Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline Master Plan Amendment (1993) ` O
ig
s.►?��i'�T4FT� is 1�••:!i O
A w �1111 i'
1110iii..0 i. iltt. 47
o
•
<04 WP.1.4 44114 1.1.1 ,. ..r 1;,.. ,:;'.. ir.—IMMO
a. g 0 .
Washington State Department of Ecology
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management BULK RATE
Mail Stop PV-11 U.S. POSTAGE PAID
Olympia, Washington
Permit
Olympia, Washington 98504 224
The preparation of this document was financially aided through a grant to the Washington Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
for sponsors an ongoing envi- r!0-/- 4.� 'S"
uled lease sale areas to an- , ;
roposed oil and gas activities .,e ',�" ; .
fering exploration and devel- t `i r: S. �tE
yr�.
to the environment.
4a ` N.. 1
lease sale, Interior gathers ! N.
^
urce estimates and other in- .. 1 op
ironmental impact statement ,...4 s - - 4'► * ' ''.
Ai
al governments, and citizens "' 'T
i s
ocal point for citizen involve- - - !' •
,
and hearings. Based on this to.
and lease sale are made by
Interior. " '_.isausk = ,,
.final EIS whicfrom includesshi re-
on CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
endations from Washington
ition are included in the EIS. Understanding the process and potential impacts of offshore de-
visions. velopment makes it easier for you to participate in the decisions
Washington will need to make in the future. There are several
avenues of participation for the public.
:rmines which tracts are still First, become familiar with your community's shoreline master
and announces a "Proposed program. This land use planning document will be used to evalu-
;iew and comment on tracts ate onshore development associated with offshore activity. Plans
Act requires the Interior Sec- may be amended as development is proposed,so attend and gar-
ments unless "national inter- ticipate in local planning commission hearings.
is,a "Final Notice Of Sale" is
Second, you can review and comment on the five-year lease sale
plan and environmental impact reports. When available, copies
may be obtained from the Washington Department of Ecology or
the Minerals Management Service (see addresses below).
Third,if leasing is proposed for Washington,review and comment
on the environmental impact report prepared for the sale. Public
hearings would be held by the Department of the Interior.
And finally,there may be proposals to construct facilities onshore
to support offshore exploration and development activities.Again,
:sful bidders prepare explora- the process would allow for public comment on the proposal and
)epartment of Ecology works environmental reports.
lovernments in reviewing ex-
tions. Groups with specific interests in offshore development may meet
to gather information,discuss important issues or formulate a posi-
erable resources are found,a tion. These groups provide another way for you to be involved.
development to MMS. Plans For more information about offshore development, contact the
ssing plants, and marine ter- Department of Ecology or the Minerals Management Service.
cies and local governments.
re required by MMS. State Washington State Department of Ecology
!ens review and comment on Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
>plications. Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
begins drilling and producing 206/459-6782
onitoring offshore operations. US Department of the Interior
inspections, including tests of MMS/Pacific OCS Region
iment. Periodic exercises test 1340 West Sixth Street
equipment. Los Angeles, California 90017
f ment of environmentally sound policies for proposed offshore oil
• i 4tt '1 and gas development. In preparation for the possibility of OCS-
f . -e.
�. related development the department is involved in analyses of
environmental impacts, coordination of environmental studies,ad-
fAir y ministration of permits for geophysical surveys, and coastal plan-
Wing and permit review for onshore OCS related facilities.
\ 4 .... T`_...
The Shoreline Management Act prohibits surface drilling for oil
and gas on Puget Sound and along the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
`. Under a self-imposed moratorium,the Department of Natural Re-
' f sources does not propose to lease within the state's jurisdiction on
the outer coast.
t- i
1111
Y'
ate Participation: The Role of Washing- y:,:.: :v: :..^,'x.:_ _ �
11
n's Coastal Zone Management Program0 -• `` ''••• '=' `^• •`'.
OCS Lands Act, passed by Congress over 30 years ago, -t _ - :N
Ares the Secretary of Interior to balance the development of " ' `:, . '
Ind gas reserves with protection of the environment, and to -• %
sider the adverse impacts that leasing may have on the coastal Miti �
z.It is this interrelationship between offshore oil and gas activi- ���' '�'�:;: - "
and coastal zone impacts that accounts for the Washington `- <= ��
iartment of Ecology's role in responding to the Federal oil and `0� -�.+`�Milk
leasing initiative, for Ecology is responsible for Washington's _` d
;tal zone management program.
cugh its participation in the Department of the Interior's OCS
cy Committee and the Pacific Regional Technical Working Risks/Benefits of OCS Leasing
up, the Department of Ecology works toward the establish-
Economic Benefits
The only direct benefits coastal states derive from oil and gas
f' 200miles leasing is through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Exclusive Economic zone I (LWCF).Established in 1965,the LWCF provides matching grants
on a 50/50 basis to help state and local governments acquire and
I develop public outdoor recreation areas and facilities.Washington
k. State's share for Fiscal Year 1985 was approximately $1.4 mil-
_ --�—_
iC r•am.. ....10,
lion.
l / ,,,
�,i� �, Should offshore development occur along the Washington coast,
`-`"=,a 'c— a • �� j the state could receive indirect economic benefits in the form of
,
-
- . increased property tax revenues from new petroleum-related in-
i �`} dustries. Accompanying this development would be employment
Iq,, ` ,` \' (,,:. opportunities and secondary economic growth as workers move
ry�� '- i�� into coastal communities and buy goods and services.
I �'r'0,,4. '�',ter. 1. However, maintaining economic stability could prove challenging.
Typically,an oil field's peak production will last only 15-20 years.
Local communities dependent upon petroleum dollars would need
to plan for the transition to avoid a possible economic downturn as
production dwindles.
regulation have minimized the risks,those risks still exist. When a
spill does occur, its effect on ocean resources depends partly on
the nature of the oil and the location of the spill. Spills reaching
shore have more serious consequences, and, in Washington, pre-
vailing wind currents may increase this risk.
Social Impacts
Offshore oil development also brings social changes to coastal
communities.Social changes include shifts in the size and nature of
the community's population and changes in the economic struc-
ture of the community. For example, higher wages paid to off-
shore workers may affect housing and food costs, creating
hardship for the elderly and others on fixed incomes.
Rapid growth can also strain existing social services, such as
schools, police and fire departments, utilities, and transportation.
In addition, the boom and bust cycle mentioned earlier creates
social problems.
Environmental Risks
Andrew McMillan, Brian Walsh: Editing and design
The offshore drilling platforms routinely discharge manmade com- Andrew McMillan, Wendy Shaul: Graphics
pounds known as "drilling muds" along with waters trapped in Brian Walsh: Photographs
geologic formations and rock cuttings brought to the surface dur-
ing exploration and operation phases.These heavier contaminants
settle to the sea floor where they can disturb bottom-dwelling
organisms.
It is often necessary to construct onshore support and platform
fabrication facilities to accommodate offshore development. Usu- .
ally, they are located close to the offshore drilling platforms.
Among the facilities accompanying offshore production are service
bases and repair yards, platform fabrication yards, pipeline land-
falls, and marine terminals. tY
While sometimes characterized as environmentally "clean," on-
shore facilities can create environmental problems if improperly 1 a
sited. For example, if extensive dredging and filling are required, • _Cf
serious impacts to wetland habitats and commercial and recrea
tional fisheries could result. In addition, discharges from these fa-1 ,
cilities may contribute to air and water pollution.
Normal operation of offshore production platforms does not re-
lease petroleum into the sea except for minor, chronic spill/seep- '
age associated with the "formation waters." However,
R�
transportation of the oil from the rig to shore, via tanker or pipe-
line, can result in small but routine operational spills.
A 189,000 gallon oil spill along the Strait of Juan de Fuca from an oil
Perhaps the greatest concern about offshore oil production is the tanker in 1985 underscored a major environmental concern about offshore
chance of a major spill. While improved technology and increased oil production and associated transportation.
April 28. 1997 Renton City Council Minutes Page 138
significant percentage of the money available nationally for this type
of program.
* Contrary to published reports, the City has received assurances from
the coordinator of the Miss Washington Scholarship Pageant that
pageant activities will take place in Renton this summer as planned.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Jack Gobright, 320 Meadow Ave. N., Renton, 98055, expressed concern with
Citizen Comment: activities taking place at a duplex on the corner of 3rd and Meadow. Saying
Gobright - Nuisance that Renton police frequently call on this residence for one reason or another,
Duplex at 3rd & Meadow he asked that the City put pressure on the property's owner in an effort to
stop any and all illegal activities at this location. He specifically wanted to
know if the property's current remodeling project, commenced after a recent
fire, was being done legally and with the Building Department's knowledge.
Mayor Tanner agreed to look into this matter.
CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the
listing.
Parks: Cedar River Bank Community Services Department requested authorization to submit a grant
Stabilization Project, King application to King County for $164,646 in Community Development Block
County CDBG Funding Grant (CDBG) flood relief funds for the Cedar River Bank stabilization
project. Refer to Community Services Committee.
Parks: Cedar River Community Services Department requested authorization to apply for $134,000
Regional Park Field and in grant funds from the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
Parking Lot Lighting, IAC to install athletic field and parking lot lighting at Cedar River Regional Park.
Grant The City's match is $134,000. Refer to Community Services Committee.
Human Services: 1998 Human Services Division recommended acceptance of an estimated $411,268
CDBG Funding in 1998 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to be
administered according to King County's CDBG consortium guide. Refer to
Community Services Committee.
Planning: Shoreline Master Planning and Technical Services Division proposed amendments to the
Program Amendments Shoreline Master Program's policies, development regulations and permit
procedures. Refer to Planning & Development Committee via the Planning
Commission.
Public Works: Wells Short Utility Systems Division recommended acquisition of Lot 4 of the Wells Short
Plat Acquisition (Lot 4), Plat (SHP-92-186; NE 27th St. & Aberdeen Ave. NE), subject to the appraisal
NE 27th/Aberdeen Ave value matching or exceeding the proposed purchase price of $80,000, to allow
NE realignment of the sanitary sewer and storm water pipes contained in the
property in the interest of protecting and maintaining the property's existing
wetland. Refer to Utilities Committee.
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was read from Troop 464, Boy Scouts of America, requesting
Citizen Comment: Troop permission to install U.S. flags along Third Avenue and Rainier Avenue on
464, Boy Scouts of eight specific national holidays as part of a combination service project and
America - Downtown Flag fund-raising effort. The Troop requests support from the City along with an
Raising Occasions annual donation of $25 per flag. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,
SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS MATTER TO THE
ADMINISTRATION FOR INVESTIGATION AND A REPORT BACK TO
COUNCIL. CARRIED.
( ' OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA]
AI#: 8•cL•
Submitting Data: Planning/Building/Public Works For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. Planning and Technical Services April 28, 1997
Staff Contact Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190) Agenda Status
Consent X
Subject: Public Hearing...
Correspondence..
Shoreline Master Program Amendments/Comprehensive Plan Ordinance
Resolution
Old Business
Exhibits: New Business
Study Sessions
Issue Paper Information
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Simultaneous referral of the Shoreline Master Program Legal Dept X
amendments to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Finance Dept
Development Committee. Other
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... n/a Transfer/Amendment
Amount Budgeted n/a Revenue Generated
Total Project Budget n/a City Share Total Project..
Summary:of Action:
The City has initiated review of necessary Shoreline Master Program (SMP) amendments.,in response to recent
State legislation, has participated as a case study with the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and has
submitted a grant application to begin a larger update of the SMP. Amendments proposed at this time are more
minor in nature; the larger SMP update would be addressed in a separate work program. Unlike amendments
of other Comprehensive Plan elements, there is an exception in the Growth Management Act to allow
amendment of SMP's more than once a year [RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(ii)]. However, due to timing, the SMP
amendments can be reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for continuity.
Amendments would be made to policies, development regulations, and permit procedures. This referral would
include the SMP amendments on the list of 1997 City-Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments reviewed by
the City Council on March 24, 1997. Simultaneous referral of these amendments to both the Planning
Commission and the Planning and Development Committee will facilitate the review process for this item.
Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the amendments will be scheduled for the Council
committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Refer the amendment request to the Planning Commission, and refer the amendment,request to the Planning and
Development Committee pending Planning Commission review and recommendation.
Staff recommends adoption of Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed 1997
Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate.
H:IDIVISION.S\P&TS\PLANNING\LGRUETER\SHORELIN\RFRAGN.DOC
CITY OF RENTON
1 PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 16, 1997
TO: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, President
City Council Members
VIA: Mayor Jesse Tanner
FROM: CT' Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator 6 g
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Kattermann (ext. 6190)
SUBJECT: Referral of Shoreline Master Program Amendments
ISSUE:
• Revise the City's Shoreline Master Program to include amendments to policies, development
regulations, and permit procedures addressing State and local changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
• Refer Shoreline Master Program amendments simultaneously to the Planning Commission
and the Planning and Development Committee.
• Adopt Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed 1997
Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
New State Legislation/Status of Work Efforts
1
Since May 1996, City staff have been considering amending and updating the Renton Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) due to State legislative amendments to the Shoreline Management Act and
Growth Management Act. In ESHB 1724, due to a desire for regulatory reform and integration of
the Growth Management Act with the Shoreline Management Act, legislative amendments included:
• Streamlining shoreline permit procedures.
• Making wetland terminology consistent between the Growth Management Act and
Shoreline Management Act.
• Clarifying that local SMP goals and policies are an element of local comprehensive plans.
i
Aipril 16, 1997
Page 2
• Clarifying that other shoreline regulations included in an SMP are considered a part of
local development regulations.
i
• Requiring new guidelines for updating local SMP's.
In 1996, other Shoreline Management Act amendments were passed which, affect shoreline permit
expiration, permit exemptions, and residential docks.
In response to the State legislation, City staff initiated the preparation of minor amendments to the
Renton SMP addressing permit procedures, exemptions, definitions, and other similar issues.
Regarding amendments that will need to be made to fully integrate the SMP with the Comprehensive
Plan and other development regulations, in December 1996, Renton was selected by the State
Diepartment of Ecology (DOE) as a case study participant to "test" proposed new Master Program
Gluidelines. Additionally, the City applied for a grant this year to begin the larger; update and
integration of Renton's SMP which will need to be completed within two years after final adoption of
the DOE Master Program Guidelines. Grants will be awarded after the State,budget is finalized, and
grant funding appears hopeful.
On April 4, 1997, the City received a letter from Larry Martin of Foster Pepper &Shefelman, the firm
representing the Paul Allen Group. The letter requests proposed amendments;to the Renton Shoreline
Spaster Program (SMP). A majority of the requested amendments address conformance with the recent
ate legislation in terms of permit process, definitions, etc. which staff initiated several,months ago.
Other suggested amendments.would clarify policies and regulations regarding building arrangement,
p.iblic access, dredging, docks, recreation, and inconsistencies between' the SMP I and zoning
regulations. Many of these issues have already been discussed by staff and DOE during the case study
pocess and during preparation of the grant application. On the whole, the proposed;amendments
could be included for consideration with the staff work initiated to date addressing minor',amendments
to;the Renton SMP.
Summary of Proposed SMP Amendments
1
Based upon the staff work conducted to date, a list of recommended amendments is provided below.
As additional review is conducted by staff, elected officials, agencies, and interested citizens, other
amendments may be added.
Ir
1 Policy Amendments
Economic Element - clarifies policy language applicable to individual development sites, that water
rdlated development should be located along the shoreline, and all facilities not requiring a water's
edge location should be placed inland. This clarification would also be made to associated
development regulations.
Public Access Element - maintains restrictions on high rises on the shoreline, but removes language
addressing high rise structures adjacent to the shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program applies to
shorelines. Land adjacent to shorelines would be subject to the height restrictions of the Zoning Code.
Circulation Element - maintains language encouraging shoreline roadways to be scenic boulevards, but
deletes language that shoreline roadways be restricted to existing rights-of-way. This; clarification
W"ould also be made to associated development regulations.
II
i
1
• 1I1
April 16, 1997
Pige 3
Residential Element - deletes specific setback requirements from the policies as this is more
appropriately addressed in development standards elsewhere in the SMP and Zoning Code. Also,
language encouraging the location of low density development along the shoreline would be removed
since the location of various residential districts is determined by the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Code.
I ,
2'i: Shoreline Permit Exemptions
The Renton Shoreline Master Program has not been kept up-to-date with a growing list ofi exemptions
found in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
These include broadening of residential dock exemptions, construction of irrigation systems,
watershed restoration projects, projects 'improving fish or wildlife habitat,, or fish passage, and
hazardous substance remedial actions as well as others.
3i Definitions of"Shorelands" and "Wetlands" '
Iri 1995, the State Legislature required that shoreline jurisdiction rules be modified to make wetlands
terminology consistent between the Shoreline Management Act, the Growth Management Act, and
the Clean Water Act. What used to be termed "wetlands" in the Shoreline Management'Act is now
called "shorelands," and the definition of"wetland" refers to biological wetlands.
4: Permit Process Changes
e procedure for Shoreline Master Program amendments has been revised to reflect the Renton
Regulatory Reform Ordinance which amended various permit processes according to State Regulatory
Reform legislation, as well as recent amendments to the Shoreline Management Act regarding permit
life, permit extension, construction permit issuance, and appeal periods.
1,
5',1 Jurisdiction
Amendments would clarify throughout that the Shoreline Master Program addresses Shorelines of
Statewide Significance (e.g.. Lake Washington) in addition to other regulated shorelines as mandated
by the Shoreline Management Act. As another related issue, amendments may address shoreline
environment designations on shorelines not yet classified by Renton.
6. Water Related/Water Dependent Developments and Public Access
Amendments address the consistency of policies and regulations that encourage water dependent
developments, water related developments, or provision of public access by developments in the
shoreline.
71 Dredging and Landfill
Amendments address dredging and landfilling activities which are performed in accordance with a
remedial action plan approved by State or Federal agencies.
l
Aril 16, 1997
Page 4 '
I
I
8. Docks and Marinas
Revisions are proposed to the design criteria for recreational, commercial, and industrial docks, and
address the length of docks and breakwaters associated with marinas. '
II
9. Public and Private Recreation
Ammendments to public recreation development regulations indicate that accessibility to the water's
edge should be provided, with consideration to public safety and natural features. The amendment
provides greater consistency with Public Access policies.
i
Private recreation standards allow private recreation open to the public. Amendments would indicate
that access would not be contingent upon the development having water dependent or water oriented
facilities. Other criteria, regarding minimizing effects on adjacent properties; and adequate parking
with landscaping, remain.
1
101. Residential Setbacks ,
Residential setbacks are made consistent with the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance buffer
reiquirements, and the Zoning Code.
1 �. Springbrook Creek Map Footnote .
I
l
A' a condition of acceptance of 1993 SMP amendments, DOE required the preparation'of a more
detailed environment map of the Springbrook Creek Map. The City prepared the map which was
accepted by DOE and is part of the official Renton SMP in DOE headquarters. The map will be
included in an appendix. A footnote would be added about the approximate nature of identified
wetlands and the use of site-specific analysis to determine applicability of the SMP.
I
AHnendment Cycle ,
In compliance with the Growth Management Act, Chapter 4-3 of the Renton Municipal Code
indicates that amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must be considered no more than once a year.
roposed amendments are to be submitted the first quarter of each year, and the application P submittal
p riod closed March 31, 1997. City-initiated amendments were referred to the City. Council's
Planning and Development Committee and the Planning Commission simultaneously on March 24,
10
197.
li
Per 1995 amendments to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.480), th,e goals and,policies of
th�e Renton Shoreline Master Program (SMP) are now considered an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Unlike other Comprehensive Plan elements, there is an exception in the
G iowth Management Act to allow amendment of SMP's more than once a year (RCW
36.70A.13 0(2)(a)(i i)).
Given the status of efforts to prepare limited SMP revisions at this time, the SMP amendments can be
reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for continuity. It should be noted
tlil t there are some differences in terms of State coordination, review and approval of SMP
amendments as the State has the authority for final approval of SMP's and their amendment.
li
However, for the most part, SMP amendments can be considered by the City along 'with other
Comprehensive Plan Amendments. ,
{
l!
I!
1
April 16, 1997
Paige 5
CONCLUSION: •
'
e City has initiated review of necessary SMP amendments in response to recent State legislation,
lims participated as a case study with DOE, and has submitted a grant application to begin a larger
update of the SMP. There is an exception in the Growth Management Act to allow'amendment of
SVIP's more than once a year (RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(ii)). Given the status of current work efforts,
tle SMP amendments can be reviewed together with other Comprehensive Plan Amendments for
continuity.
This referral would include the SMP amendments on the list of proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments reviewed by the City Council on March 24, 1997. Simultaneous referral of these •
amendments to both the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee will
facilitate the review process for this item. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the
amendments will be scheduled for the Council committee without having ;to come back on the
Council agenda.
Staff recommends adoption of Shoreline Master Program amendments along with other proposed
1997 Comprehensive Plan Amendments as appropriate.
SLREFER.DOC
ICI
•
it tl
E '
C '
it i
� e I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Elaine-Kahns, being_first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the •
VALLEY T p�T CITY OF RENTON,V11AtHINGTON`
V t ALLEY DAILY NEWS AN ORDINANCE.OF THE CITY OF REN,.
600 S. Washington Avenue,Kent, Washington 98032 i TON 4-19-2 WASHINGTON,
CHAPTER 19,AMENDING
LINE MASTER PROGRAM, OF TITLE IV i
a daily newspaper published six(6)times a-week. Said newspaper is a legal newspaper (BUILDING REGULATIONS), OF ORDI-
NANCE
ofgeneralpublication and is now and has been for more than six monthsprior to the 9 NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF
GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY i
date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language continually OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" RELATING ` _.
as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The Valley Daily News has TO SHORELINE AMENDMENTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
been approved-as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of + RENTON,WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN AS'
Washington for King County. ! FOLLOWS: I
The notice in the exact form attached,waspublished in-the ValleyDailyNews SECTION I. Section 4-19-2 of Chapter
, 19, Shoreline Master Program of Title IV,
(and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed-to the subscribers during (Building Regulations), of Ordinance NO.
the below stated period. The annexed notice, a , 4260 entitled"Code of General Ordinances
of the City of Renton,Washington"is here- -
by amended to read as follows:
Ordinance#4633 4-19-2: AMENDMENTS: Any and all
amendments, additions or modifications to f
as published on: 9/20/96 said
SECTIONPII. This orrrogram ldilnance eoshallnbe '
effective upon its passage, approval, and
The full amount of-the fee charged for said foregoing a a.epublication is the sum of$50.53 thirty days after its publication.
i PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 1
‘ j 16th day of September, 1996.
i, Brenda Fritsvold, Deputy City Clerk
+ APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th
day of September, 1996.
Legal rk, Valley Daily News Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Pro Tem j ,
_ Approved as to form: l
Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney
I
Date of Publication: September 20, 1999
6
Subscribed and sworn before me on this 23
PubNews . a
ay of , 19 < " m Published in the Valley Daily ep-
ember 20, 1996. o ]
40° CkA M I-k-77% )6AA120-i-rN M ' —3-/-S -e4 . -
tCP l :o �D T A R Y��`cn a,4 Notary Public of the State of Washington ,
lit o .__ residing in Renton
a • Q p U B L\Ga(o•:.- +� King County, Washington
‘���:F A ) pO@
N. WAS ei'l
Amends: ORD 3758
I "
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4633
lAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 'OF :'RENTON; WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTION 4-19-2 OF CHAPTER 19, SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM,
OF TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) , OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
' ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" RELATING TO SHORELINE AMENDMENTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
, SECTION I . Section 4-19-2 of Chapter 19, Shoreline Master
Program, of Title IV (Building Regulations) , of Ordinance No. 4260
entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton,
Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows :
4-19-2 : AMENDMENTS : Any and all amendments, additions or
modifications to said Master Program shall be by ordinance .
SECTION II . This ordinance shall
a 1 be effective upon its
passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of September , 1996
•
-713/1-14AdeA 017brfrgOe
Brenda Fritsvold, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16th day of September 1996 .
C)/ /1
7z,,,e_ke, 1,J \
Kathy deolker-Wheeler, . Mayor Pro Tem
ORDINANCE NO. 4633
Approv-d as to form:
Lawrei e J. Warr- , City Attorney
Dateo,u Publication: September 20 , 1996
ORD. 67 : 8/26/96 :as .
11
11
2
September 16. 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Pane 353
Finance: Mini-Bond An ordinance was read relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the
Issuance for Fire Pumper issuance of $635,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds,
Truck Purchase 1996, of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to
acquire firefighting and lifesaving equipment; fixing the date, form,
maturities, maturity amounts and accreted value at maturity, interest rates,
terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund; and
approving the sale and providing for the sale and delivery of the bonds.
MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/23/96.
CARRIED.
Planning: Street An ordinance was read deleting subsections 4-31-5.F.2, 4-31-6.D.17 and 4-
Grid/Street Patterns 31-7.F.2 of Chapter 31, Zoning Code, of Title IV (Building Regulations), and
amending sections 9-12-2 and 9-12-15 of Chapter 12, Subdivision Ordinance,
of Title IX (Public Ways and Property) of City Code pertaining to street
patterns. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL
REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
9/23/96. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading:
Ordinance #4633 An ordinance was read amending Section 4-19-2 of Chapter 19, Shoreline
Development Services: Master Program, of Title IV (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to
Shoreline Master Program shoreline amendments. MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN,
Amendment Process COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL CALL:
ALL AYES. CARRIED.
Ordinance #4634 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of Bronson Way North (RAMAC,
Vacation: Bronson Way N Inc./Shane, VAC-94-006). MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY
(RAMAC/Shane, VAC- CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED. ROLL
94-006) CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Richard Wolf, 14702 SE 105th St., Renton, 98059, provided a written copy of
Citizen Comment: Wolf - the comments made earlier by his wife, Beverly Wolf, regarding the proposed
Miller/May Valley May Valley prezone. •
Annexation Prezoning
MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER
THESE COMMENTS TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE. CARRIED.
Citizen Comment: Larry Brosman, 3625 NE 9th St., Renton, 98056, thanked Council for
Brosman - Affordable nominating him to the Housing Finance Implementation Committee (HFIC) as
Housing Shared part of the Affordable Housing Shared Commitment Program. Mr. Brosman
Commitment Program looked forward to serving on the committee in the interest of working for
(HFIC') Appointment affordable housing.
ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN.
CARRIED. Time: 8:47 p.m.
hliliA°16)
BRENDA FRITSVOLD, Deputy City Clerk
9/16/96
September 9, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 336
Municipal Court: Judge Mayor Tanner appointed John D. Lawson, Georgina D. Sierra, Michael J.
Pro Tern Appointments Finkle and Denise C. Marti to serve terms expiring 12/31/96 as Municipal
Court Judge Pro Tern. Refer to Community Services Committee.
Annexation: Maplewood City Clerk submitted closing letter from the King County Boundary Review
Heights Board advising that no request for review was received on the proposed
Maplewood Heights annexation prior to the expiration of the 45-day filing
period; therefore, the Notice of Intention to Annex is approved as of 8/26/96.
Information. (See page 340 for ordinance.)
Development Services: City Clerk requested approval of proposed ordinance requiring that
Shoreline Master Program amendments to the City's Shoreline Master Program be accomplished by
Amendment Process formal adoption of an ordinance. Council concur. (See page 339 for
ordinance.)
CRT: 96-006, Middleton Court Case filed by Andrew T. Biggs on behalf of Stephanie Middleton
v. Renton seeking unspecified special and general damages for personal injuries suffered
when plaintiff allegedly slipped on a stairway at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach
Park on 10/07/94. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
CRT: 96-005, Tydico v. Court Case filed by Jeffrey G. Poole on behalf of Tydico, Inc. seeking a
Renton temporary restraining order prohibiting the City from awarding the contract
for CAG-96-096, Maplewood Sedimentation Basin Reconstruction project, to
Walashek Industrial & Marine. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services.
Legal: Criminal Trespass Legal Department recommended adoption of a proposed ordinance adding two
at Medical Facilities sections to the City's Criminal Code which will allow Renton police to enforce
State laws when people trespass or become obstreperous at a medical facility.
Refer to Public Safety Committee.
Public Works: Lake Surface Water Utility Division announced its intention to include $18,000 and
Washington Fish $13,000 in its 1997 and 1998 Surface Water Utility CIP budgets, respectively,
Population Studies (Lk to fund Renton's share of ecological studies for Lake Washington. The studies
WA/Cedar River are being sponsored by the Lake Washington/Cedar River Watershed Forum in
Watershed Forum) an effort to determine why this habitat's fish populations have been declining.
Refer to Utilities Committee for information only.
Airport: Enforcement of Transportation Division requested approval of proposed measures to pursue
Businesses in Non- enforcement of businesses and individuals who are operating aeronautical
Compliance with Rules & activities upon Renton Municipal Airport premises without complying with
Regulations the Airport Minimum Standards and/or the Airport Rules and Regulations.
Refer to Transportation (Aviation) Committee.
Public Works: Cedar River Water Utility Division requested approval of Utilities Cooperation agreement
Utility Xing, King County with King County to accept $234,253 in reimbursement for construction costs
Reimbursement, CAG-96- of the Cedar River Utility Crossing project. Council concur. (See page 339
for resolution.)
MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,
COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO
REMOVE ITEM. 6.g. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED.
Separate Consideration Planning/Building/Public Works Department submitted proposed revisions to
Streets: Sunset Blvd N "diamond lane" (high-occupancy vehicle) markings and associated signage on
HOV Lane Signage Sunset Blvd. N. to better accommodate lane changes.
Changes
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman described
the proposed revisions, explaining that the City received complaints from
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
_ f
AI #: .
SUBMITTLNG DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 9/9/96
Dept/Div/Board.. Executive/City Clerk
Staff! Contact.. Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS:
Consent XX
SUBJECT. Shoreline Master Program Amendment Public Hearing..
Correspondence..
Ordinance
Resolution
Old Business....
EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance New Business....
Study Session...
Information
Other
Special Presentation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVALS:
Legal Dept
Council concur. Finance Dept....
Other
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment..
Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated...
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The existing language of the Shoreline Master Program, Renton City Code Section 4-19-2, specifically
allows 'amendment of the Shoreline Master Program WITHOUT THE NECESSITY of further adoption of
such amendments, modifications or additions by the legislative authority of the City or by ordinance. In
the past few years, the program has been amended four times, twice by resolution and twice by Council
action by adoption of a Council committee report. Since the amendments constitute formal action by the
Council, staff recommends adoption of an ordinance each time the program is amended in the future. The
Shoreline Master Program is not currently codified in the City Code. Codification is proposed within the
next two years and all revisions to the codified ordinance will be made by adoption of an ordinance as well.
The attached ordinance replaces the existing language with new language requiring adoption of a
resolution by the City Council each time the Shoreline Master Program is amended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance.
September 9, 1996 Renton City Council Minutes Page 339
Richter, John Schlumpf, Scott Smith, Marion Sutton, Troy Thorpe and
Joyce Williams.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page
for resolution.)
ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption:
RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #3222 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a
Public Works: Cedar River utilities cooperation agreement with King County for the construction of King
Utility Xing, King County County's Cascade Siphon project and the City's Rolling Hills 590 Zone Water
Reimbursement, CAG-96- Main Crossing. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY
CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.
CARRIED.
Resolution #3223 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
H&HS: 1997-99 CDBG interlocal cooperative agreement with King County to obtain King County
Funding, King County, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds during the 1997-1999
CAG-96- funding years. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY EDWARDS,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Resolution #3224 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an
H&HS: 1997-99 HOME interlocal cooperative agreement with King County for the purpose of
Funding, King County, participating in the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. MOVED BY
CAG-96- KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Resolution #3225 A resolution was read approving the action of the State of Washington
Executive: Farwest Steel Economic Development Finance Authority and the issuance of non-recourse
Corp Tax-Exempt revenue bonds to finance an industrial development facility for Farwest Steel
Economic Development Corporation, and providing for other matters properly relating thereto.
Revenue Bonds MOVED BY EDWARDS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT
THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
Resolution #3226 A resolution was read increasing the membership of the City's Transit
Transportation: Transit Advisory Board. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY
Advisory Board Expansion EDWARDS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.
CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 9/16/96 for second and final reading:
Development Services: An ordinance was read amending Section 4-19-2 of Chapter 19, Shoreline
Shoreline Master Program Master Program, of Title IV (Building Regulations) of City Code relating to
Amendment Process shoreline amendments. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED
' BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND
FINAL READING ON 9/16/96. CARRIED.
Vacation: Bronson Way N An ordinance was read vacating a portion of Bronson Way North (RAMAC,
(RAMAC/Shane, VAC- Inc./Shane, VAC-94-006). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,
94-006) SECONDED BY EDWARDS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR
SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/16/96. CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading:
ATTACHMENT I
September 13, 1993 _. _ CettloL..Citw Council Minutes Pate 393.
Action: Council schedule a public hearing 9/27/93 to consider the
applicant's request.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Comprehensive Plan: 2. E-20 Earl Price/Fred Steiner: Request to rezone a parcel two lots north
Errata,eiNce teiner of SW Victoria Street between Hayes Place SW and Hardie Avenue SW,
E from Mixed Residential (MR) to Multi-Family:Infill (MF-I):
o 413 .1
Planning and Development Committee Review: This rezone request
a3 N J `' ` would require a Comprehensive Plan„Amendment to change the parcel's
•
�
+�
land use designation from Single-Family up to 4 Units/Mix to an Existing
Multi-Family District. Adjacent parcels would also be required to have
Cr CD their-zoning and land use designations changed to form a multi-family
HE4 district. The Committee is of the opinion that a public hearing should be
U z. held on this request jointly with all other Comprehensive Plan
LL ? amendments generated by the Errata and Comprehensive Plan update
0 Z En process. Such a hearing would be held prior to adoption of the
w ' c Comprehensive Plan in July, 1994.
T CD
CCIAction: Council concur in scheduling a public hearing for this request
c o jointly with all other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, prior to
2 . the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in July, 1994.
a0c cu .�
voa, cu
c c MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL
0 CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
-v .Q
U 2
Comprhensive Plan: 3. E-21 James Dalpay: Clarification of the request to rezone parcels located
Errata, Dalpay approximately at 3955 Sunset Boulevard NE from Mixed Residential
(MR) to Neighborhood'Commercial (CN).
Planning and Development Committee Review: The Committee reviewed
the applicant's presentation clarifying his areawide rezone request, and is
of the opinion that a public hearing be held so full Council can consider
the request as stated above.
Action: Council schedule a public hearing 9/27/93 to consider the
applicant's request. •
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Public Works: Shoreline Referred 8/21793 - Planning and Development Committee Chairman Stredicke
Master Program presented a report recommending concurrence in the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and staff to approve amendments to.the Shorelines
Master Program as follows:
- Designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way on the north and SW
43rd Street on the south a shoreline of the City;
- Provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north, to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the .
vicinity of SW,.38th Street abutting the City's recently-acquired Wetlands
Mitigation Bank;
September lea, 1993 Renton City Council Minutes Page 394
'? - Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
�' Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd
on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
0 0 D
i - Modify the definition of "wetlands" or "wetland areas" to only include
�.0 J those areas within 200 feet landward, on a horizontal plane,., from the
�j ordinary high water mark of a designated water body (with the language
"ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-
c � ` water line," and removing the 100 year floodplain/floodway from the
op definition of wetland/wetland areas);
Li ">' R c' -
._, Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the Shorelines Master Program to clarify
U t '� i that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on
shoreline matters is to Shorelines Hearings Board.
U :c s ';c ; The Committee further recommended, upon the advice of the City Attorney,
that this matter be referred to City Council on September 13, 1993, in order
0 that Council may authorize the City Clerk to accept and file the above-listed
c amendments to the Shorelines Master Program (pursuant to Section 4-19-2 of
'" our
c the City's Zoning Ordinance). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY
b w It) -g SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
_ -Q CARRIED. '
m ,c-1 ti
` ,e co City Attorney Warren clarified that the intent of this report was to comply
with City Code requirements to modify the Shorelines Master Program. He
stated that the amendments will be sent to the Department of Ecology for
publication and appeal period.
Compreh9 sive Plan: CA Councilman Stredicke stated that he will draft and present a new'lmotion next
Zoning B ffer week to include a solid, site-obscuring fence as a buffer requirement when
commercial and residential zones abut.
Communit Services Referred 8/16/93 - Community Services Committee Vice Chair Nelson
CommitteeI presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to
Parks: Ce•Iar River Trail approve the authorizing resolution which will allow preparation of an
Extension'project, WSDOT interlocal agreement as follows:
Interlocal • greement 1
The agreement will allow Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) to obligate the Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant Funds
II
for the construction phase of the Cedar River Trail Extension Project in the
amount of $200,055.00. The Committee further recommended that the
resolution be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY NELSON
• SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED. (See later resolution.)
Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Mathews presented a report recommending approval
Finance: Vouchers of Claims Vouchers #103974 - 104816; four wire transfers in the total amount
of $4,229,348.20; approval of Payroll Vouchers #119917 - 120808; and 725
direct deposits in the total amount of $2,116,130.55. MOVED BY
MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN;THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation Committee Referred 6/14/93 - Transportation (Aviation) Committee Vice Chair Schlitzer
Transportation: North presented a report stating that inasmuch as planning and zoning requirements
Renton Parking are going to be enforced, the Committee has addressed the parking and zoning
Enforcement enforcement concerns of the North Renton citizens.
The Committee recammended to Council that the parking ordinance be
amended to conform to parking provisions of the zoning ordinance. MOVED
�R1, //QED
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTTEE REPORT ,
SEPEMBER 13, 1993
,
SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS (Referred August 23, 1993)
•
The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and of City staff to approve amendments to the Shorelines Master Program as
follows:
• designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and SW 43rd Street, on the south, a
shoreline of the City;
1
• i provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the Springbrook Creek beginning
• from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned
wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
• provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of Springbrook Creek beginning from
Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy
environment;
i
• !modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include those areas within 200 feet
1 landward, on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with
the language"ordinary high watermark" replacing.an existing reference to "mean high-water line,"
and removing the 100 year floodplain/floodway from the definition of wetland/wetland areas);
• I revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that.the proper appeals procedure of Hearing
Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
The Committee further.recommends, upon the advice of the City Attorney, that this matter be referred to
City Council, on September 13, 1993, in order that the Council may authorize the,City Clerk to accept
and file the above-listed amendments to the Shorelines Master Program (pursuant to Section 4-19-2 of .
thellCity's Zoning Ordinance). ; , '
i
,
Rich rd Stredicke, Chair
7,_.
etothexi , oklae
Kathy olker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair
44seKr —
Nancy Mathews, Member '
: Ati-(cL /5(-46e/R.
i
I
,
40 !;;;cf:trti•,
CITY OF RENTON
. LLslj` .
City Clerk
Earl;Clymer, Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen
September 27, 1993
Barry Winger
Sliorelands & Coastal Zone Management Program
Department of Ecology
P.;O. Box 47690
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
SUBJECT: Shorelines Master Program Amendments (File No. 076-93)
•
Dear Mr. Winger:
We are hereby filing with the Department of Ecology our proposed amendments to the City of Renton's
Shorelines Master Program. Briefly, the amendments are designed to:
• designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and SW 43rd Street, on the south, a
shoreline of the City;
• provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the Springbrook Creek beginning
from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned
wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
• provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of Springbrook Creek beginning from
Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy
environment;
• ! modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include those lands within 200 feet
landward, on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with
the language "ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-water line,"
and removing the 100 year floodplain from the definition of wetland/wetland!areas);
• revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing
Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
The proposed amendments have been approved by our Planning Commission, our Environmental
Review Committee (pursuant to SEPA review), and our City Council.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206)235-2501
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
I '
We look forward to your favorable response. Please call me at 235-2502 or Don Erickson, Principal
Plan '6r, at 277-6181, if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sinc ely,
•
Maril, n .-t- --n
City (u)lerk
Attac ments
I .
Attachment A: Copy of Original Application •
Attachment B: Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication
Attachment C: Proposed Amendments
Attachment D: Proposed Mapping
Attachment E: Narrative Statement (Background and Justification for Amendments),
Attachment F: Wetlands Inventory
Attachment G: SEPA Compliance (Environmental Checklist; Environmental Review
Committee Determination)
Attachment H: Planning Commission Report
Attachment I: Copy of Final Order(City Council Report Approving Amendments)
cc: D.O.E., NW District Office
Attorney General's Office
City of Renton, Development Services Division
City of Renton, Transportation Systems
City of Renton, Utility Systems
Applicant
•
ar
� I
i ne •nv.u..... ..
•
k — CITY OF RENTON• .
`DEVELO•P.MENT SERVICES.DIVISION
:,.::MASTER APPLICATION
..OWNE.R(S) . . .
• PROJECT INFORMATION (cont)
Note: If there is more,than one legal owner,please attach an EXISTING LAND USE(S): • . I,
additional notarized.Master application for each owner.
I Vacant land or the following uses :
•.A.ME: k
See Applicant, below General Use, Residential Use (R-1 , R-2, R-3
R-4) ; Buseiness (B-1), Office )(OP) , Public/
.DDRESS: 'f Quasi-Public (P1) , Industrial (MP, L-1 , H1)
1
If
EXISTING ZONING:
�ITY: 'ZIP:
See "Existing Land Uses"
i 1
ELEPHONE NUMBER: - . PROPOSED LAND USE(S): ,
I
CONTACT PERSON/APPLICANT Not applicable (Programmatic; Action)
TAME •
iDonald Erickson
II PROPOSED ZONING:
ADDRESS: Principal Planner •
City of Renton •
Not applicable : (Programmatic' Action)
200 Mill Avenue So.
q
:ITV: I Renton, WashingtonZ8055 SITE AREA(SO.FT.ORACREAGE):
1 Not applicable (programmatic action)
II
TELEPHONE NUMBER: .
206-277-5582 PROJECT VALUE:
PROJECT INFORMATION Not applicable (Programmatic] Action) •
I .
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA?
Shorelines Master PrograM Amendment , ' Springbrook. Creek (Grady. Way Ito SW 43rd) an
Cedar River fromWest Maple Valley Hwy ,to t e •
PROPERTY/PROJIECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: Iga- It$ 'L{(�at('Ef IN AN AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA?
See Exhibit I r` The Cedar River portion which will be affected
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): by the SMP 1 S 1 n the' vicinity, of the APA
if
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE SEWER MORATORIUM AREA?
See Exhibit I Sewer moratorium issues have 'been' resolved.
•
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet if needed)
I
1
.
•
.z;er i2/g? 'i - 1
•
... . .. : .P.E:O�F;APPLICA�TI.ONl&'�FE•. �4
•
Check:all'appl cation t'' ;es:that.a ly--Cit' st w'.;•.;:.... . YP P;p.Y..::::.::...Y., a1-1 Ill determine fees.,
ANNEXATIOIN SUBDIVISION: ! . .
S
_REZONE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S .1 SPECIAL PE 7 MIT S _
_TEMPORAR 'HI PERMIT $ _SHORT PLAT S 1
_CONDITION•L USE PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT • •S
SITE PLAN •11,PROVAL S — PRELIMINARY PLAT - S
•
SPECIAL PE' MIT S FINAL PLAT S
—GRADE & Fl ILL PERMIT S
— (NO. CU. YI S: )
•
VARIANCE $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: S
— (FROM SE*(ION: ) S
WAIVER i
— ROUTINE V211 ETATION _ PRELIMINARY
MANAGEM=\1T PERMIT S FINAL
BINDING SI II PLAN S —
•
SHORELINE REIIIEWS: MOBILE HOME PARKS: S
_SUBSTANTI• i DEVELOPMENT S _TENTATIVE �-
_CONDITION• USE S - _PRELIMINARY
_VARIANCE S _FINAL •
_ EXEMPTION 1 $ No Charge
_ REVISION _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW S 1
(This - tion to be completed by City staff) . 1
City File Numbe : 93 -07(0 de SA R SHPL CU LLA PP FP TP SP RVMP V .AAD W
PUD FPII SM SME PMHP FMHP BSP A
TOTAL FEES: $ TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ ,
. i
l
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP _
Y i(�(c�oyV (p )
(Print Name) r If Itt) i declare that I am lease check one the owner of the property involved in this application,
the authorized re ifesentative to act or the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements andianswers ein contained and t e information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Th<(--;2 ! /4 • e J TEST: Subscribed and sworn to b re me,a NotaryPublic,in and for
Jame -f O er/F#epre n tive) )/ .ot� k • �. ... ate of Washin n residing at..�.G'rI✓IUit
•v DAY lJ I.
iv, m (/J C,e�• t 9��
signature of Own F/Rep esentative) _r•%% p aC,C. 1c� /�
`' '� ••GJ 4SAnatur f Notary'PP�blic)
• p�,A—.iING„A%
•
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT .
•
ll
lould this application',equire City staff time in excess of the basic timeframe(s)established by City of Renton Ordinance#4322, I hereby agree to
mpensate the City of Renton for any and all extra labor and nonlabor costs incurred to accomplish the review and processing of this land use
placation. j 1
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me,a Notary Public,in and for
rint Name) the State of Washington residing at I'
on this-day of 19 i
I
ignature)
•
•
ling Address: (Signature of Notary Public)
1
I ,
11
I
t NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION •
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RENTON,WASHINGTON
A FF I D /yH V I T ®F P U L i CAT 1E =
-O N --- - —_ - -The-Environmental __ __
1 (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the following project under
the authority of the Renton Municipal Code.
Karen T li n k e r , being first duly sworn on oath APPLICATION NO.LUA-93-076,ECF
states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the APPLICANT: City of Renton Development
Services
PROJECT NAME: Shorelines Master Pro-
VALLEY DAILY NEWS gram-Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS:The pro-
600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 ' posal is for legislation.to amend portions of
• rogram.
a-daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal The proposthe ed amendmentss are:Shorelines Materl)Provl-
newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six sion.of specific shorelines/environmental
months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the designation(s) for Springbrook Creek from ,
English language continually as a daily newspaper in-Kent, King County, Wash- Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd Street al )
the south(Section 5 Shorelines Master Pro-
ington. The Valley Daily News has been approved as a legal newspaper by order gram);2)Amendment of the"wetlands/wet-
of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. land areas"definition(Section 9 Shorelines
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News Master Program);and 3)Clarification of the
(and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers appeals procedure from actions of the Hear-
ing Y ing Examiner (Sections 1.03/2.02/2.10).' D
during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a This proposal is considered a non-project ' -
- (programmatic)action under SEPA-Rules a
Notice of Environmental letermi nRti nn (WAC•197-11-060). c'7 •
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:The proposed 3
- • Shorelines Master Program-amendments rn
En v i r n n m e n t n 1 Re 1r i e w r•o mm i t t e`e includes modifications to areas located: 1) Z
,Along that portion of Springbrook Creek - --I
-2 6-9 3 - • which begins at Grady Way and continues ca
was published on to SW 43rd Street(The Kent/Renton bound-
ary;.2) Wetlands/wetland areas associated
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of with water -bodies -(including flood-
plains/floodways)throughout the City.
Any interested party may submit written
69 . 65 1 , n
$ i�� �5 >� •
comment with may appeal the above Jul
urination within fifteen (15)days from July
26, 1993.Written comments or appeals will
Legal Clerk, Valley Daily News be accepted until 5:00 p.m.on August 10,
•
. 1993.To appeal this Declaration see City• •
Code Section 4-6=23,.RCW 43:21C:075 and '
WAC 197-11-680 for details.There shall be'
Subscribed and sworn before me this 26th day of July 19 9� only one appeal of a Declaration of Non-Sig- -•
• nificance or Declaration of Significance,and
- if an appeal has already been filed, your-
appeal may be joined with the appeal of the
- -,Pfi 6. Git/4-P it- - substantive determination. Appeals should - - -
l/ be specific and shall set forth the reasons
Notary Public or the State of Washington why
the particular environmental determina-
tion should be reversed:Appeals shall.be
residing at Auburn filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner,
King County, Washington Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South,•
Renton,Washington 98055,within the corn-
ment/appeal period. All appeals must be.
• •accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00
VDN/1164 nevlsed 7/92 _ • filing fee. ,
Published in the Valley Daily News July • -
26,1993 9257. '
CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT PLANNiMr
MEMORANDUM C!T OFriENT
DAT'ji, June 15, 1993 JUN6 1993
TO: File RECEIVED
FRO : Mark Minniti •
SUB ECT: Posting of NOTICE of Planning Commission Public Hearing
for June 23, 1993
•
I, Mark Minniti, hereby certify that 29 copies of the NOTICE of Planning
Comi�nission Public Hearing, regarding Amendments to the City's Shoreline
Masts r Program (copy, attached), were posted by me in 29 conspicuous places
thro rghout the City of Renton (places detailed below) on June 10, 1993. I
I
I
On J ne 10, 1993 I posted Shoreline Master Program Amendment posters atl:.
1 Poster on SW 43rd ST at the corner of Oakesdale,
4 Posters on Lind Av between SW 16th ST and SW 43rd ST,
2 Posters on SW 27th ST between Lind Av and Oakesdale (if extended),
2 Posters on SW 34th ST between Lind Av and Oakesdale (if extended),
1 Poster on SW 16th at the corner of Oakesdale,
"I Poster on Bronson Way at the overpass of the Cedar River,
6 Posters on Maple Valley Hwy between Bronson Way and SE 11th ST, j
5 Posters on Lake WA Blvd between Park Av N and NE 44th ST,
1 Poster on Duvall Av NE at NE 4th ST,
1 Poster on Sunset Blvd NE at Duvall Av NE,
1 Poster on Harrington Av NE at'NE 12th ST,
1 Poster on Sunset Blvd NE at Harrington Av NE,
1 Poster on Edmonds Av NE at NE 23rd PI, •
1 Poster on Burnett Av N at NE 31st ST,,
1 Poster on NE 30th ST at Park Av N,
II I
Signd: `
�t �v• •,e) '. ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to afore me,•Notary Public,in and for the j
i ��• C:R.,• Stue of Weohingtoq rcoidinp in—
N� ;•• .on the (/ day of .%
p�▪ •.;1F9 ��: . gy ,+�• /
• ,r, •hw}
attaciment
cc: Jim Hanson
.Don Erickson
Mary Lynne Meyer •
� j
+Cy ..)\- • . -
\ „4 7 I •••.•.!-- ,•. —' ,,witil'...:. I
•
RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING ,
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 23, 1993
PLACE: 1� - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1
TIME: - .._7.:30.P.M.
'DESCRIPTION: •_ ... -
A.public:hearing'will•_be:held.-pursuant:to'•WAC''173=1.9-06.1..andISection:2.12, Shoreli•ne Master Program
Chapter 19 .TitlezlV, Municipal'=Co•de::of:Renton;`•by-:the:Renton`...a ing:Commission•at.its'meeting•in
the Council, Chambers,--Renton-.Municipal Building,'•Renton;•Washington,-on June.23, 1993, at•7:30-p.m.
This public hearing has been rescheduled from June 9, 1993. .The Planning'Commission will consider:
-
Amendments to the City's Shoreline Master Program as it relates: to the extension of
•shorelines jurisdiction along Springbrook Creek south of:..SW Grady Way' to'd SW 43rd '
Street and, along the southern bank of the Cedar River east of its intersection with Maple
Valley Highway-.in the area that was annexed into the City.:.of. Renton in 1988 (under
Ordinance 415.6); to the proper shoreline environmental designations of these new areas;
to the definition of `[Wetland or Wetlands Areas" so that it will be more consistent with.
the City's recently adopted Wetland Management Ordinance; and to the appeal of Land
Use Hearing Examiner recommendations and/or decisions:;:The change to the definition •
of-"Wetland or:.Wetland Areas" would modify the extent of.floodplains/floodways that .
woqld,otherwise be included under the City's. Shoreline Master:Program. Copies of,the : -
::proposal are available for'public inspection at'the City's SEPA:Information Center on.the• .
3.d oo attthe address'.listed below. ;.`. � t,'.' ''' _ : . •
r fl r
v -
tij
.1'.
an nin -
e='�'°City's�:Shoreline -Master•'Pro •ram re uir h 0°
:Section' �•21�2':•'�'of;:��tfi r � 9 g ��
° Co . ssion�hold t:least on.e:•pu•blic heann to consider'proposed`amendme.nts before -
:Lw. .[-•:. ..yi •if• T: 1�i•4\.' /C.\}:v•a'�'Y!•.T'1.`•�4y:\•t Ji4rT:Tr++1ha•�;.T..•:.•J:}:'•':: ;-
•'.i•` •,�;'1: .1, P. ?yj[hRSC.fl,.5s1.._ ia. .a
e dation to::the•Council ==:Interested ersons:'ma :mail,incomments' •
making:;a.recomm n �P... _Y. :,1,..,,._::_
.•1:_ i' •i:.`i: ✓.•[.�••[ .\.�:1):Y' '�J4:K�i :.tg.e.. - .-;i::.3+�i+ • .r.y._ .: ... ' >�:••r
.; :`,:: no 'to the"heann '.'or attend:.and:�voice,•the�ir'coriiments'at:.the. hearing on;Wednesday,
••I-}• . Sk -Sig' _�� f. .(��!.. �i''i•....
,t rJ��:
�r.
- .ti`
JJ n 2 993
r+
_ s,i
r:.
•1'
', -4
SY
ICC+ Ys").. . .A Ea +
.. ..
NOflQE
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
, -w:i\ir0 .
PPIiI OJECT NAME/NUMBER: SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM/LUA-93-076,ECF
1 OPOSED ACTION: The proposal is for legislation to amend portions of the existing Shorelines
'ster Program. The proposed amendments are: 1)Provision of specific shorelines/environmental designation(s)for
S fingbrook Creek from Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd Street at the south(Section 5 Shorelines Master Program);
2)Amendment of the'wetlands/wetland areas-definition(Section 9 Shorelines Master Program);and,3)Clarification of
Ill,appeals procedure from actions of the Hearing Examiner(Sections 1.03/2:02/2.10). This proposal is considered-a
n9n-project(programmatic)action under SEPA Rules MAC 197-11.060).
La CATION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed Shorelines Master Program amendments includes modifications
to areas located:1)Along that portion of Springbrook Creek which begins at Grady Way and continues to SW 43rd Street
(t a Kent/Renton boundary);2)Wellands/wetland areas associated with water bodies(including floodplains/floodways)
lh'oughout the City.
Tj.E CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED
Ti I AT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
E VIRONMENT.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.
'
I= THERE IS NO COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS DETERMINATION. HOWEVER.AN APPEAL OF THIS •
DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 Pft.
YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM.
.SHE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL
AFTER THIS DATE.
I ITHE ABOVE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE ABOVE DETERMINATION HAS NOW EXPIRED.
APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING
EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM. • •
- IXXX I YOU MAY COMMENT OR APPEAL,ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 10,1993.
THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONCURe. i ENTLY.l `;
• - URBAN fir\
, .
.-- CONS EF.V ANCY e.r ---'• -�
... NATURAL -n CIIIr/f
' w-are. ., 1 1 .
arir 11 _
' ;�,,� F i i I I' tl 4 I
' 1 _t._.�a..a«•,ce .....,� • .=r_,-_11 I f t•
a{ 1I '
7 dr .�
1 4 ed. �J i— 1
•
I',
II I 'I 1 .1 {L I• II_fir -
dt Yltl1 rr
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT 235-2550.
DO NOT.REMOVE THIS NOTICE
WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
• UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1993
Iit Please include the-project NUMBER when calling for.proper file identification. . l
CERTIFICATION
MARK IMtrvN►—rf , COPIES OF
Ir HEREBY CERTIFY THAT Ft�T '" CONSrICUOUS
•
II
THE ABOVE DOCUMENT WERE POSTED BY.ME IN FP"TEe—ti
PLACES ON ClR NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON JirlL zG' I`icr .
ATTEST: Sue.=>i and ew to b.form m•.a Notary Ptwrie.in wd for eso Sitti �,� .'1•t 1j�D.tl ~�~y
of weer+ en r III in •GO C►.0�•[, w '
,TA-(�/t r�q • y
L•w i/ 10f�11 day a( y • •
r
NOTF>�y m' 70
ATTACHMENT C
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Amendment No. 1: Designation of Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and
SW 43rd Street, on the south, a shoreline of the City;
Section 3:
3.03 In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act:
1. Cedar River •
2. Green River
3. Lake Washington
4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM downstream in a northeasterly
direction to its mouth at Lake Washington.
5. Springbrook Creek from the Black River
on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south.
6. Black River
Th I above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Amendment No. 2: Provide a Conservancy Environment designation for a portion of
Springbrook Creek
Section 4 Goals and Policies
4.02. Conservation Element
4.02.02 Policies
F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that
portion of Sprinqbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on
the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be
compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that the
such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the
existing natural character of the shoreline.
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI'-405, and that portion of
Sprinqbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity
of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands
Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much
as possible.
•
it i i
4.07 I Residential Element
I I
4.07.02 Policies .
H. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that
portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on
the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlan
ds nds in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SWI38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank s hould be
compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent thatithe
such development would permit and provide for the continuation o!f the
existingnatural character of the shoreline.ne.
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405, and that portion of
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street-on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity
of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands I
Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much
as possible.
Section 5: Environments
5.03 ! Conservancy Environment
5.03.03 Jurisdiction -
I
That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that portion of the south bank of the,
Cedar River, 2500 feet east of FAI-405, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning I
from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south,
abutting City-owned wetlands in this area; and for that portion of the west side of the
Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands
Mitigation Bank; •
Amendment No. 3: Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on
the south,that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
Section 5 Jurisdiction •'-
•
All shorelines of the City not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated has
Urban (see figure 5-1)
Note: No text changes are necessary to accommodate this environment designation. A
mapping change, which is required, is illustrated in Figure 5-1 (Attachment D)
Amendment No. 4: Modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"
Section 9 Definitions
9.44 WETLANDS OR WETLAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200)
,feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the moan high water lino ordinary
high water mark; floodways and contiquou floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from
such floodways;and all marshes, bogs, swamps,floodways;and river deltas, and-€Ieedplains
associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State
Shorelines Management Act.
Amendment No. 5 Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify the appeals
procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on shoreline matters.
Section 1.03 Compliance in Renton
Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative responsibility for issuing
permits lies jointly-with the
Departt-Planning/Building%Public Works Department, but the permits are reviewed in the
event of dispute by the Land Use Hearing Examiner, who has the authority to approve or deny
permit applications. Liberal provisions are provided for appeal of permit decisions by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department to the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings
Board.
provided. Appeals of the decisions of the Land Use Hearing Examiner for substantial
development permits (in instances where Hearing Examiner review is required), for conditional
use permits and for variances are also heard by the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings
Board.
Section 2.10 Appeals
Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit, a
conditional use permit and/or a variance on shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a
permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the State of
Washington Shorelines Hearing Board. Appeals of decisions by the Land Use Hearing Examiner
must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
Appeals are made by filing a request for the same within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final
order and by concurrently filing copies of such request with the Department of Ecology and the
Attorney General's office as provided in Section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of
1971. A copy of any such appeal notice shall likewise be filed with the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the City Clerk of the City of Renton.
•
- .1 FIGURE 3-1 ATTACHNLNI U J ;r f ,
1/ ,,1 fI 1 I •
3 O IIlit EL �E it ICJ _ 1 / ►� J:'
7
/IANAGEMENT z .__! giLLI---rt, , �I . . .'N ----- ----\. . 1 r=.- 7(11 ( .
CRF�K
MT 'OF 1-fii -cI<lle LIN I I . . •
e - • , ,
. .
ta' '.- _;-� \ i'...--• %
._, .
i •. \ , Irk1 •
I LAKE . . •.s-1 ‘. - r /fr-r. -
11
FP
l '
WASHINGTON ; 1 = ----=- -
.. .rro\ 1i. . .
is ti— I- �:'1
1-_,-•=a4.:Li."' ir7- p_i L-I / • ' ri• V \\ ,-, tr-11.1 / r--- .r li, 1. 1 .
W ; ___
-- 1 11 I I I ! • ` �-: F�:-r ,rc r
r jl I I I • 1 �1 • I �'� 1 t I •.7 1 I
j I
- \\ I, ` 111111 wl t Fri I
♦ F" �--� i ' , N• a 1. /�!111 11.'''' •• _ f / I ._.
'} \-- 1 , r --1 1 j ' '1 . I ' '' .. •
v/aul�liav�'' . ' • I I. �--• i •
( LH '
'--(
/(// •�4 .. Hu. /
}-,
I- ( .. �I� iI•'�L'• 1, CEDAR I-1 I I•I . - I I >-= -L_
�� ? ~
� � BLACK� Lt.� � i ► �.i i l t _ - RIVFr?= I. � r t i ( _. 1 L
RIVER:_ „ ,
ri1 >� - S?RINGBROOK' t NI. I I t 1 N , I
JH
CRF xj._.� 11 1 , +: - • I '``` I I[I I I
1 NY-
� - pt\ i- .. ._ �/J `ram 1
ii
1 . 1 :It 4 L-2-) ,. .
. :I ' '-‘. 1 {'.I1 ' • iLr ;. •
- - I'.
1 -1
�' II .l� l _ -�'- ► 1 �► E _ ',� -- i�; - I ' - - I I-
I I I __
I \ [i ik jr: , I A
r/ GREEN 1 911
_! : RIVER ri ---7-r".-1 I 11. 1
i �- ~ ��- �- ;
Cam, I 1)74
L. / 1
j I I i1 1
I Ir;1
. .
�� 1 (- i I I caxE ! _L4 I i 'l
f
, , 1 � I III � � ! i I- 1 I I .— ) 1 H(1`-,� I 1 i.1 1
• • i
- . 'i FIGURE 5-1 i '''I� '
( q,,) P- 1 1 ;: .,\1 1 ( ; . •
. \-1 I _ _I 5 \I — 1 1 _._
:I\IVIRDIVIVIENITSA-- gi.i21. ‘;_-__
1
piBaN CA."'• .,` J I
snt al MAY- r ~ I
• • i• ]ATURAL I I { _• ._ 11__ • I•� !. •
• 1 I
r, ! L • � I� 1
i
p 1 '
— LAKE • 1� + c Y'IC'* ��� ��=çTFtT
WASHINGT \ 1 I' I -; 11 \ •
-'. .. . CIIH"-r AT .., ‘ I Li*TH ' I r- • I
ti. -=,..:.:... , ir fll t.--1 i . . 1 II • I 1 L
-4-,,, ,,. ril . ) 0. V._jr—iLTsi L . . 1 ' -
\," • ' I III1 : L * ;
\.. -IL. I " .►" ,� 1• IIII.i I • LI h I I IL ' I
'N. / 'BLACK. �\ I •
, 7 I@`�1 • CEDAR ; L: I� I I I 1-=-;� --I I
c iRIVER 1I -' I1I I IMP,' ' 'AID • RIVER I '� ; \ II • IE [ L_
I� v<, if.. SPRINGBRObK :hill ® I _ ' ' 1
1 I I I I
CREEK t 11 I -: r� .
i'd I lit I 1
1 11 1,1
/41P1 I d j` I r�
I I; ,
• _y • • ;cr Nut
•
_ n . :
y� :rt.11 �h _ • ...... _ --77:- ----
I ,,Ii 4 . , 1
,Li I >I' 1 .'• ..14 ' :11 i 411...rlavall ( • -..... •
I I --H ,,t'--rk-3 ,
- I I1-- ' ' \\ iiiit ,--,--•••••• A ( .
1111 ' I I ' . . i
1 .. , y —t 1 1 I I
�f� GREEN I g I 1 � ,\ . _� f•.
•
II I RIVER 1 I ��
C` I 1 l' 11 t� 1 i r 1 . ( ) • •
1 1 ._ .. •
;� 1 I I J , . I I .1 1 1 I•.. I • 1 .J I
) \
' I `,. ) I • I I f�' I 1 I rou•G5
i • I
I � ( IIi • ) I I 1 � 1
1 / i 1 l ,
I .! I I I! • i _ _ �r—Ia� _ I I
ATTACHMENT E
NARRATIVE REPORT •
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
INTRODUCTION:
Pursuant to the guidelines established in WAC 173-19, the City of Renton is providing herein background
information and justification for the proposed amendments to our existing Shorelines Master Program.
DISCUSSION
• •
AMENDMENT NO. 1: Designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and SW
43rd Street, on the south, a shoreline of the City;
In 1991, the Department of Ecology advised the City of Renton that the state had determined an
estimated annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second, for the portion of Springbrook Creek beginning at a
point south of S.W. Grady and continuing to SW 43rd Street (the Renton/Kent boundary).' Based upon
this finding, DOE defined this area as a "shoreline of the state" and called upon Renton to define the
affected sections of the Creek as"shorelines of the City".
With the proposed amendment, as generally described here, and as specifically described in Attachment
C (Proposed Amendments),the City is endeavoring to comply with the directive for designation provided
by DOE.
AMENDMENT NO. 2: Provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the:vicinity of SW
38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
In 1991 and.1992, the City conducted a series of studies to identify and categorize environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g.wetlands, shorelines, etc.). These studies have served as a basis for programs,
plans and ordinances intended to ensure: 1) the preservation of unique and fragile areas;,and 2) the •
establishment of suitable standards for environmental protection in those natural environments which
can support human activity.
In conjunction with those studies, the City identified several wetlands, associated with Springbrook
Crek, beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, and
that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street which exhibited characteristics ••
(e.g. hydrology, soils, vegetation, etc.) appropriate to a designation of these areas as Category I/II
wetlands (similar to Class I/II wetlands, as defined by DOE).
As a result of these findings, the City made an arrangement to obtain these properties, and to set them
aside in a Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The City has proposed to establish a "Conservancy Environment"
foriithese environmentally sensitive areas, in the Renton Shorelines Master Program, in order;to ensure
the preservation of these areas. (Future modifications may be made to mapping to include other areas
in the Conservancy Environment if those areas are identified as meeting the objectives of the
Conservancy Environment.)
As permitted in the Shorelines Master Program and in the State Shorelines Management Act, uses in this
Conservation Environment are limited to low density residential development and to selected
recreational activities.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on
the south, that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
As noted previously in this report, the City has recently completed a series of studies to identify and
categorize environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, shorelines, etc.). These studies have served
as a basis for programs, plans and ordinances intended to ensure: 1) the preservation of unique and
fragile areas; and 2) the establishment of suitable standards for environmental protection in those natural
environments which can support human activity.
In conjunction with those studies, the City determined that the shorelines and associated wetlands
generally located between SW Grady and SW 43rd Street (other than those areas beginning from
approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, and that portion of the west
side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street) exhibit characteristics which are consistent with the
"Urban Environment", as defined both in the City's SMP and in the State SMA.
For example, the area abutting these shorelines is characterized as urbanized, both as a result of"-
existing surrounding development (e.g. commercial and industrial uses, public rights-of-way, etc.) and as
a result of the types and intensity of non-residential and residential uses which are permitted under the
Cityls historical and newly adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, and
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinances. It is anticipated that the subject area will continue to be
desirable for a variety of commercial and industrial land uses, owing to: 1) the proximate location of
compatible uses, 2) existence of adequate infrastructure, public services, and public facilities; and 3)
availability of parcels of land which are suitable'for development. convenience of access, and uses.
Further, under the "Urban Environment", the City exercises its authority to recognize and address the
characteristics of the existing natural environment through a variety of means, including, but not limited
to: 1) requiring environmental review and mitigation measures (e.g. retention of natural vegetation,
provision of storm water management systems) for those development projects which would potentially
result in impacts to the shorelines areas; 2) establishing development standards, such as setbacks and
height limitations, landscaped corridors, which are correlated to impacts from a development upon the
shorelines, in conjunction with land use review (e.g. site plan review, conditional use permits) and/or
shoreline permit review; 3) granting priority to water-dependent activities; and 4) requiring developers to
provide public visual and physical access to the water and (where feasible) provide waterfront activity
opportunities.
In sum, the City has proposed the "Urban Environment"for the Springbrook Creek shorelines in the
above-described location, based upon: 1) the shoreline characteristics of Springbrook Creek; 2) the built
and natural characteristics of surrounding properties; and 3) the ability of the City to control development
type/intensity to that which is suitable for this area, utilizing various existing state and local regulations
(e.g. SEPA Rules, Renton's Shorelines Master Program, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Environmental ••
Review Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Building
Regulations, etc.).
AMENDMENT NO. 4: Modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include
those lands within 200 feet landward, on a horizontal plane, from the
ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with the language
"ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-
] water line," and removing the 100 year floodplain from the definition of
wetland/wetland areas);
The proposed modification of the definition of"wetlands/wetland areas" is intended to ensure that this
definition is consistent with that language mandated in the SMA (RCW 90.58.030 [2] [b] and RCW
90.58.030 [2] [f]). Under RCW 90.58.030 (2) (f), "any...city may determine that its portion of a one-
i I
1
hundred-year-floodplain (may) be included in its master program as long as such portion includes', as a
minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom..."
AMEDMENT NO. 5 Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals
procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to;the
Shorelines Hearings Board.
The 1 roposed modifications to the language which describes the procedure for appealing decisions of the
Hear; g Examiner is intended to clarify the information which explains the manner in which the appeals
proce s occurs. At the present time, decisions of the Hearing Examiner on shorelines permits are
frequ�-�ntly appealed to City Council, although the Council has limited authority to address these appeals.
It is b� th permitted and prudent (in terms of effort, time, and costs) for an aggrieved person to appeal a
decision of the Hearing Examiner directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board, which is empowered to hear
such :ppeals. Clarification of process and protocol is intended to improve our service to the public.
1
l
•
i
I
.
, it_._1_ iih,./p) IR OvED
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
COMMITTTEE REPORT
SEPEMBER 13, 1993
SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS (Referred August 23, 1993)
The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and of City staff to approve amendments to the Shorelines Master Program as
follows:
• designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and SW 43rd Street, on the south, a
shoreline of the City;
• provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the Springbrook Creek beginning
from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned
wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
• provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of Springbrook Creek beginning from
Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy
environment;
• modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include those areas within 200 feet
landward, on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with
the language "ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-water line,"
and removing the 100 year floodplain/floodway from the definition of wetland/wetland areas);
• revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing
Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
The Committee further recommends, upon the advice of the City Attorney, that this matter be referred to
City Council, on September 13, 1993, in order that the Council may authorize the City Clerk to accept
and file the above-listed amendments to the Shorelines Master Program (pursuant to Section 4-19-2 of
the City's Zoning Ordinance).
Rich rd Stredicke, Chair
��6G - Otte at-._,
Kathy olker-Wheeler, Vice-Chair •
1.. 44%c eAl r -
Nancy Mathews, Member
40' �= CITY OF RENTON
Vs '{ City Clerk
Earn Clymer, Mayor Marilyn J. Petersen
September 27, 1993
I I
Barry Winger
Shorelands & Coastal Zone Management Program
Department of Ecology'
Pi O. Box 47690
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
11
SUBJECT: Shorelines-Master Program Amendments (File No. 076-93)
ri
•
Dear Mr. Winger:
INe are hereby filing with the Department of Ecology our proposed amendments to the'City of Renton's
Shorelines Master Program. Briefly, the amendments are designed to: ,
•
• designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and SW 43rd Street, on the south, a
shoreline of the City;
•I� provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the Springbrook Creek beginning
from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned
wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the West side of the Creek in the:vicinity'of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
• provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of Springbrook Creek beginning from
Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy
environment;
• I modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include those lands within 200 feet
landward, on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with
the language "ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-water line,"
and removing the 100 year floodplain from the definition of wetland/wetland areas);
• revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing
Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
The proposed amendments have been approved by our Planning Commission, our Environmental
Review Committee (pursuant to SEPA review), and our City Council.
i
• i(
I ;
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington.98055 - (206)235-2501 ,
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER
i
We Imok forward to your favorable response. Please call me at 235-2502 or Don Erickson, Principal
Plan er, at 277-6181, if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
y'
(3-7 `
Mariljn t n
City lerk
Attachments
Attachment A: Copy of Original Application
Attachment B: Affidavit of Public Notice/Publication
Attachment C: Proposed Amendments
Attachment D: Proposed Mapping
Attachment E: Narrative Statement (Background and Justification for Amendments)
Attachment F: Wetlands Inventory
Attachment G: SEPA Compliance (Environmental Checklist; Environmental Review
Committee Determination)
Attachment H: Planning Commission Report
Attachment I: Copy of Final Order(City Council Report Approving Amendments)
cc: D.O.E., NW District Office
Attorney General's Office
City of Renton, Development Services Division
City of Renton, Transportation Systems
City of Renton, Utility Systems
Applicant
I {
I' I
II
i i
ATTACHMENT A
1 I CITYOF:RENTON; ::...
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:DIVISION
. . .
•
f
. :...:... ..;....:..:
: MS�'ER: APP:LiCATIDN :.:;.:. . ,.
