CITY OF KENMORE WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 04-096

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KENMORE, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING AN INTENT TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 18.55 (ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS) OF THE KENMORE MUNICIPAL CODE.

WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires local governments, by December 1,2004, to designate and classify environmentally sensitive areas, known as critical areas, and to adopt policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas; and

WHEREAS, critical areas include wetlands, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and

WHEREAS. the GMA reauires that local "aovernments include best available science (BAS) in the development of such policies and regulations and give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries (RCW 36.70~.<72;WAC 365-195-900 et seq.); id

WHEREAS, in September 2001, the City executed a contract with Adolfson and Associates to complete a review and update the City's Critical area Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, under this contract Adolfson Associates has worked with staff and prepared draft revised critical area maps (attached as Exhibit A), a dr& review of Best Available Science Memo (attached as Exhibit B) and a draft critical area ordice(attached as Exhibit C) which was submitted to the State Growth Management Act Reviewing Agencies in March 2004; and

WHEREAS, though the City Council has not completed its review of these documents, it has conducted a public hearing and completed several study sessions;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF KENMORE, WASHINGTON

Section 1. The City of Kenmore City Council will strive to complete its work on the review and update of the City's Critical Area Ordinance by March 3 1,2005.

Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a complete and accurate copy of this Resolution to the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development within ten days after passage. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TEIE CITY OF KENMORE, WASHINGTON, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF ON THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2004.

CITY OF KENMORE

~aybrSteven Colwell \

Approved as to form: Michael+ R Keny ity Attorney Exhibit A

w I I KENMORE CRITICAL AREAS Streams

YD"..-l.nlh.-" nn-nua- h.,cr DRAFT STREAMS bL.~-mmww.n.U" mm'db.~I~~d~e.m KENMORE CRITICAL AREAS MAPPING o tam 2000 --*,k,mt -F", CiTY OF KENMORE. WA -.,>--~,"m ~anrnor. str.srns -.- ci~~oundary weuandr (~i~~co. SAO) NOTE: ~'la"dlo~fi~ssm appmximate and are intended f- D,TcH county Boundarv w.a.,d, (NWI - modified) h~nnlngpwposesonly 1 .pEOSTREUIS -Waterbodles Yte specm review wdl muim .m Other Wetlands (Adofson Asroc.) apmrsssnnelrorvey. j -mwm..w.. 3 rrtu.arnnlnm.Pnnr #~.wtc...,db.w.mw- y.~dAM-."-Y.~ WETLANDS h*.a-"#..l.O1lll." DRAFT "..m.""-d...&ILan KENMORE CRITICAL AREAS MAPPING

0.d- CITY OF KENMORE, WA -2,,,-"*.?,w -

MEMORANDUM DATE: Revised March 24,20 P4 TO: Bob Sokol City of Kenmore Plannlng and Commu ity Development Department

FROM: Teresa Vanderburg a Ann Root. Adolfson Associates, Inc. RE: Draft Wetlands, Strea and Geologically Hazardous Areas - Best Available Science Technical

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Adolfson Associates, Inc. prepared this technical memorandum to provide an overview of the "best to the management and protection of critical areas and its as those found in the City of Kenmore (the development and revision of the City's (KMC) Chapter 18.55 - Sensitive Areas Ordinance.

This paper- - discusses the results of thk best available science review for wetlands, streams, and geologic hazard areas and evaluates applicability of the science management and protection of these resources in the City. Adol has based our review of the city environment on a limited reconnaissance of wetlands d streams in the city, existing literature and our local knowledge of the area. Geoengineet , Inc., as a subconsultant to Adolfson, provided information on geologically hazardous areas. I

II Overview of Act Requirements

Rules promulgated Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW regulations that protect the wildlife habitat, flood hazard 1995, the Washington State and cities consider reliable to designate and Division of DraR BAS Technical Memorandum Page 2

The RCW and Washington Administ ative Code (WAC) further state that special consideration must be given to "measures necessa to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries." Consideration for "anadromous" fish pecies refers to those species that reproduce in fresh water and migrate to salt water for some po ion of their life, returning to fresh water. The term "fisheries" commonly refers to stock of fish that are managed for commercial, recreational, cultural, or ceremonial uses (WDFW, 1997). 1.2 Overview of the Cityi qnvironment The City of Kenmore is an urban along the northern shoreline of Lake Washington in King County, Washington. The River flows from east to west through the City to Lake Washington. Swamp through Kenmore from Snohomish County to the south and into the commercial and industrial areas are generally confined to the residential neighborhoods occupy the surrounding areas.

Kenmore city limits are bounded tot e west by the City of Lake Forest Park, to the north by the Snohomish County line, to the east b the City of Bothell, and to the south by unincorporated King County at NE 145th Street and e southern edge of St. Edwards State Park. The shoreline of Lake Washington forms the south estem boundary of the city. Lake Washington, the Sammamish River, and Swamp Cree are the main water features in the City. Along with the Sammamish River, Swamp Creek an Little Swamp Creek have documented salmonid use. In addition, several minor tributaries dr in into Lake Washington and the Sammamish River within Kenmore. 2.0 STATE OF THE SCI INCE FOR WETLANDS AND BUFFERS This section summarizes the state science, or "best available science" for wetlands and wetland buffers. Higher been given to science and research conducted in the Pacific Northwest versus areas of the United States. This information is a summary of existing to be an exclusive list of all best available science currently to provide a brief overview of scientifically and regulatory review. Adolfson has applicable, including relevant studies Recommended Sources for

Scientific research and information to wetland and buffers in the City of Kenmore has been summarized from various primarily in the Pacific Northwest. Research studies cited include Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness Wetlands in Washington State, review also included the best Science: A Review of Dm.@BAS Technical Memorandum Page 3

Literature and Assessntenl of /he Pr osed Critical Areas, Clearing and Grading and Stormwater Ordinances. Public Revrt w Drafl (October 2003). Wetlands provide important functio and values for both the human and biological environment. These functions flood control, water quality improvement, base flow contribution, nutrient This section builds on the existing information regarding wetlands in the City Sensitive Areas Ordinance by discussing in greater detail relevant research functions and values, as well as the challenges of managing and developed areas such as those found in Kenmore.

2.1 Wetland Definition

Wetlands are formally defined by th Corps of Engineers (Corps) (Federal Register, 1982), the Environmental Protection Agency ( PA) (Federal Register, 1986), the Washington Shoreline Management Act (SMA) (1971) and the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) (1992) as "... those areas that are in ndated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, a d that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for li e in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar eas" (Federal Register, 1982,1986).

In addition, the SMA and the include those artificial wetlands intentionally i site, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and created after July 1, 1990 that were unintentionally a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created from non-wetland areas to of wetland is used in the Washington Department of Ecology to the state manual as required by the GMA. 2.2 Wetland Functions a t d Values Wetlands are integral parts of the na ural landscape. Their "functions and values" to both the environment and to the general pub1 c depend on several elements including their size and location within a basin, as well as th ir diversity and quality. While each wetland provides various beneficial functions, not all etlands perform all functions, nor do they perform all functions equally well (Novitski et a ., 1995). Several studies have found that wet1i d functions and values are compromised by urbanization (Azous and Homer, 2001; Mitsch d Gosselink, 2000; Castelle et al., 1992a; May et al., 1997; Booth, 2000; City of Portland, 2001 . In urban settings individual functions of wetlands may not be optimally functioning. For exami le, wetlands can provide significant stormwater control, Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 4 even if they are degraded and compri e only a small percentage of area within a basin. Also, wetlands are important elements of s eam systems and fish habitat. Within the urban environment, even degraded wetland can provide rearing and refuge habitat for fish and other wildlife, along with other benefits to eeping streams healthy. The functions i values have been identified et al., 1979; Adamus et al., 1987; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Hruby, Cooke, 1995). These functions include: Flood water Stream base flow maintenanc and groundwater support; Shoreline protection; t Water quality improvement; Biological support and wildliI e habitat; and Recreation, education, and op1 n space. 2.2.1 Flood Water A nuatlon and Flood Peak Desynchronization

Flood water attenuation and flood + desynchronization can be aided by a wetlands ability to control flood water and to slowly release it to adjacent water bodies and/or groundwater (Novitzki, 1979; Veny nd Boelter, 1979 in Mitsch and~osselink,2000). A wetlands effectiveness in controlling ood waters is based on factors such as the storage capacity and outlet discharge capacity of the etland relative to the magnitude of stormwater inflow (Marble, 1992; Reinelt and Homer, 1 91). Forested and scmb/shmb wetlands are particularly effective in flood water attenuation d e to surface roughness. The loss of wetland systems in urbani areas affects their function in attenuating stormwater runoff, resulting in increased flood fr(:quency and higher peak flood flows in drainage basins (Azous and Homer, 2001; Mitsch anc Gosselink, 2000; Booth, 2000). Reduced flood storage capacity can be partially replaced thrc~ughwetland restoration, stormwater control facilities, or the use of isolated, degraded, and low-value wetlands as stormwater facilities. However, even in basins where flood storage has been rnaintained, discharge volumes from detention facilities in areas with moderate to high levels of impervious surface are still substantially higher than in less- urbanized or natural environments because of reduced rainfall infiltration into pervious soils (Booth, 2000). Further, increased discharge to wetlands can alter the hydrodynamics and hydroperiod (the pattern of fluctuatin~water levels) in a wetland, resulting in substantial modifications to plant and animal communities adapted to pre-existing hydrologic conditions (Azous and Homer, 2001). For exam ~le,wetlands with natural functioning hydroperiods are more likely to provide quality amphittian habitat than those altered by urbanization; hydroperiods altered by urban runoff can result in excess flooding, increased flood frequency, or dtying of wetlands, which can be harmful or le ha1 to amphibians and their eggs (Richter et al., 1991). Dra8 BAS Technical Memorandum Page 5

2.2.2 Maintenance o{ Stream Baseflow

and recharge groundwater by retaining large quantities of water and slowly or groundwater (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Erwin, 1990). In aquifer recharge are lacking, while the contribution of has been well documented. to stream flow-sensitive salmonids baseflow during the dry and Gosselink, 2000). For the headwaters of or have the best

2.2.3 Shoreline Proti ction Wetlands associated with waterbodi serve to provide physical protection for the shoreline of that stream, river, or lake. velocity, vegetative structure, root soil-binding properties, and substrate type in wet1 ds influence the effects of water-related erosion in adjacent water bodies (Carter, 1986; eta]., 1979; Sather and Smith; 1984; Brinson, 1993). The erosion control finction effective in floodplain wetlands where velocities are slow and vegetation is Wetlands in basins that have relatively undeveloped shorelines and stream woody vegetation along the Ordinary High Water Mark extend more than 200 to 600 feet from the OHWM provide and erosion control (Hmby et al., 1999; Cooke, 2000). 2.2.4 Water Quality l t provement Removal of sediment and pollutants !mm storm water are important water quality functions of wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 20C0; Cooke, 1995). A wetland's ability to perform water quality improvements can depend on the wetland's size, location within the basin, vegetation community structure, and productivity (Ecology, 1996; Marble, 1992). The vegetative structure of wetlands slows the flow of water, :ausing sediments, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, petroleum products, h metals, pesticides, and herbicides to settle out of the water column. Particulates are rem through settling, and then stored in wetland sediments (Ecology, 1996; Sather and Smith, . Forested areas store greater amounts of nutrients for longer periods but generally offer I e area contact to water flow, where dense emergent vegetation creates frictional resistance to water flows, takes up nutrients rapidly, and releases them seasonally (Ecology, 1996). Or the other hand, wetlands have limits to the amount of sediments, nutrients and toxicants tht:y can assimilate, and these will be transported out of the wetland once a wetland reaches holding capacity (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Ecology, 1996). Draff BAS Technical Memorandum Page 6

Alteration of wetlands eliminates or reduces their ability to process sediment, nutrients, and chemicals. In urbanized watersheds, pollutant concentrations in wetlands are generally higher than those in undeveloped watershed, (Horner et al., 1996). An increase or decrease in sedimentation rates can result from s vere water fluctuations, and can limit denitrification and phosphorous retention (Ecology, 199 ). Most studies have focused on a wetland's ability to treat mnoff, and few have directly addresstd the impacts of urban mnoff on water quality in the wetlands themselves. In addition, sedimentation and pollutants are found to have a negative effect on invertebrates, amphibians, nd fish, particularly salmonids, in riparian wetlands, urban streams, and lakes (Booth, 2000; Ma et al., 1997; Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; Schueler, 1994). 2.2.5 Wildlife HabitatI and Biological Support Wetland habitats generally provide al and plant diversity, edge habitat between uplands and aquatic zones, a variety of fora redictable water source which increases wildlife species abundance and di uffman et al., 2001; O'Connell et al., 2000). Many species of waterfowl, amphibians d some species of fish and mammals (such as muskrat) depend on wetlands for eding, and refuge. It has been found that wildlife species richness increases when wounded by natural undisturbed upland habitat (WDFW, 1992; Richter and A us and Homer, 2001; Hmby et al., 1999). Wetlands and surrounding up1 ialized habitat and wildlife linkages for special status species such as enda posed, candidate, sensitive, monitor, and species of local importance ,2000; Hmby et al., 1999). Wetlands provide biological support that they provide food and resources for aquatic and wetland-de~endentorganisms. Both vegetation and upland forest habitats are highly productiveior food (Hru yet al., 1969), and together can contribute up to 99pekent of the energy in aquatic food webs ( udd et al., 1987). These food sources are especially important for fish that feed on both t rrestrial and aquatic insects, which in turn feed on organic matter exported from adjacent ripari areas (including wetlands) (Cummins, 1974 and Gregory et al., 1991 in City of Portland, 2001 Higgs et al., 1995). 2.2.6 Recreation, EdiI cation, and Open Space In urbanizing areas, aquatic resource adjacent uplands provide opportunities for greenways and open space. In Kenmore, adjacent uplands provide important resources for wildlife viewing, passive about natural wetland-upland ecosystems.

2.3 Wetland Functional Methods

As described above, the functions and their assigned human-based values have been identified and studies (Cowardin et al., 1979; Adamus et al., 1987; et al., 1979; Cooke, 1995). Several to identify functions Dmfl BAS Technical Memorandum Page 7 performed in a wetland and evaluate effectiveness of the wetland in performing that function. Some methods are quantitative, whil are qualitative. The Reppert method is a qualitative nctional assessment based on vegetative and wetland habitat features. and uses the wetlan kclassification svstem adopted bv the USFWS. A semi- quantitative assessment method eveloped by Cooke in 1996, and was based on the Reppert method. Quantitative include the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrogeomorphic based upon geomorphology (i.e., position in the landscape) and 1993; Brinson, 1995). In 1996, Ecology began the State Wetland Function Assessment Method (WFAM) project. The new method, which was published in 1999, is a modified version of the to provide a more scientifically based method for The Washington Department of Transportation assessments for linear projects (Null et al., method. Both the WFAM and the WDOT

2.4 Wetland Rating Syst4 m Wetlands are typically ranked for p based upon size and habitat and their relative functions and values. functioning wetlands or larger high quality wetlands are considered a than lower quality smaller wetlands with lesser functions. In the of Ecology (Ecology) has developed a wetland rating importance. This rating system is Washington (Publication distinct categories; from value. Category I and IV I1 and 111 wetlands are semi-quantitative

Other rating systems have also successfully to rank wetlands according to relative function and values. For has used a three-tiered system based on wetland functions and size. the old King County system does provide a valid system for quality for regulatory purposes. As noted in the King valid ways to classify wetlands for ecological and considered the optimum at this time by the City of more comprehensive Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 8

2.5 Functions and Values of Wetland Buffers

Wetland buffers are vegetated upla as immediately adjacent to wetlands. These areas provide beneficial functions that e and protect the many functions and values of wetlands described above. A scientific lite view indicates that the required buffer width necessary to protect a given habitat functio p of functions depends on numerous site-specific factors. These factors include mmunity (species, density, and age), aspect, slope, and soil type, as well as adjacent I body of science indicates that the appropriate buffer width for a given wetland is s environmental setting and functions to be achieved by that buffer.

