-motorized transportation components such as trailway linkages and walkability, or include impact fees. • Create a structure of impact fees for all development permits. • Fund and implement the Non-motorized Transportation Plan. • Adopt a Transportation Improvement Plan that prioritizes mass transit or, pedestrian, bicycle and other non-motorized modes over single occupancy vehicle use. • Utilize land use regulations and incentives that promote compact, non-single occupancy vehicle-dependent development. • Inventory and create a “Watch List” of vulnerable transportation infrastructure (combine with the list for other community infrastructure). o Create a prioritized plan to relocate or retrofit vulnerable infrastructure. Housing Increase sustainable and green building design (which reduce energy consumption). Prioritize siting in locations that are not motorized- vehicle dependent for access to jobs, education and commerce. Development of affordable housing should require affordability over time (if not energy- efficient under future climate scenarios, will affordability remain?) • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification. Include criteria for Housing: o Location of structures out of vulnerable areas o Use of sustainable building practices o Use of renewable energy and conservation measures/features o Creation of non-motorized transportation corridor connections • Adopt Green Building Codes such as energy- and water-efficient fixtures and appliances, increased insulation requirements, including windows, etc. • Enable use of green roofs, greywater and Low Impact Development methods on site. • Utilize bonds in residential permitting within known hazard areas to cover potential future remediation. Water Resources and Environment Retain vegetation and tree canopy that serves to enhance the local air and Plan improvements, source development, and stormwater infrastructure- • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification Include criteria for Water Resources and Environment: o Mandate demonstrated consideration of present and future conditions 43 Planning Sector Main actions in this sector that will effect Mitigation Main actions in this sector that will support Adaptation Implementation / Tool Kit Actions (implementing authorities in addition to COBI are listed in italics) water quality. Maintain ecosystem function and ability of systems and habitats to migrate and function over time. based on future precipitation scenarios. Implement supply and demand-side water conservation. Protect ecosystems and their buffers. Retain vegetation and tree canopy that serves to reduce stormwater runoff, promote ground water recharge and stabilize local climate. Pay attention to shifting species in revegetation, restoration and other projects. Utilize all compact and Low Impact Development techniques (which reduce impervious and engineered area). in any water resource calculations, studies, and permit approvals. (Require inclusion of future projected conditions/climate scenarios to understand future resource conditions, including groundwater recharge rates, stormwater runoff calculations, etc.) • Require any water resource data gathering and analysis to include metrics that are sensitive to and identifiable as markers of climate changes. • Continue the Groundwater Monitoring Program and periodically review its program parameters. • Update and reassess the predictive findings of the Groundwater Models prepared for COBI by Aspect Consulting in 2015-2016. Adopt the recommendations of Aspect Consulting for future carrying capacity assessments. • Set no-net groundwater extraction rates to ensure maximized aquifer recharge and to stay below COBI early warning levels (balance the aquifer stressors of increased population and rising demand, decreased recharge from climate change, and rising sea levels). • Require a Hydrologic Assessment Report that includes future climate scenarios for any proposed development projects. • Ensure full protections under the Critical Areas Ordinance, review and revise as necessary. • Adopt Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and Wellhead Protection Regulations. • Adopt Low Impact Development standards and remove regulatory barriers to encourage green infrastructure, which can lessen stress on our natural systems (e.g., to promote on-site water retention/infiltration and slow stormwater runoff rates). • Adopt Lot Coverage Maximums (adjusted to lesser values in aquifer recharge and other sensitive areas). • Develop tree canopy and vegetation retention requirements (balanced with FireWise vegetation-free envelopes). (BIFD) • Place importance on ground cover and understory for their water retention capacity. • Enable systems and techniques that reduce energy and conserve resources (e.g., greywater systems, green roofs, use of green energy technology). • Conduct a wildfire vulnerability survey of public lands/interfaces on the island and create a plan for wildfire management. (BIFD) • Require drought-tolerant plantings. • City tree planting efforts should require use of species that will persist for expected lifetime. 44 Planning Sector Main actions in this sector that will effect Mitigation Main actions in this sector that will support Adaptation Implementation / Tool Kit Actions (implementing authorities in addition to COBI are listed in italics) Infrastructure 2 Require utilities to use renewable energy sources. Reduce energy use and water use. Ensure that climate vulnerabilities/variabilities inform infrastructure improvements, or siting and design. Ensure long-term return on investments and continued function by not investing in climate vulnerable locations. Increase requirements on utility providers for conservation of conventional and conversion to renewable sources of energy. • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification. Include criteria for infrastructure: o Demonstrated consideration of present and future climate-vulnerable site conditions in any infrastructure capacity calculations, siting and permit approvals. o Require inclusion of future projected conditions/climate scenarios to understand future resource conditions, including groundwater recharge rates, stormwater runoff calculations, supply conditions, and location within a vulnerable area. • Enable conversion to a utility dependent on renewable energy sources. • Prioritize and develop expedited permitting and funding for infrastructure that will decrease fossil fuel emissions and support adaptation. o Priority given to infrastructure that increases walkability, is located in Winslow or neighborhood service centers, and allows access by multi- modes. o Provide incentives through permitting for use of renewable energy providers and systems. • Identify and map infrastructure that is located within hazard areas and create a “Watch List” of vulnerable infrastructure (combine with the list for transportation infrastructure). o Create a prioritized plan to relocate or retrofit vulnerable infrastructure. • Adopt Low Impact Development techniques and remove regulatory barriers to encourage green infrastructure, which can lessen stress on natural systems. Economy Support renewable energy development and those that utilize it in their business practices. Do not permit location of industry/business on-island Understand the vulnerability of local systems3 to climate change and take measures to reduce the potential for exposure, damage and loss. • Study and identify economic and financial vulnerabilities of the community and how they are likely to be worsened by climate change impacts. • Enable incentives for actions that decrease vulnerability of the local economy. • Employ creative funding mechanisms that support and coordinate citywide action to address climate and hazard mitigation. Develop a steady-state funding mechanism. 2 Infrastructure is a category that includes myriad capital facilities and services that a government typically provides to its citizens, including utilities, roads, public buildings, schools, parks, water, sewer & stormwater systems, and first responder services. 3 Local systems include businesses, tourism, infrastructure, housing stock, transportation – disruption and losses in any of these sectors will negatively affect the local and regional economy. 45 Planning Sector Main actions in this sector that will effect Mitigation Main actions in this sector that will support Adaptation Implementation / Tool Kit Actions (implementing authorities in addition to COBI are listed in italics) that are dependent on or high-volume users of fossil fuel. Investment in a food system based on local production and one that is not industrialized and extractive. Encourage a local economy that is not based on vulnerable resources or sectors that will be compromised by climate change. Encourage diversity and independence of the local economy. Investment in a food system based on local production that is adaptive to Washington’s anticipated climate changes. Education about the importance of early awareness and action in order to create resilience. • Invest in the development of a local food system: o Create an Agricultural Zoning classification. o Use land use tools such as PDR, TDR and tax incentives to preserve farmland. o Incentivize farm practices that employ resource (fuel, water) conservation methods and are not extractive or chemically dependent. o Support markets for local farmers to sell goods locally. • Form partnerships with local organizations and action groups to develop a coordinated public outreach campaign intended to increase community awareness of the issue of climate change in their own lives and on our community’s long-term resilience. o Create materials (including online and signage) promoting sustainable features of our community that make us more resilient to climate change, and encourage businesses, patrons and visitors to take their own actions to reduce the effects of climate change. o Engage the local media to ask questions about climate implications in coverage of local planning issues. (Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association, Sustainable Bainbridge) Cultural and Human Services 4 Ensure that services are located and provided such that transportation and energy use are minimized. Anticipate and be ready to accommodate the rise in demand for the provision of human services if things “get bad” due to climatic changes. Education about climate change and the impacts and implications on the health, safety, welfare and future of all to create a ready and adaptive citizenry. • Develop and require a Climate Assessment Certification. Include criteria for cultural and human services: o Create criteria for public cultural and human service projects that ensure they are not vulnerable to climate change. • Create incentives for on-island agriculture and disincentives for the conversion of agricultural landscapes to other uses. Recognize the importance of a robust local food production system as a human service. • Incorporate climate change into school curricula to help prepare our students for their careers and citizenship in a climate-changed world. (BISD) 4 Human services are those that assist people in meeting the essential life needs of food, clothing, shelter and access to health care. 46 Literature Cited American Planning Association-Washington Chapter. 2015 November. Planning for Climate Change Adaptation: A WA-APA Discussion Paper about Community Resilience. www.washington-apa.org/address-climate-change Bainbridge Island Fire Department (BIFD), Western Washington University, March 2012. Bainbridge Island Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. Bainbridge Island Open Space Study. October 2008. http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/documentcenter/view/5507 Bannister, P., Flynn, T. 2016, March 25 as revised. Aspect Consulting Memorandum to Cami Apfelbeck re: Bainbridge Island Groundwater Model: Aquifer System Carrying Capacity Assessment (Task 3 Scenario). Aspect Consulting Project #140369. http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6542 Bannister, P., Flynn, T. 2015, December 21. Aspect Consulting Memorandum to Cami Apfelbeck re: Review Findings and Recommendations (Task 2) and Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Assessment (Task 3 Scenario). Aspect Consulting Project #140369. http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6235 Center for Sustainable Energy. Case Study: Lancaster Zero Net Energy Goal. https://energycenter.org/case-study-lancasters-zne-goal. Accessed June 3, 2016. City of Lancaster. n.d. website. http://www.cityoflancasterca.org/residents/lancaster-choice- energy. Accessed May 31, 2016. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume 10. 1979. Kitsap County. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/femaweb/kitsap.htm City of Bainbridge Island (COBI). Local Comprehensive Plan. 2004. http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/162/Comprehensive-Plan EPA. 2016. Wyckoff: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Document ID 100010233. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/10/100010233.pdf EPA. 2016b. Bainbridge Island Aquifer System, WA. https://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/bainbridge_ssa Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. Risk Report. Prepared for Kitsap County including the Cities of Bremerton, Bainbridge, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, the Port Gamble S’Klallam Indian Reservation, the Suquamish Tribe, and Unincorporated Kitsap County. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d.a website. www.fema.gov/multi- hazard-mitigation-planning. Accessed May 2016. 47 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). n.d.b. Fact Sheet: Building Community Resilience by Integrating Hazard Mitigation into the Local Comprehensive Plan. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1908-25045-9918/factsheet1.pdf Accessed May 2016. Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Struach, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D). http://cses.washington.edu/picea/mauger/ps-sok/PS-SoK_2015.pdf Metropolitan Council. 2016. Local Planning Handbook. http://www.metrocouncil.org/Handbook/Plan-Elements/Resilience.aspx NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2015. Digital Coast Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Impacts Viewer. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/. Accessed June 2016. Regional Challenges Overview Paper: Climate Change. Central Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS). 2015. http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-reports Scrafford, M., Bannister, P. 2015, December 21. Aspect Consulting Memorandum to Cami Apfelbeck re: Task 1—Hydrogeological Assessment of Groundwater Quantity, Quality, and Production. Aspect Consulting Project #140369. http://www.bainbridgewa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6236 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Conceptual Model and Numerical Simulations of the Groundwater-Flow System of Bainbridge Island, Washington. WA Department of Ecology. n.d.a website. Shoreline Master Program. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/. Accessed June 2016. WA Department of Ecology. n.d.b website. Climate Change: What’s Happening in Washington State? http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/whatshappening.htm. Accessed April 20, 2016. WA Department of Ecology. n.d.c website. Low Impact Development (LID) Resources. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/municipal/LID/Resources.html. Accessed May 6, 2016. WA Department of Ecology. n.d.d website. Climate Change Impacts. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2012ccrs/impacts.htm. Accessed April 15, 2016. Revised Code of Washington, Title 36, Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements (Effective until September 1, 2016). RCW 36.70A.070(1). 48 Appendix 1: The How and Why to the Bainbridge Island Climate Impact Assessment Project Activities 1. Research and general knowledge: This Climate Impact Assessment was informed by published climate data, general research, and expert and community knowledge of the project team. 2. Community Elicitation Workshop: EcoAdapt held a community elicitation workshop on November 18, 2015, in collaboration with the City of Bainbridge Island and Sustainable Bainbridge during which we solicited community input and fostered education about climate impacts and implications that will affect Bainbridge Island. Fifty-five participants attended, representing the general public, state government, local government, local and regional nonprofit organizations, and local businesses. Workshop participants were split into teams where they considered each Comprehensive Plan element in the context of climate change data and then determined relevant impacts and the implications those impacts would have on each element’s issues. Participants were given planning questions to guide their evaluation of the climate vulnerability of each element, and in turn added their local knowledge and concerns by recording their thoughts and table discussion as follows: individual issue of concern; how they understand climate change to affect their issue of concern; ideas as to how the impact of climate change can be reduced; and how they anticipated that change could happen (such as with partners, funds, regulations, etc.) Materials were prepared for use during the process that included: • Analysis, depiction, and presentation of the climate science and findings that are specifically relevant to Bainbridge Island and show what climatic changes are expected to affect local ecosystems, and by extension the implications of those impacts on land use planning and related comprehensive planning issues. • Briefing documents for each Comprehensive Plan Element were created to inform the participants of Washington State planning requirements, 2004 local goals, specific climate impacts and implications that affect an element, and to prepare them for thought and discussion by providing planning questions to guide evaluation of the climate vulnerability of every element. (For a full list of participants and materials see http://ecoadapt.org/workshops/BICIA- workshop). 3. Comprehensive Plan element review: The EcoAdapt project team provided the Planning Commission and city staff continuing input on each element throughout their review and update process (August 2015 through June 2016). This included a thorough reading of each element of the 10 elements through the lens of climate change, and suggested revisions within existing text where it would be appropriate to recognize climate change, future conditions, and the climate impacts on what each element is intended to plan for, protect, and preserve. In other words, advice was given on how to mainstream climate mitigation and adaptation goals, policies, and implementation as appropriate throughout the City’s long-term planning 49 framework. Project team members also provided public comment on this subject at numerous Planning Commission meeting during this timeframe. Why did EcoAdapt conduct the BICIA? Beginning in April 2015, and continuing through December 2016, the City of Bainbridge Island is undergoing an update of its 2004 Comprehensive Plan. This process has provided a golden opportunity to make changes that would improve the community’s long-term outcomes. EcoAdapt understands that by planning for its future while recognizing how climatic conditions will be changing, this Island community has chosen to minimize the effects of climate change on its social systems and environmental surroundings. With ambitions such as sustainability almost ubiquitous in community management, considering the effects of climate change (such as sea level rise, increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns) and the responses to them (such as increasing use of water, reduced aquifer recharge, changing vegetation and species ranges, movement of more people into our region) is essential for durability. Considering the implications of such changes in the update of its Comprehensive Plan, Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan and any other planning, and then making it part of policy and management actions is the only way to ensure a sustainable future in the face of climate change. The need for including climate change in community Comprehensive Plans was called for in the Puget Sound Regional Open Space Strategy (openspacepugetsound.org) Climate Change Challenge paper (openspacepugetsound.org/sites/default/files/151026_ClimateChange.pdf ). Responses to climate change require activities in two areas: adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation is the action we take to reduce the root cause of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions predominantly from burning fossil fuels for electricity generation, heating, and transportation). Adaptation is the action we take to reduce the effects climate change has on the world around us. Effective long-term outcomes require that we do both. The City of Bainbridge Island has an opportunity to create a Comprehensive Plan that maps out goals and policies that allow for a durable future for the Island. Community members were invited to be part of the Comprehensive Plan process, including making suggestions about how to incorporate climate change. EcoAdapt has created products (Element Briefs) to support individuals and organizations as they think about each component of the Island Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan elements include: Land Use, Utilities, Transportation, Capital Facilities, Environment, Economy, Culture, Human Resources, Housing and Water Resources – each has considerations for climate change and needs to be considered through a mitigation and adaptation lens during this 2015-16 update process in order to help make Bainbridge Island more resilient. The City of Bainbridge Island is also proposing, for the first time, to add a Guiding Principle to the Comprehensive Plan specifically highlighting the challenges of and opportunities to address climate change. Creating a Guiding Principle that can truly guide us into the future will be vital to the success of our interpretation and use of the Comprehensive Plan in creating policy and code to guide management and daily decisions by the City. The new Guiding Principle, if adopted, would provide a framework under which the City could make climate-savvy decisions that enable our small island to adapt to whatever climate changes may occur. Sea Level Rise Strategy Study March 2020 Image Credit: Washington State Coastal Atlas Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Prepared for Island County and the Washington Coastal Resilience Project March 2020 | University of Washington Dorothy Mulkern, Graduate Student, University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning, Department of Landscape Architecture Dan Cloutier, Graduate Student, University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning Nicole Faghin, Coastal Management Specialist, Washington Sea Grant Acknowledgements Thanks to reviewers of this document; Meredith Penny and Jonathan Lange, (Island County). Recommended Citation Mulkern, D., Cloutier, D, and Faghin, N., 2020. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy. Prepared for Island County and the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. The Washington Coastal Resilience Project (WCRP) is a three-year effort to rapidly increase the state’s capacity to prepare for coastal hazards, such as flooding and erosion, that are related to sea level rise. The project will improve risk projections, provide better guidance for land use planners and strengthen capital investment programs for coastal restoration and infrastructure. The project is partially funded by a grant from the NOAA Regional Coastal Resilience Grants Program (grant #NA16NOS4730015). Additional funds were provided by the State of Washington. Cover images credits: Dan Cloutier, Washington Coastal Atlas Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 i Preface As discussions about sea level rise become increasingly commonplace and shoreline management regulations begin to consider its projected impacts, adaptation planning at the community level will be necessary to ensure coastal community assets and values endure. This study is intended to demonstrate the necessity and feasibility of coastal resilience planning, and to provide Island County, WA shoreline communities with a sense of the tools and resources at their disposal to carry it out and ensure a resilient future. Research presented in this report was conducted by University of Washington (UW) Master of Urban Planning students in partnership with the Washington Sea Grant and Island County Department of Planning and Community Development. Staff within each partner organization were key contributors to this effort, and provided countless hours of interviews, interim draft reviews, and guidance to ensure project success. While a debt of gratitude is owed to all involved, specific recognition is due to Island County project sponsors Meredith Penny and Jonathan Lange for their commitment to ensuring this product meets the needs of shoreline residents and County government alike and provides useful tools for adaptation strategy development; to Nicole Faghin of Washington Sea Grant for her professional guidance throughout the development of this study and connection with the most recent and relevant Washington State sea level rise and coastal resilience information available; and to University of Washington professors Bob Freitag and Dan Abramson for providing academic review and input, ensuring the research and study outcomes are in keeping with the high standards of the UW Department of Urban Design and Planning. Thanks in no small part to the support of these individuals this report presents a current, useful baseline for community-level coastal resilience and sea level rise adaptation planning which incorporates best available science and is tailored to the specific needs of Island County coastal communities. It is the authors’ sincere hope that this report is leveraged and improved upon as a resource for the development of coastal community resilience and sea level rise adaptation strategies in communities throughout Island County and beyond. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 ii Study Overview and Organization Sea level rise of 1-3 feet is projected as likely for coastal areas of Island County, Washington by the year 2100 (Miller et al., 2018). In an effort to incorporate considerations of the potential impacts of sea level rise into County planning processes including an ongoing update to the Island County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), the Island County Department of Planning and Community Development embarked on an initiative to research and develop guidance related to community-based coastal resilience planning, identify sea level rise adaptation best practices applicable to Island County shoreline communities, and develop a monitoring program to track sea level data and inform future planning decisions. This study captures the research process and outcomes associated with community-based planning and adaptation best practices elements of this initiative. Figure 1: Island County Shoreline Master Program Update Sea-Level Rise Considerations Source: Island County Department of Planning and Community Development (2019) Through a series of site visits, County staff interviews, literature review, and data analysis the research process resulted in a baseline understanding of Island County shoreline management practices, coastal flooding issues, and consideration of extreme high tides and projected sea- level rise in current plans, policies, and regulations. From this baseline, viable adaptation alternatives representing accommodation, protection, and retreat strategies were identified, and a framework for community-based coastal resilience planning was developed as a means of mobilizing local property owners and resources to proactively address future challenges associated with sea level rise. This study presents the research process and outcomes related to each of these focus areas and delivers a set of recommendations intended to support Island County communities in planning and implementing adaptation strategies to improve coastal resilience and prepare for projected sea level rise. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 iii This report is organized in three volumes: Volume 1: Existing Conditions Report This report profiles Island County Coastal characteristics, identifies County and community experience and concerns related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise, and establishes planning objectives considered as fundamental for the development of adaptation strategy recommendations and community-based planning guidance. Volume 2: Sea Level Rise Adaptation Best Practice Report Volume 2 contains background research and case study analysis related to coastal adaptation measures in place along U.S. shorelines and abroad. This body of research ultimately informs a set of Island County-specific sea level rise adaptation recommendations applicable in the short, medium, and long term across the County’s various coastal community types. Volume 3: Community-Based Planning Report This report includes background research related to community-based planning drivers and best practices and presents a community-based planning framework and associated guidebook intended to support local community efforts to plan for coastal resilience now and in the future. These volumes collectively comprise the 2020 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study and provide a baseline toolkit for individual shoreline property owners and coastal communities alike to employ as they work toward a resilient future. Each volume contains appendices and references specific to its content. The study concludes with a glossary of terms commonly referenced throughout the reports. Sea Level Rise Strategy Study March 2020 Volume 1 Existing Conditions Report Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Volume 1: Existing Conditions Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Orientation 1 1.2 History 2 1.3 Island County Demographic Profile 2 1.4 Island County Economic Profile 3 2. Shoreline Characterization 4 2.1 Ecosystem Processes 4 2.2 Climate 6 2.3 Geology and Shore Landforms 6 2.4 Surface and Groundwater 7 2.5 Fish & Wildlife Habitat 7 2.6 Shoreline Land Use and Residential Development 8 3. Community Coastal Flooding Concerns 14 3.1 Private Property Impacts 14 3.2 Public Property Impacts 15 4. Projected Sea Level Rise Impacts 15 4.1 Coastal Flooding 16 4.2 Habitat Loss 16 4.3 Salinity Changes 17 4.4 Coastal Erosion & Deposition 17 5. Current Sea Level Rise Policy Considerations 18 5.1 FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 18 5.2 Island County Comprehensive Plan 19 5.3 Island County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) 19 5.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) 19 5.5 Island County Development Regulations 20 5.6 Natural Resource Conservation and Restoration Programs 21 6. Future Sea Level Rise Policy Considerations 22 References 24 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-1 1. Introduction This report documents conditions influencing shoreline planning in Island County, Washington at the outset of a 2019-2020 Sea Level Rise Strategy Study conducted in support of the County’s 2020 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. Information presented in this report is foundational to the development of recommendations for shoreline property sea level rise adaptation strategies and community-led coastal resilience planning, also included in the study. The report is organized to orient readers to Island County’s location, demographics, and economic profile; characterize the County’s shoreline ecosystems and development patterns; document County and community coastal flooding concerns; review potential shoreline impacts associated with projected sea level rise; highlight current sea level rise policy considerations; and present sea level rise considerations planned for inclusion in future updates to plans, policies, and regulations. 1.1 Orientation Island County, located in Northwest Washington, consists of Camano and Whidbey Islands as well as seven small, mostly uninhabited islands: Smith, Deception, Ben Ure (15 residential properties), Smith, Minor, Strawberry, and Baby islands. Island County cities and towns include Oak Harbor, Coupeville, Langley, and unincorporated Freeland, of which Coupeville is the County seat. Figure 1.1: Island County, WA Area and Vicinity Maps Sources: WA Employment Security Department; Island County Mapping Center Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-2 1.2 History The areas now known as Whidbey and Camano Islands are the original home to the Coast Salish people including members of the Lower Skagit, Swinomish, Suquamish, Snohomish, and Kikalos tribes. (Whidbey Island US, 2019; McClary, 2005). European settlement of Whidbey and Camano Islands began in 1848 and 1855, respectively, as early settlers sought success in the timber industry. Shortly after initial settlement, Island County was formally established in 1853 by the Oregon Territorial Legislature. The county originally encompassed what are now Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, and San Juan Counties. Today, the county encompasses approximately 517 square miles, 309 of which are open water and 208 of which are land (McClary, 2005). 1.3 Island County Demographic Profile Island County is the eighth oldest and second smallest county in Washington State by landmass (McClary, 2005). U.S. Census Bureau 2018 American Community Survey estimates the county population at 81,636, of which approximately 23% are age 65 or older and 85% are white (US Census Bureau, 2018). Median household income in the County is $64,809, under the state median of $74,073, and the County poverty rate is slightly lower than the state average at approximately 9% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Growth Management population projections indicate the Island County population may increase to 94,463 (11.8%) by 2040, with the percentage of the population 65 and older projected to increase to approximately 28% (OFM, 2017). Of note, a significant majority (69%) of the Island County population lives in unincorporated areas (Community Attributes, 2019). Figure 1.2: Island County Demographics Data Sources: WA ESD (2019); U.S. Census Bureau (2018) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-3 1.4 Island County Economic Profile Island County’s largest employer is Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, which employs 7,050 military personnel and 2,400 civilian employees and contractors and has an economic impact of approximately $1.04 billion across Island and Skagit Counties combined (Community Attributes, 2019). Aside from Navy employment, the majority of Island County jobs are in local government, health care, education, arts, entertainment, and hospitality (Community Attributes, 2019). Though not as significant a sector in terms of employment, agriculture is also a staple of the Island County economy and is a major contributor to the county’s rural character and facilitates rural-dependent sectors and tourism (Community Attributes, 2019). Figure 1.3: Island County Civilian Employment by Job Sector, 2018 Source: Island County Economic Trends and Conditions Summary Report, 2019 Though the above industries are broadly represented in Island County, over 50% of residents commute out of the county for work, and wages in the county are well below state averages (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Growth in Island County is characterized both by rural inflow of older populations with higher incomes who are able to take advantage of a lower cost of living on Whidbey and Camano Islands and capable of commuting to surrounding cities and counties Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-4 for needs which are not met locally; and by the attraction of younger, lower-income households to cities and towns, where the need for mobility is less, but wages and growth opportunity are limited. This dynamic challenges Island County’s economic growth potential by constraining business activity through limited ability to attract and retain working-age adults (Community Attributes, 2019). This report will focus on the population residing in Island County’s shoreline areas, which are generally characterized by residential or undeveloped space and an older, more affluent population with limited constraints on mobility. That said, the Island County shoreline does support limited economic activity primarily centered on transportation, tourism, and aquaculture facilitated by Washington State Ferry terminals in South and Central Whidbey Island; recreational trails and beaches; tribal and commercial shellfish harvest beds; public and private moorage and marinas; and waterfront-dependent businesses including the County’s fifth-largest employer, Nichols Brothers Boat Builders Inc. (Community Attributes, 2019). Though waterfront industry and employment centers comprise only a small portion of the County’s economy, they serve as community assets with potential to affect the larger economy if negatively impacted. 2. Shoreline Characterization Island County includes over 196 miles of shoreline, characterized by low-lying beaches and spits, dredged canals, wetlands, and high unstable bluffs. Countywide, coastal shoreline landforms are predominantly characterized as bluff back beaches (58%) and barrier beaches (25%), with the remaining 17% comprised of artificial development, barrier estuaries, barrier lagoons, closed lagoons and marshes, deltas, open coastal inlets, pocket beaches, plunging rock shorelines, and rocky platform beaches (Island County, 2012). These landforms play integral roles in Island County ecosystem processes such as sediment input, transport, erosion and accretion. These processes result in a continuously changing shoreline which, when left undisturbed by development and human influence, provide valuable habitat and ecosystem services (Island County, 2012). 2.1 Ecosystem Processes The natural movement of water, sediment, and aquatic organisms and their effect on local ecosystems is perhaps best characterized by the concept of drift cells. Drift cells are coastline areas for which wind, wave action, and surface and groundwater runoff and freeze/thaw cycles Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-5 generate and transport sediment from beaches and coastal bluffs to other low-lying coastal areas. This process results in the gradual erosion of sediment sources, such as bluffs, and accretion of low-lying beaches and creation of spits in other areas of the cell (Shore Friendly, 2019). This constant beach replenishment supports ecosystem health through habitat establishment, protection, and nutrient supply. The vast majority of the Island County shoreline is associated with a series of drift cells, including one of the Puget Sound’s largest cells located in Western Whidbey Island (Shore Friendly, 2019). Figure 2.1: Island County Drift Cells Source: Washington State Coastal Atlas Map Over time, human activities including land development and associated physical property protections such as floodplain diking and shoreline armoring have interrupted these naturally occurring ecosystem processes, thereby degrading the County’s natural fish and wildlife habitat and supported functions (Island County, 2012). Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-6 2.2 Climate Precipitation and wind are primary areas of climate influence along Island County shorelines. Annual precipitation between 17-40 inches per year is the primary source of recharge for freshwater aquifers, which provide the majority of the County’s potable water. Maintaining adequate water supply of potable quality is a key function of these aquifers, and their ability to perform this function is largely dependent on precipitation and managed water consumption. Wind contributes significantly to coastal erosion along Whidbey Island’s western shoreline and wave action throughout the County. Changing dominant winds from the south-southwest in the fall through winter months, and from the north in the late spring and summer influence the coastal landscape and activities throughout the County (Island County, 2012). 2.3 Geology and Shore Landforms Island County’s shoreline natural landforms, or “shoreforms,” consist primarily of beaches and bluffs created from glacial deposits and barrier beaches fed by sediment from eroding bluffs (Island County, 2012). Bluff erosion is a natural and continuous process which results in varying rates of gradual shoreline retreat and volume loss throughout the County. In many cases, the erosion process increases the risk of coastal landslides, most recently and vividly exemplified by the 2013 Ledgewood/Bonair landslide on Whidbey Island’s western shoreline (Island County, 2013). Figure 2.2: Ledgewood/Bonair Slide (Whidbey Island) Source: Island County Department of Emergency Management Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-7 Artificial shoreforms such as bulkheads and dredged channels comprise approximately 4.5% of the overall county shoreline, with a significantly higher occurrence on West Whidbey Island (11.8%) than East Whidbey (3.7%) or Camano Island (0.3%). Despite seemingly high percentages on Whidbey Island, the county’s overall artificial shoreline is considered low in comparison with other Puget Sound shorelines (Island County, 2012). 2.4 Surface and Groundwater Island County’s surface water features include a series of small lakes and streams which collect and convey surface storm water runoff from multiple, relatively small drainage basins. Though much of the precipitation which falls throughout the county is infiltrated into surrounding soils, heavy rainfall events result in excess runoff which eventually reaches the shoreline, contributing to coastal erosion. Island County aquifers provide potable water for 72% of Island County residents and vary in depth and composition. Approximately 20-34% of annual rainfall, or 22 billion gallons of water, are estimated available for aquifer recharge, significantly exceeding current consumer demand. Despite this abundance, issues such as seawater intrusion and introduction of surface contaminants in high permeability soils are primary concerns related to quantity and quality of groundwater available in coastal aquifers (Island County, 2012). 2.5 Fish & Wildlife Habitat The Island County shoreline boasts diversity in terms of habitat type and supported species, the success of which is largely influenced by the amount of human disturbance. Island County coastal fish, invertebrate, amphibian, bird, and mammal habitat identified in the 2012 Shoreline Master Program includes: beaches, tidal flats, kelp and eelgrass, marshes, freshwater wetlands, marine riparian zones, and streams (Island County, 2012). Many of these areas support fish and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under federal, state, or both designations. Descriptions of each habitat type and examples of supported species are detailed in the SMP and summarized below. Pocket and barrier beach habitat consists of unconsolidated sediment which moves with tidal action. This habitat supports shorebirds and mammals including Black Turnstone and River Otter; shellfish such as the Geoduck Clam; and forage fish such as the Sandlance. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-8 Tidal flats consist of unconsolidated sand and/or mud in intertidal and subtidal areas. This habitat supports shellfish and invertebrates such as little-neck clams and Dungeness crabs; shorebirds and wading birds including Dunlin and Great-Blue Heron; and mammals and birds such as raccoon, bald eagle, and glaucous-winged gulls. Kelp forests and eelgrass meadows form in lower intertidal and subtidal zones and provide habitat for invertebrates which serve as a primary food source for various fish species, including salmonids. Sea birds such as the Red-throated Loon, Western Grebe, and Marbled Murrelet rely on these areas as foraging grounds as well. Salt and brackish marshes occur in areas of tidal inundation, and provide juvenile salmonid habitat, as well as support for multiple species of songbirds, mammals, and predatory birds such as bald eagles and ospreys. Freshwater wetlands often lie in depressions adjacent to coastal areas and provide nesting and foraging habitat for waterfowl such as Green-Winged Teal; amphibians including the Pacific Tree Frog; and birds and mammals transitioning the area such as black-tailed deer, barred owls, and raccoons. Marine riparian forests along coastal bluffs consist primarily of western hemlock, Douglas fir, western red cedar, shore pine, and grand fir. These forests provide year-round nesting and foraging habitat and movement corridors for bird species such as the black-capped chickadee. Adjacent bluff faces provide nesting and foraging habitat for other bird species including Bank Swallow, Belted Kingfisher, and Peregrine Falcons. Streams that drain to the Island County shoreline are often surrounded by riparian and wetland habitats which support numerous bird, mammal, and amphibian species. The streams themselves directly support various salmonids and other fish, as well as invertebrates such as crawfish. 2.6 Shoreline Land Use and Residential Development Predominant land uses along the Island County shoreline include residential development, designated tidelands, and agriculture (Island County, 2012). Other uses include parks and open space, limited commercial development, and forest or timber. The Island County Shoreline Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-9 Master Program categorizes allowable land use into a series of Shoreline Environmental Designations, presented in the figure below. Figure 2.3: Island County Shoreline Environmental Designation Map Source: Island County Shoreline Master Program, 2012 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-10 Approximately 63% of the Island County shoreline is designated for residential land use and presented above as Rural Conservancy or Shoreline Residential environmental designations. The Rural Conservancy designation includes areas zoned as “Rural,” which accounts for 49% of the shoreline and allows 5-acre minimum residential lots. The Shoreline Residential designation includes areas zoned as “Rural Residential,” which comprise 14% of the shoreline and allow for smaller (0.3-2.5 acre) residential lot development. The remaining shoreline land uses primarily fall under Natural or Aquatic environmental designations. Exceptions include limited high intensity and urban conservancy environments at and immediately adjacent to Central and South Whidbey Island ferry terminals and shipbuilding businesses. Island County Shoreline Residential development is the focus of this report and is most commonly encountered in the form of historic beach communities, canal communities, and coastal (feeder) bluff communities. These communities are characterized by their physical relationship to the shoreline and predominant development patterns. In each case, specific regulations governing future development apply. These regulations include designation of marine buffers which preclude most development and support critical species habitat and ecosystem process restoration; and shoreline setbacks which limit allowable development directly adjacent to the shoreline. Specific characteristics of these three community types and applicable development limitations are detailed in this section. 2.6.1 Historic Beach Communities Historic Beach Communities consist of densely platted small lots with residential structures constructed thirty feet or less from the ordinary high water mark. These properties were established prior to Washington State’s adoption of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in 1972. According to Island County Shoreline Master Program guidance for homeowners, Historic Beach Community designations allow for residential development and moderate-to high-impact recreational uses which reflect historic development patterns and consider normal shoreline ecosystem functions in appropriate areas of the shoreline. These communities are located primarily along beaches and spits formed by sediment accretion over time. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-11 Figure 2.4: Historic Beach Community Example Source: Island County SMP Guidance Historic Beach Community development standards include a minimum 20-foot marine buffer from the ordinary high water mark and an additional 10-foot shoreline setback. Landscaping and development within these buffers and setbacks are regulated under provisions of the Island County Shoreline Master Program. 2.6.2 Canal Communities Canal Communities consist of discrete residential communities developed along engineered canals. These communities are typified by residential structures constructed above the ordinary high water mark with dedicated waterfront access. Canal Communities are primarily located in Marine Buffer and Setback Requirements Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-12 areas formed by sediment accretion in which lagoons were dredged to form canals and dredged material was used to create adjacent developable land. Figure 2.5: Canal Community Example Source: Island County SMP Guidance Island County development regulations require a 40-foot shoreline setback from the ordinary high water mark. Landscaping and development within these buffers and setbacks are regulated under provisions of the Island County Shoreline Master Program. 