2018-08-22 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 22, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of August 8, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing on Critical Areas Ordinance Updates to Specific Wetland Regulations
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
August 22, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/22/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of August 8, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB180808d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 8, 2018
Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5r' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Nathan Monroe, Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Phil Lovell
Mike Rosen
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Megan Livingston, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Board Member Lovell recalled that when recommending approval of the amendments related to quasi-judicial decision
processes, the Board emphasized the need for the Council to really understand what they will be giving up by approving the
amendments. Mr. Lien summarized that the proposed amendments would remove the City Council from the appeal process
in land use decisions, which means the Council would no longer hear appeals for decisions made by the Hearing Examiner and
Architectural Design Board. The Council would still conduct close record hearings and make the final decision regarding site -
specific rezones and development agreements.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was amended to add a discussion about a Planning Board retreat. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as
presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report and invited Board Members to comment.
Board Member Lovell announced that the draft Housing Strategy was introduced to the City Council on July 24t''. Per their
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
request, the City will host a public open house on August 271 in the Brackett Room on the 31 Floor of City Hall. Following
a brief presentation, it is anticipated the public will be invited to share ideas. Board Member Rosen advised that he posted the
open house notice on the Nextdoor website in an effort to engage more people in the conversation.
Board Member Lovell reported that the Economic Development Commission cancelled its August meeting, so their next
meeting will be September 19'
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requires each city and county with "shorelines of the state" to
adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific needs of the local
community. The SMA also requires that SMPs be updated at least once every eight years, and the City is required to complete
its periodic review by June 30, 2019. Mr. Lien explained that a periodic review is different than a comprehensive review. The
City just completed its comprehensive review in June of 2017, completely overhauling the SMP to be consistent with state
guidelines found in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The periodic review is a statutory requirement of all
cities and counties in the state. The periodic review is intended to ensure the SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules,
remains consistent with the City's other plans, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved
data.
Mr. Lien referred the Board to the Periodic Review Checklist (Attachment 1), which summarizes the amendments to state law,
rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017 and identifies the amendments that are needed to make the City `s SMP
consistent. He explained that the SMA comprehensive review took a number of years to complete and some of the recent
amendments and shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated. He noted that none of the proposed amendments would result
in substantive changes to the SMP.
Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments identified on the checklist, staff is also recommending a few additional
amendments as part of the update. He explained that updates to the SMP may result from the site -specific study of the Edmonds
Marsh that is currently in progress. These amendments may include updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
and modifying the development regulations associated with the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline jurisdiction. Staff is
also recommending language to clarify the process for moving shoreline permit review from a staff decision (Type II) to a
public hearing process (Type III). In addition, staff is recommending that the City revise its Critical Area Ordinance (CAO)
wetland regulations for consistency with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) most recent Wetland Guidance. He reminded
the Board that the recent CAO update was completed prior to the DOE's issuance of their updated Wetland Guidance. The
updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet to be revised to include the most recent guidance. As
a result, the City currently has two sets of wetland regulations, one that applies to shoreline jurisdiction and a second that
applies outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating it by reference into the SMP will provide
consistency for wetland regulations throughout the City.
Mr. Lien reviewed each of the proposed amendments with the Board as follows:
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.1— Cost Threshold for Substantial Development Permit (2017.a). The Office of Financial
Management (OFM) revised the cost threshold above which a development will require a Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) to $7,047. The 2012-2017 amount of $6,416 was simply adjusted for inflation. The new threshold was effective
September 2, 2017. Staff is proposing that the dollar amount in the City's SMP be updated accordingly.
• ECDC 24.90.020.D — Definition of Development (2017.b). The DOE amended its permit rules to clarify that the
definition of "development" does not include projects that involve only dismantling or removing structures without any
associated development or redevelopment. Staff is proposing a new sentence be added to the definition of "development."
Board Member Lovell asked if this new definition would apply to the demolition of Haynes Wharf. Mr. Lien answered
that it would apply to removal of the bulkhead and other development landward, but he is not sure it would apply to the
wharf, itself, since it is located in the water.
• ECDC 24.80.025 — Exceptions to Local Review Under SMA (2017.c). The DOE adopted WAC 173-27-004 to
consolidate three separate laws that create special exceptions to applicability of local SMPs. As proposed, a new section
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 2
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
would be added to ECDC 24.80.025 to identify the types of development actions that are exempt from review under the
City's SMP. These include: remedial hazardous substance cleanup actions, boatyard improvements to meet the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, and certain Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) maintenance and safety projects and activities. The change is consistent with what the City has
been doing in practice.
ECDC 24.70.020.D and G — Nonconforming Use and Development (2017.g). The introductory paragraph clarifies that
the rule is a default rule that only applies if a local government has no provisions in their local SMP to address
nonconforming uses. The City's SMP contains a nonconforming development chapter (ECDC 24.70), so this provision
would not be applicable. However, staff is recommending a revision to ECDC 24.70.020.D, which currently requires a
nonconforming structure that is moved any distance to be brought into full conformance. This provision is potentially a
disincentive to moving structures away from the shoreline so they are less nonconforming. As proposed, the change would
require a nonconforming structure to be moved "as far as practical" from the shoreline. This change allows more flexibility
to get something better that is less nonconforming. The DOE is recommending that the time period for obtaining permits
to replace damaged development be extended from 6 months to 2 years. Even in normal circumstances, it can take longer
than 6 months to prepare an application, and staff believes a longer timeframe is warranted when a development has been
damaged. However, staff is recommending an 18-month time period to be consistent with the timeframe in the
nonconformance chapter of the code.
• Expansion of Nonconforming Use via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The DOE suggested allowing the expansion
of nonconforming uses through a CUP. However, the City does not have a similar provision in its nonconforming code
or zoning code. Staff does not believe this is something the City should allow, so no amendment has been proposed.
• ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 and C.3 — Periodic Reviews (2017.h). The DOE adopted new rules in 2017 that spell out the scope
and process for conducting periodic reviews of SMPs as required by Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.080(4).
Staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.150.A.6 be amended to update the frequency of the periodic review from 7 to 8 years.
In addition, a new sentence would be added under the Administrative Authority and Responsibility section. (ECDC
24.80.150.C.3).
• Process for Submitting the SMP to the DOE (2017.j). Board Member Lovell asked if the City's SMP contains a
description of the SMP submittal process for the DOE's review. Mr. Lien answered that it does not; and therefore, no
amendment is needed.
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.16 — Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Permit Exemption (2016.a). The legislature created
a new SDP exemption for retrofitting existing structures for ADA compliance. The City's current list of exemptions does
not include ADA retrofitting, and staff is proposing that the list be updated accordingly.
• ECDC 24.80.105.A and B — 90 Day Target for Local Review for WSDOT Projects (2015.a). The legislature adopted
a 90-day target for local review of WSDOT projects. The law allows WSDOT projects that address safety risks to begin
21 days after the date of filing if the project will achieve no net loss of ecological function. Staff is recommending a new
section (ECDC 24.80.105) to add this special procedure.
• ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b — Replacement Docks on Lakes and Rivers (2014.a). The legislature raised the cost threshold
for requiring an SDP for replacement docks on lakes and rivers from $10,000 to $20,000. Staff is proposing that ECDC
24.80.010.B.7.b be amended to reflect this updated dollar threshold. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how "fair market
value" is determined, and Mr. Lien answered that it would be based on the value of the project. Docks have a certain value
assigned to them in the table the City uses to apply the building code, and this same table would be used when implementing
this SMP provision. The intent is to prevent someone from replacing a dock and then doing small additions later to avoid
the permit requirement.
• ECDC 24.80.095 — Shoreline Restoration Projects within an Urban Growth Area (UGA) (2009.a). The legislature
created new "relief' procedures for instances in which a shoreline restoration project within a UGA creates a shift in the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) resulting in a hardship for properties subject to new and extra regulations. The new
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 3
Packet Pg. 5
procedures were a response to concerns that the SMP regulations could stop or significantly alter restoration projects. This
"relief' procedure is not explicitly referenced in the current SMP, and staff is proposing that ECDC 24.80.095 be amended
to adopt the "relief' rule by reference. Another option would be to incorporate the rule into the SMP to make it clear that
the process is available. The rule allows people to do restoration projects that expand the OHWM further landward without
expanding the shoreline jurisdiction, as well. This new rule could be applied at the Edmonds Marsh as part of the City's
project to daylight Willow Creek.
• ECDC 24.90.020.GG — Options for Defining Floodway (2007.a). The legislature clarified options for defining
"floodway" as either the area that has been established in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps or the
floodway criteria set forth in the SMA. Currently, neither the CAO or the SMP define the term "floodway." Staff is
recommending that a definition be added to ECDC 24.90.020.G. that uses the FEMA maps. The "SMA floodway"
described in the SMA is essentially a biological definition, unlike the FEMA Floodway Map, which is derived from a
model. Currently, no floodways have been identified in Edmonds.
• List and Map of Streams and Lakes (2007.b). The DOE amended the rules to clarify that comprehensively updated
SMPs must include a list and map of streams and lakes that are in shoreline jurisdiction. The City's shoreline jurisdictions
are defined within the text of the SMP and on maps. Staff is recommending that the shoreline jurisdictions be reviewed
and revised as necessary.
• ECDC 24.80.010.13.15 — Fish Habitat Enhancement Projects (2007.c). The DOE's rule listing statutory exemptions
from the requirement for an SDP was amended to include fish habitat enhancement projects. The City's SMP provides an
exemption for fish habitat enhancement projects, but it does not include all of the language in WAC 173.27.040(2)(p).
Rather than adopting language to match the WAC rule, staff is suggesting that ECDC 24.80.010.13.15 be amended to
include a reference to the WAC rule. That way, the City won't have to amend the section again if the WAC rule changes
at some point in the future.
Mr. Lien advised that, in addition to the amendments outlined above, which are intended to ensure consistency with changes
to state laws and rules, staff is considering modifications to the following elements of the SMP:
• Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state relatively late in the previous SMP update
and appropriate shoreline regulations surrounding the marsh was the subject of significant public comment and discussion
before the City Council. The City is working with a consultant to assess the ecological functions of the marsh and evaluate
buffer widths that will ensure effective site -specific buffer functions. Results from this study will be used to update the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and could result in modifications to the UMU-IV shoreline regulations.
ECDC 20.80.100 —Public Hearings. ECDC 24.80.100 identifies when a public hearing is required for an SDP. In some
cases, the SDP may begin the process as a Type II staff decision but change to a Type III decision before the Hearing
Examiner if requested during the comment period. Staff is recommending that ECDC 24.80.100 be amended to clarify
this process, which would be similar to the contingent review process in the CAO (ECDC 23.40.195). As per the proposed
process, an SDP that does not trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or require an open record hearing would
be a Type II staff decision. Staff would issue a notice of application, followed by a 14-day public comment period. If
someone requests a public hearing during the public comment period, the application would be bumped up to a Type III
decision by the Hearing Examiner. The application fee would increase from $880 (Type II) to $1,820 (Type III), and the
person requesting the hearing would be required to pay 50% of this additional cost. The applicant would be responsible
for the other half of the fee, and the City would pay the Hearing Examiner costs. Board Member Lovell suggested that the
language in ECDC 24.80.100(A)(4) needs to be changed to provide more clarity relative to who would pay the fees when
an application changes from a Type II to Type III decision. Mr. Lien agreed to review the language for clarification.
• ECDC 24.40.020 — Critical Areas. As discussed earlier, this section of the code would be amended to adopt the updated
CAO provisions for wetlands into the SMP by reference. The City is currently working to update the CAO to be consistent
with the DOE's newest 2018 Wetland Guidance. Once the CAO has been updated and adopted by reference in to the SMP,
the wetland section of the SMP can be deleted. The result will be one set of wetland regulations that apply citywide.
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 4
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Mr. Lien summarized that the work program going forward identifies additional Planning Board study sessions before the
public hearing. However, the proposed periodic changes are minor, and the Board may be ready to move on to the public
hearing without any additional study sessions. After the public hearing and public comment period, staff will respond to the
comments received and then the Board can formalize its recommendation to the City Council. The Edmonds Marsh Study is
ongoing and the timeline for updating the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization has not been finalized. Staff will conduct
a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review at about the same time as the public hearing. A page was created on the
City's website to provide information about the SMP Periodic Review, including the checklist, work program, public
participation plan and links to Planning Board agendas and minutes. The Board agreed that no additional study session is
necessary before the public hearing.
Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding is that the Edmonds Marsh Study will not be completed before the Board
acts on the SMP Periodic Review. Mr. Lien agreed that the study would not be completed, but the part that needs to be acted
upon, the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, should be available this fall. The study will not impact any of the proposed
code changes identified on the checklist. However, after it has been completed, along with a buffer study, the City Council
may want to change the buffers and setbacks for the UMU-IV shoreline jurisdiction. These changes would come later and will
not be part of this periodic update.
PLANNING BOARD RETREAT
The Board discussed the following list of potential agenda topics for their retreat:
1. Identify, invite and host a non-profit housing developer or affordable housing "oriented" developer to meet and talk about
strategies for putting together such a project in Edmonds.
2. Have a staff member present and lead a discussion regarding available building land within Edmonds.
3. Pick a given area or property in Edmonds and discuss the applicable regulatory steps and/or modification necessary for
said property to accommodate affordable housing.
4. Increasing the Board's effectiveness in service to the Council.
5. Increasing the Board's effectiveness and efficiency in working with staff.
6. Increasing public engagement.
7. Defining a vision of success as a Board.
8. Hold an open forum for local business owners to offer ideas and suggestions on how to improve the business district.
9. Bring in a consultant that specializes in increasing to tourism to cities.
Given the amount of public interest, Board Member Rosen suggested that Topic 1 might be more appropriately discussed in a
regular meeting that allows the public to engage in the conservation. Board Member Lovell agreed that the draft Housing
Strategy has ignited a lot of feedback from the public, and the City Council has expressed to staff that they want more public
input before carrying their discussions further. They scheduled a public open house for August 27.
Board Member Lovell said he suggested Topics 1 through 3 because he thought the issue of housing would be a big concern
coming up in the City and it would be good for the Board Members to become better educated on the topic. He said he supports
the idea of bringing in a developer to talk about what could be developed and how the City could help, whether the discussion
takes place at a retreat or a regular meeting.
Board Member Crank recalled that she previously suggested the Board invite a representative from Blockable to do a
presentation at the Board's retreat or as part of a regular meeting. In addition, she suggested it would be helpful to have a
presentation/discussion about housing development in general, and not just focused on affordable housing. Focusing too much
on affordable housing created a lot of stress, misinformation and negative connotations amongst the public, when the Housing
Strategy is really about diversifying the housing strategy. It would be helpful to have a general presentation around the potential
housing inventory for all types of housing. Chair Monroe commented that this general discussion about housing would be
more appropriate for a regular meeting rather than the retreat.
Board Member Crank observed that the Planning Board is also the Parks Board, yet it has been quite some time since the Board
has had any park -related discussions. She suggested the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be invited to provide
an update on parks, especially as it pertains to accommodating the population growth related to development. Board Member
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 5
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
Rubenkonig said she would like the presentation to go beyond the regular quarterly report, perhaps an overall presentation
about what is going on at all the parks. Board Member Rosen commented that if the Board's concern is that staff is not
providing enough information or that the Board does not have meaningful involvement in park -related matters, they should
bring this up with staff rather than discussing it at the retreat.
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board that the retreat is intended to be a time for the Board to strategize rather than
address specific policy issues. Talking about the business district and tourism (Topics 8 and 9) would be great discussions for
an Economic Development Commission retreat, but that is not the Board's charge. Public engagement (Topic 6) would be a
great topic, but is not part of the Board's charter, either. Strategizing on how the Board can more effectively serve the Council
(Topic 4) would be an appropriate retreat discussion, but it would be helpful to first meet jointly with the City Council to agree
on the issues they want the Board to address, as well as the level of Board involvement. All of the topics related to housing
(Topics 1, 2 and 3) are already addressed in some form in the draft Housing Strategy, and he cautioned against the Board
rehashing or rewriting the Housing Strategy at this time. However, once the Housing Strategy is adopted, it might be helpful
to have a discussion with the Council about what strategies, if any, they want the Board to pursue.