: •
,OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION (cost)
Note: If there is more than one:legal owner,please attach an EXISTING LAND USE(S):
additional'Inotarized:Master.application:foreach owner:
Vacant land or the following Uses :
NAME:
See Applicant, below General Use, Residential Use (R-1, R-2, R-3
R-4) ; Buseiness (B-1) , Office, (OP) , Public/ •
ADDRESS: j Quasi-Public (P1) , Industrial ; (MP L-1 , H1)
EXISTING ZONING:
CITY: ZIP: •
I; See "Existing Land Uses"
TELEPHONE NUMBER: - PROPOSED LAND USE(S): I
'
CONTACT PERSON/APPLICANT Not applicable (Programmatic; Action)
1
NAME: • • '
Donald Erickson
PROPOSED ZONING:. '
ADDRESS: 'I Principal Planner ' '
City of Renton Not applicable. (Programmatic' Action)
200 Mill Avenue So.
CITY: Renton, WashingtonZ 8055 SITE AREA(SQ. FT.OR ACREAGE): I :
Not applicable (programmatic ;action) .
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
i 206-277-5582
j PROJECT VALUE:
PROJECT INFORMATION Not applicable (Programmatics Action) .
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA?
Shorelines Master Prograf Amendment Springbrook Creek (Grady Way to SW 43rd) and
i Cedar River from West Maple Valley Hwy to t'ie.
PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: IPFit SY1"ELaaS&IN AN AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA?
See ',Exhibit I The Cedar River portion which will be affected
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): by the SMP is in the V 1 C 1 n i ty; of the APA
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE SEWER MORATORIUM AREA?
See 'Exhibit I Sewer moratorium issues have :been resolved.
i
I
LEGAL.DESCRIPTiON OF PROPERTY (Attach separate sheet if heeded)
•
Master 12/92 • .
I
I
•
•
> . ... MEOF•APPLICATION'& FE -.� •.;:: . :. p >:.:<. � ; ' =C ' ff. i:a1.eck all a licat1oniitpes.that:a pi ifstaw do
te ernl--,
SUBDIVISION: •
ANNEXATIO
— REZONE $ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S }
_SPECIAL PE MIT _
S SHORT PLAT S •
TEMPORAR PERMIT $ —
—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ —TENTATIVE PLAT .$ ;
—SITE PLAN I PROVAL $ — PRELIMINARY PLAT $
—SPECIAL PE I MIT $ FINAL PLAT S
GRADE & FI PERMIT $ —
_
(NO. CU. YD : )
•
—VARIANCE $ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: S ,
(FROM SEC ION: )
_WAIVER
T'
—
ROUTINE VE ETATION $ — PRELIMINARY ,
MANAGEM NT PERMIT $ — FINAL •
BINDING SITS PLAN $
SHORELINE REVIEWS: MOBILE HOME PARKS: S •
SUBSTANTIAA_ DEVELOPMENT $ _TENTATIVE
—CONDITIONA_ USE S _ PRELIMINARY
VARIANCE $ _ FINAL •
. _ EXEMPTION • $ No Charge
•
_ REVISION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW S
•
(This - tion to be completed by City staff)
CityFile Numbi
r: —
�� Q7 � SA R SHPL CU LLA PP FP TP SP RVMP V AAD WPUD FP11 SM SME PMHP FMHP BSP A
TOTAL FEES: $ TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $
III •
•
•
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I (Print Name) r iw i(2.[(6y) declare that I am (please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application,
the authorized re 'resentative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers
e ein contained and ' e information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
w/� 4� 4e�'�,�.v��E r�'A045TEST: Subscribed and sworn to b re me,a Notary Public,in and for .
fie' ‘SSIo Cn
Name of O er/ epre n five)• ,.3 ,
,,,/,/, • ;/ �Po•� �' , �he•�Stat/e of Washin n residing at , ;rjt
i.„-Y
(Signature of Owner/Repesentative _r•• p�'3Uc. ��.� ��^%C�C �(
.. '�'�Gt� rk..7 4Spnatur f Notar P blic)
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT .
Should this applicatio 11
require City staff time in excess of the basic time frame(s)established by City of Renton Ordinance#4322, I hereby agree to
compensate the City oflRenton for any and all extra labor and nonlabor costs incurred to accomplish the review and processing of this land use
application.
I
i
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me,a Notary Public,in and for
(Print Name) • the State of Washington residing at
on this_day of 19
(Signature)- '! • '
•
Billing Address: 11 (Signature of Notary Public)
11 •
e NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION •
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
PUBLICATION RENTON,-WASHINGTON
_ _ _ _
AFFIDAVIT OF _
The Environmental Review Committee
1 (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-
Significance for the following project under
• the authority of the Renton Municipal Code.
Karen Tucker , being first duly sworn on oath APPLICATION NO.LUA-93-076,ECF
states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the APPLICANT: City of Renton Development
Services
PROJECT NAME: Shorelines Master Pro-
VALLEY DAILY NEWS gram-Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSALS:The pro-
600 S. Washington Kent, WA. 98032 ' posal is for legislation to amend portions of
•a daily newspaper published six (6) times week. Said newspaper is a legal the existing Shorelines Master Program.
newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six The proposed amendments are:vi n1) ental
pion.of specific shorelines/environmental
months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the designation(s) for Springbrook Creek from
English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Wash- Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd Street at )
in ton. The ValleyDailyNews has been approved as a legal newspaper order the south(Section 5 t ofShothlines landster wet-
g PP 9by gram);2)Amendment the"wetlandslwet-
of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. land areas"definition(Section 9 Shorelines.
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Valley Daily News Master Program);and 3)Clarification of the
(and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers appeals procedure from actions of the Hear- .
duringingthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a This Examinerrp (Sectionssid 1.0 non-project
-I
proposal is considered a non-project �
(programmatic) action under SEPA•Rules
(WAC.197-11-060). c� -
Notice of Environmental netarminatinn ' '�. -
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:The proposed = •
• Shorelines Master Program-amendments • r3 -
Env i r n n m e n t a 1 Ravi P 1n7 COMM i t-bee includes modifications to areas located: 1) —z-I '
Along that portion.of Springbrook Creek
was published on 7—2 6—9 3 which.begins at Grady Way and continues p
to SW 43rd Street(The KenURenton bound-
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of withary;
Wetlands/wetland areas associated
g g g with water. bodies -(including flood •
-
plains/floodways)throughout the,City. •
$ 6 9 . 6 5 Any interested party may submit written
comments,•or may appeal the above deter-
1-Th irl v j _. Q • mination within fifteen (15) days from July'
26, 1993.Written comments or appeals will
Legal Clerk, Valley Daily News be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on August 10,
1993. To appeal this Declaration see City
Code Section 4-6 23,.RCW 43.21 C.075 and
2 6 t h WAC 197-11-680 for details.There shall be' •
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of July 19 91 only one appeal of a Declaration'of Non-Sig-
• nificance or Declaration of Significance,and
if an appeal has already been filed, your
• appeal may be joined with the appeal of the
.0"':f% ACg+-14,-e_ - substantive determination. Appeals should
0 be specific and shall set forth the reasons
Notary Public or the State of Washington •why the particular environmental determina-
tion should be reversed.Appeals shall be •
residing at Auburn filed with the Renton Hearing•Examiner,
King County, Washington Municipal Building,200 Mill Avenue South,•
Renton,Washington 98055,within the corn-
. ment/appeal period. All appeals must be.
accompanied by a non-refundable$75.00
VON /1164.Revised 7/92 filing fee. .
Published in the Valley.Daily News July
26,1993 9257. '.
- _ N\�
• CITY OF RENTON
DEVELOPMENT PLANNIMIr.
! MEMORANDUM cm'OFBENT ; ,•
, 1-6 1993
DATE: June 15; 1993
TO: File RECEIVED
FROM: Mark Minniti
I
SUBJECT: Posting of NOTICE of Planning Commission Public Hearing
1 for June 23, 1993
I,. Makk Minniti, hereby certify that 29 copies of the NOTICE of Planning
• Commission Public Hearing, regarding Amendments to the City's Shoreline ,
Mast r Program (copy attached), were posted by me in 29 conspicuous places
throdg
hout the City of Renton (places detailed below) on June 10, 1993.
On J ne 10, 1993 I posted Shoreline Master .Program Amendment posters at::
' 1 Poster on SW 43rd ST at the corner of Oakesdale,
4 Posters on Lind Av between SW 16th ST and SW 43rd ST,
2 Posters on SW 27th ST between Lind Av and Oakesdale (if extended),
2 Posters on SW 34th ST between Lind Av and Oakesdale (if extended),
1 Poster on SW 16th at the corner of Oakesdale,
1 Poster on Bronson Way at the overpass of the Cedar River,
6 Posters or) Maple Valley Hwy between Bronson Way and SE 11th ST,
5 Posters on Lake WA Blvd between Park Av N and NE•44th ST,
1 1 Poster on Duvall Av NE at NE 4th ST, 1
1 Poster on Sunset Blvd NE at Duvall, Av NE, •
. 1 Poster on Harrington Av NE at.NE 12th ST,
1 Poster on Sunset Blvd NE at Harrington Av NE,
I 1 Poster on Edmonds Av NE at NE 23rd PI,
1 Poster on Burnett Av N at NE 31st ST,
1 Poster on NE 30th ST at Park Av N,
Sign',d: c,w -7'77ter., -/..•
0' kin
` ��'.• .. •,q ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to efore me,a Notary Public,in and for the
e? •,SSia • Lf ••.r
•,:� .;,' State of Washi�nctoq residing in., .
.^ U j% ".on the /O l— day of /
NOS%fly• '
1'3
•, O� ••. NG o''
.,r. I/ ASH, „`h, • i
..
attachment
cc: '' Jim Hanson
.Don Erickson
Mary Lynne Meyer
r iik d> 4
1•: O S ' Y J� 2 r N l: l Y
Cr A 1- •^ r_� s: •,,,, "'•er a b' �'�
y Ky •s i - 4
,,Ke• 5 ! tl 5 4 fi • ' 't.. ' G "31. . i F.,••
f` x
N;r
RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING •
DATE OF, PUBLIC HEARING: JUNE 23, 1993
PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TIME: ..7:30_P.M. -
'DESCRIPTION:
A-public:hearing.will-_b&held-pursuant:to.WAC 1'7.3=19-061-.:andkSection 2.12,',Shoreline Master Prograrn,
Chapter 19, TitleilV;:Municipal"Co'de:;of:Renton; .::by:the Renton` a `wing:Commission at its.meeting in
the Council Chambers, Renton-Municipal Building, Renton,-Washington,'•on June;23, 1993,. at.7:30-p.m.
This public hearing has been rescheduled from June 9, 1993. .The Planning Commission will consider:
Amendments to the City's Shoreline Master Program as it relates: to the extension of
shorelines jurisdiction along Springbrook Creek south of.SW Grady Way to SW 43rd
Street and, along the southern bank of the Cedar River east of its intersection with Maple
Valley Highway.in the area that was annexed into the City..of• Renton in 1988 (under,
Ordinance 4156); to the proper shoreline environmental designations of these new areas;
to the definition of "Wetland or Wetlands Areas" so that it will be more consistent with,
the City's recently adopted Wetland Management Ordinance; and to the appeal of Land
Use Hearing Examiner recommendations and/or decisions: -The change to the definition
of-"Wetland='or:.Wetland Areas" would modify the extent of:floodplains/floodways that .
would_otherwise be included under the City's Shoreline Master:P_rogram. .Copies of the
• ;..proposal are"available for:public inspection at the City's SEPA:Information Center on the_..;, :
3rd floor at the address listed below • �°
1„
-..
,. ,•., s ' oreline' �ster• Pro^ rairmT"re uires �:,.thaty;the';.Plannin
- :Section: •2:12.,:�of:.:the.,,City„ Sh 1 Ma g __,,,, q :,,. g .,=` - _ --
,CO ss'on`�holdsat'.least one.'��ublic'hearin ' to•consider roposed'amen~dments before .:,:,,.
.- rnme i
:,.�.� .. -:G::, ., �>.:.:. ..,.•:•H.S:' '::_• ;.,. .4::+•.i`tr..,t:� 'Y=. �i w•.,aYz4-N'-x �.}::;:+`,F:.^ _.r��•-
recommendation to,:the;Council:-;;:interested` ersons'`ma •smaiiy`.in` comm nts°.
making: a p.__. Y.:
. ':,.. ...,sPi Cc7.ns.:c'Y•a :".v;.,r�:�; ,.�,as;-�•='/�a7 `�r�:�t?b; _.3'S•C,r .. _ .y,� .,•i;..• ;�!.
`'-,���` - '-ior.;;to:•the:.:heann or-;attend andvoice.their•comments=at::,the hearing;on;Wednesday,
- -•s.^..•1 __.l � ...,��Yk 1 - �l'• ice•.
. , a�.� . , n.••J:•:• ..n w.,y ..r,:• ...:..• _:,': raf r-Fr,• .'']'fl.-
f••�
Y
"i
.t'
993: _, _n 2 ��.r
•
..... . .. .-W •:,...:>:, .i ,w....;•-r•:,•_ .' • ter; _
.. .... � ..f.. .... ._....:, a - . ....,• ..,._ ..... -
iF.:
1,
f . . ,. .
. .
ow: . .
.< - ,,c),,, .
ripiHE-1 ,
4 _.... cno
_ 4(. rvio. ,::.
r .. _
., _, •
,,,, . .
I ,Nr,
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION '
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: SHORELINES MASTER PROGRAM/LUA-93-076,ECF '
P I()POSED ACTION: The proposal is for legislation.to amend portions of the existing Shorelines
MI ter Program. The proposed amendments are: 1)Provision of specific shorelines/environmental designation(s)for
Sp i ngbrook Creek from Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd Street al the south(Section 5 Shorelines Master Program);
2) mendment of the"wetlands/wetland areas'definition(Section 9 Shorelines Master Program);and,3)Clarification of
lhgltappeals procedure from actions of the Hearing Examiner(Sections 1.03/2.02/2.10). This proposal is considered a
nor-project(programmatic)action under SEPA Rules(WAC 197-11-060).• 1
L^iCATION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed Shorelines Master Program amendments includes modifications
to' teas located:1)Along that portion of Springbrook Creek which begins at Grady Way and continues to SW 43rd Street
(l Kent/Renton boundary):2)Wetlands/wetland areas associated with'water bodies(including floodplains/floodways)
lh lughoul the City.
T •
E CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED
T''AT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
E VIRONMENT.
AI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.
MEITHERE IS NO COMMENT PERIOD FOR THIS DETERMINATION. HOWEVER,AN APPEAL OF THIS
DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM,
OM YOU MAY COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION UNTIL 5:00 PM,
SHE CITY WILL NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL UNTIL
AFTER THIS DATE.
THE ABOVE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE ABOVE DETERMINATION. HAS NOW EXPIRED.
APPEALS OF THIS DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING
EXAMINER BY 5:00 PM, ,
® YOU MAY COMMENT OR APPEAL ON THIS DETERMINATION BY 5:00 PM ON AUGUST 10,1993.
THE COMMENT AND APPEAL PERIODS WILL RUN CONcI.,R_.'1ENTLY.I ,
�--. URBAN d ': L _; _ •
•.•• CONSERVANCY I�pE.) 1
� s�� ., f'.1 "�_of '0i i 1 I
i\s•Cites—•:4�IIL�4-' .�' - I�I i i •J r•E. '
uI . f, 'y8� g'n _
r ✓; I .I I L:I
1 nj'I'U. ;x.,�: , F
), ' Tit I I I'_� I I I` 101!j :.``�
r,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PL CAS DIE
AT THE
CITY
OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT
SERVDO NOT.REMOVE THIS NOTICE •
WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION .
UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1993
II Please include the'project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification.. .
CERTIFICATION i
COPIES OF
Ir MARte Mtrvti►►-rf , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT FIF _.- CONSPICUOUS
THE ABOVE OCUMENT WERE POSTED BY ME IN ��T��^'
PLACES ON 'I R NEARBY THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY ON JNL ZG `1.g3
'
7
AriEST: SUS.rn id.rd r+ to[twice.. r�.a No?•rYPvclic,in.rd for cr.St •Q`!`�C I D:� ? tjt, ' " '
.... _h 5ayO ...
of W.nr: etr lrR in VN p.
y .
•
the of NO• r'0RI' M: n
-f. ✓'J,' St-(1� .o'-
. .
i
ti I
I i
1 ATTACHMENT C
1,
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
I •
1 • I
Amendment No. 1: Designation:of Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on the north, and
SW 43rd Street, on the south, a shoreline of the City;
S,ection 3: I ''
1
3.I0 In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act: - ; 1
1. Cedar River - .
1 2. Green River
3. Lake Washington
li
4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the southeast
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-245E WM downstream in,a northeasterly
direction to its mouth at Lake Washington.
II
'I 5. Springbrook Creek 'from`the;Black River.
on the north to S.W. 43rd Street on the south.
6. Black River
TI a above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
A,'rnendment No. 2: Provide a Conservancy Environment designation for a portion of
Springbrook Creek
Section 4 Goals and Policies '
1{
4102. Conservation Element
4102.02 Policies .
1
F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405, and that
j portion of Sprinqbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th'Street on
I the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation.Bank should be
compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
i
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that the
11 such development would permit and provide.for the continuation of the
Ii existing natural character of the shoreline:
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405, and that portion of
Sprinqbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
f this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity
of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands'
II
- Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much
1, as possible.
1
i
4.07 Residential Element
4.07.02 Policies
H. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405, and that
portion of Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on
the north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th
Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank should be
compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that the
such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the
existing natural character of the shoreline.
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405, and that portion of
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity
of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands'
Mitigation Bank should be left in an undeveloped natural state asmuch
as possible.
Section 5: Environments
5.03 Conservancy Environment
5.03.03 Jurisdiction
That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that portion of the south bank of the
Cedar River, 2500 feet east of FAI-405, and that portion of Springbrook Creek beginning
from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south,
abutting City-owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the
Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands
Mitigation Bank;
Ameidment No. 3: Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on
the south, that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
Section 5 Jurisdiction
All shorelines of the City not designated as Conservancy or Natural are designated as
Urban (see figure 5-1)
Note: No text changes are necessary to accommodate this environment designation. A
mapping change, which is required, is illustrated in Figure 5-1 (Attachment D)
Ame dment No. 4: Modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"
i
Section 9 Definitions
9.44 '' WETLANDS OR WETLAND AREAS: Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200)
feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary
II high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from
such floodways; and all marshes, bogs, swamps,flaedways,.and river deltas, and-fleed-plains
associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the State
Shorelines Management Act.
Amendment No. 5 Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify the appeals
procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on shoreline matters.
Section 1.03 Compliance in Renton
Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative responsibility for issuing
permits lies jointly-with theand the Policy Development
Department Planning/Building/Public Works Department, but the permits are reviewed in the
event of dispute by the Land Use Hearing Examiner, who has the authority to approve or deny
permit applications. Liberal provisions are provided for appeal of permit decisions by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department to the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings
Board.
provided. Appeals of the decisions of the Land Use Hearing Examiner for substantial
development permits (in instances where Hearing Examiner review is required), for conditional
use permits and for variances are also heard by the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings
Board.
Section 2.10 Appeals
Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit, a
conditional use permit and/or a variance on shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a
permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the State of
Washington Shorelines Hearing Board. Appeals of decisions by the Land Use Hearing Examiner
must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board.
Appeals are made by filing a request for the same within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final
order and by concurrently filing copies of such request with the Department of Ecology and the
Attorney General's office as provided in Section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of
1971. A copy of any such appeal notice shall likewise be filed with the
Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the City Clerk of the City of Renton.
j ATTACHMENT D r7�
FIGURE -1 I r� `V (7y
I y-i � I
r �i TrI .- J
1 , , 7 i
S OFELINE :
1C �1,
�+ _ -
Ivi (1--1
Lc,i= N k
A I '
ACC, ,
•
I _ I ai .m . t..z.. !:..._____.\-i .
1 q ciw- l' ..Hom- ._ 1,...INE., ,' 1 "Ill cR1-- ..: ... •
i ',(1 ' 1
i.
-\---K
j LAKE ', -,' r -----
1 WASHINGTON - - kk
1 1 1 i17--I ‘ \1 _ •• • 1-6, \ I •
�`-... .milli---_--L1-11
\- .. i i __,_______L_LI ,
, .
h
:\(ii'1 I 1 11 ' \ `----,--,_
1�\\ . II .
\ r 11L,1 . . '0. 171 I I I I.a.a _ il• I I.
I 1__H
-1
:1 Tp1IIIIIM I I
i1 ' JG 1 1° . . I 1 1_ t11 II ; 1 I 1 i '��_
/r \ \ 1�s� — 'I ';I A, t CEDAR -1 W ' I - — I� -1 I
i 4A
,- I ` II 1_ C i BLACK-: 1- r�� I I i I !1 I, RIVER �-�i I -
L
�^ 1I i RIVER'_ I I 1 1 \ y. 1
�--,i?\ - SPRIG E_rC OK� � I I l } ~� ' ' _ �-7, . '.---- N '''. -.id
\1 ,1141.411 , IA - 'Al \ , ' ' !PA' . - ,1
, -
i' 1 ILIA _,
-- I F 11 I
• 1
r t — _ I ' 1 I I I 1 I(. • 1 1.,__/1 1•
f 1 ! 1 �1 ° ^ 1
I I 1--- l � f I i -c-; I - 1-
n 1 ._... 1 )1\ _,.._..,- • ,___, ___,,,,,
, : -7 I "
r
rr� �` GREEN I I ' 1 i �—
=i1; 7 RIVER Tr-7-'-1
1 \ _ II q >_c III ( ;' -
`I I I - i.+1 ! I I 1 • �!i ! xe
I
fi_ I
! j + '
I 11' I _
: : I I I i d I 1-4 il i
FAG_ URE 5-1 'ILA
� \l'-'31 I ::: qz: \ 'i ;
i
ENVi , _ _
1RD E TS ..--U giN.. ' _` '1
< <, 1 ji:.7_ ,\,.,.,
,
' BAD 1
. u••R1,, ••
4i.„ ,` \.I • • 1
., .
. ,
1
a - J. L 1 NN15ERVANCY • .f� � Ar. ►
• • •. • ATURAL 1 1, a- CREEK I . I
ift_i ti --r 1 1 •\ . -I\ 1 .' !
LAKE ---
\ jASHZNGYON 1 1 1 1 . . H•F. , _ . i ItiII " I i • I l
•-•!I I u I �1 n 1 I • li L ,�� � .. \ ,� �� � Ily' I
r 1\\\ IìTIJ -. 1 \ i l � W -
I - .\-1 '11 OfFH:: ,A V
. I II
1 1; 71V 1111' -144, I 4/ r-•:..
'I , L I . ' '
\« R. BLACK � i� I A 1 CEDAR ;
• ...ill 1 ,. • :- N :/,... ..\C4 ," I .2rig LI I
\ RIVER: 1 , • Ir l 1 tl , � ` RIVER _ II . 1 .1
IIL1-1 .11 4 • S�RINGBROOKi k11 I '
:
. _
U=1111 1 i . CREEK. I I I cI , _ L I I 1 1i
_ilk , • 1 .i4,1-Pti : . & . A -* • — , i !, . \-- /. _.,_.f ...--
. lie 1 I It\ )11 1 . . . : Ix' , --. • a Iggliirinri. .. . :* ,.
y i __ I I y , —. . _:— .
1 ---
. -■ \ 1
II ji �I I�\I1I! i ;
_, _ \.. . I ! � II c !
,;I �� i „ 1Y I -
5.' Ic-
I -a 1 Hh
1 1
= RIVER ' �
• 1 1 1,,. �
. .1 It. I (....(_ ' ,
4—-- . ) ----1 I d 1— ....:•:>.. E.- ... 1 I _ r ); .
,"
L.. I cjI .j --'7 -
, I I ill ,' ' I, ... xE �
1 , ) I u.GS •
.
, I
1 1 I
/ I I \ I
IJ ,
I -
li
ATTACHMENT E
NARRATIVE REPORT
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
INTRODUCTION:
Pursuant to the guidelines established in WAC 173-19, the City of Renton is providing herein background
information and justification for the proposed amendments to our existing Shorelines MasterProgram.
DISCUSSION
AMENDMENT NO. 1: Designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way, on-the north, and SW
43rd Street, on the south, a shoreline of the City;
In 1991, the Department of Ecology advised the City of Renton that the state had determined an
estimated annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second,for the portion of Springbrook;Creek beginning at a
point south of S.W. Grady and continuing to SW 43rd Street (the Renton/Kent boundary). Based upon
this finding, DOE defined this area as a "shoreline of the state" and called upon Renton to define the
affected sections of the Creek as "shorelines of the City".
1N,ith the proposed amendment, as generally described here, and as specifically described in'Attachment
C1(Proposed Amendments),.the City is endeavoring to comply with the directive for designation provided
by DOE.
II i
i I
AMENDMENT NO. 2: Provide a Conservancy Environment designation for,that portion of the
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-Owned wetlands in this
area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW
38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetlands Mitigation Bank;
In 1991 and 1992, the City conducted a series of studies to identify and categorize environmentally
sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, shorelines, etc.). These studies have served as a basis for programs,
plans and ordinances intended to ensure: 1) the preservation of unique and fragile areas; and 2)the
establishment of suitable standards for environmental protection in those:natural'environments which
can support human activity..
In,Iconjunction with those studies, the City identified several wetlands, associated with Springbrook
Creek, beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, and
that portion of the west side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street which exhibited characteristics
(elg. hydrology, soils, vegetation, etc.) appropriate to a designation of these areas as Categolry I/II
wetlands (similar to.Class I/II wetlands, as defined by DOE).
As a result of these findings, the City made an arrangement to obtain these properties, and to set them
aside in a Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The City has proposed to establish a "Conservancy Environment"
for these environmentally sensitive areas, in the Renton Shorelines Master Program, in order to ensure
the preservation of these areas. (Future modifications may be made to mapping,to include other areas
inAhe Conservancy Environment if those areas are identified as meeting the objectives of the
Conservancy Environment.)
As permitted in the Shorelines Master Program and in the State Shorelines Management Act uses in this
Conservation Environment are limited to low density residential development and to selected
recreational activities.
'
I
AMENDMENT NO. 3 Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on
the south, that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
As noted previously in this report, the City has recently completed a series of studies to identify and
categorize environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands, shorelines, etc.). These studies have served
as a basis for programs, plans and ordinances intended to ensure: 1) the preservation of unique and
fragile areas; and 2) the establishment of suitable standards for environmental protection in those natural
environments which can support human activity.
In conjunction with those studies, the City determined that the shorelines and associated wetlands
generally located between SW Grady and SW 43rd Street (other than those areas beginning from
approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south, and that portion of the west
side of the Creek in the vicinity of SW 38th Street) exhibit characteristics which are consistent with the
"Urban Environment", as defined both in the City's SMP and in the State SMA.
For example, the area abutting these shorelines is characterized as urbanized, both as a result of
existing surrounding development (e.g. commercial and industrial uses, public rights-of-way, etc.) and as
a result of the types and intensity of non-residential and residential uses which are permitted under the
City's historical and newly adopted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, and
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinances. It is anticipated that the subject area will continue to be
desirable for a variety of commercial and industrial land uses, owing to: 1) the proximate location of
compatible uses, 2) existence of adequate infrastructure, public services, and public facilities; and 3)
availability of parcels of land which are suitable for development. convenience of access, and uses.
Further, under the "Urban Environment", the City exercises its authority to recognize and address the
characteristics of the existing natural environment through a variety of means, including, but not limited
to: 1) requiring environmental review and mitigation measures (e.g. retention of natural vegetation,
provision of storm water management systems) for those development projects which would potentially
result in impacts to the shorelines areas; 2) establishing development standards, such as setbacks and
height limitations, landscaped corridors, which are correlated to impacts from a development upon the
shorelines, in conjunction with land use review (e.g. site plan review, conditional use permits) and/or
shoreline permit review; 3) granting priority to water-dependent activities; and 4) requiring developers to
provide public visual and physical access to the water and (where feasible) provide waterfront activity
opportunities.
In'sum, the City has proposed the "Urban Environment"for the Springbrook Creek shorelines in the
above-described location, based upon: 1) the shoreline characteristics of Springbrook Creek; 2) the built
and natural characteristics of surrounding properties; and 3) the ability of the City to control development
type/intensity to that which is suitable for this area, utilizing various existing state and local regulations
(eig. SEPA Rules, Renton's Shorelines Master Program, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Environmental
Review Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Building
Regulations, etc.).
AMENDMENT NO. 4: Modify the definition of"wetlands" or"wetland areas"to only include
those lands within200 feet landward, on a horizontal plane, from the
ordinary high water mark of a designated waterbody (with the language
"ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-
' water line," and removing the 100 year floodplain from the definition of
wetland/wetland areas);
The proposed modification of the definition of"wetlands/wetland areas" is intended to ensure that this
definition is consistent with that language mandated in the SMA (RCW 90.58.030 [2] [b] and RCW
90;.58.030 [2] [f]). Under RCW 90.58.030 (2) (f), "any...city may determine that its portion of a one-
it
hundred-year-floodplain (may) be included in its master program as long as such portion includes,as a
minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom..."
AMENDMENT NO. 5 Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals
procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on shoreline matters is to the
Shorelines Hearings Board.
The proposed modifications to the language which describes the procedure for appealing decisions of the
Hear Ong Examiner is intended to clarify the information which explains the manner in which the appeals
process occurs. At the present time, decisions of the Hearing Examiner on shorelines permits are
frequently appealed to City Council, although the Council has limited authority to address these appeals.
It is bl th permitted and prudent (in terms of effort, time, and costs) for an aggrieved person to appeal a
de'cis on of the Hearing Examiner directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board, which is empowered to hear
such it ppeals. Clarification of process and protocol is intended to improve our service to the public.
it
•;.-41 ; .
, .
• • .
ATTACHMENT F
)
-APPENDIX F
Wetland Inventory .
•
September 22, 1992
•
44.
The City of Renton
Black River Water Quality Management Plan
Wetland Inventory Report
•
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes Associates
2820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
(206) 822 - 1077
September 22, 1992
WASYINGTON STATE
DEPART MEN T OF
ECOLOGY
Funded in part by the Washington State Department of Ecology is the Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant
Program - Grant No. G9200030.
Table of Contents
Page
INTRODUCHON 1
PURPOSE 1
METHODOLOGY 3
Comprehensive Data Collection 3
Intermediate-Level Data Collection 4
RESULTS 4
Wetland Functional Values 4
Groundwater Discharge and Recharge 4
Flood.Storage 5
Shoreline Anchoring 5
Water Purification 5
Food Chain Support 6
Wildlife Habitat 6
Fishery Habitat 6
Active Recreation, Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education 6
Wetland Descriptions 6
Wetland 3 7
Wetland 4 7
Wetland 5 0
15
Wetland 7 North 17
Wetland 7 South 18
Wetland 8 North 19
Wetland 8 South 0 21
Wetland 9 21
Wetland 10 22
. .
Wetland 11 - 24
Wetland 12 25
Wetland 13A 26
Wetland 13B 28
Wetland 13C 29
Wetland 14 30
Wetland 16 30
Wetland 22 31
Wetland 32 32
• Wetland 33 33
Wetland 37 33
Wetland 40 35
Wetland 45 35
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
09/22/92e
I Page
Regulatory Framework 36
I CITATIONS 1 39
Printed References 0 39
Personal Communications 41
APPENDIX A - WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORMS
APPENDIX B - WETLAND FUNC;FIONAL VALUES FIELD FORMS
. I
i t,.
BECK(3 BLACK RIVER
69/Y1 11
List of Tables and Figures
Page
Table
1 City of Renton Wetland Inventory follows 6
2 Wetland Types as Defined by the Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States 8
3 Wetland Plant Common and Scientific Names 9
4 Hydric Soils and Soils with Hydric Inclusions within the City of
Renton Study Area 11
Figure
1 City of Renton Wetland Field Inventory Study Area 2
2 Wetlands !of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan . . . follows 2
3 Wetlands lImpacted by Proposed Alternatives for the Black River
Water Quality Management Plan follows 3
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
I9i72ro2e iii
1 I
TT
� I
INTRODUC;1'ION
The City of Renton has initiated two planning studies to provide a comprehensive
examination of the•Springbrook Creek and Panther Creek watershed area known as the East
Side Green River Watershed or the Black River Basin. The first study, the Black River
Water Quality Management Plan (BRWQMP), is intended to improve water quality within
the study area and will address such environmental issues as water quality, aquatic resources,
' and preservation and enhancement of the valley wetlands. This study is 75% funded under
the Washington Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Program.
The second study, the East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP), will
characterize the hydrology and hydraulics of the stream system, identify existing and future
flooding conditions], and develop channel improvements necessary to eliminate major
flooding .problems. 1 The ESGRWP study will incorporate the findings of the BRWQMP
relative to water (quality, wetlands, and aquatic resources to ensure that channel
improvements are environmentally compatible solutions.
This wetland!inventory is part of the BRWQMP study. During May 1991, Jones &
Stokes Associates conducted an initial inventory of the city's wetland resources as part of
the overall water quality and flood management plan (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991).
The inventory encompassed the entire City of Renton and an additional area in
unincorporated King County termed the Renton "sphere of influence". The initial inventory
Was prepared based on review of existing literature and minimal field verification. The
primary purpose of(the initial inventory was to identify the general condition and location
Of wetland resources within the city limits so that a wetland management ordinance could
lie developed.
This report presents the results of a more detailed field inventory, which builds on
the initial inventory and provides more detailed wetland information withinthe Black River
watershed study area. The study area is approximately 5,935 acres, and is shown in
Figure 1. As a result of this field inventory, additional wetland areas were identified.
Wetlands identified;within the study area are shown in Figure,2.
PURPOSE
The primary Purpose of the field inventorywas to verifywetlands mapped during the
initial wetland inventory (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991), to add wetlands not previously
identified, and to expand on the knowledge of functional values of the wetlands.
Information will be used to assist the city in the management and protection of these
Wetland resources. The information will also be used to define impacts associated with
flood control alternatives defined as part of the ESGRWP.
BECK/T3 HUCK RIVER 1
09/22/92c
$ co
T
m nd
0�ye
G r e e n R 1 v e r ,
West Valley Highway ,ort ,, �r
so �Qby{lelSQt
CAD a
j. Oeksdele Avenue SW y
MI %
m
B41h.Avenue S c f.y I :,
d�� 5
y 1 Lind Avenue SW 6 `.
N s r
ar"''� E Valley Road tv a • �� �, '\�i V�leyF�ewa SI&
d�`�Ra
m
cn
a.
Talbot Road South v• �'°°° °�
t sti5 `
108ih Avenue SE
•
Cr) .0 �, l
Sr2 " p
�e
. > . i 2 i'l i i
CB' I ---6:-? ' cn
116th Avenue SE
I 4b1
Z
. .
::::;:::'.::. • .
........ ... ... • ..,...... ' ' •!4` ,---.i,
..... .
. ..
• .
. . .
• . — _______
•
. _
---...-- T
---,,
.-
$-4. ••- s-.'--- 7--- .. ,
-.----------------:-.(6r.. 1 ir • - "IrA
As..1.40;*•.,...1 v —______
s-5 ee .....v,ow lkok,........ s.
. J
b...., .
....
w_., ..
bf
W-38 k M-I3
e(I 7 •
4W-21
___14-1? , h-.-- •-...e_f?'''''‘‘.W-.1ZAITP}
1 - ----L---- -- -7 . \ .
• \ Ittlik 1Z I toe
\ '
Legend
• .
---------S\------\----r, . Wetlands Identified During the JSA Critical Areas Inventory 1991
Additional Wetlands Identified During the Black River Water Quality
--._-./ Management Plan
. --- Study Area
Fig-ure 2: Wetlands of the Black River Water Quality Management Plan
gii 7/91
•
•
•
- .
. .
14,
METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this study, the federal definition of wetlands was used to
determine whether an area was a wetland. This definition includes "those areas that are
saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances typically do support, vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil
conditions."
The following information sources were used to conduct the wetland field inventory:
Critical Areas InventoryCityof Renton Wetlands and Stream Corridors and
• -.
accompanying AutoCAD base maps of the city (1"=.1,000') and sphere of
influence (1"=2,000') (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991);
• 1990 true color aerial photographs (1" = 1,000') of the City of Renton;
• wetland reports prepared for various properties within Renton (see Citations);
l
11
• U.S.. Soil Conservation Service 1973 Soil Survey of the King County Area,
1 Washington (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973);
• Washington Hydric Soils List (U.S.. Soil Conservation Service 1990);
• King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio 1990 (King County 1990);
4
• City of Renton wetlands study (City of Renton 1981); and
• National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps - Mercer Island and Renton
Quadrangles.
In addition to review of these materials, each wetland was visited in November and
December 1991 to assess current conditions and functional values: The Critical Areas •
Inventory map was updated,based on information collected. Wetland boundaries were not
delineated, but approximate boundaries were defined based-on any existing wetland reports
and interpretation of aerial photographs. A two-tiered data collection approach was used
during the field investigation. The approach is described in the following paragraphs.
