The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0. 05-07-2025 Full Agenda PacketDistrict 1 Kevin Coker Cynthia Koan Ahren Stroming District 2 Matt Sircely, Vice Chair LD Richert Michael Shultz District 3 Richard Hull, Chair Chris Llewellyn Andrew Schwartz Public Comment: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that each person is limited to a three-minute comment. AGENDA JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting – May 7, 2025 5:30pm WSU Jefferson County Extension Classroom, 97 Oak Bay Rd, Port Hadlock-Irondale, WA 98339 You can join this meeting remotely Via Zoom: https://bit.ly/JCWAPC Meeting ID: 969 9760 4223 Passcode: 742684 This option will allow you to join the meeting live. You will need to enter an email address. Please sign on 5 to 10 minutes before the official start of the meeting to check sound and video quality. This video will be closed-captioned enabled. Via phone: +12532158782,,96997604223#,,,,*742684# Washington Relay is a free service provided by ODHH to ensure equal communication access to telephone service for people who may have challenges communicating. To begin, dial 711, give them the following number: 1 (253) 215 8782 and then give them the meeting ID and passcode. Meeting Materials: To view Agenda items, meeting materials and comments received, click here: www.co.jefferson.wa.us – Services – Laserfiche Web Portal (username and password are both: public) – Community Development - Planning Commission – Agendas/Materials – 2025 – DATE 5:30 Chair Welcome and Overview Presentation 1. Call to Order/Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from April 16 are not yet available. District 1 Kevin Coker Cynthia Koan Ahren Stroming District 2 Matt Sircely, Vice Chair LD Richert Michael Shultz District 3 Richard Hull, Chair Chris Llewellyn Andrew Schwartz Public Comment: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that each person is limited to a three-minute comment. GENERAL UPDATES 4. Planning Commission Updates 5. DCD Staff and Director Updates a. Community Development Director, Josh Peters, will be taking the position of County Administrator. Press release is in the agenda packet. PUBLIC COMMENT – GENERAL 6. Public comments: Note - regular agenda items may include public comment periods intended for that specific topic during the meeting. If you wish to provide public comment via Zoom, click on the hand icon at the bottom of the screen to “raise your hand.” The public comment period is managed by the Chair. 7. Transmitted Information: list any documents that were submitted as part of the agenda a. Press Release for Josh Peters hired to position of County Administrator b. Outreach Flyer c. 4-30-2025 Press Release and Leader Article regarding 2025 CP REGULAR BUSINESS 8. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) – Greg Ballard via Zoom (20 minutes) a. Synopsis: Critical Areas to be discussed: (i) JCC 18.22.250 – Variance/Reductions Process for FWHCA and Wetlands buffers; (ii) Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; (iii) Frequently Flooded Areas; and (iv) Wetlands. b. Assignment: Workshop with staff and ask questions about the material presented. c. Options & Decisions: None. Additional materials will be presented on May 21 PC meeting. 9. Rollout of Public Review Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Appendices – Joel, BERK (1.5 hours) a. Synopsis: Jefferson County is conducting a legislatively-required periodic update of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan (CP). The frequency of periodic reviews is every 10 years, using a 20-year planning timeframe (2025-2045). Unified Development Code (UDC) amendments are also considered which implement the CP, particularly those UDC amendments needed to meet new legislative requirements. Community Development has posted a public review draft 2025 Comprehensive Plan (2025 CP) for the Planning Commission’s consideration. b. Assignment: The Planning Commission (PC) is established to provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) on land use issues. The PC will review the 2025 CP documents, and receive a May 7 presentation from Community Development staff and BERK Consulting, providing the PC with background information about District 1 Kevin Coker Cynthia Koan Ahren Stroming District 2 Matt Sircely, Vice Chair LD Richert Michael Shultz District 3 Richard Hull, Chair Chris Llewellyn Andrew Schwartz Public Comment: When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that each person is limited to a three-minute comment. legislatively required revisions and data updates. The PC will be responsible for developing a docket of work they would like to review and discuss regarding the 2025 CP. c. Options & Decisions: After receiving information about the 2025 CP rollout, Community Development will facilitate a PC discussion about options for working through the 2025 CP materials. The schedule and target dates will be discussed. 10. ADJOURN Jefferson County Courthouse 1820 Jefferson Street P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Courthouse Hours: 8:30am-4:30pm Liz Anderson Communications Specialist Jefferson County FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 30, 2025 Jefferson County Announces Josh Peters as new County Administrator Jefferson County is pleased to announce the selection of Josh Peters as the new County Administrator, following a robust national search and a transparent, community-focused hiring process. Peters was selected from a competitive pool of 19 applicants across five states and four distinguished finalists. Josh Peters brings extensive experience in public service, most recently serving as Jefferson County’s Community Development Director. His deep knowledge of the region and strong leadership background—spanning roles with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, and nearly two decades of planning and development experience—position him well to guide the County into its next chapter. The selection process was managed by Prothman, an executive recruiting firm specializing in public sector leadership. Community engagement was a key element of the final stage, including a well- attended public meeting on April 29 at the Jefferson County Library. The event gave residents the opportunity to meet the finalists—Greg Brotherton, Roxanne Miles, Sheri Patterson, and Josh Peters— and engage with them directly, reinforcing the County’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Mark McCauley, who has served as County Administrator since 2021, expressed strong support for both the hiring process and the outcome. “This process reflects the County’s ongoing commitment to openness and public involvement,” McCauley said. “Josh is an excellent choice, and I am confident he will serve the people of Jefferson County with integrity, vision, and dedication.” McCauley, who is retiring on June 30, will work with Peters over the next several weeks during the leadership transition to ensure continuity and maintain the momentum on key County initiatives. Josh Peters stated, “I’m honored to serve Jefferson County in this new role. I’m grateful for the trust placed in me and am eager to collaborate with County staff, elected officials, and the community to advance our shared goals.” Jefferson County extends its sincere appreciation to all finalists and community members who participated in this important process. The County remains committed to fostering a responsive, transparent government that reflects the values and priorities of its residents. ### Jefferson County Upcoming Meetings Ways to Participate Email 2025compplan@co.jefferson.wa.us to submit public comment and ask questions! Follow this QR Code to our survey page! “Your Voice, Your Vision, Your Future” 2025 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Jefferson County is updating its Comprehensive Plan. This plan establishes goals and policies that guide decision making within the county. The planning timeframe considers the next 20 years (2025-2045), and the periodic update occurs every 10 years. In 2025, we are addressing a number of planning elements important to county residents. Planning Elements are chapters of the comprehensive plan that address important topics including housing, transportation, economic development, and climate resilience. Your participation will ensure this plan reflects our community values, needs, and goals over the next 20 years. Regular Planning Commission Meetings May 7, May 21, June 4, June 18 Planning Commission Meetings happen on the 1 and 3 Wednesdays of the month at the WSU Extension classroom in Port Hadlock st rd Take a survey We have surveys for your input on climate, housing, economic development, and general land use-related goals and policies. Review draft documents All documents, including drafts of each comprehensive plan element, are available here: co.jefferson.wa.us/1708/2025-Periodic-Update . Attend public meetings Upcoming Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners meetings are great opportunities to learn about the process and submit public comment. Submit comments Email 2025compplan@co.jefferson.wa.us to submit written comments. Additionally, testimony is accepted at public hearings and many public meetings include comment periods. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368 360-379-4450 | email: planning@co.jefferson.wa.us www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment Joel Peterson Lead Associate Planner JPeterson@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Department of Community Development FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 25, 2025 2025 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update “Your voice, your vision, your future” Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) and the Planning Commission have completed a circuit of public meetings around the county to discuss proposed updates to the county’s Comprehensive Plan. DCD and the Planning Commission have been soliciting comments since late 2024 on the plan’s goals and policies, and we are now rolling out a full draft of the Comprehensive Plan for public review and comment. Washington jurisdictions planning under the State Growth Management Act are required to develop comprehensive plans, and counties the size of Jefferson must conduct a complete review of their plans at least every ten years. Jefferson County completed its last periodic review in 2018, and the 2025 plan will be revisited in 2035. In the interim period, a comprehensive plan may be amended no more than once per year. A comprehensive plan helps us evaluate complex decisions from various perspectives, prioritize limited resources, and compete for grant funds—especially when it can be shown that we have goals and policies that have been vetted by the community and align with the grant program. A series of events will take place over the next several months to present the Comprehensive Plan materials, including Planning Commission workshops to review drafts and Board of County Commissioners meetings for legislative decisions on plan updates. We’re looking to you, our community, to share your input. Help us make a great plan for everyone in Jefferson County by engaging with the Planning Commission and reviewing the draft plan on the project portal. The May 7th Planning Commission meeting will mark the roll out of this public review draft, and we invite you to attend—more details are available on our website below. Joel Peterson, Associate Planner and Project Manager for the Comprehensive Plan update, remarks, “There are always core groups of people who are very involved in the planning process, but we are making a concerted effort to reach the broader community. Many voices help to make a more robust, enduring plan.” The draft plan documents are located on the county’s project web portal: http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1708/2025-periodic-update. To submit comments or questions, you may reach us via email at 2025compplan@co.jefferson.wa.us. ### Jefferson County April 30, 2025 Leader Item 8(a)(i) Variance/Reduction process for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Wetland buffers Page 1/4 18.22.250 Variance Types and Criteria A. Types of Variance Requests for a variance or buffer averaging shall be made on forms provided by the Administrator and shall contain the information found in JCC 18.40.100. All applications shall also include a mitigation plan consistent with the provisions of Article IX Special Reports of this chapter. The application shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 18.40 Application and Review Procedures JCC Applications for a variance to the performance standards specified by this chapter may be pursued by the following three types of variance procedures that are listed in the following order of preference; provided, that any approval is consistent with this subsection and chapter: (1) Buffer Averaging. Averaging of buffer widths required for major and minor new developments as specified by this chapter may be allowed for wetlands and aquatic habitat conservation areas. Applications for buffer averaging shall be processed by the Administrator in accordance with JCC 18.40 Permit Application and Review Procedures JCC; provided, that the buffer width is not reduced more than twenty-five (25) percent at any point.; The intent of buffer averaging is no net loss of the total buffer area. Buffer averaging requests shall demonstrate consistency with the following provisions of this section to the satisfaction of the Administrator: (a) Determine whether the reduced buffer: (i) Acts as a biofilter that protects water quality of the wetland, aquatic habitat conservation area, and/or any interconnected surface and ground water resources. (ii) Moderates wetland and aquatic habitat conservation area water level fluctuations. (iii) Contributes woody debris and other nutrient inputs to wetlands, aquatic habitat conservation area, and/or interconnected surface water features. (iv) Limits visual, auditory, and direct intrusion between critical areas and developed environments. (v) Provides important wildlife habitat components for species dependent or associated with wetland, marine, and riverine environments. (vi) Allows for the natural movement of a stream within its floodplain or channel migration zone. (vii) Separates development from potential flooding impacts. Item 8(a)(i) Variance/Reduction process for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Wetland buffers Page 2/4 (b) Alterations are, to the extent practicable, placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or other developed lands. (c) The modified buffer maintains, increases, and/or enhances the protection of native plant communities. (d) The modified buffer maintains, increases, and/or enhances the protection of significant habitat features classified pursuant to the Wetlands and Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Sections of this chapter. (e) The modified buffer retains, increases, and/or enhances the protection of significant wildlife movement corridors classified pursuant to Wetland section of this chapter. (f) Low intensity land uses are located adjacent to the buffer within the jurisdiction. Low intensity land uses are associated with low levels of human disturbance or low habitat impacts, including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space, or agriculture or forest management land uses. For residential uses, low intensity land use means densities equal to or less than one unit per five (5) acres. (g) Reduction of the modified buffer does not increase the amount of impervious surfaces. (h) The modified buffer maintains, increases, and/or enhances the protection of erosion and landslide hazard areas adjacent to the critical area. (i) The development is designed to separate and screen impacts such as noise, glare, vegetation trampling, etc. of adjacent land uses from the critical area. The site design shall consider the varying degrees of impacts of different land uses. For example, parking lots, store entrances, and roads generally have higher noise and glare impacts than the rear of the store. Site screening should take advantage of natural topography or existing vegetation, wherever possible. Where natural screening is not available, berms, landscaping, and structural screens should be implemented (e.g., orient buildings to screen parking lots and store entrances from critical area). Landscaping shall be consistent with Chapter 18.30.130 JCC. (j) The buffer dimension is not reduced more than twenty-five (25) percent at any point. (2) Administrative Variance. If buffer averaging is not feasible, A Type II administrative variance to the buffer widths may be allowed for wetland and aquatic habitat conservation areas as set forth by this chapter; provided, that a buffer reduction of not more than (12.5) percent is requested; provided further, that applications shall be processed in accordance with Section 18.40 Permit Application and Review Procedures. Criteria for approval of an administrative variance are specified in JCC 18.22.250(3)(C) below. Item 8(a)(i) Variance/Reduction process for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Wetland buffers Page 3/4 (3) Variance. If buffer averaging or an administrative variance is not practicable, a reduction of the buffer up to 50 percent may be authorized through a CASP. If the CASP requirements cannot be met, or if the reduction exceeds a 50% of the buffers specified by this chapter, a Type III Variance in accordance with JCC 18.40 shall be required before the Hearing Examiner. The criteria for the review of a variance are specified in JCC 18.22.250(C) B. Variance Criteria Before any variance is granted, it shall be shown by the applicant that the following criteria have been met: (1) Failure to grant the variance would result in an extraordinary hardship to the applicant. (2) The extraordinary hardship to the applicant is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this chapter, and is not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions. (3) The variance is justified to cure a special circumstance and not simply for the economic convenience of the applicant and no other practicable or reasonable alternative exists (see Definitions). (4) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the critical area, public health, safety, welfare, use or interest; or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief to accommodate a use allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, JCC Title , Land Use Districts, JCC Title 18.15, Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), JCC Title 18.25, or other applicable provisions of the Jefferson County Code. (6) The granting of the variance will not materially compromise the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, JCC, or be inconsistent with County land use codes or inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (7) A habitat management plan is required for an administrative variance. A mitigation plan is required for a Type III variance. These plans shall be submitted and is approved by the review authority for the proposed variance request. NEW DEFINITIONS “Practicable alternative” means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less impact to critical areas. It may include an area not owned by the applicant which could reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity. Item 8(a)(i) Variance/Reduction process for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Wetland buffers Page 4/4 “Reasonable alternative” means an activity that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation. Reasonable alternatives may be those over which the regulatory authority has authority to control impacts. Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 1/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Chapter 18.22 Article III. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 18.22.300 Purpose. Potable water is an essential life-sustaining element for humans and many other species. Much of Jefferson County’s drinking water comes from groundwater supplies. Critical aquifer recharge areas are important to ensure the quality and quantity of groundwater in aquifers. Preventing contamination from land uses that may contaminate groundwater is necessary to protect water supplies and avoid exorbitant costs, hardships and physical harm to people and ecosystems. It is the purpose of this article to identify and classify aquifer recharge areas in accordance with WAC 365-190-100 and balance competing needs for land uses and clean water supplies and preserve essential natural functions and processes, especially for maintaining critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.310 Classification/designation. Critical aquifer recharge areas are areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge. Critical aquifer recharge area maps shall be periodically revised, modified, and updated to reflect current information as funding and staffing allows. The following classifications define critical aquifer recharge areas: (1) Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas. Susceptible aquifer recharge areas are those with geologic and hydrologic conditions that promote rapid infiltration of recharge waters to groundwater aquifers. For the purposes of this article, unless otherwise determined by preparation of an aquifer recharge area report authorized under this article, the following geologic units, as identified from available Washington Department of Natural Resources geologic mapping, define susceptible aquifer recharge areas for east Jefferson County: (a) Alluvial fans (Ha); (b) Artificial fill (Hx); (c) Beach sand and gravel (Hb); (d) Dune sand (Hd); (e) Floodplain alluvium (Hf); (f) Vashon recessional outwash in deltas and alluvial fans (Vrd); (g) Vashon recessional outwash in melt water channels (Vro); (h) Vashon ice contact stratified drift (Vi); (i) Vashon ablation till (Vat); (j) Vashon advance outwash (Vao); (k) Whidbey formation (Pw); and (l) Pre-Vashon stratified drift (Py). (2) Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas. Special aquifer recharge protection areas include: (a) Sole-source aquifers designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.), such as Marrowstone Island; Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 2/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (b) Special protection areas designated by the Washington Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-200 WAC; (c) Wellhead protection areas determined in accordance with delineation methodologies specified by the Washington Department of Health under authority of Chapter 246-290 WAC; (d) Groundwater management areas designated by the Washington Department of Ecology in cooperation with local government under Chapter 173-100 WAC. (3) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones (SIPZ). (a) Seawater intrusion protection zones are: (i) Aquifers and land overlying aquifers with some degree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion. SIPZ are defined either by proximity to marine shoreline or by proximity to groundwater sources that have demonstrated high chloride readings. (ii) All islands and land area within one-quarter mile of marine shorelines and associated aquifers together compose the coastal SIPZ. (b) High Risk SIPZ. (i) Existing individual groundwater sources with a history of chloride analyses above 200 mg/L are categorized as a high risk SIPZ for development proposed under this code. (ii) Areas within 1,000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 200 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as a high risk SIPZ for development proposed under this code. (c) At Risk SIPZ. Areas within 1,000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as at risk SIPZ for development proposed under this code. (4) Connate Seawater Exception. In some cases, high chloride readings may be indicative of connate seawater (i.e., relic seawater in aquifers as opposed to active seawater intrusion). When best available science or a hydrogeologic evaluation demonstrates that high chloride readings in a particular area are due to connate seawater, the area in question shall not be considered an at risk or high risk SIPZ. (5) Recommendation from Public Health Department. When the status of an area as either a high risk or an at risk SIPZ is in question, the administrator is responsible for making the determination based upon recommendation from the Jefferson County department of public health. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.320 Applicability. This article applies to any development within critical aquifer recharge areas, unless the proposed activity meets any of the exemptions listed in JCC 18.22.230. Other Activities. The following activities, when proposed in a critical aquifer recharge area shall be subject to the protection standards in this article: (a) All industrial and commercial land uses with the potential to impact groundwater; (b) The following rural residential land uses: (i) Those using a locally managed community sewage system; (ii) Those using a large on-site sewage system meeting the management requirements of the Washington Department of Health; and (iii) All planned rural residential developments. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 3/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. 18.22.330 Protection standards. (1) General. The following protection standards shall apply to activities; provided, the activity is not prohibited in JCC 18.22.320. (2) High impact land uses. The land use activities listed below are considered high impact land uses and shall be prohibited in areas that are classified as both a susceptible aquifer recharge area and a special aquifer recharge protection area. In areas classified solely as a susceptible aquifer recharge area or a special aquifer recharge protection area, these activities shall require an aquifer recharge area report. (a) Chemical manufacturing and processing; (b) Creosote/asphalt manufacturing or treatment (except that asphalt batch plants may be permitted in susceptible aquifer recharge areas only if such areas lie outside of special aquifer recharge protection areas and only if best management practices are implemented pursuant to JCC 18.20.240(2)(h)(iv) and 18.30.170(1) and an accepted aquifer recharge area report); (c) Dry cleaners; (d) Electrical battery processing, reprocessing, or storage; (e) Electroplating and metal coating activities; (f) Hazardous substance disposal, storage, and treatment facilities; (g) Junk and salvage yards; (h) Landfills; (i) Petroleum product refinement and reprocessing; (j) Pipelines; (k) Radioactive disposal or processing of radioactive wastes; (l) Recycling centers or recycling collection facilities as defined in JCC 18.10.180; (m) Storage tanks (above or below ground) for hazardous substances or petroleum products; (n) Tank farms; (n) Waste piles as defined in WAC 173-303-660; and (o) Wood and wood products treatment/preserving. (1) Critical Aquifer Recharge Area High Impact Activities. (a) High Impact Activities Listed. The activities listed in Table 18.22.330(1) are high impact activities due to the probability or potential magnitude of their adverse effects on groundwater. Table 18.22.330(1) – Critical Aquifer Recharge Area High Impact Activities Critical Aquifer Recharge Area High Impact Activities Chemical manufacturing and reprocessing Creosote/asphalt manufacturing or treatment (except that asphalt batch plants may be permitted in susceptible aquifer recharge areas Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 4/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area High Impact Activities only if such areas lie outside of special aquifer recharge protection areas and only if best management practices are implemented pursuant to JCC 18.20.240(2)(h)(iv) and 18.30.170(1) and an accepted aquifer recharge area report) Dry cleaners Electrical battery processing, reprocessing or storage Electroplating and metal coating activities Hazardous substance disposal, storage, and treatment facilities Junk and salvage yards Landfills Petroleum product refinement and reprocessing Pipelines Radioactive disposal or processing of radioactive wastes Recycling centers or recycling collection facilities as defined in JCC 18.10.180 Storage tanks (above or below ground) for hazardous substances or petroleum products Waste piles as defined in WAC 173-303-660 Wood and wood products preserving (b) High Impact Activities Prohibited in Areas Classified as Both a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area and a Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Area. High impact activities shall be prohibited in areas that are classified as both a susceptible aquifer recharge area and a special aquifer recharge protection area. (c) High Impact Activities Proposed in Areas Classified Solely as a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area Require a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Report. When high impact activities are proposed for a susceptible aquifer recharge area, a critical aquifer recharge area report that meets all the requirements of JCC 18.22.930 shall be submitted to the department for review. (d) High Impact Activities Proposed in Areas Classified Solely as a Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Area Require a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Report. When high impact activities are proposed for a special aquifer recharge protection area, a critical aquifer recharge area report that meets all the requirements of JCC 18.22.930 shall be submitted to the department for review. (2) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones. New development, redevelopment, and activities on islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines where there is a risk or a high risk of seawater intrusion should be developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge, maintain the saltwater/freshwater balance to the maximum extent possible, and are subject to the antidegradation policy in accordance with WAC 173-200-030 (Antidegradation Policy). Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 5/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (3) Other land uses. The following activities, when proposed in a critical aquifer recharge area shall be subject to the protection standards in this article: (a) With the exception of All industrial and commercial land uses within a fully self contained building, all industrial and commercial land uses with the potential to impact groundwater; (b) All rural residential land uses that meet one of the following: (i) Those using a locally managed community sewage system; (ii) Those using a large on-site sewage system meeting the management requirements of the Washington Department of Health; and (iii) All planned rural residential developments. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] (4) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones. New development, redevelopment, and land use activities on islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines where there is a risk of seawater intrusion should be developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge, maintain the saltwater/freshwater balance to the maximum extent possible, and are subject to the antidegradation policy in accordance with WAC 173-200-030. (35) Stormwater Disposal. (a) Stormwater runoff shall be controlled and treated in accordance with best management practices and facility design standards as identified and defined in the current Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington and the stormwater provisions contained in Chapter 18.30 JCC. To the extent practicable, stormwater should be managed in a way that facilitates aquifer recharge. (b) To help prevent seawater from intruding landward into aquifers, all new development activity on Marrowstone Island and within one-quarter mile of any marine shoreline shall should be required to infiltrate all stormwater runoff on site, except if this would destabilize unstable slopesexcept for those areas within the Port Ludlow Drainage District. The administrator will consider requests for exceptions to this policy on a case- by-case basis; provided a either a geotechnical report indicates that infiltration of stormwater is unfeasible based on the hazards to slope stability, or if a critical aquifer recharge area report that complies with all the requirements of JCC 18.22.930 demonstrates the project does not pose a threat of seawater intruding landward into aquifers. (6) On-site Sewage Disposal. All land uses identified in JCC 18.22.320(1) and (2) that are within areas classified as both a special aquifer recharge protection area and a susceptible aquifer recharge area shall be reviewed by Jefferson County environmental public health to ensure the nitrogen requirements in Title 8 are met. (47) Golf Courses and Other Turf Cultivation. (a) Golf courses shall be developed and operated in a manner consistent with the most current edition of “Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation,” King County department of development and environmental services. (b) Recreational and institutional facilities (e.g., parks and schools) with extensive areas of cultivated turf shall be operated in a manner consistent with portions of the aforementioned best management practices pertaining to fertilizer and pesticide use, storage, and disposal. In seawater intrusion protection zones, golf courses and other turf cultivation using groundwater for irrigation shall be prohibited, unless the water source is located outside of seawater intrusion protection zones or in an approved public water supply. (58) Above-Ground and Underground Storage Tanks. (a) Above-ground and underground storage tanks shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used and operated in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous substances to the ground or groundwater and is consistent with the Washington Department of Ecology’s standards for construction and installation under Chapter 173- 360A WAC. Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 6/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (b) Above-ground storage tanks intended to hold or store hazardous substances shall be provided with an impervious containment system, enclosing and underlying the tank; or ensure that other measures are undertaken as prescribed by the Uniform Fire Code which provide an equivalent measure of protection. (c) Underground storage tanks intended to store hazardous substances shall provide an impervious tertiary containment system underlying the tanks or ensure that other measures are undertaken which provide an equivalent measure of protection. (d) When required under this section, an impervious containment system must be durable, compatible with the substance it is meant to contain, and large enough to contain a volume equal to 10 percent of all containers, or 110 percent of the largest single container, whichever is greater. (69) Mining and Quarrying. For mining and quarrying, required performance standards with groundwater protection best management practices pertaining to operation, closure, and the operation of gravel screening, gravel crushing, cement concrete batch plants, and asphalt concrete batch plants, where allowed, are contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC. (710) Hazardous Substances. Activities that generate, handle, store, or use hazardous substances, which are not prohibited outright under this code, and which are conditionally exempt from regulation by the Washington Department of Ecology under WAC 173-303-100 (Dangerous Waste Criteria), or which generate, handle, store or use hazardous substances, shall be required to prepare and submit a hazardous substances management plan that demonstrates that the development will not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality. The hazardous substances management plan shall describe the following: (a) How hazardous substance(s) will be managed in a manner consistent with Chapter 8.10 JCC and Chapter 173-303 WAC; (b) Screening of any waste suspected of being a regulated dangerous waste as defined in JCC 8.10.100; (c) Requirements for labeling of containers holding hazardous substances with the name of the hazardous substance(s) and the applicable material safety data sheets; and (d) The secondary containment system to be used to prevent releases of hazardous substances to the ground, groundwater, and surface water. The facility owner must update the hazardous materials management plan annually and provide the updated plan to the department on or before the next January 1st, after the plan is updated. (811) Well Drilling, Subdivisions, and Building Permits in Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones (SIPZ). (a) Well Drilling. The Washington Department of Ecology regulates well drilling pursuant to the Water Well Construction Act. Proposed wells, including those exempt from permitting requirements, must be sited at least 100 feet from “known or potential sources of contamination,” which include “sea-salt water intrusion areas” (WAC 173-160-171), unless a variance is obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology per WAC 173-160-106. (b) Subdivisions. Applications for land division (Chapter 18.35 JCC) in coastal, at risk, and high risk SIPZ must include specific and conclusive proof of adequate supplies of potable water and the applicant must provide a special report that satisfies all the requirements or a hydrogeologic evaluation contained in JCC 18.22.930(2)(b) that demonstrates that the creation of new lots and corresponding use of water will not cause degradation of the aquifer by seawater intrusion. A hydrogeologic evaluation shall not be required when the applicant demonstrates that public water is available for the entire project. (c) Marrowstone Island. Due to documented seawater intrusion on Marrowstone Island and the existence of undeveloped lots of record, the department, in consultation with Jefferson County environmental public health will only allow land division on the island if public water connections are provided to each lot of a proposed project and all existing wells within the project site are decommissioned. No permit shall be approved if a public water connection to each lot of a proposed project cannot be provided. Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 7/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (d) Building Permits. (i) Evidence of potable water may be an individual well, connection to a public water system, or an alternative system. Whatever method is selected, the regulatory and operational standards for that method must be met and the department will work in consultation with the Jefferson County public health department. Identification of well interference problems and impairment to senior rights is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Ecology. If the possibility of a problem is suspected, the local permitting authority should contact the Washington Department of Ecology, as required by RCW 19.27.097. (ii) All types of building permits that require proof of potable water use, as per RCW 19.27.097, are subject to this article. (e) Voluntary and mandatory measures of the Jefferson County seawater intrusion policy apply to applications within the coastal, at risk, and high risk SIPZ, and upon Marrowstone Island, in the following manner, in addition to all existing applicable health codes: (i) Coastal SIPZ. (A) Voluntary Actions. Voluntary actions may include but are not limited to: (I) Water conservation measures; (II) Ongoing well monitoring for chloride concentration; and (III) Submittal of data to the county. (B) Mandatory Actions. (I) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH- approved public water system if available; (II) If public water is unavailable, meaning the subject property is not within a current water service area, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; and 2. Installation of source-totalizing meter (flow); (III) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. (ii) At Risk SIPZ. (A) Voluntary Actions. (I) Water conservation measures. (B) Mandatory Actions. (I) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, the applicant must utilize a Washington Department of Health-approved public water system if available; (II) If public water is unavailable, meaning the subject property is not within a current water service area, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 8/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. 1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; and 2. Installation of a source-totalizing meter (flow); and 3. Ongoing well monitoring for chloride concentration; and 4. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the county per monitoring program. (III) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. (iii) High Risk SIPZ. (A) Mandatory Actions. (I) Water conservation measures; (II) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize a Washington Department of Health-approved public water system if available; (III) If public water is unavailable, meaning the subject property is not within a current water service area, an individual well may only be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Variance from the WAC Title 173 standards granted by the Washington Department of Ecology per WAC 173-160-106 for a new groundwater well within 100 feet of a sea-salt water intrusion area per WAC 173-160-171 (i.e., within 100 feet of a groundwater source showing chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L or within 100 feet of the marine shoreline) and with the submittal of a hydrogeologic evaluation that satisfies all the requirements or a hydrogeologic evaluation contained in JCC 18.22.930(2)(b); 2. For an existing groundwater well not subject to a Washington Department of Ecology variance, the applicant must provide a hydrogeologic evaluation that satisfies all the requirements or a hydrogeologic evaluation contained in JCC 18.22.930(2)(b), which shall be transmitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for review, demonstrating that use of the well does not cause any detrimental interference with existing water rights and is not detrimental to the public interest; and 3. Chloride concentration of a laboratory-certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; and 4. If chloride concentration exceeds 250 mg/L in a water sample submitted for a building permit, then the property owner shall be required to record a restrictive covenant that indicates a chloride reading exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard (250 mg/L) under the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; and 5. Installation of a source-totalizing meter flow; and 6. Ongoing well monitoring for chloride concentration; and 7. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the county per monitoring program; and (IV) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. Item 8(a)(ii) - CARA Page 9/9 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (iv) Marrowstone Island. Since Marrowstone Island is a sole source aquifer and a high risk SIPZ, and the island is served by public water, proof of potable water connection to the public water supply will be required for all lots in the project. (912) Mitigating Conditions. The administrator may require additional mitigating conditions, as needed to provide protection to all critical aquifer recharge areas and to ensure that the subject land or water use action will not pose a risk of significant adverse groundwater quality impacts. The determination of significant adverse groundwater quality impacts will be based on the antidegradation policy included in Chapter 173-200 WAC. (13) Quilcene-Snow Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17) In-stream Flow Rule. All applications required to provide proof of potable water or source water approval shall meet all county and state requirements including WRIA 17 In-stream Flow Rule Chapter 173-517 WAC at the time of application. All applications involving water use shall be reviewed by Jefferson County public health for compliance with county and state requirements. (1014) Results of Department’s Review of a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Report, a Hydrogeologic Evaluation or a Hazardous Substances Management Plan. The department applicant shall review submit a critical aquifer recharge area report, a hydrogeologic evaluation or a hazardous substances management plan to be reviewed by the county and either: (a) Accept the critical aquifer recharge area report, the hydrogeologic evaluation or the hazardous substances management plan and approve the application; or (b) Reject the critical aquifer recharge area report, the hydrogeologic evaluation or the hazardous substances management plan and require revisions or additional information. (1115) Authority for Denial. In all critical aquifer recharge areas, the administrator may deny approval if the protection standards contained in this section or added mitigating conditions cannot prevent significant adverse groundwater quality impacts. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] Item 8(a)(iii) - Frequently Flooded Areas Page 1/2 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Article IV. Frequently Flooded Areas 18.22.400 Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect the public health, safety and welfare from harm caused by flooding and to establish protection standards for these areas. It is the intent of this article to prevent damage or loss to both public and private propertypeople, property, infrastructure, and federally-listed species and to ensure compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.410 Classification/designation. Frequently flooded areas are lands in the floodplain subject to at least a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to high groundwater. These areas include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes, coastal areas, wetlands, and areas where high groundwater forms ponds on the ground surface. Frequently flooded areas perform important hydrologic functions and may present a risk to persons and property. Flood hazard areas are depicted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’sFEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FIRMs display areas of concern including areas that fall within the 100-year floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.420 Applicability. These standards apply This article applies to any development within frequently flooded areas, unless the proposed activity meets any of the exemptions listed in Chapter 15.15 JCC. The flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC) conforms with the intent of the minimum guidelines (WAC 365-190-110(1)) through directly considering the effects of flooding on human health and safety, together with effects on public facilities and services, through its protection standards. For purposes of this article, “development” is defined as any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, storage of equipment or materials, subdivision of land, removal of more than five percent of the native vegetation on the property, or alteration of natural site characteristics. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.430 Protection standards – Incorporation by reference of Chapter 15.15 JCC and additional requirements. This article incorporates by reference the classification, designation and protection provisions contained in the Jefferson County flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC) with the following additions: (1) Compliance with FIRMs. The FIRMs identified in the flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC) shall be used to determine flood hazard areas for compliance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulatory requirements. Such flood hazard areas shall be subject to the criteria of the flood damage prevention ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC). (2) Compliance with National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. Development proposed within regulated frequently flooded areas and floodplains shall ensure no impacts to federally-listed fish and wildlife species and habitats as required by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) September 22, 2008, final Biological Opinion (BiOp) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Puget Sound (NMFS Tracking No.: 2006-00472 (or as amended by NMFS)). (3) Habitat Assessment Requirements. (a) A habitat assessment that meets all the requirements of JCC 18.22.940 shall be submitted to the department for review if any portion of the proposed project occurs within a special flood hazard area (floodplain), as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (b) The administrator may request federal assistance in reviewing the submitted habitat assessment. (c) The administrator may waive the requirement to submit a habitat assessment only if: (i) The entire proposal meets one of the exemptions listed in Chapter 15.15 JCC and does not require a state hydraulic permit; Item 8(a)(iii) - Frequently Flooded Areas Page 2/2 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (ii) The proposal requires a federal permit that is reviewed by federal agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act (this could include, but is not limited to, project actions covered by separate consultation under Section 4(d), 7, or 10 of the Endangered Species Act); (iii) A habitat assessment previously has been prepared and the proposed project clearly fits within the nature and scope of that habitat assessment; or (iv) If FEMA approves an alternate process for Jefferson County to demonstrate compliance with the Biological Opinion (such as a programmatic review), this department may waive the requirement to submit a habitat assessment. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.230 General exemptions. (1) Any development or land disturbing activity proposed within frequently flooded areas (i.e. 100 year floodplains or floodway) shall also require a flood permit application to be submitted to DCD. This requirement applies to the proposed exemptions listed in subsection 4 of this section and is in addition to the requirements of subsection 5 of this section. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 1/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Article VII. Wetlands 18.22.700 Purpose. The purposes of this article are to: (1) Recognize and protect the beneficial functions, values, and services performed by wetlands, which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting or rearing habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging groundwater; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality through biofiltration, adsorption, retention and transformation of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants. (2) Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions, values, and natural processesservices, and values of freshwater and estuarine wetlands throughout Jefferson County. (3) Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to wetlands. (4) Establish minimum standards for identifying and delineating wetlands. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] 18.22.710 Classification/designation. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. (1) Wetland Delineation. Wetlands shall be delineated in accordance with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.175. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, all areas within the county determined to be wetlands in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987 Edition, and the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Supplement (Version 2.0), 2010 or as revised, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this article. (2) Wetland Rating. Wetlands shall be rated based on categories that reflect the functions and values of each wetland. Wetland categories shall be based on the criteria provided in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, revised 2014, and as amended thereafter, as determined using the appropriate rating forms and associated figures contained in that publication. These categories are generally defined as follows: (a) Category I. These wetlands are: (i) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre; (ii) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Washington Department of Natural Resources; (iii) bogs; (iv) mature and old-growth forested wetlands larger than one acre; (v) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (vi) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring a total of 23 or more points). These wetlands: (i) represent unique or rare wetland types; (ii) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (iii) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (iv) provide a high level of functions. (b) Category II. These wetlands are: (i) estuarine wetlands smaller than one acre or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than one acre or (ii) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points total). (c) Category III. These wetlands are (i) those with moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points total) or (ii) those that can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 2/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (d) Category IV. These wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring 15 or fewer total points) and are often heavily disturbed. These wetlands likely could be replaced or improved in some cases. Replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, so they should be protected to some degree. (3) Category IV wetlands that are non-federally regulated and not associated with a riparian area and less than one- tenth acre (4,356 square feet) shall be exempt from the requirements of this article when all of the following criteria are met: (a) The wetland does not provide significant breeding habitat for native amphibian species. Breeding habitat is indicated by adequate and stable seasonal inundation, presence of thin-stemmed emergent vegetation, and clean water; (b) The wetland does not have unique characteristics that would be difficult to replace through standard compensatory mitigation practices; (c) The wetland is not located within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) or a FWHCA buffer as defined in Article VI of this chapter, and is not integral to the maintenance of habitat functions of an FWHCA; (d) The wetland is not located within a floodplain; (e) The wetland is not within the jurisdiction of the county shoreline master program; (f) The wetland is not part of a mosaic of wetlands and uplands, as determined using the guidance provided in the wetland rating system; and (g) The wetland does not score sixfive or more points for habitat functions (based on the 2014 version of the Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Rating System, or as amended by Washington Department of Ecology). In addition, mitigation in the form of enhancement or expansion of another part of the buffer should be considered in order to offset any expansion of a nonconforming use or structure. Wetlands less than one-tenth acre that meet the above criteria shall not be filled or otherwise altered. This exemption does not allow for unmitigated alteration of wetland area or functions. Alteration of any wetland, including wetlands less than one-tenth of an acre, shall require mitigation. (4) Sources for Identification. The following sources should be used to identify potential wetland locations. These maps are informational only and site evaluations by a qualified professional shall be used to determine compliance with this article. Sources include, but are not limited to: (a) Jefferson County Critical Areas Mapping (b) United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory (c) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service), Soil Survey for Jefferson County Areas, Washington (d) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Conservation Service, Hydric Soils List (e) Washington Department of Ecology, Coastal Atlas online mapping (4) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland shall adhere to the requirements in this section18.22.720 Regulated activities. (1) Activities Subject to Regulation. Any land use or development activity shall be subject to the provisions of this article, including, but not limited to, the following activities that are directly undertaken or originate in a regulated wetland or wetland buffer, unless exempted under JCC 18.22.230: Commented [GB1]: Added source identification Commented [GB2]: Moved to Section 18.22.730(2) under protection standards. Should address wetland evaluation, reconnaissance, and delineation required. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 3/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (2) Wetland Buffers. In addition to those activities in JCC 18.22.230, the following activities may be allowed within wetland buffers; provided, a wetland report and site plan are submitted that show the impacts to buffers are minimized and that any disturbed buffer areas shall be immediately restored: (a) Construction of low-impact, passive recreational activities, such as pervious trails that are no greater than five feet in width, nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, and scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing or hunting; provided, construction is limited to the outer 25 percent of the buffer. Trails within buffers shall be designed to minimize impacts to the wetland, and shall not include any impervious surfaces. (b) Within the outer 25 percent of buffers of Category III and IV wetlands only, vegetation-lined swales designed for stormwater management when topographic restraints determine there is no other upland alternative location. 18.22.730 Protection standards. (1) General. Application for a project or use on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland or wetland buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. (2) Types of Wetland Evaluations. An applicant shall submit, and have approved, a wetland report prepared based on results of an on-site field investigation conducted by a qualified wetland professional using wetland delineation manuals specified in JCC18.22.710(1). The wetland report shall be completed based on the following: (a) Wetland Reconnaissance. This type of wetland assessment does not require flagging of wetland boundaries or completing a wetland rating form. It shall be used only if no regulated wetland is present within 300 feet of the project area, which includes those areas that may be temporarily affected by construction-related activities or would be within the limits of construction. The wetland reconnaissance requires the wetland specialist to assess all areas within 300 feet of any proposed project component. (b) Wetland Delineation. This type of wetland assessment shall be used if any portion of the proposed project is within 300 feet of a regulated wetland, including those areas that may be temporarily affected by construction- related activities or are within the proposed limits of clearing. The on-site wetland boundary shall be flagged in the field and flags shall be numbered sequentially, and a wetland rating form shall be completed, as required by JCC 18.22.710(2) and (3), for each wetland identified. A wetland delineation report shall be prepared by the wetland specialist based on report requirements presented in Article IX (Special Reports) of this chapter. (c) If the wetland is located off of the property involved in the project application and is inaccessible, the best available information shall be used to determine the wetland boundary and category. d) The requirement for a wetland evaluation may be waived by the administrator for construction of a single- family residence on an existing lot of record if department staff or a qualified wetland evaluator determines that: (a) Sufficient information exists for staff to estimate the boundaries of a wetland without a delineation; and (b) The single-family residence and all accessory structures and uses are not proposed to be located within the distances identified in Table 18.22.730(1)(a) from the estimated wetland boundary. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] (3) Wetland Buffer and Setback Requirements. Wetland ratings and categories shall be prepared by a qualified professional, be based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2014 version, or as amended), and be submitted to the department for review and approval. Wetland ratings based on wetland category, habitat function score, and land use intensity as shown in Table 18.22.730(1)(a) or based on special characteristics as shown in Table 18.22.730(1)(b). A 105 -foot building setback is required from the edge of all wetland buffers. (4) Buffer Marking. To ensure that buffers are not impacted by adjacent development or land disturbing activity, DCD may require the following: Commented [GB3]: Specific regulated activities are not needed as any development or land disturbing activity not exempt is subject to wetland protection standards Commented [AS4]: What about public trails in wetlands (boardwalks) or that need to cross so they can’t be in outer 25%? Public trails that need to be paved or wider for safety/ADA? Commented [AS5]: Thought - wonder if this might fit better under 730 as new Activity Specific Standards section? (like what I’m trying at end of 630) Commented [GB6]: This should be moved to protection standards like in the FWHCA section Commented [GB7]: This should be moved to protection standards like in the FWHCA section Commented [GB8]: Moved from Section 18.22.720 Regulated activities section Commented [GB9]: Same as FWHCA Commented [GB10]: This is intended to ensure that buffers are not impacted by development activity adjacent to critical area buffers. It also is intended to keep landowners outside of the buffer after the development is completed. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 4/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (a) The marking or flagging of the edge of the wetland or its associated buffer (b) the location of the critical area and buffer shown on all approved site plans adjacent to proposed development or land disturbing activity. (c) Permanent fencing, berms, barriers, or native vegetation plantings. This is intended to ensure that development or land disturbing activity does not encroach upon buffers. (d) For permitted commercial or industrial development or uses, or if the activity is proposed on public lands, the administrator may require signs be posted along the buffer edge adjacent to the proposed development or land disturbing activity. This is intended to ensure that the public knows the location of the buffers. (e) DCD has the authority to require a notice to title be recorded on the property by the permittee prior to the approval being issued, if the location of the critical area or its associated buffer is not identified in the development permit or on the county’s GIS mapping system. This is intended to disclose to future buyers the existence of critical areas and their associated buffers. (5) Buffers – Standard Requirements (a) The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the boundaries of all wetlands as established by this article and in accordance with the following criteria. Wetland buffers shall be measured as a horizontal line perpendicular to the wetland boundary. (b) The standard buffer width shall be determined based on the following: (i) The wetland category is based on the total score and the habitat functions from the wetland rating form and the land use intensity describe in subsection (5)(c) below. Buffer widths for these wetlands are shown in Table 18.22.730(1)(a); or (ii) The wetland category is based on the special characteristics of the wetland from the wetland rating form. The buffer widths for wetlands with special characteristics is shown in Table 18.22.730(1)(b). (c) Land use intensity for wetland ratings is based on the following: (i) High land use intensity means development and uses that are commercial, industrial, institutional, urban, high intensity new agriculture (dairies, nurseries, hard side greenhouses, annual tilling), high intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields), or hobby farms. Residential development proposed on a parcel that is less than one acre in size. (ii) Moderate land use intensity means development and uses that are open space parks, moderate intensity new agriculture (orchards and hay fields, soft sided greenhouses), or utility corridors within rights of way that are shared. Residential development on a parcel one acre in size or larger 1 to 5 acres in size. (iii) Low land use intensity means low impact development and uses such as unpaved trails or passive recreation (when not exempt in section 18.22.230), regional trails with a maximum of 12 foot wide paved surface 6 foot wide gravel shoulders for non-motorized public access, public utility corridors not requiring a maintenance road or a vegetation management plan, landscaping or lawns. Residential development on parcels over 5 acres in size. (6) Wetland Buffer Widths. (a) The standard buffer shall be based on a combination wetland category, habitat function score (from the wetland rating form), and land use intensity. The intensity of the land use shall be determined in accordance with the definitions as listed below unless the technical administrator determines that a lesser level of impact is appropriate Commented [GB11]: 1 to 5 acres in size Commented [GB12]: Over 5 acres in size Added regional trails as low impact activity Commented [GB13]: Need to decide if this explanation of process in necessary and defining Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 5/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. based on information provided by the applicant demonstrating that the proposed land use will have a lesser impact on the wetland than that contemplated under the buffer standard otherwise appropriate for the land use. The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the edges of all wetlands, in addition to the building setback in accordance with the following. (b) Wetland buffers shall be established to protect the integrity, functions, and values of the wetland. Wetland buffers shall be measured horizontally from a perpendicular line established by the wetland boundary based on the base buffer width identified in Table 18.22.730(1)(a). Buffers shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by an existing, legally established road or another substantial developed surface. (c) The buffer standards required by this article presume the existence of a dense, multi-storied native vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the technical administrator may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (d) Standard buffer widths are shown in Table 18.22.730(1)(a). However, for Category I or II wetlands with “special characteristics” as determined and defined through the Washington Department of Ecology (2014) Wetland Rating System as it exists now or may be amended in the future (including estuarine, coastal lagoons, wetlands of high conservation value, bogs, forested, and interdunal wetlands), only buffers in the highest habitat score (8 to 9) group are applied. (i) The prescribed buffer widths are based the wetland category (I, II, III, IV) as determined by the scoring results on the rating form for the wetland rating system and the expected level of impact of the proposed adjacent land use. Table 18.22.730(1)(a). Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Based on Points Land Use Intensity Wetland Category Habitat Function Score High Impact Buffer Width (feet) Moderate Impact Buffer Width (feet) Low Impact Buffer Width (feet) Category I Total score is 23- 27 points 8 – 9 6 – 7 <3 – 5 300 150 100 225 110 75 150 75 50 Category II Total score is 20- 22 points 8 – 9 6 – 7 <3 – 5 300 150 100 225 110 75 150 75 50 Category III Total score is 16- 19 points 8 – 9 6 – 7 <3 – 5 300 150 80 225 110 60 150 75 50 Category IV Total score is 15 points or less All 50 40 25 Table 18.22.730(1)(b). Standard Wetland Buffer Widths Based on Special Characteristics Category I Buffer Width (feet) Bog 250 Coastal Lagoon 200 Commented [GB14]: low, moderate, and high intensity uses moved above to Section 5. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 6/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Estuarine 200 Forested Based on Habitat Score Wetland of High Conservation Value 250 Category II Buffer Width (feet) Lagoon 150 Estuarine 150 (7) Reducing Buffer Widths. If impact-reducing measures widths may be reduced in Table 18.22.730(1)(c) are proposed, buffer widths may be reduced to thoseas depicted in Table 18.22.730(1)(cd) when implementing listed impact-reducing measures on the adjacent land use per Table 18.22.730(1)(b) and requiring a protected vegetated corridor between the wetland and a priority habitat or relatively undisturbed area, if present. Other buffer reductions may be allowed upon submission of a wetland evaluation report prepared by a wetland specialist that demonstrates a buffer reduction does not adversely affect the existing functions and values of the wetland. The administrator shall have the authority to reduce the prescribed buffer widths listed in the Table 18.22.730(1)(a); provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC 18.22.740 shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of the following criteria are metshall apply: (a) The wetland buffer of a Category I or II wetland is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer; (b) The buffer of a Category III or IV wetland is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required buffer, or 25 feet, whichever is greater; (c) The applicant implements reasonable measures to reduce the adverse impacts of structures and appurtenances on the subject parcel as determined by the administrator; and (d) Buffer area reduction shall be minimized to accommodate only those structures and appurtenances as approved by the administrator. Wetland buffers reductions shall comply with the provisions of Section 18.22.250 Table 18.22.730(1)(c). Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands (All measures are required if applicable to a specific proposal) Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10 feet heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer Commented [AS15]: Added here to match what was in parallel FWHCA language Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 7/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Disturbance Required Measures to Minimize Impacts • Use low intensity development techniques (for more information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing or plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Table 18.22.730(1)(cd). Reduced Wetland Buffer Widths with Implementation of Table 18.22.730(1)(bc) Measures Wetland Category Habitat Function High Impact Buffer Width I 8 – 9 225 6 – 7 110 <3 – 5 75 II 8 – 9 225 6 – 7 110 <3 – 5 75 III 8 – 9 225 6 – 7 110 3 – 5 60 IV all 40 (107) Averaging Buffer Widths. Upon submission of a wetland evaluation report prepared by a wetland specialist that demonstrates a buffer reduction does not adversely affect the existing functions and values of the wetland, the administrator shall have the authority to average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis; provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC 18.22.740 shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of the following shall applycriteria are met: (a) The buffer averaging does not have any adverse impact on the functions and values of the wetland and provides greater protection of the wetland; (b) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the prescribed buffer, and the buffer boundary remains more or less parallel to the wetland boundary; (c) The most sensitive, or highest value, areas of the wetland have the widest buffer dimensions, and the buffer boundary considers variations in slope, soils, or vegetation to optimize the overall effectiveness of the buffer; Commented [AS16]: Added here to match what was in parallel FWHCA language Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 8/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (d) The minimum buffer width is no less than 75 percent of the standard prescribed buffer width; (e) The buffer width was not already the subject of a buffer reduction; and (f) If area of buffer reduction is composed of native trees that are eight inches in diameter at breast height, the buffer reduction shall not be approved unless the area of buffer increase consists of native trees of a similar size, age, density, and species composition as that in the area to be reduced. (g) The proposal meets the buffer averaging criteria found in Section 18.22.250(1) JCC. (118) Buffer reductions in excess of those allowed under buffer reductions or buffer averaging will be subject to a variance or reasonable economic use exception, as applicable under JCC 18.22.250 and 18.22.260 or may pursue a financially bonded critical areas stewardship plan (CASP), as applicable under JCC 18.22.965; provided, the proposal can meet all CASP financial and other provisions. A Reasonable Use Variance shall be required if any of the CASP provisions cannot be met. (129) Increasing Buffer Widths. Buffer widths may be increased on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the administrator, to protect the functions and values of a wetland. Supporting documents that may be used to support this determination include but are not limited to: (a) The wetland is used by, or has habitat features that could be used by, state or federally listed threatened or endangered species; (b) The wetland serves as nesting or foraging habitat for raptors or great blue herons; (c) The area adjacent to the wetland is susceptible to erosion or landslide; or (d) The area adjacent to the wetland has minimal deep rooting, native vegetation or the slopes are greater than 30 percent. [Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)] (10) Drainage and Erosion Control. In addition to complying with the stormwater requirements of Chapter 18.22 JCC, the applicant must clearly show in the wetland report that stormwater quantity, quality, and flow path post- construction will be comparable to pre-construction conditions. (11) Voluntary Restoration. Wetlands and associated buffers that have been previously altered such that the functions, values, and natural processes have been diminished are encouraged to be restored to conditions that existed prior to the alteration. Jefferson County shall provide information or technical expertise, where possible, in facilitating restoration of a wetland or buffer to previously existing conditions. This could include, but is not limited to, referring interested property owners to restoration information, efforts, and funds. Voluntary restoration requires a permit, and prior to issuance of a county permit to restore a wetland or buffer, the property owner shall agree to undertake restoration activities or authorize such activities to occur, through an appropriate, approved legal device, such as a conservation easement that is granted to a conservation program, or by legal, written agreement with restoration agencies or groups. The legal device shall be recorded at the Jefferson County Auditor’s Office. This provision shall be limited to actions taken prior to June 1994 or lawfully conducted under a previous county critical areas ordinance; it shall not be used for violations or compliance cases conducted by a current or previous property owner. (12) Utilities. Placement of utilities (serving one parcel/development) within wetlands and their associated buffers may be allowed pursuant to the following standards: (a) A habitat report and site plan shall be submitted that show the impacts to the wetlands and their associated buffer are minimized, that any disturbed areas shall be immediately restored, and the enhanced with through the establishment of native vegetation. Commented [AS17]: Wondering if this should be removed from here (and from 530 and 630) and relocated to requirements for reports under Article IX (18.22.905)? Commented [GB18]: Moved utilities, roads, & outdoor recreation & trails from regulated activities to protection standards Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 9/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (b) Construction of utilities may be permitted in wetlands and their associated buffers when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available and the utility does not cause or increase habitat fragmentation for state or federally listed species and meets the requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below. Utilities are encouraged to follow existing or permitted roads where possible. (c) New utilities shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet) measured on the uphill side. (d) New utilities shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at not less than preconstruction vegetation densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives for a three-year period. (e) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems may be permitted in wetlands and their associated buffers when it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to meet state or local health code requirements, that there are no other practicable alternatives available, and construction meets the requirements of this article. Joint use of the sewer utility by other utilities may be allowed. (d) In addition to meeting the utilities standards a above, new utility corridors (serving more than one property) proposed within wetlands or their associated buffers shall require a Critical Area Variance. (e) Utility corridors for towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and should not be sandblasted or spray-painted, nor shall lead-based paints be used. (f) Utilities corridors for towers should follow best management practices for avian protection. (13) Road/Street Expansion. The expansion of a legally established private or public road may be allowed in wetlands and their associated buffers provided it complies with the following minimum development standards: (a) A habitat report and site plan shall be submitted that show the impacts to the wetlands and their associated buffers are minimized, that any disturbed areas shall be immediately restored, and the enhanced with through the establishment of native vegetation. (b) No other reasonable or practicable alternative exists and the proposed road or street serves multiple properties whenever possible; (c) Public and private roads are encouraged to provide for other purposes, such as utility crossings, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.; and (d) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as required by the department of public works’ guidelines. Minimum necessary provisions may include projected level of service requirements. (14) New public or private roads. In addition to meeting the development standards for road/street expansion above, the establishment of a new public or private road is subject to Critical Area Variance. (15) Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Trails Construction. Activities and improvements that do not significantly affect the function of the wetlands and their associated buffers (including viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted in wetlands and their associated buffers provided they comply with the following minimum development standards: (a) Trails and other facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or other previously disturbed areas; (b) Trails and other facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, shrubs, snags, and important wildlife habitat; Commented [GB19]: New roads were changed from allowed meeting standards to requiring a Critical Area Variance, which is a Type III permit requiring a public hearing. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 10/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (c) Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, benches, and access to them, shall be designed and located within the wetland buffer to minimize impacts to wildlife, fish, or their habitat; and (d) Private trails may be permitted within the wetland buffer provided that they do not exceed three feet in width and are designed to minimize the impact to wetlands and their associated buffers. Trails shall be constructed with pervious surfaces or boardwalks and shall not be utilized by motorized vehicles. (e) The size, configuration and surfacing of regional and public trails within a wetland buffer shall be determined through a Type II Administrative Variance. This shall also include the submission of a mitigation plan prepared by wetland biologist. 18.22.740 Impact assessment and mMitigation. The overall goal of mitigation shall be no net loss of wetland function, value, and area. (1) Mitigation Sequence. Mitigation includes avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse impacts to regulated wetlands. When a proposed use or development activity poses potentially significant adverse impacts to a regulated wetland, the preferred sequence of mitigation as defined below shall be followed unless the applicant demonstrates that an overriding public benefit would warrant an exception to this preferred sequence. (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical condition or the condition existing at the time of the initiation of a project; (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operation during the life of the action; (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; (f) Monitoring the required compensation and taking appropriate corrective measures when necessary. (2) Impact Assessment. All potential impacts to wetlands and buffers must be identified and described in the wetland report. Impact assessments shall be made based on requirements in Article IX (special reports). (23) Compensatory Wetland Mitigation – General Requirements. As a condition of any permit or other approval allowing alteration which results in the unavoidable loss or degradation of regulated wetlands, or as an enforcement action pursuant to JCC Title 19, compensatory mitigation shall be required to offset impacts resulting from the actions of the applicant or any code violator. (a) Except persons exempt under this article, any person who alters or proposes to alter regulated wetlands shall provide wetland mitigation that is equivalent to or larger than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. Table 18.22.740(1) specifies the mitigation ratios by category and type of mitigation that must be used for compensatory wetland mitigation: Commented [GB20]: Removed the requirement that trails were limited to the outer 25% of the wetland buffer Commented [GB21]: Specified the requirements and process for establishing regional trail for public non-vehicle access within wetland buffers Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 11/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. Table 18.22.740(1) Required Replacement Ratios for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Category and Type of Wetland Impacts Reestablishment or Creation Rehabilitation Only1 Reestablishment or Creation (R/C) and Rehabilitation (RH)1 Reestablishment or Creation (R/C) and Enhancement (E)1 Enhancement Only1 All Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1 All Category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8:1 Category II Estuarine Case-by-case 4:1 Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case All Other Category II 3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E 12:1 Category I Forested 6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C and 10:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 20:1 E 24:1 Category I Based on Score for Functions 4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1 Category I Wetlands with High Conservation Value Not considered possible2 6:1 Rehabilitation of a wetland with high conservation value R/C not considered possible3 R/C not considered possible3 Case-by-case Category I Coastal Lagoon Not considered possible2 6:1 Rehabilitation of a coastal lagoon R/C not considered possible3 R/C not considered possible3 Case-by-case Category I Bog Not considered possible2 6:1 Rehabilitation of a bog R/C not considered possible3 R/C not considered possible3 Case-by-case Category I Estuarine Case-by-case 6:1 Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case 1 These ratios assume that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented represent the average degree of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions may result in higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut. Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement. 2 Wetlands with high conservation value, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is proposed. Note: Each type of mitigation is defined in subsection (3) of this section under mitigation types. Note: Wetland preservation may be approved by the administrator under limited circumstances on a case-by-case basis if preservation requirements are met, as specified in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, or as amended. (b) Compensatory mitigation may also be determined using methods described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Washington Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, or as amended); provided, the mitigation is consistent with Table 18.22.740(1). (c) Compensatory mitigation must follow an approved compensatory mitigation plan pursuant to this article, with the replacement ratios as specified above. (d) Compensatory mitigation must be conducted on property that will be protected and managed to avoid further development or degradation. The applicant or code violator must provide for long-term preservation of the compensation area. The administrator has the authority to require the applicant record a notice to title to ensure protection. Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 12/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (e) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be designed to mimic natural wetland hydrologic conditions, and shall not be used as a stormwater system to comply with Chapter 18.30 JCC. (f) The applicant may be required to post a mitigation performance bond to ensure monitoring the site occurs and contingency plans are implemented if the project fails to meet projected goals. Corrective actions must be coordinated and approved by department of community development. (4) Compensatory Wetland Buffer Mitigation – General Requirements. (a) Wetland buffers adversely affected by a proposed development or use shall be compensated for at a mitigation ratio of at least 1:1. (b) Impacts to wetland buffers that are well-developed, well-established, and/or have unique natural habitats consisting primarily of native plant species shall require a mitigation ratio greater than 1:1. This could include, but is not limited to, buffers consisting of tall trees; areas dominated by native species; areas considered a priority habitat by WDFW; and habitat conditions that could support rare plants or plant communities. (c) The permittee shall install a highly visible and durable protective fencing as a barrier between the limits of construction and the buffer. The fencing shall be installed prior to any clearing, grading, or land-disturbing activity begins, and shall be maintained during construction to prevent access and protect the wetland and buffer. This requirement may be waived if an alternative to fencing that achieves the same objective is proposed by the applicant and approved by the administrator. (35) Compensatory Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation – Type, Location, and Timing. (a) Mitigation is to be provided in the preferred order listed below. A lower order preference shall not be approved unless a wetlands evaluation prepared by a wetlands specialist documents to the satisfaction of the administrator that a higher preferred option is not ecologically viable. (i) Restoration (reestablishment or rehabilitation) is the preferred mitigation option; (ii) Creation (also referred to as establishment) may be approved if restoration is not an ecologically viable option; (iii) Enhancement may be approved if restoration or creation are not ecologically viable options or may be required in the same buffer area when a use or structure is permitted and encroaches into the same buffer; (iv) Preservation (also referred to as protection or maintenance) is the least preferred mitigation option and shall be permitted only under limited circumstances when, based on a report prepared by a wetlands specialist, the administrator determines that no other option is ecologically viable. (b) On-site compensation within the same subdrainage basin is preferred. The administrator may approve off- site compensation only if: (i) A wetlands specialist documents that on-site mitigation is not feasible and that off-site mitigation is ecologically preferable; (ii) No reasonable opportunities exist on-site and within the same subdrainage basin; (iii) On-site mitigation would result in the loss of high-quality upland habitats; (iv) Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of compensating for project-related impact; (v) On-site compensation is not feasible due to hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors; (vi) On-site compensation is not practical due to probable adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; and Item 8(a)(iv) Wetlands Page 13/13 The Jefferson County Code is current through Ordinance 1-24, passed April 8, 2024. (vii) Potential functions and values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than the lost wetland functional values. (c) Compensation outside of the subdrainage basin may be approved by the administrator if an in-lieu fee program is used. (d) Construction of compensation projects must be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. Construction must be timed to assure that grading and soil movement occurs during the dry season. Planting of vegetation must be specifically timed to the needs of the target species. (e) Compensation must be completed prior to wetland destruction, where feasible. (46) In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Program. An applicant may opt to use an ILF program to compensate for impacts to aquatic resources (critical areas) or buffers based on criteria listed below. Use of an ILF program transfers the responsibility of providing compensatory mitigation from the applicant to an ILF program sponsor. The sponsoring organization is required to provide mitigation that complies with all mitigation requirements of this chapter. (a) The ILF program may be used by an applicant as a way to mitigate for project impacts if the impacts to the critical area or buffer occur within an ILF program service area. If an impact occurs outside of an ILF program service area, an applicant may request that Jefferson County investigate the possibility of using the ILF program as mitigation. The ILF program sponsor is under no obligation to accept mitigation responsibilities for impacts outside an ILF program service area. (b) The applicant shall determine if there is a preference for using the ILF program over permittee-responsible mitigation to compensate for unavoidable impacts. The county may encourage an applicant to use the ILF program, but shall not require an applicant to use ILF for mitigation. (c) The administrator may approve an application using an ILF program for mitigation if the ILF program sponsor accepts the mitigation responsibility. The sponsoring organization has the right to deny the request if the sponsoring organization cannot fulfill all ILF program mitigation requirements. If the sponsoring organization does not accept the mitigation responsibility, the applicant shall be responsible for providing mitigation that complies with this chapter. The administrator shall not approve a permit involving ILF mitigation until (i) the applicant has purchased the appropriate number of credits from the sponsoring organization and (ii) the sponsoring organization has completed a statement of sale. Once the ILF program sponsor completes the financial transaction with the applicant, the sponsor becomes responsible for completing the mitigation effort to comply with Jefferson County Code critical areas requirements and the applicable approved in-lieu fee program instrument. [Ord. 9-20 § 2 (Appx. B)1; Ord. 5-20 § 2 (Appx. A)]