HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022 09 30 ID_Attachment_1matrixATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 1 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
REQ-1
Rec-1 .100 Definitions
(1) A Definitions.
(aa) “Appurtenance, normal” means a structure or use that is necessarily connected
to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence a primary use and is located
landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. Normal
appurtenances for residential development are garages include a garage, attached
deck, utilities, installation of a septic tanks tank and drainfields drainfield, as well as
driveways, walkways a driveway, front walk between the driveway and the home’s
main entry, and fences, plus initial clearing and 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 ordinary high water mark.
Required Change: As established by statute and defined at WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) the term is specific to single-family residential (SFR). As
presented, the wording seems to create dual applicability for the term, including both: any ‘primary use’; and any ‘residential
development’. This creates overly-broad applicability, yet the SMP appears to use the term only as related to SFR (i.e. .220 Use Table;
.270(5.a); .500(4.b) & (5.d); .560(8); and .660(8) & (9)). Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed no intent for dual-
purpose wording and general interest for consistency with State law and rules; this may have been an oversight from the comprehensive
update. Revision is needed for consistency with WAC 173-27-040(2)(g) to clarify SFR, location outside of a wetland, septic ‘installation’, and
grading.
Recommended Change: Ecology supports clarification of an ‘attached’ deck as a circumstance of local discretion. And Ecology supports
replacement of ‘walkways’ with a presumably more limited ‘front walk’ as a local circumstance. However, ‘front walk’ is not defined and
submittal documentation provides no discussion/rationale leaving some uncertainty for implementation. Consultation with County staff
and consultants confirmed the intent to not include walkways all over the lot/parcel. Revisions are suggested at left and the County is
encouraged to further refine the language as needed to clarify: Does a ‘front walk’ only connect the driveway and front door? Would ‘front
walk’ exclude a walkway between the driveway and a side/back door of the house/garage? As related, .100(18)(n) “Residential
development” also lists garages as accessory creating an internal conflict – recommend revision to delete and defer to Appurtenance as
defined.
Rec-2 .100 Definitions
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(2)(p) Boating Facilities, (3)(m)
Community Dock/Pier/Float, (4)(n) Dock, (6)(k) Float, (10)(b) Joint Use
Dock/Pier/Float, (18)(i) Recreation, shoreline, and (19)(i) Shared Use
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s effort to clarify related terms for shared, joint use, and community docks. The proposed
language needs further improvement for clarity, to avoid internal conflict and aid implementation. Submittal documentation provides little
substantive discussion/rationale for the proposed approach, and Ecology review identified additional issues with other related
definitions/provisions. Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed the proposed edit to .350(2)(a)(iii) is the County’s
intended construct that ‘Shared’ includes both ‘Joint’ and ‘Community’, as is also internally consistent with the existing .100(2)(p) definition
for the overarching term ‘Boating Facilities’ that distinguishes ‘public or private’ and ‘single-user or shared’. Consultation with County staff
and consultants also confirmed the intent for overall construct is to distinguish by number of lots served, so that up to 3 is ‘joint’ and more
than 3 is ‘community’. Ecology supports this hierarchal approach to related terms, however some details need to be better addressed:
•Overall approach to ‘joint’ and ‘community’ terms/definitions as related to residential vs. nonresidential construct of .350 regulations;
•Make nouns ‘dock/pier/float’ all singular not plural for internal consistency;
•Phrasing a type of shared facility as “single” seems too easily confused with ‘single-user’;
•Use consistent phrasing for addressing marinas, including distinction of when a shared facility becomes a marina;
•Terms ‘properties’, ‘lots/parcels’ and ‘dwelling units’ seem to be interchangeable but the variety of terms is confusing, whereas unified
phrasing clarifies and provides internal consistency;
•The ‘See also’ cross references would be most helpful if consistently used to compare and contrast ‘joint’ and ‘community’ as types of
‘shared’.
•Community Dock - Including ‘public park’ and ‘quasi-public’ (undefined) seems out of place since ‘Public’ includes everyone, therefore
who shares a private facility (e.g. community club) is what needs better clarity; regulations differentiate by residential/nonresidential
(i.e. .220 Use Table, and .350(5) and (6);
•Joint Use Dock - Better specify ‘two or more’ as more distinct from ‘multiple’ used in ‘Community dock’;
•Shared Use – Term is not specific to boating facilities; SMP also uses it for beach access structures; Citation to separate but similar
definition JCC 18.10.030 “Community structure’ seems out of place since the UDC term is limited to private residential application,
more like ‘community dock’, therefore pairing both ‘community’ terms is more accurate and intuitive;
Further considerations include:
•Boating Facilities - Better differentiate ‘moorage’ from ‘storage’, and include ‘access’, clarify ‘primary’ or ‘accessory’, and clarify
commercial/industrial/port boating facilities are also included for internal consistency with .220 Use Table and .350 provisions;
•Dock, Float, and Pier - All include ‘fixed’ but both floating structures are also noted as anchored. Floating structures that move
vertically with water level are not ‘fixed’, whereas a pier built on piles is stationary.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 2 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
• Recreation, shoreline – While ‘commercial’ is likely ‘private’, adding the term provides better internal consistency and clarity.
See related changes for use of these terms at .350 Boating Facilities.
REQ-2
Rec-3 .100 Definitions
(6) F Definitions.
(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.; and
(ii) "Floating on-water residence" means a vessel or any floating structure that
is other than a floating home, that: (ai) Is designed... (bii) whose owner or
primary occupant ...
Required Change: As presented, the proposed edits address the submitted (2019 version) Periodic Review Checklist #2014.a about
Floating On-Water Residences (FOWRs). Note, FOWRs are distinct from Floating Homes that are addressed separately by Checklist #2011.c.
Ecology supports the County’s local discretion to establish a single term that includes both statutory definitions. However, in 2021 the WA
Legislature further modified the statutory definition of FOWR to add the term ‘vessel’, and clarified requirements for remodeling,
replacement, and expansion of existing FOWRs, as addressed in our current version 2021 Checklist item #2021.a. Revision is needed to
include ‘vessel’ for consistency with RCW 90.58.270.
Recommended Change: Additional minor revisions (i.e. end-quote; ‘and’; alpha-numeric formatting) are suggested for punctuation,
grammar and internal consistency.
Rec-4 .100 Definitions See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(12)(g) Lateral
Recommended Change: The term ‘lateral’ is used throughout the SMP (i.e. .100 CMZ, Public access, Revetment; .200 Jurisdiction; .310 Veg
Con; .440 Aquaculture; .480 Mining; and .870 Maps) but is proposed for deletion at .660(8.b) and (9.a). As proposed and described in
submittal documentation, this addition seems to be specific to .660 where the proposed phrasing instead uses ‘waterward’ and
‘nonwaterward’. Ecology supports use of the term lateral at .660 to better specify a type of nonwaterward expansion. Revision suggested to
the second clause that is narrowly focused and may be better relocated to.660. See also related changes to .660 Nonconforming
Development below.
Rec-5 .100 Definitions See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(14)(h) Nonconforming Lot
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s effort to clarify phrasing that has caused implementation challenges. This term is heavily
relied upon for some of County’s most common SFR development, often allowed as an SDP Exemption. Except for the .270(5)(c) variance
requirement, the SMP uses the term regarding single-family residential development with the intent to allow relief for siting a primary
structure/appurtenance, not an accessory (e.g. shed). In such cases, the inability to site a home is because the lot is too shallow for the
shoreline buffer, so phrasing as ‘outside the buffer’ and ‘lot depth or width’ as two separate criteria is confusing. Also, the SMP does not
establish minimum lot size such that replacing ‘size’ with “depth” makes sense. However, the SMP also doesn’t establish minimum lot width
so replacing ‘size’ with ‘or width’ may not be needed, per County discretion. Further consideration of what circumstances/how often side
yard setbacks would make a lot too narrow before extending beyond the shoreline buffer. The related .270 buffer exceptions seem
primarily related to buffers and lot depth. The proposed language needs better clarification of lot dimensions to phrase as a single criterion,
the side property lines that extend landward from OHWM, and to replace the subjective ‘midpoint’ with a more specific calculated term
‘mean’, and rephrase ‘equidistant’ more plainly as ‘not equal in length’. Revision suggested for added clarity to aid implementation.
REQ-3 .100 Definitions
(15) O Definitions.
(d) “Ocean oil and gas uses and activities” involve the extraction of and exploration
for oil and gas resources from beneath the ocean.
Required Change: Ocean Management Checklist - Part 1 ORMA Requirements #2 Definitions - The omission of a definition for “Oil and gas
uses and activities’ appears to be an oversight. Revision is needed to add the missing term for consistency with WAC 173-26-360(8), and for
internal consistency to define the term proposed for addition at .220 Use Table and .920(1) Ocean Management Regulations.
Rec-6 .100 Definitions
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(16)(b) Parking Lot;
Related edits also suggested for .520(1)(h) Transportation Policies; and .520(5)(g)
Parking Regulations in ATTACHMENT 2
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s effort to clarify electric vehicle charging stations as part of a parking lot. While referring
to parking lot ‘accessory components’ is logical on its face, the term gets confusing given the WAC 173-26-241(3)(k) distinction between
parking as primary or accessory use, also reflected in the .220 Use Table. Rather than trying to address ‘accessory components of an
accessory parking facility’, different phrasing (e.g. ancillary) provides better clarity. Specifying more than two examples of such components
helps provide better context, such as bicycle amenities to reflect the intent for multi-modal transportation systems, and passenger
amenities to support public transit, etc.