Comprehensive Data Collection
11
A comprehensive approach was used for those areas that might be impacted from any
of the proposed alternatives in the ESGRWP. In these areas, wetlands were visited and
data sheets (Appendix A) containing a list of dominant vegetation, soil descriptions, and
obvious indicators of wetland hydrology were completed. Figure 3 represents wetlands
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER 3
09yfl/,2
I .\
Y
wit f in the study area that would be impacted by the, alternatives. In addition, a wetland
ass ssment form (Appendix B) was developed to assess functional values of each wetland.
This form was completed for each wetland and a description of each wetland was prepared.
Intermediate-Level Data Collection �:;;
Il Information collected for wetlands located outside the area of impact described above
w. a less detailed. The presence of each wetland was verified, and hydrologic connections
ani dominant plant species were noted. This information was also added to the summary
11
tab e of wetlands. This level of analysis did not include completion of data sheets or
des',
riptions of wetlands. Data sheets describing conditions and functional values',were not
collpleted and wetland paragraphs were not written for this level of analysis.
•
RESULTS •
•
The study area contains 38 wetlands located during this inventory. The majority of
the,iwetlands are located in the Green River Valley adjacent to Springbrook Creek. This
sec ion presents a general discussion of wetland functional values within the study iarea and
a d' scription of each wetland surveyed using the comprehensive methodology.
Wetland Functional Values i
Wetlands within the study area provide a variety of functional values, dependent on
a ni' mber of factors including, but not limited to, size, location of the wetland in the
wat rshed, the type and amount of vegetation, and the proximity of the wetland to stream
cordors. If a wetland will be impacted, it is necessary to assess in detail its; existing
functional values so that if mitigation is proposed, the field values in the replaced,wetland
can ipe duplicated. The Federal Highway Administration Wetland Functional Assessment
Mein od (Adamus 1983) recognizes 11 wetland functions. Many of the functions are difficult
to *antify or qualify without extensive research (Erwin 1990). The following is a generaldis ssion of the 11 wetland functions and values.
'Gro ndwater Discharge and Recharge
The groundwater discharge function of a wetland helps to maintain a high water table .
in etlands and contributes water necessary to maintain streams during dry months.
Gro ndwater recharge can replenish groundwater supplies to the underlying aquifers. It is
LI
diffil• lt, however, to predict recharge and discharge from the physiographic setting of the
wetl nd; usually more detailed hydrogeological studies are necessary. Certain wetlands
BECK BLACK RIVER
09/749'1
4 •
i ..
f jr-
•11
• -�nnnn ?Q�� .
w—se w-tis� Jl
,4),_,, 4' __›_\7 .
1:• : ..___....j. .,__,
Legend
J tg; Wetlands Impacted. by Proposed Alternatives
-- Study Area
-- - : - Figure 3: Wetlands Impacted by Proposed Alternatives for the
Black River Water Quality Management Plan
9/l7/s2
contribute significantly to recharging regional groundwater. The majority of hydrologists
believe, however,that most wetlands in areas where glaciation has occurred (such, as the
Northwest) do not recharge aquifers (Erwin 1990).
Wetlands may, however, recharge shallow or perched lenses of groundwater which
in turn discharge to s reams. Many of the wetlands along Springbrook Creek;act both as
recharge and dischar e sites, depending on the season. During high water periods, the
wetlands store overb nk flows and act to recharge local groundwater. During low flow
periods, the wetlands .ct as discharge sites, helping to maintain streamflow in Springbrook
and Panther Creeks.
FI'ood Storage •
Wetlands can reduce storm runoff peaks by storing and then slowly releasing
stormwater. Such .att:nuation of floodflows results in lower peak rates of runoff occurring
for longer durations. . e flood storage value of a wetland varies with factors such as size,
topography; location 'thin the watershed, soils, surrounding land uses, association with
other aquatic systems, and the type and amount of vegetation present.
Shoreline Anchoring
Wetland.veget.tion binds shoreline and streambank sediments with root systems,
thereby anchoring the substrate. Additionally, aboveground vegetation reduces velocities
and turbulence during overland flows, which results in reduced erosive power.'
Water Purification
Wetlands can .urify water through a variety of mechanisms. The low current
ve'locities in wetlands ause sediments, metals, and, certain chemicals to be deposited; once.
in' the wetlands, mechanical, chemical, and biological processes can remove certain
pollutants from the water column. The ability of.a wetland to perform this function is based
on':a number of factors, such as residence time of the water.in the wetland and the type and
density of vegetation. Wetlands that are densely vegetated with emergent plants have the
ability to trap sediments and take up pollutants in the water.
° Biofiltration is particularly important when a wetland discharges into a watercourse.
This function is also highly dependent on the relationship of the wetland to surrounding
water bodies. Wetland's which receive significant quantities of pollutant laden water either
through stormwater input or overbank floodflows posses a high potential for water
purification.
A more detail Id assessment of this function. as well as groundwater discharge/
recharge and, flood storage, will be possible followingg completion of hydrologic modeling
BECK[I3 BLACK P.XV '
Yip/ 5' .
be'ng conducted as part of the ESGRWP. The modeling will evaluate the depth, frequency,
aril
� duration of wetland inundation associated with Springbrook Creek flooding.,
Food Chain Support •
Wetlands can be highly productive ecosystems that are used by numerous species for i..
ne 7 ing, spawning, rearing, and feeding. Primary productivity is usually high in wetlands, and
is enerally highest in emergent wetlands that contain water year round because they
su oport fast-growing plant species. Wetlands trap and store nutrients, thereby providing a
co 1 tant source of nutrients for release over time. This creates conditions that support
intl,['cate food chains, high species diversity, and long complex life cycles. These conditions
ar predominant in mature wetlands (Erwin 1990). !
i
WI dlife Habitat
Many bird, mammal, amphibian, and reptile species are dependent upon!wetlands
for all or part of their life cycles. The wildlife habitat value of a wetland depends in part
on ithe structural and species diversity of plant communities, the proximity of desirable
up o d habitat, and surrounding land uses.
Fis ery Habitat
Some wetlands are important sources of food and habitat for fish species. , In many
urb n streams, fish use is limited due to degraded water quality and inconsistent!flows.
Active Recreation, Passive Recreation, Heritage, and Education
i
Wetlands can provide valuable opportunities for recreation and education, such as
birwatching or natural system studies.
I
• ,
Wetland Descriptions
Twenty-five of the 38 wetlands within the study area were surveyed Using the
co II rehensive approach. Descriptions of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and functional values
are included for each wetland. Wetland numbers referred to in this section are based on
the 1/ umbering system for the initial wetland inventory. Because this'field inventory covers
less area than the initial inventory, the wetland numbers in this report and Table 1 are not
seq iential. For example, Wetlands. 1 and 2 are outside of the study area, so;the first
wet and described herein is Wetland 3. A summary of information about wetlands within 1.
i.
BECK I'i BLACK RIVER
09/22 • 6
^� v
I. l
l
RcL Local ioo
No- ! Source Naas, (T.R.S)
{halet
W-3 ' City of Keaton'81 u OriL Pond 23N 4 E 36 ylType Conusentf .
W-4 De line...tea Cat a gory
—
kaareat pocr4 le SupcRsrnd site
City of Rcnoa'81 Pantbcr Crock 23N SE 19,30, P
no 2
I R.W.Beds 89
31 a cuNcits to substantially rerouted Bow,diverse habitat;third no 1
WS of Renton 81 I(.' highest ranked wetland in dry
City Blade River rip.rian Z1N 4E 13 Le
high value open spans highest ranked wetland in dry
Iby 81 inventory;some pars of this arca arc upland
W.S. City of Renton'91 Bl•dui.cr Tray A 23N 4E 13 Let
disturbed site;to be remo.cd and mitigated
WSb City-of Rcntoo'91 Blasi river Tract B 23N 4E 13 Lo — •
I
1 remnant of old Black R dnennel
W-Sc I ISA 90a Blackrivcr Tract C ZIN 4E 13 1,
loud &stout in 1987;partially filled -
W6 Field Survey 91 16h Street 23N 4E 34 Val —
I
n DFJ.Pau d ciao nosh of GroupHealth
I City of Renton 81 Ear Valley B 73N SE 19 Val — surveyed
IFS 90
I very high diversity and structure,good quality
W-7S City of Renton'81 East Va1ky!B 23N SE 19 Val wetland
1(S 90
•
this robins&aoraists of two ditches
W-8N !i City of Renton 81 East Valley C SIN SE 30 R V.
acdckc 91a,b
good structural diversity and variety Of wetland types,
Wffi eight wetlands,s men on top of(ill
City of Renton 71 East Valley C 23N SE 30 Vaal.
Racdckc ilia
. I small wetlands developed on fill 7c.
W-9 City of Renton1 East Valley D 23N SE 19 Va11
1 8 ISA 9Cb
l ditch majority of...bind hat been Mks%remnant oo wet: -
W-10 I City of Reston'81 End Valley E 23N SE 30 VaBI side of property
W-11 of Renton'Alditch one of the highest quality wetlands in the city
�' Eaa V.1k7 F 73N SE 30 .V..1k —
DO 2
d'
W-12 , City of Rnntoo 81 Ramona Wetland 2IN 4E 25 VatlylI good habitat rvcrsity;snags
. I?ditch signirioat open weber aria and bigpet ranked no 1
wetland in d
W-I3a Boeing 91 wetland
L.oagaa� MN 4E 24 Valk
L C Les 91a,b Springbrook I
i I Corps verification'91
W-13b Shapiro and Assoc'92 Longues main 27N.4E 24 Valk!
•
racotsacY -
Corps verification 91
W-13c Shapiro and Assoc 92 L.onpacs south 23N 4E 24 I
Valk
mush u Corps vcrifical ion'91
. W 14 D.Evam&Assoc 89a, Seattle-limes ete 23N 4E 25; Valle
b,91d , 73N SE 30
disturbed;most of site filed and daelopcd;MA:dards
W-15 Earth Coosultaau'90 I on fill
ttivcrtech 73N 4E 13 [owel
S°.thlo rt rood associated with Black River riparian and P-1 Pood Ys.
W-16 !ES/Scales 90 ALLPAC Site SIN fE 25 Vane ages
I
disturbed site
W-21 Shapiro d Aaoe 89 Cootaine r Corp.site MN 4E 24 Lower,
4 disturbed building adjacent;wetland associated with -
stream.Black River
W 22 NWf Reotoe 4.14 Parcel • 23N 4E 25 Valley.
Aerial Photos 90
relic stream channel omits;till activities have akercd
D.F?vanc t Assoc ilia i hydrology of wetland
Field Survey 91 i
I
• W-25 1 Aerial Photon 90 — 24N SE 36 taxer I
Field Surrey'91
6 small wetland associated with trbutaty to no 2
W-31 !Aerial Photos'90 Pogo Wctlaod 2JN SE 19,a] RnIIioa Sp^n stem/cooed atv in Renton watershed
I
W-32 !Aerial Pbtos 90 south of Puget Power pcopenr
I Fit — 23N 42 30 Valley
Survry 91 wetlands on fill •
•
0 ECK//733 BLAfx RIVER
; ,
=r• 1
. I I
I
RcC 'I
1
No. 1' Soul Location �—' 1
Name (T.R S)
343
W-33 Atrial Photos 90 I
Field Survey 91 — 73N SE 30.31 VaPc J Comrnentar Delineated Category.
D.Evan g Aaron.9Ib I
• on fill'uvcn small isolated arcs no 3
W-34 I Aerial Photos 90 Talbot Road 23N SE 30
Field Bokser 91 Pad
I
W-33 Aerial Photos 90 I wetland at headwaters dwaters of small creek a1 Tab Road no 3
— 23N SE 30 South
Field Remo.91 Paul;.
-
W-36 KCSA
— 23N SE 27 Pony depboostression:rc¢ivcs runoff from road and adjacent no 3
• Jr
W-37 KGSA dieturocd pasture no 3
Panther
. Pa h Lake 22t1 SE S 4 Pam
W-38 • JSA'8i wetland rated 2 try KCSA no 2
— 22N 4E 25.26 Valli
' W 40 I Field Recoil.91 _
D.Baas$Assoc.91c 23N SE 30 • Value rant as 12,T\ukw•ila Itrvcmory no 2
W-41 • Wu I pn.-r.ts of rtanding.rater on fill no 2
Watershed Drumlins 91 — 23N 3.4E 24. Valk)
Ls
W-42 JSA includes north portion of Wetland 38 )a 3
23N 4E 24 yalky� .
—
i
W'43 j
•
Wutntau
D.Evsns A Assoc 91f Reston f 6£mrcc! xd pond in Fort Drat Park;same me as
no 3
23N SE 30 Valley) Wetland 8,Tukwila lovemory
W-44 I Divans do Asaon.91L Renton t(S Parcel 2{N soils are material:previously ditched.but ditches yet 2
SE 30 Volley
material:do not drain out of wetland ara
W-45 'Feld Survey 91 —
23N 4E ZS y.,ll,7 I • nods arc fit n material,prevudy ditched rem 3
a Refer to'1 and 3 large wetland arcs:good habitat no 2
b Appendix A for definition of w edond typos:
Refer to Table 3 for definition of species acronyms.
e State and�fcdcral threatened species-bald agic-
• Refers to"rctland delineation conducted and wetland report reviewed_
I
i •
I
I
I .
I
j .
I
I
i
'I .
I
.
•
cK,n3 atAac RIVER
o9rnis
the study area is presented in Table 1. Wetland classification codes are shown in Table 2.
Common and scientific names for plant species are shown in Table 3; Table 4, presents
information.about soils mapped within the study area.
Wetland 3
Wetland 3, Orillia Pond, would be classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Cowardin et al. 1979) as a palustrine forest, emergent, and open water',system. The
wetland is located east of the Bnrlington Northern railroad tracks and north of Southwest.
43rd Street. This site is being tested by Seacor Environmental Engineering for high levels
Of toxins resulting from automobile debris located in the wetland (Seacor Environmental
Engineering 1991). At this time, tests have not been completed. There is some possibility
that the site could be designated as a Superfund cleanup site.
Vegetation. Dominant vegetation within the forested portion of the wetland includes
black cottonwood, willow, and red alder. Salmonberry is dominant within the shrub layer.
'II'he emergent portion of the wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass.
Soils. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by U.S. Soil Conservation Service as
Puget silty clay loam and Woodinville silt loam, both of which are hydric soils (Table 4).
Soils were not sampled in this wetland due to the concerns regarding health risks due to
contamination. .
Hydrology. The wetland is not connected to Springbrook, Creek through surface
Water. The wetland receives water from runoff from adjacent development.
Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are minimal due to the high
metal content in the soils and the small size of the wetland. The forested portion of the
wetland does provide some habitat for small mammals and birds.
Wetland 4
Wetland 4, the Panther Creek Wetland, would be classified as a palustrine scrub-
shrub, emergent, and forest system. The wetland, which is approximately 65 acres, is the
largest wetland in. the study area. The wetland is a topographically level!area situated
between the east side of the Valley Freeway (SR 167) and the base of the Talbot Hills
Plateau slope. The following description is based on reports.by R. W. Beck and Associates
(11989), the City of Renton Wetland Study (1981), and the Jones & Stokes Associates field
investigation.
The north half of the. wetland supports a dense scrub-shrub community that is a
remnant of original valley floor wetlands: This area has never been cleared or drained for
agricultural purposes (R. W. Beck and Associates 1989). The southern part of the wetland
BECK[73 BLACK RIVER .
o n/vk 7
/
Table 2. Wetland Types as Defined by the Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
•
•
Wetland Type Definition •
POW Palustrine open water
PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub
PEM Palustrine emergent
• PFO Palustrine forested
Source: Cowardin et al. 1979.
•
•
RIVERBECK/T3BLACK R
09/n/9:.e 8
• I
•
1
Table 3. Wetland Plant Common and Scientific Names
Code Common Name Scientific Name
• ACMA big-leaf maple Acer macrophyllum
AGSPP bcntgras_s Agrostis spp.
ALRU red alder Alnus nlbra
ALSPP fox-tail Alopecurus spp.
AZSPP watcr fern Azolla spp.
CASPP sedge Carer spp.
CAOB slough sedge Carer obnupta
COCO brass buttons Cotula coronopifolia
COST red-osier dogwood Comus stolonifera
DAGL orchard grass Dactylis glomerata
ELPA common spike-rush Eleocharis palustris
EPWA Watson's willow-herb Epilobium watsonii
EQAR common horsetail • Equisetum arvense
FRLA Oregon ash Frarinus latifolia
GLEL mannagrass Glyceria data
HOLA velvetgrass Holcus lanatus
IRPS yellow flag Iris:pseudacorus
JUEF soft rush Juncus effusus
JUEN dagger-leaf rush Juncus ensifolius
JUSPP rushes Juncus spp.
OESA water parsley Oenanthe sarmentosa
PHAR reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea
• PLMA common plantain Plantago major
POAPA fowl bluegrass Poa palustris
POHY smartweed Polygonum hydropiper
POPA Pacific silverweed Potentilla pacifica
•
POPR Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis
POSPP smartwced Polygonum spp.
POTR black cottonwood Popular trichocarpa
PYFU western crabapple Pyrus fusca
BEL-1(7U BLACK RIVER
W/n/re 9 I
• r
Table 3. Continued '
Code Common Name Scientific Name
RARE creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens
RUDI Himalayan blackberry - Rubus discolor •
RUSP salmonberry Rubus spectabilis
RUSPP blackberry Rubus spp.
SARA red elderberry Sambucus racemosa
SASPP willow Salix spp.
SCAC hardstem bulrush Scirpus acutus
SCMI small-fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus
SODU bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcarnera
SPDO Douglas' spirea Spiraea douglasii
TRRE white clover Trifolium repens
TYLA common cattail Typha latifolia
VASPP huckleberry Vaccinium spp.
VEAM American brooklime Veronica americana
VESC marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata
B BLACK RIVER
09/22/9 10
t,
li
it
Table 4. Hydric Soils and Soils with Hydric Inclusions
', within the City of Renton Study Area
•
'j Symbol Soil Name Description Hydric i Inclusions
1
j AgB Alderwood moderately well drained to poorly drained No Ycs
gravelly sandy soil on nearly level or undulating
l loam, 0 to 6% topography; runoff is slow
li
slopes.:
.1
AgC Aldei wood moderately well drained soil on upland No Yes
!; gravelly sandy glacial,deposits; permeability is moderately
loam, 6-15% rapid to the substratum and very slow
slopes through it; runoff is slow to medium
BeC Beausite gravelly , well-drained soil underlain by sandstone No Yes
j sandy loam, 6 to found on rolling slopes; permeability is
1' 15% slopes moderately rapid; runoff is medium '
, BeD Beausite gravelly well-drained soil that formed in glacial No Yes
'!, sandy loam, 15 deposits; runoff is rapid
to 30% slopes '
-jj No Norma sandy poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A
loam on glaciated uplands and along stream
bottoms; permeability is.moderately rapid;
I'' runoff is slow; the seasonal water table is
at or near the surface
•
Pu Puget silty clay poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A
loam in small depressions of the river valley-, 1
li • permeability is slow;runoff is slow to •
ponded; the seasonal high water table is at
or near the surface
Os Oridia silt loam somewhat poorly drained soil that formed Yes N/A
11
in alluvium in river valleys; permeability is
moderate to moderately slow in the
. subsoil; the seasonal water table is at a
depth of 1 to 2 feet
Py Puyallup fine well-drained soil that formed in alluvium; No Yes
i
sandy loam found in natural levees and valley bottoms;
•
. permeability is moderately rapid; runoff is
i slow
I, Rh Riverwash long, narrow areas of sand, gravel, and Yes N/A
stones along channels of the larger streams
fSk Seattle muck very poorly drained organic soil in Yes N/A
depressions and valleys on the glacial till .
1 plain;permeability is moderate; runoff is
• ponded; the seasonal high water table is at
or near the surface .
•
i
1
BECK/T)BLACK.RIVER
Mil
u�v� I 1
1
f
a •
I >�
Y: �
•
Table 4. Continued
I .
•
-
S I,,bol Soil Namc Description Hydric Ind'usions
So Snohomish silt poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A na
loam in stream valleys; permeability is moderate
in the upper part of the profile and
moderately rapid in the lower part; runoff
is slow; the seasonal high water table is at
or near the surface
Tu Tukwila muck very poorly drained organic soil that Yes N/A
formed in wet basins of upland depressions
•
and on stream bottoms; permeability is •
moderate; runoff is ponded; the seasonal
high water table is at or near the surface
•
o Woodinville silt .poorly drained soil that formed in alluvium Yes N/A
loam and stream bottoms; permeability is
moderately slow; runoff is slow; the
seasonal high water table is at or near the
surface
•
No '-: N/A = not applicable
So ce: "U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1973.
•
•
•
•
•
•
' I
r..
tt.
s BECK BLACK RIVER
09i22i9 12 '
[� I
supports an emergent wetland. The Panther Creek Channel enters the south end of the
wetland. A palustrine forested wetland is present along the channel. The wetland is
bisected by several utility easements, including Seattle and Renton water lines;! Metro sewer
trunk, Olympic Oil Pipeline, and a powerline corridor.
Vegetation. The scrub-shrub portion of the wetland is a mosaic of shrubs, emergent
Vegetation, and standing water. The shrub layer is dominated by willow, red alder, Douglas'
spirea, and red-osier dogwood. Common cattail and yellow flag interspersed with open
water comprise the herb layer. The emergent portion of the wetland consists of large stands
Of common cattail and reed canarygrass. Rusher and smartweed occur occasionally within
this community. The forested portion of the wetland is dominated by black cottonwood,
willow, and red alder.
Soil. Soils in this wetland. have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
as Seattle muck and Puget silty clay loam, both hydric soils (U.S. Soil Conservation Service
1 1990) (Table 4).
Hydrology. Although the Panther Creek Wetland receives water from many'sources,
the two primary sources are Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Drainage. Panther Creek
originates at Panther Lake and flows generally northwest. The Panther Creek Channel has
b,een'partially rerouted west under SR 167 via'two culverts at the extreme south end of the
wetland and into the street storm system on East Valley Road. A small portion of this
surface drainage flows north into the emergent area of the wetland: The northern portion
of the wetland receives surface water runoff through 48-inch and 132-inch culverts under
If405 that originate from the Rolling Hills Drainage.(Giseburt pers. comm.).' In addition,
Talbot Hills Drainage, seeps, and small surface and storm drains.along the eastern slope of
the wetland supply water to the wetland (R. W. Beck and Associates 1989).
Two utility dikes separate the wetland:into three isolated cells, which have surface
water connections during high water periods. Surface water connections are common during
heavy winter rains.
Approximately 10 culverts extend under SR 167, that were designed to drain surface
Water from the wetland to the east side' of SR 167. Some of these culverts 'are currently
overgrown with vegetation, and could not be located during field surveys. The culverts are
most likely plugged with sediment and it has not been determined whether or not the
culverts provide surface water drainage (Straka pers. comm., R. W. Beck and Associates
1989).
According to a.previous report(R.W. Beck.and Associates 1989)water from Panther
Wetland drains west to Springbrook Creek via four different routes. Not all of these routes
were visible during the field visit. These routes include an open ditch along the west side
of SR 167; a storm drainage system under local roads; drainage ditches bordering the north
side of Wetlands 8 and 9; and a. 3-foot by 4-foot. box culvert that feeds directly into the
storm drainage system west.of SR 167. At the time of the site visit, approximately 2 feet
� I
B1C/T3 BUCK RIVER I
®//92` 13
of Water was observed in the open ditch along the west side of SR 167; however, inlet or
oulets could not be located. In addition, water was observed in the drainage ditch north
of Wetland 8.
Functional Values. Wetland 4 is one of the most significant wetland systems in.the
sti y area and provides excellent functional values. i
Due to the site, diversity, and topographic setting of this wetland it provides high
biologic and hydrologic functions.
Flood storage is rated very high due to the large size and the depressional
to graphy. This wetland is one of four wetlands within the study area that received a very
hi ''' rating for this function.
Shoreline anchoring is only applicable where Panther Creek enters the south end of
th I wetland. The canopy cover in the forested portion provides good shoreline nchoring.
Tr es and shrubs dissipate the erosive forces near the alluvial'fan during a flood event.
The sediment trapping abilities are excellent due to the presence of the extensive and
PP g
.de ely vegetated emergent community. Common cattails"and reed canarygrasls provide
bil ltration of heavy metals from water (Kulzer 1990). This is very important because this
w land receives runoff from basins which are heavily urbanized. In addition, this function
is ',ritical for maintaining water quality in adjacent wetlands (Wetlands 8 and 9) and
Sp l'ngbrook Creek as runoff increases from roads and adjacent developments.
The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast growing emergent
sp �cies provides for high primary productivity and food chain support.
Since the wetland is very large and diverse, opportunities for wildlife use are
ab ndant. Forested areas provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, and tree nesting birds.
Sh b and herbaceous layers provide good cover to small mammals, invertebrates and
anT 1ihibians.
It is highly unlikely that this wetland supports fish at this time. Panther Creek
e j.ties approximately 4 feet above the stream grade at the Talbot Road crossing and forms
a o . 'er to fish migrating upstream. Fish habitat in Panther Creek is limited for several
re. ons including low summertime flow, migration barriers, and conveyance pipes between
Sp 'ngbrook Creek and the Panther Creek Wetland. In addition, a fishery survey conducted
by II' . W. Beck and Associates in 1989 yielded only several fish. These fish were thought to
ori'l:'nate from Panther Lake (Jones & Stokes Associates 1991). However, this wetland does
se e to improve water quality to Springbrook Creek, which does support fish. Runoff to
th J creek would have an effect on fisheries habitat.
B: BUCK FUVER
w/u •. 14
Active/passive recreation potential such as bird watching is very good in this wetland.
However, this function is decreased because there is no public access to the wetland. Steep
slopes border the east side of the wetland and SR 167 borders the west side of the:wetland.
Wetland S
Wetland 5 (includes 5a, 5b, and 5c) is a palustrine forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent
Wetland that is located within the historic Black River channel. The majority of the wetland
supports a forested and scrub-shrub community (5b and 5c). The southern portion of the
wetland area supports primarily an emergent community (5a and Sb). The portion of this
Wetland that is designated 5a includes two small isolated wetlands that have developed in
depressions atop fill. This wetland will be described and discussed separately. Wetlands
5, 5b, and 5c will be discussed collectively. ;
Wetland 5a. Wetland 5a includes two wetland areas: palustrine scrub-shrub and
palustrine emergent wetlands that occur as enclosed depressions located on. Tract A
(Figure 2). Tract A has been graded and filled and is primarily,vegetated with upland
grasses. The wetland area is bounded by Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to the south,
Springbrook Creek to the east, the King County pump station to they west, and;the P-1 Pond
to the north. The following description is based on a previous wetland report (Jones &
Stokes Associates 1990a) and the Jones & Stokes Associates field investigation.
Vegetation. Scrub-shrub wetland is dominated by willow saplings; red alder
saplings and red-osier dogwood occasionally appear. Underneath the shrub ;community is
an herbaceous layer that consists of soft rush, orchard grass, and reed canarygrass.
The emergent wetland lacks vegetative diversity;soft rush is the dominant herbaceous
species within the emergent wetland. .
ISoils. Soils on Tract A have been mapped by the U.S: Soil Conservation
Service as Puyallup fine sandy loam. Puyallup fine sandy loam is described asja soil formed
in alluvium, typically found in valley bottoms, and is not listed as ;hydric by!the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service. Soils in this wetland were observed to be low chroma silty fine sands
with mottles. As previously stated, this site has been graded and filled. The soils observed
are compacted fill material.
Hydrology. The primary source of water is precipitation which does not
percolate through the compacted soils. Standing water was observed within;the wetland.
' I
Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are minimal due to
the small size, isolated nature, lack of structural or species diversity, and disturbed nature.
Wetlands 5, 5b, and 5c. Wetlands-5, 5b, and 5c are located on land south of the
railroad tracks, Tract.B, and Tract C within the historic Black River channel.j The wetland
airea is bounded by Springbrook Creek 'and the P-1 POnd to the west, Naches Avenue
sEc c/T3&LAX RIVER ;
09/22/ 15
r
� Y
i I
Southwest and office complex to the east, railroad tracks to the north, and Southwest
Se'tenth Street to the south. This wetland was described by the City of Renton (1981) as the
most valuable wetland within the city. The following description is based on' previous
w- hand reports (City of Renton 1981, 1991;Jones & Stokes Associates 1990a) and the Jones
& 'b tokes Associates field investigation.
Vegetation. The forested portion of the wetland consists of black cottonwood,
re u alder, Oregon ash, and big leaf maple in the canopy layer. Willow is the dominant
sp Icies within the shrub layer of the forested wetland. The scrub-shrub portion of the
we land is comprised of red alder,willow, and salmonberry: red elderberry, Oregon ash, and
rep-osier dogwood occur occasionally. Vegetation within the emergent portion of the
weL land includes smartweed, common cattail, Watson's willow-herb,.small fruited bulrush,
re d canarygrass, and soft rush.
Soil. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Sei 'ce as Woodinville silt loam which is a hydric soil (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990)
(Table 4). This wetland is located in a depression at an elevation approximately 15 feet
be ow the surrounding upland fill areas. Soils within the wetland were observed to be black
m I cks to a depth of 3 feet.
Hydrology. A 4- to 5-foot-diameter concrete, culvert placed in an
approximately 50-foot-wide berm divides the wetland into northern and southern portions.
culvert invert elevation is higher than the wetland elevation; water flowing through the -
cul ert is most likely during high storm events. The primary source of water within this
we land is high groundwater levels, and back flooding from the P-1 Pond. Water flows
no from this wetland to a small channel which connects to the P-1 storage pond.
Functional Values. Functional values within this wetland are significant
be ause of the connection of this wetland with the P-1 Pond and Springbrook Creek.
1'
Because this wetland is fed primarily by groundwater, the connection with the P-1
Poi d is an important discharge site. Limited regional groundwater recharge occurs during
higlu storm events.
This wetland has been rated high for flood storage due to the large size and the
de ressional topography. This primarily takes place within the northern portion of the
we land which is connected to the P-1 Pond. The southern portion of the wetland is only
co ected during high storm events.
Sediment trapping capabilities of the wetland are'rated medium. Although the
we and is large, emergent vegetation is not as dense as other wetlands of ,this size.
Ho ever, this function directly benefits water quality in Springbrook Creek..
Food chain support has been rated medium. Although the wetland is not densely
ve etated with emergent vegetation, the presence of year-round water in portions of the
we land increases the rating of this function from low to medium.
B BLACK RIVER
C9i� 16
I I
This wetland is one of the highest rated wetlands for wildlife habitat. Dense shrub
vegetation surrounds this wetland, offering protection from human intrusion.. Passerine and
Prey species utilize the dense vegetation within the wetland as cover, nesting, and feeding
habitat. Great blue herons and waterfowl utilize the wetland extensively.
Active/passive recreation and education have been rated very high in this wetland.
This area is a major Audubon birding site locally.
i I
Wetland 7 North
Wetland 7 North would be classified as palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub-
shrub. This wetland is.approximately 12 acres in size. This wetland is bounded to the north
by Southwest 19th Street, East Valley Road to the east, Lind Avenue Southwest to.the west,
and Southwest 21st Street to the south.
Vegetation. Emergent vegetation consists of a monotypic stand of common cattail
that is interspersed with open water. Scrub-shrub vegetation occurs in small patches, and
is dominated by red alder, willow, and Douglas' spirea. A few black cottonwood snags were
observed within the wetland.
Soil. This area has been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ias Snohomish
• silt loam, Puget silty clay loam, and Tukwila muck which are all listed as hydric soils (Table
4). Soils observed during the field investigation at a depth.of 10 inches were low chroma,
dark gray silts with mottling.
Hydrology. This wetland is a topographically level,isolated depression at the original
Valley floor elevation. Water sources for this wetland are primarily precipitation and the
regional groundwater. No inlet or outlet structures were observed. Water from the road
is not diverted into the wetland. However; during high storm events, this wetland receives
overland flow from adjacent roads and development. During field investigation, saturation
at the surface or inundation to a depth of 2 inches was observed.
• Functional Values. The primary source of water to this wetland is the regional
groundwater. During flooding events or increased precipitation; this wetland provides
recharge of the regional groundwater. The lack of a discharge site (inlet or!outlet) limits
this functional value. This wetland functions primarily as storage and possible recharge of
regional groundwater.
This wetland has been rated medium for flood storage, especially during high storm
events due to the large size and depressional topography. These values become increasingly
important as development increases in the area and flooding volumes continue to increase.
Sediment trapping has been designated as medium in this wetland. Emergent
vegetation is very dense which provides for high biofiltration capabilities.. ;This rating is
lowered to medium because the wetland is isolated. However, during flooding events this
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
*2//9 17
xA
wetland receives water from road runoff and adjacent developments; sediment trapping
ca o-abilities become very important due to the pollutants carried by the flooding water.
The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast growing emergent
sp:'cies provides for high primary productivity and food chain support within this. wetland.
II Wildlife habitat-has been rated high. The patches of scrub-shrub vegetation and the
fe snags provide cover and perching sites for birds. The large emergent area and the
presence of standing water provide suitable habitat for amphibians and small mammals.
Active/passive recreation such as bird watching is good. The wetland is accessible
fro the sidewalk that bounds the wetland to the east, west, and north.
land 7 South
Wetland 7 South would be classified as palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetland.
Ths wetland is approximately 3 acres in size and is located south of Southwest 21st Street,
wect of East Valley Road, east of Lind Avenue South, and north of the Seattle Water
artment and adjacent gas right-of-way. This wetland consists of two ditches along the
Se 1 the Water Department pipeline right-of-way, the larger of which is approximately 25 feet
wi o e with an east-west orientation. The other ditch is approximately 20 to 25 feet wide, has
a forth-south orientation, and flows north. During the initial inventory a forested area
lots ted north of the east-west ditch and west of the north-south ditch was identified as
for sted wetland. This investigation has determined this area is an upland forest.
Vegetation. The wetland communitytype in the east-west ditch is primarilyemergent,
g ,
wi III occasional patches of scrub-shrub. Dominant emergent species observed include
co ;i s on cattail, reed canarygrass, and bittersweet nightshade. Slough sedge occurs
oci. Tonally in the herb layer. Scrub-shrub portions of the wetland consist of willow and
Da' glas' spirea. The north-south ditch is comprised of yellow flag and bittersweet
nigh tshade in the herbaceous layer. Black cottonwood saplings are monotypic within the
sc 'l b-shrub community. This ditch is shaded by an overstory of red alder.
Soil. Soils in this area have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as
Tu 'la muck and Snohomish silt loam which are both listed as hydric by the jU.S. Soil
Co ervation Service. Soils in the wetland area were observed to be low chrotna black
mu' k with no mottling. .
Hydrology. This wetland receives sheetflow runoff from the adjacent disturbed
upll.l d forest, Seattle Water Department and adjacent gas right-of-way, roadways, Shurgard
Sto age buildings and parking lot. Other water sources to this wetland are precipitation and
re tonal groundwater. Water in the wetland flows west underneath Lind Avenue South via
a ' vert and continues west in a ditch and then empties into Springbrook Creek. At the
L.
suac FOVEA09112 18
•
time of observation water depths within the wetland ranged from 2 to 8 inches. Water
marks were observed on the bark of shrubs indicating water levels could reach
approximately 3 feet during high flow periods.
.
Functional Values. Wetland 7 South provides moderate functional values.
This wetland was rated medium for flood storage capacity. Although)the wetland is
connected via the ditch to Springbrook Creek, its small size and channelized nature limit
the flood storage capacity.
Sediment trapping has been rated medium due to the dense emergent vegetation.
Biofiltration of water in this wetland is important in maintaining water quality because of
,fits connection to Springbrook Creek. The limited quantity of direct surface water input to
the wetland reduces the quantity of pollutants that can be trapped.
Food chain support is medium due to the emergent vegetation present however, the
Jack of year-round water in this wetland decreases this function.
! Wetland 7 South is relatively small and provides minimal cover for wildlife.
However, the adjacent upland forest located north of the wetland offers a diverse area for
,passerine birds and small mammals.
Active/passive recreation opportunities have been rated medium in this wetland.
iThe adjacent roadways and the Seattle Water Department right-of-way provide easy access
to the wetland. At the time of the field investigation this area was being used frequently
by pedestrians.
Wetland 8 North
Wetland 8 North would be classified as a palustrine scrub-shrub 'and emergent.
wetland. This wetland is approximately 11 acres in size and is one of the most diverse
wetlands in the study area. The City of Seattle water pipeline berm bounds the wetland to
Ithe north, Southwest Lind Avenue is to the west, East Valley Road is to the east, and the
Itoe of fill establish the southern boundary.
