Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA Checklist SMP_2021_0514_clnfin 1 SEPA Environmental Checklist Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review May 14, 2021 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEAD AGENCIES: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other suppo rting documents. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 2 Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background [HELP] 1) Name of proposed project, if applicable: Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review 2) Name of applicant: Jefferson County Community Development Department 3) Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: David Wayne Johnson, djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us, Jefferson County Community Development Department, 621 Sheridan St, Port Townsend, WA 98368 4) Date checklist prepared: May 14, 2021 5) Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County Community Development Department 6) Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): ▪ 30-day comment period: May 17, 2021 to June 16, 2021  The County is preparing its periodic review as part of the optional joint review process where the County and the Washington Department of Ecology are developing the draft amendments in coordination and conducting a unified comment period and hearing.  Comments on the SEPA determination will follow the 30-day comment period on the draft Shoreline Master Program amendments. See https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline- Master-Program-Periodic-Review.  The hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2021at 5:30 pm. See https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1481/Shoreline-Master-Program-Periodic-Review. ▪ Planning Commission review: May-July 2021 ▪ Board of County Commissioners Review: Summer/Fall 2021 ▪ Prior to adoption, the County will also conduct review through the Washington State Department of Commerce through a 60-day notice of intent to adopt the master program amendments. 7) Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. See schedule of review in section A(6). May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 3 8) List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. SEPA Environmental Checklist and Addendum for Jefferson County’s Critical Areas Ordinance Update, prepared January 22, 2020 and issued January 29, 2020. Document is available at: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1383/Critical-Areas-Ordinance or at https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/separ/Main/SEPA/Record.aspx?SEPANumber=202000589. The SEPA Checklist and Addendum are relevant since the County is incorporating its latest critical areas ordinance into the draft Shoreline Master Program similar to the current program approved in 2014. This document is hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to WAC 197-11-635. ESA Adolfson, in Association with Coast Geologic Services, Inc. and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program Update Project, Ecology Grant #G0600343, Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised, November 2008. ESA Adolfson, Shoreline Master Program Update – Cumulative Impacts Analysis, February 2009. 9) Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. This is a nonproject proposal applicable countywide in shoreline jurisdiction. Future site-specific shoreline development proposals would be subject to SEPA as applicable. 10) List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. See A6). 11) Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Under RCW 90.58.080(4), Jefferson County has prepared draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments to keep the SMP current with changes in state law, changes in other County plans and regulations, and other changed local circumstances. The draft SMP proposes to incorporate critical areas regulations adopted in 2020. A summary of amendments appears in the table below. Exhibit 1. Summary of Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Amendments May 2021 Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes General Format As amended through the periodic review, the codified version at Jefferson County Chapter 18.25 would replace the previously approved 2014 consolidated program version. The Official Shoreline Map (Appendix A) in Article XI retains the 2014 Appendix but will be republished. Appendix B JCC 18.22 critical areas ordinance as it existed in 2014 will be replaced with County Ordinance 05- 0310-20 that repealed and replaced the critical areas ordinance in 2020. Article I. Introduction Clarify SMP does not apply to lands under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Remove detail on critical areas regulations – refer to later section where incorporation by reference of critical areas is addressed. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 4 Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes Article II. Definitions Update definitions for greater consistency with State law and rules, and to improve clarity and implementation. Article III. Master Program Goals Add in goals addressing climate change and adaptation, largely from the Comprehensive Plan. Support marine trades. Article IV. Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environment Designations Retain shoreline environment designations. Clarify west end rivers are aquatic below the ordinary high water mark. Amend Table 18.25.220 – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses consistent with other changes responding to state laws/periodic checklist (e.g. geoduck aquaculture, ocean uses) as well as regulatory reform and task force proposals (e.g. beach access, boat launches, mooring buoys). Article V. Shorelines of Statewide Significance Add management principles to assist in applying use preferences for shorelines of statewide significance. Article VI. General Policies and Regulations Amend policies to support protection of critical areas to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Buffers are retained and language clarified for interpretation. Update the incorporation by reference to 2020 set of critical area ordinance. Define