Buffer areas retain sediments ticides, pathogens, and other pollutants that may be present in runoff (Ecology, 1 n of sediment and pollutant discharge to wetlands prevents alterations to plant unities and degradation of water quality in wetlands. Buffers also inc tlands to further provide sediment and pollutant removal as a result. Up1 water, reducing the effect of water level fluctuations within wet1 th forest and shrub plant communities provide shade, which in turn m

Several literature reviews have been ublished summarizing the effectiveness of various buffer widths, mainly for riparian areas, but lso for wetlands (Castelle et al., 1992a; Castelle and Johnson, 2000; Desbomet et al., 199 ;FEMAT, 1993; McMillan, 2000). Generally, the riparian buffer literature also applies to wet1 ds because riparian buffers and wetland buffers provide very similar functions. However, the effects of buffers on streams and fish habitat differ from the effects on wetlands. Buffers provide ea over which sediment or pollutant removal can occur, and for flood flow attenuation.

Wildlife species that use wetlands fo a portion oftheir life cycle also depend on terrestrial habitats for food, cover, nesting, i corridors. A variety of wildlife species utilize the edge habitat between wetlands Terrestrial habitat areas provide a source of large woody debris used by and cover (O'Comell, 2000). Buffers provide separation between This distance improves the quality of wildlife habitat human motionlactivity upon animal species sensitive

Most studies indicate that buffers ranking from 50 to 200 or more are necessary to protect wetlands, depending upon the specific function of the buffer (Castelle et al., 1992; Sheldon et al., 2003). Buffer width ranges of 100 to 150 feet wide provide most (on the order of 80 percent) of potential functions in most situations. In several of these studies, the relationship between buffer width and effectiveness is logarithmic:, so that after a certain width an incremental increase in buffer width provides diminishing fu~lctionaleffectiveness. One study indicates that 90 percent of sediment removal can be accomplished within the first 100 feet of a riparian buffer, but an additional 80 feet of buffer is needed to remove just five percent more sediment (Wong and McCuen, 1982). However, studies stow that wildlife responses to human disturbance are varied and a buffer of 100 to 150 feet may nlt provide enough separation or protection in some cases (Knutson and Naef, 1997). Rather, hildlife use of wetland and riparian buffers is highly Drafl BAS Technical Memorandum Page 9 dependent upon the species in nand site-specific characteristics (i.e., type of wetland, geographic setting, etc.). A feet more from the aquatic resource has been documented in the scientitic appropriate for some wildlife species (Knutson and Naef, 1997). 2.6 Wetland Mitigation I The Clean Water Act Section 404(b 1) Guidelines for wetland mitigation require "no net loss" of wetlands by first avoiding, minim zing, rectifying, and reducing impacts to wetlands and their functions. Where loss ofwetland ac eage and/or functions is necessary, replacement or compensatory mitigation should be quired. Most local jurisdictions require compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands a d/or their buffers resulting from development or associated activities. Jurisdictions generally all w four types of mitigation: creation, restoration, enhancement, and exchange (Gwin al., 1999). The different types of mitigation are generally considered to be in-kind (replaceme t of same functions and acreage as the impacted wetland) and are typically constructed on the evelopment site where the wetland impact occurred. 2.6.1 Wetland and BiI ffer Mitigation Success Many wetland mitigation projects not been successful for various reasons and have resulted in lost functions (Castelle et al., 1992b; Ecology, 2001; Mockler (Castelle et al., 1992b) reported that 50 percent or did not meet permit requirements. Cpmmon

Inadequate design; Failure to implement the des'k n (not constructed); Lack of propei maintenance, 1 ite infestation by exotic species; Grazing by geese or other an Destruction by floods, or other catastrophic events; and Failure to protect projects fr on-site and off-site impacts such as sediment and pollutant loading. OF A predominant problem mitigation sites is the invasion ofthe site by non- native plant species. at least 50 percent of species in mitigation sites were non-native (Magee et al., 2001). Mitigation areas that were not protected by upland buffer had a larger and long-term maintenance of sites resulted in lower percentages of also found mitigation areas to be functionally different net loss of function and, in some cases, net loss of wetland to replace lost wetlands does not actually create new of existing wetlands to compensate for acreage and possibly Orat BAS Technical Memorandum Page 10

Twenty-four mitigation sites in were analyzed by Ecology and found that although mitigation success has 10 years, there is still much room for improvement. For example, the that only 29 percent of the projects were achieving all specifications projects were found to be minimally successful or not of created wetlands were moderately or fully water quality and quantity functions. including emergent and open water very difficult or impossible to

Ecology (2001) concluded that better site selection, design and performance standards will help to improve wetland consistent follow-up [adaptive management], both to correct problems with to provide feedback for decision-making on future projects, will result in Most successful projects had long-term monitoring of at least strategies. Many other studies support long-term (at (Kentula, 2002; Kusler and Kentula, 1990).

The literature indicates that on-site, i -kind mitigation is desirable and can be most successful at replacing lost wetland functions. The literature is conflicting on whether on-site mitigation or off-site mitigation can adequately co pensate for loss of wetlands and their functions (Erwin, 1990; Castelle et al., 1992a; Kusler, 1 92). However, Kusler (1992) suggests that in cases where there are many small isolated wetland and compensatory mitigation has been determined to necessary, off-site mitigation may be ore successful at replacing lost wetland acreage and functions, because replacement of the e small wetlands is difficult to achieve. More functional benefit may be reached through large mitigation areas that meet watershed-level needs of the hydrologic and ecological system (Ku ler, 1992; Ecology, 200 1). 2.6.2 Mitigation Ratioii Generally, wetland mitigation is imp1 mented over a larger area than the wetland area adversely affected by a proposed project. Mitig tion ratios are typically greater than 1:l for several reasons, some of which are based on ience and others, which are policy-driven. Higher ratios act as disincentives to fill wetlands. ey provide an opportunity to achieve certain hnctions over a larger area, thus compensating or a temporal loss of function from the smaller but presumably more mature impact site. In addition they compensate for the inability to achieve full replacement acreage of lost wetlands Ecology, 2001; Kusler and Kentula, 1990; Sheldon et al, 2003)). Several authors and agencies have 1 various replacement ratios (Castelle et al., 1992b; OCD 2002). Most ratios failures of compensatory mitigation and designed to compensate for Studies of the success of mitigation projects suggest that success could be between 3:l and 1.25:l. Mitigation in westem Washington currently range Areas Ordinance (2002) Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 1 f

Category I wetlands - 6:1 Category 11 wetlands - 3:1 Category I11 wetlands - 2: l Category IV wetlands - 1.5: 1 2.7 Functions and Value t of Wetlands and Buffers in Kenmore The City of Kenmore has GIS info on critical areas, including wetlands, from King County. The initial information on the King County Wetland Inventory (1990) and King County Sensitive Areas behalf of the City, Adolfson conducted a limited wetland inventory in 2001 to size and characteristics within the city limits (Adolfson, 2002).

The largest and highest value in the City are associated with Swamp Creek. These wetlands are located within floodplain and are important resources for flood storage and peak flow attenuation. migration zone for Swamp Creek lies almost entirely within associated wetlands, Creek No. 3 (as defined in the 1990 King County Wetland Inventory). In has been limited within the naturnl flwdway of the streams, and a high level of stormwater control. Prior to diking and development, th wetlands adjacent to the Sammamish River provided significant stormwater as well as contributing to base flows. The river was channelized in 1964 provide irrigation. The former floodplain limited functions and values due to their

However, some are located at the mouth on the southbank near the Inglewood Golf Course.

One wetland with peat soils, a form lies on the southenunost edge of the City near NE 145" Street near Juanita. This area for peat until operations were ceased. Remnants of bog community area, although the wetland has been significantly altered and

In general, many of the City's wet1 lie within developed areas, and have degraded and narrow buffers. Many buffers are with non-native plant species such as Himalayan blackbeny, English ivy or plants. Many wetlands and their buffers could be enhanced for wildlife species and replanting with natives.

Although some areas are and wetland buffers do support wildlife habitat within the City limits. A is established in Swamp Creek wetlands (Swamp Creek No. 3) north of SR 522. This rookery has rookeries remaining in King for nest and roost sites and Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 12 productive areas for forage for wildlif species is limited, but is mainly present in riparian and wetland areas. I

3,O STATE OF THE SClE ICE FOR STREAMS 81 RIPARIAN AREAS

This section summarizes the state of 1 ,e science, or "best available science" for streams and riparian areas. As previously discussi i under wetlands, this information is a summary of existing literature and is not intended o be an exclusive list of all best available science currently published on streams. The purpose ir to provide a brief overview of scientifically valid information that would be useful for I ~calplanning.

Stream systems are one of the most p ~ductivenatural ecosystems. Riparian areas play a significant role in the protection of th functions of adjacent aquatic habitats. Both provide important habitats for aquatic species ind other wildlife as well as contribute to recreation, water supply, economic, cultural and histor : values. Specific stream functions are discussed in the following section.

3.1 Functions and Values of Streams

Elements necessary for healthy salmc lid populations and for other aquatic organisms rely on processes sustained by the dynamic i~ teraction between the stream and the adjacent riparian area (Naiman et al., 1992).

Maintaining stream baseflow

Maintaining water quality;

Providing in-stream structura diversity; and

Providing biotic input of inse ts and organic matter.

3.1.1 Stream Flow

Stream flow is the amount and veloc ty of water flowing in a stream. Urbanization changes the volume, rate, and timing of water flc ving through stream systems, which can impact the physical characteristics of the stream channel Booth, 1991). Stream degradation has been associated with the quantity of impervious surface ir a basin (Booth, 2000; May et al., 1997; Homer and May, 2000). Studies in Puget Sound lowla ~dstreams show that alteration can occur in basins with as little as 10 percent total impervious I aface. However, dramatic effects can be seen relative to discharge in basins where impervioi surface exceeds 40 percent (May et al., 1997). In addition, medium-sized flood events in model ltely urbanized watersheds are found to have peak-flow increases of two to three times the a, ~ountof runoffthan non-urbanized watersheds (Booth et al., DmR BAS Technical Memorandum Page 13

2000). Increases in peak flow are m re apparent as smaller, more frequent floods relative to larger floods (Booth et al., 2001).

Stream flow or discharge has a signi influence on salmonids during their various life stages. The quantity of stream water example, require to other salmonids, and thus, Reaches of streams that are for these species. While low flows can also affect both riparian areas during areas and be stored for during the

3.1.2 Water Quality

Low stream temperature and high quality are critical elements of essential habitat for all native salmonid fish. Good water is also important to other aquatic species adapted to living in Pacific Northwest important for salmonids in particular are: I) water temperature, 2) concentrations.

Water temperature is an important of water quality for most aquatic organisms. The general range of temperatures requ rt healthy salmonid populations is generally considered to be between about 39 F (NMFS, 1996; USFWS, 1998). Cutthroat trout have the highest range of temperat nces of native salmonids (Pauley et al., 1989 in City of Portland, 2001). Above 63' F, salmonids begin to exhibit stress that may cause sublethal effects including reduce nd overall survival. Riparian vegetation, particularly forested riparian areas, can affect erature by providing shade to reduce solar exposure and regulate high ambient air tem meliorating water temperature increases (Brazier and Brown, 1973; Corbett and

Dissolved oxygen is one of the most nfluential water quality parameters for stream biota, including salmonids (Lamb, 1985). e most significant factor affecting dissolved oxygen levels in most streams is temperature, with ooler waters maintaining higher levels of oxygen than warmer waters (Lamb, 1985). Other actors that can contribute to oxygen levels includes water turbulence (the amount of aeration) a d biochemical oxygen demand created by organic decomposition from natural organic aterials and pollution. Nutrients may originate from human-induced sources such as fertil zers,.pet waste, and septic systems, or from natural processes such as decomposing alga or dead plant materials that fall into streams (Lamb, 1985).

Common pollutants in urban areas lude nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, pesticides, bacteria, and miscellaneous isuch as PCBs and heavy metals. Impervious surfaces collect and concentrate pollutants different sources and deliver these materials to streams during rainstorms. In general, of pollutants increase in direct proportion to total impervious area (May et al., riparian areas can retain sediments, nutrients, Drafl BAS Technical Memorandum Page 14

pesticides, pathogens, and other pollu that may be present in runoff, protecting water quality in streams (Ecology, 2001; City of 2001). Elevated nitrogen and phosphorus levels in runoff are a typical problem in They can lead to increased in-stream plant growth, which results in that consumes oxygen in streams and reduces aquatic habitat and hydrocarbons are often transported with sediments. Heavy (PCBs), and other contaminants may be toxic to fish and 3.1.3 In-stream Struc1 ural Diversity There are several general habitat ele that support many species of salmonid fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service 1996) and U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 1998) have developed guidelines physical habitat elements necessary to support healthy salmonid populations conditions. These physical habitat elements are: 1) stream substrate, 2) pool 3) floodplain connectivity.

Stream substrates such as sands, silts and woody debris materials provide nutrients, habitat structure and spawning areas for fish. The redistribution of stream substrate through bank erosion and is a natural occurrence and is necessary to maintain clean, sediment-free displacement of gravel resulting from natural redistribution or source of new material. In general, armoring of the supply of gravel and LWD (May the stream environment (for debris adds roughness to the (Shimell, 1990). Because more benefit as large woody

In urban basins, increases in quantities and velocities can cause scouring that can displace stream substrates, reduces the quality and quantity of spawning areas (May et al., 1997). Scouring can runoff from impervious surfaces and from increases in velocities as a (straightening) and the removal of streamside vegetation. Increased surfaces can also flush spawning gravel from streams (Bledsoe and Watson, 2001).