.520(1)(h) Provisions that add details about paid amenities to a policy that addresses a distinction between primary and accessory parking
seem out of place, somewhat duplicate the definition, use ‘shall’ rather than ‘should’, and are better relocated to the
definition/regulations. Further, the proposed language needs improvement for accuracy, clarity and internal consistency. Revision
suggested to rely on the revised definition, delete the added language, clarify accessory and primary use parking to better support the
existing prohibition, add ‘not a preferred use’ for clarity and better consistency with WAC 173-26-241(3(k), and add improve
phrasing/grammar.
Primary Use Parking is prohibited by both .220 Use Table and .520(2)(a) so no regulations specific to a primary parking lot are needed. The
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 3 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
intent of the added language about pay parking/charging is unclear; submittal documentation does not provide substantive
discussion/rationale. .520(5)(g) – Revision suggested to establish a specific regulatory allowance for the ancillary components proposed for inclusion in the
Definition, for internal consistency and to remove such details from the policy.
Consultation with County staff and consultants identified the need to further consider/better clarify any differences between possible free
or paid features, and public entity or private sector 3rd party features. Further refinement to the suggested edits may be needed.
Rec-7 .100 Definitions See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(19)(w) Shorelines of statewide
significance (SSWS)
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s proposed deletion of duplicative Pacific Ocean language. As proposed, it appears the
intent of this definition is to only include portions of the RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) statutory language as applicable in Jefferson County. Ecology
supports this adaptation to aid the reader. However, per .240 Designation of SSWS, the Appendix A SED maps, and as confirmed by the ICR
there are no lakes over 1,000 acres located in the County. Revision is suggested to delete the clause about lakes as not applicable, for
internal consistency.
Rec-8 .100 Definitions
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(19)(tt) Substantial development;
Related edits also suggested for .560 Exemptions Listed (1) Fair Market Value in
ATTACHMENT 2
Recommended Change: Per Periodic Review Checklist #2017.a – While the County’s proposed edit is consistent with our guidance
materials, this value is set by OFM and the new rate became effective 7/1/2022. The phrasing ‘or as adjusted’ could suffice but using the
current dollar value is suggested.
Rec-9 .100 Definitions See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(21)(e) Utility distribution lines; and (21)(f) Utilities
Recommended Change: As proposed, these definitions (21)(e) and (f) improve consistency with the terms established at WAC 173-26-
241(3)(l) and EV charging stations are also proposed for addition to the .100(16)(b) ‘Parking Lot’ definition as an accessory component,
similar to lighting. Ecology supports the addition of EV stations as a ‘Parking Lot’ component and type of ‘accessory utility’ but not as a
distribution line. Further, an EV station could also be a residential accessory utility or be provided in other settings so it seems best to not
limit them to parking lots by this definition. Lastly, ‘shall’ is typically reserved for regulatory language. Revisions are suggested for clarity, to
avoid internal conflicts, and aid implementation.
Rec-10 .100 Definitions
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .100(23)(b) Walkway;
Related edits also suggested for.350(5 4)(e)(ii) Regulations – Docks, Piers, Floats
and Lifts – Nonresidential and (6 5)(h)(ii) and Regulations – Docks, Piers, Floats and
Lifts – Residential in ATTACHMENT 2
Recommended Change: Discussion/Rationale: As proposed, the County’s purpose/intent of this clarification about one structural
component of a pier is unclear - submittal documentation does not provide any discussion/rationale. A pier is already defined at .100(16)(j)
without including ‘walkway’:
“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.”
The term ‘walkway’ is used twice regarding grating requirements for residential and nonresidential docks/piers/floats (D/P/F), and
elsewhere in the SMP, such as:
.100 Definitions -
(1)(aa) Appurtenance (proposed for replacement by ‘front walk’);
(2)(h*) Beach Access Structure (‘structural pathway/walkway’ and ‘elevated walkway’); and
(9)(b) Impervious Surface (‘roof tops, walkways, patios’);
.340 Beach Access Structures* - (4)(e)(i) ‘width of any walkway, staircase, tower or tram’;
.350 Boating Facilities - (5)(e)(ii) Nonresidential D/P/F; and (6)(h)(ii) Residential D/P/F/L; and
.440 Aquaculture (5)(q)(ii)(D) Finfish Net Pens ‘Walkway design’
[*Note – ‘Beach access structure’ definition at .100(2)(h) is out of order alphabetically.]
Rather than add a new, separate definition with limited application, revision is suggested to remove the proposed definition and revise the
two occurrences of ‘walkway’ at .350 (5)(e)(ii) and (6)(h)(ii) to read ‘decking’ for internal consistency with existing language at .320(2)(c)
“Materials used for decking or other structural components...” and .350(5)(d) “...Materials for any portions of the dock, pier, float, framing,
or decking that come in contact with water...” As an alternative, move this limited definition to .350 where it applies.
Rec-11
.200 Shoreline
jurisdiction and
mapping.
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .200(1), (3) and (4);
Related edits also suggested for .870 Official Shoreline Map in ATTACHMENT 2
Recommended Change: While not addressed in the Periodic Review Checklist - Additional Amendments, the submitted May 2021 Staff
Report states the 2014 stand-alone SMP will be replaced by the codified version of JCC 18.25, and the Appendix A Official Shoreline Map
will be republished, but does not specify where/how. Ecology supports the clear documentation of County’s discretion to shift from the
‘static’ SMP to the codified version, and encourages the county to also describe this in the Checklist- Additional Amendments and the
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 4 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
adopting ordinance. Regarding Appendix A: While no SED/mapping changes are proposed, the SED maps are still a crucial part of the SMP.
The static PDF Appendix A maps adopted in 2014 remain as the ‘official’ maps in effect. The online GIS mapping is in addition to the
Appendix A maps, not a replacement, and the interactive portal appropriately notes that maps are “for informational purposes only and not
regulatory devices”. Further, .870 Shoreline Mapping still correctly refers to the Appendix A official shoreline map and break-out maps.
Lastly, the language of .200(3) and .870 second paragraph about the GIS database is duplicative – consider keeping one as the detailed
description, and the other as a more concise reference to the full description; we suggest edits to describe at .200 and reference at .870.
Suggested edits at .200(1) to rely on ICR technical details for boundary determinations are related to mapping challenges noted below.
In consultation with County staff and consultants, we understand the Appendix A maps will be retained, with the details of how to republish
them as part of the codified JCC 18.25 to be determined with the codifier service. Revisions are suggested at .200(1), (3) and .870 for
accuracy, clarity, and internal consistency.
Lastly, a recent query from ECY permit staff and past consultation with DCD staff prompts a suggested revision to specifically state the
County is not including optional areas of jurisdiction (CA buffers or 100-yer floodplain) beyond the minimum 200’ from OWHM/Floodway.
It’s common for more recently updated SMPs to include such a definitive statement.
Rec-12
.220 Uses allowed in
each shoreline
environment
designation;
Table 18.25.220 – Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses by SED (screen clip):
Recommended Change:
Cumulative Impacts - As described in several Periodic Review Checklist – Additional Amendments, - Task Force, and - Staff Docket items, a
broad shift in use allowances is proposed replacing many conditional uses (i.e. C(a) and C(d)) with permitted ‘P’ (e.g. Beach Access
Structures; Boating Facilities). The purpose/intent is to maintain environmental protections and still achieve No Net Loss, but also
implement local Regulatory Reform strategies to clarify/streamline regulatory provisions, require fewer high-scrutiny permit types for
activities that are common, and more permissive allowances for beach access structures, boating facilities, and SFR expansions. While WAC
173-27-130 primarily describes the conditional use permit as intended to apply to uses rather than structures/modifications, this collection
of proposed changes means cumulative impacts for those specific development activities will no longer be evaluated at the project-level for
each action. Submittal documentation does not provide any new program-level assessment of the anticipated impacts for these actions.
Further, having all the same permit type across the board does not employ the SEDs for regulations tailored to shoreline conditions.
Revision is needed in that County needs to conduct and/or document additional cumulative impacts evaluation to ensure the amended
SMP will still achieve NNL at the programmatic level. A CIA-NNL Report addendum (memo/analysis) to adequately support the proposed
revisions is needed for the final submittal package. Revision is also suggested in that County may need to consider more limited allowances
in the more sensitive SEDs (e.g. CUPs in Natural and Conservancy) and outright allowances only in the more intensive SEDs (e.g. ‘P’ in
Shoreline Residential and High Intensity).
Upon consultation with County staff and consultants, there is shared understanding that where such considerations were part of the local
process the final submittal package needs to better ‘show the work’ of the analysis that was done.
As related, see also changes below for: Article VII Modifications – Policies; .340 Beach Access Structures; .350 Boating Facilities; and .660
Nonconforming – SFR expansions/enlargements
Rec-13
.220 Uses allowed in
each shoreline
environment
designation; and
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .220 – Permitted, Conditional and
Prohibited Uses by SED (Use Table)
Recommended Change: As presented, the Use Table includes proposed addition of five (5) new rows for various Ocean Uses, but not all
seven (7) of the ocean uses proposed for addition at .100 Definitions and Article XII Ocean Management are addressed in the Table, as
follows:
• Ocean Energy – no added row proposed; perhaps intended to be addressed by the existing ‘Power/tidal energy generation facilities’ row?
• Ocean Disposal – added row for ‘Disposal of waste products, ocean use’;
• Ocean Mining – no added row proposed; perhaps intended to be addressed by the existing ‘Mining’ row?