existing term of active use applied to buffer usage. Clarify modest home provision on new and existing single-family homes. Incorporate County interpretations regarding nonconforming septic repair and stormwater improvements, similar to critical area regulations. Clarify side yard widths are consistent with zoning. Allow for changes in height with a variance to respond to sea level rise. Clarify normal maintenance of vegetation. Clarify both new and existing development should retain vegetation. Article VII. Shoreline Modifications Policies and Regulations Beach access structures: Modify permit types for regulatory reform goals while retaining requirements and protections including prohibition waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Boat launch: Adjust permit types for regulatory reform goals while retaining requirements and protections. Add reference to state rules that apply to boat launches. Mooring buoys: Amend performance standards to require consistency with Corps of Engineers. Limit residences to two mooring buoys to stabilize a single boat to minimize damage. Clarify avoid and minimize effects to eelgrass patches as well as beds to improve implementation. Encourage Restoration: Reference state rules that allow for relief from SMP for restoration in urban growth areas. Shoreline Stabilization: Clarify requirements for geotechnical analysis for shoreline stabilization and match state rules. Match state rules on soft shoreline stabilization approaches. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 5 Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes Article VIII. Use-Specific Policies and Regulations Agriculture: Add in policies addressing climate change and adaptation, largely from the Comprehensive Plan. Cross-reference agriculture/critical area regulations. Aquaculture: Match 2011 state shoreline rules regarding (new) geoduck aquaculture. Relocate finfish aquaculture maps to Article XI. Reduce redundancy and improve consistency with state rules on review criteria and permit requirement for geoduck conditional use permits. Commercial use: Clarify that maritime education and public uses should follow commercial standards. Forst practice: Match state law on forest practice requirements. Transportation: Incorporate Comprehensive Plan policies on sea level rise and adapting/mitigating transportation facilities. Article IX. Permit Criteria and Exemptions Update exemptions to match state rules (e.g. fair market value, add ADA retrofit, cross reference state requirements). Article X. Administration and Enforcement Clarify permit type and review procedures. Add required changes per state laws and rules on development not required to obtain shoreline permits (e.g. WSDOT facility maintenance) or that have special review requirements. Non-conforming single family home expansions one-time enlargement: Minor expansions, non-waterward: Allow for lateral expansion subject to the square footage limitations subject to a Type II permit that includes notice. Add a more specific planting plan intended to provide no-net-loss through equivalent enhancement of the shoreline buffer. Also add a monitoring plan to help respond to tribal and agency input. Minor expansions, waterward: Retain provision to allow filling in a notch in existing structure foundation wall. Allow for no more than 200 square feet enclosure of existing porch on existing legally installed impervious area, if landward of the common line setback, and if providing a planting plan and revegetating the area with 80% native plantings; similar to modest home provision but for small expansions (e.g. expand kitchen in only place possible). Moderate expansions: Retain provisions allowing lateral, vertical, or landward expansion, with discretionary permit; add details and standards for a planting plan and add monitoring and retention of enhanced vegetation. Recognize existing residential development with no change as conforming per 2011 state rules. Add state rules on transmittal of permits to Ecology. Clarify SMP amendment process per state rules. Article XI. Shoreline Mapping Relocate finfish maps to this section. Per state requirements, added a list of waterbodies subject to SMP based on the Inventory and Characterization Report. Article XII. Ocean Management The Ocean Resources Management Act (ORMA; RCW 43.143) and WAC 173- 26-360 have long been in effect; the current SMP’s ORMA cross reference provision was adequate for 2014 approval. Since then the Washington Marine May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 6 Section Summary of Proposed Key Changes Spatial Plan (MSP) was adopted in 2018, and the SMP now needs adequate provisions to fully implement ORMA & the MSP as required by state law and rules. 12) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The proposal applies to lands within shoreline jurisdiction in all unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. This generally includes all marine waters, lakes greater than 20 acres in size, streams where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second, associated wetlands, and uplands within 200 feet. B. Environmental Elements [HELP] 1. EARTH [HELP] a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long- term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 7 The proposed SMP addresses geotechnical report standards for shoreline stabilization, and emphasizes soft approaches. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Response: Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. 2. AIR [HELP] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of off-site sources will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 8 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Response: Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) provides rules addressing activities inside and outside of shoreline jurisdiction meant to provide consistency with state air quality standards. The agency addresses asbestos, burning, and air operating permits. Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. 