Movement of the stream channel, un ercutting of banks, windthrow, and flood events are all methods of recruitment of woody de ris to the stream. However, when riparian areas have been cleared and developed, and the strea bank stabilized for development, there is little large woody debris available for recruitment (Ma et al., 1997). Man-made features such as culverts or bridges, which restrict the ability oft e stream to pass woody debris downstream, also hinder recruitment. Many authors have foun that more than half of all large woody debris recruitment is from within 15 feet of streams, an about 90 percent comes from trees growing within about 50 feet of streams (Murphy and Kos i, 1989; McDade et al., 1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990). ! Drai? BAS Technical Memorandum Page 15

The quantity and quality of pools within a stream provide habitat variety for aquatic organisms including fish. Large, with cover provided by woody debris, overhanging vegetation, or other features such more habitat value than smaller, shallow pools (May et al., 1997). require pools with sufficient depth and cover to protect them migration. Adult salmon often hold in pools during

Pools, although important for most of salmonid fish, are just one type of habitat that salmonid fish require. Multiple niche separation to occur so multiple populations of fish with similar habitat Rimes provide habitat for many of the aquatic insects that rearing and create turbulence that contributes to increase stream dissolved of urbanizing basins found that, for multiple reasons cutthroat trout densities may actually increase compared to more diverse pristine systems (May et al., 1997).

Connectivity of streams to their floodplains is an important habitat feature. Off-channel wetlands and side channels in areas provide foraging habitat, over-wintering habitat, and rehges for 1989; City of Portland, 2001). These areas also have high for juvenile fish to forage and grow before outmigrating areas indicate that off-channel habitat and refugia 2001). Causes of this loss include channel wetland areas. 3.1.4 Biotic Input 1 Riparian areas provide food for salm nids, both directly and indirectly (Meehan et al., 1977). Insects falling from overhanging veg tation provide food for fish. Most juvenile salmonids that rear in streams prey on aquatic inve ebrates and terrestrial insects that fall into streams fmm overhanging vegetation (Homerand ay, 1999; May et al., 1997). In some streams during the summer, an estil~ated50 percent of e diet ofjuvenile salmonids is comprised of terrestrial insects (City of Portland, 2001). i 3.2 Stream Classificatio i Systems Similar to wetlands, streams within City should be classified relative to one another according to higher or lower values so that regulatory standards may be tailored to the protection of actual Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) currently uses to rank streams according to function and value. This ranking 5 waters. Until state-wide fish habitat water type maps are to the interim water typing system. Type S (Shorelines of the 2 and 3), Type Np (non-fish seasonal streams -Type 5). in the Critical Areas Drafl BAS Technical Memorandum Page 16

Assistance Handbook: Protecting Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. An stream classification system should include elements of the DNR system, which all streams in the State of Washington, and should distinguish between those salmonids and other fish and those that are not fish-bearing. Local stream classification systems that use best available science, be clearly and easily interpreted by the public. 3.3 Function and Values t f Riparian Buffers In a document prepared by the state, utson and Naef (1997) summarize many of the functions of ri~arianbuffers for Washinaton. Puffer widths rewrted to be effective for rioarian functions va~considerab~~.The wide reported effective buffer widths indicates ;hat site-specific factors are important in he outcome of each study. However, the literature is not definitive in identifying one buffer for each function studied (~ohnsonand Ryba, 1992). Further, there is little research on buffers in urban environments (Herson-Jones et be viewed mainly as guidelines, as the literature shows that buffer effectiveness just as much as buffer width (Naiman et An overall conclusion of the revie ientific literature is that buffer widths required to protect a given habitat function or f functions depends on numerous site-specific factors (Knutson and Naef, 1997). The i e of riparian functions can vary by stream size and channel width. For example, sm er tributary streams are strongly influenced by riparian vegetation, where such rovides shading of waters and contributes large amounts of organic material, w ures in larger streams below headwaters benefit less fmm overhanging vegetation. I as located on steep slopes andlor highly erodible soils, larger buffers may be ap uce risks of erosion and delivery of fine sediment to streams.

Studies of buffer widths adequate to oderate stream temperatures generally range from 35 to 150 feet (Knutson and Naef, 1997). uch of the variability in the literature is related to the presence or absence of a mature tree anopy. For example, forested buffers of 75 to 100 feet were found to provide 60 to 80 perce t of the shade conditions in fully forested watersheds (Brazier & Brown, 1973; Steinblums et al., 1984). Recommended buffer widths for ient and pollutant retention vary from 15 to 860 feet (Knutson and Naef, 1997). This is due in general to the particular pollutant being evaluated. Buffers of 50 to 100 substantial pollutant removal benefits, and can remove 75 to 80 percent of on site-specific conditions and buffer type (Lynch et al., 1985; & McCuen, 1982; Castelle et al., 1992). removal efficiencies of 75 are required on steeper slopes to Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 17

Riparian vegetation may contribute to 90 percent of the biotic input in stream systems (Budd et al., 1987). Recommended maintenance of benthic communities range from 33 feet to greater than 100 feet. studies found that buffers of 100 feet were necessary maintain healthy benthic et al., 1977; Newbold et al., 1980; Castelle & Johnson, 2000). Riparian buffer widths for wildlife vary greatly depending on individual wildlife species, but are generally on the order of feet (Knutson and Naef, 1997). Studies have found that a buffer of 100 feet is macroinvertebrate diversity (Gregory et al., 1980); buffers of 200 feet many amphibian species (Richter et al, 1991). Larger riparian buffers of to provide adequate migration corridors for certain species of wildlife mammals). Quality of the buffer can also be a significant factor in habitat. For example, buffer zones comprised of native snags, and down logs provide habitat for the greatest The Washington Department of Fish for the state's five-tier stream Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 18

Table 1. Riparian abitat Area Buffer Recommendations: Washingtont Department of Fish and Wildlife I Stream Type 1 I Recommended Rlparlan Wldth 1 I I Type I& 2, shorelines of statewide si$nlficance 250 feet I Type 3 or other perennial or flsh bearing streams, 5-20 feet 200 feet wide Type 3 or other perennial or fish bearing streams, less than 150 feet 5 feet wide Type 4 and 5 (low mass wasting potential) 150 feet I Type 4 and 5 (high mass wasting potebtial) 225 feet I Source: OCD,2002; for definitions of the swam kpes wc lhc Washington Adminirlrativc Code Scctionr 222-16-030 and 03 I. 3.4 Stream Management In Urban Environments Many recent studies have focused on general effects of urbanization on streams in the lowland Puget Sound region (Booth, Homer and May, 1999). In these studies, a general trend has emerged that places a great on evaluation of buffer effectiveness in the context of other watershed processes of landscape-level alterations to watersheds, including stormwater runoff (Roni et al., 1996). The loss or disturbance of native riparian area is closely tied (Horner and May, 1999; Leavitt, 1998). However, water quality have also been associated with stream degradation and impacts impacts of impervious area and water quality functions are areas (Bledsoe and Watson, 2001; May et al., 1997).

In most urban areas, prescriptive bu may not be adequate to restore streams because most of the functions of buffers have been by past land use actions. For example, restoration of the natural woody function of riparian areas is difficult in areas that lack mature forested 2000). New watershed-based strategies may need to be water quality, and riparian functions land use controls, and When applied in the context of protection, enhancement, and restoration of stream systems.

Barriers like culverts and structures can inhibit fish migration and prohibit

salmonid fish and accessibility of habitat and at a nominal cost (Roni et al., pool frequency, high woody Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 19 1 3.5 Fisheries Habitat andlsalrnonid Use in the City of Kenmore

The City of Kenmore is located in watershed, which is referred to as the Water Resources Inventory Area 8 Kenmore city limits include the shoreline of Lake Washington, the Creek, Little Swamp Creek, Muck Creek and other smaller Washington. Lake Washington, the Sammamish River ofthe state9'due to their size (lakes greater feet per second (cfs). city. Stream

The City of Kenmore is located at th northem tip of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is an approximately 21,500 acre freshwat r lake, the largest lake in King County, Washington (Williams et al., 1975). The average depth of the lake is 108 feet with a maximum depth of 218 feet. The water level in Lake Washi gton is controlled by the Corps of Engineers at the Hiram Chittenden Locks in Ballard; the lak level is approximately 21 feet above the mean lower low tide mark in Puget Sound. Constmc ion of the Ship Canal is 1916, lowered the lake nine feet to its present day level.

Water quality in Lake Washi proved since the 1960s when sewage was diverted away from the lake in an e i water quality and reduce blooms of blue-green algae. However, Lake Washington i listed on the Department of Ecology's Final 1998 303(d) List for exceedances of water ndards for fecal coliform bacteria (Ecology, 2002). In 1999, City staff noted bl n algae in the vicinity of Kenmore Air Harbor and reported these to Ecology.

Numerous fish species, andlor anadromous fish, are documented to use Lake Washington. Many sal ake Washington for rearing habitat and migratoly corridors. Chinook salmon, a d threatened species in the Puget Sound, may be present year round rearing in hington. However, Chinook do not spawn in the lake or the Sammamish River. ington have shown that juvenile salmonids were most often associated nes immediately along the lakeshore.

The Sammamish River flows from to west through the City of Kenmore from River Mile (RM) 0 to approximately RM 2. River is formed at the outlet of Lake Sammamish where it flows in a before discharging into Lake Washington (Williams et al., 1975). The the entire Sammamish River to aid in flood control in 1964. in the 1870's to 1964 reduced the drainage to its present length (Kerwin, 2001). Flow in the Sammamish (Bothell) varied between Drat BAS Technical Memorandum Page 20 I I approximately 50 and 630 cfs e years of 1991 through 1994. This is the closest monitoring station to the City maintained on the Sammamish.

The Sammamish River is listed on 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for temperature, fecal colifom, and dissolved (Ecology, 2002). The river has been identified in the past as "water quality along 47 percent of its length, including the portion of the river 1994). Exceedances of water quality standards in the months.

The extensive water regime and cha el modifications have resulted in existing habitat conditions not historically present in e Sammamish River system. Channel modifications have greatly reduced the floodplain connec ivity and cut off many smaller streams resulting in the loss of refugia andlor forage areas (Kerwi ,2001). Williams (1975) states that the lower portion of the Sammamish River is "utilized on1 as transportation and rearing water" for salmonids. Fish species potentially present in T River include 11 species of native anadromous and resident fishes. species that may be present include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), tshmvy~scha),chum salmon (0. keta), coho salmon (0. (0.nerka), pink salmon (0. gorbuscha), Other anadromous species such as

salmonids within the city.

3.5.3 Swamp Creek I The mainstem of Swamp Creek is 15 miles in length, flowing from Lake Stickney in Snohomish County to the The average annual discharge rate of Swamp Creek is approximately (cfs). Winter storm flows in the lower main stem of Swamp Creek County at greater than 1,000 cfs. This high flow rate during storm development in the upper watershed and increases in drainage basin. Swamp Creek flows to as Swamp Creek No. 3 located

Swamp Creek in Kenmore has a hist of flooding that has increased in frequency and severity over the ~astten to twentv. -vears as of urbanization in Snohomish County. The city has pursued flood reduction studies and discussions to address this problem in the city (Kato & Warreflransystems, 2000). to solve flooding problems are currently being evaluated by the City. include replacement of the 73" Avenue Bridge, purchase of private flood proofing homes along Swamp Creek, removal of (Kato & Warreflransystems, 2000).

Swamp Creek is listed on the Final 1 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform (Ecology, Historically, water quality has been poor in Swamp Draff BAS Technical Memorandum I Page 21 I I Creek. Sampling conducted by County in 1993 found that water samples taken throughout the watershed water quality standards for metals, particularly copper, mercury, and lead Management Committee, 1994). The 1994 Salmon and Steelhead et. al, 1994) indicates that incidents of chemical Washington Department of low flows in Swamp Creek fish production in the Lake Washington basin (WDFW, 1994).

Chinook salmon and other are expected to be present at least occasionally in Swamp Creek. No of migratory fish within Swamp Creek in the City of Kenmore. salmon in December 2000 in Swamp Creek Public Utility Tolt No. 2 Water Supply line. mainstem of Swamp Creek (Williams et. al, 1998 by a joint team including King County, the Muckleshwt lndian Tribe found no Creek within the county (Carrasco et al., by King County (Mavros et al., 2000).

3.5.4 Little Swamp ~teek Little Swamp Creek flows into Creek at approximately rivermile 0.8 at approximately NE 182"* Street. This creek is referred to as "Horseneck Creek." This perennial stream is anticipated to salmonids including anadromous fish. A culvert exists on Little Swamp Avenue NE; however, this does not likely prevent fish passage upstream from

3.5.5 Muck Creek 1 Muck Creek is a tributary to Swamp reek that drains a low, wetland area between 68Ihand 71'' Avenues NE. Muck Creek originate at a man-made channel flowing east along the noflhem boundary of Kenmore Mini Storage, ast of 68lh Avenue NE (Kato & WarrenlTransystems, 2000). The creek passes through se ral culverts prior to joining Swamp Creek at approximately 300 feet east of 73" Avenue NE. se culverts are considered partial blockages for the passage of salmon. However, salmonids hav been found in Muck Creek according to King County. 3.5.6 Unnamed Strei4 m 0056 The Unnamed Stream 0056 is a sma'l perennial tributary to Lake Washington that flows parallel to 61" Avenue NE (Williams et. al, :975). This stream does not provide habitat for anadromous salmonids, including Chinook or othzrs, due to the presence of a large concrete weir that blocks fish passage at the mouth of the stream. The stream enters Lake Washington over a concrete spillway near the Harbor Village Cox dominiums and marina immediately east of Tracey Owen Park. Stream 0056 is currently conv:yed under SR 522 in a concrete box culvert. The stream is conveyed through numerous culvert i:rossings north of SR 522. The stream is known to contain a I

DraR BAS Technical Memorandum Page 22 i remnant population of resident cutthr at trout but no anadromous or migratory fish have access to the stream due to the weir at the m 4uth. No water quality information is know on Unnamed Stream 0056. However, due to the urban nature of its drainage basin, it is like1 that road runoff and urban pollutants compromise water quality. 3.5.7 Other Minor Tri ?iutaries The City contains that are tributaries to the Sammamish River, there are remnant portions of previously existing presence or absence of fish within these drainages are too steep to support fish populations.

3.6 Functions and Values of Streams & Riparian Areas in Kenmore

The City of Kenmore has recently its stream inventory. Streams were mapped using GPS units and characterized as pe r season in flow (Adolfson, 2001).

The major rivers, streams and lak ide habitat for salmonids, including anadromous or migratory species. Lake Washin amish River, Swamp Creek, Little Swamp Creek and Muck Creek provide habitat sand migratory species. In addition, Stream 0056 provides habitat for resident cu -stream habitat structure available in the City includes substrate, LWD, pool uency, and refugia All species of salmonids present in Kenmore streams re I to spawn, and under natural conditions, bank erosion and channel movemen gravel, providing new gravel for spawning. Salmon spawning is not preva e to its position in the lower watershed; rather, most of the waterbodies provi g and migratory corridors for anadromous fish traveling between the Puget S ibutaries in the upper watershed.