Board Member Cloutier suggested another retreat topic could be figuring out exactly what the Board needs to be working on.
Rather than falling prey to focusing on issues that other groups are already working to address, the Board could review matrices
to identify what the City is doing wrong and how to address it. Edmonds is primarily built out but still needs to accommodate
a certain population. Studying a variety of matrices could help the Board identify whether the City is on track to meet its goals.
If not, the matrices could be used to help identify the problems and opportunities that need to be addressed.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she is interested in pursuing Topic 3 so the Board can gain a better understanding of what it
takes to do a housing project in Edmonds. She felt the Board's knowledge of the regulations and processes associated with
development could be deepened, and staff is well suited to explain this to them.
Board Member Rosen said he is interested in Topic 4 because having a common vision of the Council's expectations and the
Board's desire to serve would be helpful. He said he often sees Board Members hesitating and second guessing their decisions.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that, to a large extent, the Board's agenda is focused on items having to do with the
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code, as well as specific items the City Council wants them to consider.
Board Member Rosen said he suggested Topic 6 because he believes the City can improve its public engagement efforts to
reach more people. He referred to the Urban Forest Management Plan and Housing Strategy as two examples where lack of
communication resulted in misunderstanding and confusion amongst the public. Although the City's outreach plans provide
multiple opportunities for the public to engage, the opportunities are either the wrong forms of engagement or the City is not
doing a good job advising the public of their opportunities to participate and provide input. Providing opportunities for
meaningful public engagement is something the Board is charged with doing, and recent public comments indicate they could
do a better job. Although it is not the Board's burden, the Board needs to have confidence that someone in the City is addressing
the issue.
Board Member Crank suggested that defining the Board's vision of success (Topic 7) might be appropriate for the retreat. It
would be good for the Board to have a discussion and figure out collectively what defines success as a Board.
Chair Monroe said it would be helpful to understand how much buildable land in Edmonds is available for housing
development. Mr. Lien advised that a Buildable Lands Inventory was done as part of the major Comprehensive Plan update in
2016, and he agreed to email the Board Members a link to the document.
The Board tentatively scheduled the retreat for September 12'. They also generally agreed that it would be best to postpone
discussions related to the Housing Strategy until after the City Council has acted and provided additional direction to the Board
on what strategies they want to tackle first. There was some agreement that the retreat should focus on Topics 5, 6, and 7, and
perhaps Topic 3, too. Chair Monroe agreed to work with staff to finalize a date for the retreat and narrow down the agenda
topics. He agreed to email a draft agenda to the Board members for feedback.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
Chair Monroe announced that the August 22nd agenda will include a public hearing on potential amendments to the Critical
Area Ordinance wetland regulations. He said he will be meeting with staff to discuss and update the extended agenda. The
Board requested that an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director be scheduled within the next month
or so.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Crank reported that she attended the August 71 City Council meeting where the City was presented an award
for its Highway 99 Subarea Plan. She was also able to hear how the City Council is not happy with the Urban Forest
Management Plan, which may come back to the Board at some point. Mr. Lien advised that the Development Services Director
is working with Mayor Earling to determine the next steps, but nothing has been decided yet.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 8, 2018 Page 7
Packet Pg. 9
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/22/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Re po rt.08.17.18
Packet Pg. 10
of Ebb,
5.A.a
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
MEMORANDUM
August 17, 2018
Planning Board
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Director Report
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."
— Mahatma Gandhi
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board meets next on August 22. The agenda includes a public hearing on the
previously -discussed update to the Critical Areas Ordinance.
REGIONAL NEWS
VISION 2040 Award
A VISION 2040 Award for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan was presented to the City of Edmonds
from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) at the City Council meeting on August 7. PSRC is
an overarching metropolitan organization representing four counties (Snohomish, King, Pierce,
and Kitsap) and all the cities within them. This is the first time Edmonds has been given a VISION
2040 award, which is based on a competitive process and criteria. The award recognizes the
project's value as an outstanding planning example for the region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
An August break meant no meetings took place this month for:
❑ The SCT Steering Committee (elected city and county representatives)
❑ The SCT Planning Advisory Committee (community development/planning officials)
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA)
AHA—a countywide organization of which Edmonds is a member —has announced that over
$500,000 is available for qualified housing projects. You can find the official Notice, as well as
Combined Funders Application (CFA) forms, and the AHA Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Policy Manual
on the AHA website, . These funds are for use on projects within Snohomish County by
nonprofit agencies, public housing authorities and cities or towns within Snohomish County.
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 11
5.A.a
Funds come from Snohomish County Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 2 funds, per RCW 82.46.037
Section (1) (b) and (c), as well as the Town of Woodway's general fund. Projects must apply
these funds to projects or units that will provide homeless housing, and also demonstrate the
ability to expend all awarded funds by June, 2019. More details can be found in the online
announcement. Applications are due by COB October 30th, 2018.
LOCAL NEWS
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The Architectural Design Board has no meeting currently scheduled.
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met on August 16, with the following agenda:
❑ Cemetery sales and burials
❑ Financial report
❑ Board rules and regulations
❑ Themes for Memorial Day and Walk -Back -In -Time for 2019
Climate Goals Project
The Climate Goals Project, spurred by City Resolution No. 1389 (re: Climate Goals), is underway
The selected consultant team is Environmental Science Associates (ESA) and Good Company.
Resolution 1389 calls for reporting annually on a municipal and community -wide inventory of
greenhouse gases. It requests a recommendation be made to the City Council on a greenhouse
gas emission reduction target for both the near and long term. Renewable energy actions and an
update to the Climate Action Plan are identified too.
Two City Council members, key City staff, and several members of the Climate Protection
Committee recently met with the consultants to share information and next steps.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission August 15 was cancelled. The EDC's next meeting is
scheduled for September 19.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner will consider a proposal for conditional uses, design review, and a variance
at an August 23 public hearing. The proposal is summarized as follows:
❑ The Edmonds School District is proposing to upgrade the existing baseball field and tennis
courts at Edmonds-Woodway High School at 7600 212t" St. SW. The proposed project
includes relocating several small storage buildings north of the baseball field and creating
javelin and discus areas in that location. To the east, a synthetic turf multipurpose
baseball field with football/soccer field (and associated lighting) and bullpens would be
installed. In addition, four tennis courts (and associated lighting) are proposed east of the
baseball field. Three batting cages are proposed south of the tennis courts. A portion of
two tennis courts directly north and one tennis court east of the existing baseball field
2 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 12
5.A.a
would be demolished to accommodate the improvements. After the public hearing, the
Hearing Examiner will make a recommendation to the City Council, which is then subject
to closed record review and a decision by the City Council.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission's August 9 meeting included:
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness for 2nd phase of the Edmonds Museum window project
❑ Discussion on historic walking tour
❑ Status of 2019 historic calendar
Housing Strategy Workshop
A public workshop on housing strategies is set for August 27, Monday, at 7:00 pm in the Brackett
Room (3rd floor) of City Hall. The workshop will feature:
❑ An update on the City's development of a Housing Strategy
❑ Group discussions of tools that may be included in the Strategy.
Announcements have been sent out via email, press release, and posted information. Everyone
is welcome to attend.
City Council
The August 14 City Council meeting included:
❑ Update from City's federal lobbyist
❑ Councilmember 2019 budget goals discussion, with particular interest in these items:
o Waterfront Center project
o Sidewalks/pedestrian safety enhancements
o Continued focus on tree canopy, open space acquisition, and Edmonds Marsh
o Providing $2 per capita to help fund county Health District
o Public Facilities District (i.e., Edmonds Art Center) operations
The Council's August 21 meeting will include actions on:
❑ Senior Center Lease Amendment Proposal
❑ Setting date for future public hearing on proposed Excelsior Place Street Vacation
❑ Adoption of 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
❑ Moratorium on Development of Residential Units Without On -Site Vehicle Parking Space
in the BD Zoning District
❑ Crumb Rubber Extension of Moratorium
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• August 22: Young Jazz Musicians, Port public plaza, 5 — 7 pm
• August 23: Hazel Miller Concerts, 51" Ave, S and Maple St., 5 — 6:30 pm
• August 25: Moonlight Beach Adventure, Marina Beach, 7:30 — 9:30 pm
• August 26: Concerts in City Park, 3 — 4 pm
• August 26: Young Jazz Musicians, Port public plaza, 1— 3 pm
31Pane
Packet Pg. 13
6.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/22/2018
Public Hearing on Critical Areas Ordinance Updates to Specific Wetland Regulations
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Planning Board heard an introduction to this limited code update at the June 13, 2018 meeting and held
a public hearing on July 11, 2018 after which a recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. The
day after the public hearing before the Planning Board, the Department of Ecology issued updated
guidance for wetland buffers. Staff informed the City Council of the updated wetland guidance at the
July 24, 2018 Council meeting and confirmed that the City Council wished to update the wetland
regulations with the most recent guidance. Staff informed the Planning Board about the updated
wetland guidance at the July 25, 2018 Planning Board meeting at which time the Planning Board
scheduled another public hearing on the updated wetland buffer guidance.
Staff Recommendation
Forward recommendation to the City Council that the City of Edmonds critical area wetland regulations
be updated consistent with Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates and the updated buffer guidance issued by the Department of
Ecology on July 12, 2018 as provided in Attachment 4.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive review of its critical area ordinance (CAO) as required
by the Growth Management Act in May 2016 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland
section of the CAO (ECDC 23.50) was developed from Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002 Wetlands &
CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. In June 2016, Ecology issued new guidance for wetlands under
Publication No. 16-06-001 Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Attachment 1). At the time, the City was
also in the process of a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City Council
desired to have to most current wetland regulations apply to shoreline jurisdiction, so certain wetland
sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP (which means they do not apply in shoreline
jurisdiction). Within the SMP, wetland regulations consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001 were
provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result the City of Edmonds has two versions of wetland
regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of shoreline
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds is required to complete a periodic review of the Shoreline Master Program by June
2019. In order to provide consistent regulations throughout the City, as part of the work program
adopted by the City Council for the SMP periodic review, the City identified updating the COA wetland
provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with Publication No. 16-06-001.
Packet Pg. 14
6.A
Following the July 11, 2018 Planning Board public hearing, the Department of Ecology issued updated
guidance on wetland buffers. A FAQ sheet on the updated guidance and Ecology recommendations are
included in Attachments 2 and 3 respectively. The primary change between the 2016 and 2018
guidance is a regrouping of the habitat scores. Wetland buffers widths are determined by the habitat
score assessed when the wetland determination is made. The 2016 wetland guidance had four potential
buffer widths based on habitat score. The 2018 guidance provides three potential buffers widths based
on habitat score. Below is a summary from the FAQ explaining why Ecology has issued the updated
guidance:
We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores.
Low habitat function was previously represented by a score of 3 or 4 points and moderate
habitat function by 5-7 points. Detailed analysis of the habitat scores for the 211 reference
wetlands used to calibrate the rating system indicate that wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for
habitat are similarly distributed to those that scored <19 in the 2004 version. Habitat scores of
<19 points were considered low in the 2004 rating system. As a result, we need to adjust the
wetland buffer break points in the 2014 habitat scores. The modified tables now group habitat
scores of 3-5 into low habitat function and scores of 6-7 into moderate habitat function.
Attachment 4 contains the proposed amendment to the City's wetland buffer regulations consistent
with the 2018 guidance.
Two other minor revisions to the CAO are also be proposed at this time. The first corrects a scriveners
error in Section ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d and the second deletes an allowed activity in section ECDC
23.50.020.E. The allowed activity related to development within the previously developed footprint for
which specific regulations were included during the CAO update (see ECDC 23.50.040.J) and this section
should have been deleted.
When the SMP is revised, the intent is to adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland
regulations will apply to the entire City.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Publication No. 16-06-001
Attachment 2: FAQ - July 2018 Modified Habitat Score Ranges
Attachment 3: Ecology July 2018 Code Recommendations for Modified for Habitat Score Ranges
Attachment 4: Proposed Amendments to Edmonds Wetland Regulations based on 2018 Guidance
Attachment 5: July 24, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 15
6.A.a
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Wetland Guidance for CAO
Updates
Western Washington Version
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 16
6.A.a
Publication and Contact Information
This report is available on the Department of Ecology's website at
https:/ /fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummarPages/1606001.html
For more information contact:
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Phone: 360-407-6600
Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov
o Headquarters, Olympia
360-407-6000
o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue
425-649-7000
o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia
360-407-6300
o Central Regional Office, Yakima
509-575-2490
o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane
509-329-3400
To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call
the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with
hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability
can call 877-833-6341.
0
0
to
0
Packet Pg. 17
a
6.A.a
Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
By
0
O
Donna Bunten, Rick Mraz, Lauren Driscoll and Amy Yahnke o
�o
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington
June 2016
Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 18
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Packet Pg. 19
6.A.a
Table of Contents
Summary.......................................................................................... 1
Introduction...................................................................................... 2
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection ............................. 3
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA................................ 4
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter ................................ 4
PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 4
DEFINITIONS..................................................................................................................... 4
IDENTIFYING, DESIGNATING, AND RATING WETLANDS .................................................... 5
REGULATED USES AND ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. 7
EXEMPTIONS.................................................................................................................... 7
FORESTPRACTICES.......................................................................................................... 9
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES............................................................................................. 9
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts .......................... 10
WETLANDS INVENTORY.................................................................................................
10
ABCs.............................................................................................................................
10
BUFFERS.........................................................................................................................
1 1
BUFFER AVERAGING......................................................................................................
13
MITIGATION...................................................................................................................
13
MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................
14
MitigationBanking...............................................................................................
15
In -Lieu Fee (ILF)..................................................................................................
15
Off -Site Mitigation................................................................................................
16
AdvanceMitigation...............................................................................................
16
Conclusion.....................................................................................
16
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter ...................................... 19
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions ................................................ 51
E
a
E
r
w
a
Packet Pg. 20
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Packet Pg. 21
6.A.a
Summary
This publication replaces Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Western
Washington Version), Publication No. 10-06-002, January 2010. It also replaces the I"
revision dated July 2011 and the 2nd revision dated October 2012.
This new publication, for the most part, contains the same guidance as the "small cities
guidance" referenced above. Over the last few years, it became obvious that the
information in that document could apply to all cities and counties, not just small cities.
However, the wetland buffer table may be too restrictive for county use because it
assumes that adjacent land use intensity is high. Counties and larger cities generally have
more staff and resources that allow more sophisticated approaches to assigning wetland
buffers.
In addition, these jurisdictions may be able to provide additional protection for habitat
function by requiring protected wildlife corridors between the wetland and other priority a
habitats in exchange for buffer reduction —something that is often impossible in small, c
urban jurisdictions. 9
Check with Ecology wetland staff for more information about using this guidance in your
particular jurisdiction http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm. Z
Specific changes to this new publication include:
• Reference to the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Updated definitions based on the updated 2014 wetland rating system
• Buffer tables that include habitat scores from the updated 2014 wetland rating
system
• Addition of buffer table to be used if minimizing measures are not used
• Emphasis on the requirement to provide wildlife corridors where possible in
exchange for buffer reduction
• Guidance on using wetlands for stormwater management facilities
• Revisions to exemptions for small wetlands
• Recommended language addressing agricultural activities in non-VSP
jurisdictions
• Addition of recent mitigation documents and guidance
• Corrected links to resource documents and web pages
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page I
Packet Pg. 22
6.A.a
Introduction
This document is intended to provide guidance and tools useful in developing a wetland
protection program for jurisdictions that are in the process of updating their critical areas
ordinances (CAOs) to meet the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements.
Wetlands are one of the five types of critical areas identified in the GMA.