2.6.3 Coastal (Feeder) Bluff Communities Coastal (Feeder) Bluff communities, consist of residential development both atop and at the base of steep or unstable slopes. Bluffs adjacent to these communities are identified as drift cell sediment sources, which are subject to erosion as part of natural coastal ecosystem processes. Marine Buffer and Setback Requirements Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-13 Figure 2.6: Coastal (Feeder) Bluff Community Example Source: Washington State Coastal Atlas Map These communities generally fall under the Shoreline Residential designation, though they may overlap with Rural Conservancy shoreline environmental designation. Steep unstable slopes also exist throughout Natural shoreline environmental designations; however, development in these areas is typically sparse and not characteristic of communities evaluated in this report. Regulations applicable to Shoreline Residential development include a 30-foot marine buffer and additional 45-foot shoreline setback at the base of bluffs; and an additional 50-foot steep slope buffer for development on the top of bluffs. Community Marine Buffer and Setback Requirements Source: SMP Guidance for Island County Homeowners Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-14 3. Community Coastal Flooding Concerns Since 1990, Island County has experienced eight extreme flooding events resulting in disaster declarations (Island County, 2015). In coastal areas, extreme flooding events typically occur as a result of combined severe winter storms and tidal surge. Island County coastal communities are particularly vulnerable during these events, as they are often impacted by both erosion resulting from surface water runoff, and the effects of tidal surge. County staff review of damage associated with historical flooding events, community input gathered during recent countywide projected sea level rise forums, and Island County staff input collected through interviews highlight the following community concerns related to extreme coastal flooding events: 3.1 Private Property Impacts Historic Beach, Canal, and Coastal Bluff communities are particularly susceptible to private property damage during extreme flooding events. Reported damages from previous flooding events include overtopping of bulkheads, inundation and failure of onsite septic systems and/or groundwater wells, residential ground floor flooding, restricted private beach access, and protracted site drainage precluding timely repair. These issues lead to costly and time- consuming repairs and, in some cases, temporary displacement of community members. County and community input indicate shared concern that existing regulatory mechanisms such as development permitting and flood insurance guidelines do not adequately mitigate hazards associated with these events, and instead may lead property owners to pursue individual protections rather than whole community resilience. Island County residential development permitting for homes built in frequently flooded areas reflect the minimum elevation and flood protection measures necessary to remain eligible for federal flood insurance coverage. Nature- based adaptation strategies are advocated for in shoreline development guidance; however, limited incentive for homeowner selection of alternatives to hard protection measures such as bulkheads exists. Further, an expedited emergency repair permitting process exists for homeowners who sustained damage from coastal flooding events which, while beneficial in terms of addressing immediate needs, do not necessarily encourage or facilitate long-term resilience planning. Though additional permitting requirements apply to shoreline projects exceeding the “substantial development” threshold of $7,047, without substantial incentive for nature-based adaptation homeowners may seek to leverage expedited emergency permitting to re-establish a baseline property flood risk, rather than working toward mitigation and improved Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-15 resilience. County records of emergency repair permit applications and community feedback during sea level rise forums indicate many private property owners pursue emergency repairs and improved physical protection of their existing properties through such actions as bulkhead extensions or dike improvements in response to extreme flooding events; though nature-based alternatives to shoreline protection including bulkhead removal and natural shore restoration are gaining popularity. 3.2 Public Property Impacts Impacts of extreme coastal flooding events extend beyond privately owned property, affecting public property and natural resources. Island County staff input indicates past flooding events have contributed to natural resource degradation through release of contaminants into public waterways and fish and wildlife habitat; interrupted natural ecosystem processes through diversion of floodwater and associated wave energy to unprotected shorelines; and negatively impacted public access to shoreline recreation opportunities. County concerns associated with continuation of existing levels of natural resource degradation and interruption of ecological processes include the potential for contaminant releases from onsite septic systems, creosote soaked piles in tidal areas, and household hazardous waste at a level significant enough to cause long term, irreversible damage to the surrounding ecosystem and its ability to support regional fish and wildlife; reduction in groundwater supply due to seawater intrusion and/or flooding of well sites; unnatural erosion patterns with potential to disproportionately damage public lands; and reduction of fish and wildlife habitat, particularly for threatened or endangered species. Further, County staff and private property owners alike expressed concern over potential impacts to public spaces in low-lying coastal areas; both from the perspective of resource reduction and concern over increased trespassing on private beach property which may be associated with loss of public amenity. 4. Projected Sea Level Rise Impacts Sea level rise is one of the most observable impacts of climate change. Two main factors contribute to global sea level rise. “A warming climate causes global sea level to rise principally by (1) warming the oceans, which causes seawater to expand, increasing ocean volume, and (2) melting land ice, which transfers water to the ocean.” (National Research Council, 2012) From studying Earth’s history, scientists have projected levels rising “another 1 to 4 feet by Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-16 2100.” (NASA, 2019) Those numbers alone are enough to inundate “many cities along the U.S. East Coast.” (Nunez, 2019) Current projections indicate sea level rise between 1-3 ft. along the Island County shoreline by 2100 (Miller et al., 2018). Potential impacts to shoreline properties and surrounding ecosystems include increased coastal flooding, habitat loss, surface and groundwater salinity changes, and altered coastal erosion and sediment deposition patterns (Miller et al., 2018). How these impacts might affect Island County is detailed in this section. 4.1 Coastal Flooding Current flooding problems will only be exacerbated with increases in sea level rise compounded by storm surge and wave run-up (Miller et al., 2019). The impacts of sea level rise in Washington State will likely be experienced initially as changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme coastal water level events. New areas will be flooded during the most extreme events, and coastal areas already exposed to flooding will be impacted more frequently (Vitousek et al., 2017). The combination of sea level rise and extreme storm events will continue to result in more consistent and severe coastal flooding causing damage to infrastructure and potential loss of life. 4.2 Habitat Loss As sea level increases, intertidal habitats like wetlands, mudflats, and marshes are in danger of disappearing. Human development regularly takes place along the coast and will block intertidal habitats from their natural response to this phenomenon; expanding inland. Estuaries and wetlands provide many essential services to communities and will be heavily impacted by sea level rise. Estuaries, mudflats, and marshes provide “refuge and forage for wildlife, fish, and invertebrates” and vegetation in these areas “provide overwintering habitat for millions of migratory waterfowl.” (National Research Council, 2012). These wetland zones buffer sediment from waterways and streams from moving into the ocean and also protect communities by storing floodwaters and limiting storm surge. In many cases, sea level rise will submerge these habitats. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-17 4.3 Salinity Changes Higher sea levels will cause an increase in groundwater levels which impacts freshwater resources. This causes saltwater intrusion in wells, septic system leaching and harms vegetation. In addition to sea level rise, “groundwater in coastal regions of the US is particularly at risk due to a combination of changes in precipitation, withdrawal rates. As sea level rises, the amount of saltwater infiltrating the groundwater aquifer will increase, which can make the water too salty for human consumption.” (Bradford, 2019) The overall impact is a reduction in water quality and soil stability. As of late 2019, many Island County residents rely on well water and septic systems for their freshwater and waste disposal needs. 4.4 Coastal Erosion & Deposition Finally, rising sea levels will erode land in some areas and grow land through sediment deposition in others. Beaches and soft cliffs will be most vulnerable to erosion, but this process will also contribute to habitat loss in estuaries and wetlands. Many Island County residents live along the coast. Erosion and sea level rise could result in damage to their homes and properties. On a larger scale, community infrastructure will most likely be impacted including roads, ports, and industry. The erosion of cliffs and bluffs is not reversible. Although cliff and bluff erosion is a natural process it has sped up due to sea level rise. The principal forces catalyzing cliff and bluff erosion include “marine processes—primarily wave energy and impact, but also tidal range or sea level variations—and terrestrial processes, such as rainfall and runoff, groundwater seepage, and mass movements such as landslides and rockfalls.” (National Research Council, 2012) Increased water levels mean increased wave heights and more wave energy eroding coastlines. This means an increased rate of cliff retreat. Beaches naturally grow and shrink seasonally depending on wave climates. “These fluctuations in beach width are predictable and temporary, and the losses of sand experienced each winter are normally recovered the following summer… [however] over the long term, rising sea level will cause landward migration or retreat of beaches.” (National Research Council, 2012) Beaches will be submerged by rising sea levels and will also be transported offshore through the deposition process. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-18 5. Current Sea Level Rise Policy Considerations Current plans, policies, programs, and processes related to Island County coastal development include limited consideration of projected sea level rise. Though many plans and programs acknowledge the need to address projected climate change impacts, and some provide mechanisms for addressing challenges related to extreme coastal flooding and sea level rise, current coastal development regulations provide limited enforceable adaptation requirements. These regulations are largely based on flood zones established by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for flood insurance purposes, which are heavily reliant on historical data and do not include consideration of projected future conditions, including those associated with sea level rise. This section highlights plans, policies, regulations and programs which govern and support shoreline development in Island County, and the extent to which sea level rise is considered in each. 5.1 FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) As part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides and periodically updates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for jurisdictions located within the 100-year, or 1% annual chance floodplain. Island County FIRMs were last updated in 2017 and provide a relatively clear and current picture of established flood zone boundaries and base flood elevations. This data is used by FEMA to develop flood insurance rates as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Additionally, Island County uses FEMA flood zones and base flood elevations as the basis for development regulations related to structural ground floor elevations and flood protections within established floodplains. It should be noted the FEMA flood maps are based on historical flooding and do not account for tidal surge, extreme high tides or projected sea level rise. Communities have the opportunity to address potential flood impacts exceeding established flood zone boundaries and elevations through adoption of higher regulatory standards and participation in the Community Rating System (CRS). CRS participation also provides an opportunity for discounted private property owner flood insurance rates. Island County does not currently take part in the CRS, and current development regulations within flood zones are consistent with minimum NFIP eligibility requirements. Also of note, as of 2019 the County and incorporated areas on Whidbey and Camano Islands had a combined 988 active NFIP policies relative to approximately 8,250 parcels zoned to allow residential development within the established floodplain (FEMA, 2019; Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-19 Island County, 2020). This low percentage of homeowners covered by NFIP policies indicates increased risk of property loss without certainty of redevelopment in the future. 5.2 Island County Comprehensive Plan Though Island County’s current comprehensive plan, Island County 2036, identifies frequently flooded areas as subject to critical areas ordinances and includes a land use policy (LU 6.4) which requires consideration of flood hazards when establishing density; the plan does not account for sea level rise projections. Instead, flood hazard areas identified in the plan are consistent with the FEMA 100-year, or 1% annual chance floodplain. 5.3 Island County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) The current Island County SMP adopted in 2016 includes climate change and projected sea level rise considerations in policies related to shoreline use, conservation, and development. These policies call for accounting for projected sea level rise when evaluating shoreline uses; monitoring effects of climate change on the marine environment through regular sea level and pH measurements; and adjusting development standards to increase setbacks and minimum elevations in areas that could be affected by sea level rise (Island County, 2012). Shoreline permitting processes and guidance identify location-specific marine buffers and shoreline setbacks detailed in section 3 of this report which are applicable to coastal properties and communities and generally consistent with SMP considerations; however, these regulations are based on existing conditions and do not directly account for projected sea level rise. Further, regulations identified in the SMP favor natural shoreline protections by requiring new development to “minimize or prevent the need for shoreline defense and stabilization measures and flood protection works” (17.05A.090.A.13); limiting structural flood reduction measures (dikes, levees, bulkheads, etc.) to areas where non-structural methods are infeasible (17.05A.090.L.2); and prohibiting solid waste storage and new or expanding development or use which would “likely require structural flood control works” (17.05A.090.L.7); among other significant shoreline protections intended to limit armoring, incompatible shoreline development, and shoreline ecosystem damage. 5.4 Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) The Island County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) identifies hazards and mitigation opportunities and recommendations related to coastal erosion, dam failure, drought, Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-20 earthquake, flood, landslide, tsunami, volcano, severe weather, and wildfire hazards each specifically address potential climate change impacts and considerations. The plan includes an extensive section related to coastal flood hazards which includes critical asset inventories, vulnerable population identification, and a history of extreme flooding events. According to the plan, approximately $590 million in private property assets and 11 critical infrastructure systems are located within the Island County 100-year floodplain. Vulnerable populations within the floodplain are identified as those over the age of 65 and the economically disadvantaged. This population totaled 4,168 at the time of the 2015 HMP update. In terms of coastal resilience considerations, the HMP includes a series of hazard mitigation recommendations which could support sea level rise adaptation including seeking emergency management grant funding for acquisition of properties within high-hazard areas and implementing cost-effective measures to address vulnerability of facilities at risk to sea level rise, extreme high tides and storm surges as they relate to potential inflow of saltwater (Island County, 2015). Additionally, the plan calls for improved forecasting, monitoring, and floodplain management planning to prepare coastal communities for future flood events. Specifically the plan states: “Going forward, model calibration or statistical relation development must happen more frequently, new forecast-based tools must be developed, and a standard of practice that explicitly considers climate change must be adopted;” and “as hydrology changes, what is currently considered a 100-year flood may strike more often, leaving many communities at greater risk. Planners will need to factor a new level of safety into the design, operation, and regulation of flood protection facilities such as dams, floodways, bypass channels, and levees, as well as the design of local sewers and storm drains” (Island County, 2015). Though many recommended policies and actions identified in the HMP indicate consideration of projected sea level rise and intensified coastal flooding events, the plan bases potential flood impacts on FEMA 100 and 500-year floodplain data which does not account for climate change- related factors and stops short of recommending specific climate change or sea level rise adaptation strategies for shoreline properties. 5.5 Island County Development Regulations The Island County Code of Ordinances includes a chapter which specifically addresses development in flood hazard areas. Chapter 14.02 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance includes general and specific code requirements applicable new development, repair of Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-21 substantial damage, and substantial improvements to structures located within special flood hazard areas (SFHAs). SFHA development regulations include elevation of the lowest floor of residential structures to at least the established base flood elevation (BFE), at least three feet above BFE for critical facilities, and at least one foot above BFE in high hazard areas subject to high-velocity floodwaters. Base flood elevations are derived from the FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs), which, as noted above, are based on periodically updated 100-year floodplain data and do not account for tidal surge, extreme high tides, or projected sea level rise. Individual property onsite sewer (septic) system and individual and two-party well permitting processes are managed by the Island County Department of Environmental Health. Larger systems require permitting through the Washington Department of Health. County processes begin with site registration, followed by design submission and permit application, and ultimately submission of as-built drawings for public record (Island County, 2019). Site approval criteria accounts for the separation of proposed septic systems from the ordinary high water mark and viability of well production and groundwater quality at the time of application, but do not specifically address requirements related to projected sea level rise such as a variable ordinary high water mark and seawater intrusion into groundwater aquifers. Regular system inspections are required to ensure compliance with permit criteria and, per feedback from the Department of Environmental Health, identification of non-compliance may result in a requirement to relocate septic systems and wells at the homeowner’s cost. 5.6 Natural Resource Conservation and Restoration Programs The Island County Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in partnership with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology, and Department of Fish and Wildlife, administers multiple programs designed to address climate change, sea level rise adaptation, and habitat restoration through community action. Though DNR does not have permitting authority, programs administered by the Department may benefit development supportive of conservation efforts. The Island County salmon recovery program is one such endeavor which seeks to restore and preserve salmon habitat through promotion of “projects that respect the rights of property owners and create a sustainable environment for people and fish” (Island County DNR, 2005). Through the salmon recovery program, private property owners and communities may have access to permitting and funding support for projects which provide “shore friendly” protection from extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise, Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-22 and result in shoreline and habitat restoration or preservation. To take part in the program and access this support, private property owners must coordinate applications for grant funding with Island County DNR submission schedules, and ultimately receive approval through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office Salmon Recovery Funding Board. The grant process occurs on an annual basis, and landowner application submission criteria and timelines are managed at the county level (WA Recreation and Conservation Office, 2020). Another DNR managed program, “Shore Friendly,” is a public education program intended to “influence Island County shoreline residents who have natural shorelines in place or those who have armored shoreline and are considering repair/replacement to adopt a ‘shore friendly protection’ approach” (Shore Friendly, 2019). Recommended “shore friendly protection” includes replacement of hard armoring such as structural bulkheads with more natural protections including a combination of increased setbacks, elevated structures; beach nourishment; use of logs, berms and soft shore material to absorb wave energy; and re-grading of waterfront slopes, drainage improvements, and planting of resilient native vegetation to reduce erosion potential. These techniques are consistent with Washington State Department of Ecology soft shore stabilization guidance as well as recommendations presented in a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2016 publication, Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). Implementation of shore friendly stabilization projects is ultimately governed by provisions of the Island County SMP and Municipal Code, which the DNR Shore Friendly program seeks to assist interested property owners in navigating to ensure more resilient communities and nearshore ecosystems. 6. Future Sea Level Rise Policy Considerations Though the majority of existing Island County plans, policies, and processes do not specifically address potential impacts of projected sea level rise, ongoing and planned updates indicate that will change. Examples of ongoing and potential State and Island County efforts to account for projected climate change and sea level rise in future planning, policy and regulation development processes are summarized below: ● Forthcoming guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce recommends comprehensive plan revisions to more specifically incorporate climate Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-23 change and sea level rise adaptation into pertinent elements (WA Department of Commerce, 2020). ● Island County’s Shoreline Master Program update, which is currently in progress, will explicitly address sea level rise adaptation best management practices, community- based coastal resiliency planning, and county-wide monitoring programs (Island County, 2019). ● A 2020 revision to the Island County Hazard Mitigation Plan is underway and will include updated sea level rise projections as well as specific guidance related to incorporation of climate change and sea level rise considerations into mitigation strategies. ● Island County may pursue involvement in the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS), which could reduce shoreline property owner flood insurance rates through strengthening of development regulations to more adequately address potential impacts of projected sea level rise. ● Continued development of Department of Natural Resources initiatives such as Salmon Recovery and Shore Friendly programs may improve permitting processes and access to financial incentives sufficient to restore Island County natural shorelines while simultaneously increasing community resilience through the actions of private property owners and collective communities. Of these opportunities for incorporation of sea level rise considerations into future Island County plans, policies, and processes, this report will focus on addressing projected sea level rise as part of Island County’s 2020 Shoreline Master Program update through identification of adaptation best management practices and community based coastal resiliency planning. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-24 References Bradford, Nick. 2019. “Groundwater and the Rising Seas.” National Environmental Education Foundation. 2019. Community Attributes, Incorporated. 2019. Island County Economic Trends and Conditions Summary Report: Island County Economic Development Element. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Documents/wp_2019/ED/Report-Trends-08- 01-19-DRAFT.pdf. Island County, Washington. (Department of Emergency Management). 2015. lsland County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/DEM/Pages/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.aspx. Island County, Washington. (Department of Natural Resources). 2005. Water Resources Inventory Area 6 (Whidbey & Camano Islands) Multi-Species Salmon Recovery Plan. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Health/DNR/Documents/SalmonRecoveryPlan2005.pdf. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). 2012. Shoreline Master Program. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/pages/shorelines.aspx. Island County, Washington (Department of Planning and Community Development). 2019. “Island County Shoreline Master Program Update.” Presentation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, Island County, WA, September 28, 2019. https://www.islandcountymrc.org/media/19027/penny-island-county-shoreline-master- program-update.pdf. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). “SMP Guidance for Island County Homeowners: Shoreline Residential.” https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Documents/Shorelines/Homeowner_SED- ShorelineResidential.pdf. Island County, Washington. “Island County GIS Open Data: FEMA Flood Zones.” Accessed February 23, 2020. https://data-islandcountygis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fema- flood-zones. Island County, Washington. “Island County GIS Open Data: Parcels.” Accessed February 23, 2020. https://data-islandcountygis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/parcels. Island County, Washington. “Island County GIS Open Data: Zoning.” Accessed February 23, 2020. https://data-islandcountygis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/zoning. Island County, Washington. n.d. Island County Landslides. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/DEM/Documents/landslide.pdf. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-25 Island County, Washington. Municipal Code of Ordinances: Title VIII, Chapter 8.07D - On-Site Sewage Systems. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://library.municode.com/wa/island_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITV IIIHEWESA_CH8.07DTESESY. Island County, Washington. Municipal Code of Ordinances: Title XIV, Chapter 14.02A Flood Damage Protection Ordinance. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://library.municode.com/wa/island_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITX IVBUCO_CH14.02AFLDAPROR. Island County, Washington. Municipal Code of Ordinances: Title XVII, Chapter 17.05A – Shoreline Master Program Regulations and Procedures. Accessed February 21, 2020. https://library.municode.com/wa/island_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITX VIIZO_CH17.05ASHMAPRREPR_17.05A.090SHUSDERE. Miller, Ian M. 2019. “Sea Level Rise in Washington State: What Is It and Why It’s Happening.” Presentation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, Island County, WA, September 28, 2019. https://www.islandcountymrc.org/media/19026/miller-sea-level- rise-in-washington-state-what-is-it-and-why-its-happening.pdf. Miller, Ian M., Harriet Morgan, Guillaume Mauger, Tyler Newton, Ray Weldon, David Schmidt, Mark Welch, and Eric Grossman. 2018. Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State - A 2018 Assessment. A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Oregon, University of Washington, and US Geological Survey. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/files/theme/wcrp/SLR-Report-Miller-et-al-2018.pdf Miller, I.M., Yang, Z., VanArendonk, N., Grossman, E., Mauger, G. S., Morgan, H., 2019. Extreme Coastal Water Level in Washington State: Guidelines to Support Sea Level Rise Planning. A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Oregon State University, University of Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and U.S. Geological Survey. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2019. “Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. National Research Council. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13389. Nunez, Christina. 2019. “Sea Level Rise, Facts and Information.” National Geographic. 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Existing Conditions Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-26 Shore Friendly. 2019. “Resources in Your Area: Island County.” Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.shorefriendly.org/resources/resources-in-your- area/island/. Shore Friendly. 2019. “Shoreline Ecosystem.” Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.shorefriendly.org/shoreline-ecosystem/#main-3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Island County, Washington Demographic and housing Estimates. American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Island%20County,%20Washington&g=0500000 US53029&tid=ACSDP5Y2018.DP05&hidePreview=false&vintage=2018&layer=county&c id=DP05_0001E&d=ACS%205-Year%20Estimates%20Data%20Profiles. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. OMB No. 1660-0022. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. “Policy & Claim Statistics for Flood Insurance.” https://www.fema.gov/policy-claim-statistics-flood-insurance. Vance-Sherman, Anneliese. 2020. Island County Profile. Washington State Employment Security Department. https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/island. Vitousek, S., Barnard, P., Fletcher, C. et al. Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise. Sci Rep 7, 1399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598- 017-01362-7. Washington State. Department of Commerce. 2020. Growth Management Act Comprehensive Planning for Climate Change - A Guidebook (DRAFT). Washington State. Department of Ecology. 2017. Shoreline Master Programs Handbook: Appendix A – Addressing Sea Level Rise in Shoreline Master Programs. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1106010part19.pdf. Washington State. Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines. https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01791/wdfw01791.pdf. Washington State. Recreation and Conservation Office. 2020. “Salmon Recovery and Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration.” https://rco.wa.gov/grant/salmon-recovery/. Sea Level Rise Strategy Study March 2020 Volume 2 Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Report Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Purpose Statement 2 1.2 Research Question 2 1.3 Document Organization 3 2. Methods 4 2.1 Methodology 4 2.2 Procedure 4 2.3 Data Collection 5 2.2.1 Sea Level Rise Analysis 6 2.3.2 Sea Level Rise Projections for Island County 6 2.3.3 Time Frame, Risk Probability, and Sea Level Rise Projections 7 2.3.4 Best Practices Matrix 8 2.4 Limitations & Further Research 11 3. Literature Review of Available Sea Level Rise Adaptation Tools 13 3.1 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies 13 3.1.1 Strategy: Protect 13 3.1.2 Strategy: Accommodate 15 3.1.3 Strategy: Retreat 16 3.2 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Management Practices 16 3.2.1 Soft Protection Practices 17 3.2.2 Hard Protection Practices 19 3.2.3 Accommodation Practices 25 3.2.4 Retreat Practices 31 3.3 Literature Review Conclusion 32 4. Recommendations 33 4.1 Factors Influencing Recommendations 33 4.2 Adaptation Strategy Considerations for Island County 35 4.3 Adaptation Management Practice Considerations for Island County 35 5. Conclusion 40 References 41 Appendix 2A: Best Practices Matrix 46 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-1 Executive Summary This study examines available strategies and makes recommendations for three types of coastal areas in Island County, Washington that are characterized as historic beach, bluff, and canal communities. The objective of this report is to empower homeowners and neighborhoods in these communities to know their options when preparing for sea level rise in the future so they may make choices according to their level of risk tolerance. The literature review contained in this report acts as a broad overview by evaluating sea level rise adaptation strategies and practices applicable to individual homeowners and neighborhoods. This information is used in a cross-comparison analysis of available strategies to those which would be appropriate for Island County residents to form recommendations. Products of this report include a recommendation table and analysis matrix which may be informative for Island County coastal homeowners. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-2 1. Introduction Current projections indicate sea level rise between 1-3 ft. along the Island County shoreline by 2100 (Miller et al., 2018). Potential impacts to shoreline properties and surrounding ecosystems include increased coastal flooding, habitat loss, surface, and groundwater salinity changes, and altered coastal erosion and sediment deposition patterns (Miller, 2019). In light of the upcoming challenges, Island County would like to provide information and recommendations to property owners who will be impacted by the effects of sea level rise. 1.1 Purpose Statement The purpose of this study is to pinpoint best practices for property owners to use as they recognize and identify the vulnerabilities of their properties with increased storm and flood events, determine what might be the options for appropriate adaptation, and choose how to manage their risk. This best practices report creates a recommendation table of adaptation practices organized by a time frame of usability and overarching strategy type. This study uses qualitative methods to examine available strategies and makes recommendations for three types of at-risk coastal districts on Whidbey and Camano Island: historic beach, bluff and canal communities. 1.2 Research Question The goal of this project is to provide information and cultivate greater preparedness for the impacts of sea level rise to Island County's historic beach communities, canal communities, and shoreline bluff communities in the form of best practices. To accomplish this we asked what are homeowner best practices for sea level rise adaptation in Island County, WA on an individual and neighborhood level? Best practices will be focused on private assets including: ● Residential structures: setbacks, elevation, etc. ● Septic tanks and drain fields ● Protective structures and devices (bulkheads, bluff retention devices, seawalls, etc.) ● Soft shore armoring Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-3 ● Private wells ● Private drives Certain questions must be answered to address the central research question. These supporting questions include: ● What sea level rise adaptation strategies are available? ● How is Island County unique? (Geography, community and other site-specific elements which could influence adaptation strategy choices) ● What adaptation measures or plans are currently in place in Island County? ● What adaptation measures are appropriate for the three types of communities assessed for this study (historic beach, bluff, and canal community)? ● Which adaptation measures are appropriate for each planning scenario (short-term, mid- term, and long-term)? ● What scale can each of these adaptation measures be applied (homeowner, neighborhood, community-scale)? ● What policies and regulations are in place which could impact sea level rise adaptation measure decisions? 1.3 Document Organization This document is organized into seven sections. It begins in Section 1 with an introduction that broadly discusses the report’s context, purpose and defines the research question. Section 2 focuses on the methods used in the creation of this report including scope, data collection and analysis, and limitations. Section 2 also includes sea level rise projections for Island County. Section 3 is comprised of a literature review outlining common sea level rise adaptation strategies and practices. Section 4 recommends best practices for sea level rise adaptation, influencing factors to these recommendations and includes a recommendation table. Section 5 concludes the report with a summary of research outcomes and recommendations, observations on this report’s limitations and suggestions for future research. Document sources are listed in section 6 and an appendix in section 7. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-4 2. Methods This study uses qualitative methods to examine available strategies and makes recommendations for three coastal areas on Whidbey and Camano Island. A qualitative research design was chosen for its open-ended and observation focused analysis style and ability to address emerging issues. This process included interviews, evaluation of adaptation best practices in similar communities and document review. 2.1 Methodology This report uses case studies, a common qualitative methods approach where a “researcher develops an in-depth analysis of a case, often a program, event, activity, process or one or more individuals… bounded by time and activity, and researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained person of time.” (Creswell, 14) Sea level rise is one of these emerging questions. As of early 2020 most available English literature relating to sea level rise has been published within the last ten years. 2.2 Procedure The research was conducted first by assessing the Island County community and local government concerns related to extreme coastal flooding and projected sea level rise in an existing conditions summary. (Please refer to Volume 1 of this report.) Next, the available literature and case-study information were reviewed to identify best practices in sea level rise strategies adaptation implemented in communities with similar shoreline characteristics and coastal resilience goals. Information was consolidated in a matrix for analysis. Finally, sea level rise adaptation best practices specific to Island County were developed through a cross- comparison between literature and case-study outcomes and Island County planning objectives. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-5 Figure 1. A diagram of the sea level rise adaptation strategy research process. 2.3 Data Collection Data used to assess existing conditions was obtained through a review of Island County demographic and economic information; plans, policies, and regulations related to shoreline development and coastal area management; Island County staff interviews guided by questions outlined in the appendix; and site visits conducted October 11th and 15th, 2019. Further details are provided in the Existing Conditions Summary. A review of existing literature provided information about sea level rise adaptation tools and processes. The literature review included the historical application of sea level rise adaptation, as well as published sea level rise adaptation processes and publicly available planning tools designed to address coastal resilience and climate change adaptation. In addition, the data collection process required analysis and interpretation of sea level rise projections for Island County developed as part of the 2018 Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington, a 2018 Assessment by Miller et.al. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-6 2.2.1 Sea Level Rise Analysis To analyze potential adaptation measures for Island County required identification of sea level rise projections for the area. This analysis, based upon Miller et al. 2018, takes into consideration both time frames and probabilities that sea level will meet or exceed a certain level. The following section describes how to interpret sea level projections developed for Washington State in 2018 and how to apply that information to the development of recommendations for adaptation strategies for homeowners. 2.3.2 Sea Level Rise Projections for Island County The subsequent tables illustrate sea level rise projections for Island County. These projections are based upon the analysis of Miller, et al. 2018 with the actual projections for Island County found on the Coastal Hazards Resilience Network (CHRN) website.1 There are 13 different sets of projections covering different locations throughout Island County. These projections have been averaged to create this table which can be used for planning purposes. (Please see Figure 2.) However, any site-specific design should not rely upon these numbers. Projections for the specific location should be applied using the information found on the CHRN website. Figure 2. Island County sea level rise projections in feet from the 2018 Miller et al. report. The two tables shown in Figure 2 above, represent two different greenhouse gas (GHG) 1 http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/wcrp-documents.html Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-7 scenarios, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) or RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. These scenarios affect how quickly the earth warms, and thus how quickly the sea level rises. RCP 4.5 is a low GHG scenario and therefore a slower rate of sea level rise to a lower amount by 2100. This relates to the release of a reduced amount of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. RCP 8.5 is a high GHG scenario and therefore a faster rate of sea level rise to a higher amount by 2100. This relates to a “business as usual” approach to the release of greenhouse gases. However, sea level rise for the two scenarios is essentially the same through 2050 because warming until mid-century is primarily due to past emissions. For the purpose of this study, RCP 8.5 was chosen to make recommendations for Island County representing business as usual conditions. As of February 2020, it seems unlikely that GHG emissions will be reduced in the immediate future to warrant planning for RCP 4.5 based on current global trends. Figure 3. Island County sea level rise projections from the 2018 Miller et al. report in feet showing the GHG scenario and projections table utilized for this report. 2.3.3 Time Frame, Risk Probability, and Sea Level Rise Projections For each of the two tables in Figure 3, the projections are developed based upon time and level Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-8 of acceptable risk. The column on the left provides three different time frames for planning consideration 2050, 2070 and 2100. This allows the user to compare projected rises in sea level over different times based upon planning horizons or lifespan of a project. In the case of adaptation measures, the time frame relates to when impacts from sea level rise might reach certain levels that “trigger” the need to take action or reflect the best type of approach to adapting to a certain elevation of projected sea level. The row across the top allows the user to select a probability that sea levels will reach or exceed a given amount of sea level. For example, the “very likely” column of numbers relates to the high probability (95%) that sea level will exceed the numbers shown on the table for any time frame in that column. By contrast, the “unlikely” column provides numbers where it is highly unlikely (1%), although possible, that sea levels would reach that number at any time frame shown. Using the two different GHG tables, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, it is possible to see after 2050 how sea level rise projections are different and thus requires a decision about which set of projections to use. For example, in the RCP 4.5 scenario (the top table in Figure 3) there is a very likely chance, or over 95% probability, that sea levels will rise 0.3 feet by 2050, 0.5 feet by 2070 and 0.7 feet by 2100. By contrast, in the RCP 8.5 table (the lower table in Figure 3) there is a very likely chance, or over 95% probability, that sea levels will rise 0.3 feet by 2050, 0.6 feet by 2070 and 1 foot by 2100. 2.3.4 Best Practices Matrix The literature review provided information about management practices applicable to each of the three adaptation strategies (protect, accommodate, retreat). A matrix was created to identify relevant variables in short form which could be compared to site-specific requirements of the three neighborhood typologies and key indicators in Island County resulting in sea level rise practice recommendations. This matrix includes a list of common sea level rise adaptation strategies broken down into the three categories recommended by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): protect, accommodate, and retreat. Each strategy is then subdivided into more specific management Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-9 practices. Each management practice includes a definition, whether or not the action is permissible in Island County, a sample project, and links to more information. This matrix also determines whether each management practice would be applicable in each of the three Island County communities examined in this report (historic beach, bluff and canal communities) in the Community Applicability column. This is decided by whether or not a management practice makes sense when considering generic site conditions of the community typologies. Additionally, this report takes into account foreseeable impacts these practices might have in these types of locations. If the practice passes this review it will be represented in the matrix by H for historic beach, B for bluff and C for canal community. What time frame management practices would be most effectively deployed in was also considered in the matrix. Time frame is split into three options: short-term representing today through the year 2050, mid-term representing 2050 to 2070 and long-term representing 2070 - 2100. These ranges correspond to the sea level rise projection tables seen in Figure 3. These factors are shown in the matrix’s Time Frame column and are shown with S for short-term, M for mid-term, and L for long-term. The following table was compiled to link the time frame designations used by this report and the mid-range sea level rise anticipated from the projection table RCP 8.5. Time Frame Time Range Mid-Range Sea Level Rise Anticipated Short-term Now - 2050 0.5 - 1.0’ Mid-term 2050 - 2070 0.9 - 1.7’ Long-term 2070 - 2100 1.5 - 3.0’ Figure 4. Table relating time frame used in this report’s recommendations to specific years and projected sea level rise in feet from RCP 8.5 via Miller et al. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-10 The scale of the adaptation management practices is also denoted in the matrix in the Scale column. This speaks to in general terms how many households may be necessary to deploy a type of management practice. Some practices, like installing a floodwall or temporary barrier, could be used by an individual homeowner (represented in the matrix by I), a small group of neighbors (represented by G), or a neighborhood (represented by N). While all options for adaptation practices are discussed in the literature review, practices not viable for use in Island County were removed from the matrix. This analysis matrix is meant to be available as a quick reference tool that may operate independently from this report. A sample of this matrix can be seen in Figure 5 below and may also be found in its final form in this report’s Appendix. Strategy Practice Descriptio n Community Applicability H - Historic Beach B - Coastal Bluff C - Canal Time Frame S - Short-term M - Mid-term L - Long-term Permissibility P - permitted X - prohibited C - conditional SED - shoreline environmental designation Scale I - Individual Homeowner S - Small Groups N - Neighborhood Example+ Location Link Figure 5. Example of Best Practices Analysis Matrix not yet filled in. Using the information from this analysis matrix, this report recommends sea level rise adaptation management practices for the three Island County community typologies: historic beach, bluff and canal communities. Recommendations are presented in a recommendations table. This table includes the specific management actions listed for each of the overall adaptation strategies and determines which ones apply based upon the type of community and time frame. The sea level rise adaptation practice recommendation table is found in the recommendations portion of this report and the Appendix. A draft of this table is also shown in Figure 6. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-11 PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES (Now - 2050) MID-TERM STRATEGIES (2050 - 2070) LONG-TERM STRATEGIES (2070 - 2100) Figure 6. Example of Practices Recommendations Table not yet filled in. 2.4 Limitations & Further Research Limitations to the research process which may bias or influence outcomes and/or recommendations include: Limited community contact: Community contact was limited to two public engagements held on September 28, 2019, and facilitated by the Island County Marine Resources Committee (MRC), an advisory group comprised of community volunteers and Island County staff. All other information related to community issues referenced in this report was obtained through County staff interviews, which may result in a biased assessment of community issues. Anecdotal issue identification: Few County and/or community issues and concerns identified during data collection were supported by documentation. County staff interviews and observed community feedback at MRC forums informed these issues and related planning objectives, which also may result in a biased assessment of community objectives. Limited time frame of precedent monitoring: Sea level rise has yet to occur on the scale scientists project. Although case studies exist where sea level rise adaptation strategies have Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-12 been implemented, we have yet to see the long-term effects of these strategies. It is recommended that Island County monitor sea level rise adaptation projects to assess long-term success. Monitoring program uncertainty: Community coastal resilience plan implementation is partially dependent on a community’s ability to monitor sea level and project sea level rise. Island County is developing a monitoring program that may influence the planning framework recommended in this report. Revision of the recommended planning framework proposed in this report may be necessary to incorporate the monitoring program upon establishment. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-13 3. Literature Review of Available Sea Level Rise Adaptation Tools Best practices around sea level rise are critical for the future of coastal communities. The purpose of this literature review was to gain an understanding of the range of sea level rise adaptation strategies and available practices that could be applied in Island County for the three focus communities. The research found more practices than are included in this report; only those applicable to homeowners or applied on a community scale and relevant to the geology and topography of coastal areas within Island County are included. 3.1 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies This literature review provides foundational knowledge about adaptation strategies and practices. Adaptation strategies are often broken down into three categories as recommended by the International Panel on Climate Change: protect, accommodate and retreat. For each of these overarching strategies, there are more specific management practices. Additionally, management practices falling under the protection strategy may be further organized by soft and hard practice types; in some literature, these practices are referred to as green or grey. 3.1.1 Strategy: Protect “Protection” seeks to control natural systems through hard and soft barriers and reduces sea level rise impacts in a “zone that would be impacted without protection.” (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) Soft protection practices include developing soft shorelines, dunes, beach nourishment and floating islands. These measures often have a less adverse environmental impact than hard strategies. Hard protection practices include seawalls, bulkheads, revetments, floodwalls, dikes and surge barriers. Hard protection practices are designed to stop and keep out water and prevent erosion in specific areas completely while soft practices allow more flexibility with where the water goes. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-14 Figure 7. A “protect’ sea level rise strategy diagram. Source: CoastAdapt Australia, 2019 Soft Protection methods are “green solutions [which] utilize ecological and environmental principles and practices to provide flood protection, as well as reduce erosion and stabilize shorelines, while also enhancing habitats and improving aesthetics (as compared to hard solutions). Often, soft solutions are less expensive than hard solutions and lower in maintenance, but they are not permanent and are subject to erosion.” (Al, 2018) It should be remembered that there are no permanent solutions where sea level rise is concerned. Figure 8. Hard protection measures (left) and soft protection (right) on neighboring Washington beachfront properties. Source: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2016 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-15 Hard Protection methods are “often developed by civil and environmental engineers, are flood protection structures that are (almost always) permanent. Hard solutions focus on controlling flooding and sea level rise... The downside of these projects is their disruption of ecological systems. They are generally expensive and require maintenance.” (Al, 2018) Hard adaptation practices may also be referred to as grey protection measures. These protection practices often use materials like concrete and stone. Overall, hard protection practices are rigid and often do not adapt well to a changing environment. They should primarily be considered an adaptation strategy in the near term. The cost of continually upgrading hard protection will eventually become unsustainable for the average homeowner. Additionally, hard protection practices may transform the look of a property and may alter the aesthetic appeal and character of the property if, for example, a bulkhead is required to be elevated higher and higher to protect against rising seas. 3.1.2 Strategy: Accommodate “Accommodation” allows natural systems to occur and impacts to humans and development “are minimized by adjusting human use of the coastal zone via changing land use/crop types, applying flood resilience measures, etc.” (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) This strategy includes techniques like elevating structures, floodproofing and floodable designs. This strategy entails learning to live with rising waters. Figure 9. An “accommodate” sea level rise strategy diagram. Source: CoastAdapt Australia, 2019 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-16 3.1.3 Strategy: Retreat “Retreat” or “planned retreat” allows natural systems to occur without human intervention. “Human impacts are minimized by pulling back from the coast via land use planning, development controls, planned migration, etc.” (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) Retreat is the only way to entirely eliminate risk to life and property from sea level rise. In some cases, retreat may be an unavoidable response. However, “this option is economically feasible only if it is possible to relocate within [an] existing property, either to higher ground or with a greater setback from a flood source.” (Watson & Adams, 2011) The strategy of retreat may be considered at any time frame suggested for sea level rise adaptation planning. Figure 10. A “retreat” sea level rise strategy diagram. Source: CoastAdapt Australia, 2019 3.2 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Management Practices The following section goes into detail about specific management practices available for sea level rise adaptation. Each management practice is organized by which adaptation strategy it falls under. Protection strategies are also classified by soft and hard practice type. For each management practice, pros and cons are listed along with environmental considerations and an example. Links to examples and more information on the following practices are included in the matrix in this report’s appendix. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-17 3.2.1 Soft Protection Practices Soft Shorelines are highly designed coastal areas that reduce shoreline erosions through the use of natural materials. They are often “gently sloping natural banks” that “protect coastal ecosystems, and help reduce storm surge strengths along the coastline.”(Al, 2018) Designers limit the amount and type of hardscape elements used and emphasize the use of plants and sands. The goal is to return to or reinforce natural systems along coastlines. ● Pros: Reduce erosion, create habitat, stabilize shorelines, improve coastal resilience, inexpensive compared to most hard adaptation practices ● Cons: Limited design guidance, not appropriate for high energy environments, a limited number of knowledgeable and licensed contractors ● Environmental Considerations: Soft shorelines can restore habitat and natural ecological processes to a site. ● Time Frame: Practice may be used for all of the time frames because of its ability to adapt to rising seas overtime. However, in the long term, it is possible the site may be too limited in size to accommodate the ever-shifting shoreline and need to retreat away from flooding impacts. ● Example site: Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle, Washington, USA Figure 11. Softshore installation along Washington beachfront. Source: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2016 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-18 Beach Nourishment is the “replacement or augmentation of beach sand removed by ocean waters.” (Watson & Adams, 2011) This process may occur naturally or artificially. ● Pros: Protects public and private infrastructure, expands usage by adding area, protects shore ecosystem, reverses erosion, encourages vegetative growth, increases economic and recreational opportunities ● Cons: Challenges finding similar beach material which increases project success, new sediment may bury marine life, limited public access during installation, for success beaches must have regular re-nourishment ● Environmental Considerations: Beaches can benefit from nourishment practices but the application covers existing plants and animals. ● Time Frame: Practice may extend the life of a beach being eroded in the short and mid- term. However, this likely will not be a long term solution as sea level rise is expected to surpass elevation of existing beaches. ● Example Site: Marine Park, Bellingham, Washington, USA Figure 12. Beach nourishment in progress. Source: Western Carolina University, 2018 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-19 3.2.2 Hard Protection Practices Bulkheads & Seawalls. Bulkheads are a “wall or other structure, often wood, steel, stone, or concrete, designed to retain or prevent sliding or erosion of the land. Occasionally bulkheads are used to protect against wave action.” (Watson & Adams, 2011) Seawalls are extremely similar to bulkheads and have been consolidated under this category. ● Pros: Reduces the impact of wave action on the substrate, stabilizes shoreline, less space required for installation, long lifespan, easily repaired ● Cons: Eliminates intertidal zone, erodes seabed and neighboring unreinforced sites, disrupts natural sediment systems resulting in beach erosion, overtopping may trap water behind a wall and cause damage, expensive installation costs, increases wave energy, designed for erosion protection not flooding ● Environmental Considerations: Negatively impacts the environment by eliminating habitat and speeding erosion around the installation. ● Time Frame: Practice may be effective in the short term but it is likely that the height and width of the seawall will need to be regularly increased to protect against increased coastal flooding. Structural integrity and overtopping will be increased concerns as water levels rise. ● Example Site: The Seawall, Vancouver, Canada Figure 13. Photo of a bulkhead along Washington’s coast. Source: Shoreline Construction, 2019 Dikes, Levees & Embankments. A dike is “a constructed wall or embankment along a shore to prevent flooding of low-lying land.” (Watson & Adams, 2011) Levees are similar to dikes. These Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-20 structures sometimes have an access road along their top and are made of earth, stone or other materials. Embankments are a wider version of dikes and levees. ● Pros: Prevents flooding from storm surge and tide fluctuations, manages wave action, stabilizes the shoreline ● Cons: Changes existing ecological systems, disrupts natural sediment systems ● Environmental Considerations: Negatively impacts the environment by disrupting natural ecological systems. ● Time Frame: Practice may be effective in the short term but it is likely that the height and width of the dikes will need to be regularly increased to provide flooding protection. Structural integrity and overtopping will be increased concerns as water levels rise. ● Example Site: Motorway Dike, Netherlands Figure 14. Diagram of levees in a residential context. Source: FEMA, 2015 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-21 Dry Floodproofing “prevents water from entering a structure through watertight designs.” (Al, 2018) To do this, building walls must be sealed with waterproof coatings, may use impermeable membranes or an additional layer of masonry or concrete. ● Pros: No additional space needed, maybe funded through FEMA grant programs, inexpensive compared to other retrofitting methods ● Cons: Structure failure if water velocity and height exceeds dry proofing rating ● Environmental Consideration: Impact unknown ● Time Frame: This practice was designed to protect from temporary flooding and should be considered as added protection in the event of storm surge, king tides, or other similar events in the short term and mid-term. The maximum dry floodproof rating is currently 3 feet. ● Example Site: University of Texas Perimeter Wall and Dry Floodproofing Project, Houston, Texas, USA Figure 15. Diagram of dry floodproofing in a residential context. Source: FEMA, 2015 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-22 Floodwalls & Temporary Barriers. Floodwalls are “vertical artificial barriers, either temporary or permanent, designed to withstand waters from a river, waterway or ocean.” (Al, 2018) “A floodwall can surround a structure or, depending on flood depths, site topography, and design preferences can protect isolated openings such as doors, windows, and basement entrances, including entry doors and garage doors.” (FEMA, 2007) Floodwalls are usually used in open spaces. If floodwalls are temporary, they can be moved and deployed in different locations. ● Pros: Reduces flood risk ● Cons: Large area required, the cost may be prohibitive, can worsen flooding of neighboring properties ● Environmental Considerations: Permanent flood walls may have a similar effect as bulkheads and seawalls on the environment, disrupting the natural sediment systems. ● Time Frame: Practice may be effective in the short term but it is likely that the height and width of the floodwall will need to be regularly increased to protect against coastal flooding. Structural integrity and overtopping will be increased concerns as water levels rise. ● Example Site: Mobile Floodwall, Grein, Austria Figure 16. Diagram of floodwalls in a residential context. Source: FEMA, 2015 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-23 Revetment & Riprap. A revetment is “A facing of stone or concrete to protect an embankment or shore structure against erosion by wave action or currents” or “a retaining wall, typically sloped.” (Watson & Adams, 2011) These terms often refer to material that is not anchored or has little anchoring like rocks placed on a beach. ● Pros: Reduces wave action, low maintenance, long-lasting ● Cons: Low flood protection effectiveness, disrupts natural sediment systems, a large area required, eliminates intertidal habitat, erosion of neighboring sites, increases water velocity ● Environmental Considerations: Negatively impacts the environment ● Time Frame: This is a short term solution as wave action in addition to increasing sea level rise will likely cause the failure of revetment and riprap. ● Example Site: Cleveleys Coastal Project, Cleveleys, United Kingdom Figure 17. Photo of Rialto Spit Revetment Repair project in La Push, WA. Source: Washington Rock Quarries Inc., 2019 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-24 Breakwaters are “a structure that forms a harbor and basin to protect the shore from the effects of waves, as well as to provide a safe place for fishing vessels to berth.” (Al, 2018) This structure functions to “calm water, reduce wave height, and prevent shoreline erosion.” (Al, 2018) Most breakwaters are made of rock and concrete. Breakwaters may be fixed or floating with fixed breakwaters best able to mitigate major wave action. ● Pros: Reduces wave action, prevents shoreline erosion ● Cons: High upfront costs, not a stand-alone manage practice ● Environmental Considerations: The installation of breakwaters may create habitat and increase recreational use through decreased wave action. However, breakwaters may change local habitats and migration patterns. ● Time Frame: Breakwaters become ineffective when submerged so the effectiveness time frame would be dependent on the structure size. ● Example Site: Scape Living Breakwaters, Staten Island, New York, USA Figure 18. Rendering of Living Breakwaters project meant to protect New York coastline and provide habitat for shellfish and other marine life. Source: Adapting Cities to Sea Level Rise, 2018 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-25 3.2.3 Accommodation Practices Septic System Improvements. As discussed in the existing conditions report, septic systems pose an increasing risk to public health and the environment as sea levels rise. Two main improvements may reduce the impact of septic systems. First, advanced septic systems use a secondary treatment before releasing waste into the leech field and will reduce contaminants discharged into the environment upon inundation. Second, using concrete blocks or other anchoring materials to prevent septic systems from floating up from the ground. This procedure is often called septic system anchoring. Septic systems may also be sealed by placing a neoprene gasket between the access cover and its seat and bolting down the access cover. This creates a watertight seal. ● Pros: Protect homeowner infrastructure, reduce environmental impact ● Cons: Expensive upfront cost ● Environmental Considerations: Reduces pollution risk ● Time Frame: Effectiveness of septic improvements depends on the location of the system on a given property. Septic systems need leach fields in order to operate which cannot be permenently submerged by sea level rise. ● Additional Information: Rhode Island Coastal Property Guide Figure 19. Diagram of a sealed septic system. Source: FEMA, 1999 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-26 Utility Relocation & Consolidation is an umbrella term for numerous practices that may aid sea level rise adaptation. On a property, practices may include elevating electrical outlets and lines to reduce the impacts of flooding. In a neighborhood, relocating freshwater wells upland may be necessary as saltwater intrusion renders wells inoperable. When relocating a utility consolidation with neighbors could reduce overall costs (e.g. community drain fields, shared roads & wells). ● Pros: Reduces flood impact on utilities (elevation/relocation), reduces maintenance costs for individuals (consolidation) ● Cons: Expensive ● Environmental Considerations: Reduces pollution risk ● Time Frame: This group of practices are overall resilience measures that may be deployed at any time during sea level rise adaptation. ● Additional Information: University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension, Rhode Island, USA Water Supply Diversification reduces the chances of losing access to fresh water through redundancies. This may also decrease coastal groundwater extraction rates. Diversification could include on-site recycled water systems (e.g. rainwater catchment or greywater reuse) and service agreements for increased discharge at upland wells. This is another opportunity for the consolidation of utilities with neighbors which could reduce overall costs. ● Pros: Increased access to freshwater, more dependable source, decreased groundwater extraction in the coastal zone ● Cons: Expensive ● Environmental Considerations: Impact unknown ● Time Frame: This group of practices are overall resilience measures that may be deployed at any time during sea level rise adaptation. ● Additional Information: Sea-Level Rise Impacts on Drinking Water: A Groundwater Modeling Study, Newmarket, NH, USA Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-27 Floating Structures are specially designed to “rise and fall with floodwaters.” (Al, 2018) These homes are designed on a foundation to float when excessive floodwaters are present. ● Pros: Not susceptible to sea level rise or flooding, minimal space needs, minimal ecological disturbance ● Cons: Expensive design and installation costs ● Environmental Considerations: Impact Unknown ● Time Frame: These structures are meant to float when floodwaters are present but not enough information is available to determine if they would survive permanent inundation from sea level rise. ● Example Site: The Float House - Make it Right / Morphosis Architects, New Orleans, LA, USA House Boats & Floating Homes. Floating homes are structures built on the water and float like a boat. They are often permanently moored and towed in by boat after construction. Unlike a houseboat, floating homes cannot move under their own power. ● Pros: Not susceptible to sea level rise or flooding, minimal space needs ● Cons: Use restricted by permit in many municipalities ● Environmental Considerations: Floating structures cast shade that changes light conditions in aquatic habitat and may impact natural ecological processes. ● Time Frame: These practices may be utilized at any time frame. ● Example Site: Lake Union, Seattle, WA Figure 20. Photo of houseboats in Seattle, WA. Source: Seattle Pi, 2020 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-28 Floodable Spaces, like floodable plains and squares, is a multipurpose space built next to water bodies and is allowed to fill with water when flooding occurs. ● Pros: Effective use of space ● Cons: Experimental, possible health risk with polluted floodwaters ● Environmental Considerations: Impact varies based on independent factors including design, materials and construction methods. ● Time Frame: Floodable spaces are commonly designed to flood temporarily but it is likely that they could be adjusted to hold water permanently without much challenge. A floodable space will manage inundation at any time frame. ● Example Site: Cumberland Park, Nashville, TN, USA Figure 21. Rendering of floodable public space in Copenhagen, Denmark - during summer months this pond is used as an athletic field. Source: The Guardian, 2016 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-29 Raised Ground is a management practice that “invites water to penetrate waterfront districts while elevating infrastructure such as roads to sustain human use during floods. This technique provides the opportunity for development for residential, office, hotel, retail, and transit uses.” (Al, 2018) This practice includes elevating structures. FEMA recommends elevating structures above base flood elevation (BFE) for this practice to be effective. This places “all or most of vital building infrastructure... above the flood line.” (Al, 2018) ● Pros: Reduces risk of damage to property, may reduce flood insurance premiums, often fundable under FEMA grant programs ● Cons: Expensive ● Environmental Considerations: Impact unknown ● Time Frame: Raising structures is a short and possibly mid-term solution. Although a house could be elevated above projected sea level rise, at a certain point, the utilities for a house may no longer function (i.e. electricity, water, sewer) and residents may not be able to access roads in and out of the property. ● Example Site: Perez Art Museum, Miami, FL, USA Figure 22. Diagram of elevating structure in a residential context. Source: FEMA, 2015 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-30 Wet Floodproofing “allows floodwater to enter and leave a structure through designated openings and thus requires non occupied space.” (Al, 2018) This practice does not protect from other hazards related to floodings like the force of water, erosion and floating debris. The various types of floodproofing are commonly recommended by FEMA. ● Pros: Allowing water to enter reduces the risk of structures floating off foundations ● Cons: Area must remain unused, floodwaters carry contaminants that may be transferred to floodable areas ● Environmental Considerations: Impact unknown ● Time Frame: This practice was designed to protect from temporary flooding and should be considered as added protection in the event of storm surge, king tides, or other similar events in the short and mid-term. ● Example Site: Burham Hall, Lincoln, VT, USA Figure 23. Diagram of wet floodproofing in a residential context. Source: FEMA, 2015 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-31 3.2.4 Retreat Practices On-Site Retreat involves relocating structures and other important property elements upland away from flood risk but remaining within an existing property. ● Pros: Reduces flood risk ● Cons: Expensive ● Environmental Considerations: Impact varies based on independent factors including design, materials and construction methods. This process may allow more room for habitat if accompanied by removal of hard protection practices. ● Time Frame: The effectiveness of this management practice is extremely site-specific and depends on the parcel size and elevation and ability to relocate the structure and associated utilities. ● Additional Information: Rhode Island Coastal Property Guide, Rhode Island, USA Figure 24. Photo of a building being moved back from the coastline performed by DB Davis Structural Moving & Raising Company. Source: Island County Department of Natural Resources, 2019. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-32 Off-Site Retreat entails relocating upland away from flood risk to a different property. ● Pros: Reduces risk of coastal flooding ● Cons: Expensive ● Environmental Considerations: Impact varies based on independent factors including design, materials and construction methods. This process may allow more room for habitat if accompanied by removal of hard protection practices. ● Time Frame: This practice may be used at any time but most likely will not be until later as it requires a large upfront cost. ● Example Site: Managed Retreat at Surfer’s Point, Ventura Beach, CA, USA 3.3 Literature Review Conclusion An abundance of information exists regarding sea level rise adaptation strategies and management practices. Although other strategies and practices exist, protect, accommodate and retreat are the primary adaptation strategies mentioned in available resources examined by this report. Adaptation management practices reviewed were limited to those feasible for homeowners and neighborhoods to tackle without government instigation. This topic would benefit from future research into costs associated with adaptation practices as not much information was available besides general claims that a practice was ‘expensive’ to implement or maintain. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-33 4. Recommendations 4.1 Factors Influencing Recommendations A review of literature and analysis of Island County three beach community types led to the creation of a matrix of best practices applicable to each type of community. The matrix (in the Appendix) has been summarized into a set of recommended best practices for sea level rise management practices identified by the overall strategy and time frame. Four key factors influenced this report’s recommendation for Island County’s historic beach, bluff and canal communities regarding sea level rise adaptation strategies and practices. These are community applicability, time frame, permissibility and scale of the practice. The reasoning for each of these factors, identified in the Best Practices Matrix found in the Appendix, are as follows: Community Applicability. The following recommendations took into account the suitability of adaptation strategies and practices on the three Island County neighborhood typologies outlined in the report’s scope: historic beach, coastal bluff, and canal communities. Whether or not a management practice is actually applicable will ultimately depend on an understanding and analysis of site conditions of these typologies and what impacts the proposed management practice would have on the site. Most of the management practices applied to most if not all of the three community types. The major exception is for breakwaters, which only applied to canal communities because they are the only areas that see boat usage at the scale that this expense might be warranted. Also, beach nourishment is not recommended for canal communities because there is no beach to nourish in those locations. Time Frame. Recommendations took into account if the strategy or practice would be a short- term, mid-term or long-term solution. This is based upon an analysis of the sea level rise projections for Island County described in Section 2. The time frame refers to the most appropriate time frame for considering a management practice based upon projections for sea level rise and the potential implications of greater flooding. Management practices that are able to withstand greater amounts of flooding and storm impact are identified as mid-term or long- term strategies. For example, soft shore protection is viable for short, mid and long-term time Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-34 frames because even if a homeowner eventually leaves the site the ecological systems have been rebuilt and prepared ultimately return to the water. Time Frame Time Range Mid-Range Sea Level Rise Anticipated Short-term Now - 2050 0.5 - 1.0’ Mid-term 2050 - 2070 0.9 - 1.7’ Long-term 2070 - 2100 1.5 - 3.0’ Figure 25. Table relating time frame used in recommendations to specific years and projected sea level rise in feet from RCP 8.5. Permissibility. Projects are limited by Island County municipal ordinances, Washington state law, and federal regulations. Island County Shoreline Master Program designates whether activities are permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited. Each of the management practices is analyzed as the permit status of that action according to the Island County SMP. Any Adaptation management practices outright prohibited in Island County were excluded from the recommendations. Scale. This report exclusively focused on solutions homeowners and communities could implement on their own. Each management practice is designated as to whether it applies at the scale of the individual homeowner, a small group of neighbors or an entire neighborhood. This factor limited adaptation strategies and management practices explored and included in the recommendations. These are the primary factors used in the recommendations. However, there are additional factors that are important, relevant and should be considered. These include: ● The typical cost of a project ● The impact adaptation practices will have on the environment ● The level of risk an individual or neighborhood is open to accepting regarding sea level rise Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-35 4.2 Adaptation Strategy Considerations for Island County Ultimately, homeowners must decide how to approach sea level rise for their homes and in their communities. Individual and community-specific approaches may differ based on risk tolerance and other factors affecting adaptation strategy feasibility such as cost, permitting constraints, implementation timelines, etc. The Island County community-based coastal resilience planning framework included as Volume 3 of this report serves as a guide to assist individuals and communities in planning for adaptation. This process is intended to help homeowners choose the appropriate strategy for sea level rise adaptation based on risk to community values and assets. The Adaptation Management Practices identified in this report are provided as a recommended baseline list of alternatives communities may consider when identifying appropriate adaptation strategies. 4.3 Adaptation Management Practice Considerations for Island County This section classifies specific sea level rise adaptation management practices by strategy type and recommends which practice to use in the context of each Island County neighborhood typology: historic beach, coastal bluff, and canal communities. The upcoming recommendation table (Figure 25) is a quick reference for this information. The three columns are labeled by strategy type and listed underneath them in rows are the specific practices recommended for use in Island County. Next to each sea level rise adaptation practice is represented with H, B or C signifying which community these practices would be recommended for. H stands for historic beach, B for coastal bluff, and C for canal community. These recommendations are further subdivided by short-term, mid-term or long-term categories. The placement and identification of recommendations found in Figure 25 result from the literature review, consideration of local conditions and projected sea level rise for the community. Not all of the practices reviewed should be used in Island County. At the start of this exercise, possible practices were taken from the literature review and placed in the analysis matrix. Possibilities were assessed by the information gathered in each column to determine which practice should be recommended for each community. If the column’s contents disqualified it from being used it was deleted from the analysis matrix and does not appear in the recommendation table. Disqualification often occurred when an option seemed viable but Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-36 could not be permitted in Island County or did not fit the scale prescribed by this project’s scope, i.e. was not applicable for a shoreline homeowner or small community. The following practices are not recommended for Island County as they were not compatible with a specific coastal typology examined for this study: ● Dikes, levees, and embankments are not recommended for Coastal Bluff Communities. These barriers would effectively create a bowl environment backed by in many cases critical slopes where water would have trouble draining. Collecting water in this environment seems ill-advised. ● Beach Nourishment is not recommended for Canal Communities. In most examples of Canal Communities, no real beach exists to nourish so implementing this adaptation practice makes little sense. ● Breakwaters are only recommended for Canal Communities. A breakwater is “a structure that forms a harbor and basin to protect the shore from the effects of waves, as well as to provide a safe place for fishing vessels to berth.” (Al, 2018) Canal Communities are the only areas that see boats used to the scale that this type of expense might be warranted. ● On-Site Retreat is not recommended for Canal Communities. Island County coastal properties are often small plots. From the examination, via site visits and satellite images canal communities were additionally close to the ordinary high water mark with little topographical elevation on site. For these reasons, it would be more effective for property owners to invest in off-site relocation than relocating structures on-site. The following practices deviate from their generic time frame recommendations in this report’s literature review for Island County: Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-37 ● Advanced and Anchored Septic Systems are only recommended as a Short-Term adaptation practice. The impact of mid-range (0.9 - 1.7’) and long-term (1.5 - 3.0’) sea level rise projections on septic systems would most likely submerge tanks and leach fields rendering them useless. ● Community Drain Fields, depending on their location, could be a Long-Term adaptation practice. For communities that can stay on-site consolidating septic drain fields, or leach fields, upland away from sea level rise could be a long term solution. Investing as a small group or neighborhood in this improvement would likely reduce costs overall but would require additional permitting and oversight. ● Revetment is only recommended as a Short-Term adaptation practice. Mid-range and long-term sea level rise may submerge revetment, reducing the effectiveness of this practice. Wave action happening during these ranges of sea level rise will likely dislodge revetment, riprap and other adaptation practices that do not anchor materials. ● Off-Site Retreat is recommended for Canal Communities and some Beach Communities (Spit Communities) as a Short-Term adaptation practice. Canal and spit communities, a small subset of historic beach communities, are characterized as having small plots, close to the ordinary high water mark with little topographical elevation on site. Additionally, many of these properties are surrounded by water on both sides making the threat of sea level rise even more dangerous especially in high water events. For these reasons it is recommended for property owners to consider off-site retreat in the short term. ● Off-Site Retreat is recommended for all communities as Mid and Long-Term adaptation practice. Island County coastal properties are often small plots with little elevation change within a property boundary which limits the longevity of adaptation practices. Even if individual homes can be fortified, it is unlikely that utilities and infrastructure going to these sites would continue to function without government involvement. Additionally, the impact of mid-range and long-term sea level rise Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-38 projections would significantly alter many of these homes and communities, changing the character and culture that adaptation hopes to protect. Not all management strategies are appropriate for Island County. It should be remembered that these recommendations are general and site-specific characteristics should be considered when planning for sea level rise. The following table presents recommendations by time frame and adaptation strategy for Island County. Sea Level Rise Adaptation Practice Recommendation Table PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES (Now - 2050) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Advanced Septic Systems (H, B, C) On-Site Retreat (H, B) Beach Nourishment (H, B) Anchored Septic Systems (H, B, C) Off-Site Retreat (Some B, C) Bulkhead/Seawalls (H, B, C) Community Drain Fields (H, B, C) Breakwater (C) Elevated Structures (H, B, C) Dikes/Levees (H, C) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Dry Floodproofing (H, B, C) Raised Ground (H, B, C) Floodwall (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B, C) Revetment (H, B, C) Wet Floodproofing (H, B, C) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B, C) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-39 PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT MID-TERM STRATEGIES (2050 - 2070) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Community Drain Fields (H, B, C) Off-Site Retreat (H, B, C) Beach Nourishment (H, B) Elevated Structures (H, B, C) Bulkhead/Seawalls (H, B, C) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Dikes/Levees (H) Raised Ground (H, B, C) Dry Floodproofing (H, B, C) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B, C) Floodwall (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B, C) Wet Floodproofing (H, B, C) PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT LONG-TERM STRATEGIES (2070 - 2100) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Community Drain Fields (H, B) Off-Site Retreat (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Figure 26. A table of adaptation management practice recommendations for Island County. Initials included refer to the following: H - Historic Beach, B - Coastal Bluff, C - Canal. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-40 5. Conclusion This report answers the research question what are homeowner best practices for sea level rise adaptation in Island County, WA on an individual and neighborhood level through a comparison of literature review and application of these findings to specific aspects of Island County regulations and physical conditions. Sea level rise projections for Island County exist and vary by probability and timeline. However, all scenarios suggest coastal properties will be impacted by sea level rise and extreme high tides more frequently in the future. Adaptation strategies and practices are available and may reduce sea level rise impacts. This report outlines adaptation strategies and practices that homeowners may consider for use on their properties. These recommendations are a general approach to the typological communities considered (historic beach, bluff and canal communities) and site-specific characteristics should be taken into account when planning for sea level rise. Although this report hopes to inform and not direct homeowners in their adaptation efforts, it is likely that impacted communities will need to consider retreat options at various points in their futures. As mentioned in the methods section, sea level rise adaptation is a developing field and the phenomenon has yet to happen on the scale scientists expect. Although case studies exist where sea level rise adaptation strategies have been installed, the long-term effect of some of these strategies is yet to be assessed. It is recommended that Island County monitor sea level rise adaptation projects to assess long-term success and consistently update their adaptation plans. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-41 References Island County, Washington. (Department of Emergency Management). 2015. lsland County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/DEM/Pages/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.aspx. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). 2012. Shoreline Master Program. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/pages/shorelines.aspx. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). “SMP Guidance for Island County Homeowners: Shoreline Residential.” https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Documents/Shorelines/Homeowner_SED- ShorelineResidential.pdf. Adger, W. Neil, Nigel W. Arnell, and Emma L. Tompkins. 2004. “Successful Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental Change 15 (2): 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005. Al, Stefan. 2018. Adapting Cities to Sea Level Rise: Green and Gray Strategies. Washington DC: Island Press. Bradford, Nick. 2019. “Groundwater and the Rising Seas.” National Environmental Education Foundation. 2019. Caponigro, Michelle SB. 2017. “Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Coastal Military Installations.” University of Washington. CoastAdapt. 2019. “What Should We Consider in Adapting to Sea-Level Rise?” Www.Coastadapt.Com.Au. 2019. https://coastadapt.com.au/sites/default/files/infographics/15-117- NCCARFINFOGRAPHICS-3-Updated.pdf. Commission, California Coastal. 2018. “City of Santa Monica Local Coastal Program: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update.” Santa Monica. Construction, Shoreline. 2019. “Shoreline Construction Bulkheads | Concrete and Shoreline Bulkhead Builders Serving Island, Skagit, Jefferson and King Counties.” 2019. https://pugetsoundshoreline.com/. Council, National Research. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13389. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-42 Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2018. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc. Duggins, Holly. 2018. “Sand Nourishment Effects on Beach Integrity and Safety Issues.” Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines. 2018. https://psds.wcu.edu/sand- nourishment-affects-on-beach-integrity-and-safety-issues/. EPA. 2018. “Types of Septic Systems | Septic Systems (Onsite/Decentralized Systems) | US EPA.” 2018. https://www.epa.gov/septic/types-septic-systems. ESA. 2018. “City of Del Mar Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan.” City of Del Mar. www.esassoc.com. FEMA. 2007. “Wet Floodproofing.” In Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures. FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726- 1609-20490-0583/fema551_cvr_toc.pdf. FEMA. 2007. “Dry Floodproofing.” In Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures, 120. FEMA. https://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/20130726-1609-20490-5083/fema_551.pdf. FEMA. 1999. Protecting Building Utilities From Flood Damage: Principles and Practices for the Design and Construction of Flood Resistant Building Utility Systems. 1st ed. FEMA. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/Project Planning/nfpc/Flood Proofing Techniques Programs and References 2000.pdf%5Cnhttps://s3-us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/dam- production/uploads/20130726-1514-20490-7165/p_348.pdf. FEMA. 2006. “Barriers.” In Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures, edited by FEMA, 1–10. FEMA. http://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/20130726-1608-20490-6445/fema551_ch_05.pdf. FEMA. 2015. “Reducing Flood Risk to Residential Buildings That Cannot Be Elevated.” FEMA. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2013.38674. Freitag, Bob. 2019. “All Hazards Capabilities Assessment Tool.” Seattle. Freitag, Robert C., Daniel B. Abramson, Manish Chalana, and Maximilian Dixon. 2014. “Whole Community Resilience: An Asset-Based Approach to Enhancing Adaptive Capacity before a Disruption.” Journal of the American Planning Association 80 (4): 324–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.990480. Gaurdian, The. 2016. “Copenhagen’s Public Spaces That Turn into Picturesque Ponds When It Rains.” 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/22/copenhagen- flood-public-spaces-turn-into-picturesque-ponds-rains. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-43 Gianou, Kelsey. 2014. Soft Shoreline Stabilization: Shoreline Master Program Planning and Implementation Guidance. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Vol. 14-06–009. Olympia: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406009.pdf. Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Sally Brown, Paolo Scussolini, Jose A Jimenez, Athanasios T Vafeidis, and Robert J Nicholls. 2019. “Generic Adaptation Pathways for Coastal Archetypes under Uncertain Sea-Level Rise.” Environmental Research Communications 1 (7): 13. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab1871. Hwang, Dennis J, and Darren K Okimoto. 2019. Hawaii Homeowner’s Handbook to Prepare for Natural Disasters. 4th ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. Johannessen, J., A. MacLennan, A. Blue, J. Waggoner, S. Williams, W. Gerstel, R. Barnard, R. Carman, and H. Shipman. 2014. “Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines.” Olympia. Lazrus, Heather. 2012. “Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (1): 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro- 092611-145730. Manning, Helen, Michelle Carnevale, and Pamela Rubinoff. 2014. “Rhode Island Coastal Property Guide: What Coastal Property Owners, Renters, Builders and Buyers Should Know About Rhode Island’s Shoreline.” Miller, Ian. 2019. “Sea Level Rise in Washington State: What Is It and Why Its Happening.” Presentation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, Island County, WA, September 28, 2019. https://www.islandcountymrc.org/media/19026/miller-sea-level- rise-in-washington-state-what-is-it-and-why-its-happening.pdf. Miller, Ian M., Harriet Morgan, Guillaume Mauger, Tyler Newton, Ray Weldon, David Schmidt, Mark Welch, and Eric Grossman. 2018. Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State - A 2018 Assessment. A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Oregon, University of Washington, and US Geological Survey. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/files/theme/wcrp/SLR-Report- Miller-et-al-2018.pdf. Millman, Zosha. 2020. “Seattle Has a Thriving Floating Home Community. But How Did It Start? - Seattlepi.Com.” Seattlepi.Com. 2020. https://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Seattle-floating-home-houseboat-real- estate-hist-13715019.php#photo-17123153. NOAA Fisheries. 2017. “Understanding Living Shorelines.” 2017. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-living-shorelines. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-44 Project, Washington Coastal Resilience. 2019. “Sea-Level Rise Glossary for Washington State.” Seattle: Washington Coastal Resilience Project. Prominski, Martin, Antje Stokman, Daniel Stimberg, Hinnerk. Voermanek, and Susanne Zeller. 2012. River. Space. Design: Planning Strategies, Methods and Projects for Urban Rivers. 2nd ed. Basel : Birkhauser. Quarries, Washington Rock. 2020. “Armor Rock for the Rialto Spit Revetment Repairs.” Washington Rock Quarries Inc. 2020. https://www.wa-rock.com/project/rialto-spit- revetment-repair/. Raymond, C., L. Conway-Cranos, H. Morgan, N. Faghin, D. Spilsbury Pucci, J. Krienitz, I. Miller, E. Grossman, and G. Mauger. 2018. “Sea Level Rise for Nearshore Restoration Projects in Puget Sound.” Rhode Island Sea Grant, and University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center. 2015. “Adaptation to Natural Hazards & Climate Change in North Kingston, Rhode Island.” Slovinsky, Peter A. 2011. Maine Coastal Property Owner’s Guide to Erosion, Flooding, and Other Hazards. Maine State Library: Digital Maine. https://digitalmaine.com/geo_docs Recommended. Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2012. “Perceptions of Climate Change Risks and Resilient Island Planning in the Maldives.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17 (7): 731–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9341-7. Sustainability, ICLEI‐Local Governments for. 2012. “Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy for San Diego Bay.” San Diego. Sutton-Grier, Ariana E., Kateryna Wowk, and Holly Bamford. 2015. “Future of Our Coasts: The Potential for Natural and Hybrid Infrastructure to Enhance the Resilience of Our Coastal Communities, Economies and Ecosystems.” Environmental Science and Policy 51: 137–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.006. Tam, Laura. 2009. “Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise.” The Urbanist. 2009. https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2009-11-01/strategies-managing- sea-level-rise. Toledo, Anna. 2019. “Local Community Strategies.” Presentation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, Island County, WA, September 28, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_101006. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. “Your Marine Waterfront.” Watson, Donald, and Michele (Michele C.) Adams. 2011. Design for Flooding: Architecture, Landscape, and Urban Design for Resilience to Flooding and Climate Change. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-45 Whitely, Lara C, Jennifer Krencicki, Derek B Booth, Meriel Darzen, Marketa Mcguire Elsner, Richard Fenske, Thomas F Graham, et al. 2010. “Preparing for Climate Change in Washington State.” Climate Change 102: 373–407. Zommers, Zinta, and Keith Alverson, eds. 2018. Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate Change. Amsterdam: Candice Janco. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-46 Appendix 2A: Best Practices Matrix Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Best Practices for Sea Level Rise Adaptation Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 2-47 Appendix 2A: Best Practices Matrix Sea Level Rise Strategy Study March 2020 Volume 3 Community-Based Planning Report Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Purpose Statement 3 1.2 Research Questions 3 1.4 Report Organization 3 2. Methods 4 2.1 Methodology 4 2.2 Procedure 4 3. Existing Conditions 9 3.1 Shoreline Community Characterization 9 3.2 Community Character 10 3.3 Coastal Flooding Issues 10 3.4 Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations 10 4. Literature Review 10 4.1 Background 11 4.2 Community-Based Planning: Foundational Processes 11 4.3 Community-Based Planning: Best Practices 13 4.4 Community-based planning for sea level rise 15 5. Community-based planning process analysis and outcomes 16 5.1 Existing Processes and Tools 25 5.3 Community-based planning process suitability analysis 25 6. Island County CBP Framework 28 7. Conclusions 36 7.1 Next Steps 36 7.2 Further Research 37 References 38 Appendix 3A: Island County Staff Interview Questions 41 Appendix 3B: CBP Process and Objective Cross-Comparison 42 Appendix 3C: Community-based Planning Guidebook 45 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-1 Executive Summary This report presents a community-based planning framework and accompanying guidebook intended to encourage Island County shoreline community property owners to engage in non- governmental planning processes to improve community resilience to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise. Qualitative analysis of existing planning processes and tools leveraged in the U.S. and Western Pacific islands of Micronesia revealed a series of planning steps that address Island County coastal resilience objectives and are consistent with community-based planning best practices. These steps form the basis of the community-based coastal resilience planning framework and guidebook. Community-Based Planning Framework Development Process Community-Based Planning Framework Components Step 1: Define planning issues and establish a community planning team Step 2: Identify community values and vulnerable assets Step 3: Analyze risk and establish thresholds for action Step 4: Develop and implement resilience strategies and projects Step 5: Monitor outcomes to inform future plans University of Washington Department of Urban Planning students and Washington Sea Grant conducted this research in support of an ongoing Island County initiative to address sea level rise through the development of community-oriented information and planning resources. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-2 1. Introduction Many Island County shoreline communities face coastal hazards including flooding and erosion due to extreme high tides and storm surge (Island County, 2015). These hazards are anticipated to increase in intensity as projected effects of climate change and sea level rise are realized over the coming decades (Miller et al., 2018). Current County plans, policies, and regulations do not include coastal resilience measures that directly address these projected impacts; nor do they provide guidance on adaptation strategies for individual property owners or communities. Given the absence of local government regulation or actionable guidance related to sea level rise adaptation, and the fact that the majority of developed shoreline properties in Island County are privately owned, property owner interest in the preservation of local community assets and values is the impetus for coastal resilience planning. As part of an ongoing initiative to address sea level rise, the Island County Department of Planning and Community Development embarked on an effort to identify ways to encourage property owners in vulnerable areas of the county to engage in planning processes to improve community resilience. This initiative includes the development of individual property owner and community guidance on planning and preparing for the effects of projected sea-level rise, as well as a countywide sea level rise monitoring program to inform community-level risk assessments and action plans. Figure 1.1: Island County Shoreline Master Program Update Sea-Level Rise Considerations Source: Island County Department of Planning and Community Development (2019) This report is focused on the community guidance element of the Island County SMP initiative and presents a community-based coastal resilience planning framework and guidebook Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-3 intended for use by Island County shoreline communities, as well as the research supporting its development. This section introduces overarching problem statements and research questions, and briefly summarizes the organization and contents of the remainder of the report. 1.1 Purpose Statement The purpose of this research is to develop a community-based coastal resilience planning framework and guidebook for Island County shoreline communities. The framework and guidebook reflect fundamental coastal resilience planning considerations identified by the Island County Department of Planning and Community Development, address County and community concerns related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise and incorporate established best practices in community-based planning. 1.2 Research Questions Research questions underlying this qualitative analysis include: ● What planning issues do Island County shoreline communities face related to extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise? ● Can existing planning methods and tools used in communities with similar shoreline characteristics and coastal resilience goals be leveraged to develop an Island County-specific community-based coastal resilience planning framework? 1.4 Report Organization This report is organized into seven sections which summarize the planning framework and guidebook development. Sections 1-4 introduce the project scope, explain research methods, highlight existing shoreline community conditions pertinent to framework development, and summarize background literature reviewed in support of this project. Sections 5 and 6 detail the community-based planning framework development process and resulting product. Section 7 concludes the report and identifies future research opportunities which may strengthen the framework and contribute to improved coastal community resilience. In addition to the body of these sections, appendices A and B detail the project data collection and framework development processes, and Appendix C is the community-based coastal resilience planning guidebook. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-4 2. Methods Qualitative research conducted to address the overarching research questions includes: analysis of existing Island County plans, policies, and regulations; a review of literature related to community-based planning; interviews with Island County staff to identify coastal community planning issues; and comparison of planning processes used by other organizations with Island County planning objectives. This section details the project research methodology and specific methods used to obtain and analyze data. 2.1 Methodology The project research methodology is based on a qualitative method of inquiry rooted in grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This inductive approach yielded key coastal community planning considerations through Island County staff interviews, shoreline development policy review, and case studies focused on planning practices in the field of coastal resilience and floodplain management. These considerations heavily influenced the development of the community-based planning framework and guidebook. 2.2 Procedure As indicated in the process diagram below, the project research procedure included three primary steps: existing conditions analysis, literature review, and framework development. The first step summarized Island County plans, policies, and regulations governing coastal development and identified County and shoreline community planning objectives related to projected sea level rise. Volume 1 of this report details the outcomes of this step. The second step included a literature and case study review focused on identifying community-based planning best practices and examples in communities with similar shoreline characteristics and coastal resilience goals to those of Island County. The final step compared the literature review and case study outcomes with Island County planning objectives to inform development of Island County’s community-based planning framework. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-5 Figure 2.1: Research Procedure 2.2.1 Data Collection Data used to assess existing conditions includes Island County demographic and economic information; shoreline development plans, policies, and regulations; County staff responses to interview questions outlined in Appendix A; and field notes from site visits conducted October 11th and 15th, 2019. Data that informed community-based planning examples and best practices include publications related to community-based planning principles; guidelines for established coastal planning and floodplain management processes applicable at the community level; and publicly available planning tools designed to address coastal resilience and climate change adaptation. 2.2.2 Planning Objective Development Community-based planning framework development is designed to incorporate fundamental components of coastal resilience planning, address Island County and community concerns related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise and maintain consistency with best practices in community-based planning. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-6 Planning Objective 1: Incorporate fundamental coastal resilience planning components At the outset of the project, Island County project partners identified the following as fundamental components of coastal resilience planning which must be addressed in the community-based planning framework: ● Identification of vulnerable assets ● Community-based strategies for improving resiliency and preparing for the impacts of sea level rise (e.g. community based larger impact projects) ● Monitoring, thresholds for action, and project/initiative lead times ● Financing options Planning Objective 2: Address County and community concerns related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise Island County staff interviews and review of existing plans, policies, and regulations yielded a distinct set of County and community concerns related to extreme flooding events and potential impacts of projected sea level rise. These concerns are summarized in the below figure and represent the types of planning issues communities may address through the application of the planning framework presented in section 6 of this report. Figure 2.2: County and Community Coastal Flooding Issues & Concerns Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-7 Planning Objective 3: Maintain consistency with community-based planning best practices Review of existing literature related to community-based planning and analysis of processes and tools currently leveraged to facilitate planning in coastal communities introduced a series of best practices that warrant consideration in framework development. ● Community awareness of planning issues ● Community identification of critical assets and values ● Community participation in the planning process ● Effective community-based planning structure ● Adequate implementation resourcing ● Effective post-process evaluation Collectively, these three objectives form a basis for suitability analysis of potential community- based planning tools and processes which ensures Island County staff and community concerns are addressed in a manner consistent with established best practices in community- based planning. 2.2.3 Data Analysis & Outcomes A cross-comparison of Island County community planning objectives and existing coastal and floodplain management planning processes identified specific tools for consideration in the development of the Island County-specific community-based planning framework. A data analysis process diagram is presented below. Figure 2.2: Community-based Planning Framework Development Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-8 A matrix comparing components of planning processes identified through literature and case study review with Island County planning objectives is the primary analysis tool applied in this report and is detailed in Appendix B. A matrix summary table identifying the suitability of a given process in terms of ability to address each of the three primary community planning objectives is included in the report. A summary table template is presented below, and a completed table reflecting cross-comparison outcomes is included in section 5 of this report. Table 2.1: Community-based Planning Process and Objective Cross-comparison Template 2.2.3 Recommendations The analysis process resulted in a stepwise list of processes, objectives, and supporting tools that guide the development of community coastal resiliency plans. The list is presented in section 6 of this report as the basic framework for Island County community-based coastal resiliency planning. 2.2.4 Research Limitations Limitations to the research process which may bias, or influence outcomes and/or recommendations include: Limited community contact: Community contact was limited to two public engagements held on September 28, 2019 and facilitated by the Island County Marine Resources Committee Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-9 (MRC), an advisory group comprised of community volunteers and Island County staff. All other information related to community issues referenced in this report was obtained through County staff interviews, which may result in a biased assessment of community objectives. Anecdotal issue identification: Few County and/or community issues and concerns identified during data collection were supported by documentation. County staff interviews and observed community feedback at MRC forums informed these issues and related planning objectives, which also may result in a biased assessment of community objectives. Limited precedent availability: Little literature or case study data documenting purely community-based coastal resiliency planning exists. In most cases, community actions connect to established government plans, programs and resources. Because that is not the case in Island County, the local effectiveness of community-based planning best practices identified in this report may be limited. Monitoring program uncertainty: Community coastal resilience plan implementation is partially dependent on a community’s ability to monitor sea level and project sea level rise. Communities currently have access to citizen science-based shoreline ecosystem monitoring resources through organizations such as the Island County Marine Resources Committee, Sound Water Stewards, and the Puget Sound Partnership. In addition, Island County is developing a monitoring program specific to sea level rise which may influence the planning framework recommended in this report. Revision of the planning framework proposed in this report may be necessary to incorporate the monitoring program upon establishment. 3. Existing Conditions Existing conditions are detailed in Volume 1 of this report. Key takeaways particularly relevant to the development of a community-based coastal resilience planning framework include: 3.1 Shoreline Community Characterization At over 196 miles in length, the Island County shoreline is the longest contiguous shoreline in Washington State. The coast is characterized by low lying beaches and spits, dredged canals, wetlands, high unstable bluffs, and residential development. Approximately 63% of the Island County shoreline is designated for residential land use; and approximately 28% of shoreline properties lie within designated Historic Beach and Canal communities, and areas that contain Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-10 steep and/or unstable slopes referred to in this report as Feeder Bluff communities (Island County, 2012). These communities are the focus of this report, and variations in environmental designations, community development patterns, and regulations were specifically considered in developing the community-based planning framework. 3.2 Community Character Island County coastal communities are primarily comprised of homeowners at or above the median income and age without many mobility restrictions; many of whom maintain shoreline properties as second or vacation homes (NOAA, 2019). 3.3 Coastal Flooding Issues Community member and County concerns based on review of historical coastal flooding events, associated flood damage repair permits, and interview responses from County representatives who regularly engage with community members indicate significant interest in protecting private property from inundation and flood damage; particularly related to structural foundations, water, and wastewater systems (Island County, 2019). 3.4 Current Plans, Policies, and Regulations Current plans, policies, and regulations base coastal flood risk assessments and development regulations primarily on U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which establish base flood elevations reflecting a 100-year, or 1% annual chance flood event. These projections do not account for extreme high tides or projected sea level rise. Potential impacts of projected sea level rise are addressed in some detail in the Island County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP). The County shoreline development permitting process effective at the time of this report, however, limits consideration of these projected impacts to required marine and steep slope buffers, shoreline setbacks, and minimum structure bottom floor elevation equivalent to the FEMA base flood elevation for new development (Island County, 2016; 2019). 4. Literature Review This section provides a review of the literature addressing community-based planning history, foundational elements, best practices, and established processes and tools related to coastal Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-11 resilience planning. Outcomes of this review informed selection of community-based planning framework components best suited to support Island County shoreline community planning objectives. 4.1 Background Though a universal definition of community-based planning has not been established among academics and planning professionals, the definition presented by the Southern Rural Development Center as a “local voluntary planning process that is designed to build, strengthen and support community structure” which involves “individual and associational actors from various social fields coming together to develop and implement an interlinking, comprehensive and coordinated plan of action” perhaps best describes the dynamic process as it applies to Island County coastal resilience planning (Theodori, 2007). Since the 1980s, community-based planning has gained significant momentum as a method of addressing site and topic-specific planning issues through community engagement. Historically, topics and issues typically addressed through community-based planning include community development, economic revitalization, public safety, and natural resource conservation (ILJ, 2002; Garzón et al., 2012). More recently, community-based planning has emerged as a widely leveraged approach to climate change and sea level rise adaptation in the absence of institutional plans and regulations (Garzón et al., 2012; USAID, 2013; NOAA, 2019). Community-based planning processes exist in many forms; however, a primary objective of developing solutions to local issues representative of community values and priorities is generally consistent across applications (ILJ, 2002; Freitag et al., 2015; Moyo et al., 2016; Etingoff, 2017). This review examines literature and case studies related to community-based planning to identify foundational principles, key elements of successful implementation, and examples of processes related to climate change and sea level rise adaptation. Ultimately, literature review outcomes will be referenced to develop a coastal resilience and sea level rise adaptation community-based planning framework for Island County shoreline communities. 4.2 Community-Based Planning: Foundational Processes Community-based planning models are plentiful and have led to varying degrees of plan implementation success depending on communities served, process objectives, and circumstances driving the need for community involvement. Most models follow a similar Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-12 general structure, which begins with identification of planning issues and stakeholders, followed by collaborative community development of approaches to address these issues, implementation of a selected approach, and outcome assessment to inform future community decisions related to the issues (ILJ, 2002; Theodori, 2007; Etingoff, 2017). Community-based planning processes are applied in many forms and across many fields to address community- specific issues ranging from public health and safety concerns to community development initiatives. A model developed by the U.S. Department of Justice, known as the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Problem Solving Model, perhaps best describes the foundational process behind CBP processes and tools (ILJ, 2002). Figure 4.1: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) Model Source: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice Though the SARA model was designed for and is most commonly applied to community- oriented policing, its principles are generally applicable to many issues a community may face and warrant consideration in the development of issue-focused community-based planning processes. In the case of shoreline planning the SARA model provides a basic framework that community members may reference when addressing issues such as projected sea level rise. Communities may begin by analyzing risks associated with projected sea level rise; develop and implement local action plans to address those risks and assess the results of action taken to inform whether further iterations of the process are necessary to achieve desired outcomes. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-13 4.3 Community-Based Planning: Best Practices Published literature indicates successful implementation of community-based planning processes and beneficial planning outcomes are related to a multitude of contributing factors; many of which vary by location and specific issues addressed. Despite this variability, there are a number of factors consistently identified as key to success across the spectrum of community- based planning applications, which are presented here as best practices. These practices include establishment of community awareness regarding planning issues (ILJ, 2002; Etingoff, 2017); community identification of assets and values potentially affected by a given planning issue (ILJ, 2002; Walter, 2012; Freitag et al., 2015); robust and equitable community member participation in the planning process (Kent, 1981; ILJ, 2002; Walter, 2012; Etingoff, 2017); effective planning process facilitation (APA, 1998; Svendsen and Campbell, 2008; Wongbusarakum et al., 2015); adequate resourcing of the process itself and implementation of resulting plans (APA, 1998; Theodori, 2007; City of New York, 2019; Svendsen and Campbell, 2008; Moyo and Madlopha, 2016); and meaningful process evaluation to assess effectiveness and inform future community decisions (ILJ, 2002; Theodori, 2007 Garzón et al., 2012; USAID, 2013; Moyo and Madlopha, 2016; Etingoff, 2017). These best practices are further detailed below. 4.3.1 Community awareness of planning issues Awareness of issues affecting communities that may be addressed through community-based planning occurs in many ways, including through community member experience and third-party outreach and education. In some cases, communities are driven to act based on their experience with a particular issue. In others, community outreach and education conducted by local governments, non-governmental organizations, and/or advocacy groups serve to inform communities about issues that do or may affect them (ILJ, 2002; Etingoff, 2017). In both cases, awareness builds interest and investment in taking action at the community level to address the issue. This interest and investment are fundamental to the success of a community-based planning approach. 4.3.2 Community identification of critical assets and values Community members best understand local values and priorities, as well as the assets associated with them (Freitag et al., 2015). Community-based asset identification is commonly included in hazard mitigation planning processes and is fundamental to the community-based Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-14 planning process. Though personal values and priorities may differ among community members, collective identification of assets which promote overarching community values provides an indication of what issues are likely to generate widespread public interest and result in meaningful planning activities (ILJ, 2002; Walter, 2012; Freitag et al., 2015). 4.3.3 Community member participation in the planning process Without adequate and equitable community representation, community-based planning processes are unlikely to truly address overarching concerns related to a given issue, and investment in the implementation of solutions generated through the process may prove challenging. Robust participation in community-based planning promotes the accurate definition of community values and critical assets and indicates an increased likelihood of community member interest and investment in the implementation of resulting plans. Though the definition of adequate participation may differ between communities based on size and composition, equitable representation of populations served within a given community forms a baseline standard (Kent, 1981; ILJ, 2002; Walter, 2012; Etingoff, 2017). Participation in CBP processes is often rooted in a community-member interest in preserving community character and influencing public policy which may directly impact their community (Hatley, 2013). In addition to these driving forces for participation, incentives for involvement in CBP processes that support both community and local government goals may be leveraged. Examples of incentives related to land development include free or low-cost expert consultation, permitting fee reduction, and/or project development and implementation process assistance. 4.3.4 Effective community-based planning process structure While community-based planning processes are intended to be inclusive and collaborative in nature, a need for structure and facilitation exists to ensure productive outcomes. Establishment of the planning process and organizational structure including early identification of community member roles and responsibilities, planning for administrative and logistics requirements, and development of a process schedule promote productive engagements, sustained community interest, and meaningful outcomes (APA, 1998; Svendsen and Campbell, 2008; Wongbusarakum et al., 2015). Community-based planning processes should be facilitated to optimize effectiveness, either internally by community members or externally by third-party government, non-government organization, or advocacy group representatives. In cases involving complex planning issues, third-party facilitation may prove necessary to maintain and Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-15 navigate the planning process, organize community input, resolve disputes, and produce actionable plans. 4.3.5 Adequate resourcing Community-based planning processes may prove resource-intensive in terms of funding and human capital required for the process from start to finish; particularly during plan implementation (Svendsen and Campbell, 2008; Moyo and Madlopha, 2016). At the outset, communities should identify the time commitment expected of CBP organization members and contributors, as well as resources that may be needed for plan development. Plans which identify projects or other actions requiring external funding should include identification of potential funding sources. Plans addressing complex or technical issues should include input from and involvement of subject matter experts, which often requires communities to conduct external outreach to access the necessary expertise (APA, 1998; Theodori, 2007; City of New York, 2019). Without clear funding strategies and access to the expertise necessary to facilitate plan implementation, community-based planning processes risk being rendered ineffective. 4.3.6 Effective post-process evaluation Post-implementation monitoring of plan outcomes is widely regarded as a critical step in community-based planning processes (ILJ, 2002; Theodori, 2007 Garzón et al., 2012; USAID, 2013; Etingoff, 2017). Community buy-in and confidence in the effectiveness of community planning processes are key to their success. Monitoring of implementation outcomes provides a basis for process evaluation necessary to build this confidence and inform future community plans and decisions (Moyo and Madlopha, 2016, Etingoff, 2017). 4.4 Community-based planning for sea level rise As climate change and sea level rise adaptation emerge as central community concerns in the U.S. and abroad, the need for effective community-based planning processes and tools designed to improve community preparedness and resilience is increasingly evident. A review of existing literature related to community-based planning introduced a series of best practices that warrant consideration in developing community-based approaches to coastal resilience planning. These include: ● Community awareness of planning issues ● Community identification of critical assets and values Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-16 ● Community participation in the planning process ● Effective community-based planning structure ● Adequate implementation resourcing ● Effective process evaluation Further, community approaches to coastal resilience planning should leverage existing, proven planning processes and tools to the extent practical. This report details the development of one such planning approach for Island County shoreline communities in section 5 and presents the resulting community-based planning framework in section 6. 5. Community-based planning process analysis and outcomes This section details the data analysis component of the research process and presents a summary of the analysis outcomes. For this project, the analysis process included identification of existing community-based planning processes and tools which may be adapted to support Island County community planning objectives; and assessment of the suitability of selected planning processes and tools to achieve those objectives. Community-based planning framework objectives introduced in section 2 of this report include: ● Objective 1: Incorporate fundamental coastal resilience planning components ● Objective 2: Address County and community concerns related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise ● Objective 3: Maintain consistency with community-based planning best practices Sections below detail planning processes and tools analyzed for potential use in the community- based planning framework, and outcomes of process, tool, and planning objective cross- comparisons. 5.1 Existing Processes and Tools Community-based planning framework development considered existing planning processes and tools applied in support of coastal resilience planning in coastal communities across the U.S. and island nations in the western Pacific Ocean. These resources include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) Floodplain Management Planning Process, which encourages local governments to extend flood resilience considerations and development Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-17 standards beyond basic regulatory requirements and provides planning guidance applicable at the community level (FEMA, 2017); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) web-based U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, which serves as a repository for information and guidance intended to support communities in planning for projected climate change impacts (NOAA, 2019); and the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) community-led coastal resilience process gaining international attention based on its application in Micronesia (Wongbusarakum et al., 2015). These tools are not currently leveraged in Island County planning processes and provide valuable information and examples of effective community engagement strategies which should be considered when developing community-based coastal resilience plans. An overview of each process highlighting key components is provided below. 5.2.1 FEMA CRS Floodplain Management Planning The 2017 Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual is a guidance document developed by FEMA to assist local governments in taking floodplain management actions above and beyond the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to protect community assets and potentially reduce property owner insurance rates. The manual consists of seven sections that provide a CRS program overview, guidance and regulations governing program administration, and planning guidelines for local governments (FEMA, 2017). Much of the manual is intended for local government use to aid in generating land use and development regulations necessary to establish and maintain CRS eligibility and reduce flood insurance costs; however, the CRS floodplain management planning process may be scaled and adapted to support whole community resilience and adaptive capacity development. This report focuses on the flood damage reduction and planning activities section of the CRS manual, which includes a four-phase, 10-step floodplain management planning process. The below figure and process description highlight key elements relevant to community-based planning. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-18 Figure 5.2: CRS Floodplain Management Planning Process Diagram Phase 1: Planning Process This phase initiates CRS planning and consists of three distinct steps: organization, public involvement, and coordination. In the organization step, communities seeking involvement in the CRS develop a team to include a designated facilitation team and subject matter experts as needed to navigate aspects of the plan requiring specialized experience. The public involvement step focuses on gathering citizen input regarding plans and establishing citizen advisory committees to contribute to the planning process. During the coordination step, communities review existing plans, flood protection activities, mapping products, etc. for inclusion in local floodplain management plans. Phase 2: Risk Assessment Phase 2 includes assessment of known floodplain-specific hazards, and identification of potential problems associated with those hazards. In assessing hazards, the community identifies sources, frequency, extent, and causes of local flooding based on existing plans and historical flooding data. The community then identifies whether and which natural and/or built assets that support community values and floodplain functions may be affected by flooding under anticipated hazard conditions. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-19 Phase 3: Mitigation Strategy Mitigation strategy development is organized into three steps: setting goals, reviewing possible activities, and drafting an action plan. In setting goals, community planning groups identify objectives consistent with those of existing formal hazard mitigation plans which address all known flood-related hazards faced by the community. A review of possible activities entails the evaluation of a wide range of alternative mitigation strategies extending beyond traditional solutions. Pros, cons, and implementation considerations related to each potential strategy are documented in this phase to inform mitigation strategy selection. Mitigation strategies are selected in this phase based on available resources and anticipated resulting reduction to community flood risk. Selected mitigation strategies are then aligned with an implementation schedule to develop a draft floodplain management action plan. Phase 4: Plan Maintenance In this phase, the community formally adopts the floodplain management plan through a documented approval process, initiates plan implementation, evaluates implementation outcomes, and revises and amends the plan as necessary to reflect changing hazard-related information and/or adjustments necessary to achieve community objectives. CRS program certification requires annual plan evaluations and updates at 5-year intervals to ensure plans remain dynamic and reflect current conditions in the floodplain and local built environment. Applicability to Island County Community-Based Planning Process Though the CRS program and associated planning guidance are designed for local government applications, the 10-step floodplain management planning process is applicable to community planning initiatives, directly addresses all three Island County community planning objectives, and is consistent with best practices in community-based planning. Resources supporting each step including maps and planning templates are publicly available and user-friendly. Further, the use of CRS planning guidelines to inform community adaptation decisions aligns proposed actions in established floodplains with existing regulatory standards exceeding those currently required by Island County, which may position property owners to be eligible for flood insurance rate reductions as a result of plan implementation. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-20 5.2.3 U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit The NOAA U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit is a widely referenced resource for climate change adaptation planning at the local community scale. The toolkit serves as a repository for climate change adaptation-related tools and information and includes a basic workflow for building community resilience to hazards associated with climate change, presented below. Figure 5.3: Steps to Resilience Source: US Climate Resilience Toolkit, 2019 The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit includes case studies from throughout the U.S. in which application of this process yielded community-driven climate change adaptation strategies (NOAA, 2019). Though adaptation strategies developed through this process are generally community-generated, implementation is largely dependent on local, state, or federal government funding and technical assistance in many cases. It should be noted that multiple professional planning organizations have developed community assistance programs intended to provide expertise to communities facing challenging planning issues. Examples of these organizations and programs include the American Planning Association Community Assistance Program comprised of regional Community Planning Assistance Teams (CPAT) which provide pro bono community planning support (APA, 2019); and the Community Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) initiative established by Headwaters Economics and Wildfire Planning International, and funded by the U.S. Forest Service and private foundations (CPAW, 2019). A brief summary of each step from the Toolkit is provided below (NOAA, 2019). Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-21 Step 1: Explore Hazards This step includes organizing community members interested and invested in preserving local assets and values; evaluating past and projected weather and climate trends and identifying critical assets that may be affected by climate change. This step is characterized by community asset and value identification and leveraging the best available science and third-party expertise to educate community members on the range of likely future climate scenarios. The outcome of this step is a determination of whether climate change projections present a hazard to critical community assets and/or values. Step 2: Assess Vulnerability & Risks Vulnerability and risk assessments include the identification of potential climate change-related impacts on community assets and values. This step is intended to encourage communities to engage in risk management by evaluating the probability and severity of potential hazards in terms of impact on community well-being. The outcome of this step is a risk determination in which the community decides whether projected climate risks to assets and value are acceptable or require mitigation. Step 3: Investigate Options This step includes identification of alternative mitigation strategies for climate risks to community assets and/or values which were deemed unacceptable. The investigation includes a review of case studies in which similar risks were responded to by other communities to identify a range of potential actions, and evaluation of the feasibility of local implementation of potential actions. The outcome of this step is a list of feasible alternatives the community may consider for further action. Step 4: Prioritize & Plan Prioritization includes evaluation and ranking of costs, benefits, and community capacity to complete alternative actions developed in the previous step. During this step, the community integrates the highest-ranking actions for which capacity exists and develops a stepwise plan to complete them. The plan should identify stakeholder roles and responsibilities; and account for timeline, resource, administrative, and logistical actions necessary for objective attainment. The Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-22 outcome of this step is a comprehensive implementation plan for the community’s favored actions. Step 5: Take Action This step involves the implementation of the community-generated plan by stakeholders who accept responsibility and coordinate the resources necessary to accomplish plan objectives. In addition to implementing the plan, this step includes periodic monitoring, reviewing, and reporting on outcomes to identify whether actions effectively increase community resilience and address climate risk to assets and values. This step is ongoing through the completion of an action or project and results in lessons learned which may be used to inform future community planning processes. Applicability to Island County Community-Based Planning Process The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Steps to Resilience directly address all three Island County community planning objectives and includes user-friendly planning templates designed for use by community members. Additionally, the toolkit includes links to case studies and an extensive repository of tools and resources which may be leveraged by community-based planning facilitators to optimize process effectiveness with limited need for outside expertise. Further, the toolkit serves as a convenient source of location-specific information for use in community outreach and education related to coastal resilience; and provides an opportunity for community feedback and contribution to document local planning actions and process effectiveness. 5.2.3 Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Process In 2010 a collaborative group of community organizations and conservation advocacy groups developed a process for coastal community vulnerability assessment and climate change adaptation planning known as the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) process. The four-step process is outlined below, and a template intended to guide communities through the development of an action plan is available through the US Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program (USAID, 2013). Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-23 Figure 5.4: Climate Change Adaptation Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Process Source: USAID LEAP Guide, 2013 Among communities engaging in the LEAP process, reported benefits include ease of application, the potential for use as a standalone tool, and multidisciplinary stakeholder involvement. Limitations include the time-consuming nature of such a highly participatory process, difficulty scaling to communities with urban development or complex governance structures, limited guidance on plan implementation, and a typical requirement for outside entity technical support to truly understand and adequately address critical vulnerabilities. A brief summary of the LEAP process phases is provided below. Step 1: Getting Organized for Climate Change Adaptation Planning In preparation for climate change adaptation planning, communities must identify stakeholders representing local interests and technical expertise necessary to address specific issues that may arise. In this step of the LEAP process, communities must identify process facilitators and ensure adequate information, authority, and resources are available to complete the process (USAID, 2013). The outcome of this step is an established community planning organization with clear roles and responsibilities; and a community background narrative that provides context and describes the community’s need for climate change adaptation. Step 2: Telling Your Climate Story This step of the LEAP process includes communicating scientific and local knowledge related to potential climate change impacts to the extended community to inform risk decisions. Through telling the climate story, community members are made aware or reminded of potential changes to their physical, ecological, and social environment, and may demonstrate increased interest Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-24 and/or investment in adaptation planning. The outcome of this step is a climate story which uses a combination of visualizations, computer-based scenario modeling, and documented local impacts collected through public participation to present past, present, and projected future hazards related to climate change with the potential to affect assets and values identified as key to community well-being. Step 3: Conducting a Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability of a community asset or value is identified by its exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to climate threats. In this step, vulnerabilities of social, economic, ecological, and infrastructure assets are evaluated together, given their dependency on one another in coastal areas. A vulnerability assessment is initially completed through qualitative evaluation of how likely it is that community values and associated assets will be affected by climate change. The assessment may be expanded to include quantitative analysis where potential impacts can be quantified and evaluated for significant relationships and/or trends. The outcome of this step is a vulnerability assessment that helps explain community vulnerability to climate change impacts and inform risk-based decisions regarding adaptation alternatives. Step 4: Developing a Local Early Action Plan The Local Early Action Plan identifies effective and feasible actions communities may take to increase resilience and reduce climate change risks. The LEAP process includes the identification and prioritization of adaptation options based on effectiveness, feasibility, and cost/benefit analysis outcomes. The plan includes an implementation schedule and identifies partners and external resources necessary to complete priority adaptation actions. The plan extends beyond implementation to include benchmarking and monitoring strategies to evaluate plan performance and inform future community planning decisions. The final LEAP includes all products generated in the four-step process. Templates and worksheets for each step of the process are included in the appendices of the 2013 USAID LEAP Guide and may be edited to reflect application in areas other than the Coral Triangle, for which the process was initially developed. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-25 Applicability to Island County Community-Based Planning Process The LEAP process is consistent with best practices in community-based planning and addresses multiple aspects of Island County coastal resilience planning criteria and County and community issues and concerns. The LEAP Guide provides step by step instructions as well as user-friendly worksheets and templates for community-led development of coastal adaptation plans. These worksheets are intended for small island communities and do not necessarily reflect all planning considerations required of complex community organizations; however, LEAP tools and resources may be adapted to reflect Island County-specific planning issues. The LEAP process ends with the development of an action plan and does not directly address the implementation or monitoring of plan outcomes. Despite this limitation, the use of LEAP process guidelines and adapted worksheets in combination with plan implementation and evaluation processes included in other tools referenced in this report may provide a viable and complete planning model for Island County communities. 