Vegetation. The scrub-shrub cover is dense and occurs within the outer portions of
the wetland. Dominant shrub vegetation consists of Oregon ash, red-osier dogwood, black
Cottonwood, and willow. Black cottonwood and Oregon ash occasionally occur within the
canopy layer. Emergent vegetation within the scrub-shrub community is sparse. Bittersweet
nightshade, reed canarygrass, and .creeping buttercup occur occasionally within the
'herbaceous. layer. Toward the center of the wetland, a dense emergent community
dominated by common cattail and yellow flag occurs. Mannagrass'and water parsley occur
Occasionally within the herbaceous layer.
BLACK RrvER
/Z2 19 a
1
I ..er
Soil.. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soils i this wetland as ;.Y
Snol, omish silt loam which is listed as hydric (Table 4). Soils observed during the field
inve�otigation, sampled at a depth of 8 to 10 inches, are low chroma dark gray to very dark
bro I' silty loams. 1 _
Hydrology. The primary water source for this wetland is flow from a culvert at the
no eastern corner of Wetland 8 North which directs water from city street stormisystems
wes into Wetland 8 North. • This ditch is located along the northern wetland boundary.
Oth r water sources in this wetland are precipitation, runoff from adjacent area,regional
gro ndwater, and backup from Spring e
brook Creek during flooding events. Water xits the
wet s d via a ditch which flows west through Wetland 10 and empties into Springbrook
Crel� k. Inundation in emergent areas ranged from 1 to 12 inches. Saturation to the surface
or inch of inundation was observed in scrub-shrub portions of the wetla d.
I 1
Functional Values. Due to the surface water connection with Springbrook C Ileek, the
wet .nd exhibits both recharge and discharge functions. During high flow periods, some
rec Marge of groundwater occurs as flows from Springbrook Creek back up into the wetland.
Du ping low flow the wetland discharges flow to Springbrook Creek. The magnitude of this
funotion is limited by the small size and ditch configuration of-the wetland. Springbrook
Cre'��k provides an excellent groundwater discharge site. Groundwater discharge functions
to taintain water levels within Springbrook Creek. During periods of flooding and backup
fro ui Springbrook Creek, the wetland functions to recharge the regional froundwater.
This wetland also provides excellent flood storage due to the large size, deprlessional Y.
top o f aphy, proximity to roads,, commercial development, association with Springbrook
Crepe and presence of structures that direct water flow (ditch, inlet, and outlet). 1 . -
1
This wetland possesses a direct surface water connection to Spring rook Creek and
rec-lives pollutant-laden runoff from urban areas. These factors, in combination with the
de �e and diverse shrub and emergent vegetative community, promote exc e ellent sediment
trap,o ing capabilities. .
• , The presence of standing.water and an extensive community of fast owing emergent
spe m es provide for high primary productivity and food chain support ratings.
The vegetative structure and size of the wetland provide good wildlife habitat for
sm. birds, small mammals, and amphibians.
II
Although fish do not utilize this wetland, the wetland does serve to improve water
qu• ity to Springbrook Creek,which supports fish. Runoff to the creek would have an effect
on ii'sheries habitat. Fish may utilize the ditch along. the north side of the wetland.
.
Active/passive recreation opportunities were rated medium in this wetlandland'the ,,,.4
surrounding wetlands. The adjacent roadways and the Seattle Water Dep ent right-of-I
'Y1
wayiprovide easy access to the wetland. At the time of the field investigation this area was
bei II. used frequently by pedestrians.
1
B BLACK RIVER
o9/n 20
I I
•. . I I
Wetland 8 South
1
Wetland 8 South is a series of small isolated wetlands that would be classified as
plalustrine emergent. Collectively, these wetlands are approximately 5 acres in size. The
wetlands occur in an area that was previously graded and filled. The wetlands have
developed in depressional areas due to uneven grading and soil compaction. (Upland grass
immediately surrounds these wetlands. Generally,.Wetland 8 North, Southwest 27th Street,
East Valley Road, and Southwest Lind Avenue border these wetlands to the north, south,
east, and west respectively.
Vegetation. Vegetation within these wetlands is not diverse. In the lowest portion
of the wetlands, common spike-rush is the dominant herbaceous species. Soft rush occurs
commonly within the outer portions of the wetland. Occasionally, reed canarygrass and
b;entgrass occur interspersed within the soft rush.
Soil. Soils in this area have been mapped by the U.S. Soil ,Conservation Service as
Snohomish silt loam which is indicated as hydric by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(Table 4). This area has been graded and filled; soil color is not applicable in determining
hydric soil characteristics. Soils were assumed based on the presence of wetland hydrology
and hydrophytic vegetation.
Hydrology. These wetlands are hydrologically isolated from,adjacent water bodies.
'I,he water source is primarily precipitation. Wetlands may receive some! runoff from
adjacent upland fill areas. The lowest portions of these wetlands typically are inundated
with about 1 inch of water.
11
Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due
t$ the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature.
Collectively, these wetlands provide for some flood storage and wildlife habitat. However,
thI ese wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support,
and groundwater recharge and discharge.
•
I
Wetland 9
Wetland 9 would be classified as a palustrine forested system located north and east
of Springbrook Creek and north of Southwest 23rd Street. The wetland is a linear system
approximately 2 acres in size, has a north-south orientation, and is connected by a drainage
ditch to Springbrook Creek at the southwestern corner. The wetland is a remnant of the
original valley floor and the elevation is much lower than the surrounding recent fill areas.
� I
Vegetation. The canopy is comprised of black cottonwood,red:alder,willow, and red-
osier dogwood. Dominant species in the shrub layer include vine maple and red-osier
dogwood. The herbaceous layer is sparse due to the dense shrub layer. •
B CKrn BLACK RIVER
09i2 21
3
t
t
Soils.. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped. the sof 1 in this area as
Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam which are both listed as hydric soils (Table
4). Soils observed onsite at a depth of 8 inches are dark gray sandy loams with mottles.
Hydrology. The wetland receives surface water via the ditch which originates from
Pa 1 ther Creek Wetland, runoff from development west of the wetland, overbank flooding r,
fro Springbrook Creek, and regional groundwater. No soil inundation or saturation was
observed during the field investigation; however, wetland hydrology was assumed'based on
wa ler marks on trees, drift lines, and the presence of algal mats.
1 Functional Values._ Functional values for this wetland have been reduced due to the
re went filling east of the wetland and the small size of the wetland.
I Groundwater discharge and recharge,have been rated medium'due to the small size
of 'the wetland. The wetland is connected to Springbrook Creek thus providing some
dis'fr barge during low flow periods.
I
Flood storage is low due to the small size and linear shape of the etland. However, •
thi function is important due to the close proximity of new development tlo the wetland and
the direct connection to Springbrook Creek. .
Water purification in this wetland is rated low due to the lack of dense herbaceous
ve:"etation. Water qualityis likelyto bepoor due to surface runoff from, adjacent . .
J
de elopment and pollutants in Springbrook Creek.
Food chain support and wildlife habitat are low due to the lack of a diverse'emergent
lay r, open water, and the small linear shape. However this forested system could provide
ha c itat and nutrients utilized by small mammals, birds, and invertebrates.
Fishery habitat in this wetland is rated low; however, this function is important
bemuse of the connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek
i
Active and passive recreation is low because of the small size of th wetland and lack
of a ccess and sight to the wetland. . •
1
Welland 10
Wetland 10 would be classified as a mature palustrine forest. The wetland is
approximately 13 acres in size and is located east of Springbrook Creek and north of
So thwest 27th Street. The'wetland is a linear system that is connected by a drainage ditch
thai runs east-west from Lind Avenue Southwest to Springbrook Creek. A beaver dam is
to ted at the point where the ditch discharges into Springbrook Creek. The wetland is a
re 1 ant of the original valley floor and the elevation is approximately 6 to 8 feet lower in
are than the surrounding fill areas. In addition, a small portion of this remnant wetland
exi is north of'Southwest 27th Street and east of Lind Avenue Northwest.
BLACK RIVER '
w/u 22
Vegetation. The canopy consists of black cottonwood and willow. The shrub layer
is very dense and is dominated by red-osier dogwood. The herbaceous cover in the wetland
is sparse due to shading and competition from the shrub layer. The wetland is interspersed
with standing water. Reed canarygrass is found growing occasionally on the edges of the
wetland where disturbance from road construction occurs.
Soils. -The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Snohomish silt loam, and Puget silty clay loam which are both listed as hydrae soils (Table
4). Soils observed onsite at a depth of 12 inches are very dark brown loams with no mottles.
Hydrology. The wetland receives surface water from development east of the wetland
via the ditch and along the northern wetland boundary, overbank flooding from Springbrook
Creek, sheetflow runoff, and regional groundwater. Saturation to the surface and inundation
to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland areas at the time of the field
investigation. In addition, water in the ditch was at a depth of 2 feet.
Functional Values. This wetland was rated as one of the highest quality in the City
of Renton during the City of Renton Wetlands Study (1981). Functional values for this
wetland have been reduced since that study was completed due to adjacent development and
loss of wetland acreage.
Groundwater discharge and recharge have been rated high for this wetland due to
its size and proximity to Springbrook Creek. The ditch at the south end of the wetland,
however, reduces floodflow residence time.
Flood storage capabilities have been rated as one of the highest in the study area
because the wetland is at the original elevation and is considerably lower than the
surrounding fill areas. In addition,the direct surface water connection to Springbrook Creek
allows floodwaters to back up into the wetland. This function is somewhat decreased by the
small size of the wetland.
Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. large black cottonwood trees and dense
understory line the banks adjacent to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland
flow during flood events.
Water purification is an important function in this wetland because water discharges
directly into Springbrook Creek. However, the lack of dense herbaceous vegetation limits
the amount of water purification abilities. Water quality is most likely poor due to
pollutants received from Springbrook Creek.
Food chain support is rated low due to the lack of a diverse emergent layer. Since
the wetland contains two wetland classes, wildlife habitat has been rated medium. This
BECK/i7 BLACK RIVER
wi71r 23
r
we land could support a number of different species. Forested and shrub areas are densely
vegI 1tated and are likely to provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, cavity, and tree nesting
bir s. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates,
an amphibians.
Fishery habitat in this wetland has been rated low. However, this function is `
important because of the connection of this wetland to Springbrook Creek.
IActive/passive recreation opportunities•are rated medium because the wetland is
accessible by a road.
Wetland 11
Wetland 11 would be classified as a large palustrine emergent land scrub-shrub
wetland of approximately 28 acres. The wetland is located east of Springbrook Creek, south
of Southwest 27th Street, and west of Lind Avenue Southwest. The wetland is most likely
a re I ant of the original valley floor, with the elevation being lower than the surrounding
roa I ks and development.
Vegetation. The palustrine emergent community is located in the eastern portion of
the etland and consists of monotypic stands of common cattail. The remaining wetland
is s b-shrub and is densely vegetated'in portions with willow and Douglas' spirea. Reed
ca arygrass is the dominant species in the herbaceous layer and is found growing on the
outer edges'of the wetland and in areas appearing to have higher elevation.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as . .
Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam; both are listed as hydric soils (Table 4).
SoilIII observed at a depth of 10 inches are very dark.grayish brown silts with mottles.
Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland include overba flooding from
Sp •'!!r gbrook Creek, sheetflow runoff from roads, and regional groundwater. At the time of
the field investigation,soils were not inundated;however, soils were saturated to the'surface.
Theme are no ditches associated with this wetland.
Functional Values. The size and diversity of this wetland impart high functional .
valu s. Wetland 11 is one of the largest wetlands in the study area and functional values
have been rated very high.
1
Groundwater discharge and recharge have been rated high for this wetland due to
•
its size and proximity to Springbrook Creek. The lack of a surface water inlet or outlet
allows floodflows from the creek to remain in the wetland for extended lengths of time.
This promotes infiltration and recharge. l
I Li
Hood storage capability has been rated very high because the wetland is at the
original elevation and is considerably lower than the surrounding fill areas. This function •
BECK/7 BLACK RIVER 24
i
I I
•
� I
is enhanced because of the large size, dense vegetation, and location for filli In addition,
there is no inlet or outlet, so residence time of water is increased.
I
Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. Dense vegetation lines the banks adjacent
to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland flow during, flood events.
Water purification capabilities are very high in this wetland. The large size,
combined with dense stands of cattails and long residence time of water, provide excellent
biofiltration.
Food chain support has been rated medium due +he dense herbaceous layer. This
function is decreased slightly due to lack of diversity and open water.
Since the wetland contains two wetland classes with no open water, wildlife habitat
leas been rated medium. Shrub and herbaceous layers provide good cover for small
mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians.
Fishery habitat in this wetland is low because of the lack of a connection of this
wetland to Springbrook Creek.
Active and passive recreation in this wetland is rated high. There are good
opportunities for wildlife observation, and access to the borders of the wetland are from a
road.
Wetland 12
Wetland 12 would be classified as palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and ponded
open water: This wetland is approximately 41 acres in size and is one of the largest and
most diverse wetlands in the study area. This wetland is located west of Springbrook Creek,
south of Southwest 27th Street, and north of Southwest 31st Street. The wetland is bisected
by a north-south walking trail. A wide, shallow ditch borders the northern portion of the
wetland and empties into Springbrook Creek. The wetland is most likely a remnant of the
original valley floor, with the elevation being lower than the surrounding roads and
development:
Vegetation. The palustrine emergent community is interspersed with open water and
scrub-shrub communities. The emergent community is dominated by monotypic stands of
common cattail. The remaining wetland is scrub-shrub and is densely vegetated in portions
with willow and Douglas' spirea, which are dominant within th'e shrub layer. Reed
canarygrass is the dominant species in the herbaceous layer and is found growing on the
outer edges of the wetland and in areas appearing to have higher elevation:
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Woodinville silt loam, which is listed as hydric (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of
10 inches are very dark grayish brown sandy silts with mottles.
•
' I
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09i 25
-t
1
1
Hydrology. Water sources for this wetland include overbank flooding from
Spingbrook Creek, sheetflow runoff from roads, and regional groundwater. At the time of
th. field investigation, soils were not inundated; however, soils were saturated to the surface.
A 'de shallow ditch located on the north boundary of the wetland contained no standing
w ter.
1.
Functional Values. Wetland 12 is one of the largest wetlands in the study area, and
fu ctional values are rated as some of the very highest in the study area.
Gro'indwater discharge and recharge are similar to those described for Wetland 11.
e ditch at the north end of the wetland, however, reduces floodflow residenc I time.
Flood storage capabilities are rated very high because the wetlan is at the original
el-lvation and is considerably lower than the surrounding fill areas. This function is
eri anced because of the large size, dense vegetation, and location of fi111.
I Shoreline anchoring is rated very high. Dense vegetation lines the banks adjacent
to Springbrook Creek, reducing turbulence from overland flow during flood events.
Water purification capabilities are rated very high in this wetland. The large size,
co bined with dense stands of cattails and long residence time of water, provides excellent
bi o filtration.
Food chain support is very high due the dense herbaceous layer, diversity of plant
communities, and open water.
Since the wetland contains a variety of plant communities, wildlife habitat is rate
very high and could support a number of different species. Shrub and herbaceous layers
pr vide good, cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians.
Fishery habitat in this wetland is low; however, this function is important because of
th connection of'this wetland to Springbrook Creek. •
Active and passive recreation in this wetland are high. There are good opportunities
-fors wildlife observation, and access to the borders of the wetland is by road or boat from
Springbrook Creek.
• W'Itland 13A i
11 The Springbrook Creek riparian wetland would be classified as a palustrine forest,
scrub-shrub, and emergent system. The wetland is approximately. 4 acres in size and is
bisected by Springbrook Creek. It is directly adjacent to the Springbrook Creek channel and
has been designated as "Waters of the State" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle
District). The wetland is located east of the Longacres Race track and s.11 outh uth of Southwest
16ih Street. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology are highly disturbed due to site grading,
I
13 BL.«RIVER . 26 .
1
if
•
.
stormwater management activities, and hydrology in Springbrook Creek. This description
is based on reports by L. C. Lee & Associates (1991a) and the Jones & Stokes Associates
field investigation.
Vegetation. Wetlands in and along the stream channel are approximately 10 to 15
feet below the upper wetlands due to channelization of the creek and fill in upper areas.
The western portion of the wetland supports a riparian forest/shrub community dominated
by black cottonwood and willow. The major portion of the wetland..supports,a scrub-shrub
Community interspersed with an emergent community. Himalayan blackberry,and Douglas'
spirea comprise the scrub-shrub portion of the wetland. Reed canarygrass is dominant
within the herbaceous layer. West of the riparian shrub/forest area, the community changes
to a palustrine emergent wetland dominated by reed canarygrass.
Soils. Soils in this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
as Puyallup fine sandy loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils sampled in limited areas in the
Wetland at 10 inches have dark brown chroma with no mottles.
Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and consist of a.
Combination of precipitation input,overbank flows from Springbrook Creek,stprmwater flow
from urban/industrial sites, parking lots, and subsurface flow. Stormwater discharges into
Springbrook Creek. At the time of the site investigation, soils in the palustrine emergent
portion of the wetland were saturated to a depth of 2 inches in areas.
Functional Values. Groundwater discharge and recharge in this wetland are rated
Medium due to the association with Springbrook Creek. . However, these functions are
limited because of the elevation difference between the stream and the wetlands. A more
detailed analysis of this function and flood storage will be possible when hydrologic
Modeling of floodflow elevations is completed.
Flood storage in this wetland is low because the creek has been channelized and the
steep sides do not provide for good flood storage. In addition, the reed canarygrass meadow
area is topographically level and provides minimal flood storage.
Shoreline anchoring is medium due to vegetation growing along ,streambanks.
However, this function is decreased due to the steep streambanks.
. Water purification is rated medium in portions of the wetland that are densely
vegetated. The major portion of the emergent community in this wetland is reed
canarygrass which has been shown to remove metals from water (Kulzer 1990). In addition,
this function is important because the wetland is associated with Springbrook Creek.
However,wetlands in the stream channel provide low purification, and water quality is poor
due to pollutants in Springbrook Creek.
Food chain support is low due to low plant diversity. Wildlife habitat is rated
medium in the forested portions of the wetland, which provide canopy cover and nesting for
BEC.KM BLACX RIVER
O9iflr9 27.
I
L.
r
birdgs and mammals. Since the emergent portion of the wetland consists of a monoculture
of r I ed canarygrass, this area provides low wildlife habitat.
Fisheries habitat in this wetland is important and has been rated high because of its
ass ciation with Springbrook Creek. The emergent portions of the wetland inundated by
Springbrook Creek provide rearing and cover areas for salmonids. I .
i Active/passive recreation, heritage, and education are low because the property is
priv tely owned and development is proposed in the area.
Wet and 13B
These wetlands are located inside the main racetrack infield at Longacres and would
be lilassified as palustrine emergent. The wetlands are approximately 20 acres in size.
Vegetation, soils, and hydrology are highly disturbed due to landscaping activities, site
grading, stormwater management activities, and management of hydrology in Spnngbrook
Creik. This description is based on reports by Shapiro and Associates (1992) and from the
Jons & Stokes Associates field investigation.
Vegetation. Four palustrine emergent wetlands are located within the main racetrack
infi ld. Emergent vegetation within these wetlands is actively maintained and mowed. In
gen ral, these wetlands are a mosaic of swales and small depressions either associated with
a dr inage ditch or hydrologically isolated.
Wetland vegetation is similar within drainage ditch portions of wetlands and within
swale and depression portions of wetlands. Wetland vegetation within the drainage ditches
incl li`des soft rush, common spike-rush, hardstem bulrush, creeping buttercup,and bentgrass.
Do " ant vegetation within swales and depressions includes Pacific silverweed, common
e ain, and bentgrass; brass buttons and creeping buttercup occur occasionally.onally. ,
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped this area as Urban land, a
no ril
ydric soil (Table 4). Soils and hydrology in the wetland were not sampled; however,
a de;;ailed wetland report revealed soils at 10 to 12 inches are sandy clay loans and silty clay
loans with low chroma, dark gray with strong brown mottles (Shapiro and Associates 1992).
Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and consist of a
come ination of precipitation input,stormwater flow from urban/industrial sites,parking lots,
and ubsurface flow. Stormwater discharges into Springbrook Creek. A previous;wetland
11
repo) described depth to standing water at 7 to 14 inches.
Functional Values. Functional values as a whole are minimal or nonexistent for this
wetl; d because it is a maintained racetrack. Water quality is assumed very poor due to
• high animal usage and fertilizers. 1i2,
B .BLACK RIVED
09/22/• ' 28
Wetland 13C
The South Marsh wetland would be classified as palustrine emergent. 'The wetland
is approximately 11 acres. The wetland is located in Longacres Park south of the main
racetrack infield and west of Wetland 12. This description is based on reports by Shapiro
and Associates (1992) and the Jones & Stokes.Associates field investigation.
Vegetation. Dominant emergent vegetation within this wetland includes dense stands
of reed canarygrass, arid common cattail. Patches of willow saplings and trees occur
- throughout the wetland area.
F
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped soils in this area as
Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils sampled at a depth of 10 inches were
grayish brown silt loams with dark brown mottles.
Hydrology. Water sources to this wetland have been altered and 'Iconsist of a
combination of precipitation input,stormwater flow from urban/industrial sites,parking lots,
and subsurface flow. Stormwater discharges through a culvert into Springbrook Greek. At
the time of the site investigation, open water was observed and areas of the'wetland were
Inundated with 3 inches of water or saturated to the surface.
Functional Values. The depressional topography and association with',Springbrook
Creek allow this wetland to function alternately as a recharge and discharge site for the
Shallow groundwater lenses associated with the creek. •
Flood storage in this wetland is high due to the large size and the depressional
topography. The wetland is densely vegetated,which allows the area.to store large amounts.
of v rater. In addition, the wetland is associated with Springbrook Creek so it can receive
and store water during the peak flood season.
The ability for this wetland to function in water purification or sediment trapping is
high. Vegetation in the wetland is very diverse and densely vegetated. This',function is
iinportant because of the wetland association with Springbrook Creek. Water quality in this
weland is probably fair due to runoff from fertilizers. If the wetland receives floodwaters
from Springbrook Creek, water quality would decrease due to pollutants. '
Food chain support in this wetland is rated very high due to the divIersity of
vegetation and'the large palustrine emergent community interspersed with standing water.
C ' Since the wetland contains a variety of plant communities., wildlife habitat is rated
ver) high. This wetland could support a number of different species.. Forested reas are
likely to provide nesting habitat for ground, shrub, cavity, and tree nesting birds.I Shrub and
herbaceous layers'provide good cover for small mammals, invertebrates, and amphibians.
BiHCKfp BUCK'RIVER
09/Z2/924 29
t.
Active/passive recreation, heritage, and education in this wetland are rated medium.
The wetland is diverse and offers bird watching and easy access. However, public access is
minimal because the property is privately owned and development is proposed in the area.
Wetland 14 ,
Wetland 14 is a series of isolated wetlands and would be classified as palustrine
scrub-shrub and emergent. The wetlands collectively are approximately 3 acres in size and
are'located west of Lind Avenue Southwest and north of Southwest 34th Street. Palustrine
scrub-shrub and emergent wetland is located west of Springbrook Creek; palustrine
emergent wetlands are located east of Springbrook Creek. The wetland area has been
previously graded and filled and wetlands have developed in depressional areas of uneven
grading and compacted soils. .
Vegetation. The palustrine scrub-shrub community consists of black cottonwood and
willow in the shrub layer. Dominant species in the herbaceous layer include reed
canarygrass, bentgrass, soft rush, and common spike-rush. Vegetation observed within the
palustrine emergent wetlands east of Springbrook Creek is comprised of common spike-rush
and soft rush.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam, both of which are hydric soils (Table 4).
Soils observed,in all of these wetlands were non_native•fill material.
Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are precipitation and road runoff.
Saturation to the surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland
areas at the time of the field investigation.
Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due
to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature.
The,shrub layer in the wetland west of Springbrook Creek provides some cover for wildlife.
However, these wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food
chain support, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for
some flood storage and wildlife habitat.
Wetland 16
Wetland 16 is a palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent wetland located east of
Oakesdale Avenue, north of Southwest 27 Street and Wetland 12, south of Longacres
property, and west of undeveloped cleared property and Springbrook Creek.
Vegetation. The majority of the wetland is vegetated with a dense shrub community ,
and is dominated by black cottonwood, willow, and Douglas' spirea. Reed canarygrass
occurs occasionally within the herbaceous layer underneath the shrub community and is
8cOv,3 BLACK R
c,22, 30
dominant within the emergent community. Common cattail and creeping buttercup occur
occasionally within the emergent community.
Soils. Soils within this wetland have been mapped by the U.S. Soil;Conservation
Service as Woodinville silt loam, which is a hydric soil (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1990)
• (Table 4). Soils observed at a depth of 10 inches are dark gray silts.
Hydrology. This wetland is an isolated enclosed depression that receives water from
road runoff and precipitation. During the field investigation, approximately 3 inches of
standing water was observed thro'ighout the majority of the wetland.
Functional Values. Functional values for this wetland have been rated low due to
its size and isolated nature. The presence of more than one community type provides some
structural diversity that augments the wildlife habitat value, and the depressional topography
offers some flood storage. However, the surrounding land uses, isolated nature, and size of
this wetland extremely limit the potential for food chain support, sediment trapping,
active/passive recreation, and groundwater recharge and discharge.
Wetland 22
Wetland 22 is a palustrine forest and palustrine scrub-shrub wetland.i This wetland
is approximately 18 acres in size and is located north of Southwest 33rd Street and west of
Oakesdale Avenue South just south of Longacres Parka The wetland area is generally flat
and has been graded and filled. An east-west ditch is situated along the northern edge of
the wetland. This ditch turns south at the northwestern wetland corner, continuing south
through Wetland 45 and eventually into Wetland 3. The following description is based on
previous reports (David Evans and Associates 1991g) and the Jones & Stokes Associates
field investigation.
Vegetation. The wetland consists of dense patches of an even mixture of palustrine
forest and scrub-shrub communities. Palustrine emergent wetland occurs occasionally in
small.areas where the forest and scrub-shrub communities open up. Forested portions of
the wetland are dominated by western crabapple, willow, red-osier dogwood, black
cottonwood, and red alder. The shrub layer is sparse underneath the dense canopy.
However, in areas where the canopy is open, the shrub layer is densely vegetated with
'saplings of the dominant canopy species listed above, as well as Douglas' spirea.
The herbaceous layer is sparse and commonly vegetated with creeping buttercup, soft
rush, and common horsetail. The wetland edge is densely vegetated with Himalayan
blackberry, reed canarygrass, and soft rush.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Woodinville silt loam which is listed as hydric (Table 4). The till layer was reached at
approximately 4 inches. Soils observed at a depth of 4 inches were gravelly sands;soil color
was not sampled due to soil texture.
BECK(I3 BLACK RIVER
09/22i92c 31
illHydrology. The primary source of water for this wetland is precipitation and a
drainage ditch. The ditch enters the wetland at the northwestern corner and is situated east-
west along the northern wetland edge. The ditch turns north-south at the northeastern
wetland corner and continues south out of the wetland. A relict stream channel is evident
within the central portion of the site; however, this has been disturbed by fill activities.
Surface and groundwater flows are presently diverted away from the relict stream through
the drainage ditch.
I
Functional Values. Functional values of this wetland are moderate to low. The level
topography offers limited flood storage. The connection with the ditch provides some water
purification values;however, this is limited by the lack of emergent vegetation present within
the ditch. The dense canopy and shrub community provide cover and nesting or perching
sites, for small mammals and birds.
Wetland 32
Wetland 32 is a series of wetlands that would be classified as a palustrine forest in
the southcentral portion of the site and scrub-shrub in the northern portion of the site. The
wetlands collectively are approximately 6.5 acres in size and are located east of Oakesdale
Avenue Southwest, south of Southwest 34th Street, and north of Southwest 39th Street. The
wetland area has been previously graded and filled, and wetlands have developed in
depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils.
Vegetation. The forested community is dominated in the canopy layer by black
cottonwood and willow. Black cottonwood and willow saplings. comprise the shrub layer.
Herbaceous cover is sparse; grasses and forbs occasionally occur. The emergent wetlands
are shallow depressions in a topographically level upland area dominated by bentgrass. The
herbaceous vegetation is dominated by foxtail, soft rush, and bentgrass.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native fill
material.
Hydrology. The water source for these wetlands is primarily precipitation input.
Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or outlet source. At the time of the investigation, no
inundation or saturation was observed in the forested portion; however, wetland hydrology
was assumed based on depressional topography and bare ground. This area has recently
been confirmed as a wetland by David Evans and Associates (1991b). Saturation to the
surface and inundation to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the emergent wetland areas.
Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due I
to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature. �.
Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and
groundwater recharge and.discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage
BECK[I3 BLACK RIVER
09i22 32
' )
'
and wildlife habitat. The surrounding land use is primarily commercial development. The
'canopy and shrub layer do provide cover for some small birds and mammals. The
;depressional topography also provides some flood storage values.
Wetland 33
Wetland 33 is a series of seven isolated wetlands that would be classified as
palustrine scrub-shrub and emergent. Collectively the wetlands are approximately 4 acres
in size and are located east of Lind Avenue South-west and south of Southwest 34th Street.
The wetland area has been pre✓iously graded and filled, and wetlands have developed in
depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. '
Vegetation. The wetlands are interspersed throughout the area with upland. The
upland areas are dominated by various upland grasses. The scrub-shrub wetland is
dominated by a monotypic stand of black cottonwood saplings. There is no understory. The
emergent wetlands are dominated by soft rush, reed canarygrass, and bentgrass in the
herbaceous layer.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Snohomish silt loam, which is a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native
fill material.
Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are.precipitation input and road runoff.
Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or outlet source. Saturation to the surface and inundation
to a depth of 1 inch were observed in the wetland areas at the time of the field
investigation.
Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated flow due
to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature.
Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping, food chain support, and
groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some:flood storage
and wildlife habitat. The surrounding land use is primarily commercial development; the
shrub layer provides some habitat for small birds or small mammals.
Wetland 37
•
Wetland 37, known as the Panther Lake Wetland, is classified as palustrine scrub-
shrub, emergent, and open water. This wetland is approximately 63 acres and is located
west 'of 116th Avenue Southeast and south of Southeast 200th Street. This wetland is
associated with Panther Lake, a shallow eutrophic lake that is becoming densely vegetated
as it develops into a scrub-shrub wetland. The lake has an outlet on the north side to
•
Panther Creek_ This wetland has been previously identified in the King County Sensitive
Areas Inventory as Black River 6 Panther Lake.
BF.C-/I3 BLACK RIVER
ER
33
Vegetation. The wetland consists of a large open water area surrounded by scrub-
shrub and emergent communities. The shrub layer is dominated by red alder, willow, and
Douglas's spirea. The emergent community consists of creeping buttercup, soft rush, and
sedge in the herbaceous layer.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation.Service has mapped the soil in this area as Seattle -
Muck, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils were not sampled onsite because the wetland was
previously identified by King County.
Hydrology. The water source within this wetland is precipitation, runoff from
adjacent residential housing, and backup from Panther Lake and Panther Creek: Panther
Lake is fed by the upper reaches of Panther Creek, which drain the urban areas of east
Kent. The hydrologic regime of this wetland is dictated by the water levels in Panther Lake.
Panther Lake and Panther Creek are also discharge sites for the wetland.
Functional Values. This wetland provides excellent wildlife habitat, food chain
support, flood storage, and sediment trapping functional values. The association with
Panther Lake and Panther Creek, large size of the wetland, and the structural and
community diversity of this wetland augment such functional values.
Due to its association with Panther Lake, this wetland provides excellent
discharge/recharge capabilities. During high storm events, the wetland functions in recharge
of the regional groundwater. During periods of low lake or creek levels, the wetland
functions in maintaining water levels by discharge of groundwater from the wetland.
Flood storage is rated very high due to the large size, dense vegetation, and
association with Panther Lake.
This wetland has been rated high for shoreline anchoring. The dense vegetation
present in the wetland helps prevent shoreline erosion by lake level fluctuation and wave
action.
Sediment trapping capabilities of the wetland have been rated very high due to the
large size and dense herbaceous vegetation. This will directly benefit water quality in
Panther Creek and Springbrook Creek.
The presence of standing water and an extensive community of fast-growing emergent
species provides for very high primary productivity and food chain support.
The dense shrub cover provides suitable habitat for various small mammals, small
birds, and amphibians. Panther Lake provides a good landing site for migratory birds.
As mentioned in the description for the Panther Creek Wetland, a fishery survey of
the lower reaches of Panther Creek conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates in 1989
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09iz2/92c 34
yielded only several fish. These fish were thought to originate from Panther Lake (Jones
Stokes Associates 1991). Fish habitat in this wetland is important because of its
association with Panther Creek. The emergent portions of the wetland inundated by the
llake provide rearing and cover areas. i
Most of the surrounding land is residential. Access to the wetland is limited because
Property surrounding the wetland is privately owned. This decreases any active/passive
recreation or education available beyond the property owners' use.
Wetand 40
Wetland 40 is a group of six small wetlands, five of which are classified as palustrine
emergent wetlands; one is classified as scrub-shrub. The wetlands are located west of Lind
Avenue Southwest and south of Southwest 34th Street, and collectively they are less than
1 acre in size.. The wetland area has been previously graded and filled, and wetlands have
developed in depressional areas of uneven grading and compacted soils. �
i
Vegetation. The emergent wetlands are shallow depressions in a topographically level
upland area dominated by bentgrass. The emergent wetlands consists of eitlier;mlonotypic
stands of reed canary grass or fortail, soft rush, and bentgrass. Marsh speedwell occurs
occasionally within the herbaceous layer. Black cottonwood dominates the scrub-shrub
wetland. Herbaceous cover is sparse with grasses and forbs occurring occasionally.
Soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service has mapped the soil in this area as
Woodinville silt loam, a hydric soil (Table 4). Soils observed onsite were non-native fill
material. '
Hydrology. Water sources for these wetlands are precipitation input and,road runoff.
Wetlands at this site lack an inlet or. outlet source.
Functional Values. Functional values for these wetlands have been rated low due
to the size, lack of structural and community diversity, and isolated and disturbed nature.
Wetlands are extremely limited in providing for sediment trapping; food chain support, and
groundwater recharge and discharge. Collectively, wetlands provide for some flood storage
and wildlife habitat.
II III
Wetland 45
I I
Wetland 45 would be classified as palustrine forest, scrub-shrub, and emergent. This
wetland is approximately 18 acres in size and is located north of Wetland.3 (Orillia Pond),
south of Longacres property, east of Burlington Northern railroad tracks, and west of
Longview Avenue South. A ditch bisects the wetland in a north-south direction.; This ditch
originates at the southern end from Wetland 3 and at the northern end from Wetland 22.
•
BECKf13 MACK RIVER 4
09i22 35
r .
Q
Vegetation. The wetland is primarily palustrine forest and palustrine emergent
inter11spersed with palustrine scrub-shrub wetland. Dominant canopy cover within the
forested portion of the wetland consists of black cottonwood and willow; red alder and
Oregon ash occur occasionally. The shrub layer within forested portions of the 'wetland .
includes saplings of red alder, Douglas' spirea, and willow: Herbaceous vegetation
underneath the canopy and shrub layers is usually sparse; soft rush occurs occasionally in I
patc�'hes where the canopy and shrub cover are less dense. 1t.
Scrub-shrub portions of the wetland occur in patches between forested and emergent
portions. Douglas' spirea is the dominant shrub and usually occurs as the onlydominanti
A few small scrub-shrub areas that consist of red alder, black cottonwood, and willow
saplings occur. Herbaceous vegetation underneath the Douglas' spirea is sparse and consists
of soft rush and reed canarygrass. Herbaceous vegetation underneath the black cottonwood •
and willow shrub communities is more dense but consists of the same species (soft rush and
reed canarygrass).
1.
'i! Emergent portions of the wetland consist of two plant community types. The
southernmost portion of the wetland is diverse in emergent vegetation. The area includes
dominant species of cattail, reed canarygrass, soft rush, and velvetgrass; mannagrass and
creeping buttercup occur occasionally. The second emergent community is much less
diverse, with primarily monotypic stands of reed canarygrass; soft rush occurs occasionally.
'!
Soils. This area has been mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as Puget •
silty clay loam and Woodinville silt loam, which are listed as hydric soils (Table 4). Soils
observed at a depth of 10 inches were low chroma dark gray to very dark grayish brown clay
loam, silty loam, and silty sands.
Hydrology.. Water sources for this wetland are overbanking of the ditch and
precipitation. During field investigation, saturation at the surface or inundation to !a depth V •
of 6 inches was observed. ;.