3. WATER [HELP] a. Surface Water: [help] 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Shoreline jurisdiction includes lands within 200 feet of the shorelines of the state, approximately. A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The SMP provides goals and regulations meant to allow for appropriate shoreline uses and modifications provided there is no net loss of shoreline ecological function. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 9 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Ground Water: [help] 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 10 description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Response: Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. The proposed SMP retains 18.25.320 Water quality and quantity; this section prohibits discharging solid wastes, liquid wastes and untreated effluents to any groundwater or surface water or to be discharged onto land. Other SMP amendment proposals allow for nonconforming septic repair consistent with County health codes and code interpretations. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. JCC 18.22.130 provides protection standards for groundwater in susceptible aquifer recharge and special aquifer protection areas. JCC 18.30.060(1)(a) requires all grading and clearing activities to be conducted so as to minimize potential adverse effects of these activities on forested lands, surface water quality and quantity, groundwater recharge, and fish and wildlife habitat, adjacent properties, and downstream drainage channels. All future project applications must be evaluated independently under JCC 18.30.070 that requires compliance with the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 4. PLANTS [HELP] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ____deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ____evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ____shrubs ____grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Any vegetation that will be removed or altered at a site will be discussed in a future project -level May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 11 SEPA checklist. Further, critical areas regulations require vegetation retention for any fish and wildlife habitat conservation area for geologically hazardous areas. JCC 18.25.270(3)(h) requires vegetation maintenance in shoreline buffers. JCC 18.25.310 contains vegetation conservation regulations for shorelines. The SMP amendments propose to emphasize no net loss of critical area functions and values in shoreline jurisdiction. Minor adjustments to vegetation maintenance are proposed to improve implementation. The SMP would also improve planting plan requirements for nonconforming single family expansions including adding monitoring. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The proposed SMP would incorporate by reference 2020 critical areas ordinance regulations which provides protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Further, known threatened or endangered species on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Response: Any proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. See 4.b regarding critical area and shoreline standards regarding retaining and enhancing vegetation. JCC 18.30.130 regulates landscaping and screening at the project level. Landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 12 5. ANIMALS [HELP] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Birds and other animals which have been observed on or near a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Threatened and endangered species known to be on or near a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Migration routes on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Response: The SMP retains shoreline buffers and no-net-loss provisions for shoreline ecological conditions. It incorporates by reference the County’s recent 2020 critical areas regulations developed based on best available science. Article III of the SMP is proposed to be amended to add policies to address conservation and climate resilience consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mooring buoys would be limited in association with residences to allow two to stabilize boats to avoid habitat impacts. This is consistent with the policy preference for buoys over other boating facilities noted in the 2009 Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Eelgrass patches as well as beds would be protected and must be avoided to the extent feasible. While mooring buoys permit types may change to address regulatory reform, performance standards including standards for no net loss of ecological function remain. Article XII is added regarding Ocean Management including addressing protections of the ORMA and MSP. The proposed SMP would incorporate by reference 2020 critical areas ordinance regulations which provides protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. See also 4.b regarding critical area and shoreline standards regarding retaining and enhancing vegetation. Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 13 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES [HELP] a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The County applies the State Energy Code at JCC 15.05.030. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH [HELP] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 14 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). There are no environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal. Environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Existing hazardous chemicals/conditions on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The proposal does not require special emergency services. Special emergency services that might be required on a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Response: Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. State and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and clean up also apply. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 15 description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Response: See 7.a.5) for programmatic environmental and land use mitigation. In addition, JCC 18.30.190 incorporates noise mitigation requirements in the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, related to noise abatement, and provides that noise shall not exceed the requirements in Chapter 8.70 JCC (Noise Control) and Chapter 173-60 WAC, as they exist now or may be amended in the future. Chapter 173-60 WAC implements Chapter 70.107 RCW (Noise Control Act of 1974). 