Riparian stream buffers in the City 01 Kenmore are varied in width and condition depending existing development and location in the city. Typically, the headwater and upper portions of streams in Kenmore have intact, foreited buffers. This is partly due to their location (steep hillside slopes), which are less appea ing to development. However, in the lower sections of the streams, urbanization has encroached upon or reduced the riparian zone, and the ability of buffers to perform functions such as large wc~odydebris recruitment or water quality improvement have been compromised. The buffer widths (where they exist) in the lower reaches are not adequate enough to promote large woody debr s recruitment, and in many areas the dominant vegetation along the streams are non-native plar ts such as reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry that inhibit growth of more desirable nati~eplant species. Draft BAS Technical Memorandum Page 23 i 4.0 STATE OF THE SCI NCE FOR GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS

This section summarizes the state science, or "best available science" for geologically hazardous areas, including areas, landslide hazard areas, and seismic hazard areas. Geo Engineers, as a reviewed the geologic resources in the City using best professional developed a map of geologically hazardous areas for the knowledge of the area and includes revisions from review of development permits was gathered.

A list of citations were then reviewe the principal source of currently published scientifically valid information, or "Best Availabl to help delineate geologically hazardous areas in the City of Kenmore, Washington Because the growth and development of new scientific information is an list should be considered to be current in the present time frame and 5.0 DATAGAPS I Two data gaps were discovered in th preparation of this study. The first is the lack of best available science literature pertainin to urban watersheds and the buffers needed to protect environmentally sensitive areas in th Pacific Northwest.

The second data gap is the lack of i and specific information on a majority of Kenmore's streams and their associated The actual presence or absence of fish use, specifically salmonids, is Drat Wldtife BAS Technical Memorandum Page 24 I1

6.0 REFERENCES

6.1 Wetlands and Streams

Bjorn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. abitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. In Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of Forest nd Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries 4 ociety Special Publication 19. Bledsoe, B. P., and C.C. Watson. 200 Effects of Urbanization on Channel Instability. Journal of American Water Resources Volume 37.

Bolton, S. and Shellberg, J. 2001. Ec ogical Issues in Floodplains and Riparian Corridors. Center for Streamside Studies, of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Booth, D.B. 1991. Urbanization and e Natural Drainage System-Impacts, Solutions, and Progress. Northwest Environm Journal 7(1): 93-1 18.

Booth, D. B. 2000. Forest cover, imp mious-surface area, and the mitigation of urbanization impacts in King County, Washi gton. Prepared for King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. i Brazier, J.R. and G.W.Brown. 1973. Strips for Stream Temperature Control. Research Paper No. 15, Forest State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 9 pp.

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. onolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements - A Review. J. Qual. 23378-882. Castelle, A.J., and A.W. Johnson. . Riparian Vegetation Effectiveness. NationalCouncil for Air and Stream Bull. No. 799.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, Metz, S. Meyer, and M. Witter. 1992a. Wetland Buffers: An Annotated Biblio Publ. 92-1 1. Adolfson Assoc., for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Manage. Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, .D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Publ. 92-10. Adolfson Assoc., for Coastal Zone Manage. Program, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

City of Portland. 2001. Streamside and an Inventory of Significant Riparian and Wetland Resources. Discussion Portland, Oregon Bureau of Planning. Draff Wildfife BAS Technical Memorandum Page 25 i Corbett, E.S. and J.A. Lynch. 1985. of Streamside Zones on Municipal Watersheds. pp. 187-190. In R. R. Johnson, Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Riparian Ecosystems and Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian

Available online at:

Gregory, S.V. 1980. Effects of Light, utrients, and Grazing on Periphyton Communities in Streams. Ph.D. thesis. University, Corvallis, OR. 151 pp.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. ee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An Ecosystem Perspective of Riparian Zones: Focus on Land and Water. BioScience 41 :540-551. Herson-Jones, L.M., M. Heraty and Jordan. 1995. Riparian Buffer Strategies for Urban Watersheds. Metropolitan hington Council of Governments, Publ. No. 95703, Washington, D.C.

Homer, R.R., and C.W. May. 1999. Study Supports Natural Land Cover Protection as Leading Best Management P Maintaining Stream Ecological Integrity. Comprehensive Stormwater Ecosystem 1999 - Conference Papers Vol. 1:233- 247, Feb. 22 - 26, 1999,

Homer, R.R., and C.W. May. May. 2 0. Watershed Urbanization and the Decline of Salmon in Puget Sound streams. Center Urban Water Res. Management, University of Washington, Seattle.

Johnson, A.W., and D. Ryba. 1992. Literature Review of Recommended Buffer Widths to Maintain Various Functions Stream Riparian Areas. King County Surface Water Management Division,

Kenvin. 2001. Salmon Habitat Limiti g Factors Report: WRIA 8. Washington State Conservation Commission, Olympia WA.

King County. 2003. Best Available A Review of Literature and Assessment of the Proposed Critical Grading and Stormwater Ordinances, Public Review Draft (October). Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle,

Knutson, K.C. and V.L. Naef. 1997. agement Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian. ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. Lamb, J. C. 1985. Water Quality and Its Control. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York. Larson, M. 2000. Effectiveness of Woody Debris in Stream Rehabilitation Projects in Urban Basins. Center for Urban Management. Oraff Wfdlife BAS Technical Memorandum Page 26

Leavitt, J. 1998. The functions of ripa ian buffers in urban watersheds. Masters Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle, Washi Igton. Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Ilem. 1985. Best Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint-Source Watersheds. J. Soil Wat. Conserv. 40:164-167.

May, C.W., R.R. Homer, J.R. Karr, B . Mar, and E.B. Welsh. 1997. Effects of Urbanization on Small Stream in the Puget Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques, 2:483-494.

May, C.W., E.B. Welch, R.R. Karr, and B.W. Mar. 1997. Quality Indices for Urbanization Effects Lowland Streams. Wat. Res. Tech. Rep 154. Washington McDade, M.H.,F.J. Swanson, W.A. Kee, J.F. Famklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source Distances for Coarse Woody Debris Small Streams in Western Oregon and Washington. Can. J. For. Res. 20:326-330.

McMillan, A. 2000. The Science of Buffers and its Implicationsfar the Management of Weflands. Masters Thesis, State College and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Meehan, W.R., F.J. Swanson, and 1977. Influences of Riparian Vegetation on Aquatic Ecosystems with to Salmonid Fishes and Their Food Supply. USDA Forest Service MR-43. Contributed paper, Symposium on the of the Riparian Habitat, July 9, 1977, Tucson Arizona.

Murphy, M.L. and K V. Koski. and Depletion of Woody Debris in Alaska Streams and Implications for N Am. J. Fish. Mang. 9:427-436.

Naiman, R., T. Beechie, L. E. H. MacDonald. M. D. O'Comer, P. L. Olson, and E. A. Steel. Elements of Ecologically Healthy Watersheds in the Coastal Ecoregion." in Watershed Management, Balancing Change, R. J. Naiman, ed. Springer-Verlang. New York,

Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Bend D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O'Connor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 19 2. Fundamental Elements of Ecologically Healthy Watersheds in the Pacific Northwest Coast I Ecoregion. In Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed Management. Balancing Sustainability and E vironmental Change. Springer-Verlag. New York, New York. 542 p. i Draff Wildlife BAS Technical Memorandum j Page 27 i

National Marine Fisheries Service. 19 Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped at the Watershed Scale. NMFS Environmental and Technical Services Division.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Eman, and K.B. oby. 1980. Effects of Logging on Macroinvertebrates in Streams Withand Without Bu Strips. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 37:1076-1085. Pitt, D.G., W.G. Gould, and L. LaSot . 1986. Landscape Design to Reduce Surface Water Pollution in Residential Areas Water Resources Information Bulletin No. 5. Univ. of Maryland. Cooperative Exten ion Service. 10 p. Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjomn. iabitat Requirements of Anadmmous Salrnonids. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-96.

Richards, C., L.B. Johnson, and G.E. ost. 1996. Landscape-Scale Influences on Stream Habitats and Biota. Can, J. Aquat. Sci. 53:295-311.

Roby, K.B., D.C. Erman, and J.D. N bold. 1977. Biological Assessment of Timber Management Activity Impacts and Buffer Effectiveness on National Forest Streams of Northern California. USDA - Forest California Region. Roni, P., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F. . Leonetti, M.M. Pollock, andG.R Pess. 2002. A Review of Stream Restoration Techniqu s and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watershed . North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 22:l- 20. I Sheldon, D., T. Hmby, P. Johnson, Harper, A. McMillan, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2003. Draft Freshwater Wetlands State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington Department of #03-06-016, Olympia, WA.

Shirvell, C. S. 1990. "Role of rootwads as juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (0. habitat under varying streamflows." Canadian Journal of Fisheries

Steinblums, I., H. Froehlich, and J. ns. 1984. Designing Stable Buffer Strips for Stream Protection. U.S. Forest Watershed Protection and Management.

Swales, S. and C. D. Levings. 1989. 'Role of off-channel ponds in the life cycle of coho salmon (Oncorhynchw kisutch) and o herjuvenile salmonids in the Coldwater River, British Columbia." Canadian Journat ofFisheries and Aqualic Science. Volume 46. Thomas, R. E., J. A. Gharrett, M. G. ark, S. D. Rice, A. Moles, and S. Korn. 1986. "Effects of fluctuating temperature on mo stress, and energy reserves of juvenile coho salmon." Transactions of the American Society. Volume 115. Draft WildlifeBAS Technical Memorandum Page 28 i

United States Department of the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. A Framework to Assist in of Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for Individual or the Bull Trout Subpopulations Watershed Scale (Drafl).USFWS,

Van Sickle, J. and S.V. Gregory. 199 Modeling Inputs of Large Woody Debris to Streams from Falling Trees. Can. J. For.

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. ummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 37:130-137.

Washington Department of Fish and and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1994. 1992 and SteelheadStock Inventory. Olympia, Washington.

Washington Department of Fish and (WDFW). 1997. Wild Salmonid Policy. Washington Department of Fish and Environmental Impact Statement. Washington Department of Fish and

Washington Department of Fish and ildlife. 1998. 1997 Washington Salmonid Stock Invento~y. Appendix Bull Trout and Doll Varden. Olympia, Washington. Washington Oftice of Community s (OCD). 2002. Model Code Recommendations for Designating and First Edition 2N'~rafl.Prepared by Berryman & Henigar Inc., GeoEngineers, Inc.

Washington State Department of Agri PesticideIESA Task Force. 2001. A Process for Evaluating Pesticides in State Surface Waters for Potential Impacts to Salrnonids. WSDA ~iblicationNO. 057, "I Gpia, WA. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and James. 1975. A Catalog ojWashington Streams and Salmon Utilization: Volume Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries. Olympia, Wong, S.L., and R.H. of Vegetative Buffer Strips for Runoff and as part of a Study of Stormwater Coastal Zone Management Program. 23 p.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1 of Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. DraffWildlife BAS Technical Memorandum Page 29

6.2 Geologically Hazard 4reas - General Department of the Interior, U.S. Ceolo ical Survey. 1983. Geologic Map of the Kirkland Quadrangle, Washington. Map MF-1543, pre ared by James P. Minard.

Department of the Interior, U.S. ical Survey. 1985. Geologic Map of the Botl~ellQuadrangle, Snohomish and King ashington, Map MF-1747, prepared by James P. Minard.

Department of the Interior, U.S. al Survey. 1993. Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in Seattle, 30' x 60' Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason and Snohomish Counties, Washington, Map by Yount, Minard and Dembroff.

King County Parks, Planning, and Reso rces Department. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County, Washington. Vol. 1. The latest dition of the sensitive areas maps is now available on-line through ht://.metokcov. I Manson, C. J., editor. 2001. Digital of the geology and mineral resources of Washington State, 1798-2000. Division Earth Resources, Washington Department of Natural Resources. CD-ROM.

Washington Dept. of Natural Resources 1975. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangle , Snohomish and King Counties, Washington, Geologic Map GM- 14, prepared by Mackey Smith. Washington 1 Washington Division of Geology

6.3 Geologically Hazard 4reas - Erosion Hazard Cox, J, MacDonald, K, & Rigert, T, 19 4, Engineering and geotechnical techniques for shoreline erosion management in Puget Sound, ashington Department of Ecology, Coastal Erosion Management Series Vol4, publication 94-77.f Daniels, RE and Hammer, RD, 1992, SoI I geomorphology, Wiley and Sons Dietrich, WE, Wilson, CJ. Montgomery DJt, et al, 1992, Erosion thresholds and land surface morphology, Geology 20:675-679

Federal Emergency Management Ager cy. 1999. Executive summary: Riverine erosion hazard areas, mapping feasibility study. Technical Services Division, Hazard Study Branch. I1 pp. Available at: http://w.fema.qov/mit/ts~~/fireha.htm.

King County Parks, Planning and Res rces Department. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County, Washington. Vol. 1. The latest edition of the sensitive areas maps is now available on-line through htt~:l/w.metrokc.~ov.I i Draff Wildlife BAS Technical Memorandum I Page 30 1 I

United States Department of Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1973. Soil Survey, King County Area, -Natural Resources Conservation Service)

United States Department of Agricultu Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1952. Soil Survey, King County Washington.

VOTE: This document is considered ut of date and obsolete by the USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service; however, it maps portion of the City of Kenmore that is not mapped in the 1973 version of the King County Area Soil S rvey and forms the basis for the delineation of Erosion Hazard Areas in that portion of Kenmore.) e 6.4 Geologically HazardoG s Areas - Landslide Hazard Areas Ashmore, P, 1993, Contemporary erosi n of the Canadian landscape, Progress in Physical Geography 1 7(2): 190-204

Baum, R.L., Chleborad, Alan F. and Robert L., 1998, Landslides Triggered by the winter 1996-97 storms in the Puget U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-0239 and

Benda, L and Dunne, T, 1997, Slochasti forcing of sediment supply to channel networks from landsliding and debris flow, Water Resources esearch 33(12):2849-2863

Coe, J.A., Michael, J.A., Cmvelli, e and Savage, W.Z., 2000, Preliminary map showing landslide densities, mean recurrence and exceedance probabilities as determined from historic S. Geological Survey Open File Report 00-0303,

Crovelli, R.A., 2000, Probability models estimation of number and costs of landslides: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 00-249, http://pubs.usgs.govlofROOOIofr-00-02491

Galster, RW and Laprade, WT, 1991, eology of Seattle, Washington, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists v28 n3 p2t 5-302 Gerstel, W. J. and Brunengo, M. J. 1994 Mass wasting on the urban fringe. Washington Geology, v. 22, no.2,pp. 11-17. I Harp, B, Chleborad, A, Schuester, R, et 1996, Landslides and landslide hazards in Washington due to the February 5-9, 1996 storm, US Survey administrative report

Highland, L.M., 2003, An Account of Preliminary Landslide Damage and Losses Resulting from the February 28, 2001, Nisqually, Wi~shington,Earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-021 1,48 p. http://pubs.usgs.g0~~/0ff200310fr-03-2lI1 Drafl Ulildlife BAS Technical Memorandum 1 Page 31 i

King County Parks, Planning, and Resouxes Department. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County, Washington. Vol. 1. The latest eiition of the sensitive areas maps is now available on-line through http:llwww.metrokc.aov.

Madole, R.F., and Schuster, R.L., 19 , Ribbon Cliff landslide, Washington, and the earthquake of December 14, 1872: Bulletin of thP Seismological Society of America, v. 85, no. 4, p. 986-1002. Manson, Connie, 1998, Landslides of th Lowland : a selected bibliography, Washington Department of Natural Resources Division and Earth Resources

Mullineaux, DR, Waldron, HH and Rubi M, 1965, Stratigraphy and chronology of the late interglacial and early Vashon glacial time in the area, Washington, US Geological Survey Bulletin 1194-0 Project Open Space, Report No. of Steep Slope in the Central Puget Sound Region, Puget Sound Governmental Regional Planning Council, November 1964

Schuster, R.L., and R.W. Fleming, 1986 Economic losses and fatalities due to landslides, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geolob ists, Vol. 23,No. 1, pp. 11-28, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 11-28. Shipman, Hugh, 2001, Coastal landslidi g on Puget Sound: a review of landslides occurring behveen 1996 and 1999, Washington Departmen1 of Ecology report 01-06-019 Thorsen, G. W. 1989. Landslide in Washington. In Galster, R. W., Chairman. Engineering Geology in and Earth Resources, Washington Department of Natural Resources.

Thom, Ronald M and Williams, Grego D, 2001, Marine and estuarine shoreline modification issues, Banelle Marine Sciences Laborat ry, Sequim, Washington hnp:llwww.wa.govlwdfw/haWahi marnrsrc.htm Varnes, D.J., 1958, Landslide types and rocesses, in Landslides and engineering practice, E. B. Eckel, ed., National Research Council, HighF ay Research Board Special Report 29, p20-47 6.5 Geologically Hazardoi s Areas - Seismic Hazard Areas Ahvater, BF, 1987, Evidence for great olocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state, Science v236 p942-944 Ahvater, BF, and Grant, W, 1987, Holoc Ine subduction earthquakes in coastal Washington Blakely, RJ, Wells, RE, Waver, CS and ohnson, SY, 2002, Location, structure and seismicity ofthe Seattle fault mne, Washington: eviden e from aeromagnetic anomalies, geologic mapping, and seismic- reflection data, Geological SocieF of America Bulletin v114 no 1 p169-177 Bucknam, RC, Hemphill-Haley, E, and EB, 1992, Abrupt uplift within the past 1700 years at southern Puget Sound, v 258 ~1611-1623 Drafl Wildlife BAS Technical Memorandum Page 32 i Chleborad, A. F. and Schuster, R. L. 1998. Ground failure associated with the Puget Sound region earthquakes of April 13, 1949, an April 29, 1965. In Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. I., Kockelman, W. J., and Priest, G. R., editors. ssessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Surv y Professional Paper 1560, vol. 2, pp. 373-440. Gower, HD, Yount, JC and Crosson, RS, b985, Seismotectonic map of the Puget ~undregion, Washington, US Geological Survey map 1-161

Heaton, TH and Hartzell, SH, 1986, characteristics of hypothetical subduction earthquakes in the northwestern United States, Society of America Bulletin v76 n3

Ihnen, S and Hadley, DM, 1986, Predicti n of strong ground motion in the Puget Sound region: The 1965 Seattle earthquake, SeismologicalP Society of America Bulletin v76 n4 King County Parks, Planning, and Resou ces Department. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County, Washington. Vol. 1. The lates! e ition of the sensitive areas maps is now available on-line through h~://w.metrokc.ov. I Kockelman, W. J. 1998. Techniques reducing earthquake hazards. In Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. J., Kockelman, W. J., and Priest, editors. Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Survey Professional Paper 1560, vol. 2, pp. 479-496.

Larson, RA, and Johnson, JA, 1993, delines to geologiclseismic reports and tectonic earthquake site analysis, Association of eering Geologists Professional Practice Handbook, Special Publication 5, third edition

Lew, Marshall, 2001, Liquefaction for practicing engineering and geological professionals and regulators, & Engineering Geoscience v7 n4

May, P. J. 1998. Earthquake for the Puget Sound and Portland, Oregon. areas. In Priest. G. R., editors. Assessing earthquake U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

McCalpin, JP, 1996, Field techniques in leoseismology, in Paleoseismology, JP McCalpin, ed., Academic Press p33-83 t McLucas, GB, ed, 1980, Preliminary ult map of Washington, Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology a t d Earth Resources OFR 80-2 Nisqually Earthquake Clearinghouse Gro p, 2001. The Nisqually, Washington, Earthquake of February 28, 2001, Preliminary Reconnaissa ce Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, EERl Publication No. 2001-01, Oaklsn ,CA. A report sponsored by NSF, FEMA, and the University of Washington, Seanle.http://www.d r.wa.govlgeologylpdWgm5 I-env.pdf

Palmer, S. P. 1994. Revision to the 19 Uniform Building Code seismic zone map for Washington and Oregon. Washington Geology, vi 1.22, no. 2, p. 35. Draft UliIdIife BAS Technical emo or and urn' 1 Page 33 I i

Perkins, J. B. and Moy, K. K. 1998. Li or losses and its impacts on the cities and counties of Kockelman, W. J., and Priest, G. R., Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

Rasmussin, NH, Millard, RC and Smit , SW, 1974, Earthquake hazard evaluation of the Puget Sound region, Washington state, Univ rsity of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Seattle, WA

Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. J., ! J., and Priest, G. R. 1996. Map showing known or suspected faults with in the Pacific Northwest. In Rogers, A. M., Walsh. T. J., editors. Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Professional Paper 1560, Plate I,scale 1:2,000,000.

Rogers, A. M., Walsh, T. I., Kockelma , W. J., and Priest, G. R., editors. 1998. Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in th Pacific Northwest. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, vol. 2,545 pp., 6 plates. i Yount, JC and Crosson, RS, eds, Earthq ake hazards of the Puget Sound region, Washington: Proceedings of Conference XIV, US Geologici I Survey OFR 83-19 6.6 Geologi~ally~azardol(s Areas - Guidance

Menashe, E. 1993. Vegetation manage ent: A guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Washington Department of Ecology. Publication #93-3 1.

[This booklet provides some genera information concerning the use of existing vegetation on steep slopes around Puget Sound. The oklet discusses reducing soil mass surface and soil erosion by vegetation management.]

Myers, R. D. 1993. Slope stabilization and erosion control using vegetation: A manual of practice for coastal property owners. Shorel nds and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Publication #93-30. I [This publication provides general pertaining to water management techniques and drainage control programs on steep sl

Myers, R D., Michele, L., and Myers, N. 1995. Surface water and groundwater on coastal bluffs: A guide for Puget Sound property wners. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology.

[This publication provides general information pertaining to water management techniques and drainage control programs on steep sli pes around Puget Sound.] CHAPTER 18 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit C

CHAPTER 18.55 CRITICAL AREAS

PURPOSE AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

18.55.010 Purpose and Goals A. The purpose of this Chapter is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property.

B. This Chapter is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the City of Kenmore (City) comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act (GMA).

C. The City finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the City and its residents, andlor may pose a threat to human safety or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, protection from hazards, historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority.

D. By strategically developing according to the City's Integrated Comprehensive Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (2001) and limiting alteration of critical areas, this Chapter seeks to: 1. Strive to protect lives and public and private property from flooding; 2. Strive to protect slopes from erosion and sliding; 3. Minimize the potential for damage due to liquefaction and seismic hazards; 4. Protect wetlands from encroachment and degradation and encourage wetland restoration; 5. Protect streams from encroachment and degradation and encourage stream restoration; and 6. Maintain and promote a diversity of species and habitat within the City.

E. The regulations of this Chapter are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the GMA and through the application of best available science.

F. This Chapter is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this Chapter to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property.

G. The City's enactment and enforcement of this Chapter shall not be construed for the benefit of any individual person or group of persons other than the general public.

18.55.020 Authority A. As provided herein, the Director is given the authority to interpret, apply, and enforce this Chapter to accomplish the stated purpose.

B. The City may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this Chapter.

18.55.030 Relationship to other regulations A. These critical area regulations shall be in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the City. Compliance with other regulations does not exempt the applicant from critical areas regulations.

B. These critical area regulations shall apply concurrently with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as locally adopted. CHAPTER 18 Page 2 of 3

C. Any individual critical area adjoined by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this Chapter or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with this Chapter, that which provides more protection to the critical areas shall apply.

D. Compliance with the provisions of this 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.

18.55.040 Administrative procedures The administrative procedures followed during the critical area review process shall conform to the standards and requirements of the City development regulations. This shall include, but not be limited to, timing, appeals, and fees associated with applications covered by this Chapter.

18.55.050 Fees The City by resolution shall establish fees for critical area review processing, and other services provided by the City as required by this Chapter.

18.55.060 Severability If any permission of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this Chapter and its application to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

18.55.070 Administrative rules Applicable departments within the City are authorized to adopt such administrative rules and regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement this Chapter and to prepare and require the use of such forms as necessary for its administration.

18.55.080 Interpretation In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, the provisions of this Chapter shall be considered to be the minimum requirements necessary, shall be liberally construed to serve the purpose of this ordinance, and shall be deemed to neither limit nor repeal any other provisions under state statute. 18.55.090 Jurisdiction - Critical areas A. The City shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect, one or more critical areas, consistent with best available science and the provisions herein.

B. Critical areas regulated by this Chapter include: 1. Wetlands as designated in Wetlands, KMC 18.55.300; 2. Streams as designated in Streams. KMC 18.55.400; 3. Fish and wildlife habitats of importance designated in Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Importance, KMC 18.55.500; 4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Geologically Hazardous areas, KMC 18.55.600; and 5. Frequently flooded areas, as designated in Frequently Flooded Areas, KMC 18.55.700

C. All areas within the City meeting the definition of one or more critical area, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

D. Areas adjacent to critical areas subject to regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas CHAPTER 18 Page 3 of 3

shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this Chapter and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. Adjacent shall mean any activity located: 1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; 2. A distance equal to or less than the required critical area buffer width and building setback; 3. A distance equal to or less than one-half mile (2,640 feet) from a bald eagle nest; 4. A distance equal to or less than nine hundred (900) feet from the closest nest of a heron rookery; or 5. Within the floodway, floodplain or channel migration zone. . 18.55.100 Protection of critical areas Any action taken pursuant to this Chapter shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with mitigation sequencing [KMC 18.55.21 01 to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate for adverse impacts. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts, before restoration and compensation of impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas. CHAPTER 18 Page 1 of 3

CHAPTER 18.55 CRITICAL AREAS

PURPOSE AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

18.55.010 Purpose and Goals A. The purpose of this Chapter is to designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values, while also allowing for reasonable use of private property.

B. This Chapter is to implement the goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of the City of Kenmore (City) comprehensive plan and the Growth Management Act (GMA).

C. The City finds that critical areas provide a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the City and its residents, andlor may pose a threat to human safety or to public and private property. The beneficial functions and values provided by critical areas include, but are not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, ground water recharge and discharge, erosion control, protection from hazards, historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial functions are not listed in order of priority.

D. By strategically developing according to the City's Integrated Comprehensive Plan and Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (2001) and limiting alteration of critical areas, this Chapter seeks to: 1. Strive to protect lives and public and private property from flooding; 2. Strive to protect slopes from erosion and sliding; 3. Minimize the potential for damage due to liquefaction and seismic hazards; 4. Protect wetlands from encroachment and degradation and encourage wetland restoration; 5. Protect streams from encroachment and degradation and encourage stream restoration; and 6. Maintain and promote a diversity of species and habitat within the City.

E. The regulations of this Chapter are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the GMA and through the application of best available science.

F. This Chapter is to be administered with flexibility and attention to site-specific characteristics. It is not the intent of this Chapter to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property.

G. The City's enactment and enforcement of this Chapter shall not be construed for the benefit of any individual person or group of persons other than the general public.

18.55.020 Authority A. As provided herein, the Director is given the authority to interpret, apply, and enforce this Chapter to accomplish the stated purpose.

B. The City may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this Chapter.

18.55.030 Relationship to other regulations A. These critical area regulations shall be in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the City. Compliance with other regulations does not exempt the applicant from critical areas regulations.

B. These critical area regulations shall apply concurrently with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as locally adopted. CHAPTER 18 Page 2 of 3

C. Any individual critical area adjoined by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this Chapter or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with this Chapter, that which provides more protection to the critical areas shall apply.

D. Compliance with the provisions of this 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.

18.55.040 Administrative procedures The administrative procedures followed during the critical area review process shall conform to the standards and requirements of the City development regulations. This shall include, but not be limited to, timing, appeals, and fees associated with applications covered by this Chapter.

18.55.050 Fees The City by resolution shall establish fees for critical area review processing, and other services provided by the City as required by this Chapter.

18.55.060 Severability If any permission of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be judged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the remainder of this Chapter and its application to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

18.55.070 Administrative rules Applicable departments within the City are authorized to adopt such administrative rules and regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement thischapter and to prepare and require the use of such forms as necessary for its administration.

18.55.080 Interpretation In the interpretation and application of this ordinance, the provisions of this Chapter shall be considered to be the minimum requirements necessary, shall be liberally construed to serve the purpose of this ordinance, and shall be deemed to neither limit nor repeal any other provisions under state statute. 18.55.090 Jurisdiction - Critical areas A. The City shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect, one or more critical areas, consistent with best available science' and the provisions herein.

B. Critical areas regulated by this Chapter include: 1. Wetlands as designated in Wetlands, KMC 18.55.300; 2. Streams as designated in Streams, KMC 18.55.400; 3. Fish and wildlife habitats of importance designated in Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Importance, KMC 18.55.500; 4. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Geologically Hazardous areas, KMC 18.55.600; and 5. Frequently flooded areas, as designated in Frequently Flooded Areas. KMC 18.55.700

C. All areas within the City meeting the definition of one or more critical area, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter. I D. Areas adjacent to critical areas subject to regulation. Areas adjacent to critical areas CHAPTER 18 Page 3 of 3

shall be considered to be within the jurisdiction of these requirements and regulations to support the intent of this Chapter and ensure protection of the functions and values of critical areas. Adjacent shall mean any activity located: 1. On a site immediately adjoining a critical area; 2. A distance equal to or less than the required critical area buffer width and building setback; 3. A distance equal to or less than one-half mile (2,640 feet) from a bald eagle nest; 4. A distance equal to or less than nine hundred (900) feet from the closest nest of a heron rookery; or 5. Within the floodway, floodplain or channel migration zone.

18.55.100 Protection of critical areas Any action taken pursuant to this Chapter shall result in equivalent or greater functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with mitigation sequencing [KMC 18.55.210] to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate for adverse impacts. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid or reduce impacts, before restoration and compensation of impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas. BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE Page 1 of 1

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

18.55.110 Best available science Protection for functions and values and anadromous fish. Critical area reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas. The best available science is scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional or team of qualified scientific professionals, that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925. Special consideration shall be given to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish and their habitat, such as salmon and bull trout, as required by WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925. APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS Page 1 of 5

APPLICABILITY. EXEMPTIONS. AND EXCEPTIONS

18.55.120 Applicability A. .The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all lands, all land uses and development activity, and all structures and facilities in the City whether or not a permit or authorization is required, and shall apply to every person, firm, partnership, corporation, group, governmental agency, or other entity that owns, leases, or administers land within the City. No person, company, agency, or applicant shall alter a critical area or buffer except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of this Chapter.