11 Functional Values.This wetland provides moderate functional values. The large size : s
of this wetland provides some flood storage;_however, this is limited by the relatively level
elevation of the wetland, which is not significantly lower than surrounding upland}areas.
II The large size, connection to other wetlands through the ditch, and presence of dense
emergent species augment the wetland sediment trapping and food chain 'support
functions. The vegetative structure and size of the wetland provide good wildlife,habitat
for small birds, small mammals, and amphibians.
Regulatory Framework
1
, til
i, Wetlands within the City of Renton are protected through the City of Renton
Wetland Management Ordinance (No. 4346), which generally supports no net loss of
aECKfr3 iBLACK RIVER
m/u/2 36 -
.
ij .
I
i
•
•
•
wetland acreage, values; and functions by protecting high value wetlands hand requiring
restoration of disturbed wetlands, or creation of new wetlands when wetland losses are
unavoidable.
Under the Wetland Management Ordinance, wetlands are assigned a rating of
Category 1 (Very High Quality Wetlands), Category 2 (High Quality Wetlands), or Category
3 (Lower Quality Wetlands), based on a combination of factors, including size,',diversity of
habitat, and type of plant communities present.
Category 1 (Very High Quality Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 2,200:square feet
which meet one or more of the following criteria: •
• The presence of species listed by federal or state government as endangered or
threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species;
• Wetlands having 40% to 60% permanent open water (in dispersed patches or
otherwise) with two or more vegetation classes;
� I I ,
•. Wetlands equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and having three or more
vegetation classes, one-of which is open water;
• The presence of plant association of infrequent occurrence, or at the geographic
limits of their occurrence; or
•
• Wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding#1 rating=in_the current King County
Wetlands Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended.
Category 2 (High Quality. Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 2;200 squ are feet
. which meet one or more of the following criteria: 1
• Wetlands greater than 2,200 square feet that are not Category 1 or 3.wetlands;.
j
' • Wetlands that have heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees,but are not Category
1 wetlands;
• Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse,'1 but are not
Category 1 wetlands;
• Wetlands assigned the Significant#2 rating in the current King County Wetlands
Inventory 1991 or as thereafter amended;
• Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human-related physical alteration
such as diking, ditching, channelization.
BECKrrs BLACK RIVER
Oi22/92c 37
i
I!
.1.o
I Category 3 (Lower Quality Wetlands) are wetlands greater than 5,000 square feet .,
whch meet one or more of the following criteria: 1
• Wetlands that are severely disturbed. Severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands
which meet the following criteria:
(1) Are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human-related hydrologic
1 alterations such as diking, ditching, channeli7ation, and /or outlet modification;
and 1 ,
(2) Have soils alterations such as thepresence of fill, soil removal and or
, /
compaction of soils; and
(3) May have altered vegetation.
• Wetlands that are newly emerging. Newly emerging wetlands are: ,
(1) Wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and
(2) Characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used
'l minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally_found in the areas such as
a the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin.
!' • All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality
wetlands. I 1
1 It is the responsibility of City of Renton planners to make a final determination of
wetland ratings.
All wetlands in the City of Renton are required to have a buffer; the size of the
buffer is based on the wetland category rating and, if applicable, the City of Renton
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) land use designation. Wetlands not regulated by the SMP ,
and with a category rating of 1, 2, and 3 require buffers of 100, 50, and 25 feet, respectively.
Wetlands regulated under the SMP could receive one of three types of designation: urban,
conservancy, and natural for each of the wetland category ratings. Category 1 wetlands
which are assigned urban, conservancy, or natural SMP designations'require buffers of 100,
200;, and 300 feet respectively. Category 2 wetlands require buffers of.50, 100, andlll 200 feet
respective to urban, conservancy, and natural SMP designations. Category 3 wetlands
require buffers of 25, 50, and 50 feet respective to urban, conservancy, and natural SMP •
designations. The buffer is.measured horizontally from the edge of the wetland and extends
into,,the upland. _ ,
Ii
li
LI'
, .
I
I.
n
BEC iT3 BLACK RIVER ,
�iflrok 38
1
i
CITATIONS
Printed References
Adamus, P. R., and L. R. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment.
(No. FHWA-1P-82-23.) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration Office Research, Environmental Division. Washington, DC.
Boeing Company. 1991. Longacres Park development information letter to the, City of
Renton, Don Erickson. Renton, WA. January 11, 1991.
City of Renton. 1981. Wetlands study: A reconnaissance study of selected wetlands in the
City of Renton. Prepared by the City of Renton Planning Department and Northwest
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
. 1991. Black River Corporate Park tracts A and B office buildings, final
environmental impact statement. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA. 1
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands
and deep water habitats of the United States. (FWS/OBS-79/31.) U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Washington, DC.
David Evans and Associates. 1989a. Wetland delineation of the Alaska Distributors site,
Renton, Washington. Prepared for Alaska Distributors Company, Seattle; WAL
. 1989b. Wetland delineation for the Seattle Times facility.
1
. 1991a. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 1, lot 12 site j(Renton #6
parcel), Renton Washington. Bellevue, WA.
•
1991b. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 5 site (Renton #9 parcel),
Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA.
I
. 1991c. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 6, lots 3 and 4 site;(Renton #2
parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. j
•
. 1991d. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 8, lots 1, 2, and 3 site (Renton
#8W parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA.
•
. 1991e. Wetland determination on the Orillia block 8, lot 4 site (Renton #8E
parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA. •
.
•
BECK/I3 BLACK RIVER
09/22ro2c 39
li
Ri
1.
. 1991f. Wetland determination on the proposed Orillia block 1,.lot.3 site'(Renton ,
i #5 parcel), Renton, Washington. Bellevue, WA.
• II . 1991g. Wetland determination on the Renton #14 parcel, Renton,`Washington.
Bellevue, WA.
v.t
Earlth Consultants Inc. 1990.Wetland delineation of the Rivertech Corporate Park.Prepared ,.s
1 by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Bellevue, WA.
I
Erwin, K. L. 1990. Wetland evaluation for restoration and creation. Pages 429-45$ in J. A.
II Jusler and M. E. Kentula (eds.), Wetland creation and restoration: the status of the
science. Island Press. Washington, DC.
li
IES Associates. 1990. Biological report of the Austin Property, Renton, WA. 1
IES�I Associates and Scales and Associates. 1990. Preliminary,wetlands evaluation of the Al
I1 Pac site Southwest 27th Street, Renton, WA Prepared for Al Pac Associates, Seattle,
'1 WA_ 1
Jones & Stokes Associates, .Inc. 1989. Tukwila wetland inventory. Bellevue, WA.
Prepared for City of Tukwila, Tukwila, WA
I
. 1990a. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology regarding wetlands on tract -
HI C (northside).
1990b. Wetland.report of the Vyzis Southgate property, Bellevue,WA.
l
1991. Critical areas inventory, City of Renton wetlands and stream corridors.
JBellevue, WA. Prepared for City of Renton, Renton, WA.
King County. 1983. King County wetlands inventory. Three volumes. Seattle, WA.
. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King CountyDepartment of Parks, Planning and
' P
Resources. Seattle, WA. I
,i
Kulzer, L. 1990. Water pollution control aspects of aquatic plants: implications for
1.
iIstormwater quality'management.. METRO. Seattle, WA.
L. C. Lee & Associates,Inc. 1991a. An analysis of the distribution and jurisdictional status
;of waters of the United States, including wetlands, at Longacres Park, Renton, WA.
Prepared for The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA.
I . 1991b. Letter concerning U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,
verification of wetlands at Longacres Park, August 1, 1991. Seattle, WA. Prepared for
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; Seattle, WA
i
li I . I
BECK/3 BLACK RIVER
09/22ro2c 40
I
Raedeke Associates Scientific Consulting. 1991a. Puget Western, Inc. Materials
Management Complex (MMC) property, Renton, WA. Letter report. '
. 1991b. Conceptual wetland mitigation plan for the Puget Western Business Park,
Renton, WA. March 11, 1991.
R.W. Beck and Associates. 1989. City of Renton, WA, Panther Creek wetlands/P-9
channel design wetland inventory. Draft.
'Seacor Environmental Engineering. 1991. - Data from Sternco site remediation.
(unpublished data.) Bellevue, WA_
Shapiro and Associates; Inc. 1989. Wetland delineation of the Container Corporation of
America site, Renton, WA_ Seattle, WA. Prepared for Bruce Blume and company,
Seattle, WA.
. 1992. City of Renton jurisdictional wetland determination for Longacres Park
development project. Prepared for Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Renton, WA.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey of the King County area, Washington.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC.
. 1990. Hydric soils of the state of Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington, DC.
Watershed Dynamics, Inc. 1991. Wetlands evaluation and delineation report, ,wetlands
avoidance and mitigation plan, Tukwila project site west of Longacres, City of Tukwila,
WA. Auburn, WA. Prepared for McLeod Development Company, Kirkland, WA.
Personal Communications
Giseburt, Mike. Project manager. R. W. Beck and Associates, Seattle, WA. December 18,
1991 - telephone conversation.
Straka, Ron. Civil engineer. Public Works Department, City of Renton, Renton, WA.
December 4, 1991 - meeting.
i
' � I
•
BECK[C3 BLACK RIVER
O9/Z2/92c • 41
•
Appendix A. Wetland Delineation Data Forms
•
, •
•
•
• I
JONES !Sc STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck.
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
I i
•
Field Investlgator(s): Ives/Schroder Date: 5/5/92
•
County/City: City of Renton • Wetland # 5
Plant IConmuuity: PFO Plot #: 1
Weather: clear
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy
2. Fraxinus latifolia, FACW, canopy •
3. Rubus spectabilis, FAC, shrub
4. •
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. •
•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is thel hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
•
•
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville-silt loam SCS hydric list? yes •
Is the; observed soil a. Histosol? n o
j)evth ;Matrix Mottle. G1ev Texture ,
0-10" j 2.5Y 3/1 yes ) no silt
•
Other 1 hydric: soil indicators:
Is the! hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comm!entsl
HYDROLOGY
i
Is the,area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the I soil; saturated? y Depth to water: 10"
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the' wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Ratio iale:'1 saturation •
• •
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL •
I
Is thej sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments jOther spp. include; CAspp, ATFI, SYAL, and URDI. •
•
•
•
I ,
•
•
•
JONES & STOKES. ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSIT'E DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Iv es/S chrod er Date: 5/5/92
County/CIty: City of Renton Wetland # 5-c
Plant Community: PSS Plot #: 1
Weather:' clear
•
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub
•
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW.. shrub
3.
4. • • •
5.
6.
7.
8.
r
9. .1
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
• •
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes,
Is the observed soil a HistOsol? no
J)euth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" 11 2.5Y 5/1 yes no silt
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comments:
11' HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale:: saturation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes '•
Comments:Other spp. include Carex obnupta.
.11
•
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
I '
Field Investlgator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 7 North '
Plant 'Comlmunity: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1
Weather: overcast
VEGETATION
DominIant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Alnus rubra , FAC, shrub
2 Sptraea'douglasii, FACW, shrub •
3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Phalaris arundinacac, FACW, herbaceous:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is. the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant sly. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam, Puget silty clay loam, and Tuckwila muck SCS hydric list? ye
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depthl, Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 10YR 4/1 yes. no silt
Other' hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comments:
I HYDROLOGY
i
Is the area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil',saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the 'wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale:.'' saturation
JURISDICTIONAL _DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the (sample plot a wetland? yes '
CommentsOther spp. include Salix spp.
j r
•
it
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
O.NSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 7 North
If
Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 2
Weather: overcast
•
•
VEGETATION
•
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator. Status, Stratum
1. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
2. 1 •
3.
4.
5.
6. I
7.
S.
9.
Percent 'of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase. Snohomish silt loam. Puget silty clay loam, and Tuckwila muck SCS hydric list? yes
'Is the observed soil a Histosol? no
Death Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 11 10YR 4/1 yes no silt
it •
,11
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes •
Rationale: chroma
Comments:
1I HYDROLOGY
I I'
Is the areea inundated? yes • Depth of water: 1"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
1.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
I� I
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:Small open water areas are present interspersed within the TYLA.
•
II II
1.
a it i
11
I'
I I
11 •
I I •
I I
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Green River Wetlands
Field Invliestigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: 7 South
Plant' Coinmunity: PEM Plot #: 1
Weather:I clear
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Iris Pseudacorus, OBL, herbaceous
2. Sola❑um spp., FACU-FAC, herbaceous •
3. Carex obnupta, OBL, herbaceous
4.
5.
6.
7.
I � I
8.
9.
Percent Of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 66%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Hlstosol? no
Depth- ' Matrix Mottle Gle.v Texture
8" 10YR 2/0 no no peaty muck
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale:' chroma
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is thel area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 1-2"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: OHWM. about 3 feet
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the; sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland is a north-south 20-25 foot wide ditch.
I I •
I I
JONES & STOKES- ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Green River Wetlands
II
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: s;;#
Plant Comlmunity: upland forest and shrub Plot #: 1
Weather: clear
VEGETATION
Dominant '!,Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus Itricbocarpa, FAC, canopy
2. Alnus rubra sapling, FAC, shrub .
3. Rubus parviflorus, FACU+, shrub
4. Spiraea'douglasii, FACW, shrub
5. Rubus discolor, FACU-, shrub
6.
7. I�
8.
9.
Percent ofi5dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 60%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS SerIes/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the•observed soil a HIstosoi? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture
0-8" N/A no no rocky, gravelly, loam !.
Other hydric soil indicators:
• Is the hydric soil criterion met? no
Rationale: soil is fill material, lacks chroma
Comments:
! HYDROLOGY
Is the, area',inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil 'saturated? n o Depth to water:
Other field] evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: none
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? no
• Rationale: lacks evidence of hydrology
IY
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the sample plot a wetland? no
Comments: Area 7 has been mapped on aerial photos as wetland. Field verification showed that this area is not wetland.
The area has been graded and filled. This area was probably wetland before grading and filling activities.
•
I;
-4
f I I
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Green River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: 7 South
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 2
Weather: clear
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5.
6.
7. ,
8.
9. •
I i
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Tukwila muck and Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle SEW Texture
8" 10YR 2/0 no no peaty muck
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 6-8"
Is the soli saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland is an east-west ditch that eventually flows into Springbrook Creek.
I �I
, I I
. I
I I
is
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Green River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: 8 North
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1
Weather: clear
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
2. Cornus stolonifera sapling, FACW, shrub .
3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5. Iris Pseudacorus, OBL, herbaceous
6. Glyceria elata, FACW+, herbaceous
7. Solarium spp., FACU-FAC, herbaceous
8. Oenanthe sarmentosa, OBL, herbaceous
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 88%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale': >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture •
12" 10YR 2/2 yes no loam
•
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes •
Rationale: mottles
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
r _
Is the.area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: 12"
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
drift lines On trees at 12", algal mans, and drift wood.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and evidence of seasonal hydrology
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland is very diverse, wetland edge is the toe of fill.
•
II, '
. 1
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
• Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Green River Wetlands
I �
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland #: 8 North
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 2
Weather: clear
' I I
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus,trichocarpa, FAC, shrub
2. Sal ix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous �I
6. Ranunculus repens, FACW, herbaceous
7.
9. •
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the. hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Serles/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture
8" IOYR 4/1 yes no gravelly, sandy loam
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: aquic regime
Comments: soils are fill material; till at 12"
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland area has been graded and filled. Where there has been uneven grading, wetland has developed within
the depressions. Other spp.include JUEF,PLLA, and PLMA.
•
•
•
•
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
II Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
•
•
•Field Invdestigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
•
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 8 South r •
Plant Coltnmunity: PEM Plot #: 3
Weather:1 clear
VEGETATION
- I
Dominant' Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Elocharis palustris, OBL, herb
2. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
3.
4
5. j
• 6.
7.
8. 1
9. 1i
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10040 •
Is the liydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS hydric.list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture •
-
8" 1OYR 4/1 yes no gravelly, sandy loam
•
•
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes . -
Rationale: aquic regime
• Comments: soils are fill material; till at 12"
HYDROLOGY
•
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1" •
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface, inundation or .soil saturation:
Is the.wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL. DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Where uneven grading has taken place, wetland has
developed'within the depressions. Year-round ponding in some of these.areas.
Ls-
i I
N '
1
1 - JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
I Project/Site: Black River Wetlands , •
,
FieldiInvestigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91' .
Count'/Clty: City of Renton Wetland # 9
Plant: Community: PFO Plot #: 1 '
Weather:1 clear
I
II
VEGETATION ,
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Sali pp.,xs FAC-FACW, canopy '
2. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy .
3. Alnus rubra , FAC, canopy
4. Cornus stolonifera , FACW, shrub
5. Acer circinatum, FACU, shrub
6. j
7.
8.
9. -
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 80%
Is th;e hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: >50% of dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
I
SCS Series/Phase. Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes ;
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o '
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture '
8" 1 • 10YR 4/1 yes no sandy loam
Other hydric soil indicators: '
Is the hydrlc soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: mottles
Comments:
j I . HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil saturated? no Depth to water:
Other field evidence- of surface Inundation or soil saturation:
water marks on trees,drift logs, and algal marts •
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes •
Rationale. evidence of hydrology
•
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes .
Com lents:Wetland is a linear system that is connected to Springbrook Creek at the southwestern corner •
.
1 . '
1
II
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE. DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
I Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
•
Field Investlgator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/5/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 10
Plant Community: PFO Plot #: 1
Weather: I!cicar
VEGETATION
Dominant''; Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, canopy
2. Populus' trichocarpa, FAC, canopy
3. Cornus stolonifera , FACW. shrub
4
S.
6.
7.
8.
9. •
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hylirophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS •
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Puget silty clay loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture
12" 10YR 2/2 no no loam
Other hyd'ric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: 'aquic regime
Comments:
•
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the soil I saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:'Ditch adjacent to wetland,drains into Springbrook Creek; about 2 feet of water during field investigation: A
beaver darn occurs in the ditch adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Phalaris anmdinacae occurs occassionally in the wetland.
Ii
•
"• JOKES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands •
•
•
•
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein • Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 11 •
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1
Weather: overcast
• VEGETATION •
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub •
•
2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub
.3. Phalaris jarundinacae, FACW, herbaceous •
4.
5.
6. •
7. •
8.
9.
Percent. ofl dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FACE 100%
Is the. hydrophytic vegetation criterion• met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
• SOILS
SCS Series/Phase.Snohorriish silt,loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes .
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Devth, Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 10YR 3/2 yes no silt
•
Other !hydric, soil •indicators: •
Is the I hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: mottles
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the area Inundated? no • Depth of water:
Is the.soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other 'field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation
,
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is, the sample plot a, wetland? yes
Comments:Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek.
1111
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES .r
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
•
Field In' estigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: ,12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 11
Plant Community:l PEM Plot #: 2
Weather:, overcast
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum m I
1. Typhajlatifolia, OBL, herbaceous
2. •
3.
4.
5. q j
6.
7.
8.
9. •
Percentgf dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale:' All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 10YR 3/2 yes no silt
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: mottles
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation •
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:
Wetland is„adjacent to Springbrook Creek. Plot was taken in the eastern portion of the wetland,which is a large PEM area.
I� I
II, i
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES,
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR •
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site:. Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland.# 12
Plant Community: PSS/PEM/POW Plot #: 1
Weather: overcast
I I
VEGETATION
Dominant 'Plant . Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
2. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub •
3. Typ'ha ltifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Phalaris jarundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
6.
7.
8..
9.
Percent ofI dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% •
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes.
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS •
SCS Serie/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the I observed soil a, Histosol? n o
Depth! Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" I 10YR 3/2 yes no sandy silt
•
Other Ihydric soil Indicators:
Is the i hydrlc soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: mottles
Comments:[
I HYDROLOGY I , •
J i
Is the 'areal) Inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the (soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other afield evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the ;wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation •
I
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the (sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek.
•
I II
I I
.I
I i
I I
I I I
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES •WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM .*
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 13-a; Springbrook Creek Riparian Wetlands
Plant Community: PEM/PSS/PFO Plot #: 1
Weather: overcast
I VEGETATION
Dominant I:Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populusil;trichocarpa, FAC, canopy
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW,-shrub •
3. Spiraea'douglasii, FACW, shrub
4. Phalaris''iarundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. •
Percent ofa'dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 10090
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale:ri;A11 dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
,1111
it
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Puyallup.fine sandy loam SCS hydric list? no
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth il+ Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 1OYR 3/3 no no sandy loam
Il
I I
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? no
Rationale:II'lack of chrome
Comments:
HYDROLOGY Iz
Is the are inundated? no Depth of water:
Is the solt'Isaturated? yes Depth to water: 2"
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation •
I I
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes .
Comments:This area has been determined as wetland in the LC. Lee environmental assesment report. Wetland is
adjacent-to Springbrook Creek.
ill
1.
•
L.,
•
�I,
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
I i I
Field Investigator(s): Ed wins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland"# 13-c; South Marsh Wetland
Plant Community: PEM/PSS/POW Plot #: 1
Weather: iovercast
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
•
2. Spiaea douglasii, FACW, shrub •
3. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
4. Ph alaris i arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
•
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
I �
SOILS
SCS Serles/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes •
Is the observed soil a Histosol? no •
Depth • Matrix Mottle Glev Texture
10" 10YR 5/2 7.5 YR 4/4 no silt loam
Other hydrIlc soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: mottles .
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the areal inundated? yes Depth of water: 3"
Is the (soil isaturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: !saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Commeints:This area has been determined as wetland in the L.C. Lee environmental assesment report:
I '
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
i; Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/8/91
County/Clay: City of Renton Wetland # 14
Plant Community: PSS Plot#: 1
Weather: Ilrain
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species; Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Phalarisi arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
4. Agrostis spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous
5. Janus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
6. Elocharis palustris, OBIS herbaceous
7.
8.
II
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Snohomish silt loam and Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth. Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-8" N/A no no fill material
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale:'';aquic regime
Comments: impervious till at 8"
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the sod saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other fief$ evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: algal matts
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale:1 saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven
grading andiwhere water has collected.
�
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
� I
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 16
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1
Weather: overcast
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub
2. Saliz spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Spiraea douglasii, FACW, shrub
4. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
5.
6. •
7.
8
9. •
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? 'yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
10" 10YR 4/1 yes no silt
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the•area inundated? yes Depth of water: 3"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationales saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the. sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:Wetland is an isolated system that receives water from adjacent development and road run-off.
• i Ii
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
• WETLAND DELINEATION DATA. FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/8/91
County/Ci'ty: City of Renton Wetland # 32
Plant Community: PSS/PEM" Plot #: 1
Weather: i!grain
,
VEGETATION
Dominant'li Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Juncus ,effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
2.
3.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
u� it
Percent or dominant species that are OBL, FACW, "and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale:1II All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter. •
,h
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" ;! N/A no no fill material, mixed
I ' �
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: aquic regime
Comments impervious till at 10".
HYDROLOGY
Is the areal inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the soiljsaturated? yes • Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale:'': saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
• Comments:Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven
grading and where water has collected.
•
II
,A
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM:
ONSITE. DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Ed wins/Klein Date: 11/8/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 33
Plant Community: PSS Plot #: 1
Weather: rain
I
VEGETATION
Dominant ;Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus i trichocarpa saplings, FAC, shrub
•
2. Juncus bufonius, FACW+, herbaceous
3. Phalaris'larundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
4. Agrostis,spp., FAC-FACW, herbaceous
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the I hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: ;All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS SerIes/Phase Snohomish silt loam SCS.hydric list? yes
Is the ,observed soil a Histosol? no
Devth Matrix Mottle Glev Texture
0-8" N/A no no fill material
Other (hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: aquic regime
Commeiuts:11 impervious till at 8"
HYDROLOGY
Is the area;inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the 'soli ;saturated? yes Depth to water:. surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the 'wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: ;saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments: Wetland area has previously been graded and filled. Wetland has developed in depressional areas of uneven
grading and where water has collected.
19
III I
•
1
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES 't
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
'I! ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Inlvestigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 12/4/91 a
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 37; Panther Lake Wetland
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 1
• Weather: overcast
'
' VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Alnus,11rubra , FAC, shrub
Z. Spiraea douglasii. FACW, shrub
3. Sa1ix 'spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
4. Ranuneulus repens, FACW, herbaceous
5. Juncusi effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
6. .
7.
8. i','�
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100% •
Is the hlydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS.11
•
SCS Series/Phase Seattle muck:'SCS hydric list? yes • •
Is the observed soil a Histosol? no •
Depth ! Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
N/A
II
Other hydric soil indicators: •
Is the hydric soil criterion met? N/A .
Rationale: . •
11
Commen1ts: soils were not sampled; areas has previously been identified by King County. .
l
HYDROLOGY
Is the ar'�ea inundated? yes Depth of water: >2 feet
Is the soil saturated? -yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:- surface
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale; saturation and inundation
li .
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes. .
Comments:Wetland has been identified in the.1981 King County Wetland Inventory. . .
1!
.I
'1I
ii
111
II l
••
i I
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES •
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
� � r
Field 'Investigator(s): Edwins/Klein Date: 11/8/91
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 40
Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 1
Weather: rain
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, shrub
•
2. Agrostis spp.. FAC-FACW, herbaceous
3. Juncus 'effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
4. I
5,
6.
7. I
8. I
9. I
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale:1 All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
I -
SOILS •
SCS Series/Phase. Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the;.observed soil a Histosol? no
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" 1 N/A no no fill material, Mixed
Other! hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale:1 aquic regime
Comments: impervious till at 10".
HYDROLOGY
Is the;area Inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the:soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation:
Is thel wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the,sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:, Wetland 40 consists of five unidentified wetlands that have little vegetation. POTR occurs occassionally.
These areas have previously been flagged and identified. Area has previously been graded and filled.
I II
19
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES =#
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Invelstigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45
Plant Community: PFO/PSS Plot #: 1
Weather: II! ainy
r
VEGETATION
Dominant,'HPlant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus';trichocarpa, FAC, canopy
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Spiraea,douglasii, FACW, shrub
4.
5. 'j
6.
7. 11
8.
9.
Percent oil dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale:r!A11 dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Serles/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Histosol? n o -
Depth I,! Matrix Mottle Gley Texture.
0-10" �'I 10YR 4/2 r no no clay loam
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: I,'aquic regime
Comments':;
HYDROLOGY
11
Is the areal inundated? yes Depth of water: 3"
Is the soil) saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
1.
Rationale:i i saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? yes
CommentO1ot located at southern end of wetland; north of railroad tracks and wetland 3
t••
yj
'• JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45
Plant Community: PEM Plot #: 2
Weather: rainy
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Juncus effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
2. Typha latifolia, OBL, herbaceous
3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
4. Ranunculus repens, FACW, herbaceous
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the 'hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the lobserved soil a Histosol? no
Depth' Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" 10YR 4/2 no no clay loam
Other ihydric soil indicators:
Is the ihydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: aquic regime
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 1"
Is the ;soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface Inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the,sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:Plot located in emergent area adjacent to ditch.
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45
Plant Community: PFO/PSS Plot #: 3
Weather: clear
l l
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Popuus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy and shrub
2. Salix spp., FAC-FACW, shrub
3. Alnus rubra, FAC, shrub
4. Juncds effusus, FACW+, herbaceous
S. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
6
7.
8.
9. I
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the observed soil a Hlstosol? no
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" 10YR 3/2 yes no silty sand
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes.
Rationale: chroma and mottles
Comments:
HYDROLOGY
•
Is the area inundated? yes Depth of water: 3"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationales: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the-sample plot a wetland? yes
Comments:
lil, I
11
lu
li
�'. JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES
WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM
ONSITE DETERMINATION FOR
Client: R.W. Beck
Project/Site: Black River Wetlands
Field Investigator(s): Edwins/Schroder Date: 4/14/92
County/City: City of Renton Wetland # 45
Plant Community: PSS/PEM Plot #: 4
Weather: clear
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species, Indicator Status, Stratum
1. Populus trichocarpa, FAC, canopy and shrub
2. Juncuseffusus, FACW+, herbaceous
3. Phalaris arundinacae, FACW, herbaceous
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100%
Is the! hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? yes
Rationale: All dominant spp. are FAC or wetter.
SOILS
SCS Series/Phase Woodinville silt loam SCS hydric list? yes
Is the ,observed soil a Histosol? n o
Depth Matrix Mottle Gley Texture
0-10" 10YR 4/1 no no silty loam
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? yes
Rationale: chroma
Comments:•
HYDROLOGY
Is the area inundated? yes Depth-of water: 1-3"
Is the soil saturated? yes Depth to water: surface
Other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation:
Is the 'wetland hydrology criterion met? yes
Rationale: saturation and inundation
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL
Is the sample plot a wetland? .yes
Comments:
_ I
f�
I - '
I ,
Appendix B. Wetland Functional Values. Field, Forms
•
• I �
I � I
I ,
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 3 Date: 11/05/91
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERAUi11ON
•
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet oz.otitk(to.ihe.weflanc such.as di€th ar;;culverf
b. wetland is isolated
' Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff
b »pre33pitltzo
FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
c. small::
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a.::>:e 6 p.............. ... g .. d ham.. :tiittrht:: : ._:coefe `.k.g::.:f <..w.et07447)-:gW alit:`„I
rvid flooieto.
b., elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. 'level
b d pr i xal
c. other
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09%IE/92 1
i ..
1 Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
C;
i
Association to:
1 ?
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
a. no outlet
•
b. sheet flow
c ``clianrielird flow
(Comments:
;Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
•
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
e. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: _
�I I
a. no known discharge I
v> ; 'f lir`disr.:arge C.,: visible discharge
Source: Wetland was historically used as a battery acid dump.
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density.
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
ti. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
C. a>>we# d<czer`tv. eg
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation :
Li
Water present: seasonal year-round
.
BECK( RP/ERr3 BLACK RP/ER
09/I8/92 2
•
I �
5. WILDLIH. HABITAT
•
Diversity:
•
a Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland lasses, one of which is Open Water
b:; i 1i ty +vetlaiv d:classed w;uq:P:P....::°:i ate:>:ot.:::2:<wetlaztd.>classes<:w.:.>. en::Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
I
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres .
b`V11.Ncres
C. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
......................
e0%:.:....
Surrounding land uses:
' a. upland forest
b. shrub or-unmaintained grassland
' C. active agricultural/grass
d_ urban: residential
e'< rban u dti st alJcz`a u ;cc al/f`iUei
Unique features:
a, raptures nest structures
f th
b.�� � ;::::::
.:.:•:.�..: 5:::...ge.::::::. ::::.o.;:::
for w ld:.; z ua mal msec s
r..>>
:: : 8rc} st Six lr i<># . Pbanszd treo>r hr �»:fQrs a�::buds
m
:. : t4et: •f. other
•
Presence of water: permanent, sea$oual
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
b. applicable
Comments:
BECK/"13 BLACK RIVER .
09/18/92 3
n
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Acr s.s to wetland:
a. trail
c. boat
d. isolated
AcrP&s on the wetland:
a. trail
�;'r4al
boat
d. none
'Environmental problems: tiSri.,.. fir[; ziOi , u?afei"
Location to schools: Not applicable.
it
L.;
BEL-1973 BLACK RIVER
09/I8 - 4
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 4 Date: 11/08/91
Weather: Clear.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERAC;I'ION
' Regional groundwater:
a: met;ox:outlet to':th wef nd ticl 'as a;i tch of culvert
b..:wetland is isolated::...:.............................................:....:...............:........
Comment: '
Surface water; water perched on fill:
gztat ozi
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the•
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level •
b d°e' . ibnai
c. other
BE CK/F3 B Acx RFVER
09'I8/42 1
•
Comments:
11
11
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
Association to: •
another wetland
Dridence of water movement through the wetland:
a no outlet •
b. sheet flow
Comments:
Vegetation density-
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
f4401§4Wil4t14#.
C. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
e. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
Pxtent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
no kiisc1arge
bJ probable discharge
c.' visible discharge
•=•,••
•
SOurce:
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c_! 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d.! 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation I I
Li
Water present seasonally, onn4
BECiCra BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 2
ti
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
, Diversity:
•
' a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland clads, one of which is Open Water
>'.:. .<43 .::.:..:.'. 3 w t t d c se {w na 2 ::.,.:::.:>Wa.Iex>§..t.Z:wetl nd:::classe. :::w:: `:en Water
c. Medium diversi 2 wetland lasses w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
•
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
e....0%::.._ ,
Surrounding land uses:
•
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
' c. active agricultural/grass
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
*e f lea I:.>:�>v<:;4 1 4 do f tr;: a:-;:.;:<.: r n<-
d rc}zt s t�t:0;0 &d>t.:: "i ;branched::trees ::shrubs:>fbr sn afl<bud
......................::....:.
L. other
Presence of water. p-:tg g seasonal
•
6. FISHERIES HABITAT •
i I
a. not applicable
Comments:
BECK/T!auto<RIVER
O9 18/92 3
.
:••
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Acr,es.s to wetland:
a., trail
c. boat
di isolated
Access on the wetland:
a trail
b road
c boat
&A:68
Environmental problems vsual airs,xois water
Location to schools: Not applicable.
•
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 4 •
•
ti I
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton •
• Wetland #: 5 Date: 5/05/92
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Jon Ives and Lynn Schroder
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
a_ inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
I, T? >:�yctfan� 5�isola ,
Comment: Overland backflow from P-1 Pond,
Surface water; water perched on •
fill:
zS444
b:"' LOCI
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
b. medium •
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
;.;.v .nv.%.vw??^..: y�� .:::n�vx.,•.. ?i:-f yvrrvv.. .. ..;::vim:?? q};W }}.yi.% ;;:r .:yi:?i?.v.}:ry..nr:?!-v
.V[�:,.......�,.N4tVu............Y...Fu+�+....CL........... ...Y...:�..........1.!:+au� ':if3.F{.���:y:�!.�,,.:vVa:r.C[I�n:?......:::1y�.L}i:{. '::.:R. 1Y112�`:-}X.v,.;:?r?.vn�.:nii•?::..
......:.... .:...
pie$id&fk dsthrI•
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the•wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
I I
Topography of wetland:
a. level
b. depressional
•
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
e/I /92 1
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
11 •
Association to:
bg0.14f(qNOtl4:04
Evidence of water movement through the wetlaud:
a. no outlet
C. channeli7fd flow
Comments:
Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
11
cr, 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
ei]::045:WaiivtetraiidIFae:tezVreiMM8FiEf3irgaillaii
e. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
a. no known discharge
WaRbliable!idigabi*
c. visible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek
. 4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
a: 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
#4: NPAPligi:E40,- NR:TeTeZARAIWCiiii.0-40iggt.r0 I
Water present: Ttit , year-round
BECK/III BLACK RIVER
09/ISM 2
•
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT •
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland lasses, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity, 3 wetland lasses w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland lass
•
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
............................
d. 20-30 acres
•
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
b. 50-75%
•
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
e. 0%
Surrounding land uses:
c. active agricultural/grass (moderate)
d. urban: residential (poor)
e' z2rstatl;czzo ezc'a :.: 1e: <:.za -
Unique features:
.. . .;>:.:>..�.�....�.:;:: �:�:.::: .�::.:.:::::::. ..:.....:....:............... ....�.......... ............... ............:::::::.:... .......' .......tom.
z i`> zzulys: o :: rtialt birds
:... ::der:
f. other
•
Presence of water. permanent, seasaixal
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
biglatiable
•
Comments:
• BECK/L3 BLACK RIVER
09/1s/92 3
11
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Arress to wetland:
trail
1. isolated
Access on the wetland:
. trail
b. road
c_ boat
4on
nvironmental problems: visual, air, water
'Location to schools: Not applicable
11
•
BECK/I)BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 4
),
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 5a Date: 11/08/91
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACI ION
•
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
b wetland isolated
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff
liFfiagtag611
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
b. medium
:ERA
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the,wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
te4.0040.401
c. other
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
:(
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
Association to:
a. stream
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
a no outlet
b. sheet flow
c. channe1;7Pd flow
Comments:
•
'vegetation density:
• a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
41ilf::ME:aggg441iigMfOiR.W.W6064VVW:6645
e. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
b.1 probable discharge
visible discharge
Source:
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
yegetation density:
75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c.1: 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
; •
Water present nlly, year-i;ound
BECK/0 BLA.C1(RIVEk.
09/18/921 2
E�
5. WILDLII-E HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland lasses w/out Open Water
Size of wetland:
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75% •
C. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
.:::::::........