5.3 Community-based planning process suitability analysis Cross-comparison of Island County community-based planning objectives and elements of the FEMA CRS Floodplain Management Planning, U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, and LEAP processes identifies the suitability of each of the tools for consideration in the Island County community-based planning framework. The below diagram highlights key components of the cross-comparison process and outcomes. Figure 5.1: Community-based Planning Framework Development Process Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-26 The capacity of a given process and its associated tools to address Island County community planning objectives and their sub-components determined suitability for consideration in the community-based planning framework. Section 2 of this report details Island County planning objectives, and a summary is provided below. Table 5.1: Community-Based Planning Objectives and Sub-Components Cross comparison of the three planning processes with Island County planning objectives is detailed in Appendix B. The appendix includes a matrix that identifies planning process components that directly address a given community planning objective sub-component as suitable for consideration in community-based planning framework development (color-coded green). Similarly, the analysis identifies process components that address a given planning objective sub-component but do not provide supporting tools and resources as partially suitable (color-coded yellow); and process components that do not address a given objective sub- component as unsuitable (color-coded red). Suitability of each process in terms of ability to address the three primary Island County planning objectives was determined as a function of combined sub-category ratings. Processes rated as suitable (green) represent 75% or more suitable (green) sub-component ratings for a given planning objective and no unsuitable (red) ratings. Processes rated as partially suitable Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-27 (yellow) represent less than 75% suitable (green) sub-component ratings for a given planning objective and less than 50% unsuitable (red) ratings, as well as those with one or more unsuitable (red) rating. Processes rated as unsuitable (red) represent 50% or more unsuitable (red) sub-component ratings for a given planning objective. The below summary table presents process suitability ratings at the Island County planning objective level. Table 5.2: Community-Based Planning Process and Objective Suitability Matrix As evidenced by cross-comparison outcomes, each of the processes analyzed contains tools applicable to community-based planning objectives, with FEMA CRS floodplain management guidance and the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit demonstrating the capacity to address all objectives. Analysis trends included a limited reference in all three processes to tools supportive of post-implementation plan monitoring and reference to general planning and implementation funding sources such as federal grant programs rather than process-specific funding opportunities. LEAP process shortfalls affecting suitability included the absence of implementation and post-implementation guidance, and limited examples or potential adaptation strategies applicable to Island County community issues and concerns. The strengths of each process include clarity of process guidance, which generally aligns with Island County planning requirements and community-based planning best practices. Specific strengths of the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit and LEAP process include the provision of clear and useful planning templates intended for community use in developing location-specific resilience plans. The Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-28 community-based coastal resilience planning framework references elements of each process detailed above, selected based on their alignment with Island County planning objectives. 6. Island County CBP Framework The Island County community-based coastal resilience planning framework establishes a stepwise planning process intended to achieve community planning objectives and guide communities in the development of coastal resilience plans. The framework incorporates adapted elements of the FEMA CRS floodplain management planning, U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, and LEAP processes identified as supportive of Island County community planning objectives and connects users to additional resources associated with each planning step. Island County Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Framework Step 1: Define planning issues and establish a community planning team Step 2: Identify community values and vulnerable assets Step 3: Analyze risk and establish thresholds for action Step 4: Develop and implement resilience strategies and projects Step 5: Monitor outcomes to inform future plans Step 1a: Define Planning Issues Objective: This initial step in the community-based planning process is intended to raise community awareness of potential future issues related to projected sea level rise. In many cases in Island County, shoreline property owners have experienced impacts of extreme high tides and have a sense of what sea level rise may mean for them; however, concerted outreach efforts to ensure common public knowledge and access to information are critical to the planning process. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include a review of Washington State sea level rise projections and use of the NOAA Sea-Level Rise Viewer web tool to run user-friendly scenarios reflecting various sea level rise conditions. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-29 Figure 6.1: NOAA SLR Viewer and WA State SLR Projections Sources: NOAA; Miller et al., 2018 Supporting Resources: These processes and tools may be leveraged by individuals, but are likely more effective when explored in group settings. Public outreach by advisory groups such as the Island County Marine Resources Committee (MRC), supported by representatives from the Department of Natural Resources, Planning, and Environmental Health has proven an effective mechanism for engagement. Island County provision of an online and physical resource repository with these and other informational tools may bolster the success of these engagements by providing community members easy access to the best available science and technical expertise related to projected sea level rise. Further, communities with established formal and informal representative organizations and/or associations may leverage them, as well as online community notification platforms such as “Nextdoor.” Step 1b: Establish a Community-based Planning Team Objective: This step is intended to identify stakeholders representing community demographic profile and interests to act as the primary planning body responsible for coordinating administrative and logistics requirements of the process. This group may vary in size but must provide a holistic representation of the community to optimize effectiveness and identify local expertise which may be helpful in addressing the particular issue. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 1 (organize & involve the public), U.S. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-30 Climate Resilience Toolkit step 1 (explore hazards) and the LEAP worksheet 3 (stakeholder identification). Applicable planning guidance and templates are included for reference in Appendix C and provide step by step processes to identify groups and interests which should be included in a community-based planning team. Supporting Resources: As with the previous step, these processes and tools prove most effective when explored in group settings and are facilitated through established formal and informal representative organizations and/or associations, or through input solicitation through online community platforms. Step 2: Identify Community Values and Vulnerable Assets Objective: This step is intended to identify community goals, values, and their supporting assets. Goals should be big picture and reflect community aspirations, values should include aspects of the community which members desire to maintain or preserve, and assets should reflect the capital (physical or otherwise) which supports both the values and goals. Though County identification of infrastructure necessary to support accessibility, health, and life-safety in a given community, it is important that this step is completed by community members to document what is important enough to warrant expenditure of time and effort in the planning process. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 2 (assess the hazard & problem), U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit step 1 (explore hazards) and the LEAP worksheets 4 and 7 (community profile & target mapping); each of which provide step by step processes to identify what is important to community stakeholders and mapping those values to assets within the community. These worksheets are included in Appendix C. Supporting Resources: The Island County Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies critical community assets and vulnerabilities but is mostly focused on major public infrastructure systems. Though the scope of HMP critical asset assessment may not align with local community concerns, the document provides a good example of how a community might document this step. In addition, the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit includes a link to case studies related to each phase of resilience planning. A review of case studies may prove useful in initiating this step. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-31 Step 3a: Analyze Risk Objective: This step is intended to assess risk introduced by potential sea level rise to community assets identified in the previous step. The process should account for environmental stressors (flooding, septic system overflow, groundwater contamination, etc.) and non-environmental stressors (evacuation planning, valuable preservation, family concerns, etc.) associated with sea level rise and reflect an overall risk assessment based on probability of occurrence and magnitude of impact if a major flooding event takes place. Probability is relatively objective given sea level rise projections and community experience to date with extreme high tide flooding; however, the magnitude may be more subjective based on a given community’s values associated with at-risk assets. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 2 (risk assessment), U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit step 2 (assess risks), and LEAP worksheet 8 (threat mapping); each of which provide step by step processes to identify hazard probability and magnitude and develop an overall risk definition. The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Risk Characterization Matrix is pictured below. Other referenced processes and tools are detailed in Appendix C. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-32 Figure 6.2: Risk Characterization Matrix Source: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Supporting Resources: The Island County Hazard Mitigation Plan catalogs risk to critical assets but is mostly focused on those pertaining to public infrastructure and general community groups (vulnerable communities, etc.). Though the scope of HMP critical asset and vulnerable population assessments may not align with local community concerns, the document provides a good example of how a community might document this step. In addition, the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit includes a link to case studies related to each phase of resilience planning. A review of case studies may prove useful in initiating this step and as a basis of comparison for outcomes. Step 3b: Establish Thresholds for Action Objective: This step is intended to identify acceptable risk at the community asset level and establish thresholds for community action in the event risk becomes unacceptable. This step is heavily dependent on community goals and values and is likely to be specific to each community. For example, the image below shows Camano Island’s Livingston Bay under 2050 projected sea level rise and extreme high tide conditions. Under these circumstances, communities may determine that action well in advance of 2050 is necessary to preserve their property. Figure 6.3: Livingston Bay Potential Inundation (2050) Source: Miller et al., 2016 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-33 Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 2 (risk assessment), U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit step 2 (assess risks), and LEAP worksheet 8 (threat mapping). These references and tools provide guidance related to decision points at which community planning groups will need to determine whether to take action to preserve assets and either protect, redefine, or reassign values. Referenced processes and tools are detailed in Appendix C. Supporting Resources: At the time of this report, the Island County Planning Department is in the process of developing a sea level rise monitoring plan intended to leverage existing tide gauges and other monitoring and relay devices to effectively monitor changing sea levels and inform communities of SLR trends. Once available, this tool may be a valuable resource used by communities to inform future risk decisions. In addition to future sea level rise monitoring, the Island County Hazard Mitigation Plan recommends the development of a comprehensive threat monitoring program and identifies some key elements of what the monitoring plan should include. Communities may use HMP recommendations to inform the development of local monitoring plans. Ultimately, communities must decide the level of risk their communities are willing to accept and take action accordingly. Step 4a: Develop Solutions Objective: This step is intended to identify potential sea level rise adaptation strategies and project alternatives capable of mitigating risk to community assets and values while complying with applicable guidelines and regulations. In this step community planning groups will develop a list of local sea level rise adaptation strategies and projects, and assess their effects on community asset resilience, economic viability, local and regional environmental impact, and implementation feasibility, among other factors. This process is intended to result in a prioritized list of viable short, medium, and long-term projects representing applicable protection, accommodation, and managed retreat adaptation strategies for which the community may pursue funding and implementation support. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 3 (mitigation strategy), U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit steps 3 & 4 (investigate options, prioritize & plan), and LEAP worksheet 9 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-34 (identify early actions). Each tool provides guidance related to identifying key comparable aspects of potential projects, assessing project feasibility given accessible community resources, and prioritizing projects in terms of urgency and implementation feasibility. A sample project feasibility matrix from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit is presented below, and other referenced tools are detailed in Appendix C. Figure 6.4: Adaptation Project Feasibility Matrix Source: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Supporting Resources: Adaptation strategy examples are available through many sources to include the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit case studies, Sea Grant coastal property owner guides, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife publication Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines (WDFW, 2016). In addition, organizations and programs such as the Shore Friendly program supported and administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provide planning guidance and resources to support community decisions to pursue nature-based coastal adaptation projects (Shore Friendly, 2019). Most relevant to Island County, however, are shoreline sea level rise adaptation best management practices developed through this project; which represent short, medium, and long-term protection, accommodation, and retreat strategies gleaned from case studies in similar communities throughout the U.S. and abroad. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-35 Step 4b: Implement Solutions Objective: This step is intended to provide guidance on the implementation of selected community planning actions, to include sea level rise adaptation strategies. Plan implementation relies heavily on funding and enduring community support; therefore it is imperative that strategy or project leads are assigned, a clear project implementation process and timeline are established, and sources of project funding are identified in this step. Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 3 (plan maintenance), U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit step 5 (take action), LEAP worksheet 19 (work plan), and Island County shoreline development regulations. The first three tools provide general implementation plan development guidance and are detailed in Appendix C. County development regulations specify permitting requirements, timelines, and costs related to shoreline projects, and are available on the Island County website. Supporting Resources: Federal, state, and local project implementation and funding support may be available for selected adaptation projects in the form of conservation and emergency preparedness grants, conservation district financial assistance, property tax reductions through the Washington State Public Benefit Rating System for natural shoreline restoration, and free or low-cost technical assistance (FEMA, 2019; Washington DNR, 2019). The U.S. Coastal Resilience Toolkit and Shore Friendly program provide listings of nationwide and Island County- specific funding opportunities available today. In the future, Island County may pursue additional incentives for coastal resilience projects. Step 5: Monitor Outcomes Objective: This step is intended to provide guidance on community monitoring of adaptation strategy and project outcomes, documentation of project effectiveness, and generation of lessons learned to inform future iterations of the project and/or related planning decisions. Monitoring and feedback allow communities to optimize the effectiveness of the community-based planning process. This step requires community planning group dedication and continuity to ensure lessons learned are effectively passed on and applied to future initiatives. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-36 Processes and Tools: Processes and tools which may assist with this step include those outlined in CRS Floodplain Management Planning Phase 3 (plan maintenance) and U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit step 5 (Take action). Relatively little related to project monitoring and feedback is included in the LEAP process; however, community-based planning literature consistently identifies this step as critical to project and/or process effectiveness. Referenced processes and tools are detailed in Appendix C. Supporting Resources: Examples of project monitoring are provided in U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit case studies; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Coastal Hazards Center of Excellence Disaster Recovery Tracking Tool is an example of a tool which may be adapted to the Island County CBP process (NOAA, 2019). 7. Conclusions This report provides a recommended Island County community-based coastal resilience planning framework and documents supporting research and development. The proposed framework addresses specific planning issues related to extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise faced by Island County shoreline communities; reflects best practices in community-based planning processes and tools specific to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise, and leverages those processes and tools to support coastal resiliency planning. The research documented in this report indicates methods for communities to engage in planning and implementation of adaptation strategies intended to reduce risk to individual property owner and community assets associated with projected sea level rise. As identified in this report, keys to community-based planning framework success include extensive and equitable community member involvement; access to the expertise necessary to educate community members of planning issues and inform planning decisions; adequate resourcing of implementation plans; and post-implementation monitoring of project outcomes to track performance and inform future planning decisions and projects. 7.1 Next Steps A community guide to coastal resiliency planning is included as Appendix C to this report. The guide details community actions necessary to complete each step of the planning framework outlined in this report and provides worksheets and additional resources adapted from existing planning processes and tools to facilitate community planning. Completion of these planning Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-37 steps and associated worksheets will provide communities with the fundamental components of a coastal resilience plan and assist them in developing and implementing short, medium, and long-term sea level rise adaptation strategies. 7.2 Further Research Additional research is necessary to provide a comprehensive guide to community coastal resilience planning and is recommended to address the limitations of research documented in this report. This section highlights identified research shortfalls and/or areas that may warrant further research to better position Island County communities to plan for coastal resilience. 7.2.1 Community-based planning incentive opportunities Identification and evaluation of coastal resilience planning incentives employed in other U.S. communities will inform recommendations for Island County’s consideration. Effective incentives for planning participation are key to forming a community-based planning team, and the addition of thoroughly researched incentive recommendations would strengthen the proposed planning framework. Potential incentives to explore include permit fee reductions, streamlined permitting processes, and free technical assistance with planning and design for projects supportive of coastal resilience in communities with established coastal resilience plans. 7.2.2 Sea-level rise monitoring and threshold establishment Upon establishment of an Island County sea level rise monitoring plan and completion of a scheduled 2020 Island County Shoreline Master Program update, which will include sea level rise considerations, further research into how both can best be incorporated into the proposed community-based planning framework will be necessary. 7.2.3 Adaptation planning for vulnerable populations The shoreline community in Island County is generally characterized as older, relatively affluent, and generally mobile. Further research into the location and extent of vulnerable shoreline populations and how community-based planning guidance may be effectively leveraged by them is necessary to make this project’s deliverable a universally applicable product. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-38 References American Planning Association. “Community Planning Assistance Teams.” Accessed November 15, 2019. https://www.planning.org/communityassistance/teams/. Campbell, Lindsay K. and Erika Svendsen. 2008. "Urban Ecological Stewardship: Understanding the Structure, Function and Network of Community-based Urban Land Management." Cities and the Environment 1, no. 1: 4-31. https://doaj.org/article/93d01ee4f8224c848be867a5be6e711f. City of New York, NY. (Department of City Planning). 2019. “Community-Based Planning.” Accessed November 15, 2019. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/community/community-based-planning.page. Etingoff, Kim. 2017. Urban Land Use: Community-Based Planning. 2017. Waretown, NJ: Apple Academic Press. Freitag, Robert C., Daniel B Abramson, Manish Chalana, and Maximilian Dixon. 2014. “Whole Community Resilience: An Asset-Based Approach to Enhancing Adaptive Capacity Before a Disruption.” Journal of the American Planning Association 80, no. 4: 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2014.990480. Garzón, Catalina, Heather Cooley, Matthew Heberger, Eli Moore, Lucy Allen, Eyal Matalon, Anna Doty, and the Oakland Climate Action Coalition. (Pacific Institute). 2012. “Community Based Climate Adaptation Planning: Case Study of Oakland, California.” California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-038. Glaser, Barney G., and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Gombos, Meghan, Scott Atkinson, and, Supin Wongbusarakum. 2013. “Adapting To A Changing Climate: Guide To Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) And Management Planning.” Micronesia Conservation Trust: Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Hatley, Pamela Jo. 2013. “Preserving Place: A Grounded Theory of Citizen Participation in Community-Based Planning.” PhD diss., University of South Florida. Headwaters Economics and Wildfire Planning International. 2019. “Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW). Accessed November 15, 2019. https://planningforwildfire.org/. Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ). (Pickett Institute). 2002. “Community-Based Planning.” http://www.ilj.org/publications/docs/Community_Based_Planning.pdf. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-39 Island County, Washington. (Department of Emergency Management). 2015. lsland County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/DEM/Pages/Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.aspx. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). 2012. Shoreline Master Program. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/pages/shorelines.aspx. Island County, Washington. (Department of Planning and Community Development). “SMP Guidance for Island County Homeowners: Shoreline Residential.” https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Documents/Shorelines/Homeowner_SED- ShorelineResidential.pdf. Kent, George. 1981. “Community-based planning: A better approach to development?” National Development 22, no. 5: 74-86. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/CommBasedPlng.pdf. Miller, Ian M., Harriet Morgan, Guillaume Mauger, Tyler Newton, Ray Weldon, David Schmidt, Mark Welch, and Eric Grossman. 2018. Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State - A 2018 Assessment. A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Oregon, University of Washington, and US Geological Survey. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/files/theme/wcrp/SLR-Report-Miller-et-al-2018.pdf. Miller, Ian M., Sascha Petersen, Matt Fougerat, Dawn Pucci, Lori Clark and Brian Wood. 2016. “Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood Risk Assessment for Island County.” Presentation, Island County Department of Natural Resources, Island County, WA, September 27, 2016. https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Health/DNR/PublishingImages/Pages/Iverson- Improvement-Project/Miller_IversonMeeting_27Sept16.pdf. Moyo, T, Madlopha, S.S. 2016. “An evaluation of the role of community-based planning in Integrated Development Planning Process in Umjindi Local Municipality, Mpumalanga Province.” University of Limpopo. http://hdl.handle.net/10386/1600. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019. “Coastal County Snapshots: Island County, WA.” Digital Coast. Coastal County Snapshots. Accessed December 5, 2019. https://coast.noaa.gov/snapshots/#/process?action=flood&state=53&county=029&bound s=-123.1700601153469,47.50402862695134,- 121.94961198208226,48.81157046930632. Penny, Meredith. 2019. “Island County Shoreline Master Program Update.” Presentation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, Island County, WA, September 28, 2019. https://www.islandcountymrc.org/media/19027/penny-island-county-shoreline-master- program-update.pdf. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-40 Shore Friendly. 2019. “Resources in Your Area: Island County.” Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed December 5, 2019. http://www.shorefriendly.org/resources/resources-in-your-area/island/. Theodori, Gene. 2007. Preparing for the Future: A Guide to Community-Based Planning. Southern Regional Development Center and Sam Houston State University. http://srdc.msstate.edu/publications/archive/243-1.pdf. Micronesia Conservation Trust and US Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program. 2012. Guide to Vulnerability Assessment and Local Early Action Planning (VA-LEAP). http://www.pimpac.org/images/file/VA_LEAP_FINAL.pdf. U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit. 2019. “Steps to Resilience.” Accessed December 5, 2019. https://toolkit.climate.gov/#steps. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. OMB No. 1660-0022. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf Walter, Cheryl L. and Cheryl A. Hyde. 2012. Walter, Cheryl L. L., and Cheryl A. A. Hyde. "Community Building Practice: An Expanded Conceptual Framework." In Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Welfare: Third Edition, 78-90. Vol. 9780813553146. Rutgers University Press. Wongbusarakum, Supin, Meghan Gombos, Britt-Anne A. Parker, Catherine A. Courtney, Scott Atkinson & Willy Kostka. 2015. “The Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Tool: Enhancing Community-Based Planning for a Changing Climate.” Coastal Management 43, no. 4: 383-393, https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1046805. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines. 2016 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-41 Appendix 3A: Island County Staff Interview Questions Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Initial Interview Questions Purpose: To familiarize UW student researchers with Island County coastal zone management plans, policies, and processes; and to inform the development of sea level rise adaptation best management practices and a community-based coastal resiliency planning framework. Questions: 1. What is your role working for Island County related to coastal and canal flooding mitigation, preparedness, response, and/or recovery concerns? 2. (2-part question) Do your department plans, policies, and/or processes (existing and in progress) related to coastal development and resource management address potential impacts of extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise? If not, are there specific barriers to consideration of these topics? 3. In your department, what are the primary (top 3-5) concerns related to extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise in Island County Historic Beach, Coastal Bluff, and Canal Communities? 4. Based on your interactions with community members and coastal property owners, what are the primary (top 3-5) community concerns related to extreme flooding and projected sea level rise in Island County Historic Beach, Coastal Bluff, and Canal Communities? 5. Does your department maintain information and/or resources which may be useful for private property owners and communities in developing coastal resiliency plans (e.g. flood preparedness guidance, coastal development permitting guidelines, etc.)? 6. (2-part question) What residential community and/or private property owner actions do you recommend to address potential impacts of extreme flooding events and projected sea level rise? Are you aware of counties or cities with similar challenges that have adopted sea level rise adaptation strategies which may be applicable to Island County? 7. Are you aware of and/or involved in existing Island County or Washington State programs which provide financial support or incentive for private property owner or community projects which may lessen impacts of bluff erosion, coastal or canal flooding? Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 Appendix 3B: CBP Process and Objective Cross-comparison Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-43 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 1-44 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 Appendix 3C: Community-Based Planning Guidebook Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 Table of Contents Guidebook Overview .................................................................................................................. 1 What is community-based planning? ........................................................................................ 1 Why is coastal resilience planning important? .......................................................................... 1 Who should participate in coastal resilience planning? ............................................................. 1 How does the planning process work? ...................................................................................... 3 Steps to Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning ...................................................... 4 Step 1: Define Planning Issues and Establish a Planning Team .............................................. 4 Worksheet 1A: Community Profile ......................................................................................... 8 Worksheet 1B: Sea Level Rise (SLR) Projections ................................................................. 9 Worksheet 1C: Identifying and Involving Stakeholder Groups ............................................ 12 Worksheet 1D: Identifying and Involving Individual Stakeholders ....................................... 13 Step 2: Identify Community Values and Vulnerable Assets .................................................... 14 Worksheet 2A: Community Values, Goals, and Assets ....................................................... 16 Worksheet 2B: Community Asset Vulnerability ................................................................... 17 Step 3: Analyze Risk and Establish Thresholds for Action ...................................................... 18 Worksheet 3: Risk Assessment and Community Action Threshold ..................................... 22 Step 4: Develop and Implement Coastal Resilience Strategies and Projects ......................... 26 Worksheet 4A: Develop Solutions ....................................................................................... 29 Worksheet 4B: Implement Solutions .................................................................................... 36 Step 5: Monitor Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 39 Worksheet 5: Monitor Outcomes ......................................................................................... 41 Finalizing the Coastal Resilience Plan .................................................................................... 42 Additional Information and Resources ................................................................................... 43 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 1 Guidebook Overview This guidebook is provided as a resource for Island County community members to assist in planning and implementing coastal resilience strategies and projects at the local level. The guidebook provides background information on the concept of community-based planning and the importance of coastal resilience, followed by a stepwise guide to conducting community- level planning complete with planning templates and links to additional information and resources. Through applying the process outlined in this guidebook, Island County residents will have access to the information and resources necessary to develop community-specific coastal resilience plans and improve preparedness for the future. What is community-based planning? Community-based planning is, generally, a voluntary local planning process which brings together people and groups from various backgrounds within a community to develop and implement a coordinated plan of action to address a particular issue or set of issues. For Island County residents, community-based planning presents the opportunity for community members to identify and work to resolve issues of concern through local, non-governmental action. Why is coastal resilience planning important? As our climate changes, so will many factors which may affect both the shoreline ecosystems and existing properties. These factors include potential sea level rise and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Current projections indicate Island County may experience between 1-3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 which may, in many cases, result in issues such as increased frequency and extent of coastal flooding, increased coastal erosion, impacts to coastal groundwater quality, and habitat loss. Planning for coastal resilience is something that can take place within communities recognizing the importance to take action to address these issues with or without government policy or direction. Who should participate in coastal resilience planning? All Island County shoreline properties may benefit from coastal resilience planning. Research supporting this guidance focuses on three community types identified as most likely to be affected by projected sea level rise. These include designated Historic Beach and Canal communities, and areas that contain steep and/or unstable slopes referred to in this guidebook Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 2 as Coastal and Feeder Bluff communities. A brief description of each community type based on the Island County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is provided below: Historic Beach Communities Densely platted small lots with residential structures constructed thirty feet or less from the ordinary high water mark; typically established prior to Washington State’s 1972 adoption of the Shoreline Management Act. Canal Communities Residential communities developed along engineered canals. These communities are typified by residential structures constructed above the ordinary high water mark with dedicated waterfront access. Feeder Bluff Communities Coastal and Feeder Bluff communities consist of residential development atop and at the base of steep or unstable slopes that are subject to coastal and surface water erosion as part of natural ecosystem processes. Historic Beach Community Example Source: Island County SMP Guidance Canal Community Example Source: Island County SMP Guidance Coastal (Feeder) Bluff Community Example Source: WA Coastal Atlas Historic Beach Community Example Source: Island County SMP Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 3 How does the planning process work? The Island County community-based coastal resilience planning framework establishes a stepwise planning process intended to achieve community planning objectives and ultimately develop community-specific coastal resilience plans. The framework incorporates adapted elements of existing planning processes and tools developed by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program; and connects users to additional resources associated with each planning step. Island County Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Framework The following section of this guidebook details objectives, community actions, and resources related to each step in the planning process. Worksheets associated with each step of the process provide templates that communities may use to document their decisions and actions. Through completing the process steps and worksheets, communities will develop a baseline coastal resilience plan which may be used as a basis for implementing sea level rise adaptation projects. The process is intended to be iterative, and regular review of planning assumptions and process outcomes is necessary to ensure plans consider current information related to climate change and adaptation best practices. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 4 Steps to Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Step 1: Define Planning Issues and Establish a Planning Team In order to effectively plan, community members must first identify specific issues which need to be addressed through community action and establish a planning team representative of community interests comprised of members who are willing and able to commit to the planning process from beginning to end. Define Planning Issues Objective This initial step is intended to raise awareness of potential issues related to projected sea level rise. In this step, Island County residents concerned with current or future issues related to coastal flooding identify the extent to which sea level rise may affect their community, Process 1. Develop a community profile – Document basic community characteristics (population, community designation, etc.) as well as current and future general coastal resilience concerns. Include physical issues such as property damage and habitat loss, and non- physical issues such as quality of life impacts, and economic impacts. The profile should also identify existing community generated plans that address coastal issues. 2. Identify local sea level rise projections - The Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network published Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State: a 2018 Assessment which provides a range of sea level rise projections for Island County reflecting various probabilities of exceedance and timelines. Using this resource, communities may identify the different amounts of sea level rise associated with multiple scenarios. Projections used for Island County planning purposes are presented below. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 5 The two tables shown above, prepared using Miller et al., 2018 sea level rise projections, represent two different greenhouse gas scenarios (RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5). More information about how to understand sea level projections can be found on the Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website listed under tools and supporting resources below. The column on the left provides three different time frames for planning consideration. This allows the user to compare projected rises in sea level over different times based upon planning horizons or lifespan of a project. The row across the top allows the user to select a probability that sea levels will reach or exceed a given amount of sea level. For example, the “very likely” column of numbers relates to the high probability (95%) that sea level will exceed the numbers given. By contrast, the “unlikely” column provides numbers where it is highly unlikely (1%), although possible, that sea levels would reach that number. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 6 3. Model local sea level rise impacts - User-friendly online mapping and modeling tools such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer enable Island County residents to view potential impacts of sea level rise in their communities. Community members should model multiple scenarios representing various sea level rise projections to gain a basic understanding of the likelihood of sea level rise affecting them according to current projections. NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer Interactive Mapping Tool 4. Decide to plan - Based on the outcome of sea level rise projection modeling, communities will identify what is potentially at risk and decide whether coastal resilience planning is in their best interest. In reaching this decision, communities may want to consult with citizen scientists and advocacy groups working on climate change and sea level rise initiatives, such as the Island County Marine Resources Committee, to review model results and gain insight on related concerns. Tools and supporting resources ● Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com ● Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State: A 2018 Assessment http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/wcrp-documents.html ● NOAA Sea-Level Rise Viewer https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ ● Island County Marine Resources Committee website https://www.islandcountymrc.org/ Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 7 Planning template Use worksheet 1A to build a community profile. Use worksheet 1B to document sea level rise projections, model outputs, and additional information supporting the community’s decision to plan. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 8 Worksheet 1A: Community Profile Instructions and Example: Describe community characteristics and identify primary concerns and current local plans related to coastal flooding and projected sea level rise. Community Name & Location: Enter common name of community and general physical location Community Type: Select Historic Beach Community, Canal Community, Coastal Bluff Community, or Other Community Population (estimate): Coastal Resilience Concerns (Existing Conditions): Identify top (1-3) coastal resilience issues your community currently faces. Issues may be physical (property damage, habitat loss, etc.) or non-physical (quality of life impacts, economic impacts, etc.). Coastal Resilience Concerns (Future Projections): Identify top (1-3) coastal resilience issues your community is concerned may emerge as a result of projected sea level rise. Issues may be physical or non-physical. Existing Plans: List existing local community generated plans which address coastal flooding issues or development guidelines. Examples include community Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), community design guidelines, neighborhood emergency management plans, community environmental conservation plans, water system plans, etc. Do not include local government plans. An example is provided below: Existing Plan Title Plan Created By Plan Date Plan Location (web link or physical location and contact number) Coastal Resilience Considerations Neighborhood CC&Rs Neighborhood Homeowners Association January 2020 HOA Website: www.website.com Shoreline development restrictions Private beach maintenance requirements Worksheet adapted from US Coral Triangle Initiative Local Early Action Planning Tool Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 9 Worksheet 1B: Sea Level Rise (SLR) Projections Instructions and Example: Document sea level rise model parameters and outcomes for each scenario in the table below. Communities are encouraged to model numerous scenarios spanning the range of sea level rise projections. An example entry is provided for reference. Global Emissions Scenario (RCP 4.5 or RCP 8.5) SLR Projection Timeline SLR Projection Probability of Exceedance (Very Likely, Likely, Unlikely, Mid- Range) Projected SLR* (feet) NOAA SLR Viewer Community Impacts Community Planning Recommendation RCP 8.5 2100 Mid-Range (17-83%) 1.5-3.0 Yes – Partial Inundation at 2- 3 ft. Conduct coastal resilience planning *SLR projection source: Miller et al., 2018, Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State - A 2018 Assessment. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Hazard Resilience Network. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/files/theme/wcrp/SLR-Report-Miller-et-al-2018.pdf. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 10 Establish a Community Planning Team Objective This step is intended to identify community representatives to act as the primary planning group responsible for coordinating administrative and logistics requirements of the coastal resilience planning process. This group may vary in size but must provide a holistic representation of the community to optimize effectiveness Process 1. Identify potential stakeholders (groups) - Identify professional, social, and other groups or organizations which may have an interest in community planning efforts. This stakeholder group must be representative of the demographic and economic spectrum within the community and may include outside individuals or groups with technical expertise relevant to the planning issue(s). 2. Identify stakeholder representatives (individuals) - For each stakeholder group, identify a specific candidate to represent the group’s interest in the planning process. Include contact information and, when possible, preferred contact days/times. 3. Conduct outreach - Contact stakeholder representatives to discuss planning issues and request involvement in the planning process. Obtain agreement to participate and document constraints on availability. 4. Establish Team Roles - Identify volunteers for key positions within the planning team to include administrative, logistics, and communication leads. Team members assigned to these positions should be willing and able to commit to involvement for the duration of the planning process and are instrumental in ensuring timely and effective completion. Specific responsibilities of each position may vary based on planning team size and complexity of planning issues addressed. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 11 Tools and supporting resources Stakeholder identification is most effective when conducted in a group setting. Community members are encouraged to solicit input from formal and informal representative organizations such as the Marine Resources Committee, homeowner’s and/or neighborhood associations, and online community platforms such as Nextdoor. ● Island County Marine Resources Committee website https://www.islandcountymrc.org/ ● Nextdoor website https://nextdoor.com/find-neighborhood/wa/ Planning template Use worksheets 1C and 1D to document stakeholder identification, outreach, and role establishment. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 12 Worksheet 1C: Identifying and Involving Stakeholder Groups Instructions and Example: Identify formal and informal groups of people with potential interest in the planning issue and/or process outcomes. Document their interest and importance to the process in the table below. An example entry is provided for reference What are the main groups of people involved in the community? Describe their interest How important is this group to the planning process? How and when should they be involved in the planning process? Property owners Property ownership and community resource access Very important From the beginning of the process. Involve them in issue identification, all regular planning meetings, progress updates, and regular feedback opportunities. Community associations Non-governmental organizations Community service organizations County Departments State Agencies Federal Agencies Other Worksheet adapted from US Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 13 Worksheet 1D: Identifying and Involving Individual Stakeholders Instructions and Example: Identify individual representatives for stakeholder groups that should be involved in the planning process Use the below table to document coordination with potential stakeholder group representatives and their involvement in the planning process. An example is provided for reference Stakeholder Group Individual Stakeholder Contact Information (preferred phone and email) Planning Team Role Comments Property owners John Doe Cell: 555-5555 Email: jdoe@mail.com Administrative Coordinator Available M/W evenings 5pm-7pm Has legal experience Worksheet Adapted from US Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 14 Step 2: Identify Community Values and Vulnerable Assets Objective This step is intended to identify community values, goals, and their supporting assets. Values should include aspects of the community which members desire to maintain or preserve, goals should be big picture and reflect community aspirations, , and assets should reflect the capital (physical or otherwise) which supports community values and goals. Process 1) Identify community values and goals - Stakeholders collectively identify values that contribute to community character, culture, and identity; as well as aspirational goals that reflect and help to achieve the identified values for the future of the community. It is imperative that members of all stakeholder groups are involved in this step to ensure values and goals represent diverse community perspectives. 2) Identify supporting assets - Stakeholders identify tangible and intangible assets within the community which support or enable community values and goals. Assets should extend beyond critical infrastructure necessary to maintain basic community services, and include elements such as individual and community property, shared community knowledge, culturally significant sites and activities, and natural resources. 3) Identify asset vulnerabilities – Stakeholders document climate and non-climate stressors affecting key community assets and identify the “tipping point” at which an asset will lose its functionality or negatively impact community values and goals. This step includes a vulnerability assessment for each asset in which community members determine whether effects of projected sea level rise for each scenario modeled in step 1 might negatively impact a given asset to the point where it is no longer able to perform its primary function in support of community values and goals. Vulnerability ratings take into account the likelihood sea level rise may affect the asset based on NOAA Sea Level Rise Viewer model output, and the asset’s adaptive capacity, or ability to be modified to maintain its primary function despite projected sea level rise impacts. A matrix identifying vulnerability ratings based on likelihood of sea level rise impact and adaptive capacity is provided below as an aid to completing this step. As shown in the matrix, low likelihood of sea level rise impact combined with high adaptive capacity results in low asset vulnerability; whereas high Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 15 likelihood of sea level rise impact and low adaptive capacity result in high asset vulnerability. Asset Vulnerability Matrix Likelihood of SLR Impact > Very High Very High High Very High High Moderate High Moderate Low Adaptive Capacity > Tools and supporting resources Online tools such as the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Steps to Resilience, and the University of Kansas Community Toolbox provide examples of community asset identification which may assist in beginning a community-specific asset identification process. ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit - Steps to Resilience (Step 1: Explore Hazards) https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/explore-hazards ● University of Kansas - Community Toolbox https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and- resources/identify-community-assets/main Planning template Use worksheet 2A to document community values, goals, and assets. Use worksheet 2B to document asset vulnerability. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Report Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 16 Worksheet 2A: Community Values, Goals, and Assets Instructions and Example: Document values which define community character, goals related to the values, and assets (physical and non-physical) supporting both the values and goals which may be impacted by projected sea level rise. Include asset condition and comments as applicable. Example provided for reference. An example is provided for reference Community Value Community Goal Asset & Type (Built Environment, Natural Resource, Social, etc.) Asset Condition (poor, fair, good, excellent) Comments Connection to natural environment Improve community access to beach and wetland Coastal trail network Good Trail network exists, but requires clearing and maintenance Worksheet adapted from US Coral Triangle Initiative Local Early Action Planning Tool and NOAA coastal adaptation guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 17 Worksheet 2B: Community Asset Vulnerability Instructions and Example: Document issues which may affect community assets as well as climate and non-climate stressors which contribute to their potential impact. An example is provided for reference. • Identify climate and non-climate stressor trends (improving, worsening, etc.), what the tipping point would be for the asset to be significantly impacted, and the estimated probability that the tipping point scenario will occur. • Identify the asset adaptive capacity (or ability to be modified to maintain its primary function) over a range of potential impacts. • Finally, identify the asset vulnerability as a function of probability of tipping point occurrence and adaptive capacity (high probability of occurrence and low adaptive capacity lead to high vulnerability; low probability of occurrence and high adaptive capacity lead to low vulnerability, etc.). Reference the vulnerability matrix included in step 2 process description to assist with rating asset vulnerability. Community Asset Climate Stressor and Trend Non-Climate Stressor and Trend Tipping Point Probability of tipping point occurring (unlikely, likely, very likely) Asset Adaptive Capacity (low, moderate, high) Asset Vulnerability (low, moderate, high, very high) Coastal trail network Sea level rise projected increase of 1-3ft by 2100 Erosion from surface water runoff degrades trail Trail network inaccessible due to inundation and erosion Likely Moderate – trail function is restored once area is drained Moderate Worksheet adapted from US Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 18 Step 3: Analyze Risk and Establish Thresholds for Action Risk management is a fundamental component of coastal resilience planning. This step of the process includes identification of risk to community assets introduced by projected sea level rise; and establishment of thresholds for community action based on risk tolerance. Analyze Risk Objective This step is intended to assess risk introduced by projected sea level rise to community assets identified in the previous step. The process should account for potential environmental stressors (flooding, septic system overflow, groundwater contamination, etc.) and non-environmental stressors (evacuation planning, property preservation, family concerns, etc.) associated with sea level rise and reflect an overall risk assessment based on probability of occurrence and magnitude of impact if a major flooding event takes place. This process should be conducted for each community asset. Process 1) Determine the probability of sea level rise impacts - Using sea level rise projections and timelines modeled in step 1, estimate the probability of impacts on assets identified in step 2. Categorize probability of exceedance as very likely (95% model), likely (50%), or unlikely (1%). See step 1 for information on how to read and interpret sea level rise probability tables. 2) Determine the magnitude of projected sea level rise impacts - Based on the extent of coastal flooding modeled in step 1 and asset condition and characteristics defined in step 2, estimate the magnitude of projected impacts in terms of potential functionality loss. Characterize magnitude of loss as low (asset damaged but functional), moderate (asset functionality degraded but can be recovered), or high (non-functional total asset loss). 3) Assign relative risk characterization - Based on cross-comparison of probability and magnitude of projected sea level impacts to community assets, identify the resulting risk characterization for each asset under various modeled scenarios. A sample risk characterization matrix is provided below. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 19 Risk Characterization Probability of occurrence > High Very High Very High Moderate High Very High Low Moderate High Severity of Consequences > Adapted from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Tools and supporting resources The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit and FEMA Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning Guide (Section 512) provide additional guidance on conducting risk assessments which may prove beneficial to communities undertaking the process. ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit - Steps to Resilience (Step 2) https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/assess-vulnerability-risks ● FEMA CRS Coordinator’s Manual - Floodplain Management Planning (Section 512) https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 20 Establish Thresholds for Action Objective This step is intended to identify acceptable risk at the community asset level, and establish thresholds for community action in the event the level of risk becomes unacceptable. This step is heavily dependent on community goals and values, and thresholds will likely be specific to each community. Process 1) Evaluate the effects of asset degradation on community values and goals - Given the characterization of sea level rise risk to assets developed in the previous step, identify the resulting qualitative impact on community values and goals. Classify outcomes as no effect (values and goals unaffected), attainment challenge (values and goals temporarily impacted), or attainment barrier (values and goals unattainable). 2) Determine an acceptable level of risk - Determine an acceptable level of risk for each asset identified in step 2 based on the potential impact on community values and goals. For example, a community may value outdoor recreation (value) made possible by a neighborhood waterfront trail (asset) which has been identified for community-funded improvements (goal), and is unlikely to be impacted by sea level rise and if impacted would only result in a moderate loss (moderate risk characterization). In this scenario, the community may determine that this level of risk is acceptable, as the asset may be repaired and would continue to support community values and goals. Increased probability or magnitude of loss may result in an unacceptable level of risk. 3) Establish a threshold for action - Determine a threshold for action relative to the acceptable level of risk for each asset. Communities may elect to establish thresholds lower than their absolute risk tolerance as a proactive measure. Conversely, action thresholds may exceed risk tolerance in cases that require resources beyond those available to the community. 4) Monitor changing risks - Regularly review available County, State, and local citizen science resources such as the Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network and Island County Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 21 Marine Resources Committee for updates to sea level rise projections. Update risk characterization accordingly and monitor risk levels in relation to action thresholds. Tools and supporting resources The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit and FEMA Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning Guide (Section 512) provide additional guidance that may inform decisions to take community action. ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit - Steps to Resilience (Step 2) https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/assess-vulnerability-risks ● FEMA CRS Coordinator’s Manual - Floodplain Management Planning (Section 512) https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf The Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network and Island County Marine Resources Committee are excellent resources for current information related to sea level rise and best practices in coastal resilience planning. ● Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/ ● Island County Marine Resources Committee website https://www.islandcountymrc.org/ Planning template Use worksheet 3, sections 1 and 2 to document the probability and severity of risks and potential consequences of sea level rise for community assets. Use the worksheet 3 sections 2 and 3 to document the overall risk to individual assets and community risk tolerance. Use the worksheet 3 summary table to consolidate risks and action thresholds across community assets. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 22 Worksheet 3: Risk Assessment and Community Action Threshold Instructions Complete a risk assessment worksheet and risk characterization matrix for each community asset evaluated. • Complete sections 1 and 2 of the risk assessment worksheet for each asset and modeled scenario to identify probability of sea level rise impacts (from Worksheet 1B) and severity of potential consequences of projected sea level rise on the ability of the selected asset to perform its primary function. • Complete sections 3 and 4 of the worksheet to identify overall risk of sea level rise to the asset using a risk characterization matrix, and community risk tolerance specific to the asset being analyzed • Enter risk analysis outcomes for each asset and scenario evaluated in the risk assessment summary table. An example is provided for reference. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 3: Risk Assessment and Community Action Threshold Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 23 Asset: SECTION 1: Potential Sea Level Rise Consequences Circle all applicable across the three categories Economic People & Society Environmental Movement of goods impaired Movement of people impaired Employment centers disrupted Disproportionate impacts on certain business sectors Lost income Increased maintenance or repair costs Other: Damage to housing and potential displacement Loss of recreation opportunities Residents unable to obtain key services Disproportionate impacts on certain community members Loss of cultural or historical resources Personal injury or loss of life Overall decline in quality of life Other: Biodiversity or species loss Habitat fragmentation and/or loss Loss of flood protection benefits Water quality decline Loss of carbon sequestration function Other: SECTION 2: Severity of Consequences Using the descriptions below, identify the OVERALL potential level of impact Rating Description MINOR Financial costs to the municipality or community are possible but would be minimal. No expected loss of life, minimal decline in quality of life and little disruption to livelihoods. Property and ecosystem damage might occur but could be repaired without substantial cost or time. MODERATE Some financial costs to the municipality or community are possible and would be moderate. No expected loss of life, but there could be a decline in quality of life and some disruption to livelihoods. Recovery of property and ecosystem damage would take longer and be more costly. SEVERE Large financial costs or significant inconveniences would be incurred by the municipality or community. The possibility of loss of life or livelihood exists. Significant, and potentially permanent, property or ecosystem damage might occur. Worksheet adapted from NOAA Coastal Resilience Planning Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 3: Risk Assessment and Community Action Threshold Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 24 Asset: SECTION 3: Risk Characterization Matrix Characterize overall risk based on both probability of sea level rise impacts (from Worksheet 1B) and severity of consequences (from Worksheet 3 Section 2) Identify Circle all applicable across the three categories Risk Characterization Probability of occurrence > (from Worksheet 1B) High Very High Very High Moderate High Very High Low Moderate High Severity of Consequences > (from Worksheet 3 Section 2) SECTION 4: Risk Tolerance Approach Circle all applicable across the three categories Considerations for risk tolerance: • What you know about the asset – its uniqueness, function(s) or service(s) it provides, how it connects to other assets, etc. • How risk averse the community is based on the values or culture of the community. • How much you/the community can afford to be wrong – someone is going to be liable for the asset, how much are we willing to have something bad happen? • The type and severity of potential consequences identified in sections 1 and 2. Rating Description RISK TOLERANT Asset can adapt or will experience minimal impacts. Consequences are expected to be low or acceptable. MODERATE RISK Some level of acceptable risk. Impact will have some consequences, but these will be tolerable and/or can be overcome relatively easily. RISK AVERSE Very little acceptable risk. Impact will be difficult to overcome and should try to be avoided. Planning and actions might include worst case scenarios. Worksheet adapted from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” and NOAA Coastal Resilience Planning Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 3: Risk Assessment and Community Action Threshold Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 25 Risk Assessment Summary Table For each asset and sea level rise scenario evaluated enter the projected sea level rise and probability of exceedance (from Worksheet 1B), the severity of consequences of projected sea level rise impacts (from Worksheet 3, Section 2), the scenario risk characterization (from Worksheet 3, Section 3), and overall risk tolerance (from Worksheet 3, Section 4). Community Asset Projected Sea Level Rise (Worksheet 1B) Probability of Exceedance (Worksheet 1B) Severity of Consequences (Worksheet 3 Section 2) Risk Characterization (Worksheet 3 Section 3) Risk Tolerance (Worksheet 3 Section 4) Coastal trail network Sea level rise projected increase of 1-3ft by 2100 Likely Minor Trail function is restored once area is drained Moderate Moderate Community desires to maintain or improve asset Worksheet adapted from US Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” and NOAA Coastal Resilience Planning Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 26 Step 4: Develop and Implement Coastal Resilience Strategies and Projects This section provides guidance on identifying potential strategies and projects which may address community issues related to sea level rise, evaluating their feasibility, and leveraging available resources for implementation. Throughout this step, communities may seek technical assistance from local government or professional organizations involved in planning, design, construction, and/or environmental conservation to most accurately estimate feasibility of prospective solutions. Develop Solutions Objective This step is intended to identify potential sea level rise adaptation strategies and project alternatives capable of mitigating unacceptable risk to community assets and values while complying with applicable guidelines and regulations. In this step community planning groups will develop a list of local sea level rise adaptation strategies and projects, and assess their effects on community asset resilience, economic viability, local and regional environmental impact, and implementation feasibility, among other factors. This process is intended to result in a prioritized list of viable short, medium, and long-term projects representing applicable protection, accommodation, and managed retreat adaptation strategies for which the community may pursue funding and implementation support. Process 1) List potential strategies and projects - Reference recommended sea level rise adaptation management practices identified in resources such as the 2020 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study to identify strategies and/or projects which may address potential impacts of sea level rise in shoreline communities. 2) Conduct feasibility analysis - Estimate tangible costs and benefits, environmental impacts, regulatory requirements, and implementation challenges associated with prospective projects or strategies. Evaluate projects across these and any other pertinent areas to determine feasibility. Document feasibility determination in table form (example below) for visual comparison of selected projects. Review of similar past projects and/or subject matter expert consultation may be necessary to analyze complex projects. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 27 Adaptation Project Feasibility Matrix Adapted from the U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit 3) Determine strategy urgency - Identify the timeframe in which potential strategies must be resourced and implemented to maintain an acceptable level of risk to community assets. Classify strategies as immediate (current year), short-term (1-5 yrs.), or long-term (5+ yrs.). Tools and supporting resources The U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit and FEMA Community Rating System Floodplain Management Planning Guide provide additional guidance related to developing and prioritizing resilience projects which may inform community efforts. ● Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study (2020) – Recommended Adaptation Management Practices ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit - Steps to Resilience (Steps 3&4) https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/investigate-options ● FEMA CRS Coordinator’s Manual - Floodplain Management Planning (Section 512) https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf The Island County Planning Department, Marine Resources Committee, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and American Planning Association are among the organizations which can provide access to resources, expertise, and in some cases planning assistance for community project development. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 28 ● Island County Department of Planning & Community Development (Planning Shorelines) https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Pages/shorelines.aspx ● Island County Marine Resources Committee website https://www.islandcountymrc.org/ ● Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01791 ● American Planning Association - Community Planning Assistance Teams website https://www.planning.org/communityassistance/teams/ Planning template Use worksheet 4A sections 1 and 2 to document proposed projects and project feasibility analyses. Use worksheet 4A section 3 to summarize viable alternative adaptation strategies. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 29 Worksheet 4A: Develop Solutions Instructions and Example: Use this worksheet to identify potential adaptation strategies which may address projected sea level rise impacts to vulnerable community assets; compare feasibility of alternatives and select a preferred strategy for each community asset; and develop a prioritized list of strategies for future implementation. Additional detail on how to complete and document this step are provided below for reference: • Select potential adaptation strategies specific to each vulnerable community asset (asset vulnerability identified in Worksheet 2B). Refer to the 2020 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study “Adaptation Practice Recommendation Table” presented below for a baseline list of strategies applicable to Island County. Sea Level Rise Adaptation Practice Recommendation Table PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES (Now - 2050) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Advanced Septic Systems (H, B, C) On-Site Retreat (H, B) Beach Nourishment (H, B) Anchored Septic Systems (H, B, C) Off-Site Retreat (Some B, C) Bulkhead/Seawalls (H, B, C) Community Drainfields (H, B, C) Breakwater (C) Elevated Structures (H, B, C) Dikes/Levees (H, C) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Dry Floodproofing (H, B, C) Raised Ground (H, B, C) Floodwall (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B, C) Revetment (H, B, C) Wet Floodproofing (H, B, C) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B, C) PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT MID-TERM STRATEGIES (2050 - 2070) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Community Drainfields (H, B, C) Off-Site Retreat (H, B, C) Beach Nourishment (H, B) Elevated Structures (H, B, C) Bulkhead/Seawalls (H, B, C) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Dikes/Levees (H) Raised Ground (H, B, C) Dry Floodproofing (H, B, C) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B, C) Floodwall (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B, C) Wet Floodproofing (H, B, C) PROTECT ACCOMMODATE RETREAT LONG-TERM STRATEGIES (2070 - 2100) Soft Shorelines (H, B, C) Community Drainfields (H, B) Off-Site Retreat (H, B, C) Water Supply Diversification (H, B) Utility Relocation & Consolidation (H, B) Floodable Spaces (H, B, C) Parenthesis indicate applicable community type: H - Historic Beach, B - Coastal Bluff, C - Canal Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 30 • Complete an adaptation strategy worksheet (Worksheet 4A, Section 1) for each potential strategy. • Summarize strategy worksheets in a feasibility matrix (Worksheet 4A, Section 2) to compare strategies for each asset. • Enter the selected strategy(ies) for each asset into a summary table (Worksheet 4A, Section 3). An example entry is provided for reference. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 4A: Develop Solutions Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 31 Section 1. Adaptation Strategy Development Asset: Strategy: What are you hoping to gain by this strategy? How would this reduce vulnerability? Costs Benefits Acceptance Required Resources Environmental Impacts Regulatory Requirements Timing/Urgency What is the estimated monetary cost of the strategy? High Moderate Low Estimated Cost: Is this strategy effective for a range of future climate projections? Yes No; only low scenario No; only high scenario Why? To what degree is the community likely to accept the adaptation option? Poor Fair Good Excellent Why? What County STAFF TIME might be required for this option? Existing New or Additional Notes: What impact will the strategy have on the environment? Natural Resource impacts Cultural Resource impacts Shoreline/Land Use impacts Other What regulatory requirements apply? Development permitting Environmental permitting Other: What is the proposed implementation timeline (start and completion)? Immediate (current year) Short Term (1-5 years) Long Term (5+ years) Urgency drivers: Are there additional costs associated with this strategy? Social Political Other: Does this strategy achieve multiple benefits/goals? Societal Economic Other: To what degree is there political support for the adaptation option? Poor Fair Good Excellent Why? What TECHNICAL EXPERTISE might be required for this option? Existing New or Additional Notes: Will potential impacts require SEPA environmental review? Yes No Unsure Notes: Will a waiver, variance, or conditional use permit be required? Yes (type) No Unsure Notes: If implementation is delayed, what cost(s) might be incurred? Are these additional costs anticipated to be: High Medium Low Notes: Are the costs equitably and justifiably distributed? Yes No Unsure Notes: What MAINTENANCE is required for this strategy? Continuous Periodic None Notes: Is this strategy contingent on other actions being implemented first? If so, what? Worksheet adapted from NOAA Coastal Resilience Planning Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 4A: Develop Solutions Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 32 Section 2. Adaptation Strategy Feasibility Matrix Community Asset Adaptation Strategy Costs Benefits Acceptance Required Resources Environmental Impact Regulatory Requirements Average Feasibility Rating Additional Notes Coastal Trail Network Coastal Trail Network Reroute Permit and SEPA approval required Feasibility Ratings (copy and paste in matrix): Feasible Potentially Feasible Not Feasible Worksheet adapted from US Climate Resilience Toolkit “Documenting Steps to Resilience” Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 4A: Develop Solutions Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 33 Section 3. Adaptation Strategy Summary Priority Community Asset Adaptation Strategy Overall Feasibility (Average. feasibility rating) Timing/Urgency (immediate, short-term, long- term) Key Considerations (barriers, contingencies, resource requirements, etc.) 1 Coastal Trail Network Coastal Trail Network Reroute Short-term Permit required Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 34 Implement Solutions Objective This step provides guidance on implementation of selected community coastal resilience planning actions, to include development of an implementation plan, project permitting, and identification of funding sources. Process 1) Develop an Implementation Plan - Plans should include the mechanism by which coastal resilience strategies are to be implemented (regulatory update, study, project, etc.), potential barriers to implementation, identification of key stakeholders necessary to facilitate the implementation process, and permits and/or approvals necessary for implementation. The plan should also include an implementation timeline as a basis for progress evaluation. 2) Identify funding sources - Most strategies will require some form of funding to implement. As part of the implementation process, communities should confirm funding sources as well as processes and timelines associated with accessing available funds. Tools and supporting resources Federal, state, and local project implementation and funding support may be available for selected adaptation projects. This may take the form of conservation and emergency preparedness grants including FEMA pre-disaster grants and Island County Salmon Recovery Program funding; conservation district financial assistance; property tax reductions through the Washington State Public Benefit Rating System for natural shoreline restoration; and free or low-cost technical assistance for soft shore projects through the Island County Department of Natural Resources and partner organizations such as the Northwest Straits Foundation. The U.S. Coastal Resilience Toolkit and Shore Friendly program provide listings of nationwide and Island County-specific funding opportunities available today. In the future, Island County may pursue additional incentives for coastal resilience projects. ● Island County Shoreline Development Permits https://www.islandcountywa.gov/planning/pages/land_use.aspx ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (Implementation Resources) https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/take-action Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 35 ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (Funding Opportunities) https://toolkit.climate.gov/content/funding-opportunities ● FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program ● Island County Shore Friendly Program http://www.shorefriendly.org/resources/resources-in-your-area/island/ ● Public Benefit Open Space Rating System https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Pages/pbrs.aspx Planning template Use worksheet 4B to document proposed project implementation plans and funding sources. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 36 Worksheet 4B: Implement Solutions Instructions and Example: Use this worksheet to develop an implementation plan for adaptation strategies which may address projected sea level rise impacts to vulnerable community assets. Include implementation mechanisms, implementation process leads, supporting resources such as partnerships and funding sources. Additional detail on how to complete and document this step are provided below for reference: • Complete a strategy implementation worksheet for each selected strategy and associated vulnerable community asset (selected strategies identified in Worksheet 4A, asset vulnerability identified in Worksheet 2B). • Enter implementation factors for each strategy in the below summary table. Strategies should be listed in priority order. An example entry is provided for reference. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 4B: Implement Solutions Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 37 Section 1. Adaptation Strategy Implementation Plan Strategy: Mechanism: Circle the primary instrument for implementation: Regulation Legislation Incentive Planning Process Program Project The primary instrument is: New Modification of Existing Existing, No Modification Needed Potential Barriers to Implementation What are possible factors that may hinder implementation? What are some actions to overcome these barriers? Stakeholders and Partnerships Who makes the decision whether to implement the strategy? What partnerships can you leverage for implementing the strategy (either internal or external) Which stakeholders will be impacted by implementation of the strategy? How can you engage them in implementation? Funding Do funding sources already exist? Yes No Funding sources are: Internal External What is the process to request funding? Steps What needs to be completed before implementation can begin? Indicate appropriate timing next to activity. (Examples: data collection, further research, change in policy(s), building awareness, conducting training and/or outreach, etc.) Ideas on measuring success and determining the effectiveness of the strategy over time. Worksheet adapted from NOAA Coastal Resilience Planning Guidance Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Worksheet 4B: Implement Solutions Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 38 Section 2. Adaptation Strategy Implementation Plan Summary Priority Community Asset Stakeholders Adaptation Strategy Implementation Mechanism Implementation Partners Implementation Funding Source Implementation Timeline Key Considerations (barriers, contingencies, resource requirements, etc.) 1 Coastal Trail Network Community Property Owners Coastal Trail Network Reroute New Project Shore Friendly Program 50% Community funds 50% Conservation Grant Start < 6mo. Complete < 1 yr. Permit and SEPA approval required Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 39 Step 5: Monitor Outcomes Objective This step is intended to provide guidance on community monitoring of adaptation strategies and project outcomes, documentation of project effectiveness, and identification of lessons learned to inform future iterations of the planning process. Effective monitoring and feedback allow communities to optimize the community-based planning process. This step requires community planning group dedication and continuity to ensure lessons learned are effectively passed on and applied to future initiatives. Process 1) Establish a project monitoring team - Identify community planning team members responsible for periodic follow-up to ensure projects are on track and to document outcomes. 2) Conduct periodic evaluation of adaptation strategy implementation - Document progress of adaptation strategy implementation based on the schedule and milestones established in the implementation plan. Identify primary causes for delays if encountered, as well as key factors contributing to timely completion. 3) Evaluate strategy outcomes - Continue periodic post-implementation monitoring to determine whether strategy or project objectives are achieved. Use this evaluation to inform continued and/or future planning efforts. 4) Document lessons learned - Identify things that worked well and challenges encountered throughout the implementation process and post-implementation period. Ensure lessons learned are made publicly available to inform future community planning efforts. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 40 Tools and supporting resources Tools and resources which may assist with this step include CRS Floodplain Management Planning guidance on plan maintenance and U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit guidance on post- implementation monitoring. ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit - Monitoring Guidance https://toolkit.climate.gov/steps-to-resilience/take-action ● FEMA CRS Coordinator’s Manual - Floodplain Management Planning (Section 512) https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf Planning template Use worksheet 5 to outline a post-implementation monitoring plan and capture lessons learned. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 41 Worksheet 5: Monitor Outcomes Instructions and Example: Use this worksheet to document implementation progress and post-implementation outcomes. Capture best practices, challenges, and lessons learned to inform future plans. An example is provided for reference. Adaptation Strategy Implementation Plan Summary Priority Community Asset Adaptation Strategy Implementation Status (Planned, In Progress, Complete, Delayed) Implementation Challenges Implementation Best Practices Post- Implementation Asset Vulnerability (low, moderate, high) Lessons Learned Future Planning Recommendations Date of Update 1 Coastal Trail Network Coastal Trail Network Reroute Complete Permitting delay (1mo.) Regular (monthly) community updates Low Ensure permitting requirements and timelines are confirmed prior to project start Project complete. No further action. 1/24/20 2 3 4 5 Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 42 Finalizing the Coastal Resilience Plan With the initial coastal resilience planning process complete, community planning teams have a basis from which to move forward with prioritized implementation of coastal adaptation strategies. The final plan should be a consolidated document which includes the completed contents of worksheets 1-5 and a plan cover sheet which includes the following information: Island County, WA Community Coastal Resilience Plan (Community Name and Location) (Date of Report and revision number) Part 1: Community Planning Issues and Team Community Profile (Worksheet 1A) Basis for Planning: Sea Level Rise Projections (Worksheet 1B) Planning Team: Stakeholder Groups and Representatives (Worksheets 1C &1D) Part 2: Community Values and Vulnerable Assets Community Values, Goals, and Assets (Worksheet 2A) Community Asset Vulnerability (Worksheet 2B) Part 3: Risk Analysis and Threshold for Community Action Community Risks and Thresholds for Action (Worksheet 3) Part 4: Resilience Strategy Development and Implementation Proposed Adaptation Strategies (Worksheet 4A) Implementation Plan (Worksheet 4B) Part 5: Post-Implementation Monitoring and Lessons Learned Adaptation Strategy Implementation Plan Monitoring Summary (Worksheet 5) Completed plans should be made publicly available to community members and shared with the Island County Planning Department. The planning process is iterative and requires regular review of factors that led to decision points related to risks, thresholds for action, and implementation timelines. As implementation and monitoring plans progress, it is imperative that planning process leads remain engaged with County and community organizations involved in shoreline planning to incorporate updated information pertinent to coastal resilience plans as it becomes available. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 43 Additional Information and Resources For additional information related to Island County shoreline planning and development regulations, please visit the Island County Planning Department “Shorelines” website: https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/pages/shorelines.aspx A consolidated list of online tools and resources referenced throughout this guidebook is provided below: Sea Level Rise Projections and Modeling ● Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State: a 2018 Assessment http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/wcrp-documents.html ● NOAA Sea-Level Rise Viewer https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/ Planning Aids ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit Steps to Resilience https://toolkit.climate.gov/#steps ● FEMA CRS Coordinator’s Manual - Floodplain Management Planning (Section 512) https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1493905477815- d794671adeed5beab6a6304d8ba0b207/633300_2017_CRS_Coordinators_Manual_508 .pdf ● Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Your Marine Waterfront: A guide to protecting your property while promoting healthy shorelines https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01791 ● American Planning Association - Community Planning Assistance Teams website https://www.planning.org/communityassistance/teams/ ● University of Kansas - Community Toolbox https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and- resources/identify-community-assets/main Shoreline Permitting ● Island County Shoreline Development Permits https://www.islandcountywa.gov/planning/pages/land_use.aspx Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Community-Based Planning Guidebook Community-Based Coastal Resilience Planning Guidebook │ March 2020 44 Funding & Incentive Programs ● U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit (Funding Opportunities) https://toolkit.climate.gov/content/funding-opportunities ● FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program https://www.fema.gov/pre-disaster- mitigation-grant-program ● Island County Shore Friendly Program http://www.shorefriendly.org/resources/resources-in-your-area/island/ ● Public Benefit Open Space Rating System https://www.islandcountywa.gov/Planning/Pages/pbrs.aspx Community Organizations and Citizen Science ● Island County Marine Resources Committee website https://www.islandcountymrc.org/ ● Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/ ● Nextdoor website https://nextdoor.com/find-neighborhood/wa/ Sea Level Rise Strategy Study March 2020 Glossary Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-1 Glossary Terms Adaptation = Measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems to actual or expected climate change effects. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Accommodate SLR Strategy = Accommodation allows natural systems to occur and human impacts are minimized by adjusting human use of the coastal zone via changing land use/crop types, applying flood resilience measures, etc. (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) This strategy includes techniques like elevating structures, floodproofing and floodable designs. Attack SLR Strategy = An active strategy that expands land in coastal areas by building up and out along the water. Historically, a land claim has been used in large coastal cities to overcome land constraints. This strategy is currently in use in Dubai, Singapore, the Maldives and other areas where investment can sustain the large cost. Island building would fall into this category. (For more on this look at Dubai’s constructed island the Palm Island.) (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) Bathtub Mapping of Sea-Level Rise = Sea-level rise mapping using a single value of water level rise in all locations. This method does not take into account storm tide, waves or wind. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Barrier beach = Spits of sand that form parallel to the shore. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Base flood = In National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), defined as a flood that has a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Also known as the 100-year flood. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Base Flood Elevation (BFE) = Elevation of the base flood in relation to a specific datum, such as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) or the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). The BFE is the basis of the insurance and floodplain management regulations of the NFIP. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Beach = Area within the low water line and to an area of a marked change in material or physiographic form or the permanent vegetation line. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Beach nourishment = Replacement of augmentation of beach sand removed by ocean waters. It may occur naturally by longshore transport or be brought about artificially by the deposition of dredged materials or material from upland sites. (Watson & Adams, 2011) BMP (Best Management Practices) = State-of-the-art method or measure for achieving the desired benefit, such as improved water quality. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-2 Breakwater = A structure that forms a harbor and basin to protect the shore from the effects of waves, as well as to provide a safe place for fishing vessels to berth. Functions to calm water, reduce wave height, and prevent shoreline erosion. (Al, 2018) Usually made of rock and concrete. Buffer = A vegetated strip immediately adjacent to a stream, river, or water body intended to protect the water from sediment and pollutant runoff and siltation from upstream areas. Other benefits may include rainfall infiltration and habitat enhancement. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Bulkhead = Wall or other structures, often wood, steel, stone, or concrete, designed to retain or prevent sliding or erosion of the land. Occasionally bulkheads are used to protect against wave action. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Climate Projections = A range of plausible pathways, scenarios or targets that capture the relationships between human choices, emissions, concentrations and temperature changes. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Climate Change= (i) Change in temperature and weather patterns (ii) defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as ‘a change of climate attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Coastal Barrier = Dispositional geologic feature such as a bay barrier, tombolo, spit, or barrier island that consists of unconsolidated sedimentary materials; is subject to wave, tidal and wind energies; and protects landward aquatic habitats from direct waves. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Coastal Erosion = The wearing away of land, or the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents or drainage. A combination of episodic inundation events and relative sea-level rise will serve to accelerate coastal erosion. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Coastal Flood Hazard Area (CFHA) = Under the NFIP, an area -- usually along an open coast, bay, or inlet -- that is subject to flood by storm surge and, in some instances, wave action caused by storms or seismic forces. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) = Under the NFIP, an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high-velocity wave action from storms tsunami, or seismic sources. On a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the CHHA is designated as a V zone, indicating the area is subject to a base flood with wave heights or wave run-up depths greater than or equal to 3.0 feet. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-3 Coastal Inundation = Water covering land that was once historically tidal but has been disconnected from flow due to natural or anthropomorphic causes.(Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Coastal Zone Management = Integrated and general development of the coastal zone. Coastal zone management is not restricted to coastal defense works but includes development in economic, ecological, and social terms. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Coastline = (i) Technically, the line that forms the boundary between the coast and the shore; (ii) commonly, the line that forms the boundary between the land and the water (e.g., the water of sea or ocean). (Watson & Adams, 2011) Design storm = Hypothetical extreme storm for which coastal protection structures will often be designed to withstand. The severity of the storm (i.e. return period) is chosen in view of the acceptable level of risk of damage or failure. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Design Flood Elevation (DFE) = Elevation that is referenced for design, specified by local regulatory authorities, which establishes the elevation of the lowest floor member or horizontal structural components. The DFE may be the same as the BFE, or higher, as an additional safety factor at the discretion of local communities. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Dike / Dyke = A constructed wall or embankment along a shore to prevent flooding of low-lying land. Also, see levee. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Dune = A low hill or ridge of drifted sand in coastal areas that can be bare or covered with vegetation. The primary dune, also called the primary frontal dune, is the critical first line of coastal defense exposed to harshest conditions of erosion, wind, waves, salt air, requiring hardy vegetation for stabilization. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Elevated Structures = A structure where all or most of the vital building infrastructure is raised above the flood line. (Al, 2018) Expensive. Embankment = An elevated human-made or natural deposit of soil, rock or other materials placed with sloping sides and with a length greater than its height. Usually, an embankment is wider than a dike. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Encroachment = Any physical object placed in a floodplain that hinders the passage of water or otherwise affects flood flows. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-4 Erosion = Process of the gradual wearing away of land or landmasses. In general, erosion involves the detachment and movement of soil and rock fragments, during flood or storm over a period of years, through the action of wind, water, or other geologic processes. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Estuary = (i) A semi-enclosed body of water that has a free connection to the open sea or river that is affected by tides; (ii) region near a river mouth in which freshwater of the river mixes with the saltwater of the sea and that receives both fluvial and littoral sediment influx. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Extreme Water Level (EWL) = Future extreme water levels are the sum of the water level associated with multiple processes; tides, storm surge and wave run-up. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) = Federal agency created in 1979 to provide a single point of accountability for all federal activities related to disaster mitigation and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program. (NFIP). (Watson & Adams, 2011) 500-Year Flood = Flood that has a 0.2% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Floating Island = Artificial floating islands are typically constructed of a thick, floating organic mat that can support plant growth. The islands help dampen wave energy in sheltered water bodies-- although this is as yet relatively untested-- and environmentally remediate water. (Al, 2018) Floating Structure = Floating structures rise and fall with floodwaters. (Al, 2018) Expensive. Flood = A general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from overflow of inland or tidal waters; unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source; or mudslides (mudflows) caused by flooding. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Floodable Plain = Flat areas that are adjacent to a river or body of water that can be flooded when the water body’s capacity is exceeded. Floodable plains use existing natural or urban environments to catch stormwater and control for floods. During nonflood times, the floodable plains can be dry and used for other purposes, such as recreation. (Al, 2018) Floodable Square = Floodable squares and parks are lowered urban areas that become pools during heavy rainfall or flooding from the sea or river. (Al, 2018) Space may be used for recreation during dry conditions. Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-5 Flood Elevation = Height of the water surface above an established elevation datum such as the NGVD, NAVD, or mean sea level. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) = under the NFIP, an official map of a community, on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated both special flood hazard areas (SFHA) and the insurance risk premium zones applicable to the community. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Floodplain = (i) Area that is flooded periodically by the lateral overflow of rivers; (ii) in hydrology, the entire area that is flooded at a reoccurrence interval of 100 years; (iii) under the NFIP, synonymous with 100-year floodplain, any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source, with a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Floodplain Management Regulations = Under the NFIP, any and all zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special-purpose ordinances, and other applications of police power, which provide standards for flood damage prevention and mitigation. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Floodproofing = A common technique to prevent flooding of individual structures. There are four different types of floodproofing: 1) wet floodproofing, 2) dry floodproofing, 3) elevating the structure, and 4) amphibious or floating structures. (Al, 2018) **Wet Floodproofing = allows floodwater to enter and leave a structure through designated openings and thus requires non occupied space. (Al, 2018) **Dry Floodproofing = prevents water from entering a structure through watertight designs and is technically a protection strategy. This strategy allows for more usable space than wet floodproofing but cannot support extended periods of flooding, as leakage is bound to occur. (Al, 2018) Floodwall = Floodwalls are vertical artificial barriers, either temporary or permanent, designed to withstand waters from a river, waterway or ocean. They are typically built of concrete or masonry, but glass versions exist as well. (Al, 2018) They may be used in open spaces. Freeboard = (i) Under the NFIP, a factor of safety above the base flood elevation (BFE), usually expressed in feet. Freeboard is intended to plan for many unaccounted or unknown factors that could contribute to flood elevations greater than the BFE calculated for a selected condition; (ii) on a ship, the distance from the waterline to the main deck or gunwale. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-6 Freshwater Marsh = Grassy wetlands that occur along rivers and lakes, typically dominated by grasses, reeds, rushes, and sedges. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Green Solutions = Green solutions utilize ecological and environmental principles and practices to provide flood protection, as well as reduce erosion and stabilize shorelines, while also enhancing habitats and improving aesthetics (as compared to hard solutions). Often, soft solutions are less expensive than hard solutions and lower in maintenance, but they are not permanent and are subject to erosion. (Al, 2018) Also, see soft protection. Grey Solutions = Often developed by civil and environmental engineers, are flood protection structures that are (almost always) permanent. Hard solutions focus on controlling flooding and sea-level rise. Examples of hard solutions are seawalls, floodwalls, and revetments. The downside of these projects is the disruption of ecological systems. They are generally expensive and require maintenance. (Al, 2018) Also, see hard protection. Groin = Narrow structure built perpendicular to the coastline to reduce longshore currents and/or to trap and retain littoral material. Most groins are of timber or rock and extend from a seawall, or the backshore, well onto the foreshore and rarely farther offshore. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Groundwater = Water contained below ground in soil and rock. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Hard Protection = Often developed by civil and environmental engineers, are flood protection structures that are (almost always) permanent. Hard solutions focus on controlling flooding and sea-level rise. Examples of hard solutions are seawalls, floodwalls, and revetments. The downside of these projects is the disruption of ecological systems. They are generally expensive and require maintenance. (Al, 2018) Also, see grey solution. High Water Line = Maximum height reached by each rising tide. The height may be solely due to the periodic tidal forces or it may have superimposed on it the effects of prevailing meteorological conditions. Also called high tide. The shoreline delineated on the nautical charts of the National Ocean Service is an approximation of the high water line. (Watson & Adams, 2011) 100-Year Flood = Flood that has a 1% probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) = The United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is an agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where future research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy- relevant but not policy-prescriptive. The assessment reports are a key input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change. Created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, the IPCC has 195 members. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Intermediate Marsh = A marsh occurring where the salinity is about 3 parts per 1,000 (ppt); a transition area between fresh and brackish marshes. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Intertidal = Alternately flooded and exposed by tides. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Jetty = Wall built out into the water to restrain currents or protect coastline or structure, to present shoaling of a channel by littoral materials, and/or to direct and confine the stream or tidal flow. Jetties may also be built at the mouths of rivers or tidal inlets to help deepen and stabilize a channel. (Watson & Adams, 2011) A jetty is usually longer and narrower than a groin and is not part of a series. King Tide = a common term, not scientific in origin, that describes an exceptionally high tide. Levee = (i) A long, low ridge or embankment built up by a stream on its floodplain along one or both banks of its channel, deposited by flooding; (ii) a linear mound of earth or stone, often having an access road along the top, constructed to present a river from overflowing. Also see dike. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Living Shoreline = Living shorelines are gently sloping natural banks that reduce shoreline erosion, protect coastal ecosystems, and help reduce storm surge strengths along the coastline. Living shorelines use plants, sands, and limited hard landscape (hardscape) approaches such as concrete and rocks to ensure and maintain the natural habitat. (Al, 2018) Low Water Line = The minimum elevation reached by each falling tide. Nontechnically also called low tide. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Marsh = Wetland periodically or continuously flooded to a shallow depth, where terrestrial and aquatic habitats overlap dominated by herbaceous or nonwoody grasses, cattails, and other low plants, often emerging in shallow ponds or depressions, river margins, tidal areas, and estuaries. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-8 Mean Sea Level (MSL) = Average height of the sea for all stages of the tide, usually determined from hourly height observations over a 19-year period on an open coast or adjacent waters having free access to the sea; the average sea level that would exist in the absence of tides. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Mitigation = (i) Action taken to reduce or permanently eliminate the long-term risk to life and property from natural hazards; (ii) replacement of functional values lost when an ecosystem is altered. Mitigation can include a replacement, restoration, and enhancement of functional values. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Mudflat = Shallow water benthic zone of coastline alternately covered or uncovered by the tide, comprised of extremely fine sediment, typically fine silt and clay. (Watson & Adams, 2011) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) = Federal program created by Congress in 1968 that makes flood insurance available in communities that enact and enforce satisfactory floodplain management regulations. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Near Shore Vegetation = Kelps and seagrasses can stabilize shores when grown nearby. In addition to providing rich habitat, aquatic vegetation dampens wave energy and anchor sediment. (Freitag, 2019) Protect SLR Strategy = protection seeks to control natural systems through hard and soft barriers and reduces human impacts in that zone that would be impacted without protection. (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) Hard accommodation measures include seawalls, revetments, floodwalls, dikes and surge barriers. Soft measures include developing living shorelines, dunes and beach nourishment and floating islands. Raised Ground = A strategy that invites water to penetrate waterfront districts while elevating infrastructure such as roads to sustain human use during floods. This technique provides the opportunity for development for residential, office, hotel, retail, and transit uses. (Al, 2018) Relative Sea Level Change = The sum of the sinking of the land (subsidence) and eustatic sea- level change; the change in average water level with respect to the surface. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Resilience = The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Retreat SLR Strategy = Retreat or planned retreat allows natural systems to occur without human intervention. Human impacts are minimized by pulling back from the coast via land use planning, development controls, planned migration, etc. (Zommers & Alverson, 2018) Retreat is Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-9 the only way to eliminate life and property risks associated with sea-level rise. In some cases, retreat many be an unavoidable response. However, this option is economically feasible only if it is possible to relocate within their existing property, either to higher ground or with a greater setback from a flood source. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Revetment = (i) A facing of stone or concrete to protect an embankment or shore structure against erosion by wave action or currents; (ii) a retaining wall, typically sloped. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Riparian = Pertaining to the banks and edges of a stream or river (Watson & Adams, 2011) Riprap = Broken stone, cut stone blocks, or rubble layered on slopes as protection from erosion or scour caused by flood or wave action. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Risk = The probability of harmful consequences or expected losses (death and injury, losses of property and livelihood, economic disruption, or environmental damage) resulting from interactions between natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Saltwater intrusion = Displacement of fresh surface water or groundwater by the advance of saltwater due to its greater density. This usually occurs in coastal and estuarine areas due to reducing land-based influence (e.g. from reduced runoff and associated groundwater recharge, or from excessive water withdrawal from aquifers) or increasing marine influence (e.g. relative sea-level rise). (Watson & Adams, 2011) Scarp = An almost vertical slope along the beach caused by erosion by wave action and the nature and composition of the beach. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Scour = Removal of soil or fill material by waves and currents and/or the flow of floodwaters, especially at the base or toe of a shore structure. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Sea-Level Rise (SLR) = Sea level change, both globally and locally, due to changes in the shape of ocean basins, in the total mass of water, and in water density. Factors due to global warming include an increase in the total amount and mass of water from the melting of land- based snow and ice, and a decrease in water density due to thermal expansion from an increase in ocean temperatures and salinity changes. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-10 Seawall = Seawalls are vertical structures designed to protect habitation from major wave and tidal action. These structures, which are generally made of concrete but also of stone, create a stark boundary at the shoreline and help present upland erosion and storm-surge flooding. Although seawalls are effective barriers, they can obliterate the relationship between water and land and cause erosion by disrupting sediment movement and often require beach nourishment as beaches disappear. (Al, 2018) Setback = In planning regulations, a limiting distance for the location of construction, typically from the edge of a water body within which development is either prohibited or regulated and subject to specific plan approval or variance. Setbacks are established by local regulation for the purpose of maintaining open space next to wetlands, streams, lakes, coastlines, and other water bodies. The sea within setbacks is the frequency used for flood control, recreation, preservation of drinking water supply, and wildlife habitat enhancement. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Shoreline = The narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water lines. Also used in a general sense to mean the coastline. The line delineating the shoreline on NOAA nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean high water line. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Shoreline Retreat = Progressive movement of the shoreline in a landward direction caused by the composite effect of all storms considered over the decades and centuries (expressed as an annual average erosion rate). Shoreline retreat considers the horizontal component of erosion and is relevant to long term land-use decisions and the siting of buildings. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Soft Protection = Green solutions utilize ecological and environmental principles and practices to provide flood protection, as well as reduce erosion and stabilize shorelines, while also enhancing habitats and improving aesthetics (as compared to hard solutions). Often, soft solutions are less expensive than hard solutions and lower in maintenance, but they are not permanent and are subject to erosion. (Al, 2018) Also, see green solutions. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) = Under the NFIP, an area having special flood, mudslide, and/or flood-related erosion hazards and shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as a Zone A, AO, A1-A30, AE, A99, AH, or Zone V, V1-30, VE, M or E. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Storm Surge = Water that is pushed toward the shore by the force of the winds swirling around the storm. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Subsidence = A gradual sinking of land with respect to its previous level. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-11 Substantial damage = In the NFIP, damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged conditions would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Surge Barrier = Surge barriers, fixed dam structures with movable gates, provide some of the highest levels of protection from coastal storm surge. Surge barriers protect best when coupled with protection measures such as shoreline levees, seawalls, and/or pumps. During dry conditions, a surge barrier’s gates will remain open to allow the free flow of water, and vessels. However, prior to a storm, the gates will be closed. (Al, 2018) Types of surge barriers include sector gates, vertical lifting gates, and, on a smaller scale, tide gates. High maintenance and require monitoring. Thermal Expansion = When the ocean warms, seawater becomes less dense and expands, raising sea-level. (Washington Coastal Resilience Project, 2019) Vegetative Shore Protection = Some plants protect coastal areas from erosion, storm surge, and tsunamis. For example, The mangroves’ massive root systems are efficient at dissipating wave energy… slow down tidal water enough that its sediment is deposited as the tide comes in, leaving all except fine particles when the tide ebbs. In this way, mangroves build their own environment. (Freitag, 2019) Weir = Low-head dam or wall placed across a canal or river to raise, divert, regulate, or measure the flow of water. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Wetland = Defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as an area inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. (Watson & Adams, 2011) Island County Sea Level Rise Strategy Study Sea Level Rise Strategy Study │ March 2020 G-12 Glossary References Al, Stefan. 2018. Adapting Cities to Sea Level Rise: Green and Gray Strategies. Washington DC: Island Press. Freitag, Bob. 2019. All Hazards Capabilities Assessment Tool. Washington Coastal Resilience Project. 2019. “Sea-Level Rise Glossary for Washington State.” Seattle: Washington Coastal Resilience Project. Watson, Donald, and Michele (Michele C.) Adams. 2011. Design for Flooding: Architecture, Landscape, and Urban Design for Resilience to Flooding and Climate Change. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Zommers, Zinta, and Keith Alverson, eds. 2018. Resilience: The Science of Adaptation to Climate Change. Amsterdam: Candice Janco. March 2020 Sea Level Rise Considerations in Washington State Capital Grant Programs Inventory and Lessons Learned November 2020 Publication 20-06-015 Publication 20-06-015 ii November 2020 Publication and Contact Information The Washington Coastal Resilience Project (WCRP) is a three-year effort to rapidly increase the state’s capacity to prepare for coastal hazards, such as flooding and erosion, which are related to sea level rise. The project will improve risk projections, provide better guidance for land use planners, and strengthen capital investment programs for coastal restoration and infrastructure. Partners include: Washington Sea Grant Washington Department of Ecology Island County King County NOAA Office for Coastal Management Padilla Bay National Estuary Research Reserve The City of Tacoma The Nature Conservancy U.S. Geological Survey University of Oregon University of Washington Climate Impacts Group University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Pacific Northwest National Laboratory The primary source of funding for this work, and the Washington Coastal Resilience Project (WCRP) in general, was a NOAA Coastal Resilience grant from the NOAA Office of Coastal Management (grant #NA16NOS4730015). An important part of the WCRP success has been the support of Washington Sea Grant Fellows. The Washington Sea Grant Hershman Fellowship offers a unique educational opportunity for soon-to-graduate or recently finished graduate students engaged in studies pertaining to ocean and coastal policy issues. This one-year, paid marine policy fellowship matches highly motivated, qualified individuals with host agencies, nonprofits, or tribes throughout Washington State. The Washington Sea Grant Hershman Fellowship offers students first-hand experiences in crafting marine and natural resource policies and allows them to share their academic expertise with their host offices. Additional funds were provided through a cooperative agreement with NOAA with funds appropriated for the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 through a grant to the Washington Department of Ecology. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies. Washington’s federal management responsibilities come from the Coastal Zone Management Act, passed in 1972. The act creates a voluntary state-federal partnership between states and NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management. The Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance (SEA) Program administer the program. Publication 20-06-015 iii November 2020 This document is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/20-06-015.html Authors Bobbak Talebi & Felicia Olmeta-Schult For more information, contact: Bobbak Talebi Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6529 Washington State Department of Ecology — www.ecology.wa.gov • Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 • Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 • Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 • Central Regional Office, Union Gap 509-575-2490 • Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 to request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call Ecology at 360-407-6600 or visit https://ecology.wa.gov/accessibility. People with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. People with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341. Sea Level Rise Considerations in Washington State Capital Grant Programs Inventory and Lessons Learned Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington By Bobbak Talebi Felicia Olmeta-Schult Publication 20-06-015 ii November 2020 This page is purposely left blank Publication 20-06-015 1 November 2020 Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables................................................................................................................2 Figures........................................................................................................................................2 Tables .........................................................................................................................................2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................3 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................3 Methods............................................................................................................................................4 Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................6 Inventory of Washington State capital grant programs .............................................................6 Lessons learned ..........................................................................................................................7 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................12 Appendix A. Baseline inventory table of state capital grant programs funding projects potentially vulnerable to sea level rise. ....................................................................................13 Appendix C. Questionnaires used to collect data for this report .............................................20 Appendix D. Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program climate change responses analysis ..24 Appendix E. Interview participants and acknowledgements ...................................................29 Publication 20-06-015 2 November 2020 List of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2015-2017 grant cycle. .............................................................................................................25 Figure 2. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2017-2019 grant cycle. .............................................................................................................26 Figure 3. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2019-2021 grant cycle. .............................................................................................................27 Tables Table 1. Number of capital grant programs that fund projects within areas potentially vulnerable to sea level rise .................................................................................................................................6 Table 2. State capital grant programs funding projects potentially vulnerable to sea level rise....13 Publication 20-06-015 3 November 2020 Introduction Washington’s 3,300 miles of coastal and marine waters play a vital role in our state by providing economic, environmental, and social benefits to communities. Washington’s coastal areas are also inherently vulnerable to the dynamic nature of coastal processes. Flooding, erosion, and landslides already adversely affect our coastal communities and resources, and rising sea levels will only intensify these hazards. Sea level is rising along much of Washington’s coast and is projected to rise at an accelerating rate as the climate continues to warm 1. State capital grant programs fund a range of activities along our coast, including critical facilities and infrastructure construction, toxic cleanup of hazardous sites, habitat restoration and protection, recreation opportunities, and other important community assets. Capital investments by the state and communities are important to consider because they are often expensive, have a long-term design life,2 and take several years to plan, engineer, permit and construct. These important activities are located in areas that are vulnerable to the impacts of changing climate conditions. Coastal infrastructure is likely to experience more problems as sea levels rise, including saltwater intrusion, corrosion, flooding, and sedimentation. Changes in the water cycle could also compound these impacts. These changes have significant implications for transportation networks, facility operating costs, reduced asset lifespan, and potential threats to human health.3 State agencies recognize opportunities to promote the integration of future sea level conditions into capital projects. However, many questions remain about how to encourage the development of projects that consider future conditions, and how to use state grant programs to support climate-resilient capital investments. Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore existing efforts by state agencies in Washington to incorporate sea level rise considerations into state capital funding guidelines and projects. This rapid study identified successes, challenges, needs, and opportunities. 1 Miller, I.M., Morgan, H., Mauger, G., Newton, T., Weldon, R., Schmidt, D., Welch, M., Grossman, E. 2018. Projected Sea Level Rise for Washington State – A 2018 Assessment. A collaboration of Washington Sea Grant, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Oregon State University, University of Washington, and US Geological Survey. Prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. 2 The design life is the period of time during which the item is expected by its designers to work within its specified parameters; in other words, the life expectancy of the item. 8 Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D Publication 20-06-015 4 November 2020 Methods Inventory of Washington State capital grant programs We created a baseline inventory of applicable capital grant programs (i.e., programs funding projects within areas potentially vulnerable to sea level rise). We assessed how these programs incorporate sea level rise and climate change considerations within their funding guidelines and evaluation criteria. We reviewed the list of programs funded under the 2017-2019 State Capital Budget and 2018 Supplemental Budget to identify capital grant programs that fund projects potentially vulnerable to sea level rise. This list is available on the Office of Financial Management (OFM) budget website. OFM also provided us with a list of 2017-19 capital appropriations that were categorized as grants in their budgeting database. In addition, we explored the websites of the state agencies listed, which allowed us to verify if we missed any eligible grant programs. From these different data sources, we identified capital grant programs that fund projects that could be affected by sea level rise. We looked at action verbs describing activities related to work on facilities and infrastructure, and the environment, such as: to renovate, to build, and to clean-up, to restore, and to preserve. These represent actions that could potentially alter the existing state of the coastal environment (e.g., by building new infrastructure, renovating existing infrastructure, or by preserving and restoring habitat). We assumed that these programs were applicable statewide (unless stated otherwise, such as the Chehalis Basin Strategy) and could therefore be vulnerable to sea level rise depending on where funded projects are implemented. We compiled a baseline inventory of all the capital grant programs we identified (Appendix A). This inventory may not be exhaustive, as we only reviewed the list of programs funded under the 2017-2019 State Capital Budget and the 2018 Supplemental Budget. Finally, we reviewed the inventoried capital grant programs for sea level rise and climate change considerations (i.e., what language and where) in their funding guidelines and evaluation criteria. We specifically searched for the terms “sea level rise” and “climate change” and identified six programs using this language (Appendix B). Interviews In 2019, we conducted qualitative interviews with state capital grant program administrators and project applicants to gather information and lessons learned about their experiences with addressing sea level rise and climate change. Because this was a rapid assessment, the interview list was selected to represent diverse interests, rather than the quantity of the sample size. Due to limited time and scope, this assessment does not represent all parties that could be involved in sea level rise and climate change resilience Publication 20-06-015 5 November 2020 efforts. A consistent set of open-ended interview questions was used for all individual interviews (Appendix C). In all, we conducted 18 interviews involving 25 participants (Appendix E). We spoke with 16 capital grant program staff members, representing 12 capital grant programs across eight state agencies. We also interviewed Washington State Parks, although they do not have any capital grant programs. We requested their input because they receive funds from the legislature for parks that may be affected by sea level rise. Another interview involved the non-profit organization Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, which is contracted by Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to manage their capital grant programs. In addition to capital grant program administrators, we conducted seven interviews with nine project applicants. We targeted project applicants who applied to capital grant programs using sea level and climate change language. The goal was to understand how they perceived this language and addressed sea level rise and climate change effects within their capital project grant proposals. We prepared a qualitative assessment of the interview results. We summarized issues, perspectives, and ideas that arose frequently across all interviews, as well as those that were notable for their diversity or originality. Publication 20-06-015 6 November 2020 Key Findings Inventory of Washington State capital grant programs We identified 59 capital grant programs across 14 state agencies that fund projects in areas potentially vulnerable to sea level rise (Table 1). Table 1. Number of capital grant programs that fund projects within areas potentially vulnerable to sea level rise Six of the 59 capital grant programs explicitly state the terms “sea level rise” and/or “climate change” within their request for proposals (RFPs).4 1. Floodplains by Design (Washington Department of Ecology). 2. Puget Sound Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Recreation & Conservation Office). 3. Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) Large Capital Projects (Puget Sound Partnership and the Recreation & Conservation Office). 4. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) (Washington Department of Natural Resources and the Recreation & Conservation Office). 5. Salmon Recovery Grants (Recreation & Conservation Office). 6. Remedial Action Grants (Toxics Cleanup Program; Department of Ecology) 4 Analysis was only conducted on capital grant programs with guidelines and application materials that were accessible. Agency Name Number of Programs Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) 3 Department of Commerce (Commerce) 9 Department of Ecology (Ecology) 9 Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) 1 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 4 Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) 3 Department of Transportation (DOT) 3 Office of Financial Management (OFM) 1 Pollution Liability Insurance Agency (PLIA) 1 Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) 14 State Conservation Commission (SCC) 4 Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) 3 Washington State Historical Society (WSHS) 1 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) 3 TOTAL 59 Publication 20-06-015 7 November 2020 Lessons learned These findings highlight and summarize opinions on the incorporation of sea level rise and climate change language within capital grant program funding guidelines and evaluation criteria. The lessons learned represent common themes that were shared across capital grant program administrators and project applicants, as well as key insights expressed by specific subsets of interviewees. Successes: • Willingness to address sea level rise in capital grant programs and projects. All interviewees recognized sea level rise and climate change as important issues to consider in capital grant programs. Grant programs that have already included considerations (Appendix B) did not encounter any strong opposition from project applicants. However, sea level rise and climate change considerations were avoided in most funding guidelines, and questions directly inquiring about climate change were worth only a small portion of the overall application score. If these considerations become more robust and increase in weight, project applicants may become more resistant to them. • Initial efforts have been well received. Project applicants who submitted proposals to the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP), the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) fund, the Salmon Recovery Grants (SRGs), and Floodplains by Design program thought that their funding guidelines and evaluation criteria were complete, clear, provided instructive examples, and had a transparent scoring system. • Continued learning and improvement with time. Grant program staff noticed that project applicants have grown more comfortable and better at responding to sea level rise and climate change application questions and managing projects that deal with climate change over time. For example, we compared the distribution of scores on the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program’s climate change question across three grant cycles. We found that the percentage of highly scored responses doubled by the third grant cycle (Appendix D). Challenges: • Where to include sea level rise requirements. Grant programs using sea level rise and climate change language incorporated it in various locations, including: program overview or guiding principles, woven within multiple criteria categories, or in a stand-alone climate change question. However, there was no consensus on where sea level rise and climate change considerations should be located or how they should be incorporated. Programs identified tradeoffs with different approaches. • Developing application evaluation metrics. Capital grant program administrators expressed that developing evaluation metrics and deciding how to rank or prioritize the relative importance of sea level rise criteria posed an added challenge. There is no single metric applicable in all settings. A common difficulty is finding the correct balance between establishing meaningful measurement criteria and allowing for flexibility of metrics that Publication 20-06-015 8 November 2020 work best for particular grant program contexts. Metrics need to be designed to allow program administrators to evaluate consistently and equitably across project applications. • Perception of deterrence from the added burden. Some of the capital grant programs that have not included sea level rise or climate change language expressed concerns that these elements or requirements could deter applicants from applying for funding because of the added burden. Some capital grant program managers were more comfortable using broad terms such as “resiliency,” “natural infrastructure,” or “sustainable design” to incentivize consideration of climate impacts. Needs: • Research to understand the anticipated costs. Many of the capital grant programs that have included sea level rise or climate change requirements have not prioritized these elements in the scoring or evaluation criteria. Therefore, there has not been a noticeable increase in administrative and application development costs. There are concerns that an increase in the weight or score for the criteria could lead to additional costs to both parties, although there is little data to support this concern. • Take intentional and inclusive steps with partners to prepare a programmatic approach before adding new requirements. There are many considerations that need to be taken into account to address the effects of new sea level rise and climate change requirements on capital grant programs and project applicants. A collaborative process to develop a joint strategy with program staff and project applicants will help support feasible and effective implementation. • Adopt a strategy and invest in coordinated multi-organizational technical assistance to help funding programs and applicants integrate sea level rise into capital projects. There is a demonstrated need for additional support from technical experts (outreach/stakeholder engagement, climate change science, engineering, planning, regulatory, funding, etc.) to help programs and applicants address sea level rise and climate impacts in capital projects. Grant program managers and administrators expressed that support is needed for developing funding guidelines and guidance, answering technical questions during the application process, and evaluating/ranking this element of projects. The University of Washington Climate Impacts Group has been a valuable resource for programs that have already included sea level rise or climate change language. Project applicants identified that more support is needed during pre-design phases of projects and that broadened assistance would help to align key resources and expertise, spearhead cross-fertilization of ideas, enhance collaboration, and stitch/leverage different funding programs together to get projects constructed. Interviewees pointed toward a recent publication by the William D. Ruckelshaus Center 5 that recommended a “Coastal Hazards Organizational Resilience Team’ (COHORT)” as a relevant model for this level of assistance. Assistance services to support 5 William D. Ruckelshaus Center - Washington State Coastal Resilience Assessment Final Report (2017): https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2180/2013/06/Washington-Coast-Resilience-Assessment-Report_Final_5.1.17.pdf Publication 20-06-015 9 November 2020 communities can also help to address equity issues in capital grant programs, especially in a sea level rise and climate change context. • Conduct project-scale data collection and analysis. Project applicants expressed the challenges with applying science at a project scale and the complexities of understanding the full range of effects to consider in site planning and design. While sea level rise and climate change information is growing, there is still a need for site-specific data collection and analysis to best address the unique conditions at each site and individual project goals, or guidance to help use the tools that are available to evaluate risk and alternatives. • Create centralized information repositories. Both capital grant program staff and project applicants said it would be helpful to have a central location for current science and research, modeling methods, project examples and lessons learned, and recommended best practices. This would help support projects, raise awareness, and encourage a community of practice that can support each other’s efforts. The Coastal Hazards Resilience Network 6 or the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 7 were identified by a number of applicants as possible options that could provide this capability, but they would need further investment to build out and maintain this capacity. • Build long-term monitoring and feedback loops that support effective adaptive management. Grant programs are not structured to support long-term monitoring and adaptive management of projects, which is critical for evaluating if capital grant programs are achieving desired outcomes and informing data-driven adjustments. Project applicants highlighted the need to have grant funds specifically allocated to the long-term monitoring of their projects. This would allow project applicants to assess the effectiveness of the design in place, to adapt to emerging concerns, and to develop appropriate short- and long-term solutions. This will become increasingly important as local sea level rise and climate conditions continue to evolve over time. In addition, some project applicants believed that resulting datasets could be used to leverage more funds. • Offer pilot programs to test concepts and provide models of best practices. Offering separate experimental or pilot “program enhancement” sections to existing capital grant programs, or monetary incentives to project applicants, could promote learning opportunities and knowledge exchange. This approach would also provide a more robust baseline of examples to inform the appropriate integration of sea level rise and climate change in capital grant programs and projects. • Broaden eligible activities under existing capital grant programs. There might be additional benefits of addressing sea level rise more strategically if projects could take a more holistic, multi-benefit approach by increasing the range of activities eligible for funding. Several interviewees identified the Floodplains by Design Program 8 as a relevant example. However, 6 The Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website: https://wacoastalnetwork.com/ 7 University of Washington Climate Impacts Group website: https://cig.uw.edu/ 8 Washington State Floodplains by Design Program: https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/How-we-operate/Grants-loans/Find-a-grant-or- loan/Floodplains-by-design Publication 20-06-015 10 November 2020 designing these types of projects takes additional preparation and planning. Funding different phases of project development (project-scale data collection and analysis, capacity building, pre-construction documentation, feasibility and design, etc.) may increase opportunities for applicants to complete the necessary steps to evaluate risk and address sea level rise impacts. • Identify state policy options for a sea level rise risk management framework, including adaptation metrics. Interagency coordination is needed to identify common interests and recommended methods for determining the appropriate level of risk and sea level rise projection likelihoods to use in the planning and design of capital projects. This includes the timing/time horizon of climate change - over what timeframe are applicants expected to have identified and addressed climate change impacts? A state-recommended framework will create more consistency for programs and applicants. This includes carefully considered metrics or meaningful measures of change. When applied during the project planning process, decision-makers can use the metrics to evaluate adaptation options based on risks and benefits for near- and long-term implementation outcomes. Metrics can also help decision-makers assess the extent to which implemented measures have been effective (or failed). Metrics can help to engage both stakeholders and policymakers in the assessment of the levels of risk and vulnerability for a variety of sectors (e.g., water, agriculture, public health, and infrastructure) by helping to describe and, in some cases, quantify the effectiveness of changes in management practices and planned adaptation strategies.9 • Create a new capital grant program that provides funding for sea level rise assessment and project planning. Several interviewees thought that a new capital grant program focused specifically on sea level rise assessment and project planning would complement existing programs and would better prepare applicants to apply for additional funding. In particular, upfront investment in the early stages of project development using an integrated and multi- benefit framework could help to evaluate alternatives and involve a more diverse group of stakeholders to comprehensively address impacts. Project applicants would then be eligible for a wider range of existing state and federal funding opportunities and have more competitive grant applications for final design, permitting, and project implementation. Opportunities: • Institutionalize sea level rise and climate adaptation into more existing state capital grant programs. There are 59 capital grant programs that support projects located in areas that might be vulnerable to sea level rise impacts. Programs cover a wide range of project types that represent a diverse portfolio of investments. There are strategic opportunities for the state to leverage these established programs, monitor outcomes, and use lessons learned to inform future decision-making and provide examples for others. In addition to the six grant programs that already include explicit sea level rise and climate change language, there are many other programs that include language that could be interpreted to address future 9 Center for Climate Strategies Adaptation Guidebook: Comprehensive Climate Action. Available at: http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/view/908 Publication 20-06-015 11 November 2020 impacts. However, additional guidance might be needed to clarify expectations and encourage consistency. • Leverage existing state agency coordination groups to deepen partnerships, share best practices, and coordinate investments. Both capital grant program staff and project applicants thought that coordination of investments and activities between programs and agencies should be improved. For example, the Align Grant Coordination Workgroup 10 has been meeting since 2015. Its mission is to “provide an interagency forum to increase coordination and collaboration among Washington State grant programs that benefit water quality and salmon recovery while recognizing the unique role and authorities of each agency.” Some interviewees suggested considering sea level rise and climate change from a multi-program and multi-project perspective. The goal would be that projects in the same area could complement one another, which would amplify their effects, increase their longevity, and help in leveraging funds. 