• Ocean Oil & Gas – added row; (missing .100 definition)
• Ocean Research – added row;
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 5 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
• Ocean Salvage – added row;
• Ocean Transportation – added row; Submittal documentation does not provide discussion/rationale so it is unclear if the omissions are intended or oversight; Ecology
presumes the latter.
Pacific Ocean - Further, .200(4)(b) establishes that the Pacific Ocean areas waterward of OHWM are designated Priority Aquatic, so ocean
uses in the Aquatic SED are more accurately presented as ‘not applicable’ (N/A). And the Pacific coast shorelands landward of OHWM are
located either in the:
• Olympic National Park, an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction where the SMA does not apply; or
• Quinault Indian Nation reservation where tribal trust lands are not subject to the SMP (as are non-reservation lands held in trust).
o However, non-tribal in-holder parcels may be subject, and 18.25.200(4) establishes reservation uplands as Natural.
By definition, some ocean uses are an in-water use only with no upland components. For internal consistency, the table should show such
uses as allowed/prohibited waterward of OHWM (i.e. Priority Aquatic) and ‘not applicable’ in Aquatic and the upland SEDs.
Ocean Disposal - There are some internal conflicts for ‘Disposal of waste products, ocean use’: the term does not match the term ‘Ocean
Disposal’ at .100 Definitions and used in the provisions of .920(4); the Use Table shows ‘X’ prohibited in all SEDs whereas the text provisions
establish standards for when allowed.
Ocean Energy – Based on the Aquatic/Priority Aquatic distinction above, renaming the ‘power/tidal energy’ row as Ocean Energy means the
existing C(d) in Aquatic would perhaps best translate to a C(d) in Priority Aquatic since no Pacific waters have the Aquatic SED.
Revisions are suggested to add the missing rows, name the rows to match the defined terms, change the Aquatic and upland SEDs notation
to ‘N/A’ for accuracy, clarity, internal consistency and to aid implementation.
Alternative – The new ocean uses rows are proposed with some interspersed and some grouped under a anew ‘Other Ocean Uses’
subheader. As an alternative, the County may opt to group all ocean use rows together as an ‘Ocean Uses’ subsection for internal
consistency with the proposed collective presentation of these ocean uses at Article XII Ocean Management (.900 - .930). Suggested edits
for this alternative formatting shown in ATTACHMENT 2
Rec-14 SSWS -
.250 Use Preference See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .250(1) – (6)
Recommended Change: Submittal documentation notes Task Force wants to “Clarify how SMP is carried out on SSWS identified for optimal
implementation of SMP” and the resulting action as “Addressed policy updates which should apply to all permits.” As proposed, revisions
add WAC 173-26-251(3)(a – e) language to serve as project review requirements but the overall construct is confusing:
• The existing .250 language specifically notes that (1) - (11) ‘are not listed in priority order’ and WAC 173-26-251(3) does not establish an
order of priority, but proposed revisions add the same .230 use preferences thereby creating an order of priority to what currently
applies unilaterally. This seems inconsistent with WAC and counter to the .080 principle of ‘liberal construction’.
• The introductory sentence reads as ‘county shall’ and the existing language is mostly worded as ‘shall’. Proposed revisions refer to the
subsequent provisions as ‘preferences and management principles’ but some are worded ‘should’ like a policy and others worded ‘shall’
like a regulation. Further improvement to the phrasing is needed for accuracy, clarity and to aid implementation. An alternative
approach is to regroup separately as policies and regulations.
• Added provision (1)(b) is WAC guidance for County’s preparation of the SMP use regulations and is out of place here as part of reviewing
development proposals; consider deletion.
• Added provisions (2)(d), (3)(b), and(3)(c) are WAC’s broad planning actions for the County that seem out of place here as part of
reviewing development proposals; consider deletion/relocation. If desired at the project-level, consider rephrasing elsewhere as an
application requirement (e.g. special report).
• The section name also confounds/is duplicative of .230(2) where the ‘order of preference’ is established; consider renaming to better
reflect purpose & content.
Lastly, the citation to RCW 90.58.030 seems like a previous error better replaced by RCW 90.58.020 and/or WAC 173-26-251, and there are
some formatting/numbering errors to fix. Consultation with County staff and consultants clarified intent to provide better specificity and
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 6 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
transparency of how SSWS considerations apply at the project level. Revisions suggested to the section name for accuracy/clarity, to fix
numbering/formatting, and for a more streamlined construct and concise sentence structure with the verb first. While much of the original
and/or proposed language is the same, suggested edits are presented as a full repeal & replace section of text to aid review. County could
consider an application requirement &/or companion worksheet/form so that project submittals provide such information to aid staff
review.
REQ-4
Rec-15
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
Protection;
(4) Regulations – Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers
(a) Critical areas provisions of Chapter 18.22 JCC, dated March 17, 2008 10, 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 05-0310-20 5-20 § 2) are
hereby incorporated by reference to become shoreline provisions of this Program;
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, shoreline 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
(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.
• 18.22.230 General Exemptions shall only apply in shoreline jurisdiction as
allowed by Section .560 and other applicable provisions of this program;
• 18.22.240 Nonconforming Uses and Structures shall only apply in shoreline
jurisdiction as allowed by Sections .270, .660 and other applicable provisions
of this program;
• 18.22.250 Variance shall only apply in shoreline jurisdiction as allowed by
Section .580 and other applicable provisions of this program;
• 18.22.260 Reasonable Economic Use Exceptions shall not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction; deviation from required buffers shall only be as specifically
allowed by applicable provisions of this program or by shoreline variance per
Section .580;
• 18.22.530 Geologically Hazardous Areas (8)(b) building setback shall not
apply in shoreline jurisdiction, replaced by Section .270(4)(d) and other
applicable provisions of this program;
• 18.22.630 FWHCA (5)(b) Prescriptive Buffers Table 1 Stream Buffer for Type
“S” Shoreline Streams, and Table 2 Buffers for Other FWHCAs (i.e. shoreline
lakes, and marine waters) shall not apply, and are replaced by the applicable
Section .270(4)(e) Standard Shoreline Buffers of this program;
• 18.22.710 (1) Wetland Delineation shall only apply in shoreline jurisdiction
when in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional supplements.
• [etc...]
Recommended Change: Periodic Review Checklist #2010.a –
(4)(a) – Ecology supports the updated incorporation by reference of the County’s current 2020 CAO. As related to revisions proposed for
.060 adoption by reference language, revision is suggested here to relocate ‘hereby’ to more clearly state the precise purpose of this
provision, and minor edits to better clarify that ‘incorporation by reference’ means the JCC 18.22 provisions become shoreline provisions.
Therefore, continued reference to 18.22 numbering is misleading. And while 18.22 may be amended over time outside of the SMP, those
amendments do not become effective in shoreline jurisdiction unless/until and SMP amendment is completed.
Required Change: Global Issue; internal references – The GMA at RCW 36.70A.480 establishes that shoreline critical areas are regulated
solely by the SMP. This means that regardless of incorporation by reference, the CAO itself does not regulate in shoreline jurisdiction,
rather it’s more like a clone version CAO applies (e.g nearly identical but not the original). For consistency with RCW 90.58.610 that defers
to the GMA, global revisions are needed throughout the SMP to accurately reflect that ‘incorporation by reference’ means the 18.22
provisions become shoreline provisions, and are not accurately referenced as external to/separate from the SMP. Examples shown include,
but may not be limited to, the following as shown at left:
.060(1) Critical area regulations adopted by reference
.100(3)(y) Definitions
.270(2)(f)(v) Mitigation
.270(4.a, b, d, j & l) CA & Shoreline Buffers
.270(5.d & f) Buffer Exceptions
.310(2.a & d) Vegetation Conservation
.430(3.a) Agriculture
.630(10) Application Requirements
Regarding internal citations, an alternative to incorporation by reference could be to: embed only the shoreline-applicable 18.22 provisions
as a new section of the SMP with continued 18.25 numbering; or as an appendix with distinctive shoreline numbering such as ’18.22S.###’
or to reduce confusion. Ecology is not suggesting an alternative approach but County may consider it.
Required/Recommended Change: Exceptions (4)(a)(i) and (ii) - The (i) and (ii) generalized exceptions to the incorporated 18.22 provisions
lack precision; a greater level of detail is needed for accuracy, clarity and to aid implementation for consistency with WAC 173-26-
191(2)(A)(ii)(a) that requires sufficient scope and detail. Related to the .270(4)(a) SMA-GMA issue above, the CAO does not regulate
shorelines of the state or shoreline critical areas (RCW 36.70A.480); some CAO provisions do not apply under SMA, and others need
clarification/modification for application in shoreline jurisdiction. Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed an interest in
using an alternative approach to better specify the exceptions/modifications. Revisions suggested provide a partial example of one
approach; County needs to consider the shoreline applicability of all 18.22 provisions and ensure that exceptions/modifications are clearly
called out; other alternative approaches may be acceptable.
Recommended Change: Additional minor revisions suggested for better accuracy, clarity and internal consistency.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 7 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
REQ-4
Rec-15
(cont.)
---------------[Global issue – internal reference examples:]---------------------- .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: as described in detail at Section .270. ...
.100 Definitions (3)(y) “Critical areas” mean the following areas as designated in
Chapter 18.22 JCC as incorporated into this program: ...
.270 Critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological protection.
(2) Regulations – No Net Loss and Mitigation.