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
e` 'fiu�azc"n:�us�r'ial`:�z5uzu'ez�ia�`:fzIJ:e� �
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
' d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds
e. canopy cover
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, Seasana
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
b• applicable
• Comments:
BECx/T3 BLACK RIVER
m/18/92 3
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
a. trail
:ItgaN4
le. boat
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
b. road
c. boat •
d. none
Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, water
Location to schools:. Not applicable
i
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09/18p2 4
,
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: Sb Date: 11.108/91
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACrION
•
Regional groundwater:
inlet ZO6iitleVf&th6Wtri.r.kVifai:E'!VirLteliEjiN&t
..... ...... .. . .. . . . . .
b. wetland is isolated
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
gigia3.§O.
4.5.44?§I504t...i.§4
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
tigidetitK4titiAl
c. other
I
BEC1C/13 BLACK RIVER
CO/I/3/92 1
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
Association to:
I '»stream
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
a. no outlet •
ib. sheet flow
ic::;rhanneli7fd flo:w
!Comments:
I i I
Vegetation density
tY
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-L75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
2 .......o<'af wet1an:: ,,e6 r;;:tI wit ' >er>elit,...;»>:e :, :;.::n
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
e. vegetation removed or altered
I!
m Coments:
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
li
a. no known discharge ..
tint aiMi discharge
lcvisible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek
li
4. iFOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
'Vegetation density
!a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75%. of wetland covered with emergent vegetation • '
C.< [2S . o>of wet1am cr`AVW f ire 'e`nt :,,ggtat
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Water present: seasonally; arrquna
.... ...........
BECK/[3 BLACK RIVER
e/Is/92 2
I.
- I
f_
5. WILDLIFE. HABITAT
Diversity: •
High diversity; w/no
orwetl:: w/o
p r
•
b. diversi 3 wetland classes w no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w O en Wate
j c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
•
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
•
of:ivez�3Q::;acres
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
.c 25-5.0
d 0-25%
e. •
0%
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d urban: residential
C3<` uEaa <ii zii Form; Orq Attie
Unique features:
at _rapt U ii t `tiom.S
far eckez ial_ima m is z se
e:<:fallen::k,g debr and; srf'for'r`.'.:.:-i es` : mp in.*
::.trees it i -:.->: ::.>,:->;.:::- iYi ;-:;->::-::.:::;-;:.;:li es:-:::.:<�-.:-fitt < :;:<..>:-;;:,-::,. ::
d «'peirs,tr wziasitpan :bza ;c tz ::.:-;-arxub .forma bads
f. other
Presence of water: seasonal
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable -
Comments:
•
flecxtr7 SLnC)(RIVER
09/18/92 3
•
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
a..! trail
b road
6fi boat
d isolated
Access on the wetland:
al trail
bl road
c_ boat
rivironmental problems: visual, air, noise Water
LOcation to schools: Not applicable
•
BECK/ti BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 4
r •
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 5c Date: 5/05/92
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Jon Ives and Lynn Schroder
•
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
... o tl €.fo the`:iuet�f2ui��sty:cl ��as���d'ifr.��oXculvert
b. wetland is isolated
...........................................................................
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
ar
b. precipitation
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
ago
b. medium
c. small
Elevation.of wetland to drainage feature:
8:ttttvW..,:?{?.i'l.?.Ncv?.,v.::;?.v iii::.:v�\?�i}::C�}1..: ?a.i:}::?::'f.N:};{xI.?qi:.::
N l':�:',;..�vat�cc...:�..:w�t�an.....�s:..... ..e.::tha:r; ir'a..r�•��.:.....ch ..:..titer can:>� �>: Q:::t :::: . lar`�"nzl=:.:�:v,:�,::,;v,and:;">;:,
.......,::.:::.�::::::::.:::: :::..�:::::::._:....:...:..�.::.:.........:.............:...�...............,............::....:.:..:: .t..u�.....:�..w.et.....d:.a.......z..e.sveil....:�. .:�ar..r
tte410100020$W
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
gigg :::Pss o'rjai
C. other
BECK/Ti BLACK RIVER
09./18/92 1
�Ifl A
•
Comments:
;IIh
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
•
Association to:
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
a. no outlet •
li`;slieetIIov
c>'c#anrielyrdf�iu�
Comments:
Vegetation density:
a: 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
er 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
•
(Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
a no known discharge
to.„:4:matratigaig4
d visible discharge
Source: Springbrook-Creek
4. FOOD CHAIN.SUPPORT •
Vegetation density.
a.', 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
•
Water present: scasana. :, year-round
BECK/11 BLACX RIVER
m/18/92 2
VP
5. WILDL1Fi. HABITAT
•
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
g2IMAI*Zig§igift OglAnglAgi:.W.AgggigkiiNtO
..•.
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
•
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
'eNn*iffWiYa;
d. 20-30 acres • •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c_ 25-50%
e. 0%
Surrounding land uses:
•
' SAMOIKit.Witg
,
tigigomo***:(44Aif414i4
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Agg4
Unique features:
i106iWiR0g4(4
KqepTog1.gimiggeiggAi90igigRif6fEgii4iiiifor c )adpecker5
• •
..„,..„
iin
••
PAWSMSOM
f. •other
•
Presence of water: permanent,
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
gigfir,00.§1
•.
Comments:
BECK/ 3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92
IV
!V-
II
I !
I,
f
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
1 ..
;---
. : .
L trail
c-. boat
t :
Hi. isolated
• -
'Access on the wetland:
'a. trail
b. road
vc, boat •
ire:v.ii6if6
..v...::::::::::.:,..........
'Environmental problems: visual, air,
Location to schools: Not applicable
1
, .
v ,
I
I, '
v • . •
1'v,
,...
BECK/73 BLACX RIVER
C9/18/92 4
1
. 1
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 7 North Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Overcast, occasional rain.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1L GROUNDWATER INTERACIION
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet pr outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff
INR:v0.c..4a.t4.40
2 FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
'ROO
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
c. other
BLX/73 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
•
;II .
; -I—
ornments: • .
1
11 .
r
. i
,1
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY I '
II
Association to:
I
a. stream .
b. another wetland
I. i
[• .
EVidence of water movement through the wetland:
I !
W.r.W::"(5,tiit.10 - i
151):eet:dfievi.
c. channeli7rd flow I
Comments: Water source to wetland is primarily,groundwater and precipitation.
[
,1
Vegetation density:
V..g5AOM:4iixao3F4-:6v6:.t.a*:w:8ioig:8:apwgg:aoti
•,.:::::::::::,,,,,......:::::::,:::::::::,::::.::::...::::.:,::::::::::::,„:::::::::,„,:::::::::::::::::.::::::::.::::::,,,,...::::::::,...:::::,..., ..,...„:::::::„.
13. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
el vegetation removed or altered
•
Comments: I
I -
:. .
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: '
II
1. .
Rakivlipeivi44..ww.:
b'J probable discharge
c., visible discharge 4 :
Source: 1
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT . .
11 .
Ngetation density:
W'.::::7:5WWW.6fiiigarliAI:.06g§iigiMiik: AO.kOti:Ng 4000
E 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation 1 •
c..; .25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
drol 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
I ,
Water present: seasonally, 3gtr7:0:00
, 1
BECK/16 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 2
, , •
,
1 .
•
i
I, • •
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b High& dty 3 wetland cJass wfno Open Watrr r 2 wetland daes wfOpen
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
' a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
acres
•
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
' a. 75-100% • •
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
' b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
C. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
•
' a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
TLigf:,..!gbaggigioxggfiing#5:.
amak44,,f4i.a.giotaaaopoldiiiyiaiegeheaAt.:8a.,:f0MW610i:-14#1.vbg4
•••• •
f. other
' Presence of water: #0**#fg.fig seasonal •
•
6.
FISHERIES HABITAT
giiiMn0141):14.
b.:.:applicable
Comments: •
BECKfT3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 3
II'
,u
Iii
7. I';CTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
I�
"cress to wetland:
a€::::;trail •
bl:sroai .
c!�: boat
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a. trail
b. road •
•
C. boat •
d. none
Environmental problems: Vzsu'.1 s ttIn ise water
Location to schools: Not applicable.
.
I
•
•9Ecxin BLACK RIVER
m/ist9 4
y
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 7 South Date: 11/05/91
Weather: Clear and sunny.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
, Regional groundwater:
> i�et���o�<:ouflef<ofh�> �sirr�Z>as�'i� clziax<culvez�
b. wetland is isolated:;::::..........................................................................
Comment: Wetland is a 20- to 25-foot-wide ditch.
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a ruuf€
b ':1#51 tzaz
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
b. medium
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
c. other
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
o9/I8/n 1
1
[1
I[[
comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
f.:
Association to:
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
a. no outlet
b. sheet flow
Comments: Water flow is south then west, eventually emptying into Springbrook Creek.
Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
8. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
le. vegetation removed or altered •
Comments:
[Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
akncrg
b. probable discharge
[c... visible discharge
Source:
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
a_ 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
tomptswai.agairaiwitworea te
iii,„0.011
tv[1".
C. -25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
t]:•
Water present: seasonally, M-470-7.744-
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 2
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
• b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres • •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75% •
• c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
Surrounding land uses:
•
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, inserts
nigaggiMAW.A.x: NaggioNfaiimMOM4gigllaa.-
MOgig..44gg&A.1. 40*4.1.0ppfg.gg:bojamitogs.,.;:opiu0kiwgag.0.4.$
iomp451):mq
f. other
, Presence of water: 0445iaig seasonal
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
..,.
Comments: The.hydrologic connection between this wetland and Springbrook Creek is important in
maintaining water quality and fishery habitat within the creek.
BECK/T3 BLACK EUVER
09j18/92 3
1
11
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
A'crr_cs to wetland:
• •
..............
boat
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a. trail
b. road
c. boat
c�»irione
Environmental problems: visual, air, p.p4O vsratcr
Location to schools: Not applicable.
•
•
BEC1C/T3 BUCK RIVER
09/18/92 4
-.•
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 8 North • Date: 11/05/91
Weather: Clear and sunny.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACLION
Regional groundwater:
b. wetland is isolated
' Comment: Inlet and outlet of wetland are culverts at eastern edge and western edge.
Surface water, water perched on fill:
Mfg. igf
VE.PggW4...
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
W.E1M
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
provide fkod giiiiagai.§.009§.000.Mgeif.ggigiagOONF:i.WW.444.ffigiegtffiffiglffiti.Main.1:04.
.... e.
...
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
c. other
BECKr3 BLACK RIVER
09/1'8/92 1
•
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
•
Association to:
b. another wetland
Evidence of .-iater movement through the wetland:
a. no outlet
[Comments: Water in ditch flows west, eventually empties into Sorinebrook Creek.
Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
LaN9S.15%NitWal4M.:66.&f&FWitWailagawgaitiai
.........
c.
25-50% of wetland coveted with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
le. vegetation removed or altered
Comments: Dense emergent vegetation: patchy distribution.
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
al . no known discharge
lc. visible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek.
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
.550% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Water present: year-round
BECY./T3 BLACK RIVER • .
09/18/92 2
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT •
Diversity: •
a. Very high diversity; 3.or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Uedum diversity 2 wetland dasses w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b 540 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100% •
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
•
d. 0-25% •
•
Surrounding land uses:
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland •
c. active agricultural/grass
• d. urban: residential
anvirawmagfirm7.0 :iirtematai
' Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feethigh cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
................
4QPtawitr.04:NitIV0;MilPPR;P410kt40.0YSgk.9c44141.4vPOVfl
e. canopy cover
f. other
•
Presence of water: p&rmanent,
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable •
•
.....
Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water •
quality.and fishery habitat in the creek.
BECK/1-3 BLACK RIVER
09%18/92 3
hG ,
1
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
fx €:':road
c. boat
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
•
................
b. road
c. boat
d. none
Environmental problems: visual, air, z 04:Si4;f:eri
Location to schools: Not applicable,
•
L
.
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
09/IS 4
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 8 South Date: 11/05/91
Weather: Clear, sunny,
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
I "
1. GROUNDWATER INTERAUI'ION
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
w
b«."etfs �I?as"isolates
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff
�?«?prec�gstatgi
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
b. medium
•
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
bcdepzessonal
c. other
9ECK/TI BLACK RIVER
09%18/92 1
I 1
-..
II
...
Comments: •
•
ri
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
ffsGelation to: ,
a. stream
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
4gi$6Fisiiikt
bi sheet flow 1
cll., channelized flow
Comments: Precipitation collects in depressional areas caused by uneven grading, Wetland has developed
.!
in such areas.
1
1
Vegetation density:
ah. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
li 1
50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
eA25soVaiciettiffitraivdat'valikstotgogifkg0464 . .
:.:::::i:i:i*:—....„..„,,,:—.::::,:.:::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::•:.,::::::::::::::::::::,.:::::::.:::::::.:::::::::.:.:..:.:.::::—.:—. :.:„.......:::::.• .......,...—:„. •
0-25% of wetland c,overed with emergent vegetation 1
e. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
I
I
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
1
ir
b. probable discharge : 1
• c.,•Visible discharge .
Source:
1
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
I .
egetation density:
11
T1
al, 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
•
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
kigO:if•VrAgibg4gggfallW '§kgiagaMgf4tgii
d. 0-25% of wetland. covered with emergent vegetation i-:•:i
::.
Li
Water present: Wiaatilyryear-round
j1,31111.
.•
BECK BLACK RP/ER
C19/18 1, 2
II .
1
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
............................ ....................................................................................
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland: •
• I
a >( atoms
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
I '
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
e`e
•
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
' c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
.es:::::titr2i <uzittFFaT Gizitnaza idle
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
d. perches: with dead t manybranched trees or shrubs for small birds
trees tops,P�
e. canopy cover
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, seasdual
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
ggigtfitOPM
b. applicable
Comments:
. ,II
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 3
•
7. 1ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
i
Access to wetland:
la. trail
broad
c. boat
d. isolated
liAccess on the wetland:
,a. trail
b. road
boat
dncrne
Environmental problems vsuaI, air, noise; water ;
tocation to schools: Not applicable.
1;
1,
!!
1;
BECK/73 BLACK FUVER
09/18/92 4
•
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
' I
Wetland #: 9 Date: 11/06/91
Weather: Clear,
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
Regional groundwater:
a 1 t ':_outlet to;the wef nd sur _as;a:;d'itc is or culvert
b. wetland is isolated;:::::.......:.................:.. ::.....:....:..........................:..:.
..............:.......................................::............:...:.
Comment: Wetland drains into Springbrook Creek,
Surface water; water perched on fill:
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
• a. large
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. -level
�r<`=<ie essioual
c. other
Bc-ocrf3 BLACK RIVER
09%18/92 1
111
Pa
st
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
11
Association to:
1
tafl
b....a.n....aer wetland
111
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
1.. no outlet
11
sheet flow
L
. channelized flow
11
1 omments: Outlet is at the southern tip of wetland: empties into Springbrook Creek.
1[1
Vegetation density:
75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b.11!I
50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
C 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetationd.
40;:25giigi*AllifORMOT.M44§:fgaiVgg4t4Pii
vegetation removed or altered
omments:
1'
111
1r
?dent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
b. probable discharge
C., visible discharge
.•
11
Source:
,11 •
1,1
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
,
Vegetation density:
11[
a., 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
IDA.50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c-171 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Li
Water present hlly year-round
1,1
11,
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
09/18/42 2
I11
•
4,1
1 1
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes,'one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
WORWORMW.i
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
•
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50% , •
e. 0% •
Surrounding land uses:
•
a. upland forest
g shrub or-gjjr4.: Fdiggplig
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
•
•
:01001fM0
f. other
•
Presence of water: permanent, wow
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water
purification and fishery habitat in the creek.
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
01/18/92 3
i
if
7. ACITVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ccess to wetland:
11
watiag
b. road
boat
d. isolated
cress on the wetland:
a: trail
b road
C', boat
nOne
Environmental problems: visual; air, rotse; water .
cation to schools: Not applicable.
1
111
I.
I
'I
I
BECK/b BLACK RIVER
09/18/9F. 4
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
:• Wetland #:• 10 Date: 11/06/91
Weather: Clear, sunny.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
.4ialilaiR3.540Qtai!ifh16501.4.0iWaVcraii5Klefi.:
b. wetland is isolated •
' Comment: Ditch along the northern wetland edge drains into Sprinzbrook Creek; creek may also overflow
into wetland via the ditch.
Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff
b. precipitation
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland: •
, ging0.
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
!kalgiatiMENTAASElialigliggiIMNOANOW.ggigkik4WM*440414410Riiig#0.041i4ii
.0010,1t404
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
c. other
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
•
," . .
1"1
I I!
11 ro.-
11
II .
i ....
1 ,
Comments:
, .
3. sEDrMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY ,
7r.
I1&ssociation to:
11 i
•
,.' i.i4i
b. another wetland
. -
vidence of water movement through the wetland:
no outlet
. .
. 1
b. sheet flow
, 1
Comments: Beaver dam at the northwestern corner of the wetland backs up water in the ditch along the
II
11 .
northern wetland edge.
h ,
Vegetation density: •
I
a, 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
11?1. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
cl 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
aM.012,5%06.0,-#Eited!iiaiiREililv-mii-iiagiaf Skiaiil651
11. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
I
I:I
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
...,.known.discharge . .
VaikaggAig.§440
6., visible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek.
11
4. 100D CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
1 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b! 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation , I
11:
e. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
ktiiV25aVal-WfliiiiiEi .araikitlEilliEfgarRigiiiiRiii
....::::::.:::::....:::—:::::::::::...,,,,:::::::::::::::,....::::::—.:::::::::.::::::::.::::.::::,, :,•:::,...:,:::::, ,::,,,,,...,:::: !
, 1
%.:...X.:::.:V,:]:
inter present: Ogt.5.9q...,.fyi year-round
BECK3 BLACK RIVER •
09/7 2
1 . ..
I i .
i,1
5: WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland lasses, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland lasses w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
`f. •Lt {�
Ztif;:.;:i• <.; •,.:.:;Fe:.:<...>2 weda�d`4lat es< /o 1t Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25% •
e. 0%
Surrounding land uses: •
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b_::;:: >>25>:feet::lu :or <25feet:>t >eav >nest.ng birds<ca....y z estin < lucks w o : .:<water?;:fora n •
f t d` :'d.ns . al i it: :iAu ras. !'
i.4411< .-:`:'and ddii Pra' leg_.:::::._?a np1ii i n
a. "erl ' ini tli*A i! =::eau. > Md:::ages:; r-:. rubs:: a*tialt:lika
f. other
•
Presence of water: permanent; seasaza
6: FISHERIES HABITAT •
a. not applicable
telfiglEata
Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water
.
•
quality and fishery habitat in the creek.
acCKrf3 BUCK RIVER
09/18/92 3
.
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
b :>road_ �
6. . boat
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a. trail
b'. road
c boat
d >noii
nvironmental problems: visa air, noise water
.::...:...
Location to schools: Not applicable.
•
11
•
f:
BEC IKI/3 BLACK RIVER
w/iaic2 4
•-•
• Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 11 Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Overcast, occasional rain.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
GROUNDWATER INTERACIION
•
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
b. wetland is isolated •
Comment: Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek.
Surface water; water perched on fill:
Rrriaff
- •
40PitA414.04q.0
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
giii9gg§ •
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. •level
twaammissi
• c. other
•
•
BO.CK/73 BLACK RIVER
C9/18/92 1 •
omments: �
Comments:
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
ociation to:
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
I. no outlet
c channeli7ed flow
Comments:11,
-
11I
Vegetation density:
�
1
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
>5f 5 a til t 2 coveze iiiP: '< nez` nt vegeta[
25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
'. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
�I I
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
a. no known discharge
`<j>'prraal?xeiscae
visible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek.
1
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density.
75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
di 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
' I
Water present nx year-round
BECK/73 BACK RIVER
O9/I8/i92 2
•1
•
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
MMOMPANYii!!ZW40!!gtagNAMPIWW4t0
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
.d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
AIM
Surrounding land uses:
a. .upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
C. active agricultural/grass
d.' urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
iliAMMAIVIMMINNARPRI
wtaomMaii*Wt.1-040p.s:44:i1NbagOdi'Magit;WiAl5kifig1W41131e4
f. other
Presence of water: permanent,
•
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water
• Quality and fishery habitat in the creek.
8ECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 3
it
7_ ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
Access to wetland:
I
a''II trail
b>':_ ;:
c]+ boat 1.
d. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a.. trail
b road
c boat
Environmental problems: 'lzsnal:air, moire; water
Location to schools: Not applicable.
©ECKrnBLACK RIVER
09/18/92 4
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
I! ,
City of Renton
II i
Wetland #: 12 Date: 12/04/91
(Weather: Clear,
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins
' I
1. GROUNDWATER INTERAC:1ION
Regional groundwater:
a;::iu "ti�::�....�....:....,:......;:�+r�f......:..::.....clz:as.:..:.:.....clz:c�.:........:..
b. wetland is isolated
Comment:
I '
Surface water; water perched on fill:
ii
2. FLOOD STORAGE
II
Size of wetland:
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
II provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
c. other
it
;'BECK/T!BLACK RIVER
i09/I8/92, 1
1
•1 'I
11
1,Comments:
11
111
•
3. i,SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
Association to:
II,
a.igg.
b. another wetland
- I
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
la. no outlet
Ib>" eeE`�aLV �
c. channelized flow
(',Comments:
Vegetation density.
r' 75: :0 :...s:x:y.:-; ; •:nd c<>vered t> e iz .:t'i. :n ,
- 3Q%aoFF..vtan(F....o P.rG.sl ..L ... ?fiie$e<F.u:.:
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
ie. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
111
a. no known discharge
pia bl disc argc
c. visible discharge
Source: Springbrook Creek.
111
4. ('''FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
I,IVegetation density:
1
etati`:
b. 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
c. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Lj
Water present: seasonally, mr.:7 r d
BE51K/T3 BLACK RIVER
0/1s/ 2
-:•
„ •
•
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
b. High diversity;3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
• c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity, 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
—IiT1Weg
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75% •
' c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
: gagg •
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
c. active agricultural/grass •
d. urban: residential
e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
• • b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
amuar2itiggimiriEgaiams,
f. other
Presence of water: Riffliggfig seasonal
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
•
a. not applicable
! wigfiggVjg
Comments: The association of this wetland with Springbrook Creek is important in maintaining water
quality and fishery habitat within the creek.
• BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09418/92 3
•
111„ I
[
•
11 r...
11 ii.
II A
1 I •-'
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION •
1[ .
Access to wetland:
I -
Rad r.-'•
C. boat
[11
dl. isolated
1,
11[
.ff1 ccess on the wetland:
I1
II
• ,
pl. road
boat
T'
d. none
11
Environmental problems: visual, ' iiIiii'..;5i.'44 water
[[[
ocation to schools: Not applicable,
III
[1, •
... i'l
1'1
1 .
11 •
1
Iri
li
[
I ,
1
[I
11
[
11
I .
[
ri
11
[ [
It
[
I ,
lj
[
[I
[
I
[[
il
I
111
BECKrp BLACK RIVER
09/18p2 4
d .
1
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 13a Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Clear.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
a. moutkttothewflandsuchaditchorculvtrt
b. wetland is isolated
Comment: Springbrook Creek flows through the middle of the wetland.
Surface water, water perched on fill:
a. runoff
b. precipitation
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland: •
a. large
b. medium
EW4ii-at
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and.the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
b. depressional
c. other
BE:LIC/T3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
III
.11 II I Tr-
Ia .-
. ni
i'omments:
il' L:
III 1^
I
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
rhl
ociation to:
ll:' another wetland
II -
II
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
II I
aI! no outlet
I. sheet flow
I omments:
li
I' :
Vegetation density: 1
al l 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation -
14 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
dl;'I 0-25%�of wetland covered with emergent vegetation '
eat vegetation removed or altered
I
Comments:
III
Id
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland: :
a no known discharge
ell; visible discharge
Ii
Source: Springbrook Creek
I
4. OOD CHAIN SUPPORT
Vegetation density:
111
a.1 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
G„ 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
dII 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Water present: seasonally,PR.
.. • "" -fin
I
BECKfr3 BLACK RIVER
C9/18/92 2
, .
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one,of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
. ,
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50% .
d. 0-25%
::OPM
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled
Unique features:
' a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds
:
f. other
Presence of water: pappifIgg ceasonal
. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
tryfiriablef.5
Comments: Springbrook Creek supports fish habitat.
BECK[13 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 3
4 Z
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
[Acrt-ss to wetland:
a. trail
b road
c. boat
.„.
4. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a. trail
b. road
c. boat •
Environmental problems: visual, air, noise, water
I-ocation to schools: Not applicable,
L
I I
. ;
BECK/3 BLACK RIVER
C9/113/ 4
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 13B _ • .
Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Clear
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein and Margaret Edwins
1., GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
Regional groundwater:
a. ouULtôthewet1dstichasaifchorcu1vert
b. wetland is isolated
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on
INa.0#0,404.
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
M51E0
c. small
! Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
WOlaitliWotiand ñ hhthanauiTail'aaIWW4KMi
.. ..................................................
pre
b. elevation,of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland; •
a. level
oagfrrom
c. other
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09/I8/92 1
•
•
•
omments:
i
3. ;SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
Association to:
0w `stt i
lb. another wetland
1,11
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
la. no outlet
b. sheet flow
li7.ea:.tTa4u
1,1
Comments: I '
1Ib
1 egetation density:
I$. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b 5605WW`svlti >ct veze iiii > me l??:id#'Gi'>;.t
C. 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
I. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
C. vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
1
• Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
� I
' . probable discharge
c. visible discharge
Source:
•
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
egetation density.
75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
'2.!tLIX�.C::.:.2A::".�:.itiivv...}�:.v.::?: 2.:.ittw4:4::?:.:ih4il.2::<.::[.inni:LLA\2��?'::LL::{ •:;N2J:4:.:
25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
PI 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Li
ater present: $eg:0:n year-round
BL•CK�/13 BLACK RIVER
09/1492 2
•"T
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity: •
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
APMFinikkliFINV6i1A8Fagg
Size of wetland: •
a. 0-5 acres -
b. 5-10 acres
i.
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75% •
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
• b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
d. urban: residential
e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open wate , foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects •
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
d. 'perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds
e. canopy cover
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, aoial
6, FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
IRX1-
Comments: Adjacent to Springbrook Creek drainage from wetlands into Soringbrook.
BECK/13 BLACK RIVER
•G9/18/92 3
11
I:I
I
1', •
..,...
II
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION ,
,
1J
41.er-eSS to wetland:
1 .
WiNiffa
,:,...........
li?,. road • Iiil,
a boat .
III1
ill. isolated
Access on the wetland:
, .
*P:Tiiia
lrroad
c boat •
11,
d none
1,11
111,,
Environmental problems: IVi:S.Ida air,
3 L
1 cation to schools: Not applicable •' i II
1,1
LI,
I.II
I,,1 •
II
, .
, • .!.
•
1 .
1 . .
•
I
I .
I 1 ; •
11,
li
I
• •
li
1,1 .
III
1,
• :.
I • '
III .
• .
I '
. .
,1 • -
•
1 . .
I,
•
1 • .
1, •
1 1..
L.-1
• I I .
I I
,I III •
I II
7
BECICIp BLACK RIVER
09/IS i
I l'
i I
1 . 4
i I
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
- I
Wetland #: 13c. Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Clear.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein. Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
b. wetland is isolated
Comment: Wetland is adjacent to Springbrook Creek.
Surface water; water perched on fill:
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
NSW
b. medium
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
- i
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
• I
Topography of wetland:
a. level
Dira lig&
c. :other
�i I
i
s,E ICIT3 BACK RIVER
d9/18192 1
II
- p_
II;I
:1111
Y
i
!1,omments:
fl
1J
3. ,I DIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
i, ociation to:
eI
li
Ill stream i
•
bl another wetland
7 vidence of water movement through the wetland:
1,1
9' no outlet •
b..sb et..1low •
-d.'1 channeli7rd flow
omments:
Vegetation density:ty: '
l 751 .. o f>uset1ar d>e` veredwith eme genx Ye:`etafion
>j''.' 50-75% of wetland covered with..emergent vegetation
c.1 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation .
d'I 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
e.l vegetation removed or altered -
I
•
Comments:
III .. .
id
]✓xtent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
MINAIREMMO
1 . probable discharge j
all visible discharge
Source: j
4 •
OO. DUO SUPPORT
I i
Vegetation density:
bI!' 50-75% of Awetland covered with emergent vegetation L 1
c.'', 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d.1 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation 1
11
LI
Water present: seasonally, yrjtrd
il
BECK If3 BLACK RIVER `
G9/18/921 2
,
51 WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity.
;'fsv�lsclis' s
b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
I a. 0-5 acres
tgii:SiVadra
..............................
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
I
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c 25-50%
d. 0-25%
•
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c_ active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled
fs< amtaz rig€
Unique features:
•
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
• c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
I .ih4�.vx.;�.::.: •.^:4�;Y.[.:M[[.:6'::�'! '4i3:..v:{L:nv.{::{.i:?}i:+:•:
::�.}}:::.: v..............v.........:{.y.i..:{.�-A:•::.i:-S::i.!:4%:n......:::f�:.'fi........:......-..:.......w....-...........[....-.....::...............: I
p3y:;#atr
f. other •
•
Presence of water 06.60:6Mi seasonal
•
6.1 FISHERIES HABITAT
•
b. applicable
•
•
BECK/13 BLACK EuyER.
o9/,18/92 3
i
10
Comments: •
7. CTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ccess to ivetland:
CAi:4
§ t§ad.
a boat
l. isolated
1.
ccess on the wetland:
lip. road
boat
. none
.2-•
Environmental problems: u4 xuis , water
1;
•cation to schools: Not applicable,
, -
11
. .
Ir
1,1
I I
'
1,1
B 1/'113 BLACK RIVER
0?/1802 4
II 1
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 16 Date: 12/04/91
Weather: Clear.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
_ I
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
Regional groundwater:
' a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
b; edaud. s isolated
' Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
gliNgft
giffiggiON
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
•
:•;;:small
c.
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the vrretland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topographyof wetland:
a. level
taggsmag
c. other
©ECK/ 3 BLACK RIVER
o9/ts/92 1
•
I I
11
E
II
��ii,omments:
18 �
3. DIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
ociation to: E''
a stream
ill another wetland
1
q I
vidence of water movement through the wetland:
i lii:i:a ciutl .e
INAggifUM
Comments:
di
l�
i'
1VJegetation density
a1 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
II: 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c�'', 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d. 25: a rif w re cP,d ergenf;:egetat on
vegetation removed or altered
Comments:
extent of g
pollutant discharge into the wetland:
li: probable discharge •
d visible discharge .
Source:
II .
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
1
Vegetation density:
a75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation • '
41.1 i 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
E..:f..,.....;.nv: vvy,?S:: 6'•;J...Y.•rfiv:N\:::y.vA:.•..Yn:fnv.•i::•r,.:x::.;;•ya..�..
n •Water present: sca,:. .a year-round
111
BECKI�� BLACK RIVER
m/is i 2 •
I
15. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
fk:Wa*W60:0150i*Wat'd
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
5.SiAiggig
ip. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
' c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
ent
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
ixbati
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woOdpeckers, small mammals, insects
glitggigi:104IWENNIN.
gi:111§fiq0:014010g.ekwgivffitmoggitommi!ONgigikfit:Rtik44
mg4APptg9At
f: other
Presence of water permanent, 0Mk4.4
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
tgfia4Plialig
b. applicable
Comments:
BEOC/13 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 3
1
O1
Ol
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
• _
ccess to wetland:
. .
; trail
boat
io7 isolated
Access on the wetland:
aOo. trail
b road
d: boat • •
oil
Environmental problems: water
.cation to schools: Not applicable.
oo
oo
ool
oll
olo
oo
oo
ool •
oo •
oo
, .
oo
oo
111
Bc.CK/TI BLACK RIVER
09/IS/9 4
oo •
Wetland Functional Values Field Form •
City of Renton
• Wetland #: 21 Date: 6/04/92,
Weather: Clear
•
Field Investigators: Bob Denman and Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
b. wetland is isolated
Comment: The wetland area has previously been graded and filled.
Surface water; water perched on •
a. runoff
Aliggiggig
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
- lgiafiggig
c. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
;
1AOW-itI*4044104iigIlaogglligiiiC44NfOkiiiMg ggfiagigigMtiWagii:AgitIM
Vfia44#01ip.M4.400.0:4!cgOigig
Topography of wetland:
Meg
oe.pressional
c. other
ccicro pinc-K RIVER
09118/92 •
1,gi!
comments:
3. IEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
11 sociation to:
:•
sll stream
- -
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
no outlet
sheet flow
channeli7pd flow
IIII•omments:
IIH
Vegetation density:
75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
III •
50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
171 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation • !
dn'a,2604:8E,f,!&:.rail.gai.e.adaltil%BiefAait egetatxni
8.1 vegetation removed or altered
•
Comments:
E)ctent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
aill no known discharge
ch visible discharge
ource: Via the ditch, which is connected with wetland 3 (Orilla Pond)
4. 1 OOD CHAIN SUPPORT •
Vegetation density:
all 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Etll 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
ite14$:WW.MaiaiiesigrWifirti767iii5iiiWatki;1 ;
3
Water present: regually, year-round.
I I
l!'
BECK/I BLACK RfVER
09/18/92 2
I .
•
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland daces, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity; 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
a. 0-5 acres •
b. 5-10 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
ca
d. 0-25%
e. 0%
' I
„ Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Romoirimegarersaamymat •
Unique features:
• a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
' for woodpeckers, small mamma s, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
�:.:.�::::::..:: :::::::: .:vv-:;:,:...:�. ..ii'. :•:iv::::.i:i::i•i:G:.�:::is:.}...::�-.�:::. ::v. ,r:i::?i{::i•isv�•?:r:'.:•:h`:::�`•::::i�i::�"C:Yi'>iS::i:......:.Y:.:::? !
,,,, uau.;::br ched;:frees:: r:::: hr ibs<fd > ma :;bads
............... .... ...... ....... .........................
es`> anopy< ver
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, se (zza
.:..:.:.........
- j
6 FISHERIES HABITAT
a. n sa iphcalT
b. applicable
•
Comments:
•
BECICri3 BLACK RIVER
09/118/92 3
d t
7. 'ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
• I cress to wetland:
.
trail
c. boat
id. isolated
ccess on the wetland:
a. trail. roan
In. none
nvironmental problems: visual, air, noise,It
water
•
cation to schools: Not applicable
III
•
II�
'II
I •
11
'' II
r I ,
I�I
II
� ky
BECICIL3 BLACK RIVES
co/fa 4
I
- 3
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 32 & 33 Date: 11/08/91
. -
Weather: Rain consistently throughout the day.
•
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1. GROUNDWATER 1NTERAUI.ION
Regional groundwater:
a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
Comment:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
EMU .
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
a. large
b. medium
!eR;W41
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
#314rINAN
c. other
BECK/73 BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
11
11 t,
I eti
.omments:
l ,c•
3. I DIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
iss
1
.
()cation to: 1
1 rl
I II
1 1
111 stream
ioll another wetland
l
vidence of water movement through the wetland:'
. .
1 .
a, no •
8:I sheet flow
cL channeli7Pd flow
. :
Cbmments:
...
j 1
Vegetation density:
..1
a:, 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c.11 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
titTCgInga.Vitrairarear*it1B-M612EitiVietifid
x...::::::.:,:::,,,,:::::,,e4x::::,::.,x.:•:.x.::.:'c,::,....:::::.:.:::::..,,,,..........................,... r
eL vegetation removed or altered
I l'
Comments:
II.
,.;
Eixtent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
. ..
11
tomararcgw,!:: ,414di4ti,,116 .
81 probable discharge
• 1
di. visible discharge
. .
Puree:
I.1
:
4: 1,00D CHAIN SUPPORT '
. .;.i
LI
Illegetation density:
..1 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
: 1
b' 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
c4ill'i 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
immrai.w....,..:44w.611- ;.arwaireril.ik:,:er2govga.Riai
Ll
1.,/
ater present: Raga year-round
1.,
.. .'
1 1
BECK 11 BLACK RIVER
00/18 2
..„
1 .
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity, 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes wino Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
Size of wetland:
540$4R.$.
b. 5-10 acres
C. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
! a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians •
d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds
e. canopy.cover
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, Wigalial
6. FISHERIES HABITAT
b. applicable
Comments:
BECK/I BLACK RIVER
09ii,i3/92 3
! .
! ,
•
. : '•-•
IV
I!o'
1 , ;
I /...
V
I .
;
v
7. .CTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ccess to wetland:
avir trail :iinavi • , c7:;
••,...-.:::::;,::;.:.v.r.,...,, !!..4
.1 boat
liv! isolated
ill! i
I . .
Access on the wetland:
v I,
a. trail
IT • . _
b'. road •
!IV;
c!. boat • .
. vesziwg .