6. The City shall not approve any permit or othenvise issue any authorization to alter the condition of any land, water, or vegetation, or to construct or alter any structure or improvement in, over, or on a critical area or associated buffer, without first assuring compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.

C. Approval of a permit or development proposal pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter does not discharge the obligation of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this Chapter.

18.55.130 Mapping A. The approximate location and extent of critical areas are shown on the City's critical area maps. These maps are to be used as a guide and may be updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. The exact location of a critical area and its boundary shall be determined on site through a field investigation by a qualified professional.

6. The following maps identify known critical areas located in the City: 1. Wetlands and Streams a. City stream and wetland inventory, b. King County Sensitive Areas map folio. 2. Fish and Wildlife Habitats of Importance a. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species maps. b. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Official Water Type reference maps, as amended, c. Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the Habitat Limiting Factors Reports published by the Washington State Conservation Commission, and d. Washington Department of Natural Resources State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Area maps. 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas a. King County Sensitive Areas map folio, as modified by the City, b. U.S. Geological Survey landslide hazard and seismic hazard maps, c. Washington Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps for Western Washington, and d. Washington Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps. 4. Flood Hazard Areas a. Federal Emergency Management Administration Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Studies. 18.55.140 Signs and Fencing of Critical Areas A. Signs 1. Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the critical area 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 verified by the Director 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 APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS

Chapter, the Director may require that the applicant install permanent signs along the boundary of a critical area or buffer.

Permanent signs shall be made of a metal face and attached to a metal post, or another material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every fifty (50) feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. Signs must be placed in a visible location and remain visible throughout any future site development. The signs shall include the City's logo and shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director based on specifications available from the City:

Environmentally Sensitive Area Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Kenmore 425-398-8900 Regarding Uses and Restriction

B. Fencing 1. The Director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter to require the applicant to install a permanent fence at the edge of the critical area and buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts to the habitat conservation area. 2. The applicant shall be required to install a permanent natural wood, split-rail fence around the critical area and buffer. 3. Fencing installed shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. Wood, split rail fencing is required.

18.55.150 Exemptions

A. Exempt activities shall avoid impacts to critical areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this Chapter does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party's expense to prior condition or better. 1. Exempt activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter, provided that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements: a. Activities, including routine maintenance, involving artificial drainage features intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features; b. Normal and routine maintenance, operation and reconstruction of existing roads, streets, utilities and associated rights-of-way and structures, provided that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the impervious area or remove flood storage capacity; c. Normal maintenance and repair, and reconstruction or remodeling of residential or commercial structures, or legal pre-existing and on-going uses of the site, provided that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the previously approved building footprint; d. Site investigative work and studies necessary for preparing land use applications, including soils tests, water quality studies, wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations, where such activities do not require construction of new roads or significant amounts of excavation, and provided that any disturbance of the sensitive area shall be the minimum necessary to cany out the work or studies and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; e. Educational activities, scientific research, and passive outdoor recreational activities, including but not limited to interpretive field trips, birdwatching, and pervious trails for hiking, that will not have a significant adverse effect on the sensitive area; f Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, property or APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS

welfare; g. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined by the Director to have minimal impacts to a sensitive area; h. Installation, construction, replacement, repair or alteration of utilities and their associated facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment or appurtenances in improved City road rights-of-way. 2. Operation, maintenance or repair. Operation, maintenance or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees or drainage systems, that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. 3. Modification to existing structures. a. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of single detached residences in existence before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the building setback or buffer requirements for wetlands, streams or landslide hazard areas if the modification, addition, replacement or related activity does not increase the existing footprint of the residence lying within the above-described buffer or building setback area by more than five hundred (500) square feet over that existing before November 27, 1990. No portion of the modification, addition or replacement may be located closer than the closest point of the residence to the sensitive area or, if the existing residence is in the sensitive area, no portion may extend farther into the sensitive area. b. Structural modification of, addition to, or replacement of structures, except single detached residences, in existence before November 27, 1990 which do not meet the building setback or buffer requirements for wetlands, streams or landslide hazard areas if modification, addition, replacement or related activity does not increase the existing footprint of the structure lying within the above-described building setback area, sensitive area or buffer. 4. Activities within the improved right-of-way. Replacement, modification, installation, or construction of utility facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment, or appurtenances, not including substations, when such facilities are located within the improved portion of the public right-of-way or a City authorized private roadway except those activities that alter a wetland or watercourse, such as culverts or bridges, or result in the transport of sediment or increased stormwater. 5. Select vegetation removal activities. The following vegetation removal activities, provided that no vegetation shall be removed from a critical area or its buffer without approval from the Director: a. The removal of vegetation listed in King County's noxious weed list. b. The removal of trees that are hazardous, posing a threat to public safety, or posing an imminent risk of damage to private property, from critical areas and buffers, provided that the Director determines that the disturbance to the sensitive area is minimal. c. Measures to control a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act; Chapter 76.09 RCW, provided that the removed vegetation shall be replaced in-kind or with similar native species within one (1) year in accordance with an approved restoration plan. 18.55.160 Exception - Public agency and utility A. If the application of this Chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this Section.

8. Exception request and review process. An application for a public agency and utility exception shall be made to the City and shall include a critical area report, including mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS Page 4 of 5

C. Director review. The Director shall review the application. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the public agency and utility exception criteria in Subsection (D).

D. Public agency and utility review criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public agency and utility exceptions follow: 1. There is no other practical alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the critical areas; and 2. The application of this Chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public.

18.55.170 Variances A. Variances from the standards of Chapter 18.55 may be authorized by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in the City's zoning code.

B. No variance is allowed in order to create additional lots,

C. The City may grant a variance provided that the applicant demonstrates that: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property or to the intended use such as shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other properties and which support the granting of a variance from the buffer width requirements; and 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other similarly situated property but which because ofspecial circumstances is denied to the property in question; and 3. The granting of such buffer width variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvement; and 4. The granting of the buffer width variance will not significantly impact the subject sensitive area; and 5. The decision to grant the variance includes the best available science and gives special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish habitat; and 6. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the City's Integrated Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (2001) and adopted development regulations.

D. Conditions may be required. In granting any variance, the City may prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this. Chapter.

E. Director review. The Director shall review the application. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the variance criteria in Subsection (0).

F. Time limit. The City shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be begun, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall void the variance. The development proposal or building permit must be applied for within two years from the approval date of the variance. The completion of the action will be consistent with the associated development approvals.

G. Burden of proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application.

18.55.180 Exception - Reasonable use A. If the application of this Chapter pertaining to critical areas will prevent the applicant from making any economically viable use of the subject property, the applicant may apply for an exception APPLICABILITY, EXEMPTIONS, AND EXCEPTIONS Page 5 of 5

pursuant to this Section. The application must accompany a development permit application through the City's review and decision process. 1. Criteria for Granting. The Director shall grant a reasonable use allowance only when the following criteria are met: a. The applicant demonstrates that the application of this chapter will deny all reasonable use of the subject property otherwise allowed by applicable law; b. The development activities involve the least intrusion into and disruption of the critical area necessary to allow a reasonable use of the subject property; c. The development activities will not cause or result in damage to properties other than the subject property and will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare; d. The applicant's inability to make reasonable use of the subject property has not resulted from any of the following: (i) Prior subdivision or segregation of the subject property, or changes to the boundaries of the subject property through a boundary line adjustment or otherwise, or (ii) Prior actions taken in violation of this chapter or any local, state, or federal law or regulation. e. No other reasonable use of the property has less impact on the critical area; f. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of this Chapter, or its predecessor; and g. Mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this Chapter. 2. Appeals. The applicant may appeal a decision of the Director on a reasonable use allowance application to the hearing examiner pursuant to the provisions of the Kenmore City Code.

B. Exception request and review process. An application for a reasonable use exception shall be made to the City and shall include a critical area report, including mitigation plan, if necessary; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to SEPA.

C. Director review. The Director shall review the application. The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request based on the proposal's ability to comply with all of the public agency and utility exception criteria in Subsection (A).

D. Burden of proof. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. CRITICAL AREA REPORT Page 1 of 1

CRITICAL AREA REPORT

18.55.190 Critical area reports - Requirements A. Prepared by qualified professional. The applicant shall submit a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional as defined herein.

8. Incorporating best available science. The critical area report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of critical area data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The critical area report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

C. Critical area report contents. Requirements for critical area reports are available from the Director. In addition, the applicant shall provide any additional known information pertaining to the critical area(s) on the subject property and adjacent properties.

18.55.200 Mitigation requirements A. The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated in accordance with an approved critical area report and SEPA documents.

6. Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the critical area, or to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area.

C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after City approval of a critical area report that includes a mitigation plan.

18.55.210 Mitigation sequencing Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for as outlined by WAC 197-11-768, in the following order of preference: 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and miintenance operations during the life of the action; andlor 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures.

18.55.220 Mitigation plan requirements When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City a mitigation plan as part of the critical area report. Mitigation plan requirements are available from the Director. UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT Page 1 of 1

UNAUTHORIZED ALTERATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT

18.55.230 Unauthorized critical area alterations and enforcement A. When a critical area 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.

B. Restoration plan required. All development work shall remain stopped and the site stabilized until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by the City. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in Subsection (C). The Director shall, at the violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator for revision and re-submittal.

C. Minimum performance standards for restoration. 1. For alterations to wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife habitat areas of importance the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area, provided that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities; and d. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration.

D. Site investigations. The Director, or his or her designee, is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Chapter. The inspector shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property.

E. Monitoring. Monitoring shall be required for five (5) years unless otherwise determined by the Director. A performance andlor maintenance bond of one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area shall be posted shall be posted i to assure that all work or actions are satisfactorily completed or maintained in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, permit or approval requirements, and applicable regulations, and to assure that all work or actions will be completed. GENERAL CRITICAL AREA PROTECTIVE MEASURES Page 1 of 2

GENERAL CRITICAL AREA PROTECTIVE MEASURES

18.55.250 Notice on Title A. In order to inform subsequent purchasers of real property of the existence of critical areas, the owner of any property containing a critical area or buffer on which a development proposal is submitted shall file a notice with the county records and elections division according to the direction of the City. The notice shall state the presence of the critical area or buffer on the property, of the application of this Chapter to the property, and the fact that limitations on actions in or affecting the critical area or buffer may exist. The notice shall run with the land.

B. This notice on title shall not be required for a development proposal by a public agency or public or private utility: 1. Within a recorded easement or right-of-way; 2. Where the agency or utility has been adjudicated the right to an easement or right-of-way; or 3. On the site of a permanent public facility.

C. The applicant shall submit proof that the notice has been filed for public record before the City approves any development proposal for the property or, in the case of subdivisions, short subdivisions, planned unit developments, and binding site plans, at or before recording.

18.55.260 Critical area tracts A. Critical area tracts shall be used in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, planned unit developments, commercial site development permits, and binding site plans to delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers listed below: 1. All wetlands and buffers; 2. All streams and buffers; 3. All fish and wildlife habitat areas of importance; 4. Landslide hazard areas; and 5. All other lands to be protected from alterations as conditioned by project approval.

B. Critical area tracts shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots.

C. Critical area tracts shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by City. The designation shall include the following restriction: 1. An assurance that native vegetation will be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including, but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants, fish, and animal habitat; and 2. The right of the City to enforce the terms of the restriction.

D. The City shall determine at the City's discretion that any required critical area tract be dedicated to the City, held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowner's association or other legal entity (such as a land trust, which assures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract).

18.55.270 Building setbacks. Unless othennrise provided, buildings and other structures shall be set back a distance of fifteen (15) feet from the edges of all critical area buffers or from the edges of all critical areas, if no buffers are required. Structures that may extend into or be located in the required setback are listed in KMC 18.30.170. I 18.55.280 Bonds to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring GENERAL CRITICAL AREA PROTECTIVE MEASURES

A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to the City final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the City shall require the applicant to post a performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the City. If the development proposal is subject to mitigation, the applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the City to ensure mitigation is fully functional.

B. The performance bond shall be in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of the installed mitigation project (including monitoring) or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater. C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, assignment of savings account, or an irrevocable letter of credit guaranteed by an acceptable financial institution with terms and conditions acceptable to the City attorney.

D. Bonds or other security authorized by this Section shall remain in effect until the City determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the City for a minimum of five (5) years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary.

E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.

F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements of this Section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.

G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty (30) days after it is due or comply with other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the City may demand payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized by the City code or any other law.

H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this Section shall be used to complete the required mitigation.

18.55.290 Critical area inspections. Reasonable access to the site shall be provided to the City, state, and federal agency review staff for the purpose of inspections of the critical area during any proposal review, restoration, emergency action, or monitoring period. WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 1 of 5

WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING

18.55.300 Designation and rating of Wetlands A. Designating wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the Washington State Wetland ldentification and Delineation Manual (1997), 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. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

B. Wetland ratings. Wetlands shall be rated using criteria similar to those outlined in the Department of Ecology Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 1. Wetlands Classification. Wetlands, as defined by this Chapter, shall be designated Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 according to the criteria below. a. Class 1 Wetlands are those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: (i) Documented habitat for federal or state listed endangered or threatened fish, animal, or plant species; or (ii) Wetlands listed as high quality habitats in the Natural Heritage Information System; or (iii) Wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions, including spaghnum bogs and fens or natural forested swamps; or (iv) Wetlands of exceptional local significance, specifically those wetlands proximal to and influenced by the mainstem of Swamp Creek, the Sammamish River, or Lake Washington. b. Class 2 Wetlands are those wetlands, which are not Class 1 wetlands and meet any of the following criteria: (i) Wetlands that have significant functions that may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or (ii) Wetlands associated with Type 2 or 3 streams; or (iii) Wetlands greater than one (1) acre in size; or (iv) Wetlands equal to or less than one (I) acre having three (3) or more classes of wetland vegetation (as defined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al. 1979)); or (v) Wetlands containing a forested wetland class. c. Class 3 Wetlands are those wetlands not rated as Class 1 or 2 wetlands, but are greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet in size.

C. Buffer areas. 1. The establishment of buffer areas shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to wetland areas. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, and value of the sensitive area, andlor to protect life, property and resources from risks associated with development on unstable or sensitive lands. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade, on-site notice for construction crews of the presence of the sensitive area, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Native vegetation removal or disturbance is not allowed in established buffers. 2. Required buffer widths (KMC 18.55.320E) shall reflect the sensitivity of the particular sensitive area and resource or the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity and site design proposed to be conducted on or near the sensitive area.

WETLANDS--ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 2 of 5

18.55.310 Critical area report Requirements for critical areas reports for wetlands are available from the Director.

WETLANDS--PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

18.55.320 Performance standards - General requirements A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland or wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and values of the wetland and other critical areas and no other feasible site design exists that results in less encroachment or impact to the wetland or wetland buffer.

B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this Chapter.

C. Class 1 wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Class 1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this Chapter.

D. Class 2 and 3 wetlands. Activities may be permitted, if the Director determines, based upon review of special studies completed by qualified professionals, that the activity meets avoidance and minimization reauirements outlined in KMC 18.55.210 and will not:

1. adversely affect water quality;

2. adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat;

3. have an adverse effect on drainage andlor storm water detention capabilities;

4. lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions;

5, be materially detrimental to any other property or the City as a whole; or

6. have adverse effects on any other critical areas.

E. Limited exemption. Class 3 wetlands less than 1,000 square feet may be exempted from the provisions of KMC 18.55.300 to 18.55.330 and may be altered by filling or dredging if the City ofKenmore determine that the cumulative impacts do not unduly counteract the purposes ofthis Chapter and are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan.

F. Wetland Buffers

1. Wetland buffers shall be established as follows:

Buffer Width WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 3 of 5

Wetland Type (feet) Class 1 150 Class 2 100 Class 3 60

2. Measurement of wetland buffers. Wetland buffers shall be measured from the wetland edge as delineated and marked in the field using the 1997 Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology). 3. Increased wetland buffer widths. The Director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified professional biologist 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 has a slope greater than thirty percent (30%) or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion-control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland. 4. Wetland buffer width averaging. The Director may allow averaging of the wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical area report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional biologist demonstrates that: a. Additional protection to the wetland will be provided through implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; b. It will not reduce wetland functions or values; c. 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 fiom a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer in other places; d. The total area contained in the buffer after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; and

e. For Class 1 and 2 wetlands, the buffer width shall not be reduced by more than twenty percent (20%) in any one place. For Class 3 wetlands, the buffer width shall not be reduced to less than fifty (50) feet in any one place. 5. Buffer conditions shall be maintained. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed condition. 6. Buffer uses. The following uses may be permitted 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: a. Conservation and restoration activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife; b. Passive recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: (i) Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways that are generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland shall be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area; (ii) Wildlife viewing structures; and (iii) Fishing access areas. c. Stormwater management facilities. Grass lined swales and dispersal trenches may be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area. All other surface water management facilities are not allowed within the buffer area. 7. Building setback. A building setback from the buffer edge is required per KMC 18.55.270. WETLANDS--DESIGNATIONAND RATING Page 4 of 5

18.55.330 Performance standards - Mitigation requirements

A. Mitigation shall achieve equivalent or greater ecological functions. Mitigation for alterations to wetlands and buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater ecologic functions than exist in the impacted wetland. Mitigation plans shall be generally consistent with the Department of Ecology Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised.

B. Mitigation for lost functions and values. Mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement, and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-specific function assessment and the proposed mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified regional goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.

C. Buffers for mitigation shall be consistent. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter, unless decided by the Director through a variance or a reasonable use exemption that a different buffer would provide adequate protection to the sensitive area.

D. Preference of mitigation actions. Mitigation sequencing outlined in 18.55.210 shall be demonstrated in each development proposal. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution, shall occur in the following order of preference: 1. Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. 2. Creating wetlands in upland areas. 3. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands. 4. Preserving high-quality wetlands that are under imminent threat.

E. Type and location of mitigation. Mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin or on the same site as the alteration except when all of the following apply: 1. There are no reasonable on-site or in-subdrainage basin opportunities, or on-site and in- subdrainage basin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success due to development pressures, adjacent land uses, or on-site buffers or connectivity are inadequate; 2. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland; and 3. Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless established regional or watershed goals for water quality, flood or conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site.

F. Mitigation timing. Where feasible, mitigation or restoration projects shall be completed orior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitiaation shall be completed immediately- iollowing disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activitior development. construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora.

G. Mitigation ratios 1. Acreage replacement ratios. The following ratios shall apply to creation or restoration that is in-kind, on-site, the same class, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply on a case-by-case basis. These ratios do not apply to the use of credits from a state certified wetland mitigation bank. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. WETLANDS--DESIGNATIONAND RATING Page 5 of 5

Class 1 4-to-1

Class 2 2-to-1

Class 3 1.5-to-1

2. Increased replacement ratio. The Director may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; or b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; or c. Mitigation will occur off-site versus on-site; or c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or d. The impact was an unauthorized impact.

H. Wetlands enhancement as mitigation 1. Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical area report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the dearaded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland areaand function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions and/or result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland. WETLANDS--DESIGNATIONAND RATING Page 1 of 5

WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING

18.55.300 Designation and rating of Wetlands A. Designating wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with the Washington State Wetland ldentification and Delineation Manual (1997), 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. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in the Identification and Delineation Manual, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

B. Wetland ratings. Wetlands shall be rated using criteria similar to those outlined in the Depaltment of Ecology Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. 1. Wetlands Classification. Wetlands, as defined by this Chapter, shall be designated Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 according to the criteria below. a. Class 1 Wetlands are those wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: (i) Documented habitat for federal or state listed endangered or threatened fish, animal, or plant species; or (ii) Wetlands listed as high quality habitats in the Natural Heritage Information System; or (iii) Wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions, including spaghnum bogs and fens or natural forested swamps: or (iv) Wetlands of exceptional local significance, specifically those wetlands proximal to and influenced by the mainstem of Swamp Creek, the Sammamish River, or Lake Washington. b. Class 2 Wetlands are those wetlands, which are not Class 1 wetlands and meet any of the following criteria: (i) Wetlands that have significant functions that may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or (ii) Wetlands associated with Type 2 or 3 streams; or (iii) Wetlands greater than one (1) acre in size; or (iv) Wetlands equal to or less than one (I) acre having three (3) or more classes of wetland vegetation (as defined in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al. 1979)); or (v) Wetlands containing a forested wetland class. c. Class 3 Wetlands are those wetlands not rated as Class 1 or 2 wetlands, but are greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet in size.

C. Buffer areas. 1. The establishment of buffer areas shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to wetland areas. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, and value of the sensitive area, andlor to protect life, property and resources from risks associated with development on unstable or sensitive lands. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade, on-site notice for construction crews of the presence of the sensitive area, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Native vegetation removal or disturbance is not allowed in established buffers. 2. Required buffer widths (KMC 18.55.320E) shall reflect the sensitivity of the particular sensitive area and resource or the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity and site design proposed to be conducted on or near the sensitive area.

WETLANDS--ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 2 of 5

18.55.310 Critical area report Requirements for critical areas reports for wetlands are available from the Director.

WETLANDS-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

18.55.320 Performance standards - General requirements A. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland or wetland buffer if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and values of the wetland and other critical areas and no other feasible site design exists that results in less encroachment or impact to the wetland or wetland buffer.

B. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this Chapter.

C. Class 1 wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Class 1 wetlands, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this Chapter.

D. Class 2 and 3 wetlands. Activities may be permitted, if the Director determines, based upon review of special studies completed by qualified professionals, that the activity meets avoidance and minimization requirements outlined in KMC 18.55.210 and will not:

1. adversely affect water quality;

2. adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat;

3. have an adverse effect on drainage andlor storm water detention capabilities;

4. lead to unstable earth conditions or create an erosion hazard or contribute to scouring actions;

5. be materially detrimental to any other property or the City as a whole; or

6. have adverse effects on any other critical areas.

E. Limited exemption. Class 3 wetlands less than 1,000 square feet may be exempted from the provisions of KMC 18.55.300 to 18.55.330 and may be altered by filling or dredging if the City of Kemore determine that the cumulative impacts do not unduly counteract the purposes of this Chapter and are mitigated pursuant to an approved mitigation plan.

F. Wetland Buffers

1. Wetland buffers shall be established as follows:

Buffer Width WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 3 of 5

- Wetland Type (feet) Class 1 150 Class 2 100 Class 3 60

2. Measurement of wetland buffers. Wetland buffers shall be measured from the wetland edge as delineated and marked in the field using the 1997 Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology). 3. Increased wetland buffer widths. The Director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified professional biologist 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 has a slope greater than thirty percent (30%) or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion-control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland. 4. Wetland buffer width averaging. The Director may allow averaging of the wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical area report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional biologist demonstrates that: a. Additional protection to the wetland will be provided through implementation of a buffer enhancement plan; b. It will not reduce wetland functions or values; c. 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 and would not be adversely impacted by a narrower buffer inother places; d. The total area contained in the buffer after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer; and

e. For Class 1 and 2 wetlands, the buffer width shall not be reduced by more than twenty percent (20%) in any one place. For Class 3 wetlands, the buffer width shall not be reduced to less than fifty (50) feet in any one place. 5. Buffer conditions shall be maintained. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed condition. 6. Buffer uses. The following uses may be permitted 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: a. Conservation and restoration activities. Consewation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife; b. Passive recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: (i) Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways that are generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland shall be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area; (ii) Wildlife viewing structures; and (iii) Fishing access areas. c. Stormwater management facilities. Grass lined swales and dispersal trenches may be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area. All other surface water management facilities are not allowed within the buffer area. 7. Building setback. A building setback from the buffer edge is required per KMC 18.55.270. WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 4 of 5

18.55.330 Performance standards - Mitigation requirements

A. Mitigation shall achieve equivalent or greater ecological functions. Mitigation for alterations to wetlands and buffers shall achieve equivalent or greater ecoiogic functions than exist in the impacted wetland. Mitigation plans shall be generally consistent with the Department of Ecology Guidelines for Developing Freshwater Wetlands Mitigation Plans and Proposals, 1994, as revised.

6. Mitigation for lost functions and values. Mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement, and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost except when: 1. The lost wetland provides minimal functions as determined by a site-specific function assessment and the proposed mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal watershed assessment plan or protocol; or 2. Out-of-kind replacement will best meet formally identified regional goals, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.

C. Buffers for mitigation shall be consistent. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this Chapter, unless decided by the Director through a variance or a reasonable use exemption that a different buffer would provide adequate protection to the sensitive area.

D. Preference of mitigation actions. Mitigation sequencing outlined in 18.55.210 shall be demonstrated in each development proposal. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution, shall occur in the following order of preference: 1. Restoring wetlands on upland sites that were formerly wetlands. 2. Creating wetlands in upland areas. 3. Enhancing significantly degraded wetlands. 4. Preserving high-quality wetlands that are under imminent threat.

E. Type and location of mitigation. Mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin or on the same site as the alteration except when all of the following apply: 1. There are no reasonable on-site or in-subdrainage basin opportunities, or on-site and in- subdrainage basin opportunities do not have a high likelihood of success due to development pressures, adjacent land uses, or on-site buffers or connectivity are inadequate; 2. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the impacted wetland; and 3. Off-site locations shall be in the same subdrainage basin unless established regional or watershed goals for water quality, flood or conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site.

F. Mitigation timing. Where feasible, mitigation or restoration projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora.

G. Mitigation ratios 1. Acreage replacement ratios. The following ratios shall apply to creation or restoration that is in-kind, on-site, the same class, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from unauthorized alterations; greater ratios shall apply on a case-by-case basis. These ratios do not apply to the use of credits from a state certified wetland mitigation bank. The first number specifies the acreage of replacement wetlands and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. WETLANDS--DESIGNATION AND RATING Page 5 of 5

Class 1 4-to-1

Class 2 2-to-1

Class 3 1.540-1

2. Increased replacement ratio. The Director may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: a. Uncertainty exists as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; or b. A significant period of time will elapse between impact and replication of wetland functions; or c. Mitigation will occur off-site versus on-site; or c. Proposed mitigation will result in a lower category wetland or reduced functions relative to the wetland being impacted; or d. The impact was an unauthorized impact.

H. Wetlands enhancement as mitigation 1, Impacts to wetlands may be mitigated by enhancement of existing significantly degraded wetlands. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands must produce a critical area report that identifies how enhancement will increase the functions of the degraded wetland and how this increase will adequately mitigate for the loss of wetland area and function at the impact site. An enhancement proposal must also show whether existing wetland functions will be reduced by the enhancement actions. 2. At a minimum, enhancement acreage shall be double the acreage required for creation or restoration. The ratios shall be greater than double the required acreage where the enhancement proposal would result in minimal gain in the performance of wetland functions andlor result in the reduction of other wetland functions currently being provided in the wetland. STREAMS--DESIGNATION and RATING Page 1 of 3

STREAMS--DESIGNATION and RATING

18.55.400 Designation and Rating of Streams A. Stream Classification. Streams are waterbodies with a defined bed and banks and demonstrable flow of water. Streams shall be designated Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, and Type 4 according to the criteria in this subsection. 1. Type 1 Streams are those streams identified as "Shorelines of the State" under Chapter 90.58 RCW, including the Sammamish River and the mainstem of Swamp Creek. 2. Type 2 Streams are those streams that are: a, natural streams that have perennial (year-round) flow and are used by salmonid fish, or b. natural streams that have intermittent flow and are used by salmonid fish. 3. Type 3 Streams are those streams that are: a. natural streams that have perennial flow and are used by fish other than salmonids, or b. natural streams that have intermittent flow and are used by fish other than salmonids. 4. Type 4 Streams are those natural streams with perennial or intermittent flow that are not used by fish.

B. Ditches. Ditches are artificial drainage features created in uplands through purposeful human action, such as irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, and canals. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements andlor other evidence. Ditches are excluded from regulation as streams under this section. Artificial drainage features with documented fish usage are regulated as streams. Drainage setbacks are required as per the City's Surface Water Manual.

STREAMS--ADDITIONAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS

18.55.410 Critical Areas Report. Requirements for critical areas reports for streams are available from the Director.

STRFAMS-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

18.55.420 Performance Standards- General A. Establishment of stream buffers. The establishment of buffer areas shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to streams. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, and value of the stream and provide habitat for heron and other wildlife. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade, on-site notice for construction crews of the presence of the stream, and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation controls. Native vegetation removal or disturbance is not allowed in established buffers.

Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the stream or the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity and site design proposed to be conducted on or near the sensitive area.

B. Stream Buffers 1. The following buffers are established for streams to protect functions and values, including heron habitat:

Buffer Width Stream Type (feet) Type 1 & Little Swamp Creek 150 Type 2 100 Type 3 50 Type 4 25 STREAMS--DESIGNATION and RATING Page 2 of 3

2. Measurement of stream buffers. Stream buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark. 3. Increased stream buffer widths. The Director shall require increased buffer widths in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified professional and the best available science on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect stream 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 has a slope greater than thirty percent (30%) or is susceptible to erosion and standard erosion-control measures will not prevent adverse impacts to the wetland. The buffer should be measured from the toe of the slope. 4. Buffer conditions shall be maintained. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this Chapter, stream buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed condition. 1. Degraded buffers shall be enhanced. Stream buffers vegetated with non-native species or otherwise degraded shall be enhanced with native plants, habitat features or other enhancements. 6. Buffer uses. The following uses may be permitted within a stream 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 stream: a. Conse~ationand restoration activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife; b. Passive recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report, including: (i) Walkways and trails, provided that those pathways that are generally parallel to the perimeter of the stream shall be located in the outer twenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area; (ii) Wildlife viewing structures; and (iii) Fishing access areas. c. Stormwater management facilities. Grass lined swales and dispersal trenches may be located in the outer hnrenty-five percent (25%) of the buffer area. All other surface water management facilities are not allowed within the buffer area.

7. Building setback. A building setback is required from the edge of the buffer per KMC 18.55.270.

D. Stream crossings. Stream crossings may be allowed and may encroach on the otherwise required stream buffer if: 1. All crossings use bridges or other construction techniques which do not disturb the stream bed or bank, except that bottomless culverts or other appropriate methods demonstrated to provide fisheries protection may be used for Type 2 or 3 streams if the applicant demonstrates that such methods and their implementation will pose no harm to the stream or inhibit migration of fish; 2. All crossinas are constructed durina the summer low flow and are timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when tke is critical to salmonids; 3. Crossings do not occur over salmonid spawning- areas unless the City determines that no other crossing site exists; 4. Bridge piers or abutments are not placed within the FEMA floodway or the ordinary high water mark; 5. Crossings do not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream; 6. Underground utility crossings are laterally drilled and located at a depth of four (4) feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood predicted by a civil engineer licensed by the state of Washington. Temporary bore pits to perform such crossings STREAMS--DESIGNATION and RATING Page 3 of 3

may be permitted within the stream buffer established in this Chapter; and 7. Crossings are minimized and serve multiple purposes and properties whenever possible.

E. Stream relocations. I. Stream relocations may be allowed only for: a. All stream types as part of a public project for which a public agency and utility exception is granted pursuant to this Chapter; or b. Type 3 or 4 streams for the purpose of enhancing resources in the stream if: i. appropriate floodplain protection measures are used; and ii. the location occurs on the site except that relocation off the site may be allowed if the applicant demonstrates that any on-site relocation is impracticable, the applicant provides all necessary easements and waivers from affected property owners and the off-site location is in the same drainage sub-basin as the original stream. 2. For any relocation allowed by this section, the applicant shall demonstrate, based on information provided by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist, that: a. The equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained; b. There will be no adverse impact to local groundwater; c. There will be no increase in velocity; d. There will be no interbasin transfer of water; e. There will be no increase in the sediment load; f. There is an overall increase in habitat function and value for salmonids and other fish; g. Requirements set out in the mitigation plan are met; h. The relocation conforms to other applicable laws; and i. All work will be carried out under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist.

F. Stream enhancement. Stream enhancement not associated with any other development proposal may be allowed if accomplished according to a plan for its design. implementation, maintenance and monitoring prepared by a civil engineer and a qualified biologist and carried out under the direction of a qualified biologist.

G. Minor stream restoration. A minor stream restoration project for fish habitat enhancement may be allowed if: 1. The project results in an increase in stream function and values; 2. The restoration is sponsored by a public agency with a mandate to do such work; 3. The restoration is not associated with mitigation of a specific development proposal; 4. The restoration is limited to removal and enhancement of riparian vegetation, placement of rock weirs, log controls, spawning gravel and other specific salmonid habitat improvements; 5. The restoration only involves the use of hand labor and light equipment; or the use of helicopters, cranes, or aerial equipment which deliver supplies to the project site provided that they have no contact with sensitive areas or their buffers; and 6. The restoration is performed under the direction of a qualified biologist.

18.55.430 Performance Standards- Mitigation Requirements A. Stream mitigation. Mitigation of adverse impacts to riparian habitat areas shall result in equivalent functions and values on a per function basis, be located as near to the alteration as feasible, and be located in the same sub drainage basin as the impacted habitat.

B. Alternative mitigation for stream areas. The performance standards set forth in this Subsection may be modified at the City's discretion if the applicant demonstrates that greater habitat functions, on a per function basis, can be obtained in the affected sub-drainage basin as a result of alternative mitigation measures. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--DESIGNATION Page 1 of 3

FlSH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--DESIGNATION

18.55.500 Designation of fish and wildlife habitats of importance A. Fish and wildlife habitats of importance are those habitat areas that meet any of the following criteria: 1. Documented presence of species listed by the federal government or the State of Washington as endangered or threatened; or 2. Heron rookeries or active nesting trees; or 3. Class 1 Wetlands as defined in these regulations; or 4. Type 1 Streams as defined in these regulations. 5. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 232-12-292).

A. All areas within the City meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

8. The City may accept and consider nominations for habitat areas and species to be designated as fish and wildlife habitats of importance. Nominations will be accepted on an annual basis. Guidelines for nomination are available from the Director.

FlSH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--REPORT REQUIREMENTS

18.55.510 Critical area report Requirements for critical areas reports for fish and wildlife habitats of importance are available from the Director.

FlSH AND WILDME HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

18.55.520 Performance standards - General requirements A. Habitat management plan. A habitat management plan is required when the priority habitats and species maps or natural-heritage program maps maintained by the City, or other information, indicate the presence of areas with which critical species listed as endangered or threatened under federal or state law have a ~rimarvassociation. 1. All habitat management plans shali be in consultation with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Habitat management plans for critical species listed as endangered or threatened shall be approved bythe ~epartmentof Fish and Wildlife. 2. Habitat Manaaement Plan Content Reauirements. Based on the characteristics of the site and informatin submitted by the applicant, the Director may require that all or a portion of the following be included in a habitat management plan: a. A map drawn to scale or survey showing the following information: i. All lakes, ponds, streams, and wetlands on, or adjacent to the subject property, including the name (if named), ordinary high water mark of each, and the stream type or wetland class consistent with this Chapter. ii. The location and description of the fish and wildlife habitats of importance on the subject property, as well as any potential fish and wildlife habitats of importance within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property as shown on maps maintained by the City. iii. The location of any observed evidence of use by a listed species. b. An analysis of how the proposed development activities will affect the fish and wildlife habits of importance and listed species. c. Provisions to reduce or eliminate the impact of the proposed development activities on any fish and wildlife habitats of importance and listed species. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--DESIGNATION

d. The habitat management plan should also address the following issues: i. Prohibition or limitation of development activities within the fish and wildlife habitats of importance, ii. Establishment of a buffer around the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, iii. Retention of certain vegetation or areas of vegetation critically important to the listed species, iv. Limitation of access to the fish and wildlife habitats of importance and buffer, v. Seasonal restrictions on construction activities on the subject property, vi. Clustering of development on the subject property, and vii. The preservation or creation of a habitat area for the listed species.

B. ~lterationsshall not degrade the functions and values of habitat. Fish and wildlife habitat areas of importance may be altered only if the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat. All new structures and land alterations shall be prohibited from habitat areas of importance, except in accordance with this Chapter.

C. Non-indigenous species shall not be introduced. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a fish and wildlife habitat area of importance unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval.

D. Mitigation shall result in contiguous habitat. Mitigation sites shall be located to achieve contiguous wildlife habitat corridors in accordance with a mitigation plan that is part of an approved critical area report to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed.

E. Mitigation shall achieve equivalent or greater biological functions. Mitigation of alterations to habitat areas of importance shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis.

F. Approvals shall be supported by the best available science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a fish and wildlife habitat of importance shall be supported by the best available science.

G. Buffers. 1. Establishment of buffers. The Director shall require the establishment of buffer areas for activities in, or adjacent to, fish and wildlife habitats of importance, when needed to protect fish and wildlife habitats of importance. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, or areas identified for restoration, established to protect the integrity, functions and values of the affected habitat. Buffer enhancement may be required. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the habitat and the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted nearby, and shall be consistent with the management recommendations issued by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2. Seasonal restrictions. When a species is more susceptible to adverse impacts during specific periods of the year, seasonal restrictions, as determined by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, may apply. Larger buffers may be required and activities may be further restricted during the specified season.

18.55.530 Performance standards - Specific habitats A. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species 1. No development shall be allowed within a fish and wildlife habitat of importance or buffer with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITATS OF IMPORTANCE--DESIGNATION

2. Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a fish and wildlife habitat of importance with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the City. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the fish and wildlife habitat of importance or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the a~~ro~riate,, , federal aaencv. 3 Bald eagle habitat shall

B. Great blue heron rookery. 1. A buffer equal to the distance of nine hundred (900) feet radius measured from the outermost nest tree in the rookery will be established around an active rookery. This area will be maintained in native vegetation. 2. Between January 1 and July 31, no clearing, grading or land disturbing activity shall be allowed within nine hundred (900) feet of the rookery, unless approved by the City and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 3. Approval of permits for activities within nine hundred (900) feet of a heron rookery shall not occur prior to the approval of a habitat management plan by the City and WDFW.

C. Anadromous fish 1. All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to, adhering to the following standards: a. Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the applicable species; b. An alternative alignment or location for the activity is not feasible; c. The activity is designed so that it will provide an overall improvement in the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; and d. Any impacts to the functions or values of the habitat consewation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical area report. 2. Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 3. Fills, when authorized by the City's Shoreline Management Master Program, shall not adversely impact anadromous fish or their habitat or shall mitigate any unavoidable impacts, and shall only be allowed for a water-dependent use. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--DESIGNATION Page 1 of 4

GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--DESIGNATION . 18.55.600 Purpose. The primary purpose of geologically hazardous area regulations is to avoid and minimize potential impacts to life and property from geologic hazards. In addition, geologic hazard areas may provide other benefits to the City, including protection of wildlife habitat.

18.55.610 Designation of geologically hazardous areas. Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events. They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development and use. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as a geologically hazardous area:

A. Erosion hazard;

B. Landslide hazard;

C. Seismic hazard; and

D. Other geological events including mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential settlement.

18.55.620 Designation of specific hazard areas A. Erosion hazard areas. Erosion hazard areas are those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources conservation Service or identified by a special study as having a "moderate to severe," "severe," or "very severe" erosion potential.

9. Landslide hazard areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Examples of these may include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Areas of historic failures, such as: a. Those areas delineated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "severe" limitation for building site development; or b. Areas designated as Quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, or landslides on maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey or State Department of Natural Resources; 2. Areas with all three of the following characteristics: a. Slopes steeper than fifteen percent (15%); and b. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment; and c. Springs or ground water seepage; 3. Areas that have shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from ten thousand years ago to the present) or that are underlain or covered by mass wastage debris of that epoch; 4. Slopes that are parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness (such as bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes) in subsurface materials; 5. Areas potentially unstable because of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action; 6. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; and 7. Areas with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe top and measured by averaging the GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--DESIGNATION Page 2 of 4

inclination over at least ten (10) feet of vertical relief.

C. Seismic hazard areas. Seismic hazard areas are locations subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of earthquake damage in the past. Ground shaking is the primary cause of earthquake damage in Washington. The strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by:

1. The magnitude of an earthquake; 2. The distance from the source of an earthquake; 3. The type of thickness of geologic materials at the surface; and 4. The type of subsurface geologic structure.

Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless, loose, or soft- saturated soils of low density, typically in association with a shallow ground water table.

D. Other hazard areas. Geologically hazardous areas shall also include areas determined by the Director to be susceptible to other geological events including mass wasting, debris flows, and differential settlement.

GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--REPORT REQUIREMENTS

18.55.630 Critical area report. A critical area report shall be required for all proposed alterations of properties that are located within two hundred (200) feet of any geologically hazardous area. Requirements for critical area reports for geologically hazardous areas are available from the Director.

GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--PERFORMANCE STANDARDS . 18.55.640 Performance standards - General requirements A. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that: 1. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond pre- development conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Are designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than pre-development conditions; and 4. Are certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. B. Critical facilities prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative.

18.55.650 Performance standards - Specific hazards A. Erosion and landslide hazard areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the following requirements: 1. Buffer required for erosion hazard areas. No buffer is required from an area categorized as only an erosion hazard area. 2. Buffer required for landslide hazard areas. A buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the Director to eliminate or minimize the risk of property damage, death or injury resulting from landslides caused in whole or part by the development, based upon review of and concurrence with a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional. a. Minimum buffer. The minimum buffer shall be equal to the height of the slope, as measured from the toe to the top, or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--DESIGNATION Page 3 of 4

b. Buffer reduction. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet when a qualified professional demonstrates to the Director's satisfaction based upon review of a special study that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development. adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. c. Increased buffer. The buffer may be increased where the Director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development. d. Building setback. A building setback is required from the edge of the buffer per KMC 18.55.270. 3. Alterations. Alterations of an erosion hazard area or a landslide hazard area andlor its buffer may only occur for activities for which a special study is submitted and certifies that: a. The alteration will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions; b. The alteration will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and c. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. 4. Design standards. Alterations within an erosion hazard area, or landslide hazard area andlor buffer shall be designed to meet the following basic requirements unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design that deviates from one or more of these standards provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other provisions of this Chapter. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require regular and periodic maintenance to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: a. The proposed development shall not decrease the factor of safety for landslide occurrences below the limits of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic conditions. Analysis of dynamic conditions shall be based on a minimum horizontal acceleration as established by the current version of the Uniform Building Code; b. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas; c. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography; d. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation; e. The proposed development shall not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties; f. The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes; and g. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. 5. Vegetation shall be retained. Unless othelwise provided or as part of an approved alteration, removal of vegetation from an erosion or landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be prohibited. 6. Seasonal restriction. Clearing shall be allowed only from May 1st to October 1st of each year provided that the City may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis depending on actual weather conditions, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit issued by the City or the Department of Natural Resources. 7. Utility lines and pipes. Utility lines and pipes shall be permitted in erosion and landslide hazard areas only when the applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available. The line or pipe shall be located above ground and properly anchored andlor designed so that it will continue to function in the event of an underlying slide. Stormwater conveyance shall be allowed only through a high-density polyethylene pipe with fuse-welded joints, or similar product that is technically equal or superior. 8. Point discharges. Point discharges from surface water facilities and roof drains onto or upstream from an erosion or landslide hazard area shall be prohibited except as follows: a. Conveyed via continuous storm pipe downslope to a point where there are no erosion hazards areas downstream from the discharge; b. Discharged at flow durations matching predeveloped conditions, with adequate energy GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS--DESIGNATION Page 4 of 4

dissipation, into existing channels that previously conveyed stormwater runoff in the predeveloped state; or c. Dispersed discharge upslope of the steep slope onto a low-gradient undisturbed buffer demonstrated to be adequate to infiltrate all surface and stormwater runoff, and where it can be demonstrated that such discharge will not increase the saturation of the slope. 9. Subdivisions. The division of land in landslide hazard areas and associated buffers is subject to the following: a. Land that is located wholly within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may not be subdivided. Land that is located partially within a landslide hazard area or its buffer may be divided provided that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of, and will not affect, the landslide hazard or its buffer; and b. Access roads and utilities may be permitted within a landslide hazard area and associated buffer if the City determines that no other feasible alternative exists. 10. Prohibited development. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within landslide hazard areas and related buffers. 11. Previously graded slopes. Slopes meeting the criteria of a landslide hazard area based on slope steepness and height that were created through previous legal grading activities may be regraded. Any such slope that meets the criteria of a landslide hazard following site development shall be subject to all requirements for landslide hazard areas.

B. Seismic hazard areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards of Performance standards - General requirements KMC 18.55.640.

C. Other hazard areas. Activities on sites containing or adjacent to other geologically hazardous areas, shall meet the standards of Performance standards - General requirements KMC 18.55.640.

18.55.700 Flood Hazard Areas

[Insert current flood hazard areas code]