We recognize that many local governments lack the planning staff and resources
necessary to develop and implement wetland standards that are both locally appropriate
and based on best available science (BAS). Nonetheless, they must comply with the
GMA requirement to designate and protect wetlands.
The first part of this document describes the important topics that should be addressed in a)
the wetlands section of your CAO. It includes recommendations for wetland protection 0
based on BAS. Appendix A is a sample CAO chapter for wetlands that incorporates Z
these recommendations into a format similar to that found in many local CAOs. (Please a
note that the sample CAO will need to be tailored to your jurisdiction's naming and r
0
numbering system. There are several generic "XX" references throughout the text.) c
to
Appendix B contains definitions that are commonly used in wetlands regulations. c
c�
This document does not include the more general provisions typically found in
regulations related to all critical areas. These can be found in Appendix A of the Critical
Areas Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of
Commerce (formerly the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development) in November 2003 hgp://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Critical-Areas-Appendix-A-Sample-Code-Provisions.pd£ This document revises the
wetland -specific provisions in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook.
The recommendations in this document and the sample ordinance may not be appropriate
for use by rural county governments. Factors to consider are the county's rate of growth,
the nature and intensity of land uses in the county, the wetland resources at risk, and the
ability of the county to implement its CAO. We suggest that you contact us to determine
whether this guidance is applicable to your county. Please use the following link to find
Ecology's wetland specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 2
Packet Pg. 23
6.A.a
Guidance on the Science of Wetland Protection
Ecology has produced several different tools that can help local governments develop a
comprehensive wetlands protection program for their jurisdictions. The Washington
Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have published a
two -volume guidance document to help local governments protect and manage wetlands:
• Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, Olympia,
WA, March 2005). This volume is the result of an extensive search of over
17,000 scientific articles and synthesizes over 1,000 peer -reviewed works relevant
to the management of Washington's wetlands.
• Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands =
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, 2
WA, April 2005). This volume was developed with the assistance of local ;
government planners and wetland consultants. It can be used to craft regulatory a
language that is based on BAS. We recommend that you review Chapter 8 and its c
appendices as you begin to work on updating your existing regulations. (Please to
note: Appendix 8-C was revised in October 2014.) 9
In October 2013, Ecology released an update of the science pertaining to wetland buffers.
The new information on buffers provides a refinement of our knowledge and revisits the
conclusions and key points in the 2005 synthesis.
• Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication #13-06-011, Olympia, WA, October 2013.
Ecology, in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has also developed a two-part guidance
document aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of compensatory mitigation
in Washington State:
• Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
#06-06-01 la, Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 1 provides a brief background on
wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies' permitting
decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies' policies of wetland mitigation,
particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use
to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate.
• Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans
(Version 1) (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-01 lb,
Olympia, WA, March 2006). Part 2 provides technical information on preparing
plans for compensatory mitigation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 3
Packet Pg. 24
6.A.a
Ecology has also developed a wetland ratings system for western Washington. The rating
system is a useful tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for
protection.
• Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29,
Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Links to all of these documents can be found at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/index.html.
Relationship between the GMA and the SMA
You may be planning to adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that will rely on the
CAO for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology 2
does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The
SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the local government requiring a
Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the CAO must meet the c
"no net loss of ecological functions" requirement (WAC 173-26-186(8)(b)(i)). 9
0
W
You should be aware that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) may preclude or alter
the administration of your CAO. For example, certain activities exempted under the z°
CAO will not qualify for exemption under the SMP. In addition, activities allowed c
without permits under the CAO may require permits under the SMP.
For assistance with CAO-SMP integration, please use the following link to find the
shoreline planner for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sma/contacts/index.html.
Policy Discussion for Your Wetlands Chapter
Your wetlands chapter will exist as one of several in your critical areas ordinance. Below
we describe some of the important subsections in the wetlands chapter and include our
recommendations for protecting wetlands based on the best available science.
Purpose
The chapter typically begins with a purpose statement, followed by designation criteria,
which include a definition of wetlands and the methods by which they are identified and
rated and other details listed below. The purpose statement may also state that this
chapter is intended to be consistent with the requirements of 36.70A RCW and to
implement the goals and policies of your Comprehensive Plan for protecting wetlands.
Definitions
Your wetlands chapter may include a separate list of definitions, or the definitions may
be included in the general definitions section of the CAO. Appendix B is a list of
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 4
Packet Pg. 25
6.A.a
definitions relevant to your wetlands chapter. This list includes terms identified in state
law and agency guidance documents. Clarity and consistency in the use of these terms
will make ordinance implementation easier.
Identifying, Designating, and Rating Wetlands
The first steps in regulating wetlands are to define what is being regulated and specify
how these areas will be identified. The GMA requires the use of the following definition
of wetlands and specifies how to identify and delineate them.
In designating wetlands for regulatory purposes, counties and cities are required to use
the definition of wetlands in RCW 36.70A.030(21):
"Wetland " or "wetlands " means areas that are inundated or saturated by i
surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 0
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands Z
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do a
not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- c
wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage c9a
ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater 9
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those
wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a z°
result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may c
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland M
areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.
Wetlands are subject to a local government's regulatory authority if they meet the criteria
in this definition. This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and isolated
wetlands. These wetlands can provide critical functions and habitat and should be
regulated. The GMA does not allow flexibility in adopting a modified definition of
wetlands.
Irrigation practices, such as the Irrigation District ditches in Sequim, can result in human -
created wetlands. More frequently, however, irrigation practices may augment natural
sources of water to a wetland. Wetlands that form along irrigation ditches that were
intentionally created in uplands may be exempted from regulation. However, if a wetland is
the unintentional by-product of irrigation activities, the wetland should be regulated. If a
wetland disappears as the result of a change in irrigation practice, it will not be regulated in
the future. However, most wetlands will not disappear completely as a result of local
changes in irrigation practices because of natural sources of water or regional irrigation
influences. Please see htt2://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/irrigation.httni for
more information on how Ecology regulates irrigation -influenced wetlands.
Ecology is most concerned about those changes in land use that would eliminate wetlands
as the result of fill or grading, such as a conversion to commercial or residential use.
These activities should be regulated by the CAO, and appropriate protection standards
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page S
Packet Pg. 26
6.A.a
(such as buffers and mitigation) should be required in order to minimize the loss of
wetland area and function.
Many jurisdictions use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine whether
wetlands exist within their boundaries. Since the NWI is based on photographs that are
over 30 years old and provides only a general approximation of wetland location, it
cannot be used alone to designate wetlands. Wetlands are those areas that meet the above
definition of "wetland." Wetlands are also dynamic systems that change over time. It is
important to adopt the GMA definition and to have regulations in place to protect wetland
functions and values, should wetlands that do not currently appear on the NWI or other
maps be identified in the future.
State laws require that wetlands protected under the GMA and the SMA be delineated
using a manual that is developed by Ecology and adopted into rules (RCW 36.70A.175;
RCW 90.58.380). The Department of Ecology adopted a wetland delineation manual in
1997 (WAC 173-22-080) that was based on the original 1987 Corps of Engineers manual
and subsequent Regulatory Guidance Letters.
T
During the last few years the Army Corps of Engineers has updated and expanded their o
delineation manual with regional supplements. To maintain consistency between the state o
and federal delineations of wetlands, Ecology has repealed WAC 173-22-080 (the state
delineation manual) and replaced it with a revision of WAC 173-22-035 that states that z°
delineations should be done according to the currently approved federal manual and c
regional supplements. The changes became effective March 14, 2011. °
The GMA states that "wetlands regulated under development regulations adopted
pursuant to this chapter shall be delineated in accordance with the manual adopted by the
department pursuant to RCW 90.58.380." RCW 90.58.380 allows the Department of
Ecology to adopt rules that incorporate changes to the manual. Therefore, the currently
approved federal manual and regional supplements should be used for delineating
wetlands in GMA jurisdiction. See:
http://www.ecy.wa.jzovL/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html.
Local governments are not required to rate or classify wetlands when regulating them.
However, methods that classify, categorize, or rate wetlands help target the appropriate
level of protection to particular types of wetlands and avoid the "one -size -fits -all"
approach. If a local government uses a wetland rating system, it must consider the
criteria described in WAC 365-190-090(3).
The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Effective January 2015), (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, October 2014) is a useful
tool for dividing wetlands into groups that have similar needs for protection. The revised
rating system represents the best available science, as it is based on a better
understanding of wetland functions, ways to evaluate them, and what is needed to protect
them. It provides a quick "snapshot" characterization of a particular wetland. In many
cases, it will provide enough information about existing wetland functions to allow
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 6
Packet Pg. 27
6.A.a
adequate plan review and land use decisions to be made without the additional expense of
a separate wetland functional assessment.
While local governments are not required to use Ecology's revised rating system, we
strongly encourage you to adopt wetland regulations that require its use. Most
qualified wetland specialists are using the revised rating system. In cases where state and
federal permits are required, the use of this rating system would benefit applicants by
eliminating the need to rate wetlands according to a different local standard. If you
choose not to use the state's wetland rating system, you must provide a rationale for this
decision according to WAC 365-190-090(3).
We recommend that you include language that describes the four categories of wetlands.
This text is different for eastern and western Washington jurisdictions. Please refer to
Appendix A, Section XX.020.13.1-4 for the specific category descriptions.
Regulated Uses and Activities
Your wetland section should list those uses and activities that are regulated under the a
critical areas ordinance. Some of these items include: removal, excavation, grading, or c
dredging of material of any kind; draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland, water 9
level, or water table; the construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any 9
structure; etc. More extensive examples are provided in the sample ordinance.
Wetlands are often impacted by unauthorized clearing and grading that takes place
before application for development permits. You should make sure your CAO
adequately regulates clearing and grading. If it doesn't, you should adopt a separate
clearing and grading ordinance. The Department of Commerce (formerly Community,
Trade and Economic Development) published technical guidance on developing a
clearing and grading ordinance: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
Clearing-and-Grading-Technical-Guidance-Final-2005.pdf.
Most forest practices (as defined in RCW 76.09 are exempted from the provisions of a
wetlands chapter in the CAO. However, those forest practices that are Class IV general
should be regulated. These activities constitute a conversion from forestry to some other
use. As such, buffers and wetland protections are appropriate.
Exemptions
Your wetlands section should identify those activities in or near wetlands that are
regulated and those that are exempt from regulation. Exemptions include activities that
will have little or no environmental effect or are an emergency that threatens public
health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and
buffers, the responsible party should be required to obtain after -the -fact permits and to
rectify impacts. Some jurisdictions place the exemptions or exceptions in a general
exemptions section near the front of the CAO. However, some exemptions or exceptions
may apply only to wetlands, so it may be more practical to have these specific
exemptions in the wetlands section.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 7
Packet Pg. 28
6.A.a
Exempt activities should be limited to those that will not have a significant impact on a
wetland's structure and function (including its water, soil, or vegetation) and those that
are expected to be very short term. Local governments should, however, also consider
the cumulative impacts from exempted activities. They can result in a loss of wetland
acreage and function that are not replaced through compensatory mitigation.
The scope, coverage, and applicability of a critical areas ordinance should capture the full
range of activities that are detrimental to wetland functions. Therefore, exemptions
should be supported by the scientific literature and be carefully crafted to minimize the
potential for adverse impacts. However, a local government should not assume that an
exemption is appropriate in the absence of science to refute the exemption. The language
should clearly state whether a given activity is exempt from applicable standards in the
code or whether it is exempt from needing a permit but still must comply with the code.
Exemptions should be limited and construed narrowly.
For more information on this topic, please refer to Chapter 8 of Wetlands in Washington
State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting Wetlands (Ecology Publication #05-06-008, a'
Olympia, WA, April 2005:
T
h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/summMages/0506008.html . o
to
0
The GMA, in RCW 36.70a.030(21), requires local governments to regulate wetlands that
meet the GMA-required definition of "wetland" (see the definition of "wetland" in the z°
previous section). This includes Prior Converted Croplands (PCCs) and hydrologically
isolated wetlands, two types of wetlands that have been exempt from federal regulation at °
M
times. PCCs are wetlands that have been ditched and drained for active agricultural use 2
before December 23, 1985. Isolated wetlands are those wetlands that have no surface
hydrologic connection to waters of the United States. These wetlands must be regulated by N
your CAO. Please see hqp://www.ecy.wa.go) /programs/sea/wetlands/isolated.html for 2
more information on how the state of Washington currently regulates isolated wetlands. n
The scientific literature does not support exempting wetlands that are below a certain size.
While we recognize an administrative desire to place size thresholds on wetlands that are
to be regulated, you need to be aware that it is not possible to conclude from size alone
what functions a particular wetland may be providing. Ecology has developed a strategy
for exempting small wetlands when additional criteria are considered. This language is
present in the sample ordinance. However, impacts to small wetlands are NOT
exempt from the requirement to provide compensatory mitigation for those impacts.
If an in -lieu fee (ILF) program or a mitigation bank is available in your area (see page
15), these mitigation alternatives can help prevent a net loss of wetland function from
impacts to small wetlands in your jurisdiction.
Exceptions are typically addressed in a CAO in the context of reasonable use of property.
For more information about this regulatory tool, see Section VII of the Critical Areas
Assistance Handbook published by the Washington State Department of Commerce:
htta://www.commerce.wa.izov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.adf .
You should keep in mind that the Shoreline Management Act does not allow reasonable
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 8
Packet Pg. 29
6.A.a
use exceptions, providing instead a variance pathway to afford regulatory relief. If you
decide to incorporate your CAO into your SNIP when the latter document is
updated, you will need to address this potential inconsistency.
Forest Practices
Class I, II, and III forest practices should be exempted from the wetlands section of your
CAO. These activities are regulated through RCW 76.09, the Forest Practices Act.
Agricultural Activities
In 2011 the Washington Legislature created the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) as
an alternative for meeting GMA requirements related to protecting critical areas and
agricultural lands. In 2015 the state provided funding for participating counties to begin the
VSP planning process. For more information on this program, see
http://www.scc.wa.gov/voluntqa-stewardship/.
For the GMA update cycle beginning 2015, some counties will begin addressing critical
area issues related to agriculture through a VSP work plan. a
T
0
If your jurisdiction is not in a participating county or not in a participating watershed, then 9
you must review and revise your development regulations for protecting wetlands as they 9
apply to agricultural activities (see RCW 3 6.70A.7 10). A
If your jurisdiction is in a VSP watershed designated by a participating county, your GMA
responsibilities to protect critical areas from agricultural activities in or near wetlands will
be achieved through the VSP work plan.
However, it is important to keep in mind that federal and state regulations, such as the Clean
Water Act and the State Water Pollution Control Act are still applicable in all jurisdictions
regardless of participation or non -participation in the VSP. The VSP does not alter the
responsibility of property owners to meet water quality standards, protect wetlands, and
comply with state and federal environmental regulations.
Ecology recommends the following for non-VSP jurisdictions:
"Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" are often exempted from the provisions of a
CAO. These activities should be clearly defined and should not include removing trees,
diverting or impounding water, excavation, ditching, draining, culverting, filling, grading,
or similar activities that introduce new adverse impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources. Maintenance of agricultural ditches should be limited to removing sediment in
existing ditches to a specified depth at date of last maintenance. Conversion of wetlands
that are not currently in agricultural use to a new agricultural use should be subject to the
same regulations that govern new development.
Ecology encourages the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), farm conservation
plans, and incentive -based programs to improve agricultural practices in and near
wetlands. The goal of the BMPs should be to ensure that ongoing agricultural activities
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 9
Packet Pg. 30
6.A.a
minimize their effects on water quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and
wildlife habitat.
Strategies for Protecting Wetlands from Impacts
Wetlands Inventory
You may wish to pursue accurate identification and rating of all wetlands in your
planning area based on the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014) and the approved federal wetland delineation
manual and applicable regional supplements. These documents can be downloaded at:
• http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/ratingsystems/index.html (rating
systems)
• http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/delineation.html (delineation
manual and supplements)
While this approach may initially be more labor intensive and expensive, such c
information will allow rapid review of development proposals and can help your c
jurisdiction prioritize areas for preservation or acquisition.