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE [HELP] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The SMP provides goals and regulations regarding agricultural uses consistent with the Shoreline Management Act; a cross reference to critical areas regulations and associated stewardship provisions is also included. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Describe any structures on the site. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The SMP addresses both new and existing structures in shoreline jurisdiction. Standards would be amended regarding minor and modest non-conforming single family home expansions, allowed just one time, provided there is associated vegetation enhancements and monitoring. The SMP proposal limits the size of minor waterward expansions to allow for enclosures of existing legal impervious May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 16 areas (e.g. porches), subject to extensive vegetation enhancement and monitoring. Current standards for minor and moderate non-waterward expansions would also be modified to have more specific planting plan and monitoring standards. Similar to the 2009 Cumulative Impacts Analysis evaluation, one-time minor expansions are limited if they do not increase the degree of non-conformity. To limit impacts caused by larger expansions, the SMP requires that property owners enhance the shoreline buffer through planting to offset the increased structure size such that the area of enhancement is proportionate to the size of the expansion. The proposed SMP amendments would further provide for shoreline ecological protection by specifying planting plan requirements and monitoring. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Any development would need to meet SMP and critical areas regulations buffers as well as zoning standards. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. No shoreline environment designations would be modified with the draft SMP amendments. Text clarifications would identify that west end rivers below the ordinary high water mark are considered aquatic, which improves clarity of the SMP. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The draft SMP will apply 2020 critical area regulations to critical areas that relate to future development sites in the shoreline. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 17 legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Any future development would be required to meet SMP standards for shoreline compatible uses and underlying zoning standards. The standards addressing compatibility include landscaping, setbacks, and height, among others. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: Response: See 8(b). 9. HOUSING [HELP] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Response: Housing types are primarily directed by zoning standards. Any future development in shoreline jurisdiction would be required to meet SMP standards for shoreline compatible uses; single family residential is considered a preferred use. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 18 10. AESTHETICS [HELP] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Response: In shoreline jurisdiction the tallest allowed height is 35 feet. The proposed SMP amendments would allow a variance process if greater height were required to address sea level rise; corresponding changes in the zoning code to allow variance process would also be made. SMP standards regarding avoiding changes to views for substantial numbers of people are retained. The variance process will allow for appropriate notice and review. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Response: See 10.a. There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Response: See 10.a regarding review criteria regarding view protection. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE [HELP] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The type of light or glare a proposal produces will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The type of light or glare from off-site sources will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The type of light or glare off-site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Response: Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The current and proposed SMP includes standards to protect shoreline views for substantial numbers of people. There are light and glare standards for some forms of aquaculture in the SMP. In addition there are use-specific light and glare standards in Chapter 18.20 Performance and Use-Specific Standards and 18.30 Development Standards. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 19 12. RECREATION [HELP] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The proposed SMP would adjust boat launch provisions to allow for a more streamlined process for non-residential boat launches in some shoreline areas; however, all boat launches residential and non- residential would be subject to state design and construction standards. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Site specific effects on recreation will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Response: The SMP retains public access standards applicable to future development of more than 4 dwellings. The SMP allows for boat launch facilities with appropriate environmental protection standards and other water enjoyment uses. The Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan guides parks and recreation investments in the county. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION [HELP] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Data sources will be identified with site-specific development. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 20 d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Response: The SMP contains JCC 18.25.280 Historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and educational resources that protect historic and archaeological resources. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources on or near a project site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 14. TRANSPORTATION [HELP] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Transportation access on or near a project site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The SMP continues to regulate new or expanded transportation facilities. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Transit services will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Parking location is regulated in the SMP with a preference for a location away from the water’s edge. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Demand for transportation improvements will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. The SMP does promote public access to the shoreline such as trails. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Transportation services will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 21 trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Traffic trips will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The relationship of a proposed development in rural and resource lands can be addressed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Any measures to reduce or control transportation impacts will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. This would include consistency with standards in the SMP that limit or condition new or expanded roads or parking areas in shoreline jurisdiction. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES [HELP] a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). The legislation does not increase the capacity for growth, but rather regulates it in the shoreline jurisdiction. The proposed SMP includes clarifications that public uses can follow commercial standards which provides improved implementation of the SMP for uses such as schools. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). Any measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services for a project will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. 16. UTILITIES [HELP] a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 22 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Response: There is no “project” or “site” for this proposal. This proposal is a non-project proposal for legislation that updates the Jefferson County SMP, as described in response to Question A (11). A description of a site will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. Utilities are regulated in the SMP. The draft SMP incorporates interpretations regarding nonconforming septic facilities. It also addresses stormwater facilities in the buffer if it is not feasible to be located outside the buffer and meets strict standards for evaluation, avoiding critical areas ad includes appropriate mitigation measures; this is similar to the critical areas ordinance. C. Signature [HELP] The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ______________________________________________ Name of signee __Lisa Grueter _________________________________ Position and Agency/Organization ______ Principal, BERK Consulting, Inc. Date Submitted: ___May 14, 2021____ May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 23 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [HELP] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Response: The SMP proposal incorporates new critical areas regulations into shoreline jurisdiction including the critical aquifer recharge regulations designed to avoid contamination of aquifers. Other SMP amendment proposals allow for nonconforming septic repair consistent with County health codes and code interpretations. The proposed SMP retains 18.25.320 Water quality and quantity; this section prohibits discharging solid wastes, liquid wastes and untreated effluents to any groundwater or surface water or to be discharged onto land. The proposed SMP changes would not alter air quality protections in state or regional rules. The state and county noise standards would continue to apply. Federal, state and local regulations regarding hazardous materials would be maintained. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Response: Each new project must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and its implementing regulations, and Chapter 18.40, Article X JCC (SEPA Implementation). Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline Master Program, and proposed amendments) or Chapter 18.22 JCC (Critical Areas Ordinance), will provide substantive development standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. In addition Chapter 18.15 (Land Use Districts), 18.20 (Performance and Use-Specific Standards) and Chapter 18.30 JCC (Development Standards) contain development and performance standards that control siting and mitigate impacts. JCC 18.30.060(1)(a) requires all grading and clearing activities to be conducted so as to minimize potential adverse effects of these activities on forested lands, surface water quality and quantity, groundwater recharge, and fish and wildlife habitat, adjacent properties, and downstream drainage channels. All future project applications must be evaluated independently under JCC 18.30.070 that requires compliance with the Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. State and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and clean up also apply. 2) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Response: The proposed SMP would incorporate by reference 2020 critical areas ordinance regulations which provides protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The SMP amendments propose to emphasize no net loss of critical area functions and values in shoreline jurisdiction. Minor adjustments to vegetation maintenance are proposed to improve implementation. The SMP would also improve planting plan requirements for nonconforming single family expansions May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 24 including adding monitoring. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Response: Critical areas regulations require vegetation retention for any fish and wildlife habitat conservation area for geologically hazardous areas. JCC 18.25.270(3)(h) requires vegetation maintenance in shoreline buffers. JCC 18.25.310 contains vegetation conservation regulations for shorelines. JCC 18.30.130 regulates landscaping and screening at the project level. 