(f)(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 the shoreline critical area provisions of this program, including JCC
18.22.740.
(4) Regulations – Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers - (b) Both Chapter 18.25 JCC
and Chapter 18.22 JCC apply within shoreline jurisdiction. In the event the shoreline
critical area development or performance standards established by (4)(a) above in
Chapter 18.22 JCC are internally inconsistent with other standards and requirements
in this program, the provisions most protective of shoreline and critical area
resources and/or that best implement the policies of the SMA shall prevail. this
program shall govern.
(d) – [addressed below at Rec-15]
(j) Buffer Reduction or Averaging. Proposals that request... shall not require a
shoreline variance if all of the shoreline critical area approval criteria in JCC
18.22.640(1) and (2) are met...
(l) – [addressed below at REQ-6/Rec-16]
(5) Regulations – Exceptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffer Standards.
(d) Water-Oriented Uses/Development. When otherwise consistent with this
program and Chapter 18.22 JCC, the following...
(vi) Certain utilities and essential public facilities as allowed by the shoreline
critical area provisions specified in JCC 18.25.530.
(f) – [addressed below at REQ-8/Rec-20]
.310 Vegetation conservation - (2) Regulations (a) Unless otherwise specified...
shall comply with the all shoreline and critical area buffer provisions of this program
and Chapter 18.22 JCC to protect...
(d)(iii) Maintenance Normal maintenance of existing residential landscaping, such as
lawns and gardens, consistent with all applicable provisions of this Program,
including pursuant to Section 18.25.560 of this Program and JCC 18.22.230(4)(m);).
Expansion of landscaping into a buffer area or other area of existing native
vegetation is not normal maintenance;
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 8 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
REQ-4
Rec-15
(cont.)
.630 Minimum permit application requirements - (10) Critical areas as designated
in Chapter 18.22 JCC, as incorporated into this program.
Rec-16
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
Protection; and
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .270(4)(d) Building Setback; (4)(f) Pre-
existing Buffer/Setback and (4)(i) Buffer Usage
Recommended Change: (d) Building Setback - The current provision is confusing and creates internal conflict. While (4)(a)(i) says (4)(b) – (l)
prevail over 18.22, the wording of (4)(d) cites to 18.22. Also, this existing provision is duplicative of the building setback established at
.300(2). Further, as proposed, the added allowance for stormwater facilities located in the buffer is out of place as part of a building setback
provision. Revision suggested to delete this existing language and move the proposed stormwater allowance to be part of (5)(f) Stormwater
Improvements. (f) Pre-existing Buffer/Setback - Ecology supports the removal of SPAADs at Policy (1)(c) and Regulation (4)(f) as no longer
applicable, however the language needs to be more explicitly stated for clarity to avoid implementation challenges (i.e. limit to shoreline
buffers/setbacks; specific to an individual lot/parcel). Per the 2017 Hearing Examiner Decisions, including the non-precedential
reconsideration, the SMP language is not clear that permits issued for adjacent/nearby properties do not establish the buffer/setback for a
separate property. Since pre-existing buffer/setback distances established under previous versions of the SMP are likely smaller than
current requirements, County may consider adding a limitation for no further reductions without a variance. Revision suggested to
specifically state the previously established buffer or setback would prevail over the required standard buffer or setback. (i) Buffer Usage -
Better clarity is needed for what is/not allowed as ‘active use’, and to cross reference with .270(5)(d) WO Allowed in Buffer to avoid internal
conflict. Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed no intent to confound the 20% ‘active use’ allowance with the separate
but related (5)(d) allowance for certain specified water oriented use/development to locate in the buffer. One difference is that ‘active use’
is intended to address use activities whereas (5)(d) allows for necessarily sited water-oriented structures. Ecology recognizes that some of
our early suggested edits (e.g. Task 4 preliminary draft) may have deviated from the intended approach, and are now proposed for
correction.
REQ-5
Rec-17
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological protection
(4) Regulations – Critical Areas and Shoreline Buffers ...
(l) Alternative Protection via Critical Areas Stewardship Plans (CASPs). If a proponent
of a shoreline use or development proposes to modify the standard shoreline buffer
width requirement of an SMA-regulated waterbody using the CASP standards of this
program described in Article IX of Chapter 18.22.965 JCC, such buffer modification
shall require a shoreline variance. If the proposed CASP buffer modification is for a
wetland or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area that is physically separated
from the SMA-regulated waterbody, no shoreline variance shall be required.
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 II Shoreline Substantial
Development (SDP) permit.
Required Change: Per the SMA-GMA global change above, revision needed to clarify that 18.22.965 becomes a shoreline critical area
provision by incorporation. Because JCC 18.22, including the .965 CASP allowance, was not prepared to meet SMA/SMP Guidelines
requirements, all provisions that apply in shoreline jurisdiction must be approved by Ecology as consistent with SMA/SMP Guidelines. Any
deviation from a dimensional standard like the standard shoreline buffer other than a prescriptively allowed reduction (averaging, NC Lots,
etc.) requires a shoreline variance. Revision required to retain the VAR requirement for any CASP-modified shoreline buffers.
Recommended Change: To better distinguish between shoreline buffers and critical area buffers, revision suggested rephrase for clarity.
Rec-18
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
protection
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .270(5)(a) Modest Home Provision
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s effort to clarify this commonly used allowance, and for internal consistency with the
revised definition of ‘Nonconforming lot’. Other language could also be further improved for clarity to aid the reader. The (5) subheader
includes critical area buffers but both Modest Home and Common Line Buffer seem to be specific to the standard shoreline buffer, except
for (a)(x). Much of the language at both (a) and (i) is duplicative of the revised .100 definition so that rephrasing and a reference citation will
help streamline the wording. The phrasing of (ii) is confusing since the provision allows for building within the buffer, a driveway is an
appurtenance, and both the building area and driveway should locate outside other setbacks. Criterion (iii) references the common line
buffer that’s not mentioned/established until the next subsection. Since this provision essentially allows a shoreline buffer reduction, the
phrasing of (x) can be better clarified about the remaining buffer area. To help mitigate impacts per (iv), the County may consider adding
planting requirements at (x) similar to those proposed at .660. County may also consider limiting this allowance at (viii) so that it does not
apply to no-bank and/or low bank marine shorelines for internal consistency with the SLR policy at .300(1)(b), and the many proposed
revisions to add climate change language to the SMP, primarily in Article III.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 9 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
County should also consider reorganizing the Modest Home criteria in a more intuitive order to list pre-requisites first, then siting
considerations, and then performance standards, such as: (i), (viii), (vii), (v), (ix), (iii), (x), (vi), (ii), (iv), or similar.
Rec-19
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
protection
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .270(5)(b) Common Line Buffer
Recommended Change: Formatting/Construct - The numbering reads as ‘iv’ should be ‘v’. The construct of the proposed added language at
(b)(v) is confusing. Since it applies to both (a) Modest Home and (b) Common Line, it seems better presented as a new (c) and renumber the
following items. Substantive Concern – With no specific SMA/WAC requirement, this proposed amendment is not immediately inconsistent
(i.e. required change), however Ecology would not be able to approve it as presented. Consultation with County staff and consultants
confirmed that further consideration is needed for if/when/how this Common Line provision applies in relation to (5)(a) Modest Home
Provision, if the two can be used together on a single project, how they apply iteratively/ hierarchically, and the relationship to the buffer
averaging/reduction allowance at .270(4)(j)). Evaluation of previously authorized projects may help inform the approach taken, including
more prescriptive language, as appropriate. Ecology notes the current uncertainty and internal conflict in applying both to the same project
since Modest Home (a)(ix) says “as far landward as possible and not closer than 30 feet” whereas Common Line allows a new home to
encroach into the buffer as close as the neighboring homes. Further, where both buffer exception provisions read as limited to new SFR,
County proposes to delete ‘new’ from (5)(a) but not at (5)(b); the intention seems to be to allow the buffer exception(s) for both new builds
and redevelopment of existing. In comparison, buffer exceptions for expansion (redevelopment) of existing nonconforming SFR are
addressed separately at .660. As an alternative construct, County could consider moving these two NC Lot buffer exceptions so as to group
them with the other nonconforming development provisions. County should also ensure no internal conflict with .580(5) variance
considerations for views.
REQ-6
Rec-20
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
protection
(5) Regulations – Exceptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffer Standards.
(e) Nonconforming Septic Replacement Repair. The repair and replacement of an
existing on-site sewage (OSS; or ‘septic’) system located in the buffer may be
allowed authorized as normal repair and maintenance in the buffer as an exemption
under Section JCC 18.25.560(2) of this Program if the system meets all the following
criteria are met:
(i) The existing 0SS system qualifies as a legal nonconforming structure as defined
in this Program;
(ii) The proposed replacement is necessary to prevent the decline, lapse, or
cessation from a lawfully established condition;
(iii) New tank, drainfield and reserve drainfield areas are sited to pose the least
intrusive location given system design constraints and site constraints, including
but not limited to existing legal development, critical areas, and topographical
constraints;
(iv) The new 0SS system is for replacement of a damaged/failed 0SS system with
the equivalent capacity of the nonconforming system, and is comparable in
size, shape, and configuration; and
(v) The replacement system does not increase the degree of nonconformity,
except when design elements are necessary to improve environmental
conditions, and;
(vi) The footprint of the replacement system, including all components such as
tank, drainfield, and reserve area, is counted toward the ‘active use area’ of the
buffer per (4)(i) above;
Required Change: SDP Exemptions are established by statute and WAC 173-27-040; County does not have discretion to alter those or
establish new exemptions. It seems the intent is to clarify what constitutes ‘replacement as normal maintenance/repair’ that could be
allowed as an SDP Exemption. Revision needed to better specify details of prescriptive limitations. Submittal documentation indicates
these added provisions are related to a 2014 administrative interpretation. County’s 2020 permit statistics indicate there have been only
two such projects since 2015. County should consider how many parcels are anticipated to use this; such analysis should be part of the final
submittal package. County should also consider/ensure no internal conflicts with how ‘active use’ within a buffer is defined, and that the
purpose of the code interpretation is adequately addressed, as applicable to current conditions.
Recommended Change: Additional suggested edits for formatting and clarity.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 10 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
REQ-7
Rec-21
.270 Critical areas,
Shoreline buffers,
and ecological
protection
(5) Regulations – Exceptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffer Standards.
(f) Stormwater Improvements Facilities. Stormwater improvements facilities are
development and may be considered part of the primary use when located on site
as an accessory utility feature, as defined by this program. When location outside
the shoreline buffer is infeasible, Administrator may allow stormwater facilities to
locate may be allowed in the buffer only as follows an exemption under Section JCC
18.25.560(2) of this Program when all the following criteria are met: [combination of
proposed .270(4)(d) tightlines and (5)(f)]...
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .270(5)(f) Stormwater Facilities and
.100(21)(f) Utilities
Required Change: SDP Exemptions are established by statute/WAC and the County does not have discretion to establish new exemptions.
The intent seems to be that on-site stormwater facilities which are accessory utilities serving a primary use will be considered a normal
appurtenance to an SDP Exempt SFR primary structure and processed under .560(8) whether by SDP or exemption. When a stormwater
facility is an accessory utility serving any other primary use, it is considered part of the primary use but may not qualify for an SDP
Exemption on its own, or may be included as part of an exempt primary use.
Recommended Change: Related to/relocated from .270(4)(d) above, revision suggested to combine both stormwater facility exceptions in
one location. One approach to this is shown in Attachment 2; further refinement or an alternative approach to be determined by County.
And as noted above at Rec-8, revision suggested for .100(21)(f) ‘Utilities’ definition to clarify that stormwater facilities are included as
utilities. Submittal documentation indicates these added provisions are related to a 2015 administrative interpretation; County should
ensure that the purpose of the code interpretation is adequately addressed, as applicable to current conditions.
Rec-22
.300 Shoreline
sSetbacks and
height
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .300(2)(a) through (d) Setbacks and
Height
Recommended Change: Revision suggested to help ensure NNL for consistency with WAC 173-26-186(8)(b), and for accuracy, clarity and to
aid implementation, including a minor change to the name of this section to better reflect the variety of setbacks addressed therein.
(a) Building setback should apply to all shoreline buffers – including standard, averaged, reduced and increased – to protect the buffer
integrity and help achieve NNL. In fact, a smaller reduced buffer may need the setback protection even more than a larger standard buffer.
Further, the critical area building setbacks of 18.22.530(8), .630(5), and .730(6) that are specific to GeoHaz (15’), FWHCA (5’), and wetland
buffers (?’), respectively, will still apply in shoreline jurisdiction as incorporated at .270(4)(a) unless specifically excluded/modified. Ecology
urges the County to retain/clarify the existing building setback requirements. Consultation with County staff and consultants noted there is
internal conflict between text and graphics (e.g. Figures .270(1) – (4)). However, the text at .270(5)(b)(iv) already establishes that in the
event of such conflict the text prevails. The County may also consider revised graphics for improved accuracy.
(b) - Regarding the adjustment of other UDC setbacks, JCC 18.30.050 Table 6-1 Minimum Rear & Side Setbacks establishes fairly small
distances based on zoning: RR & RC = 5’; and RI = 10’ – 20’ (RI is not common in shoreline jurisdiction). As presented, proposed edits
remove the flexibility intended to find a ‘best fit’ for the building envelope to minimize impacts to shorelines and critical areas by
distributing the total setback area unevenly between the two sides. Ecology could support the deletion but the intent was unclear.
Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed that the most commonly applied UDC setbacks are for RR/RC at 5 feet, a small
distance that doesn’t achieve much by flexing a few feet to the other side of a lot/parcel, therefore UDC consistency is the preferred
approach. If the County wants to reconsider an alternative, the following approach could be included:
“Sideyard setbacks, as consistent with JCC 18.30 zoning requirements, shall be measured from all property lines that intersect the
shoreline edge of a lot/parcel/tract. When the minimum required sideyard setback is more than five (5) feet (e.g. 10- to 20 feet for rural
industrial) an uneven division may locate at least five feet of the total required distance on one side and the balance on the other side
(for example: 10 feet required on each side equals 20 feet total distance, divided unevenly as 5 feet on one side, and 15 feet on the
other). This administrative adjustment is intended to allow flexibility for placement of the building envelope to best avoid/minimize
impacts to shoreline and/or critical area resources.”
(c) – The SMA establishes the view obstruction and public interest requirements for exceeding 35’ but does not require a CUP/ VAR for a
greater height. County may consider rephrasing to better specify this.
(d) – If established as a prescriptive allowance, then no shoreline VAR would be needed. Consultation with County staff and consultants
identified further consideration is needed regarding applicability for new vs. existing structures; SFR only vs. WO vs. all uses; consistency
with JCC 18.30 zoning requirements; and shoreline permit type. Ecology urges additional revisions, as needed, for clarity and to ensure
proper implementation. Lastly, scrivener comments presented as a footnote are better relocated to a final PR Checklist.
Rec-23 .310 Vegetation
conservation See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .310(2)(d) Veg Con exclusions Recommended Change: Shoreline exemptions are established solely by RCW and WAC and narrowly construed. Revision suggested to
better phrase this regulation as ‘excluded’ for accuracy and clarity. As an alternative, phrasing could read ‘shall not be subject to’.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 11 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
Rec-24
Article VII.
SHORELINE
MODIFICATIONS
POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .335 General Policies
Recommended Change: Many of the proposed revisions related to conditional/permitted allowances for modifications such as beach access
structures and boating facilities could result in the proliferation of individual structures, counter to WAC 173-26-231(2)(b) “Reduce the
adverse effects of shoreline modifications and, as much as possible, limit shoreline modifications in number and extent.” The language of
.330 Applicability – Purpose notes policies that apply to “all types of shoreline modification”, including the (4) general reference to “state
shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC)”, but Article VII lacks overall policies for all modifications consistent with the WAC 173-26-
231(2) General Principles. The Article VI General Policies and Regulations don’t appear to address modifications. Revision suggested to add
such overall policy language as a new section .340, and renumber subsequent sections as needed. At the County’s discretion, an alternate
location for such added policies may be preferable.
Rec-25 .340 Beach Access Structures
(3) Shoreline Environment Regulations. [screen clip]:
Recommended Change: WD vs. WO - Proposed edits for public structures broaden the allowance by changing from only ‘water-dependent’
(WD) to all ‘water-oriented’ (WO) in Aquatic and Natural, and add a WO requirement in Conservancy. WO includes any water-dependent
(WD), water-related, or water-enjoyment (WE) use/development. The wording “that includes public access” could mean both those that:
opt to; and are required to provide public access. Yet public access can be visual and/or physical, and Policy (1)(e) notes that “Some
properties will have view-only access”. Per the .220 Use Table, this expands the allowance from only Commercial - WD (recreation) and WD
Recreation, to also include Commercial WR (recreation), Commercial WD or WR non-Recreation, and Commercial WE uses. Submittal
documentation doesn’t provide discussion/rationale for this revision of the existing water-dependent requirement. In consultation with
County staff and consultants, intent was clarified as regulatory reform to simplify permit processes while ensuring NNL. No specific text
revisions are proposed by Ecology at this time, but the final submittal needs to better document the consideration and result of an
expanded allowance. See also related issues above for .220 Use Table and Cumulative Impacts, and Article VII Modification Policies for
limiting the number and extent.
Rec-26
.350 Boating
facilities – Boat launches, docks,
piers, floats, lifts,
marinas, and
mooring buoys
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to (2)(a)(iii) Priority Aquatic – Residential;
(5 4)(a) Docks, Piers, Floats – Nonresidential; (6 5)(a)(ii) Residential Accessory
Allowance; (6 5)(i) Docks, Piers, Floats, Lifts - Residential
Recommended Change: Ecology supports County’s effort to clarify when a shared dock/pier/float can or must occur, including addition of
the ‘2 or more new dwellings’ requirement consistent with WAC 173-26-231(3)(b). Related .100 Definition issues noted above carry through
to the regulatory provisions. As proposed, the language is confusing and needs further improvement for clarity, to avoid internal conflict
and aid implementation.
(6 5)(i) Residential - For internal consistency with .350(2)(a)(iii) proposed edits, applicant should instead demonstrate that a shared facility
is not feasible; Sub items (i) and (ii) need to better differentiate the regulatory requirements per the defined terms “joint use” and
“community”, as appropriate; Overlap between (5)(i)(ii) and (5)(j) for existing residential; Sub item (i) ‘at least two waterfront lots’ means
an individual waterfront lot can’t share a community facility with one other upland lot; Sub item (ii) ‘more than 4 lots’ (i.e. 5+) means 2, 3
or 4 existing neighbors can’t have a shared dock/pier/float counter to Policy (1)(e)(ii) that prefers shared over single-user, and the overall
policy to ‘limit the number and extent’ of shoreline modifications; Sub items (i) and (ii) limit ‘no more than 1 shared facility for each set of
3 lots/homes’ helps reduce proliferation of individual structure for 3 lots, but means 6 lots would be needed to add a second shared dock
so that lots 4 and 5 would each add single-user docks thereby increasing the proliferation, counter to Policy (1)(e)(ii) that prefers shared
over single-user, and the overall policy to ‘limit the number and extent’ of shoreline modifications; Shared use agreement language at (i)
and (ii) for new and existing homes is somewhat duplicative, and lacks specificity of what such agreements must address, perhaps better
presented separately as a consolidated and more detailed provision; (5)(i)(ii) – For internal consistency with Policies (1)(e)(ii) and (2)(a)(iii)
and Regulation (5)(j) County could consider adding demonstration that neighbor refuses to share existing facility.
Further, Ecology review of the proposed (6 5)(i) also identified issues in other related provisions:
• (2)(a) Priority Aquatic (iii) Launches, D/P/F, Lifts - Residential - Including ‘private recreational’ seems out of place; Term is not defined
and seems comparable to UDC’s ‘small scale tourism & recreation’ that would be a commercial use/development; Per WAC 173-26-
231(3)(b), new piers and docks are only allowed for water-dependent use or public access, and a residential accessory dock can only be
considered water-dependent when used for watercraft access, not other recreational enjoyment (e.g. picnicking, sunbathing).
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 12 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
Therefore, a dock/pier/float associated with a private recreational use (e.g. hotel, campground, rentals) is better addressed by the
Nonresidential provisions.
• (5 4)(a) Nonresidential – Term ‘commercial’ would presumably include private recreation/small-scale recreation & tourism (SRT) but
adding the terms would better clarify;
• (6 5)(a)(ii) Residential Accessory Allowance – WAC 173-26-231(3)(b) limits residential accessory docks for watercraft access, but the
SMP has no requirement for applicant to demonstrate possession of a boat. County may consider including such a requirement in .350
or elsewhere as an application requirement, to submit vessel registration (i.e. DOL Boat Registration) or other proof.
• (6 5)(j) Single-user Docks/Existing Subdivisions – As noted above, overlap with (5)(i); Better specify ‘in the vicinity’. As a comparison,
Beach Access Structures .340(4)(e) “within 500 feet”; added edits for sub-title, clarify ‘tender vessel’, clarify ‘individual’ rather than
‘single’ to avoid confusion with single-user and single-family residential.
Submittal documentation does not provide explanation/rationale for why more than 3 new waterfront homes or any number of existing
waterfront homes should not share a D/P/F. It seems the 1:3 ratio should be a minimum not a maximum when more than 3 users intend to
share. Consultation with County staff and consultants determined intent to regulate 1-3 homes separately from 4+ homes. Consultation
with County staff and consultants confirmed intent to clarify distinct categories based on number of lots/homes and waterfront/upland
location, establish minimum standards with some allowance for site-specific considerations, and ensure the overall approach is clear.
Extensive revisions are suggested for improved clarity, internal consistency and to better specify about shared use agreements; and
formatting to aid the reader. Suggested edits provided may not be fully-formed and require further refinement based on County’s
additional consideration.
REQ-8
Rec-27
.410 Structural
Shoreline Armoring
and Shoreline
Stabilization
(3) Regulations – Existing Structural Shoreline Armoring
(a) Existing structural shoreline armoring, as defined in Article II of this chapter,
which can no longer adequately serve its purpose may be replaced in kind if there is
a demonstrated need to protect public transportation infrastructure...
(5) Regulations – New or Expanded Shoreline Armoring, When Allowed.
(b) New structural shoreline armoring may be permitted and existing structural
shoreline armoring may be expanded only when one or more of the following apply:
...
(iv) When necessary to protect an existing, lawfully established primary structure,
or water-oriented use support a water-dependent development or new non-
water dependent development, including a single family 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. ...
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .410(5)(d)(ii) – (iv) New or Expanded
Armoring; (10) Stabilization – Bioengineering; and (11)(f) Application
Requirements
Ecology supports many of the proposed edits throughout this section that ensure both of the County’s terms are included to provide
improved clarity and internal consistency.
Required Change: (3)(a) – Revision needed to limit replacements only for failing structures, for consistency with WAC 173-26-
231(3)(a)(iii)(C) "replacement" means the construction of a new structure to perform a shoreline stabilization function of an existing
structure which can no longer adequately serve its purpose.” (5)(b)(iv) –The standards of WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(B) limit the allowance of
new structural stabilization to protect/support (I) primary structures, (II) new non-WD development, and (III) WD development. SFR is
neither a water-dependent use, nor water-oriented. As written the SMP language conflates the two as “water-oriented use, including a
residence “. Revision is needed to clearly specify these limited allowances for accuracy and consistency with WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(B)(I –
III).
Recommended Change: Additional edits would further improve clarity and consistency with WAC and guidance: (5)(d) – Revisions
suggested for better clarity, internal consistency with .100 Definitions and Policy (1)(b), consistency with WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(B) and
to better sync the county’s overall binary construct with the range of methods described in WAC, including added reliance on Ecology’s
current guidance (i.e. 2014 Soft Shore Guidance publication). (10) – Revision suggested for consistency with WAC 173-26-231(3)(a)(iii)(C).
(11)(f) – Revisions suggested to include both terms for internal consistency.
REQ-9
Rec-28 .430 Agriculture
(3) Regulations - (a) In accordance with RCW 90.58.065, this program shall not
restrict existing agricultureal activities on agricultural lands. Agricultural activities on
agricultural lands, meeting the critical area exemption at JCC 18.22.230(4)(a), are
also exempt from both JCC 18.22.230 and this program pursuant to RCW 90.58.065.
Required Change: The proposed revision creates duplicative language and confounds the established terms defined at .100.
Recommended Change: Minor edits for internal consistency with defined terms.
REQ-10
Rec-29 .440 Aquaculture
(4) Regulations – General - (f) The rights of treaty tribes to aquatic resources within
their usual and accustomed areas are addressed through direct coordination
between the applicant/proponent and the affected tribe(s). Jefferson County will
Required Change: (4)(f) – As a regulatory authority, the County should do any Tribal coordination/notification; applicants do not have
authority to address treaty rights including U&A areas. Revision required to delete this clause; an alternative approach could include
rephrasing as “may be addressed through” for accuracy, and/or relocating as an application/ permit review requirement. (6)(a)(ii) – As
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 13 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
notify affected tribes of new shoreline permit applications utilizing the applicable
notification process in Chapter 18.40 JCC (Permit Application and Review
Procedures/SEPA Implementation).
(6) Regulations – Geoduck.
(a)(ii) All subsequent cycles of authorized planting and harvest shall not require a
new conditional use permit unless a specific project or practice would substantially
interfere with normal public use of the surface waters, including public access or
passage, and was not considered during review or approval of the original
conditional use permit.
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .440(4)(e)(xii)(E) Predator Exclusion
Devices; (6)(a)(iv), and (b) Geoduck; and (7) Application Requirements
proposed, this added provision is not consistent with WAC 173-26-241(b)(iii)(B) that allows subsequent planting and harvest, or (C) that
establishes “commercial geoduck operators have a right to harvest once planted”, and confounds the meaning of WAC 173-26-241(b)(iii)
that notes the AGO determined an geoduck aquaculture must qualify as substantial development (i.e. “substantial interference with normal
public use of the surface water”) to require a Substantial Development Permit (SDP).
Recommended Change: County’s intent to provide more specific provisions akin to Kitsap SMP in response to a handful of public comments
may be acceptable as local discretion, but collectively the many added requirements set a strong tone that nearly contradicts .440 Policy
(1)(a) that “Aquaculture is a preferred, water-dependent use of regional and statewide interest”, and the .210(3)(a) locally-tailored Priority
Aquatic SED, including designation criterion (F) Important intertidal and subtidal shellfish areas (clam, oyster, crab, shrimp, and geoduck).
County needs to further consider all factors to ensure the collective result is not internal conflict or a ‘de facto’ ban. As presented, some
provisions appear to be counter to the overall Regulatory Reform efforts to clarify and streamline the SMP.
(4)(e)(xii)(E) – First option ‘E’ is quite stringent and needs better clarity that consequences are upon dislodgement, not usage; second
option ‘E’ addresses maintenance (already addressed at (D)) and disposal that would help avoid becoming a nuisance. Revisions suggested
for clarity and possible combination of wording to soften and still achieve intended result.
(4)(e)(xvi) – Partially duplicative of (xii) and (xvii); we don’t provide specific edits but County is encouraged to consider revisions to
reorganize/regroup these related provisions to better streamline and present as related/hierarchal items, including predator control
devices as a sub item to overall ‘equipment, structures, materials’.
(6)(a)(iv) – As proposed, the compliance wording is confusing (what are ‘shoreline limits’?), and County needs to consider cumulative
impacts and CUP criteria at permitting rather than rely on the applicant after the fact.
(6)(b) – While the phrasing is verbatim from WAC 173-26-241(3)(b)(ii), this new provision is presented as a regulation worded as ‘should’
counter to the general construct of regulations worded as ‘shall’. The internal reference to ‘siting provisions of (4)(f) and (g)’ is confusing;
(4)(f) about Tribal coordination/noticing is not a siting provision, and (4) includes other location/siting details beyond (g). Revision
suggested to delete (f) and (g), and to word the regulation as ‘shall’. An alternative approach is to move this provision up to part of Policy
(1))(d), or General Regulation (4)(e)(i).
(7) and (7)(f) – The added provision is duplicative of (7) intro clause and (7)(e). Revision suggested to move up to consolidate/clarify
language and set the expectation at the start of the long list of application requirements.
(7)(c) – Numbering of the operational plan provision needs correction to read as ‘xiv’. Rather than reliance on external citation for
mitigation sequencing better to include internal reference to where the requirement is established.
REQ-11
Rec-30 .500 Residential
(1) Policies
(a) Residential use is not water-dependent but is a preferred priority 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. New over-water residences, including floating dwellings
as defined by this program, are not a preferred or a priority use and should be
prohibited.
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to (3)(c) and (g) Shoreline Environment
Regulations
Required Change: Revise (1)(a) to read as ‘priority’ for accuracy and consistency with WAC 173-26-241(3)(j) that identifies single-family
residences as a priority use even though not a preferred water-dependent use.
Recommended Change: (1)(a) - Revise to add language for clarity, for internal consistency with the .100(6) proposed term ‘floating
dwelling’ that includes both ‘floating home’ and ‘FOWR’ statutory definitions, to better support the related outright prohibition at
.500(2)(a), and for consistency with WAC 173-26-241(3)(j)(iv) re: Over-water residences (A) New over-water residences, including floating
homes, are not a preferred use and should be prohibited.
Alternatively, this suggested edit could be added to any of several other polices or as a separate policy. (3)(c) – Minor edits for clarity that
CUP is required in Natural regardless of qualifying as exempt; (3)(g) – As presented, the wording is misleading. Revise to better clarify that
only one SFR per lot/parcel may be allowed as an Exemption and additional dwellings require a permit.
Rec-31 .560 Exemptions
Listed
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .560 Exemptions Listed (15) Watershed
Restoration and (16) Habitat Enhancement
Recommended Change: (15) – This is an SDP exemption per RCW 90.58.515 and WAC 173-27-040(2)(o) – revision suggested to phrase as
such for accuracy. (16) - While this SDP exemption was previously affected by legislative amendments (see 2019 version Periodic Review
Checklist items #2007.a and 2019.c), the SMA was further amended in 2021 (see 2021 Periodic Review Checklist Guidance #2021.b). As
proposed, it appears the County’s intent is to replace the lengthy exemption language from statute with a simple reference citation.
Ecology supports this streamlined approach however the RCW is the most current version, as indicted by our Checklist Guidance Example
language. Also, RCW 90.58.147 establishes this exemption for “fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage” improvement projects and cites to
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 14 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
RCW 77.55.181 (WDFW’s streamlined permit Fish Habitat Enhancement Process ‘FHEP’) so specifying the subtitle will help better
differentiate this exemption from the separate but related Watershed Restoration exemption. Revision is suggested to replace the WAC
citation with ‘RCW 90.58.147’ for accuracy, and to rephrase the subtitle for accuracy and clarity.
Rec-31 .590 Conditional use
permit criteria. See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .590(2) Recommended Change: The SMP establishes three types of CUP. Revision suggested for added clarity and to aid implementation.
Rec-32
.610 Administrative
authority and
responsibility
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .610(1)(g)
Recommended Change: The County is not required to consult with Ecology for making administrative project decisions, but does need to
for administrative (code) interpretations. As proposed, the wording of this provision confounds the two separate actions. Revision
suggested to rephrase for accuracy and clarity.
Rec-33 .620 Permit
Application Review See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .620(1) – (5) and (7) Recommended Change: (1) – (5) - To aid the reader and for internal consistency with .650(1), revision suggested to add sub-headers and to
re-group like items together; (7) - Revision suggested to rephrase for clarity.
Rec-34
.650 Notice of
application and
permit application
review
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .650(1)(b) and (c) Recommended Change: Minor revision suggested to aid the reader and for internal consistency with .620.
REQ-12
Rec-35
.660 Nonconforming
Development
(8) Minor Expansion/Enlargement without Conditional use Permit or Shoreline
Variance – Single-family Residential. The administrator may allow a one-time
landward enlargement or expansion of a nonconforming single-family residences by
the addition of space to the exterior of main structure (footprint or height) or the
addition of normal appurtenances. The expansion/addition of nonconforming
accessory structures is not allowed. without a shoreline conditional use permit or
shoreline variance Minor SFR expansion may be allowed as: a Type II Substantial
Development Permit (SDP); an SDP Exemption per Section .560 of this program; or
as a conditional use per Section 500(3) of this program; provided, and subject to the
following: ...
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .660(8) – (13)
Required Change: (8) County can allow these prescriptive exceptions without a CUP or variance, but can’t require a Type II SDP for single-
family development that otherwise qualifies for an SDP Exemption per RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(vi), WAC 173-27-040(2)(g), and SMP .560.
County has local discretion to require a CUP for exempt development but doing so would seem counter to the overarching effort to reduce
CUPs. Further, as consistent with the SMA Guidelines, Section .500(3) requires a CUP for residential development in the Natural SED
(regardless of whether it qualifies for exemption). Revision required for consistency with WAC 173-26-241(5)(a)(ii)(C), and for accuracy and
clarity.
Recommended Change: Cumulative Impacts - As proposed, new allowances for minor waterward and lateral expansion, where previously
prohibited or only allowed by CUP, are significant. In fact, any expansion into the required buffer is an increase of nonconformity regardless
of size or direction. Local government has discretion to allow such but must consider the cumulative impacts/NNL equation. County needs
to demonstrate how the CIA-NNL Report evaluates such NC development, and/or provide additional analysis to justify the proposed
increase in such allowances.
(8) – (13) Other proposed changes in wording/ phrasing may be substantive or not, but intend to streamline & clarify to aid
implementation, consistent with the WAC 173-26-191(2) requirement for ‘sufficient scope and detail’. Ecology supports the addition of
prescriptive planting standards, and County’s effort to better clarify terms, allowances, and requirements. Overall, the construct and details
need improvement to ensure these limited allowances don’t create internal conflict and have sufficient scope & detail for proper
implementation. Issues to address include:
• Improve overall organization/formatting for internal consistency, to streamline/reduce duplication, and better group like items
together;
• Terms ‘expansion’, ‘enlargement’ and ‘addition’ are not defined and appear to have the same meaning – consider using one term
consistently for better clarity (i.e. expansion).
• Better clarity is needed for what ‘waterward’ and ‘nonwaterward’ mean (e.g. relative to OHWM);
• Clarify that expansions/additions of accessory structures are not included (e.g. ADU, shed, detached deck, gazebo, etc.)
• Consider/clarify if the ‘one-time’ limit would allow both waterward and nonwaterward expansions per (8), or multiple nonwaterward
expansions per (9), as part of a single project/application;
• Consider/clarify if/what standards apply to ‘the addition of normal appurtenances’ (e.g. driveway, front walk, garage, attached deck –
for example, perhaps an added driveway or front walk that further encroaches into the buffer must be permeable/pervious whereas
other SMP provisions merely suggest/encourage LID methods;
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 15 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
REQ-12
Rec-35
(cont.)
• Clarify if an expansion allows an added bedroom that triggers the need for nonconforming septic expansion (e.g. proposed revisions at
.270(5)(e)) that would further increase the degree of nonconformity.
• We typically recommend 10 years of monitoring, , especially when woody species are involved, with annual reports for the first 5 years
• Location of the Planting Standards as part of (8) Minor Expansions is awkward since they also apply to (9) Moderate and (10) Other
Expansions, so that relocation to a separate stand-alone provision seems more intuitive, such as a new (11); also consider including a
notice to title requirement for transparency;
• (8)(a) Should the General Standards also apply to (9) Moderate?
• (8)(c) Individual SFR is not required to provide public views for all, so the view requirement is better rephrased;
• (8)(d) Waterward expansions – limit only for the main structure not an appurtenance;
o (ii) ‘enclose the porch’ relies on existing impervious surface – also include ‘patio’ for clarity.
o Formatting needs improvement so that criteria (A) – (D) apply to both types of footprint infill (i) and (ii).
• (8)(e) NonWaterward <10% - Given the increased nonconformity, all waterward & nonwaterward expansions, regardless of size,
should require buffer planting to offset the impacts. County needs to consider if different standards and/or permit pathways are
warrented; differentiation between <10% and 10-25% may not be needed.
• (9) Moderate – should this also be limited to a one-time allowance like (8)? Only for location landward of OHWM like (8)(a)?
• (9)(b) Change of NC use seems out of place with (8) – (10) that are otherwise only about structural expansions – consider relocating as
a separate provision such as a new (12)
• (11) There’s no singular right place to address this issue of considering NC SFR as conforming, and Ecology can accept the proposed
reference added to (1) and insertion at (11) of this section. However, since this is often a significant concern for residential property
owners, and to better inform prospective applicants for expansion of NC SFR, County may consider inserting such ‘Conforming SFR’
language up front at (1) to present all of it together.
• The phrasing of some sections/provisions can be better streamlined to remove duplicative language; consider subtitles to aid reader
navigation.
Consultation with County staff and consultants touched on many of these issues. Overall intent was identified as simplifying/streamlining
regulatory language, allowances, and permit processes in the interest of Regulatory Reform. The discussion also recognized that some
details/nuance still need to be considered/clarified before local adoption. Extensive revisions are suggested to address a wide range of
issues with the intent that the overall approach and/or precise edits may be further refined by the County. The addition of
diagrams/graphics may also be very helpful.
Rec-36
.840 Master
program review,
amendments and
appeals
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .840 Master Program Amendments
Recommended Change: Periodic Review Checklist #2017.h – Minor revision suggested to add a comma after the proposed insertion of
‘review’ to better differentiate the three issues covered in this section. The proposed new section name should also be reflected in the
Table of Contents.
REQ-13
Rec-37
.890 List of SMP
Waterbodies See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .890, including Figures 1 and 2
Periodic Review Checklist #2007.b – WAC 173-18-044 Streams and 173-20-044 Lakes require the SMP “shall include a list of
[streams/lakes] constituting shorelines of the state within the jurisdiction of the master program”. The SMP’s lack of such lists appears to
have been an oversight from the Comprehensive Update, where a detailed list was provided in the foundational Shoreline Inventory &
Characterization Report (ICR) but not in the SMP. Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed no changes to jurisdiction are
proposed in this housekeeping edit.
Required Change: Streams/Rivers - As proposed, this table appears to not include all the streams listed in ICR Table 1-1 as meeting the 20
cfs criterion, including but not limited to the following missing names: Alder, Braden, Cedar, Chimacum, Christmas, Deception, Dowans,
etc. It appears that streams with the 20 cfs point not located on federal lands have been omitted. Consultation with County staff and
consultants confirmed errors likely occurred in the copy-paste process. Revision is required to ensure that an accurate list of all
jurisdictional waterbodies is included.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 16 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
Further, the table includes many duplicate/multiple waterbody listings for the same USGS location (screen clip examples shown below):
...
...
Consultation with County staff and consultants confirmed additional review & refinement is needed to accurately translate the ICR
information into the SMP. These lists replace the old WAC lists that previously included waterbody name, location quadrangle name and
size, and a legal description. Ecology supports differentiating distinct branches that have similar names (i.e. left/right fork, upper/lower
tributary) to avoid oversimplifying; in such cases each should have some type of naming distinction. For example, five different unnamed
tributary streams that each flow into Tshletshy Creek should not all appear as identical in the list; additional alpha/numeric or other
notation is needed. Revision is required to remove duplicates and add missing jurisdictional waterbodies to ensure this list is accurate and
concise to improve utility.
An alternative approach is to just list water body names and rely on a more specific reference to the ICR for the detailed info on upstream
extent/ location of upstream point and USGS map location(s), or include the relevant ICR details in an SMP appendix. Some SMPs reference
the SED map location, a hydrologic unit code (HUC) location, and/or organize the lists by WRIA (examples include Clallam, Cowlitz, Mason
and Skamania Counties; see more SMPs here). If readily available, the County could opt to include the latitude & longitude location of the
upstream point, or the Section – Township - Range location to provide additional detail for each listed waterbody.
Recommended Change: Intro - As presented, the proposed language summarizes the miles of marine shores and the number of lakes but is
silent on streams/rivers. Also, other internal reference citations include ‘JCC’. Revision suggested for clarity and internal consistency, as
based on/ adapted from a similar summary at ICR Chapter 1.2.
Lakes – As proposed, the Status of every lake listed is noted as a ‘shoreline of the state’. None of the lakes under County shoreline
jurisdiction are shorelines of statewide significance so this duplicative language provides no added benefit. Revision suggested to delete
the right-hand column of the table to make the list more concise. County may consider adding a single clarifying statement, as shown, to
cite back to .200 and/or Article V.
Rec-38
18.25.930
Important, Sensitive
and Unique Areas
(ISUs) Designation
See ATTACHMENT 2 for suggested edits to .930(1) – (4)ISUs New Ocean Uses Recommended Change: As presented, the content of (5) and (6) does not address ISUs so that renaming the section improves accuracy
and clarity.
Rec-39
Appendix A
Shoreline
Environment
Designation Maps
Review for Jurisdiction/SED Discrepancies
ICR Map 1C ICR Map 31 SMP SED Map 18
20cfs moved
downstream
Shows reduced jurisdiction Purple CONS exceeds
new jurisdiction extent
• Goodman Creek 1, 2, & 3
Recommended Change: Missing SEDs - The Appendix A Maps were not included in the submittal package and consultation with County
staff and consultants confirmed no SED changes are proposed. However, as part of reviewing related issues at .200 and .870, and a
concurrent West End project-specific query (re: South Fork Manor Creek), it appears there are mapping errors: some waterbodies/portions
depicted as jurisdictional in ICR Map 1C and Map 31 are not shown in the SMP’s SED maps, neither the static Appendix A nor online
interactive GIS versions. It seems that there may have been unintended omissions during the Comprehensive Update transfer/depiction of
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 17 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
• Minter Creek
• Mosquito Creek 1 & 2
• Hoh Drainage: Hell Roaring Creek; Alder Creek; Nolan Creek; Winfield Creek &
Trib; Maple Creek; Owl Creek 1 & 2
• Cedar Creek
• Kalaloch Creek & EF
• Clearwater Drainage: Miller Creek & EF1 &2; Christmas Creek; Clearwater River
8; Hurst Creek; Shale Creek; Stequaleho Creek 2; Solleks River 2
ICR Map 1C ICR Map 31 SMP SED Map 18
Shows as
jurisdictional
Shows as jurisdictional No purple CONS depicted
• Hoh Drainage: Elk Creek
• Clearwater Drainage: Kunamakst Creek; Clearwater Trib; Deception Creek;
Manor Creek SF
• Queets Drainage: McKinnon Creek; Tacoma Creek; Mud Creek; Sams River
ICR Map 1C ICR Map 31 SMP SED Map 18
Shows as
jurisdictional
Shows as jurisdictional CONS purple depicted but
river not labeled
• Salmon River 1, 2 & 3
• Quinault River
Oher Challenges:
ICR information (GIS data layers) into the SMP’s SED maps. Ecology has not conducted an exhaustive review, but the issue seems to be
limited to the West End, as also confirmed by consultation with County staff and consultants.
ONP - The issue is of little concern for streams located in Olympic National Park (ONP), where exclusive federal jurisdiction means even
non-federal actions (i.e. private in-holders, or third-party contractors/concessionaires) are not subject to the SMA or SMP local
review/permits (as clarified by proposed edits to .020(7)). The Appendix A Maps appropriately do not assign SED colors within ONP.
ONF & Other Federal Lands - The Appendix A Maps also do not depict SED colors for streams located in Olympic National Forest (ONF) and
other federal lands (e.g. Colonel Bob, and Buckhorn National Wilderness Areas). As indicted by .020(5), federal actions on federal lands are
outside SMP authority, and the application of SMP local review & permitting is limited to non-federal actions. Both ICR Maps and SMP SED
Maps terminate waterbody jurisdiction/SED colors at the federal boundaries as a mapping convention (e.g. Queets River tributary Matheny
Creek and its upper tribs). Ecology previously approved this approach to the mapping as an exercise of local discretion, given that
jurisdiction and SEDs are ultimately determined at the project level using site-specific information and SMA/WAC definitions, and the
frequency of shoreline use & development in such areas is low.
Non-Federal Lands - However, for streams located on state- or private-owned lands, it’s imperative to get jurisdiction right. The list at left
includes nearly 40 examples of mapping discrepancies that the County needs to reconsider. While the best-case strategy is to correct the
mapping, such methods may be beyond the County’s current resources, and the resultant revised maps would be introduced quite late in
the current amendment process. Upon confirmation of specific errors, the County may opt to address the issues via text revisions that
acknowledge the situation and describe how implementation and future amendments will be affected; perhaps at .200 and/or .870. Also,
the list at .890 needs to include all jurisdictional waterbodies regardless of mapping.
Other Mapping Challenges – There are other locations where the Appendix A maps (and online GIS version) lack precision to easily
determine what SED applies at the parcel scale. Map #6 - One example identified by recent project review is at the head of Discovery Bay
where the layers showing Priority Aquatic, Natural and Conservancy are visually jumbled near the mouths of Snow and Salmon Creeks and
Uncas (clip shown at left). Maps #4 & 5 - Another example is at Indian Island Park near Government Cut where no SED is assigned to the
County-owned parcels south of Flagler Road, but rather inaccurately lumped in as federal lands. County may consider a detailed review and
remapping effort for more accurate depiction of the SEDs assigned, per the criteria and boundary provisions of .200. Edits are suggested to
.200(1) to consider the Inventory & Characterization technical details to help determine boundaries. An alternative approach is to add text
descriptions of the SED boundaries for specific reaches/parcels where the mapping is not clear.
ATTACHMENT 1 TO INITIAL DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY: ECOLOGY CHANGES to the JEFFERSON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW AMENDMENT 9/30/22
Changes in red are required, and changes in blue are recommended* and are consistent with SMA policy (RCW 90.58.020) and the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26, Part III).
Page 18 of 18
*NOTE: County’s Draft SMP Amendment proposed language is shown in black text (single strikethrough/underline); Ecology revisions are shown in red or blue text (double strikethrough/underline).
ITEM SMP SECTION
(JCC 18.25.XXX)
BILL FORMAT CHANGES*
(Also see Attachment 2 as noted) ECOLOGY - DISCUSSION/RATIONALE
Rec-40 Pages 84; and 216
JCC 18.30.050
JCC 18.40.040
Non-SMP Edits – Do not include edits proposed for other sections of the UDC in the final submittal SMP Amendments document. If
important to provide for context and/or for use during local review and adoption, please present separately and describe in the Periodic
Review Checklist as related amendments.