10 Washington State Natural Resource Grant Program Coordination : Mission, Strategy, and Key Results (2015): https://salishsearestoration.org/images/e/e9/RCO_%26_WDOE_2015_water_and_salmon_charter.pdf Publication 20-06-015 12 November 2020 Appendices Publication 20-06-015 13 November 2020 Appendix A. Baseline inventory table of state capital grant programs funding projects potentially vulnerable to sea level rise. Table 2. State capital grant programs funding projects potentially vulnerable to sea level rise. State Agency Capital Grant Program 2017-19 Capital Budget Appropriations ($) Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Historic County Courthouse Grants Program 1,137,000 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Heritage Barn Preservation Program 515,000 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Historic Cemetery Grant Program 500,000 Department of Commerce Housing Trust Fund Program (HTF) 56,190,757 Department of Commerce Housing Preservation Program Department of Commerce Low-Income Home Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Program Department of Commerce Behavioral Health Community Capacity 65,600,000 Department of Commerce Building for the Arts (under Community Capital Facilities program) 12,000,000 Department of Commerce Youth Recreational Facilities (under Community Capital Facilities program) 6,907,000 Department of Commerce Building Communities Fund (under Community Capital Facilities program) 30,900,000 Department of Commerce Public Works Assistance Account Construction Loans 97,103,000 Department of Commerce Early Learning Facility Grants 15,500,000 Department of Ecology Catastrophic Flood Relief 50,000,000 Department of Ecology Stormwater Financial Assistance Program (SFAP) 37,000,000 Department of Ecology Clean Water Act Section 319 Federal Program Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Program 35,000,000 Department of Ecology Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program 210,000,000 Department of Ecology Floodplains by Design 35,389,000 Department of Ecology Remedial Action Grants (Toxics Cleanup Program) 43,615,000 Department of Ecology Watershed Plan Implementation and Flow Achievement 5,000,000 Department of Ecology Flood control assistance account program (FCAAP) Publication 20-06-015 14 November 2020 Department of Fish and Wildlife Migratory Waterfowl Habitat 600,000 Department of Fish and Wildlife Puget Sound Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) 8,000,000 Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) 1,000,000 Department of Natural Resources Family Forest Fish Passage Program 5,000,000 Department of Natural Resources Forest Legacy 15,000 Department of Natural Resources Trust Land Transfer Program 10,000,000 Department of Natural Resources Forestry Riparian Easement Program (FREP) 3,500,000 Department of Natural Resources Rivers and Habitat Open Space Program (RHOSP) 1,000,000 Department of Social and Health Services Drinking Water Construction Loans 118,000,000 Department of Social and Health Services Source Water Protection Department of Social and Health Services Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (including emergency loan fund) Department of Transportation Aviation Revitalization Loans 5,000,000 Department of Transportation Airport Grants Program Department of Transportation Public Transportation Grants (Consolidated Grant Program, Formula Grant program, Regional Mobility Grant Program, Vanpool Investment Program) Office of Financial Management Water Resources Project Account 20,000,000 Pollution Liability Insurance Program Trust Account Underground Storage Tank Capital Financial Assistance Program 12,700,000 Puget Sound Partnership Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration 40,000,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Washington Wildlife Recreation Grants 80,000,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Brian Abbott Fish Passage Barrier Removal Board 19,747,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Salmon Recovery and Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration 69,711,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Boating Facilities Program 17,175,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Washington Coastal Restoration and Resiliency Initiative 12,500,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Trails-No highway and Off-Road Vehicle Activities 11,300,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Recreational Trails Program 5,000,000 Publication 20-06-015 15 November 2020 Recreation and Conservation Office Youth Athletic Facilities 4,077,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Land and Water Conservation 4,000,000 Recreation and Conservation Office Firearms and Archery Range Recreation 813,000 State Conservation Commission Natural Resource Investment for the Economy & Environment 5,000,000 State Conservation Commission Dairy Distillation Grants 4,000,000 State Conservation Commission Improve Shellfish Growing Areas 4,000,000 State Conservation Commission Shellfish Program Superintendent of Public Instruction School Construction Assistance Program 1,002,563,000 Superintendent of Public Instruction Small Rural District Modernization Grants 35,000,000 Superintendent of Public Instruction Emergency Repairs and Equal Access Grants for K-12 Public Schools 6,000,000 Washington State Historical Society Heritage Capital Grants Projects 8,986,000 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Urban Programs (Urban Arterial Program (UAP), Sidewalk Program (SP), Arterial Preservation Program (APP)) Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Small City Programs (Small City Arterial Program (SCAP), Small City Sidewalk Program (SCSP), Small City Preservation Program (SCPP), and the Relight Washington Program (LED)). Washington State Transportation Improvement Board Complete Streets Program Publication 20-06-015 16 November 2020 Appendix B. The six capital grant programs with sea level rise and climate change considerations: examples of language used Six capital grant programs use sea level rise and climate change language within their funding guidelines and evaluation criteria. This appendix highlights examples of how this terminology is used in these capital grant programs. For the purposes of this report, the terminology is indicated in bold. This added emphasis is not reflected in the capital grant program documents. The examples are not exhaustive; rather, they serve to illustrate how climate change considerations have been included within capital grant program guidance and criteria. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account 11 (ALEA) (Washington Department of Natural Resources and the Recreation & Conservation Office) Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the grant program’s introduction, overview, or background sections: • This terminology is not used in these sections. Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in Section 4: Project Evaluations: • ‘Question 5: Suitability for Protection’ and ‘Question 6: Suitability for Public Accesses both include the following suggestion: “Possible impacts to address could include flooding, extreme tides, storms, sources of contamination, and long-term impacts due to development and climate change.” (Evaluation Questions, p. 42-43) Floodplains by Design (FbD)12 (Washington Department of Ecology) Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the grant program’s introduction, overview, or background sections: • “FbD projects must develop solutions that address existing flood risk and also consider the effects of projected change to river flows, sea level rise, sediment delivery and other factors that could increase flood risk in the future.” (Characteristics of FbD Projects – Reduce Flood Risk and Damage, p. 10) • “Strong FbD proposals should consider the effects of climate change and address future changes to hydrology, sediment delivery, sea level rise, and other factors…” (Characteristics of FbD Projects: Climate Change, p. 14) • “Proposals that discuss the specific effects of climate change in the project or planning area, and describe how this information was used in project selection and design will 11 Washington State Recreation & Conservation Funding Board. 2020. Manual 21. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account Grant Program. Available at https://rco.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ALEA-Manual21.pdf. 12 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2018. Funding Guidelines Floodplains by Design. Publication No. 15-06-019. Available at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1506019.pdf. Publication 20-06-015 17 November 2020 result in more points than general regional concepts of climate change.” (Characteristics of FbD Projects: Climate Change, p. 14) Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the Application Scoring Guidance: • “Describe how you have considered climate change impacts on the ecosystem and addressed those impacts.” (Floodplain ecosystem protection or restoration question, p. 48) • “Projects that accommodate future anticipated changes to land use, river flows, sea level rise and sediment delivery will receive higher scores than those that do not.” (Agricultural benefits question guidance, p. 50) Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration (PSAR) Large Capital Projects 13 (Puget Sound Partnership and the Recreation and Conservation Office) Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the grant program’s introduction, overview, or background sections: • This terminology is not used in these sections. Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the Final PSAR Large Capital Project Scoring Criteria: • “Project highly likely to be self-maintaining and resilient to projected climate impacts.” (Project objectives and success, p. 1) • “[The project is] designed to be flexible over time as habitat and climate conditions change.” (Habitat quality, p. 1) • “[The project] identifies known effects of climate change relative to project location, implementation and management” and “Project design adequately addresses the primary climate change concerns.” (Climate change, p. 2) 13 Puget Sound Partnership. 2018. Final PSAR Large Capital Projects RFP and Scoring Criteria. Available at https://pspwa.app.box.com/s/5w1nrd6dhnw3q5a5jxh7py5tacizeqnz/file/538120588839 and https://pspwa.app.box.com/v/2018PSAR/file/271968153282. Publication 20-06-015 18 November 2020 Puget Sound Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program 14 (ESRP) (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Recreation & Conservation Office) Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the grant program’s introduction, overview, or background sections: • This terminology is not used in these sections. Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in Appendix B: Evaluation Criteria: • “Does the project help address climate change issues? – The action increases the resilience of both natural and human systems or fosters adaptation to anticipated sea level rise and local climate change. 0 – 5 points possible.” (Technical Merit and Readiness, p. 28) • Sea level rise is mentioned several times in a section describing how project proposals are differentially evaluated based on recommendations developed for each landform. For example, under the provision for embayment’s: “Sea level rise potentially affects both the sustainability of wetlands (similar to deltas) and increases the importance of sustained sediment supply.” (Tailoring Proposal Review to Landform, p. 23) Remedial Action Grants (Toxics Cleanup Program; Department of Ecology)15 Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used the grant program guidance: • Category #5, Redevelopment and Reuse in Cleanups: “Potential reuse considers climate change projections (such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and wildfires).” (Independent Remedial Action Grant Scorecard, p. 39) • Section 6.2, What Criteria Will Ecology Use to Prioritize Applications for Oversight Remedial Action Grants: “The design considers climate change projections (i.e. sea level rise, extreme weather events, etc.)” (Chapter 6: Oversight Remedial Action Grants, p.43) Examples from questions within the application materials: * • Does the project consider climate change projections (i.e., sea level rise, extreme weather events, wildfires, etc.)? If yes or maybe, please describe how (maximum five points). 14 Estuary & Salmon Restoration Program. 2018. Request for Project Proposals. 2019-21 Investment Plan. Available at http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/esrp/files/2018_ESRP_RFP.pdf. 15 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2018. Remedial Action Grants for Local Governments, 2018-2021 Guidance. Publication No. 18- 09-049. Available at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1809049.pdf. * These questions cannot be accessed directly. Capital grant program staff provided us with this information. Publication 20-06-015 19 November 2020 Salmon Recovery Grants (Recreation & Conservation Office)16 Examples of climate change and sea level rise language used in the grant program manual: • This terminology is not used in these sections. Examples from questions within the application materials: * • Does your project address or accommodate the anticipated effects of climate change? If yes or maybe, please describe how (not scored). 16 Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. 2020. Manual 18. Salmon Recovery Grants. Available at https://rco.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SAL-Manual18.pdf. * These questions cannot be accessed directly. Capital grant program staff provided us with this information. Publication 20-06-015 20 November 2020 Appendix C. Questionnaires used to collect data for this report Objectives, as explained to interview participants • Gather examples and lessons learned from existing capital grant programs to improve the state’s understanding and use of sea level rise (SLR) criteria. • Develop clear program criteria that will incentivize climate smart investments and improve coastal communities’ resilience. • Provide information needed in funding guidance to help project proponents meet climate change/sea level rise grant criteria. Provide examples and tools on how to integrate these criteria into project proposals. Questions for program administrators – programs with sea level rise and climate change language in their funding guidelines A. Introduction 1. Could you please give me with a short overview of the program history, scope, and funding sources? 2. For how long have you been managing this program? B. Incorporation of climate change/ SLR language within funding guidelines 1. Why did inserting climate change or sea level rise (SLR) language in your program funding guidelines and evaluation criteria become a priority and how much time and how many resources were dedicated to this work? 2. When did you add this language to the funding guidelines? 3. What challenges did you encounter? 4. How did you decide on what climate change/ SLR language to use in your funding guidelines? What challenges did you encounter? C. Project evaluation 1. Overall, were the submitted proposals well aligned with the funding guidelines/ evaluation criteria? 2. Did they include some climate change/ SLR language? If yes, how was this language evaluated (e.g., weight of the sea level rise and climate change language used, technical review)? D. Resources needed 1. Once a project is funded, is there any financial/ technical support/ resources provided by the program to help the project proponent in identifying actions to implement the climate change/ SLR language? Publication 20-06-015 21 November 2020 2. What resources (technical assistance, guidance, information, scoring criteria, etc.) would incentivize the development of climate smart investments? 3. What resources would aid and support your current or future efforts? E. Project proponents 4. Could you describe your relationship with project proponents? 5. Could you describe some barriers that project proponents/applicants may have toward the inclusion of climate change/ SLR language within their project (e.g., policy constraints)? F. Tools assessment 1. Do you think that developing the climate change/ SLR language within the funding guidelines will incentivize climate smart investments and increase coastal communities’ resilience overtime? Why and how? 2. What tools could be created at the state level as incentives (e.g., compliance with local regulations and requirements)? G. Recommendations & final thoughts 1. Based on your experiences, what three recommendations would you give a program manager/ state agency interested in undertaking a similar effort? 2. Any final thoughts or concerns you would like to share. Questions for program administrators – programs without climate change and sea level rise language in their funding guidelines A. Introduction 1. Could you please give me with a short overview of the program history, scope, and funding sources? 2. For how long have you been managing this program? B. Incorporation of climate change/ SLR language within funding guidelines 1. Have you thought of or been encouraged to incorporate climate change or sea level rise (SLR) language in your program funding guidelines and evaluation criteria? Explain. 2. Do you expect the inclusion of climate change/ SLR language in your program funding guidelines during the next round of RFPs? Why? 3. Do you foresee some challenges/ barriers to the development and inclusion of this language into your program funding guidelines? C. Project evaluation 1. Overall, were the submitted proposals well aligned with the funding guidelines/ evaluation criteria? Publication 20-06-015 22 November 2020 2. Did they include some climate change/ SLR language? If yes, how was this language evaluated (e.g., weight of the sea level rise and climate change language used, technical review)? If not, how would you evaluate this language if it were mentioned within the text of the proposal? D. Resources needed 1. What resources (technical assistance, guidance, information, scoring criteria, etc.) would incentivize the development of climate smart investments? 2. What resources would aid and support your current or future efforts? E. Project proponents 1. Could you describe your relationship with project proponents? 2. Could you describe some barriers that project proponents/applicants may have toward the inclusion of climate change/ SLR language within their project (e.g., policy constraints)? F. Tools assessment 1. Do you think that developing the climate change/ SLR language within the funding guidelines will incentivize climate smart investments and increase coastal communities’ resilience overtime? Why and how? 2. What tools could be created at the state level as incentives (e.g., compliance with local regulations and requirements)? G. Final thoughts 1. Any final thoughts or concerns you would like to share. Questions for project applicants A. Introduction 1. Could you please give me with a short overview of the history, scope, and funding sources of some of the projects, you have recently managed? 2. For how long have you been working as a project manager? B. Incorporation of climate change/ SLR language within funding guidelines 1. Did you recently apply for a capital grant? If yes, which one? 2. Where did you learn about this capital grant program? 3. Did the funds from this capital grant program cover most of your expenses or did you have to apply for other fund sources (e.g., matching funds, funds from other agencies)? 4. Was it recommended that you use climate change/ sea level rise (SLR) language in your project proposal? Explain. How did you perceive this recommendation? 5. If you included climate change/ SLR language in your project proposal, how did you decide on what language to use? What challenges did you encounter? Publication 20-06-015 23 November 2020 6. Why was it important (or not) to use this language? C. Resources needed 1. If you used climate change/ SLR language, how much time and what resources were dedicated to this aspect of the project proposal. What challenges did you encounter? 2. What resources would aid and support your current or future efforts? 3. How programs funding guidelines could be improved to help, your projects meet the grant program climate change/sea level rise criteria. 4. Who was your contact person when you applied to this capital grant program (e.g., program manager, other agency staff, and lead entity coordinator)? 5. Could you describe some barriers that program administrators may have toward the inclusion of climate change/ SLR language within their program funding guidelines? D. Tools assessment 1. Do you think that developing clear program criteria and funding guidance will promote the development of climate smart investments and increase coastal communities’ resilience overtime? 2. What other funding sources, tools, or resources have you used to address climate change/ SLR issues? 3. Based on your experiences, what are three recommendations that you would you give to a project proponent interested in undertaking a similar effort? E. Final thoughts 1. Any final thoughts or concerns you would like to share. Publication 20-06-015 24 November 2020 Appendix D. Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program climate change responses analysis The Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) has asked a climate change question in their last three grant cycles (2015-2017, 2017-2019, and 2019-2021). Responses to this question were scored from zero to five by the grant program administrators (see below). Comparing the distribution of scores across all three-grant cycles presented an opportunity to assess if considerations toward climate change have changed or improved over time. Due to time constraints, we were only able to examine the scores assigned to each response, but not the content of the narratives. The grant program determined the final score for each response by averaging the scores of all reviewers. Each proposal had between five and ten reviewers. Between 18 and 29 project proposals were submitted for each grant cycle. The averaged climate question scores were organized in five bins: 1. 0.0 to 0.9 points 2. 1.0 to 1.9 points 3. 2.0. to 2.9 points 4. 3.0 to 3.9 points 5. 4.0 to 5.0 points ESRP 2018 RFP climate change question & guidance Does the project help address climate change issues? Points possible: 0-5 Points. The action increases the resilience of both natural and human systems or fosters adaptation to anticipated sea level rise and local climate change. Evaluation Guidance and Best Practices Ideal projects have some or all of the following: • Proponent demonstrates understanding of how climate change is likely to affect site processes and functions and demonstrates how the information has been considered in the site selection and design process, and monitoring. • Opportunities to facilitate landward movement of coastal ecosystems subject to dislocation by sea-level rise and other climate change impacts are considered. For example: o Beach projects allow for landward migration area of shorelines within the project and sustained sediment supply necessary to adjust beach elevations. o Adequate opportunities for landward migration of tidal wetlands are available with the project area. o The project design and system conditions allows for adequate and timely delivery of sediments to support marsh accretion within the project area and drift cell. • Proposal identifies and addresses potential impacts of the project to adjacent land uses under climate change scenarios. Publication 20-06-015 25 November 2020 Eighteen project proposals were submitted in the 2015-2017 grant cycle and were scored by six to eight reviewers. No projects received between 0.0-0.9 points. Two projects (11%) received between 1.0-1.9 points. Three projects (17%) received between 2.0-2.9 points. Eight projects (44%) received between 3.0-3.9 points, and five projects (28%) received between 4.0-5.0 points (Figure 1). Figure 1. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2015-2017 grant cycle. Publication 20-06-015 26 November 2020 Twenty-five project proposals were submitted in the 2017-2019 grant cycle, and were scored by five to eight reviewers. No projects received between 0.0-0.9 points. One project (4%) received between 1.0-1.9 points. Four projects (16%) received between 2.0-2.9 points. Eight projects (32%) received between 3.0-3.9 points, and 11 projects (44%) received between 4.0-5.0 points (Figure 2). Figure 2. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2017-2019 grant cycle. Publication 20-06-015 27 November 2020 Twenty-nine project proposals were submitted in the 2019-2021 grant cycle, and were scored by seven to ten reviewers. No projects received between 0.0-0.9 points or 1.0-1.9 points. One project (3%) received between 2.0-2.9 points. 10 projects (34%) received between 3.0-3.9 points, and 18 projects (62%) received between 4.0-5.0 points (Figure 3). Figure 3. Percentage frequency distribution of scores for the ESRP climate change question in the 2019-2021 grant cycle. For the 2015-2017 grant cycle, 28% of project proposals received between four and five points for their climate change considerations (Figure 1). This percentage increased to 46% for the 2017-2019 grant cycle (Figure 2), and to 62% for the 2019-2021 grant cycle (Figure 3). On the other end, the percentage of answers with less than two points decreased from 28% in 2015 to 21% in 2017, and to 3% in 2019 (Figure 1-3). Over three grant cycles, the percentage of answers with four or more points doubled. However, we cannot conclusively determine the reasons for the observed increases at this time. Further analysis is required to determine if, for example, these increasing scores are related to better guidance from the ESRP grant program, increased access to relevant climate change data and information, or some other factor(s). Next Steps An analysis of the narratives to the climate change question could help identify trends (e.g., how well this question has been answered over time and what terms have been used) and explain Publication 20-06-015 28 November 2020 differences in score from answer to answer (e.g., what elements were commonly found in highly scored answers). Conducting such, an analysis could help address some concerns from both capital grant program administrators and project applicants such as: • What climate change considerations should be addressed in a project proposal, and how should they be addressed? • How to score these considerations? • What elements make a good answer? Publication 20-06-015 29 November 2020 Appendix E. Interview participants and acknowledgements The authors of this report thank the following people for taking time to be interviewed and contribute to this study: • Molly Bogeberg, The Nature Conservancy • Richard Brocksmith, Skagit Watershed Council • Ann Campbell, Department of Commerce • Jay Carmony, Washington State Parks • Tish Conway-Cranos, Department of Fish and Wildlife • Donald ‘Kit’ Crump, Snohomish County • Betsy Davis, Northwest School of Wooden Boat Building • Ben Donatelle, Recreation and Conservation Office • Sarah Doyle, North Olympic Salmon Coalition • Tara Galuska, Recreation and Conservation Office • Greg Griffith, Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation • Emily Howe, The Nature Conservancy • Lissa Kramer, Washington State Historical Society • Jay Krienitz, Department of Fish and Wildlife • Ray Ledgerwood, State Conservation Commission • Andrea McBride, Skagit Watershed Council • Scott McKinney, Department of Ecology • Amber Moore, Puget Sound Partnership • Chris Moore, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation • Scott O’Dowd, Department of Ecology • Adam Sant, Department of Ecology • Amy Snover, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group • Lisa Spurrier, Pierce County • Garret Ward, Department of Ecology • Kristin Williamson, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group • Angie Wirkkala, Department of Ecology Additionally, the authors thank the following reviewers from the Department of Ecology: Tressa Arbow, Henry Bell, Sydney Fishman, Tim Gates, Brian Lynn, Betty Renkor, and Sonni Tadlock. October 12, 2020 1 Shoreline Master Program Checklist Additional Amendments Staff Docket/Code Interpretations Jefferson County staff have identified a series of changes to improve interpretation and application of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). This list is preliminary and subject to change. SMP Docket – Preliminary Num Staff Tracking Docket Request JCC Section Proposed Action 1 Non-conforming uses/development clarification 18.25.660 Clarify with revised definition of nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100. 2 SMP/Critical Area clarification 18.25.270(4)(a)(i) This subsection was intended to mean that critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22 are to be used, but where there are discrepancies (such as those pertaining to buffers, nonconforming development, etc.), then the SMP prevails. Clarify how the SMP subsections pertaining to critical areas interact with critical area regulations in Chapter 18.22. 3 Shoreline Designations for State Parks Review all shoreline designations for State Parks considering designation (conservancy or natural) and shoreline access for conditions and revise where warranted. 4 References subsection (3)(c), but reference for interference should be (4)(c). 18.25.440(4)(d) Change reference to (3)(c) to (4)(c)(i) 5 JCC 18.25.630(18) & (19) should be in 18.25.620 as (7) and (8) 18.25.620 & .630 Move subsections (18) & (19) of 18.25.630 to 18.25.620 and re-number as subsections (7) & (8) 6 Parcel #921000001 on Indian Island is State DNR Land, but does not have a shoreline designation. Appears to have been lumped in with N/A for Federal Exempt Lands. Review and revise where warranted. Consider Periodic Review Checklist and laws regarding federal lands to extent applicable. 8 Clarify that west end rivers are aquatic below OHWM 18.25.210(3) Review and revise where warranted. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County| SMP Code Docket - Preliminary 2 Num Staff Tracking Docket Request JCC Section Proposed Action 9 Definition of Shoreline of Statewide Significance are duplicates in JCC 18.25.100(19)(w)(i) and (ii). JC 18.25.100(19)(vii) refers to both (i)and (ii), should ensure the correct subsections are reflected. JCC 18.25.100(19)(w)(i),(ii) and (iv) and JCC 18.25.240 Delete subsection 18.25.100(w)(ii) and re- number subsequent subsections. Delete reference to (ii) in subsection (vii) (to be new subsection (vi) after re-numbering). Shorelines of statewide significance should be verbatim from WAC 12 Aquaculture: clarify when a SDP is needed. 18.25.440(4)(e): 'not' is consistent with (4)(c) and reference change from (1)(b) to say (4)(b) Review in concert with SMP Periodic Review Checklist. Consider deleting reference to (1) from (4)e to just read (b). Delete text "or conditional use permit (CUP)" 17 Revise nonconforming lot definition from "…minimum lot size…" to "minimum lot depth…", and check how it is used relative to the modest home provision and the common line buffer. 18.25.100(14)(h), and possibly 18.25.270(5)(a) and (b) Clarify with revised definition of nonconforming in Article II,18.25.100. Change the text "size" to "depth." Incorporate Code Interpretation regarding non-conforming lot if warranted. 19 Clarify that the applicant must demonstrate erosion from wave energy to approve soft shore stabilization; also, revise policies to include soft shore stabilization. Add soft shore stabilization regulations. 18.25.410 Geotechnical report should suffice. 20 Revise watershed restoration exemptions to be consistent with state law. Exemptions 15 and 17 are definitions, not exemptions. Clarify that exemption 16 has no shoreline permitting fee, per RCW 90.58.515. 18.25.560(15), (16), and (17) Revise 18.25.560 Exemptions to consolidate subsections (15), (16) & (17). 21 Specify report requirements for NNL; consider referencing requirements for CAO report requirements in 18.22. 18.25.270 Approach is under review. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County| SMP Code Docket - Preliminary 3 Num Staff Tracking Docket Request JCC Section Proposed Action 23 Clarify area included in 25% increase for both in-water and above OHWM development. 18.25.440((4)(b)(i) Add text, "This applies to both in-water and above OHWM development." 24 JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) has wrong code reference to flood regulations. JCC 18.25.410(5)(iii) Change text reference in JCC 18.25.410(5)(c)(iii) from "JCC 18.30.070" to "JCC 15.15." 25 Review if text should reference fewer than 4 residential lots as it would otherwise be inconsistent. JCC 18.25.410(6)(h) Change text reference in JCC 18.25.410(6)(h) from "more" to "less." 28 Provide guidance on requirements and/or evaluating aesthetic reports. Add text to 18.25.440(6)(b) "including what views in the vicinity would be altered or obstructed and propose measures to reduce impacts," after "aesthetic qualities of the shoreline." 31 Why is section is silent on notices for Type II permits, but spells out process on Type I and III permits? JCC 18.25.650 Add text "II &" to 18.25.650(1)(b) "Type III project permit…". Permit procedures should reference other processes in UDC and not duplicate or create new. 32 Side yard setback language is confusing. SMP does not establish side yard setbacks, and JCC 18.30 does not identify side yard setbacks based off of zoning which makes it confusing for in water. JCC 18.25.300(2)(b) Replace text in 18.25.300(2)(b), "Five feet of the total required side yard setbacks may be provided on one side and the balance on the other side," with, "The standard side yard setback is five feet." Review for consistency with zoning. 35 Unclear if C(a) permit and SSDP requires a Type III process. What is the process for stand- alone SSDP (yes use, but SSDP required)? JCC 18.25.620 JCC 18.25.620(3) & (4) are clear that C(a) and C(d) are processed as Type IIs. Add new subsection that SDPs shall be processed as a Type I permit. Delete text "substantial development permits and," from 18.25.620(2). Re-number existing subsections to include new subsection. 41 Consider adding in definitions in for waterward and lateral as associated with implementing code language. JCC 18.25.100 Add definition under 18.25.100(12) for "Lateral," to define expansion in relation to the OHWM. October 12, 2020 Jefferson County| SMP Code Docket - Preliminary 4 Num Staff Tracking Docket Request JCC Section Proposed Action 42 Provide clarification on vegetation maintenance requirements and how it is applicable to clearing for new development, such as a single family residence, or just for views. JCC 18.25.310 Delete "new" from 18.25.310(2)(d). 45 Revise CASP from a Type III to a Type I process and when it is used in shoreline jurisdiction - current language is awkward. JCC 18.25.270(4)(l) Replace text of last sentence in 18.25.270(4)(l) to read, "such buffer modification shall require a Type I Substantial Development Permit (SDP).” Address consistency with CAO. 46 Clarify if non-conforming lateral expansion is a C(a) or a C(d) JCC 18.25.660(9) Replace text in 18.25.660(9) that reads, "with a Conditional Use Permit," to read," with a Type I Substantial Development Permit (SDP)" 47 Non-conforming expansion: change foundation walls to roof line to (8) and (10), and consider adding similar roof line language to (9). JCC 18.25.660 Revise text in 18.25.660(8)(b) that reads, "beyond the existing structures' foundation walls," to read, " beyond the structures' legally permitted development footprint." Add revised text above to 18.25.660(9), and revise same to 18.25.660(10)(a). 49 Clarify that expansions to existing residential development can use the modest home provisions; not just new SFR development. JCC 18.25.270(5) Delete the text "New" under 18.25.270(5)(a). 50 Clarify if an unclassified conditional use is a C, C(a), or C(d). If it is determined to be a C (i.e., Type III), then the CUP definition in JCC 18.25.100(3)(q) needs to be revised. If there is no C (Type III) in the shoreline regulations, that should be clarified in JCC 18.25.600. JCC 18.25.600; possibly, JCC 18.25.100(3)(q) Revise text in 18.25.600 that reads, "may be authorized as conditional uses…" to read, "may be authorized as a Discretionary Conditional Use "C(d)" permit, provided…" 51 Need to add a definition for "active use" within the shoreline buffer. JCC 18.25.270(4)(i) Create definition for "active use" in 18.25.100(1) October 12, 2020 Jefferson County| SMP Code Docket - Preliminary 5 Num Staff Tracking Docket Request JCC Section Proposed Action 52 Revise to say …common- line buffer, if applicable... JCC 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) Addition text to 18.25.270(5)(a)(iii) to read,"common-line buffer, if applicable; and" 56 Change reference from 3(c) to 4(c) (page 18- 168.26) JCC 18.25.440(4)(d) Replace "(3)" in 18.25.440(4)(d) to "(4)." 64 These two sections contradict each other. If new beach access is prohibited in marine feeder bluffs, why would it be allowed if the project is shown not to adversely affect? Possibly the intent is to allow these structures on feeder bluffs if geotech says there is no adverse impact. 340(2) is too restrictive. JCC 18.25.340(2) and (4)(j) Redefine "feeder bluff" under 18.25.100(6)(d). Delete subsections 18.25.340(2) and (4)(d)(ii). Revisit the prohibitions for feeder bluffs. 65 Clarify if all streams requires a 150-foot buffer in all shoreline environments or if it is only those identified as "shorelines" in 90.58 RCW (>20cfs) JCC 18.25.270(4)e(iii) Shoreline buffers apply to S type streams only. Add text to 18.25.270(4)(e)(iii) to read "Stream/River (flows greater than20 cubic feet per second) Shores." 67 Maintenance trimming seems to only be allowed for "new" shoreline uses. Should also extend to existing uses. JCC 18.25.310(2)(d) Delete the text "new" under 18.25.310(2)(d). 68 Exempt ADU's as appurtenances. JCC 18.25.560 and Appurtenance definitions Add the text "Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)," to 18.25.100(1)(aa). City of Bonney Lake is doing this for example. 70 JCC 18.25.660(8)(9) planting plan needs to be more explicit re: if a habitat management plan by a biologist is required. JCC 18.25.660(8) & (9) Define what is needed in a "planting plan" in subsections 18.25.660(8) & (9).Clarify planting plan related to other SMP standards and definitions with attention to regulatory reform to address implementation needs and avoid unnecessary paperwork and expense. Staff Response to Task Force Recommendations a. CUPs and Variances for proper level of review. Could revise code to allow waterward expansion without a variance if it will be over existing impervious surface. Could allow lateral expansions without a CUP. Vertical expansions may still require a CUP if impacting views. b. Mooring Buoys – Could revision to allow with Type 1 SDP instead of CUP. Ell grass survey already required and approval of other agencies as far as siting. Can’t tell people they can’t anchor and get a mooring buoy. c. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise – We have two existing policies in the SMP, can we write DRs for these policies. (j) Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 7)] (b) Proponents of a development on no-bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure’s foundation higher than the level of expected future sea-level rise. Working with the City and Ecology to be consistent. BERK looking at other jurisdictions, such as Island County bulkhead project referenced by Amy Leitman. d. Marine Trades and economic development – Economic factors drive these. Code should at least not be a hinderance to development. Wooden Boat School. Re-designation of shorelines problematic, especially in Hood Canal because of Navy. Take a closer look at use table. e. Boat Launches – Allowed in High Intensity and Residential with a Type 1 SDP, a in Conservancy and Natural with a CUP for both commercial and residential use. Big issue for the Navy on Hood Canal. Most boat launches are on State property. f. Shorelines of Statewide Significance – Vague and confusing. BERK is looking at a more clear definition. Does not have a great impact on permitting. Action Items 1. Eliminating the CUP for lateral expansion – make it a shoreline exemption 2. Leave vertical expansion of a SFR as CUP because of possible view obstruction. 3. Remove Variance for waterward expansion of a SFR over existing permitted impervious surface (decks, patios) but new development waterward of foundation still would require a variance. 4. Create a Type 1 SDP for some uses. Look at use table to identify. 5. Change use for mooring buoys from CUP to Type 1 SDP in Conservancy and Shoreline Residential designations. 6. Look at policies for mooring buoys – possible new policy to encourage mooring buoys over anchoring. 7. Possible new policy for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise on adaption strategy – retreat, accommodate, and protect based on site conditions, topography, etc. 8. Explore policy that allows flexibility to siting development that is potentially at risk from SLR. 9. Look at use table related to commercial use permitting. Can we eliminate CUPs? 10. Find a better definition for “Shorelines of Statewide Significance” that is clear and less confusing that what we now have. Existing Climate Change Policies (j) Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. III § 7)] b) Proponents of a development on no-bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure’s foundation higher than the level of expected future sea-level rise. State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Coastal Region • Region 6 • 48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563-9618 Telephone: (360) 249-4628 • Fax: (360) 249-1229 November 23, 2020 David Johnson Associate Planner - Port Ludlow Lead Planner Department of Community Development (DCD) Jefferson County Good morning, Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us to discuss the Jefferson County SMP Periodic Review. Our WDFW Habitat Program team appreciate the thoughtful discussion, education, and inclusion in the process; thank you so much for fostering this collaboration. During the meeting, WDFW staff provided a few informal recommendations for the draft stage of this review. While we intend to more formally review, and potentially comment, on the SMP Periodic Review during the official public comment period, our team also wanted to send you a brief summary of some of the preliminary suggestions that emerged during and after our call. The primary discussion points and comments are: 1) Marine Shoreline Armoring 2) Mooring Buoys 3) Boat Launches 4) Beach Access Structures 5) Riparian Zones and Planting Plans 6) General Process Recommendations Marine Shoreline Armoring Recommendations: As of June 2020, a new rule has gone into effect for WDFW, which clarifies some of the required information needed from applicants proposing marine shoreline armoring projects. To provide the most straight-forward, easy-to-navigate, and transparent experience for project applicants, we recommend that Jefferson County incorporate these clarifications into the Draft of the SMP under . The goal of doing this is to use clear and consistent language across both permitting requirements, so that applicants will be able to submit the same plans, drawings, reports, and specifications for both permit applications. The risk of not providing this consistency is that an Page 2 applicant could prepare documentation that is complete for county permitting requirements, but that they would then need to revise/amend for their Hydraulic Project Permit. Even if such revisions are minor, it seems like an avoidable delay and avoidable expense for the applicant. We think that the best customer service we can collectively provide is therefore to have as much consistency in requirements and in language as possible. We recommend including in Chapter 18.14.10 language which clarifies establishing benchmarks. The language WDFW is currently using, states: “The department requires that plans submitted as part of a complete application show the horizontal distances of the structure(s) from permanent benchmark(s) (fixed objects). Each horizontal distance shown must include the length and compass bearing from the benchmark to the waterward face of the structure(s). The benchmark(s) must be located, marked, and protected to serve as a post-project reference for at least ten years from the date the HPA application is submitted to the department.” As such, all HPA applications for marine shoreline armoring construction require the following information, which we recommend that Jefferson County include as updates in the SMP draft: 1) Plan and/or application materials should specify the authorized structure location as either a tidal elevation (0.0 feet equals MLLW), or a relative distance from a benchmark(s), or both. 2) Clearly and prominently stating the authorized structure location will improve communications between regulators and permittee, minimize misunderstandings about the authorized location of a structure, and reduce conflict during post-construction site inspections. To accomplish this, the applicant may have to establish benchmark(s) and record the distance and compass bearing from the benchmark(s) to the authorized waterward face of the bulkhead of other armoring. 3) All proposals for shoreline armoring should also specify the length of the new or replacement structure. Additionally, we recommend including language to require geotechnical analysis to assess the necessity and impacts to geological processes of proposed new shoreline armoring. The language WDFW is currently using states: “An HPA application for new bank protection, or the replacement or rehabilitation of bank protection that extends waterward of an existing bank protection structure must include a site assessment, alternatives analysis and design rationale for the proposed method prepared by a qualified professional.” As such, all HPA applications for new marine shoreline armoring require the following information, which we recommend that Jefferson County include as updates in the SMP draft: 1. An assessment of the level of risk to existing buildings, roads, or services being threatened by the erosion; 2. Evidence of erosion and/or slope instability to warrant the stabilization work; Page 3 3. Alternatives considered and the technical rationale specific to the bank protection technique proposed; 4. An analysis of the benefits and impacts associated with the chosen protection method; and 5. An explanation of the method chosen, design parameters, types of materials, quantities, staging, and site rehabilitation. Other counties have also incorporated the following additional requirements on assessments of new marine shoreline armoring which we also recommend that Jefferson County consider including as updates in the SMP draft: 1) Estimate time frame and rates of erosion to report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. Urgent means: a. That the primary structure will be damaged within three years as a result of natural shoreline erosion in the absence of hard armoring structures, or b. Where waiting until the need is that immediate would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. 2) If the report determines that the need is not as immediate as three years, it still may be used to justify a more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures. 3) The geotechnical analysis shall evaluate on-site drainage issues and address drainage problems away from the shoreline edge. Mooring Buoys During the conversation, Chris raised the potential concern that mooring buoy applicants may be best served by sequencing their permitting such that they received their USACE permit prior to applying for County or HPA permitting. Our understanding of this concern is that, for customer service purposes, it is preferable for applicants to determine whether or not there are conflicts with the proposed mooring buoy locations before going through the hassle of obtaining state and county permits. Essentially, sequencing the application process in this way would encourage applicants to pass over the largest potential hurdle first, thereby saving some time and frustration if challenges arise. We recommend that Jefferson County include a recommendation or requirement in the SMP Draft that guides applicants on the sequencing of mooring buoy permitting. Boat Launches WDFW agrees with Jefferson County that boat launches are a limiting factor for water access, recreational angling, and enjoyment of the waters around Jefferson County. The limited launches that are available could use repairs or be re-constructed in more environmentally friendly ways. Additionally, since the impacts of poorly constructed or inappropriately sited existing ramps can have long lasting negative impacts to nearshore processes, it is crucial that new ramps must be constructed and located to avoid these impacts. Page 4 As such, we recommend including language consistent with the Washington Administrative Code section 220-660-150 for boat launches in in freshwater areas, and WAC 220-660-390 for boat launches in marine waters. By building consistency between the updated SMP and the current administrative code requirements, applicants will have a clearly defined understanding of how to best design and permit their projects. While both of these code sections are applicable in their entirety, we suggest that you consider placing some emphasis within the Draft on WAC 220-660-390 parts 2 and 3. While it may save time and redundancy to simply site that boat launch projects must be consistent with the WAC sections discussed above, there would be added value in re-enforcing the fish life concerns and the design criteria within the SMP. As with the other recommendations, our intention here is to enhance clarity, consistency, and ease-of-use for project proponents. Please do not hesitate to reach out if there is any assistance we can provide regarding wording, citing, or emphasizing these important components within the SMP. Clarification Regarding Beach Access Structures: In addition to the above topics discussed in our meeting, our team is hoping to gain clarification on the changes to future protection of feeder bluffs in Jefferson County. Specifically, number 31 on the “Additional Amendments” makes reference to “revisit the prohibitions for feeder bluffs” in reference to beach access structures. We strongly support the protection of feeder bluffs from potential ecological process disruption and recommend that any changes to prohibitions increase or maintain the current level of protection. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife welcomes the opportunity to provide technical guidance or recommendations regarding any prohibition adjustments that are being considered. Buffers and Planting Plans We appreciate and support the intention of the SMP checklist items 32-35 to clarify the buffers and riparian planting plan requirements for project proponents. WDFW has a resource entitled “Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations (Public Review Draft, WDFW 2018) which we recommend as a reference Furthermore, please let us know if there is any assistance we may offer with regards to planting plan recommendations or requirements. WDFW is actively engaged in providing technical assistance for other local Counties on these issues, and would welcome the opportunity to offer resources, materials, language, and tools to Jefferson County as well. Process Recommendations: Page 5 As a general SMP Periodic Review process suggestion, we recommended that a multi-agency and tribal meeting, or series of meetings, might be helpful during the early draft process in the future. Our perspective is that having these types of interdisciplinary, cross-organization, collaborations can be synergistic and helpful for providing input. We assume that it could ultimately be a good time-saving strategy, as well, as it might reduce the potential for iterative or redundant comments during the later public comment period. Such a meeting might benefit from including WDFW, Tribal representation, Jefferson County, USACE, DNR, and possibly Department of Ecology (if they felt participation at that stage was appropriate?). If there are other entities that you expect to hear from during the public comment period (or if we’re missing any key players!) bringing them into early collaboration might also be helpful. Overall, we understand that the timelines and scope of these periodic reviews might make such meetings inconvenient or infeasible. We certainly appreciate, and want to acknowledge, your effort to include and incorporate our participation; this is just a future process-recommendation and not a disparagement of the current review! We hope that this synopsis of our discussed suggestions and the additional comments are helpful for you and welcome any questions or ongoing conversation. Please do not hesitate to reach out if we can provide any clarification, additional information, or assistance of any kind. We truly appreciate this opportunity for collaboration and hope that, as we now have WDFW staff vacancies filled, we can provide more technical assistance to Jefferson County for our shared stewardship goals for the public. Furthermore, if Jefferson County has virtual staff meetings, we’d love to join in and introduce Laura Street, our new Area Habitat Biologist assigned to Darrin Master’s previous coverage area. Respectfully yours, Danielle Zitomer Area Habitat Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife cc: Mary Huff, WDFW Chris Waldbillig, WDFW Michelle McConnell, ECY