3) How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Response: The proposal would not allow development that would deplete energy or natural resources. Agriculture and forestry are allowed uses in shorelines consistent with state definitions and subject to critical areas regulations focusing on environmental stewardship. The SMP continues to allow for careful siting of energy infrastructure depending on the character of shoreline environments and state authorities. New Article XII with Ocean Uses are a match to state laws. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Response: The SMP regulates utility and energy uses. The County applies the State Energy Code at JCC 15.05.030. 4) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Response: The SMP amendments propose to emphasize no net loss of critical area functions and values in shoreline jurisdiction. Minor adjustments to vegetation maintenance are proposed to improve implementation. The SMP would also improve planting plan requirements for nonconforming single family expansions including adding monitoring. The SMP retains shoreline buffers and no-net-loss provisions for shoreline ecological conditions. It incorporates by reference the County’s recent 2020 critical areas regulations developed based on best available science. Article III of the SMP is proposed to be amended to add policies to address conservation and climate resilience consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed SMP addresses geotechnical report standards for shoreline stabilization, and emphasizes soft approaches. Mooring buoys would be limited in association with residences to allow two to stabilize boats to avoid habitat impacts. This is consistent with the policy preference for buoys over other boating facilities noted in the 2009 Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Kelp patches as well as beds would be protected and must be avoided to the extent feasible. While mooring buoys permit typologies may change to address regulatory reform, performance standards including standards for no net loss of ecological function remain. Article XII is added regarding Ocean Management including addressing protections of the ORMA and MSP. The proposed SMP would incorporate by reference 2020 critical areas ordinance regulations which provides protection standards for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 25 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Response: Critical areas regulations require vegetation retention for any fish and wildlife habitat conservation area for geologically hazardous areas. JCC 18.25.270(3)(h) requires vegetation maintenance in shoreline buffers. JCC 18.25.310 contains vegetation conservation regulations for shorelines. 5) How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Response: No shoreline environment designations would be modified with the draft SMP amendments. Text clarifications would identify that west end rivers below the ordinary high water mark are considered aquatic, which improves clarity of the SMP. The SMP addresses both new and existing structures in shoreline jurisdiction. Standards would be amended regarding minor and modest non-conforming single family home expansions, allowed just one time, provided there is associated vegetation enhancements and monitoring. The SMP proposal limits the size of minor waterward expansions to allow for enclosures of existing legal impervious areas (e.g. porches), subject to extensive vegetation enhancement and monitoring. Current standards for minor and moderate non-waterward expansions would also be modified to have more specific planting plan and monitoring standards. Similar to the 2009 Cumulative Impacts Analysis that one-time minor expansion are limited if they do not increase the degree of non-conformity. To limit impacts caused by larger expansions, the SMP requires that property owners enhance the shoreline buffer through planting to offset the increased structure size such that the area of enhancement is proportionate to the size of the expansion. The proposed SMP amendments would further provide for shoreline ecological protection by specifying planting plan requirements and monitoring. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Response: Any future development would be required to meet SMP standards for shoreline compatible uses and underlying zoning standards. These standards addressing compatibility include landscaping, setbacks, and height, among others. 6) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Response: The SMP amendments do not increase the capacity for growth in the shoreline jurisdiction. There are no upland shoreline environment designation changes. The SMP includes policies and regulations addressing proper location and design of transportation and utilities limiting them in the most sensitive areas and preferring locations moved away from the shoreline. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Response: Any measures to reduce or control transportation impacts will be discussed in a future project-level SEPA checklist. This could include consistency with standards in the SMP that limit or condition new or expanded roads or parking areas in shoreline jurisdiction. May 14, 2021 Jefferson County | Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review SEPA Environmental Checklist 26 7) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Response: The Jefferson County SMP Periodic Review amendments are based on an evaluation of state laws and rules using the Washington Department of Ecology’s Periodic Review Checklist. The proposed SMP amendments are meant to increase consistency with state laws and reflect local circumstances, while retaining no-net-loss of shoreline ecological function. No adverse environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing or amended code provisions has been identified. At the time of a site-specific development proposal within shoreline jurisdiction, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed.