HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_EAtkins_DOE_Public_Comment_2509241
Mariah Kerrihard
From:Atkins, Emily (ECY) <eatk461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent:Wednesday, September 24, 2025 3:13 PM
To:Mariah Kerrihard
Subject:Ecology Feedback on Renton CAO Draft (PlanView Submittal ID #2025-S-9806)
Attachments:ECYReview_Draft CAO Amendments_250912_v1.docx
Hello Mariah Kerrihard,
Thank you for submitting the City of Renton's draft CAO to PlanView and giving Ecology the opportunity to
provide feedback as part of the 60-day review period. We have provided our initial feedback on the
wetland related provisions below and have the same comments attached to this email as inline
comments to make review easier. We do have a few clarifying questions about intent in some of your
language that we would like to go over as well. Most of our feedback is based on our Wetland Guidance
for Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Updates: Western and Eastern Washington which contains both
guidance and sample ordinance language we recommend to local jurisdictions.
4-3-050B APPLICABILITY:
f. If you’re going to use parts of the GMA’s definition of “designated wetlands” here we ask that you
use the entire definition as is with no modifications of the definition. You are missing what a
wetland is. The definition below is required to be used to define a wetland, per the GMA, in your
CAO and should be included with no modifications.
Full definition:
“Wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland
sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals,
detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or
those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the
construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands.”
4-3-050C EXEMPT, PROHIBITED AND NONCONFORMING ACTIVITIES:
3.22. Is single family residence changing its name in your code to residential structure and does it
have a new definition? What is that definition? If making this change make sure you’re consistent
throughout your code.
4.1.d. Our guidance for trails recommends a 5 foot width to reduce impacts. You might consider
using this width as well. The rest of your walkway and trail criteria appears consistent with our
guidance.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
2
4-3-050D ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION:
5.c.iv.a. What is that intent of "determining whether wetlands are unregulated"? All wetlands,
regardless of their size or association with shoreline, shall be regulated per the GMA. We would
recommend removing this section as it may imply that there are some wetlands that are not
regulated.
5.c.iv.c. We don’t recommend buffer reductions for wetland buffers and instead suggest buffer
averaging as a way to allow flexibility while still providing sufficient protection of function and
values. Furthermore, we recommend additional criteria when averaging which you address
elsewhere in your wetland section. Consider removing this from this section as it seems
redundant.
5.c.iv.e. We very strongly recommend removing this language about authorizing "other category
level for created or restored wetlands" as it doesn’t appear consistent with the rest of your code
and creating another category of wetland doesn’t align with our guidance, the Washington State
rating system, or best available science. Is there some other intent for this language?
5.c.iv.f. Unsure as what (f) means as it is unclear. Is this addressed in your mitigation section?
4-3-050F SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES:
2. For wetlands, do you have criteria of what qualifications meet a qualified specialist? In your
definitions section you point back to BAS definitions but you might consider also including criteria.
Our CAO guidance suggests the following definition you might consider:
“Qualified wetland professional: A person with professional wetland experience that meets
the following criteria:
(a) A Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts or equivalent degree in hydrology, soil science,
botany, ecology, resource management, or related field, or four years of full-time work
experience as a wetland professional may substitute for a degree, and
(b) At least two additional years of full-time work experience as a wetland professional;
including delineating wetlands, preparing wetland reports, conducting function assessments,
and developing and implementing mitigation plans, and
(c) Completion of additional wetland-specific training programs. This could include a more
comprehensive program such as the University of Washington Wetland Science and
Management Certificate Program or individual workshops on topics such as wetland
delineation, function assessment, mitigation design, hydrophytic plant or hydric soil
identification.
A person certified as a Professional Wetland Scientist through the Society of Wetland
Scientists professional certification program meets the above criteria. “
4-3-050G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
2. For wetlands we highly recommend mention that buffers should be well vegetated. Could there
be mention of that here? For example from the CAO Guidance:
“The table assumes that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for
the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with
3
invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer must either be planted to
create the appropriate native plant community or be widened to ensure that the buffer
provides adequate functions to protect the wetland. “
Your updated wetland buffer table appears to be using the recommended buffers from buffer
alternative 3 as found in Wetlands in WA State Vol 2 Appendix 8-C. This is an acceptable buffer
table to use in your CAO however it would be highly recommended that if you use this table that
you note that if a wetland meets more than one of the characteristics that the more protective
buffer is used. The reason for that is if a bog scores a habitat 8 to 9, then it will need that wider
buffer (300) to protect habitat functions. Note from Appendix 8-C (page 6):
"If a wetland meets more than one of the characteristics listed in Tables 8C-4 to 8C-7, the
buffer recommended to protect the wetland is the widest one. For example, if a Category I
wetland (Table 8C-7) scores 8 points for habitat and 7 points for water quality functions, a
300-foot buffer is needed for land uses with high impacts because the widths needed to
protect habitat are wider than those needed for the other functions."
9.d.c. The language here is not very strong and we would not recommend using “fragile” is not a
clear description. We very strongly recommend removing this and keeping the rest of the criteria
which is much more clearly worded and can be based on existing best available science.
4-3-050I ALTERATIONS TO CRITICAL AREAS BUFFERS:
3.a. In general, we recommend that reductions of wetland buffers are not used and instead prefer
the use of buffer averaging (as you have below). We would strongly recommend removing reduction
options and instead use the buffer averaging criteria to provide flexibility while also better
protecting wetlands. If the reduction options is kept we would also highly consider language that
makes it clear that combination of buffer averaging and any buffer reductions are not allowed.
4-3-050J ALTERATIONS TO CRITICAL AREAS:
4.b. We strongly recommend updating your list for methods of compensatory mitigation to align
with the most recent Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 - Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 2). This document has the order of preference as follows which swaps
preservation and enhancement (page 77):
1. Restoration
-Re-establishment
-Rehabilitation
2. Establishment (Creation)
3. Preservation (Protection/Maintenance)
4. Enhancement
4-3-050L MITIGATION, MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING:
1.d. You might consider updating your mitigation approach to align with Ecology’s watershed
approach to mitigation. A watershed approach may include on-site compensatory mitigation, off-
site compensatory mitigation (including mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs), or a combination
of on-site and off-site compensatory mitigation. Where relevant watershed plans are available,
compensation sites should be located in areas targeted by those plans for restoring environmental
processes. Ecology recommends including a stepwise watershed approach for choosing the
location of a compensatory mitigation site in your wetlands chapter. An example approach can be
found in Chapter 6A of Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1 - Agency Policies and
Guidance (Version 2).
4
We hope this feedback will be useful as Renton continues to work on the CAO update process. We would
like to go over our recommendations and questions and have the chance to address any concerns you
might have. Please let me know when there will a good time for you to set up a meeting to discuss.
Best,
Emily Atkins
She/Her
Critical Areas Ordinance Coordinator
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
WA State Dept of Ecology
emily.atkins@ecy.wa.gov | 360-628-6680