This approach is consistent with BAS. It can help with the development of a landscape -
analysis approach to protecting wetlands in your jurisdiction. Landscape analysis for
critical areas facilitates and informs long-range planning. The City of Aberdeen used this
approach in their CAO update. (See Section XX.050.13 in the sample ordinance.)
ABCs
The most basic approach to protecting wetland functions and values can be summarized
as the A-B-C Approach, or Avoid -Buffer -Compensate. This means that a CAO should
contain language to ensure that:
1. Wetlands impacts are avoided to the extent practicable.
2. Wetlands are buffered to protect them from adjacent land -use impacts.
3. Unavoidable impacts are compensated, or replaced.
Your CAO should provide requirements on how to reduce the severity of impacts to
wetlands. When an alteration to a wetland is proposed, impacts should be avoided,
minimized, or compensated for in the following sequential order of preference:
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 10
Packet Pg. 31
6.A.a
2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment;
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action;
Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing
substitute resources or environments; and/or
6. Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.
Buffers
Establishing standards for wetland buffers is usually the most challenging part of a
developing a CAO. However, developing a predictable, reasonable approach for c
establishing buffers that includes the best available science is not as difficult as it may 9
seem. G
The scientific literature is unequivocal that buffers are necessary to protect wetland
functions and values. The literature consistently reports that the primary factors to
evaluate in determining appropriate buffer widths are:
The wetland type and functions needing protection (buffers filter sediment,
nutrients, or toxics; screen noise and light; provide forage, nesting, or
resting habitat for wetland -dependent species; etc.).
2. The types of adjacent land use and their expected impacts.
3. The characteristics of the buffer area (slope, soils, vegetation).
The widths of buffers needed vary widely, depending on these three factors. For
example, providing filtration of coarse sediment from residential development next to a
low -quality wetland would require only a relatively flat buffer of dense grasses or
forest/shrub vegetation in the range of 20 to 30 feet. However, providing forage and
nesting habitat for common wetland -dependent species such as waterfowl, herons, or
amphibians in a high -quality wetland adjacent to residential development would require a
buffer vegetated with trees and shrubs in the range of 200 to 300 feet. This illustrates the
necessity of using an approach to buffers that incorporates wetland type and functions
(based on an appropriate rating system), types of land use, and the environmental
characteristics of the existing buffer.
Your CAO should require buffers for activities that will impact wetland functions.
Ecology's complete buffer recommendations are presented in Appendix 8-C of Wetlands
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 11
Packet Pg. 32
6.A.a
in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014). We recommend using the tables
shown in the sample ordinance.
Tables XX.I and XX.3 are derived from the more -detailed tables in Volume 2. They are
easy to use and are based on BAS. This approach provides the important balance of
predictability and flexibility. Determination of buffer size is simply a matter of applying
the results of the wetland rating system score to the buffer matrix, based on the wetland
category and wildlife habitat score. It generally requires smaller buffers for those
wetlands that do not have much wildlife use.
Table XX.1 requires the use of the minimizing measures in Table XX.2. These measures
are intended to reduce the impacts of the adjacent land use on the wetland. If impacts are
reduced, the size of the buffer required to protect the wetland's functions can be reduced.
The buffer widths in Table XX.I represent a 25% reduction in our recommended buffers
in Volume 2.
Table XX.1 also requires the protection of a wildlife corridor between wetlands that score
5 or more habitat points and any other Priority Habitat. This requirement is particularly
applicable in large or rural jurisdictions where species need to have access to other
habitats to meet their life needs. A buffer is the usual means of providing this necessary
habitat. However, if buffer reduction is allowed, we cannot ensure that these species will
have adequate access to habitat without providing a connective corridor. In urban areas,
the best solution is a landscape -based approach that takes into account actual species use
and spatial arrangement and connectivity of habitats. Without such an approach,
jurisdictions should use the guidance provided in the sample wetland chapter.
If your jurisdiction is small and urban, providing a wildlife corridor may not be an option.
You should consult with Ecology wetland staff to determine whether using Tables XX.1
and XX.2 alone will provide adequate protection for your wetland functions.
Table XX.3 shows the buffer widths required if the minimizing measures in Table XX.2
are not implemented and if a wildlife corridor is not protected. These buffers are wider
than those in Table XX.1, because the impacts to the wetland functions are potentially
greater.
The buffer tables XX.1 and XX.3 do not consider land -use intensity in the buffer
calculation, since it is presumed that most urban land uses will be high or moderate
intensity. However, if your jurisdiction has an activity that can be considered low
intensity, such as a passive recreation area or nature park with undeveloped trails, you
may wish to prescribe a smaller buffer for that area only. The buffer for an area should
be no less than 75% of the otherwise required buffer. Such a "low -intensity" buffer is not
appropriate for residential, commercial, or industrial uses. Of course, if your jurisdiction
includes rural land uses, you should consider using the buffer tables in Appendix 8-C of
Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014).
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 12
T
0
0
to
0
co
Q
Packet Pg. 33
6.A.a
Some wetland types listed in the buffer tables may not be present in your jurisdiction
(e.g., coastal lagoons, bogs, interdunal wetlands, etc.). If you are certain that these
wetlands do not occur within your jurisdiction and would not be introduced by future
annexations, you may remove those wetland types from the buffer tables.
You may wish to adopt an even simpler approach to wetland buffers, one based only on
wetland category. In this case, buffers must be large enough to protect the most -sensitive
wetlands from the most -damaging land -use impacts. Please refer to Table 8C-1 of
Appendix 8-C of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2 (revised October 2014) for this
example.
Ecology's buffer recommendations are based on a moderate -risk approach to protecting
wetland functions. This means that there is a moderate risk that wetland functions will be
impacted. Adopting smaller buffers represents a high -risk approach, and you need to be
prepared to justify why such an approach is necessary and to offer alternative means of
protecting wetland functions that help reduce the risk.
Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer r
CD
is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does o
not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the o
buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased. T_
Buffer Averaging
Local governments often wish to allow buffer widths to be varied in certain
circumstances. This may be reasonable if your standard buffers are adequate. The width
of buffers may be averaged if this will improve the protection of wetland functions, or if
it is the only way to allow for reasonable use of a parcel.
We recommend that a request for buffer averaging include a wetland report. The report
should be prepared by a qualified professional describing the current functions of the
wetland and its buffer and the measures that will be taken to ensure that there is no loss of
wetland function due to the buffer averaging. The width of the buffer at any given point
after averaging should be no smaller than 75% of the standard buffer.
If you choose to adopt narrower buffer widths than those supported by BAS, then further
reductions to the buffer width should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Mitigation
Applicants are required by state and federal permitting agencies to show that they have
followed mitigation sequencing and have first avoided and minimized impacts to
wetlands wherever practicable. Your CAO should include the definition of mitigation
sequencing and require applicants to demonstrate that they have applied avoidance and
minimization. For more information and sample checklists, see
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/avoidance.html.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 13
Packet Pg. 34
6.A.a
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands should be offset by compensatory mitigation. Your
CAO should include standards for the type, location, amount, and timing of the
mitigation. It should also include clear guidance on the design considerations and
reporting requirements for mitigation plans.
Ecology's recommendations for the amount of mitigation (ratios) are based on wetland
category, function, and special characteristics. Requiring a greater area for mitigation
than the wetland area that will be impacted helps offset both the risk that compensatory
mitigation will fail and the temporal loss of functions that may occur. We recommend
using the ratio table shown in the sample ordinance. It is derived from the more -detailed
tables in Part 1 of the joint agency guidance on mitigation: Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State, Parts I and 2 (Ecology Publications #06-06-011a & b, March 2006).
As an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance, Ecology has
developed a credit -debit tool for calculating when a proposed wetland mitigation project =
adequately replaces the functions and values lost when wetlands are impacted. The tool
is designed to provide guidance for both regulators and applicants during two stages of a'
the mitigation process: r
0
0
1. Estimating the functions and values lost when a wetland is altered (debits), and o
2. Estimating the gain in functions and values that result from the mitigation
(credits).
The Department of Ecology, however, does not require the use of this credit -debit
method. It provides one method for determining the adequacy of compensatory wetland
mitigation. It does not set any new regulatory requirements. The document and
worksheets can be downloaded at:
http : //www. ecy. wa. goy/pro grams/sea/wetlands/miti gation/creditdebit/index. html.
In 2008 the Corps and the EPA issued a rule governing compensatory mitigation. The
rule establishes performance standards and criteria to improve the quality and success of
compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in -lieu fee programs. For more
information on the federal rule, see:
http://water.0a.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmiti ag tion_index.cfm.
By adopting mitigation standards based on the state and federal guidance and rules, you
will be providing consistency for applicants who must also apply for state and federal
permits.
Mitigation Alternatives
Various options are available for mitigation, in addition to the traditional on -site
concurrent option. These options include placing the mitigation away from the project
site (off -site mitigation), building mitigation in advance of project impacts, and using
third -party mitigation providers such as wetland banks and in -lieu -fee programs.
Deciding which option should be used depends on what works best for the applicant and
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 14
Packet Pg. 35
6.A.a
for the environment. Some of these options may not be available in your area at this
time. However, we recommend that your CAO allow these options. They can be
effective and valuable tools in preventing a net loss of wetland functions.
Some project applicants may propose mitigation that is consistent with sound ecological
principles but is located outside of your jurisdiction. You may wish to include language
in your CAO that enables your government to allow such out -of -jurisdiction mitigation
opportunities.
In addition to the following options, you might want to consider allowing transfer of
development rights (TDR) as a tool for protecting wetlands. The Department of
Commerce is working with four Puget Sound counties in a pilot TDR program. For more
information, contact the Commerce planner for your jurisdiction or see: Commerce
Regional Assistance Teams.
Mitigation Banking
A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, streams, and/or other aquatic resource areas a
have been restored, established, enhanced, or (in certain circumstances) preserved for the r
purpose of providing compensation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. A c
mitigation bank may be created by a government agency, corporation, nonprofit o
organization, or other entity. The bank sells its credits to permittees who are required to
compensate for wetland impacts. Mitigation banks allow a permittee to simply write a
z
check for their mitigation obligation. It is the bank owner who is responsible for the c
mitigation success. Mitigation banks require a formal agreement with the Corps, W
Ecology, and the local jurisdiction to be used for federal or state permits. V
Ecology adopted the final Wetland Mitigation Banks Rule (WAC 173-700) in 2009. The
purpose of the rule is to provide a framework for the certification, operation, and
monitoring of wetland mitigation banks. To learn more about wetland banking and the
rule, see Ecology's website at
http: //www. ecy.wa. goy/programs/sea/wetlands/miti gationibanking/index.html.
In -Lieu Fee (ILF)
In this approach to mitigation, a permittee pays a fee to a third party in lieu of conducting
project -specific mitigation or buying credits from a mitigation bank. ILF mitigation is
used mainly to compensate for impacts to wetlands when better approaches to
compensation are not available or practicable, or when the use of an ILF is in the best
interest of the environment.
An ILF represents the expected costs to a third party of replacing the wetland functions
lost or degraded as a result of the permittee's project. Fees are typically held in trust until
sufficient funds have been collected to finance a mitigation project. Only a nonprofit
organization such as a local land trust, private conservation group, or government agency
with demonstrated competence in natural resource management may operate an ILF
program. All ILF programs must be approved by the Corps to be used for Section 404
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 15
Packet Pg. 36
6.A.a
permits. To learn more about ILF programs, see Ecology's website at
http://www.ecy.wa.aov/mitiaation/ilf html.
Off -Site Mitigation
This refers to compensatory mitigation that is not located at or near the project that
generates impacts to wetlands. Off -site mitigation is generally allowed when on -site
mitigation is not practicable or environmentally preferable.
The 2008 federal rule on compensatory mitigation requires that some type of watershed
approach be used in siting mitigation. Ecology, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA have
developed guidance to help applicants select potential off -site mitigation sites. To
download a copy of this guidance, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed
Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication #09-06-032, December 2009),
please see https:Hfortress.wa. _ og v/ecy//publications/summg.Waaes/0906032.html.
Advance Miti ag tion
When compensatory mitigation is implemented before, and in anticipation of, future a
known impacts to wetlands, it is referred to as "advance mitigation." Advance o
mitigation has been used mostly for large mitigation projects that are constructed in 9
distinct phases where the unavoidable impacts to wetlands are known. Advance c
mitigation lets an applicant provide all of the compensation needed for the entire project T_
affecting wetlands at one time, which may result in more favorable mitigation ratios. z°
Although similar to mitigation banking, advance mitigation is different in several ways.
Most importantly, advance mitigation is used only to compensate for the permittee's
specific project (or projects) with pre -identified impacts to wetlands. Wetland banks
provide mitigation for unknown future impacts within a specific "service" area. The
advance mitigation can be used only by the permittee. Advance mitigation may not be
sold unless it is changed to a wetland bank. Ecology, WDFW, and the Corps have
developed guidance to help applicants develop advance mitigation proposals. To
download a copy of this guidance, Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, December 2012), please see
h!tps:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy//publications/Summgn Pages/1206015.html
Conclusion
We hope you find this information helpful. If you have questions about this document or
need additional assistance with the wetlands section of your critical areas ordinance
update, please call Donna Bunten at (360) 407-7172 or donna.buntengecy.wa. -og_v.
You may also contact one of Ecology's regional wetland specialists. They are available
to work with you during your update process. For example, they can offer presentations
to elected officials and planning commissions. They can also provide technical
assistance including help with wetland delineation, wetland rating, ordinary high water
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 16
Packet Pg. 37
6.A.a
mark determination, and project review. Please use the following link to find the wetland
specialist for your area:
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/sea/wetlands/contacts.htm.
For assistance with other aspects of your critical areas ordinance update, please contact
the Department of Commerce at (360) 725-3000.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 17
Packet Pg. 38
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
0
0
w
0
to
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 18
Packet Pg. 39
6.A.a
Appendix A - Sample Wetlands Chapter
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 19
0
O
O
Packet Pg. 40
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 20
T
0
O
to
O
r
Packet Pg. 41
6.A.a
Subchapter XXAX
Wetlands
Sections:
XX.010 Purpose
XX.020 Identification and Rating
XX.030 Regulated Activities
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
XX.060 Critical Area Reports
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
XX.010 Purpose
The purposes of this Chapter are to:
A. Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands, o
which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing 9
habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to 9
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 Z
through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments, c
nutrients, and toxicants. a
B. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the
functions and values of wetlands throughout (name of jurisdiction).
C. Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to
wetlands.
1. Compliance with the provisions of the Chapter does not constitute
compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit
requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits, HPA permits, Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 permits, NPDES permits). The applicant is responsible for
complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in
this Chapter.
XX.020 Identification and Rating
A. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of
their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplement. All areas within
the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated
critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Wetland delineations are
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 21
Packet Pg. 42
6.A.a
valid for five years; after such date the City shall determine whether a revision or
additional assessment is necessary.
B. Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of
Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
determining whether the criteria below are met.
1. Category L Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that c i
are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage c
Program/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands
larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands M
that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands =
that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These .2
wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more a
sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed
and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a c
human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. c
co
2. Category II. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than c
1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal z
wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) c
wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 M
and 22 points). z
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate
level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be
adequately replaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3)
interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. 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.
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions
(scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are
wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve.
However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in
any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions,
and should be protected to some degree.
C. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal
modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 22
Packet Pg. 43
6.A.a
XX.030 Regulated Activities
A. For any regulated activity, a critical areas report (see Chapter XX.060 of this
Chapter) may be required to support the requested activity.
B. The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or
its buffer:
1. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel,
minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind.
2. The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material.
3. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table.
4. Pile driving.
5. The placing of obstructions.
T
0
6. The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure. 9
0
7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing,
harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that z°
would alter the character of a regulated wetland.
8. "Class IV - General Forest Practices" under the authority of the "1992
Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations," WAC 222-
12-030, or as thereafter amended.
9. Activities that result in:
a. A significant change of water temperature.
b. A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the
sources of water to the wetland.
c. A significant change in the quantity, timing, or duration of the water
entering the wetland.
d. The introduction of pollutants.
C. Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands
and associated buffers are subject to the following:
Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be
subdivided.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 23
Packet Pg. 44
6.A.a
2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be
subdivided provided that an accessible and contiguous portion of each new
lot is:
a. Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and
b. Meets the minimum lot size requirements of Chapter XX.XX.
XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A. The following wetlands may be exempt from the requirement to avoid
impacts (Chapter XX.070.A.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully mitigated
based on the remaining actions in Chapter XX.070.A.2 through 6. If available, impacts
should be mitigated through the purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or
mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of the program or bank. In
order to verify the following conditions, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the
requirements in Chapter XX.060 must be submitted.
T
All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that: o
to
0
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers `r°
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated
buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 5 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014
update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority
Species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or
species of local importance identified in Chapter XX.XX.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not
contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the
buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
'See page 6 of "Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008, Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 24
Packet Pg. 45
6.A.a
B. Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in
wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area report, except
where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland
buffer. These activities include:
Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, provided that they implement
applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in the latest
editions of the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS)
Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG); or develop a farm conservation
plan in coordination with the local conservation district. BMPs and/or
farm plans should address potential impacts to wetlands from livestock,
nutrient and farm chemicals, soil erosion and sediment control and
agricultural drainage infrastructure. BMPs and/or farm plans should
ensure that ongoing agricultural activities minimize their effects on water
quality, riparian ecology, salmonid populations, and wildlife habitat.
2. Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State a
Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030, r
where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those o
developments requiring local approval for Class 4 — General Forest o
Practice Permits (conversions) as defined in RCW 76.09 and WAC 222- T_
12. o
3. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish,
and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or
functions of the existing wetland.
4. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
5. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer, provided that the
drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or
percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific
studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground
water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down
through the soil column will be disturbed.
6. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of non-native invasive
plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to
hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All
removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 25
Packet Pg. 46
6.A.a
disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed
Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of
according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Re -
vegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in
conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.
7. Educational and scientific research activities.
8. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the
maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint of the facility or right-
of-way.
9. Stormwater management facilities. A wetland or its buffer can be
physically or hydrologically altered to meet the requirements of an LID,
Runoff Treatment or Flow Control BMP if ALL of the following criteria
are met:
T
a. The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III c
wetland with a habitat score of 3-4 points, and o
c�
b. There will be "no net loss" of functions and values of the o
wetland, and
c. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native
amphibian species, and
d. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as
outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of
Chart 5 in the "Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a
Watershed Approach," (available here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0906032.html); or the wetland is
part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals
identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or
regional watershed plan, and
e. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the
discharge follows the natural routing, and
f All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management
are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland
and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits, and
g. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils
will require permits. Existing functions and values that are
lost would have to be compensated/replaced.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 26
Packet Pg. 47
6.A.a
Stormwater LID BMPs required as part of New and Redevelopment
projects can be considered within wetlands and their buffers. However,
these areas may contain features that render LID BMPs infeasible. A site -
specific characterization is required to determine if an LID BMP is
feasible at the project site.
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland
and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent
land use intensity is assumed to be high.
1. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in a
Table XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met: r
0
0
to
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide c
is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as
defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Z
The latest definitions of priority habitats and their locations are c
available on the WDFW web site at: M
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm)
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the L
wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection 2
such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a
qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is
available, Table XX.1 may be used with the required measures in
Table XX.2 alone.2
• The measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable,
to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
2. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in Table
XX.2 are required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table
XX.2, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then
Table XX.3 must be used.
2 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 27
Packet Pg. 48
6.A.a
4. The buffer widths in Table XX. I and XX.3 assume that the buffer is
vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If
the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with
invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should
either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer
should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are
provided.
Table XXA Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category I:
75
105
165
225
Based on total score
Category L•
Bogs and
190
225
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category I:
150
165
225
Coastal Lagoons
Category I:
225
Interdunal
Category I:
75
105
165
225
Forested
Category I:
150
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
75
105
165
225
Based on score
Category II:
110
165
225
Interdunal Wetlands
Category II:
110
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all)
60
105
165
225
Category IV (all)
40
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 28
Packet Pg. 49
6.A.a
Table XX.2 Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands
(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' 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 ft 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
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
regime
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
disturbance
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
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 29
Packet Pg. 50
6.A.a
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category I:
100
140
220
300
Based on total score
Category L•
Bogs and
250
300
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category I:
200
220
300
Coastal Lagoons
Category I:
300
Interdunal
Category I:
100
140
220
300
Forested
Category I:
200
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
100
140
220
300
Based on score
Category II:
150
220
300
Interdunal Wetlands
Category II:
150
Estuarine
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category III (all)
80
140
220
300
Category IV (all)
50
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 30
Packet Pg. 51
6.A.a
5. Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased
on a case -by -case basis as determined by the Administrator when a larger
buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This
determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing
that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the
wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the
following criteria:
a. The wetland is used by a state or federally listed plant or animal
species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has
unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor
nesting trees; or
b. The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion -control
measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or
c. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than
30 percent. c
to
0
6. Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when co
all of the following conditions are met: c
a. The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its
habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component
adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a "dual -rated" wetland
with a Category I area adjacent to a lower -rated area.
b. The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher -functioning area of
habitat or more -sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased
adjacent to the lower -functioning or less -sensitive portion as
demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland
professional.
c. The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
IIl, and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
7. Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all
of the following are met:
a. There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be
accomplished without buffer averaging.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 31
Packet Pg. 52
6.A.a
b. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland's
functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a
qualified wetland professional.
c. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required
without averaging.
d. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either 3/4 of the
required width or 75 feet for Category I and II, 50 feet for Category
III and 25 feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.
B. To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the
Administrator may identify and pre -assess wetlands using the rating system and establish
appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The Administrator will prepare
maps of wetlands that have been pre -assessed in this manner.
C. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured
perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a r
wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations o
shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or o
enhanced wetland. Buffers must be fully vegetated in order to be included in buffer area
calculations. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be z°
considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations. ff
D. Buffers on Wetland Mitigation Sites. All wetland mitigation sites shall have
buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter. Buffers shall be based on
the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site.
E. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance
with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced
condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive non-native
weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond (Section XX.070.J.2.a.x).
F. Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers
are outlined in Section XX.070 of this Chapter.
G. Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical
areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies.
H. Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland
buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this Chapter, provided they are not
prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to
minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water,
vegetation, or wildlife.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 32
Packet Pg. 53
6.A.a
2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved
critical area report, including:
a. Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways are limited to
minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They
should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located
only in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the wetland buffer area,
and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be
limited to pervious surfaces no more than five (5) feet in width for
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing non -treated pilings
may be acceptable.
b. Wildlife -viewing structures.
3. Educational and scientific research activities.
4. Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or
private facilities within an existing right-of-way, provided that the c
maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility 9
or right-of-way. 9
5. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural
reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require
tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the
wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water
sources.
6. Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit
portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary,
provided that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to
the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column.
Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the
ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water
down through the soil column would be disturbed.
7. Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of non-native
invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be
restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken
away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on
the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds
must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan
appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species
at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive
plant species.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 33
Packet Pg. 54
6.A.a
8. Repair and maintenance of non -conforming uses or structures, where
legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the
degree of nonconformity.
I. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers:
Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the
clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be
marked in the field with temporary "clearing limits" fencing in such a way
as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is
subject to inspection by the Administrator prior to the commencement of
permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained
throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if
required, are in place.
2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued
pursuant to this Chapter, the Administrator may require the applicant to
install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
T
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and c
attached to a metal post or another non -treated material of equal o
durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one (1) every fifty
(50) feet, or one (1) per lot if the lot is less than fifty (50) feet wide, c
and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The Z
signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved °
by the Administrator:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact [Local Jurisdiction]
Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship
b. The provisions of Subsection (a) may be modified as necessary to
assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Fencing
a. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the
wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may
be introduced on site.
b. Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this
Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species
migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 34
Packet Pg. 55
6.A.a
XX.060 Critical Area Report for Wetlands
A. If the Administrator determines that the site of a proposed development
includes, is likely to include, or is adjacent to a wetland, a wetland report, prepared by a
qualified professional, shall be required. The expense of preparing the wetland report
shall be borne by the applicant.
B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the
accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum:
1. The written report shall include at a minimum:
a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the
wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal;
identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland -related
permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.
T
b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions o
made and relied upon. o
Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field
data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic
data, etc.
d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland
delineations, wetland ratings, or impact analyses, including references.
e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water
bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the
proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate
conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best
available information.
f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project
boundary, provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and
score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.13) of
this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic classification;
wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field
delineation (acreages for on -site portion or estimate entire wetland
area including off -site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation
communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site
assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible,
hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets
(if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the
wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g.,
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 35
Packet Pg. 56
6.A.a
algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates,
classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not
only the portion present on the proposed project site.
g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of
acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field
delineation and survey and an analysis of site development
alternatives, including a no -development alternative.
h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and
buffers resulting from the proposed development.
i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation
sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.070.A) to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas.
j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and a
compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any r
wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land -use o
activity. o
c�
k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that
addresses methods to protect and enhance on -site habitat and wetland
functions.
1. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and its buffer. Include
references for the method used and data sheets.
2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the
written report and must include, at a minimum:
a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and
required buffers on site, including buffers for off -site critical areas that
extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical
areas; grading and clearing limits; and areas of proposed impacts to
wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates).
b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and
outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of
intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall
contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s)
associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 36
Packet Pg. 57
6.A.a
XX.070 Compensatory Mitigation.
A. Mitigation Sequencing. Before impacting any wetland or its buffer, an
applicant shall demonstrate that the following actions have been taken. Actions are listed
in the order of preference:
Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative
steps to avoid or reduce impacts.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance a
operations. r
0
0
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing o
substitute resources or environments.
6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective
measures when necessary.
B. Requirements for Compensatory Mitigation:
Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for
impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent
or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be
consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-
01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Subsection H of this Chapter.
3. Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool
described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation
in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication
#10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with
subsection H of this Chapter.
C. Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall;
address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve
functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version Q
Page 37
Packet Pg. 58
6.A.a
compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when
either:
1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed
compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions
or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through
a formal Washington state watershed assessment plan or protocol; or
2. Out -of -kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet
watershed goals formally identified by the City, such as replacement of
historically diminished wetland types.
D. Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished
wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the approaches listed below.
Wetland mitigation banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation 2
bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service 0
area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a a
wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed c
if: C
to
0
co
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide appropriate
compensation for the proposed impacts; and z°
b. The impact site is located in the service area of the bank.
c. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the certified mitigation bank instrument.
d. Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits is consistent with
replacement ratios specified in the certified mitigation bank instrument.
2. In -Lieu Fee Mitigation: Credits from an approved in -lieu -fee program
may be used when all of the following apply:
a. The approval authority determines that it would provide
environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts.
b. The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions
of the approved in -lieu -fee program instrument.
Projects using in -lieu -fee credits shall have debits associated with the
proposed impacts calculated by the applicant's qualified wetland
professional using the credit assessment method specified in the
approved instrument for the in -lieu -fee program.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 38
Packet Pg. 59
6.A.a
d. The impacts are located within the service area specified in the
approved in -lieu -fee instrument.
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation. In this situation, the permittee performs
the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for
implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible
mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off -site
location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation
shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland professional
demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that the proposed
approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank or ILF program,
consistent with the criteria in this section.
E. Types of Compensatory Mitigation. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland
and buffer functions shall rely on a type listed below in order of preference. A lower- _
preference form of mitigation shall be used only if the applicant's qualified wetland
professional demonstrates to the approval authority's satisfaction that all higher -ranked a'
types of mitigation are not viable, consistent with the criteria in this section. r
0
0
1. Restoration: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological o
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic
functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net c
gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: ?
a. Re-establishment: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historic functions to a former wetland. Re-establishment results in a
gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include
removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.
b. Rehabilitation: The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or
historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a
gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres.
Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a
floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland.
2. Establishment (Creation): The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or
biological characteristics of a site to develop a wetland on an upland or
deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment
results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation
of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod,
create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
a. If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for
expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 39
Packet Pg. 60
6.A.a
authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the
applicant's qualified wetland professional that:
The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site
are conducive for sustaining the proposed wetland and that
creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic
problems elsewhere;
ii. Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the
viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the
presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff,
noise, light, or other impacts); and
iii. The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self-
sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance.
I Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological a
characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific r
function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation o
present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water o
quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat.
Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead z°
to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in
wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation,
controlling non-native or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the
proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination
of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or N
associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will 2
increase the wetland's/buffer's functions, how this increase in function n
will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland D
0
functions at the mitigation site will be protected. a
4. Protection/Maintenance (Preservation). Removing a threat to, or
preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a
wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, or repairing
water control structures or fences. This term also includes activities
commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not
result in a gain of wetland acres. Permanent protection of a Category I or
II wetland and associated buffer at risk of degradation can be used only if:
a. The approval authority determines that the proposed preservation is the
best mitigation option;
b. The proposed preservation site is under threat of undesirable ecological
change due to permitted, planned, or likely actions that will not be
adequately mitigated under existing regulations;
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 40
Packet Pg. 61
6.A.a
c. The area proposed for preservation is of high quality or critical for the
health of the watershed or basin due to its location. Some of the
following features may be indicative of high -quality sites:
i. Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for
western Washington)
ii. Rare or irreplaceable wetland type (for example, bogs, mature
forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands) or aquatic habitat that is rare
or a limited resource in the area;
iii. The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife
species; or also list has provides biological and/or hydrological
connectivity;
iv. Provides biololgical and/or hydrological connectivity;
T
v. Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan. o
to
0
d. Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided
through a conservation easement or tract held by an appropriate natural z°
land resource manager, such as a land trust. r_
e. The approval authority may approve other legal and administrative
mechanisms in lieu of a conservation easement if it determines they are
adequate to protect the site.
f. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation
generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case -by -case
basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being impacted and the
quality of the wetlands being preserved. Ratios for preservation as the
sole means of mitigation generally start at 20:1.
F. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall
generally be conducted within the same sub -drainage basin and on the site of the
alteration except when the applicant can demonstrate that off -site mitigation is
ecologically preferable. The following criteria will be evaluated when determining
whether the proposal is ecologically preferable. When considering off -site mitigation,
preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an
in -lieu -fee program, or advance mitigation.
There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage
basin (e.g., on -site options would require elimination of high -functioning
upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub -drainage basin
do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the
capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 41
Packet Pg. 62
6.A.a
include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer
conditions and required widths, available water to maintain anticipated
hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood
storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife
impacts (such as connectivity);
2. On -site mitigation would require elimination of high -quality upland
habitat.
3. Off -site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved
wetland functions than the altered wetland.
4. Off -site locations shall be in the same sub -drainage basin unless:
a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or
conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established c,
by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site;
or a
T
0
b. Credits from a state -certified wetland mitigation bank are used as 9
compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the 9
certified bank instrument;
c. Fees are paid to an approved in -lieu -fee program to compensate for the
impacts.
5. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be
appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore,
compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or
enhancement of an atypical wetland.
G. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory
mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will impact wetlands. At the
least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and
prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation
projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.
The Administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in
completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation
when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified
wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate
rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that
could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction
difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing
plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater
survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate
hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 42
Packet Pg. 63
6.A.a
delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the
public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written
justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude
implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification
must be verified and approved by the City.
H. Wetland Mitigation Ratios 3:
Category and
Creation or
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Type of Wetland
Re-establishment
Category I:
Not considered
Bog, Natural
possible
Case by case
Case by case
Heritage site
Category I:
Mature
6:1
12:1
24:1
Forested
Category I:
Based on
4:1
8:1
16:1
functions
Category II
3:1
6:1
12:1
Category III
2:1
4:1
8:1
Category IV
1.5:1
3:1
6:1
L Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an
alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance Wetland Mitigation in
Washington State Parts I and II (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a-b, Olympia, WA,
March 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the "credit/debit" method
developed by the Department of Ecology in Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report, (Ecology
Publication #10-06-011, Olympia, WA, March 2012, or as revised).
3 Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through
creation or re-establishment. See Table 1 a, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State — Part 1: Agency
Policies and Guidance —Version 1, (Ecology Publication #06-06-011 a, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as
revised). See also Paragraph DA for more information on using preservation as compensation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 43
Packet Pg. 64
6.A.a
J. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or
buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall
be required, meeting the following minimum standards:
Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must
accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include
the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland
Reports (Section XX.060.13) of this Chapter.
2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report
and plan sheets that contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full
guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2:
Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-
01 lb, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised).
a. The written report must contain, at a minimum:
The name and contact information of the applicant; the name,
T
qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) c
of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the o
proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation
concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal c
wetland -related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity Z
map for the project. °
ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to
avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands.
iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to
be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime,
vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and
functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by
Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of
this Chapter.
iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including
location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of
existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and
uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils,
landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions.
Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation
actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress
through natural succession?).
V. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an
analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for
enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 44
Packet Pg. 65
6.A.a
Include illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic
conditions were used to determine the estimates of future
hydrologic conditions
vi. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of
wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall
goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the
targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and
categories of wetlands.
vii. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities
and timing of activities.
viii. Performance standards (measurable standards for years post -
installation) for upland and wetland communities, a monitoring
schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by
year.
ix. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect
wetlands after the development project has been implemented, c
including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for o
remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). co
X. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project,
including the following elements: site preparation, plant
materials, construction materials, installation oversight,
maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual
monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for
a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring.
xi. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and
buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation
areas.
b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain,
at a minimum:
i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed
areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed
wetland and/or buffer compensation actions.
ii. Existing topography, ground -proofed, at two -foot contour
intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any
grading activity is proposed in the compensation area(s). Also
include existing cross -sections (estimated one -foot intervals) of
wetland areas on the development site that are proposed to be
altered and for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer
compensation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 45
Packet Pg. 66
6.A.a
iii. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including
future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by
dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water
regimes.
iv. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed
compensation areas. Also identify any zones where buffers are
proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards
identified in this Chapter.
V. A planting plan for the compensation area, including all species
by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of
plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering
patterns, total number of each species by community type, and
timing of installation.
K. Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a minimum Z
1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from ' a
development.
T
0
O
L. Protection of the Mitigation Site. The mitigation area and any associated o
buffer shall be located in a critical area tract or a conservation easement consistent with
Chapter XX.XX.
e
M. Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to
establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five
years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be
required for ten years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring
elements that ensure certainty of success for the project's natural resource values and
functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the
applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions
until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.
N. Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre -identified impacts to
wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented
according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality
regulations consistent with Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-
Responsible Mitigation (Ecology Publication #12-06-015, Olympia, WA, December
2012).
O. Alternative Mitigation Plans. The Administrator may approve alternative
wetland mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority
restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative
mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of wetland
functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter.
The Administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative
mitigation proposal:
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 46
Packet Pg. 67
6.A.a
1. The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland
Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington)
(Ecology Publication #09-06-32, Olympia, WA, December 2009).
2. Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open
space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas.
3. Mitigation according to Section E is not feasible due to site constraints
such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards.
4. There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the
proposed mitigation site.
5. The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving
compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan
shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in Section J.
T
CD
6. The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the o
proposed use. o
c�
7. A wetland of a different type may be justified based on regional needs or
functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or
eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental
alternative.
8. Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in
Section J.2.a.viii.
9. Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare
the plan.
10. The City may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over
the critical areas during the review to assist with analysis and
identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately
safeguard critical areas.
XX.080 Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement
A. When a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Chapter, all
ongoing development work shall stop, and the critical area shall be restored. The City
shall have the authority to issue a "stop -work" order to cease all ongoing development
work and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or
other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this
Chapter.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 47
Packet Pg. 68
6.A.a
B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain
stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall
be prepared by a qualified professional using the currently accepted scientific principles
and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in
Subsection C below. The Administrator shall, at the applicant or other responsible
party's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate
plans shall be returned to the applicant or other responsible party for revision and re -
submittal.
C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration. The following minimum
performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if the
applicant or other responsible party can demonstrate that greater functions and habitat
values can be obtained, these standards may be modified:
1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall
be restored, including water quality and habitat functions.
2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent a
practicable. c
0
to
3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that c
0
replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types,
sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated Z
at the location of the alteration.
4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of
this Chapter shall be submitted to the Administrator.
D. Site Investigations. The Administrator is authorized to make site inspections
and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The Administrator shall
present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner
before entering onto private property.
E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted
of violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Chapter is
committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any
development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Chapter shall
constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the
statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties
against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter. The civil penalty shall
be assessed at a maximum rate of $XX dollars per day per violation.
2. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties
shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 48
Packet Pg. 69
6.A.a
restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which
the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation
or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the
effectiveness of the restoration action.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 49
Packet Pg. 70
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 50
T
0
O
to
O
r
Packet Pg. 71
6.A.a
Appendix B - Wetland Definitions
(Western Washington)
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 51
0
O
O
Packet Pg. 72
6.A.a
This page is purposely left blank
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Page 52
0
0
w
0
to
Packet Pg. 73
6.A.a
Appendix B — Wetland Definitions
Agricultural Activities, Existing and Ongoing — Those activities conducted on lands
defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops
and livestock, including but not limited to operation, maintenance and conservation
measures of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes
between agricultural activities, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing
serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into
agricultural use are not part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing
when the area in which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural
use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered
in a federal or state soils conversation program.
Alteration — Any human -induced change in an existing condition of a critical area or its
buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to, grading, filling, channelizing,
dredging, clearing of vegetation, construction, compaction, excavation, or any other
activity that changes the character of the critical area.
T
0
Best Available Science — Current scientific information used in the process to designate, 9
protect, or restore critical areas; that is, derived from a valid scientific process as defined 9
by WAC 365-195-900 through 925.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) — Conservation practices or systems of practices
and management measures that:
(a) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by high
concentrations of nutrients, animal waste, toxics, or sediment;
(b) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and ground water flow and
circulation patterns and to the chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics of wetlands;
(c) Protect trees, vegetation, and soils designated to be retained during and
following site construction and use native plant species appropriate to the
site for re -vegetation of disturbed areas; and
(d) Provide standards for proper use of chemical herbicides within critical
areas.
Bog — A low -nutrient, acidic wetland with organic soils and characteristic bog plants, as
described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Buffer or Buffer Zone — The area contiguous with a critical area that maintains the
functions and/or structural stability of the critical area.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 53
Packet Pg. 74
6.A.a
Coastal Lagoon — A shallow body of water partly or completely separated from the sea
by a barrier beach that receives periodic influxes of salt water, as described in
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-29, Olympia, WA,
October 2014).
Critical Areas — Critical areas include any of the following areas or ecosystems: critical
aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically
hazardous areas, frequently flooded areas, and wetlands, as defined in RCW 36.70A and
this Chapter.
Creation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to
develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously
exist. Creation results in a gain in wetland acreage and function. A typical action is the
excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod and
hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species.
Cumulative Impacts or Effects — The combined, incremental effects of human activity
on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the c
effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular o
place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any
resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact c
analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. Z
Development — A land use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of
structures; grading, dredging, drilling, or dumping; filling; removal of sand, gravel, or
minerals; bulk heading; driving of pilings; or any project of a temporary or permanent
nature which modifies structures, land, wetlands, or shorelines and which does not fall
within the allowable exemptions contained in the City Code.
Enhancement — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a wetland to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the
growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for
specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife
habitat. Enhancement results in a change in wetland function(s) and can lead to a decline
in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Examples are
planting vegetation, controlling non-native or invasive species, and modifying site
elevations to alter hydroperiods.
Estuarine Wetland — A vegetated wetland with a water regime that is predominately
tidal, as described in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western
Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-
06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Functions and Values — The services provided by critical areas to society, including, but
not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife
habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 54
Packet Pg. 75
6.A.a
flows, wave attenuation, historical or archaeological importance, educational
opportunities, and recreation.
Growth Management Act — RCW 36.70A and 36.70B, as amended.
Hazardous Substances — Any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material,
substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the
physical, chemical, or biological properties described in WAC 173-303-090 or 173-303-
100.
Impervious Surface — A surface area which either prevents or retards the entry of water v
into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated c
surface area which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an
increased rate of flow from the flow present under pre -development or pre -developed
conditions. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, _
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, 2
gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which a
similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
T
0
In -Kind Compensation — To replace critical areas with substitute areas whose 9
characteristics and functions closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a 9
regulated activity. c
z
In -Lieu -Fee Program — An agreement between a regulatory agency (state, federal, or c
local) and a single sponsor, generally a public natural resource agency or non-profit M
organization. Under an in -lieu -fee agreement, the mitigation sponsor collects funds from
an individual or a number of individuals who are required to conduct compensatory a.
mitigation required under a wetland regulatory program. The sponsor may use the funds
pooled from multiple permittees to create one or a number of sites under the authority of a
the agreement to satisfy the permittees' required mitigation.
0
Infiltration — The downward entry of water into the immediate surface of soil. v
L
0
Interdunal Wetland — A wetland that forms in the deflation plains and swales that are
geomorphic features in areas of coastal dunes, as described in Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State Department of
Ecology. c�
Isolated Wetland — A wetland that is hydrologically isolated from other aquatic
resources, as determined by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Isolated wetlands may perform important functions and are protected by state law (RCW
90.48) whether or not they are protected by federal law.
Mature and Old -Growth Forested Wetland — A wetland having at least 1 contiguous
acre of either old -growth forest or mature forest, as described in Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Washington State
Department of Ecology Publication # 14-06-29, Olympia, WA, October 2014).
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page SS
Packet Pg. 76
6.A.a
Mitigation — Avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts.cc
Mitigation, in the following sequential order of preference, is: D
as
(a)
Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action;
L
O
(b)
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking a
affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
(c)
Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and v
habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the c
affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation
of the project;
a�
x
(d)
Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action;
a
(e)
Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, c
and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing 9
substitute resources or environments; and G
c�
(f)
Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial Z
action when necessary. 0
c�
Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.
Monitoring — Evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological,
hydrological, and geological elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of
required mitigation measures through the collection and analysis of data by various
methods for the purpose of understanding and documenting changes in natural
ecosystems and features. Monitoring includes gathering baseline data.
Native Vegetation — Plant species that occur naturally in a particular region or
environment and were present before European colonization.
Off -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas away from the site on which a critical
area has been impacted.
On -Site Compensation — To replace critical areas at or adjacent to the site on which a
critical areas has been impacted.
Ordinary High Water Mark — That mark which is found by examining the bed and
banks of water bodies and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so
common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, that the soil has a
character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation.
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 56
Packet Pg. 77
6.A.a
Preservation — The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland
conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This term includes the purchase of land or
conservation easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural
protection. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres but may result in a
gain in functions over the long term.
Project Area — All areas, including those within fifty (50) feet of the area, proposed to be
disturbed, altered, or used by the proposed activity or the construction of any proposed
structures. When the action binds the land, such as a subdivision, short subdivision,
binding site plan, planned unit development, or rezone, the project area shall include the
entire parcel, at a minimum.
Prior Converted Croplands — Prior converted croplands (PCCs) are defined in federal c
law as wetlands that were drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated, a
including the removal of woody vegetation, before December 23, 1985, to enable =
production of an agricultural commodity, and that: 1) have had an agricultural
commodity planted or produced at least once prior to December 23, 1985; 2) do not have a'
standing water for more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season, and 3) have
T
not since been abandoned. c
to
0
Qualified Professional — A qualified professional for wetlands must be a professional
wetland scientist with at least two years of full-time work experience as a wetlands o
professional, including delineating wetlands using the federal manual and supplements, r_
preparing wetlands reports, conducting function assessments, and developing and °
implementing mitigation plans. 2
Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former
wetland. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a former wetland and results in a gain in
wetland acres and functions. Activities could include removing fill, plugging ditches, or
breaking drain tiles.
Rehabilitation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions and processes of a
degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result
in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect
wetlands to a floodplain or returning tidal influence to a wetland.
Repair or Maintenance — An activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design
of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged
condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the
original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter critical areas are not
included in this definition.
Restoration — Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including:
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 57
Packet Pg. 78
6.A.a
(a) Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat,
or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an
unauthorized alteration; and
(b) Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics
of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management
activities, or catastrophic events.
SEPA — Washington State Environmental Policy Act, 43.21C RCW.
Service Area — The geographic area within which impacts can be mitigated at a specific
mitigation bank or an in -lieu -fee program, as designated in its instrument.
Soil Survey — The most recent soil survey for the local area or county by the National
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Species — Any group of animals or plants classified as a species or subspecies as
commonly accepted by the scientific community.
T
0
Species of Local Importance — Those species of local concern designated by the City in Q
Chapter XX.XX due to their population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. 9
Species, Listed -- Any species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act or state
endangered, threatened, and sensitive, or priority lists (see WAC 232-12-297 or page 6 of
"Priority Habitat and Species List," Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2008,
Olympia, Washington. 177 pp.)
Stream — An area where open surface water produces a defined channel or bed, not
including irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices, or other
entirely artificial watercourses, unless they are used by salmonids or are used to convey a
watercourse naturally occurring prior to construction. A channel or bed need not contain
water year-round, provided there is evidence of at least intermittent flow during years of
normal rainfall.
Unavoidable Impacts — Adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable avoidance and minimization has been achieved.
Washington Administration Code (WAC) — Administrative rules implementing state
laws.
Wetlands — Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include
those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland 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
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 58
Packet Pg. 79
6.A.a
of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
Wetland of High Conservation Value — A wetland that has been identified by scientists
from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WHNHP) as an important ecosystem for
maintaining plant diversity in Washington State. See hgp://www.dnr.wa.gov/data-
information-natural-heritage-features .
Wetland Mitigation Bank — A site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in
exceptional circumstances, preserved, expressly for the purpose of providing
compensatory mitigation in advance of unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic
resources that typically are unknown at the time of certification to compensate for future,
permitted impacts to similar resources.
Wetland Mosaic — An area with a concentration of multiple small wetlands, in which =
each patch of wetland is less than one acre; on average, patches are less than 100 feet
from each other; and areas delineated as vegetated wetland are more than 50% of the total a'
area of the entire mosaic, including uplands and open water.
T
0
O
to
O
T
Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates Q
Western Washington Version
Page 59
Packet Pg. 80
7/13/2018 Washington State Department of Ecology - Local regulations 6 A b
EAQs: July 2018 modified habitat score ranges
We are modifying the habitat score ranges in the wetland
buffer tables in our Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates.
Q: What are the specific changes being made?
A: Previously, the scores we used to rank low habitat
function was represented by scores of 3-4. Now these scores
are 3-5. Where moderate habitat function used to be 5-7, it is
now 6-7. The buffer widths themselves are consistent with
the Ecology's original wetland buffer tables in Appendices 8-
C and 8-D of Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2:
Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Table
XX.1 values come from the moderate land -use intensity
widths in the Appendix tables. Table XX.3 values come from
the high land -use intensity widths. Where necessary, we are
also making minor changes to the text in the appendices as
well as our Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates.
Q: Why are these modifications necessary?
A: We made the changes based on public feedback and our
own review of the reference wetland data used to calibrate
the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we
needed to make modifications in the grouping of habitat
scores.
Low habitat function was previously represented by a score
of 3 or 4 points and moderate habitat function by 5-7 points.
Detailed analysis of the habitat scores for the 211 reference
wetlands used to calibrate the rating system indicate that
wetlands scoring 3, 4, or 5 points for habitat are similarly
distributed to those that scored <19 in the 2004 version.
Habitat scores of <19 points were considered low in the 2004
rating system. As a result, we need to adjust the wetland
buffer break points in the 2014 habitat scores. The modified
tables now group habitat scores of 3-5 into low habitat
function and scores of 6-7 into moderate habitat function.
Q: What do I need to do?
N
(D
E
a
c
0)
E
r
a
A: If you are a local planner in the process of updating your
https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Regulations/Local-regulations
Packet Pg. 81
7/13/2018
Washington State Department of Ecology - Local regulations
6.A.b
city or county's critical areas ordinance (CAO), we
recommend you use these modified wetland buffer tables in
your update. If you have recently completed your CAO
update, then the wetland buffer tables do not need to be
revised at this time. Depending on your jurisdiction's specific
circumstances, you could consider requiring the use of the
modified tables through an administrative decision. You could
also wait until your next update to adopt the tables.
If you are applying for a permit, check with the jurisdiction
issuing the permit to see which wetland buffer tables are in
effect.
Q: When does the change go into effect?
A: These wetland buffer tables represent our guidance which
is based on the best available science and a moderate risk
approach to wetland protection. You are not required to
adopt them. However, once these tables are posted on our
website, they become our latest guidance.
Q: What if my jurisdiction does not adopt these new
wetland buffer tables?
A: There is no requirement that jurisdictions adopt these
tables. Nor must the tables be adopted by a certain date.
These tables represent our recommendations for a
moderate -risk approach to wetland protection based on the
best available science. We encourage you to adopt these
tables during your next CAO update.
Q: I'm a consultant working on a project for a permit
applicant. Which wetland buffer tables do I use?
A: Check with the jurisdiction issuing the permit to see which
wetland buffer tables are in effect.
Q: Where can I get more information?
A: For more information about the wetland rating system and
analysis of the habitat scores that resulted in the change,
please contact Amy Yahnke (360-407-6527).
a
https:Hecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetiands/Regulations/Local-regulations
Packet Pg. 82
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
6.A.c
Section XX.040 Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands
A.l.d
Do not score 6 or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or
as revised and approved by Ecology)
B.9.a
The wetland is classified as a Category IV or a Category III wetland with a habitat score of 3-5
points, and
XX.050 Wetland Buffers
A. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in
accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the
habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-
029, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be
high.
For wetlands that score 6 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in Table
XX.1 can be used if both of the following criteria are met:
• A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is
protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined
by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The latest
definitions of priority habitats and their locations are available on the
WDFW web site at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phshabs.htm )
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland
and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a
conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified
biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, Table XX.1
may be used with the required measures in Table XX.2 alone. I
1 See discussion in the Introduction, page 12 as to whether this applies in small urban jurisdictions.
July 2018
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 83
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
6.A.c
• All of the measures in Table XX.2 are implemented, where applicable, to
minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.
2. For wetlands that score 3-5 habitat points, only the measures in Table XX.2 are
required for the use of Table XX.1
3. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table XX.2, or is
unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then Table XX.3 must be
used.
4. The buffer widths in Table XX.1 and XX.3 assume that the buffer is vegetated
with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing
buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that
do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the
appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that
adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
July 2018
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 84
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
6.A.c
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is Implemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat
score
3-5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category L•
75
110
225
Based on total score
Category I:
Bogs and
190
225
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category 1:
225
Interdunal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category L•
75
110
225
Forested
Category L•
150
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Lagoons
Category II:
75
110
225
Based on score
Category II:
110
Interdunal Wetlands
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
110
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Lagoons
Category III (all)
60
110
225
Category IV (all)
40
July 2018
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 85
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
6.A.c
Table XX.2 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' 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 ft 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
• Use Low Intensity Development techniques (for more
information refer to the drainage ordinance and manual)
Change in water
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
regime
impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
disturbance
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
July 2018
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 86
July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges
6.A.c
Table XX.3 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
if Table XX.2 is NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT provided
Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat
score
3-5
6-7
8-9
Wetland Category
Category I:
100
150
300
Based on total score
Category 1:
Bogs and
250
300
Wetlands of High
Conservation Value
Category I:
300
Interdunal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I:
100
150
300
Forested
Category L•
200
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Lagoons
Category I1:
100
150
300
Based on score
Category II:
150
Interdunal Wetlands
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category II:
150
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Lagoons
Category III (all)
80
150
300
Category IV (all)
50
July 2018
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Western Washington Version
Ecology Publication No. 16-06-001
Packet Pg. 87
Edmonds Page 1/13
23.50.010 Designation, rating and mapping — Wetlands.
A. Designating Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the approved federal delineation
manual and applicable regional supplements as set forth in WAC 173-22-035, that are inundated or saturated by
V
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. All areas within the city of Edmonds
0
meeting the wetland designation criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas
L
and are subject to the provisions of this title.
x
B. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washingtonpartment of Ecology wetland rating
2
system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology
Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for
a
determining whether the criteria below are met. Wetlands shall be Fa4e l .,,.,...fdiag to the Washington Sta4eWestem
m
Depa-i4ment Eeelagy ��d in the 2014 Washington State Aletland Ra4ing System fef
of wetland ra4ing system
c
Washington Eealegy Publiemian No. 14 06 029. Consistent the
with wetland ra4ing system efiteria and
this daeument, that fer Ainetions highest tetals
M
pafameters within wetlands afe fated eealegieal with paif4 (23 pe
higher) ftmetions 14ew, habitm highest levels,
0
or perfafm eeelagieal asseeia4ed with watef water quality and at
that lewest tetals lawef) flanetieffs lowest
00
T-
whereas wetlands afe fated with paiH4 (15 pain4s of peffafm eealegieal a4
levels. Wetlands that between 16 22 fanetions to
N
are rated with points and points perform ecological at moderate
1,;..1, levels.
0
1. Category I. Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2)
wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage
Proaam/DNR; (3) bogs; (4) mature and old -growth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in
coastal lagoons; (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7)
0
:r
wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) rgpresent unique or
rare wetland tyres; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, (3) are relatively undisturbed andCD
a�
contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level
of functions.
c
ca
2. Category 11. Category II wetlands are: (1) estuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine
wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands;
or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points).
c
3. Category III. Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16
0
E
and 19 points); (2) can often be adequatelyplaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and (3) interdunal
W
wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in
o
some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than
Category II wetlands.
m
E
4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and
are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve.
m
However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any case. These wetlands
ys
Q
may provide some important functions, and should be protected to some degree.
5. Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the
0.
applicant or with the applicant's knowledge.
a
Iq
ategafy 1 Wetlands. Ga4egefy 1 wedands afe those tha4 fepr-esent a unique or- r-afe wedand type; afe
m
E
t
0
attribu�es thm are impossible to F-eplaee within a hufnan lifetifne; or- provide a high level of flanetion. The - �°
fellewing t5Tes of wetlands are Gmegei=y 1:
i. r.�
Relatively undistff-bed estuarine wetlands larger- than „ _
E
t
V
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 88
Edmonds Page 2/13
ii. Wetlands of high conservation valtie that are identified by seientists of the Washington Natwal '@
V
Heritage 0
•L
U
begs; c
O
Wetlands with mature and „l,l growth forests larger- thanoneaere; 0)
C
•L
• , 2
2
vi. Wetlands that perform funetions at high levels as indieated by a score of 23 points or more base
fitneti
IL
C. Date of Wetland Rating. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the wetland exists on the date of adoption
of the rating system by the local government, as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes
in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications.
D. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of wetlands are shown on the city of Edmonds critical areas
inventory. In addition, the National Wetlands Inventory and Soil Maps produced by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas.
The inventory and cited resources are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds, project applicants, and/or
property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do
not provide a final critical area designation.
E. Delineation. The exact location of a wetland's boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field
investigation by a qualified professional wetland scientist applying the approved federal wetland delineation manual
and applicable regional supplements. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall
determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary.
F. Lake Ballinger. Lake Ballinger is designated on the U.S. National Wetlands Inventory as a lacustrine (lake)
environment and should not be delineated as a wetland in its entirety. Lake fringe wetlands existing along the
periphery of Lake Ballinger shall be identified according to specific criteria provided in this section. Consistent with
guidance for delineating lake fringe wetlands provided in these resources, the existence of jurisdictional wetlands
along Lake Ballinger shorelines shall be largely based upon the presence of persistent emergent vegetation in
shoreline areas less than 6.6 feet in depth. Provisions for protection of Lake Ballinger shorelines not meeting criteria
for jurisdictional wetlands are provided in the city of Edmonds shoreline master program.
G. Edmonds Marsh. The city has a 23-acre Edmonds marsh wetland which in addition to a wildlife habitat and
natural resource sanctuary is also classified by the state as a priority habitat.
H. Other Significant Wetland.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 89
Edmonds
Page 3/13
1. Good Hope Pond.
2. Mouth of Shell Creek. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
V
Part II. Allowed Activities — Wetlands
c
C
0
c
23.50.020 Allowed activities — Wetlands.
The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands in addition to those activities listed in, and consistent with, the
x
provisions established in ECDC 23.40.220, and do not require submission of a critical areas report, except where
2
such activities result in a loss to the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include:
.0
IL
A. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife that does not entail
changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland.
B. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided
the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by
0
changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.
00
C. Drilling for utilities under a wetland; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to
T_
0
r_
the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are
C
necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down
w
through the soil column could be disturbed.
D. Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive species. Weeding shall be restricted to
hand removal and weed material shall be removed from the site. Bare areas that remain after weed removal shall be
revegetated with native shrubs and trees at natural densities. Some hand seeding may also be done over the bare
areas with native herbs. Noxious weeds listed on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list must be
m
handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species.
E. Permitted to legally buffer thM does
ca
alteration a construeted stnaeture eXisting witliifi awetland arwetland fiat
increase the footprint development iwiper-vieus increase the impaet to buffef..
m
of or surfacing or awetland or -wetland
[Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004].
Part III. Additional Report Requirements — Wetlands
23.50.040 Development standards — Wetlands.
A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not
degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas.
B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this title.
C. Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I wetlands, except as provided for in
the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this title.
D. Category II Wetlands. With respect to activities proposed in Category II wetlands, the following standards shall
apply:
1. Water -dependent activities may be allowed where there are no practicable alternatives that would have a less
adverse impact on the wetland, its buffers and other critical areas.
2. Where non -water -dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that alternative locations are
available, and activities and uses shall be prohibited, unless the applicant demonstrates that:
a. The basic project purpose cannot be accomplished as proposed and successfully avoid, or result in less
adverse impact on, a wetland on another site or sites in the general region; and
b. All alternative designs of the project as proposed, such as a reduction in the size, scope, configuration,
or density of the project, would not avoid or result in less of an adverse impact on a wetland or its buffer.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 90
Edmonds
Page 4/13
E. Category III and IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be
permitted in Category III and IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical areas
report and mitigation plan.
F. Wetland Buffers.
1. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best
available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by
qualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington:
2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by).The adjacent land
use intensity is assumed to be high_
a. For wetlands that score 6 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in subsection F.l.e can be
used if both of the following criteria are met:
i. A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the
wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife.
The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat
by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement.
Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option
for providing a corridor is available, subsection F. Le may be used with the required measures in
subsection F.l.f alone.
ii. The measures in subsection F.l.f are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of
the adjacent land uses.
b. For wetlands that score 3-5 habitat points, only the measures in subsection F.l.f are required for the
use of subsection F. Le
c. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in subsection F.l.f, or is unable to provide
a protected corridor where available, then subsection F.l.g must be used.
d. The buffer widths in subsection F. Le and subsection F.l.fg assume that the buffer is vegetated with a
native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely
vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should
either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure
that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.
e. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection FIX is Implemented and
Corridor Provided
uffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score
W to or
U-5
6-7
8-9
Category I:
Based on total score
75
110
225
Category
Bogs and wetlands of
190
225
high conservation value
a
m
N
M
c
0
a�
m
_
m
_
0
w
0
c
m
c
m
E
Q
d
0
a
0
L
a
c
m
E
z
M
Q
m
E
z
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 91
Edmonds
Page 5/13
Category I:
75
110
225
Forested
Category I:
225
Interdunal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I:
150
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Lagoons
Category 11:
75
110
225
Based on score
Category II:
110
Interdunal wetlands
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category
110
II: Estuarine and
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Coastal Lagoons
Category III (all)
60
110
225
Category IV (all)
40
f. 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 lightsaway from wetland
Noise
• Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland
• If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation
planting adjacent to noise source
• For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially
disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish
an additional 10-foot heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately
adjacent to the outter wetland buffer
Toxic runoff
• Route all new, untreated runoff away_ from wetland while ensuring
wetland is not dewatered
• Establish covenants limitinguse se of pesticides within 150 feet of
wetland
• Apply integ ax ted 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
• Use low intensity development techniques (for more information
see stormwater ordinance and manual)
Change in water regime
• Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from
impervious surfaces and new lawns
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 92
Edmonds
Page 6/13
Pets and human disturbance
• Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer
edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for
ecoregion
• Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract to protect with a
conservation easement
Dust
• Use best management practices to control dust
g. Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington if subsection F.l.f is NOT Implemented or
Corridor NOT provided
FVM
r Buffer Width (in Feet) Based on Habitat Score
Wetland.Category3-5
6-7
8-9
Category I:
100
150
300
Based on total score
Category I:
Bogs and wetlands of
250
300
high conservation value
Category I:
100
150
300
Forested
Category I:
300
Interdunal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category I:
200
Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores
Lagoon
CategoryII:
100
150
300
Based on score
CategoryII:
150
Interdunal wetlands
(buffer width not based on habitat scores)
Category
150
II: Estuarine and Coastal
(buffer width not based on habitat scores
Lagoons
Category III (all)
80
150
300
Category IV (all)
50
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 93
Edmonds
Page 7/13
A
Minimum ]R-iMr--
3 A habitat points)
Q ••{Y'••vancc-F- Width
�' is l
Buffer Width
anTsQBiz T-
�' s)
IRmf{'••vmxcr- idr`r17..741.
(Wetland SQoriTO
habitat points)
Gateger��
Based M tota-1 wore
�5-€t
' 5
i-s €
Category 1:
Begs and wetlands of high
.1.
190 €1
190
190 €1
t1
ter:
Ferested
7- A
104
165
Category 1�
i38
13A €t
i 5o
;1 50 €t
Gategefy M
7-5-ft
i05
165
225€t
f
69 A
104
165
165 4
Category IV 1H4
49-A
49-A
49-€t
49-A
2. Required Measufes to Minimize impacts to Wetlands. The standard wetland buffer- widths in s4seetion
(F)(1)(d) of this section assumes implementation of the following measures, where applicable to a specific
proposal:
Q
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 94
Edmonds
Page 8/13
Dust Use best managementpraee el .7..
DisfuPtion of e0fridars or Maintain oonnostiong to off gite area.. that an.,
3. Increased Wetland Buffer Widths. The director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the
recommendations of an experienced, qualified professional wetland scientist and the best available science on a
case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values based on site -
specific characteristics. This determination shall be based on one or more of the following criteria:
a. A larger buffer is needed to protect other critical areas;
b. The buffer or adjacent uplands has a slope greater than 15 percent or is susceptible to erosion and
standard erosion control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland; or
c. The buffer area has minimal vegetative cover. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing
buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and
implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan in accordance with this subsection (17)(3) may
substitute.
d. The wetland and/or buffer is occupied by a federally listed threatened or endangered species, a bald
eagle nest, a great blue heron rookery, or a species of local importance; and it is determined by the director
that an increased buffer width is necessary to protect the species.
4. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in
the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland
alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced
wetland.
5. Buffer Consistency. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this
chapter.
6. Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this title, wetland buffers
shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. Removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for
the duration of the mitigation bond.
G. Wetland Buffer Modifications and Uses.
1. Where wetland or buffer alterations are permitted by the city of Edmonds, the applicant shall mitigate
impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland acreage and functions consistent with ECDC 23.50.050 and other
applicable provisions of this title.
2. At the discretion of the director, standard wetland buffers may be averaged or reduced when consistent with
all criteria in this subsection (G). Wetland buffer averaging with enhancement shall be preferred over wetland
buffer reduction with enhancement. Wetland buffer reduction shall only be approved by the director when
buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site.
3. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging with Buffer Enhancement. The director may allow modification of a
standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical areas report and the best available
science on a case -by -case basis by averaging buffer widths. Any allowance for averaging buffer widths shall
only be granted concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for
areas of buffer degradation. Only those portions of a wetland buffer existing within the project area or subject
parcel shall be considered the total standard buffer for buffer averaging. Averaging of buffer widths may only
be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that:
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 95
Edmonds
Page 9/13
a. The buffer averaging and enhancement plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will
be:
•L
U
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer o
vegetation is generally intact; or
c
ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is d
inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland; _
b. The wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of
the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places
a
and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places;
c. The total area contained in the buffer area, or the total buffer area existing on a subject parcel for
M
wetlands extending off site, after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within a
3
standard buffer; and 0
d. The buffer width at any single location is not reduced by more than 25 percent to less than 50 peree * of
the standard buffer width.
4. Buffer Width Reductions through Buffer Enhancement. At the discretion of the director, and only when
buffer averaging cannot be accomplished on site, wetland buffer width reductions (or approval of standard
buffer widths for wetlands where existing buffer conditions require increased buffer widths) may be granted
concomitant to the development and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan for Category III and
IV wetlands only. Approval of a wetland buffer enhancement plan shall, at the discretion of the director, allow
for wetland buffer width reductions by no more than 25 percent of the standard width; provided, that:
a. The plan provides evidence that wetland functions and values will be:
i. Increased or retained through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer
vegetation is generally intact; or
ii. Increased through plan implementation for those wetlands where existing buffer vegetation is
inadequate to protect the functions and values of the wetland;
b. The plan documents existing native plant densities and provides for increases in buffer native plant
densities to no less than three feet on center for shrubs and eight feet on center for trees;
c. The plan requires monitoring and maintenance to ensure success in accordance with ECDC
23.40.130(D); and
d. The plan specifically documents methodology and provides performance standards including but not
limited to:
i. Percent vegetative cover;
ii. Percent invasive species cover;
iii. Species richness; and
iv. Amount of large woody debris.
5. Buffer Uses. The following uses may be permitted within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review
procedures of this title; provided, they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in
a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:
a. All activities allowed by ECDC 23.50.020, Allowed activities — Wetlands.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 96
Edmonds
Page 10/13
b. Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the
soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.
L
U
c. Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical
o
area report, including:
a)
c
i. Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are generally constructed with a surface that
d
does not interfere with substrate permeability, are generally located only in the outer 25 percent of
=
wetland buffers, and are located to avoid removal of significant trees. Where existing legally
2
established development has reduced the width of the wetland buffer, trails may be placed in the outer
.0
25 percent of the remaining wetland buffer. The trail shall be no more than five feet in width and for
a
pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable. The director
may allow trails within the inner 25 percent of wetland buffers when required to provide access to
wildlife viewing structures, fishing access areas, or connections to other trail facilities;
M
ii. Wildlife viewing structures; and
00
iii. Fishing access areas down to the water's edge that shall be no larger than six feet.
T_
N
d. Storm Water Management Facilities. Storm water management facilities, limited to outfalls, pipes and
c
C
13
conveyance systems, storm water dispersion outfalls and bioswales, may be allowed within the outer 25
m
N
percent of a standard or modified buffer for Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that:
i. No other location is feasible; and
e
ii. The location and function of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland.
iii. Storm water management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category I or II wetlands.
iv. Projects shall also comply with all applicable requirements in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, Storm Water
Management, including Minimum Requirement No. 8, Wetland Protection.
H. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands.
1. Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland or buffer and the limits of those areas to be
disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to
ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur and is subject to inspection by the director prior to the
commencement of permitted activities. The director may require the use of fencing to protect wetlands from
disturbance and intrusion. Temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be
removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.
2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter, the director
may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.
a. Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel -coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another
nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 50 feet,
whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded
as follows or with alternative language approved by the director:
Protected Wetland Area
Do Not Disturb
Contact the City of Edmonds
Regarding Uses and Restrictions
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 97
6.A.d
Edmonds
Page 11/13
b. The provisions of subsection (H)(2)(a) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection
of sensitive features or wildlife.
3. Permanent Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the
following circumstances; provided, that the director may waive this requirement:
a. As part of any development proposal for single-family plats, single-family short plats, multifamily,
mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to
protect the functions of the critical area; provided, that breaks in permanent fencing may be allowed for
access to permitted buffer uses (subsection (G)(5) of this section);
b. As part of development proposals for parks where the adjacent proposed use is active recreation and the
director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area;
c. When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal;
d. When buffer reductions are employed as part of a development proposal; or
e. At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area.
I. Additions to Structures Existing within Wetlands and/or Wetland Buffers.
1. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that increase the
footprint of development or impervious surfacing shall be permitted consistent with the development standards
of this section; provided, that a wetland and/or buffer enhancement plan is provided to mitigate for impacts
consistent with this title; and provided, that all impacts from temporary disturbances within the critical area
buffer shall be addressed through use of best management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and
following construction of the allowed alteration. Provisions for standard wetland buffers, wetland buffer
averaging with enhancement, and buffer reductions with enhancement require applicants to locate such
additions in accordance with the following sequencing:
a. Outside of the standard wetland buffer;
b. Outside of a wetland buffer averaged (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(3) of this section;
c. Outside of a wetland buffer reduced (with enhancement) per subsection (G)(4) of this section;
d. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 300 square feet
of structure addition footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided,
that enhancement is provided at a minimum three -to -one (3:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact);
e. Outside of the inner 25 percent of the standard wetland buffer width with no more than 500 square feet
of new footprint within the inner 50 percent of the standard wetland buffer width; provided, that
enhancement is provided at a minimum five -to -one (5:1) ratio (enhancement -to -impact), and that storm
water low impact development (LID) techniques and other measures are included as part of the
wetland/buffer enhancement plan.
2. Where meeting wetland buffer enhancement requirements required by subsection (I)(1) of this section would
result in enhancement that is separated from the critical area due to uncommon property ownership, alternative
enhancement approaches may be approved by the director. Alternative approaches could include a vegetated
rain garden that receives storm runoff, replacement of existing impervious surfaces with pervious materials, or
other approaches that provide ecological benefits to the adjacent critical area.
3. Additions to legally constructed structures existing within wetlands or wetland buffers that cannot be
accommodated in accordance with the sequencing in subsection (I)(1) of this section (i.e., additions proposed
within a wetland or the inner 25 percent of a standard buffer width) may be permitted at the director's
discretion as a variance subject to review by the city hearing examiner and the provisions of ECDC 23.40.210.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 98
Edmonds
Page 12/13
J. Development Proposals within the Footprint of Existing Development. New development shall be allowed within
the footprint of existing development occurring within a wetland buffer; provided, that the following conditions are
L
met:
U
1. The footprint of existing development was legally established, and is consistent with the definition provided
c
o
in ECDC 23.40.005;
E
�L
2. The proposed development within the footprint of existing development is sited as far away from the wetland
=
edge as is feasible;
2
3. As part of the development proposal, opportunities to reduce the footprint of existing development are
a
implemented where such reduction would increase the buffer width adjacent to the wetland and not represent
an undue burden given the scale of the proposed development;
4. The proposed development includes enhancement to the adjacent wetland and associated buffer in order to
improve functions degraded by previous development;
C9
00
5. Enhancement is provided as wetland or buffer enhancement for an equivalent area of the footprint of the
T-
N
newly proposed development within the footprint of existing development occurring in a wetland buffer, or
c
through an alternative approach approved by the director that restores degraded functions of the wetland and
C
remaining buffer; and
N
6. Impacts from temporary disturbances within the wetland buffer shall be addressed through use of best
N
management plans and buffer enhancement plantings during and following construction of the allowed
o
alteration.
K. Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands. The followine wetlands may be exempt from the reauirement to
avoid impacts (ECDC 23.40.120.13.1), and they may be filled if the impacts are fully gated based on the
remaining actions in ECDC 23.40.120.13.2 through 6. If available, impacts should be mitigated through the
purchase of credits from an in -lieu fee program or mitigation bank, consistent with the terms and conditions of
the Droeram or bank. In order to verifv the followine conditions. a critical area report for wetlands meeting the
requirements in ECDC 23.50.030 must be submitted.
1. All isolated Category IV wetlands less than 4,000 square feet that:
a. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers
b. Are not associated with shorelines of the state or their associated buffers
c. Are not part of a wetland mosaic
d. Do not score 6 or more Doints for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State
Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as
revised and approved by Ecology)
e. Do not contain a Priority Habitat or a Priority Areal for a Priority Species identified by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat, or
species of local importance identified in Chapter 23.90 ECDC.
2. Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the above criteria and do not contain federally listed species
or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this Chapter.
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 99
6.A.d
Edmonds Page 13/13
provided,the director such wetlands may be altered; that a submitted eritieal areas report and mitigation planV
provides a ,idenee that all of the following conditions ., mete �+
•L
U
1 The wetland ;s loss ♦ha 1,000 feet ; area;
• �
O
z. The wetland doesnotpTv`r"dr, srgi2=crEz3i}tiiilit-&tvalue !_
•L
V
4. The wetland has a soore of thfee to fotw points for habitat in the adopted Western Washington rating system;
and L
IL
m
5. A mitiga4ien plan to replaee lost wetland fu*etiofis and values is developed, approved and implemefi4
eensistent with ECDC 23.50.050. rnr,l 4026 § 1 intt n 2016; Qfd. 3527 > 2, 20041.M
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4110, passed April 17, 2018.
Packet Pg. 100
6.A.e
fortunate that opportunity was available when they wanted to make that move. The economics of families
moving in will provide additional revenue for City. He emphasized the Housing Strategy is a strategy, a lot
of planning will follow. He summarized people are moving here and the City needs to prepare.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there was not much in the strategy about senior housing and
veteran housing. She suggested coalition building to create that type of housing was important. Ms. Hope
responded diverse housing needs includes veterans, seniors, families, etc.
Councilmember Mesaros commented Compass Housing Alliance who is partnering with Edmonds
Lutheran Church on their project have been meeting housing needs in the community for 100 years.
Approximately 12-15 years ago, Compass built a facility specifically for veterans on 200t'', south of Costco
in Shoreline. The firm he was associated with for 22 years helped raise $4 million in private philanthropy
for that facility and the project received a number of government grants. The building looks like a nice,
ordinary apartment building and it is not apparent it is subsidized housing for veterans. He anticipated with
partners like Compass, there will be other quality projects.
Councilmember Teitzel commented he was very partial to the needs of the senior population, noting he was
Medicare eligible. Edmonds has the highest average age in Snohomish County and a lot of seniors want to
age in place in Edmonds. For that reason, he likes the proposal related to ADUs and DADUs which will
enable people to stay in Edmonds.
Councilmember Johnson commented the State of Washington has a deferred tax program for low income
seniors; application forms are available from the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. For anyone having
difficulty paying their utility bills, she suggested contacting the utility for a reduce rate; Edmonds, the PUD
and Snohomish County all have programs.
Mayor Earling asked Ms. Hope to pass on his thanks to the Edmonds Housing Strategic Task Force. He
was encouraged by the draft strategy, noting there was still time in the process to answer questions. He
emphasized this was a strategy, not immediate direction. He recognized the man who spoke tonight who
said he read the entire report and it answered most of his questions. He encouraged the public to take the
time to read the report.
2. SENIOR CENTER LEASE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
This item was rescheduled to the August 7 Council meeting.
3. CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE UPDATE
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed.
• Background
o Completed CAO update in May 2016
o June 2016 Department of Ecology Issues updated Wetland Guidance in Publication No. 16-06-
001
o Updated Wetland Guidance Incorporated into Shoreline Management Program
o Shoreline Management Act vs. Growth Management Act
■ Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA rules
■ Outside of shoreline jurisdiction, the GMA and CAO rule
■ As a result, the City had two wetland regulations, one that applied in shoreline jurisdiction
and one that applied outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o SMP Periodic Review
• SMP Excepted Sections
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 22
Packet Pg. 101
6.A.e
o ECDC 23.50.010.B, Wetland Ratings.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.1, Standard Buffer Widths.
o ECDC 23.50.040.F.2, Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
o ECDC 23.50.040.K, Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands
History Repeats Itself (almost)
o Public Hearing before Planning Board on July 11, 2018 and forwarded recommendation to City
Council to update to the 2016 guidance
o Ecology issues new wetland guidance on July 12, 2018
■ "If you are a local planner in the process of updating your CAO, we recommend that you
use these modified wetland buffer tables in your update."
o Staff is seeking verification of the Council's intent to have the most recent wetland guidance
incorporated within the City's wetland regulations
Ecology 2018 Wetland Guidance
o "We made the changes based on public feedback and our own review of the reference wetland
data used to calibrate the Washington State Wetland Rating System. We knew we needed to
make modifications in the grouping of habitat scores."
Wetland Buffer Requirement Tables
2016
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Im lemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category
3-4
5
6-7
8-9
Category 1: Based on total score
75
105
165
225
2018
Table XX.1 Wetland Buffer Requirements for Western Washington
If Table XX.2 is Im lemented and Corridor Provided
Buffer Width (in feet) based on habitat score
Wetland Category
3-5
6-7
8-9
Category 1: Based on total score
75
110
225
• Does the Council wish to have staff update the wetland regulations consistent with the most recent
wetland guidance from the Department of Ecology?
It was the consensus of the Council that they wanted staff to update the wetland regulations consistent with
the most recent guidance from Department of Ecology.
10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Due to the late hour, this item was omitted from the agenda.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling encouraged the public to attend the Police Department open house on Thursday from 6 to 8
p.m. at the police station. He reported hundreds of people enjoyed the Sand Sculpture Contest at the beach
today. For the first time, he judged the great artwork created by younger participants.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Mesaros reported he also had a delightful time at the Sand Sculpture Contest at Marina
Beach this afternoon. He completed a triathlon on Sunday and came in third out of four in his age group.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 24, 2018
Page 23
Packet Pg. 102
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/22/2018
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Board's current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
08-22-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 103
np EbAf
� -ter OHO
PLANKNO WARD
,ago Extended Agenda
August 22, 2018
Meeting Item
AUGUST 2018
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
August 22 1. SMP periodic Review
2. Public Hearing on Critical Area Wetland Regs.
SEPTEMBER 2018
September 1. Parks and Rec. Quarterly Report
12
September 1.
26
OCTOBER 2018
October 10
1.
Presentation on CIP / CFP 2019 -
2023
October 24
1.
Public Hearing on CIP / CFP 2019
- 2023
NOVEMBER 2018
November 14 1.
November 28 1.
DECEMBER 2018
December 12 1.
December 26 CANCELLED DUE TO HOLIDAY
c
m
a�
Q
a�
c
a�
r
x
w
L
�a
0
m
c
c
a
m
c
a�
a�
a
c
a�
x
w
m
a
CO
0
N
N
N
co
O
r
c
a�
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 104
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2018 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development
strategies
✓ Parking standards
4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable
development
Current Priorities
1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
2. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 105