• •
nvironmental problems: ViOvalvv'yviiivvvViviOtv8vv water •
. . ;
III cation to schools: Not applicable. . .
• . .. . .
Iv .
._ .
V .
i .
!! •I!! ' • ". 1
!!! •
!!! !
, . .
!!. ;
...
'I .
!' •
!.!
.1 • ,.;
,.. .
I!! .
L .
. . ,
HI
l' ' • .1 . •
I I
;.../
i . . ••
I .
5 ?!
I! • & i
! .
f:
i
[ t
, . •
.._ i
1" --•
BECK.rp BLACK RIVER . •
•
09/18/91 4 .
l' •
.1 ,
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 37 Date: 12/04/91
•
Weather: Overcast. occasional rain.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
1'. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
•
Regional groundwater:
daFve
b. wetland is isolated
'!
Comment: Associated with Panther Lake. Panther Creek channel is the outlet for the lake:
Surface water; water perched on fill:
Off
2J FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland:
b. meditun
c. small
•
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the w tland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
Topography of wetland:
a. level
,
c. other
13EFKIT3 BLACK RIVER
L9418/92 1
nen
•
�'
Comments:
,,
1w
'1
3. SIEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY AssLocintion to: :M
1.1
i.
hilt' another wetland
i1 •
vidence of water movement through the wetland:
a no outlet
11:> sheet flaw.
cl `cf aunelize .
,Iomments:
•
Vegetation density.
b1.1,' 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation I
cl:'i 25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d:l 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
vegetation removed or altered ,
. II'
Comments: '
1I
ent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
11
` o off;t?5Car
>11ia.:probable-discharge
�, visible discharge
1,1
ource: . .
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
'I
Vegetation density.
I
50-7.5% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
25-50% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
d., 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation _'
1/41.0
Water present: seasonally, yr r4? d
•
BECK J3f BLACK RIVER
G9/18 2 r'
i
_1
•
•
5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland lasses w/out Open Water
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
•
a. 0-5 acres
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
' I
I e <'ovr acrs
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
RUM
Surrounding land uses:
s titilaD d o rest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
`d.urf an>:resi nti
' e. urban: industrial/commercial/filled
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c.. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
d <>``ee} s<' te :>sillx ::�ataiz: •
bdzodtes:Irsuus>forsrialls 'iir
f. other
Presence.of water:water: pow.elli seasonal
6'. FISHERIES HABITAT
a. not applicable
r'' pplale<
Comments: Emergent portions'of the wetland inundated by the lake provide rearing and.cover areas.
•
BEcx[n BLACK RIVER
09(1s/92 3
. + I
N i hr
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ccess to wetland:
trail
nu
boat fr;1
isolated
•II•
Access on the wetland:
• •
a: trail
road
4. none
P•i
Environmental problems: ;Yisnal ;airy noise, waterNI
•
11
".cation to schools: Not applicable.
•II•
11
•
I•
I
•
•
l•
i
I
•
11
•
• II
•
•
11
II,
J
I
II I
II
II II • -
' I ;1 1 3
.'3
•
BECKIR BLACK RIVER • .
o9/Is/9 4
III,
•
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
•
Wetland #: . 40 Date: 11/08/9,1
Weather: Overcast.
Field Investigators: Pesha Klein, Margaret Edwins
' I
1: GROUNDWATER INTERACI'ION
' Regional groundwater:
• . a. inlet or outlet to the wetland such as a ditch or culvert
b w.etfand< sofa e£
Comment: •
0
' I
Surface water; water perched on fill:
•
2'. FLOOD STORAGE
' I
Size of wetland:
' I
a. large
b. medium
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
b. elevation of the wetland is higher than the drainage ditch; water can not get into the wetland and the
wetland cannot provide flood storage.
• Topography of wetland:
•
a. ' level
c. other '
8rcKrr3 BUCK RIVER
09/18/92 1
.
I+
i.
11
Comments:
•
3. EDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
iociation to:
a. stream
b. another wetland
Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
<no out1e
...... . ....
b.
.....sheet flow
hc. channelized flow
I
Comments:
Vegetation density:
;ia. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
C; s.'22 •5 RiagtNnd COiiO SAf g. me gen on ,
Id. 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
le••. vegetation removed or altered
I''
Comments:
•
II,
il
Extent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
`I fin:aria '&sc7::_:.
b_ probable discharge
'c. visible discharge
'Source:
Il
•
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
•i�Vegetation density:
a. 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
.50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation , ;
1.•0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation tY,';
Water present: ras rally year-round
_
, .II
BECK T3 BLACK RIVER
09/18192 2
I
,5. WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity:
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
b. High diversity, 3 wetland classes w/no Open Water or 2 wetland classes w/Open Water
c. Medium diversity; 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water
gii:PIR:IiiEYAfi.W.I.3P40:. 24 44H
Size of wetland:
b. 5-10 acres
c. 10-20 acres
d. 20-30 acres •
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
c. 25-50%
d. 0-25%
Mt%
Surrounding land uses:
a. upland forest
b. shrub or unmaintained grassland
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
, b. Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water, foraging
' for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
c. fallen logs: debris and duff for reptiles and amphibians
d. perches: trees with dead tops, many branched trees or shrubs for small birds
e. canopy cover
f. other
' Presence of water: permanent, g4`.050
6. FISHERIFS HABITAT
...
b. applicable
Comments:
BECK/T3 BLACK RIVER
09./18/92 3
.
th
N �
7. •''GTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ccess to wetland:
a!, trail
b':`:ram
c{''' boat
1.1 isolated
Access on the wetland:
11
all ii trail
• I
road
GI1 boat '
>ndi 0
.'I
Environmental problems: egi air, adiss water
s lcation to schools: Not applicable.
.
,I I • 1
Iq
1
1
•
I .
.
11
I
i
1 •
1
I1
.J
o
IIECK',,l BLACK RIVER
o9/ts 4
I
Wetland Functional Values Field Form
City of Renton
Wetland #: 45. Date: 4/14/92
Weather: Overcast
Field Investigators: Margaret Edwins and Lynn Schroder
1. GROUNDWATER INTERACTION
• •
Regional groundwater: •
a
b. wetland is isolated
Comment: A north-south ditch connects wetland 45 with wetland 3 and wetland 22.
• Surface water; water perched on fill:
a. runoff •
2. FLOOD STORAGE
Size of wetland: •
4 INA
b. medium
C. small
Elevation of wetland to drainage feature:
a. elevation of wetland is higher than drainage ditch; water can get into the wetland and the wetland can
provide flood storage.
11M464.0.4nilligNitiMinilligifiEWAORAIRafgaingieliteggiraig
t04
Topography of wetland:
b. depressional • •
c. other
BECK/Ti BLACK RIVER
09/18/92 1
.1
. ..1
,
li
Comments:
;
3. SEDIMENT TRAPPING/WATER QUALITY
y
Association to:
stream
'attithertivet0
(Evidence of water movement through the wetland:
: no outlet •
L sheet flow
€«chanrielized:flow
' Comments:
i
Vegetation density.
al: 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
LI; 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
i
;e>:25 5 ,,,, f wet ari is:ver"`,Edv: ifi: n
d: 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
el vegetation removed or altered
II
Comments:
11
iI .
vl
Eztent of pollutant discharge into the wetland:
a i' no known discharge
visible discharge
Source: Wetland 3 via the ditch
4. FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
11
Vegetation density:
11 •
ail', 75-100% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation •
``:,,' 50-75% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
b:a
Evar am.V : farisr fl <_;>:::;:::ez:;:;;:;:<;,:wg:
d) 0-25% of wetland covered with emergent vegetation
Water present: ae isgn y, year-round
N
ECK/B BLACK RIVER
O9/I8/92 2
•
•
5., WILDLIFE HABITAT
Diversity.
a. Very high diversity; 3 or more wetland classes, one of which is Open Water
.......::::...... ::::.:::
b<:::>:s :;div .lama En eagasi nc;O. :e... waSs 2:< traz tL da wfOpen Wa z
c. Medium diversity, 2 wetland classes w/out Open Water •
d. Low diversity; 1 wetland class
Size of wetland:
I �
a. 0-5 acres •
b. 5-10 acres
d. 20-30 acres
e. over 30 acres
Percent of forested wetland:
•
a. 75-100%
b. 50-75%
d. 0-25%
e. 0%
•
Surrounding land uses:
li
a. upland forest •
•
jib sti ff `- n1i a:rritam t'::assiaad
c. active agricultural/grass
d. urban: residential
Ee:!iozgqsnosga5tsaeavraa
Unique features:
a. raptures nest structures
b. •Snags >25 feet high or <25 feet high cavity nesting birds, cavity nesting ducks w/open water foraging
for woodpeckers, small mammals, insects
tom.
. rou.bn'
ehed:lcees:::err:slu:::....:.:._::...::�.;...
ms nga3y wer
f. other
Presence of water: permanent, SeasCzaI
6i. FISHERIES HABITAT
•
b..:.applicable
•
Comments:
BECK/fl BLACK RIVER '
09/18/92 .3
p I
a
7. ACTIVE/PASSIVE RECREATION, HERITAGE AND EDUCATION
ArcPcs to wetland:
kag.A
bL road
C.I boat
d 1. isolated
Access on the wetland:
a trail
b I road
c. boat
Environmental problems: visual,
•
Location to schools: Not applicable
•
1' . •
•
•
7-1
•
BL-KfT3 BLACK RIVER
09/18/9111 4
1
O O TAC
C a) i a
•
m C a) a' _______ =_-_-_-_____- __' _- 1 q
iim.
C C• C Cq _____ _______--__- - __ �••�- 17 .. .
I
a chi a�iL oa0 _ _ _____= ____ 0
N c) 0 ___ ________ -_ V , WETLANDS, LAKES
:E 0 c ----------------maga :-±7.,,:;=?;.=?:::;=::!;:, 1 W3K vy
•
m > a7 ; =-_-____=__-_--_ _- _____- g 1'')7 %'4.
.EN
WSK COAL CREEK
RIVERS & STREAMS
m O m 0 I-
ca _ __ ='-/ `W1 K W4KS5K TRIBUTARIES
C O m ___________-==_____-__ _____=__=__=___r ii 526K ,AO:y .O
ii
i
•
ii
___ $ _- 41
a = __=- tf< 7 f.<s.. ' -� `IO \ •
a �+['A T ? ,sip 1<zS. li i • �� w7K 'QY6K 530K � Lakes
L 7 '-._ :J EA 1 _avow-- -------_ .75.j.:4 =a S-1 r �g- S23K, S18K �p� ----=-'f-
I- O) 5 .- F- <-__ $__-_= �''a, S15K "tp <�2 :<:.�s::i?>::,
«___ OK (City of Renton)
t fit\ - :i><
,p . , yam.----<. ---• --- ---�'�-� --- i W-29 � � 22K 521K �`�%'w. 1Petl,ands
gy 4y,� -..gg.: .dri'.". < o , ` W9K .
94i` /4' =_=:__ _ ` _ W15K Wetlands sL ___- -____-____ __' (Sing County)
____ - - -- •- - - � - -- -- -817K -- -......... tip ij2ii,i;F
1•
C S`'--___ =-__c _:_='= 0 �W 10K I'R f?
i____
�� 12K �i- Stm1.r ?�` L■.. '16K W19K - ";1 16K ��- Intermittent �S.irea is
\Gh r P '\W17K •W20K
•''�`G� 0;11
l d T• W41 K4 RLPern J`c'r' ❑ 1J1I - W18K W22K (0f,��y Illif:, CEMhrt1(1' RO v
;0�tr /, W23K ;,2f,
•W25K -
ir Highways
Nikp
(-�/1\ _1.11,r----,4\0
� S-25 'a S13K ICAT9LEw S7K ' Main Roads "' _,�V7
liPallZt::,,
- -2,0 W_4g � 16K-'. W-5A "!" ' ^.., ► s-24 •
S12K 56K Municipal Boundaries
W- B
�s,� OW 9 .' - S-27 W-` W29K W30K 514K114"
' '
- \)O 21 S-8 �� S 31 .. - -5_22_,`�_..:_J.• /+ )S11K `� LASS AfACBONdLD Sphere of Influence Bounti my
"°�+ +`, --. IP W31K 1 W34K W35K .W37K• �.
✓. +�W-13A
* � JI*" . - Y!-7N ,� b__�.'`f?�.� ��W36K NW38K
Jiff' 1
..__Ir
{ MF_�'�y 41 ' W33K S8K 59K MAPLE VALLEY Rp
7%w471.< r
W-1611p q"i��1,,_ , Q 6ty W48K
W-12�f1 r , 5 S1oK
�C 13C;;; ILii4X11 W64K x ,'W39K 7k
a Q ._ o S3K Wetlands and stream reach labels shown aro
1'4( W- w '0� . referenced in the Critical Areas Inventory.
z •�' W61K '
�, .saw,•;. W46K �%
. 0,1')
! 1!. W/ap
itill� 'p W49K W41. 0 W40K .
S-8 `' AIL.14 j ,36 W65K OhlgK 7W50K
W63K Y D
� _ 5128 W6DK ... \`� War DESIRE____ SPRING LASS '� .
•
_ W53K ------ 'O. i
�$ O W 34 y 3
-� y • L W51K �1,� .�
.•
_ W-1 p zW W54K/� S \ \
m LJ _ W52K \ `%
31174, 5 p K \/ 0 6000 Q
S 4 ST `p 58K �SHeDY'L!� >�i
Ilk . ....I W62K, ____`_ W4-4K �l
r �K NT wssK OW5K • _ - _---
_= =__=_____ 1;1 ...
=_ _;17/
I m -==- _-_- LONG RANGE PLANNING
\\\1-1
P/B/P�f Technical Services
1 1111
5 Map 1998
Robert T. Rae Once. Ji.
- - \ -
. Source: Jones.& Stokes •asodatee 10/Es/sa -
CRITICAL AREAS INVENTORY
City of Renton
Wetlands and Stream Corridors
Prepared for:
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works
200 Mill Avenue S
Renton, WA 98055
Prepared by:
Jones & Stokes Associates
2820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
(206) 822-1077
In association with:
R. W. Beck and Associates
2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98121
June 1991
Tab1 of Contents
Page
11
INTR DUC:i'1ON 1
STUD METHODOLOGY 3
W tlands 3
City of Renton Incorporated Area 3
Sphere of Influence 4
Compilation and Summary of Data Sources 4
Fish Habitat 5
RESULTS 5
W tlands 5
City of Renton 5
Sphere of Influence 11
Fi 1 Habitat 11
City of Renton 11
Sphere of Influence 25
CITA V ONS 29
P '�� ted References 29
Ot' er Documents Reviewed, but not Cited 31
Pe'Isonal Communications 31
APPE .IX A - WETLAND TYPES
APPE D IX B - WETLAND PLANT ACRONYMS
i
List of Figures
Figure Page
. 1 City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Study Area - Renton
Incorporated Area and Sphere of Influence • 2
2 City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Wetlands and Stream
Corridors follows 28
3 City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Wetlands and Stream
Corridors within Sphere of Influence follows 28
ii
List f Tables -
I
- -
Table Page
1 City of Renton Critical Areas - Wetlands Inventory 6
2 Cityof Renton Critical Areas - Sher of InfluenceWetlands Sphere e s
Inventory 12
3 ' Cityof Renton Critical Areas - Stream Corridor Inventory17
4 Adult Salmonids Ascending the P-1 Pump Station at Black River
during the Years 1983 to 1990 23
5 City of Renton Critical Areas - Sphere of Influence Stream Corridor
Inventory 26
6 I City of Renton Critical Areas - Sphere of Influence Lake Inventory 28
•
ui
•
City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory
of Wetlands and Streams
INTRODUCTION
•
'Ile State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) (Washington
Adminisltrative Code Section 365-190,RCW Section 36.70A.050) has set forth guidelines and
requirements for inventorying critical areas within Washington cities and counties. This
interim report, with the accompanying maps, identify two categories of critical areas:
wetlands and fish habitat.
This inventory/mapping product was developed using existing resource information
such as maps, aerial photographs, reports, and limited field surveys to define the location
and nature of the wetland and stream resources within the City of Renton and in an area
of King County east of the city. This area is defined as the "sphere of influence" (Figure 1).
The locations of wetlands, streams, and lakes within the city were digitized onto the
existing ,City of Renton AutoCAD mapping system. Wetlands and streams were given
identific' tion numbers and.their locations were identified by township, range; section, and
hydrolo � c subbasins.
11 e locations of wetlands, streams, and lakes within the sphere of influence were
deterr*ed from three major sources: the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (1990)
and acco'inpanying King County Wetlands Inventory (1983); the Washington Department of
Fisherie stream catalog (1975);.and July.1990 color aerial photographs at a scale of 1 inch
equals ;000 feet. Time did not permit field surveys of wetlands or streams within the
_ sphere of influence.
e following section provides a description of wetland and stream study
method ,logy and a summary of these resources.
1
' I 1
1
I
1 . '.•_ _.1-;,!.. :. . _`..:-...• .•• -.....,. .).t_...iiii,litr.-•-•-" ...r=t............. .E I• 1•1 ii \kz=‘ -CW7!-
I i
r rsf
Sk _7--____ \
s • t
` ;. 1 --_ -- ff BELLEVUE I N4
•\....._,__.i j.
1, . t.v •
-.- I.eII.,'ei..l(ibt,m
, ,.7. , II ' i
1 lItl. .1 rfa li - ,,,,i .0,‘ t - ME
CITY OF =s: i '�-�i
k IL
J¼IRENTON.o •.� , i !E - till a garIi1:.� N1 .'�' iiii
• _ �� �� tgl-ar-
/f r/� III '`'C•I'"-' k' I X
r A- ---1ES . •'� �f �•e • RENTON 1 .
t, ` 1' rEA ' *nape-' • SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ' _
:! far. �A�• 14; rice •�� iti
; . ..�... ►._.`�:i,...z, .' min IL
Xikfro•�4�unlrG,! V�s'I �-i-1
eb k•--.. . VI 444111illas b --‘k ... .. .1 7 4--kt
1B • 11101101
1
i' •� is
IL., •‘"4111).-----......Toil,
4—"''..— IA'S 117" /00111ZA4 a...afl.s.,.....--- — „ 1 i
-7,r . 11114;.: iti4lwallizeurillir7raiii ieltirl"E19,J kcjra-11%,7:414. - 1 i
I
WI
if 'Wel : IA -4-,.,4%
'~ g 'Prial: 1 I \l,' 4
1 . 3. '� •
111
: - i \ - ,,, _____!*.:___\11kinset*\. 77
ILI/ • 1 4 `--;;
II I} I 4,1
,7_,, 4%1 9.Z. CI ____.C. -•v.r.r=_. .1--- . ..
•
Figure 1 . City of Renton Critical Areas Inventory Study Area -
1 Renton. Incorporated Area and Sphere of Influence
2
II
'
1
STUDY METHODOLOGY
Wetlands
City o Renton Incorporated Area
existing literature was reviewed to determine the known or likely presence of
wetlan��s within the City of Renton corporate boundaries. The following information was
used toll conduct the interim wetland inventcy:
• 1981 Reconnaissance Study of Selected Wetlands in the City of Renton;
• wetland reports prepared for properties within the city (see Citations);
• U,S. Soil Conservation Service - 1973 Soil Survey of the King County Area,
Washington;
7 Washington Hydric Soil List;
• National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps - Mercer Island and Renton
Quadrangles;
• Windshield surveyidentifiedwetland
s;
of
• 1990 true color aerial photographs (1 inch equals 1,000 feet) of the city.
e following describes how each of these sources was used in the study.
City of Renton - 1980 Reconnaissance Study of Selected Wetlands in the City of
Rento i This report identifies and describes 12 wetlands within the city. The wetlands
identified were mostly large (over 15 acres) and, at the time of the study, represented the
most conspicuous wetlands within the city. Information concerning size, location, type of
wetland, vegetation,.and hydrology was reviewed and maps of wetlands were compared to
the 1990 aerial photographs.
,livailable Wetland Reports. Wetland reports prepared for properties within the City
of Ren on were reviewed. Because several of these reports contained actual delineations, -
wetlans identified in these reports were considered to be the most accurate source of
information. In addition, the reports contained more thorough information regarding
vegetation, hydrology, and soils than did other sources.
oil Survey and Washington Hydric Soils List. Soils within the City of Renton were
iden led using. the King County Soil Survey and King County Area maps (1 inch equals
24,000 eet). The soil survey is based primarily on aerial photograph interpretation and is
theref re considered only an indicator of general soil types and not a precise soil
3
III
ill
delineation..-Soil types identified within the city were compared with the Washington Hydric
Soils List to determine whether they are included in the list of hydric,soils. The presence
of mapped hydric soils does not definitely indicate the presence.of wetlands in a particular
area. Only those areas with hydric soils lacking non-hydric inclusions were considered for
the critical areas inventory. These soil types are usually poorly drained, organic soils and
good indicators of potential wetlands.
National Wetland Inventory Maps. NWI maps of the city(1 inch equals 24,000'j feet)
were reviewed to identify previously inventoried wetlands. As with the soil survey
information, wetland delineations on NWI maps are based primarily on aerial photograph
interpretation and represent appro,imate boundaries of potential wetland areas.:
Windshield Surveys. Wetlands digitized onto the AutoCAD base map were]field
checked using the 1990 aerial photographs as a guide. The windshield survey was used to
verify the presence of the wetlands and to identify any land use changes that occurred since
the 1990 aerial photographs. Due to time constraints, no attempt was made to locate
wetlands not reported in previous literature or identified from the aerial photographs.
1990 True Color Aerial Photographs. A series of true color 9 inch by 9 inch aerial
photographs taken in July 1990 and of a scale of 1:12,000 (1 inch equals 1,000 feet) were
reviewed to confirm wetlands defined from the other sources and to possibly identify Other
wetlands. The 1990 aerial photographs represent the most recent account of land use and
wetland changes within the city.
, I
Sphere of Influence
Information on wetlands within the sphere of influence outside of the ,corporate
boundaries of the City of Renton and within King County was derived from the King County
sensitive areas map folio (1990) and the King County wetland inventory (1983). .
Locations of. wetlands were transferred directly onto a 1:24,000 U.S. Geological
Sur Ivey Mylar base map of the area. No field surveys of wetlands were conducted to verify
the presence of wetland or changes caused by land use changes since 1983.
Cotppilation and Summary of Data Sources
Wetlands identified by the above sources were digitized onto an AutoCAD 1:inch
equals 1,000 feet base map for use during the field reconnaissance survey. The series of
1990 color photographs and 1989 black and white aerial photographs having a scale of
1:241I,000 and two enlarged 1988 aerial photographs approximately 1:5,500 were used to
check for alterations of wetlands identified by one or more sources.
Information on each wetland was presented in tabular form. Because of the different
level of certainty inherit to each data source, wetlands identified by more than one source
were referenced by the most recent and accurate source. The relative accuracy of the
4
sources, from the most accurate to the least, is indicated as follows: wetland delineation
reports, aerial photographs, City of Renton 1981 Wetland Report, NWI maps, and.Soil
Survey.
Fish Habitat
inventory of fish habitat within the City of Renton was performed as part of the
critical areas survey. Initially, all surface waters and drainage basins within the city's
corpora Ile boundary were identified.by examining aerial photographs and topographic section
maps of the city (1:2400 scale). Stream reaches outside the corporate boundaries, but within
the sphere of influence (the area defined for study under the Growth Management Act)
were identified using the King County Sensitive areas map folio (King County 1990).
Ifter identifying surface waters in the study area, fish resource information and
li
related literature were reviewed to determine fish use in identified surface waters. Agency
personnel, and others with knowledge of Renton streams, were contacted to gain additional
insight into fish use in the area.
On May 1, 1991, fisheries biologists from Jones & Stokes Associates and R. W. Beck
conducted windshield surveys of several streams known to provide fish habitat. In addition,
several other streams with questionable fish habitat were inspected. During these surveys,
stream reaches were photographed and general information was collected using low-level
stream survey techniques (Appendix C). Stream reaches were determined by major changes
in macrohabitat type (e.g., slope, discharge, water quality). The types of data collected
included: stream width and depth; temperature;pool to riffle ratio; dominant substrate type;
stream gradient; presence of barriers to fish passage;;presence of fish; riparian cover; and
adjacent land uses.
A map of streams within the Renton city limits was produced by digitizing stream
channel from existing topographic maps (supplied by the city) using AutoCAD.
RESULTS
Wetlands
City of Renton
The results of the wetland inventory within the Renton corporate boundaries are
presented in Table 1. Figure 2 presents the identification number and location of wetlands
within the city.
5
•
•
•
Table 1. City of Renton Critical Areas - Wetlands Inventory •
•
•
High Quality Permanent
Ref. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Name Location Subbasin Type' Acres Species" Nat'l Her.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
W.1 City of Springbrook 23N 5E 31 Lower Empire PFO —30 ALRU,POTR,RUSP, High quality Permanent Flow through Springbrook Cr. Unknown Large snags
Renton'81 SASPP
W-2 City of ' Cedar R 23N SE 21 Tiffany Park PEM,PFO 3 TYLA,JUSPP,POTR High quality Permanent Flow through Isolated Cascade to river Unique
Renton'81 Marsh
W-3 City of O'rillia Pond 23N 4E 36 Valley POW,FPO, 6 POTR,SASPP,OESA, Iluge, Seasonal Open water None apparent Ideal waterfowl habitat
Renton'81 PEM ALRU,PIIAR,RUSPP, disturbed
Open water,snags central area
W-4 City of Panther Cr. 23N SE 19, Panther Cr. PFO,PEM 65 PFO: POTR,SASPP, Yes;high Permanent Complex and Panther Cr., Multiple Substantially rerouted flow,
Renton'81 30,31 ALRU quality,diverse altered stream from culverts to diverse habitat;third highest
PEM: PI1AR,TYLA habitat north valley area ranked wetland In city
R W.Beck
'89
W-S City of Black R. 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire- PFO 20 POTR,FRIA,ACMA, Old growth, Seasonal Seasonally P-1 Pond, Pond high value open apace;highest
Renton'81 Riparian SASPP wildlife" flooded seasonally ranked wetland in city by'81
flooded ,inventory,tome parts of this
area are upland
W-5a City of ' Blackriver 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire PSS 0.1 JUSPP,SASPP No Seasonal Isolated Nonc None Disturbed site;to be removed
Renton'91c Tract A and mitigated
W-Sb City of Blackriver • 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire PEM 1.14 SASPP No Seasonal Runoff, P-1 Pond Pond Remnant ofold Black R
Renton'91c Tract B flooding channel
W-5c ISA'90a Blackriver 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire PFO;PSS —23 POTR,SASPP Variable Permanent Groundwater P-I Pond .To P-1 Pond Clearcut in 1987;partially filled
Tract C P-1 Pond
W.5d City of P-1 Pond 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire POW,PEM,PSS —17 POTR,CASFP,JUSPP Yes Permanent [low through Springbrook Cr., Black R Regional detention pond
Renton 91c _ Black R-
_
W-6 Field Survey 16th St. 23N 4E 24 Valley, PPO/PSS 3 POTR SASPP No Seasonal Unknown Groundwater Unknown Dl3A has surveyed cite;north
'91 of Group Ileilth
W4 City of East Valley B 23N SE 19 Valley PEM/PSS 24 2 wetlands;TYLA, Good Permanent Closed May be some Unknown Very high diversity and
Renton'81 SASPP,POTR,snags diversity;snags connection with structure;good quality wetland
Panther Cr.
IFS'90a wetland
•
•
•
•
•
Table 1. Continued
•
' High Quality Permanent
Ref. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow Ilydrotogic Outlet
No. Source Name Location Subbasin Type. Acres Species•• Nat'l Ilcr.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
W-8 City of East Valley C 23N 5E 30 Valley PSS,PEM,PF0 11.74 PFO: FRLA,COSY, Medium Permanent flow•through To East Valley E Culverts Good structural diversity and
Renton'81 SASPP,POTR diversity to and (No.10)
variety sv and types;eight
PSS: TYLA low diversity seasonal wetlands,,seven on top of fill
Raedeke 91a,
b
•
W-9 City of East Valley D 23N 5E 19 Valley PEM,PSS,Pro, 2 PEM: TYLA,PH AR low Permanent flow through Springbrook Cr. Drainage ditch Majority of wetland hu been
Renton'81 POW PSS: SASPP filled;remnant on west side of
JSA,906
PFO: SASPP,COST Property.
W-10 City of East Valley E 23N 5E 30 Valley PM/POW 13 SASPP,COST,POTR Excellent; Permanent flow through Springbrook Cr. Unknown One of the highest quality
Ramon'81 good diversity _, wetlands in the city
----.1 W.11 City of East Valley'? 23N 5E 30 Valley 'PEM/PSS 28 PIIAR,TYLA,SASPP, Good Permanent Flow through Springbrook Cr. Unknown Good habitat diversity,snags
Renton'81 JUEF
W-12 City of Renton 23N 4E 25 Valley PEM 41 PILAU,TYLA,SASPP,s Iligh.quality Permanent Flow through To Springbrook Unknown Significant open water area and
Renton'81 Wetland' POSPP,JUSPP wildlife habitat Cr. highest ranked wetland in city
W-13 Boeing'91 Longacru 23N 4E 24 Valley PEM 26.6 PIIAR,TYLA,SASPP Variable Permanent Variable Springbrook Cr. Springbrook Cr. 26.6 acres of hydric soils;
disturbed areas;14.2 acres
• clearly wetland,remainder
"" unknown;needs Corps
verification '
W-14 D.Evans& Seattle Timu 23N 4E 25; Valley PEM 3.5 JUEP,AGAL,POTR,, Disturbed,low Seasonal Isolated Isolated None Disturbed;mat of site filled
Assoc.'89a,b Site 23N SE 30 SASPP • diversity and developed;wetlands on fill
W-15 Earth Rivertech 23N 4E 13 Lower Empire; PFO,PSS 3 POTR,FR1A,SASPP, Good Permanent Unknown To P-1 Pond Culvert to P-1 Associated with Black R.
Consultants South Renton COST,SPDO
.'90 Pond riparian and P-1 Pond area •
W-16 IFS/Scales ALLPAC Site T23N R4E Valley POTR,PIIAR,SASPP
'90 See.25
W-17 Renton'91a Kennydale 24N SE 32 Gypsy PEM 0:9 Unknown Low Permanent Unknown " Gypsy Cr. Gypsy Cr. Wetland mitigation site
Apts.
, W-18 VOID '
•
'W-19 Metro'91 Treatment 23N 4E 24 Lower Empire PEM 2 @ AGSPP,TRSPP,LOSPP Moderate Seasonally None Groundwater Drainage ditch Disturbed site
Plant 1.7 ea. flooded
•
•
Table 1. Continued
•
•
Iligh Quality Permanent
Ref. - Wetland Dominant Ilabitat/ or Flow Hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Name Location Subbasin Type' Acres Species" Nat'I Iler.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments _.
W-20 City of Orchards 23N SE 10 Maplewood PSS/PFO 5.32 RARE,LYAM,SPDO, High quality Seasonal Open water Isolated None Eight wetlands ranging from
Renton 91b RUDI,SASPP,PSME 0.03 to 2.45 acres;quality of
wetlands Class 2 and Class 3
(King Co.)
W-21 1ES 90b Container 23N 4E 24 Lower Empire PEM/PSS 4.7 SASPP,grasses Moderate to Permanent Flow through Black R. Unknown Disturbed building adjacent;
Corp.Site low value wetland associated with strum,
Shapiro& Black K.
Assoc.'09
W-22 NW1'73 23N 4E 25 Valley POW/PSS 1 SASPP,POTR Disturbed Unknown Yes;stream Unknown Unknown
Bow through
Aerial Photos • •
--
00
Field Survey
'91
W-23 NWl 73 24N 5E 32 Lower May PFO —1 ALRU Permanent Unknown May Cr. Unknown No access
Cr.
Aerial Photos
'90
Field Survey
'91
W-24 NWT'73 23N 5E 22 Arnold PSS/PFO 10 SASPP,OF-SA,POTR . Good habitat Permanent Cedar K. Cedar R. Associated with river
Aerial Photos
'90 •
Field Survey
'91
W-25 Aerial Photos 2IN 5E 36 Lower Empire PEM,PFO,PSS 1 TYLA,POTR Good Permanent Unknown Unknown Unknown Small,disturbed
'90
Field Survey
'91
•
•
•
Table 1. Continued
• Iligh Quality Permanent
Ref. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow l lydrologic Outlet
No. Source Name Location Subbasin Type' Acres Species" Nat'l Ilcr.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
W-26 Aerial Photos N.E.31st St. 2AN 5E 32 Lower May PFO,PSS —2 POTR,ALRU,SASPP Good Permanent Flow through May Cr. May Cr. Good snap;some development
'90 Cr.
• Field Survey
'91
W-27 Aerial Photos 4th St. 23N SE 15 Maplewood PF0 1 Quaking Aspen,SASPP, Some habitat Seasonal None North of 4th is developed;
'90 POTR,SOAU in suburban ' south is ok
area
Field Survey
' '91
•
W-28 VOID
l0 W-29 SCS'73 N.E.20th 24N 5E 5 South PFO/PSS —3 POTR,SASPP Disturbed Seasonal None South side of wetland is
Kennydalc developed;north is disturbed
Aerial Photos
'90
•
Field Survey •
'91
W-30 SCS'73 Jones Ave. 24N SE 32 Lower May PFO/l'SS —4. POTR,TYLA,JUEF, • Disturbed
Cr. SASPP
Aerial Photos
'90
Field Survey
'91
W-31 Aerial Photos Puget Wetland 23N 5E 19, Rolling llills PEM/PSS 1 SASPP,7YIA Moderate Permanent Flow through Stream Stream South or Puget Power property
'90 20
W-32 Aerial Photos 23N 4E 30 Valley PEM/PSS 3.5 AGSI'P,grasses,POTR Poor Seasonal Isolated Isolated None Wetlands on fill
'90
Field Survey
'91
•
•
•
•
•
Table 1. Continued
Iligh Quality Permanent
Ref. Wetland Dominant Ilabitat/ or flow Hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Name Location Subbasin Type' Acres Species" Nat'l Iler.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
W-33 Aerial Photo' 23N SE 30, Valley PEM/PSS —4 AGSPP,grasses,POTR Poor Seasonal Isolated Isolated None On fill;seven small isolated
'90 31
areas
Field Survey
'91
W-34 Aerial Photcc Talbot Rd. 23N SE 30 Panther Cr. PEM —I TYLA No Permanent (low through Stream Stream Wetland at headwaters of'mall
'90
creek at Talbot Rd.So.
Feld Survey •
'91
' Refer to Appendix A for definition of wetland types.
F--+ •' Refer to Appendix II(or definition of species acronyms.
State and federal threatened species-bald eagle. 06/14/91
total of 32 wetlands, totaling approximately 367 acres, were identified within the
city. The exact boundaries and acreage of many of these wetlands have not been identified
in the eld and therefore represent approximations of location and acreage.
P
S here of Influence
I
1
The results of the wetlands inventory within the sphere of influence are shown in
Table Figure 3 presents the wetlands located within the sphere of influence.
A total of 67 wetlands, totaling approximately 1,076 acres, were identified within the
city. The number and acreage of wetlands (approximately 259 acres) includes lakes. As
with the wetlands identified in the city, the number and location of wetlands within the
sphere of influence represents an approximation. Exact acreage would require boundary
delineation and surveying.
Fish Habitat
City of Renton
The results of the stream inventory are summarized in Table 3 and shown in
Figure F. Anadromous and/or resident salmonid fish use is reported to occur in at least six
of the i entified streams,including:the Cedar River, May Creek, Honey Creek, Springbrook
Creek, aplewood Creek, and Panther Creek. Salmonid use is limited to specific life stages
and str am reaches in some of the smaller creeks, but is widespread in other surface waters
such as'the Cedar River.
I brief description of fish usage and habitat reported for the inventoried streams is
presented below. It is important to note that most of the information from literature was
gathered prior to the severe winter storms of 1990/1991, and habitat conditions in some
strewni may have been altered.
Cedar River (Map ID Numbers S18. through S23). The largest surface water
identified within the study area is the lower Cedar River, which flows,for approximately 4.5
miles t ough the Renton City limits before entering the southern end of Lake Washington.
Land u 'e adjacent to the river changes from rural, near the eastern city boundary, to mixed
reside ial-commercial and finally becomes mostly industrial toward the mouth. The lower
river al"o supports recreational uses.
The river maintains a gentle gradient throughout the lower reaches. Instream habitat
is composed primarily of long glides,with occasional pools and riffles in the braided sections
of the.river. Streambank vegetation is comprised of intermittent stands of deciduous trees
•
11
Table 2. City of Renton Critical Areas - Sphere of Influence Wetlands Inventory
Iligh Quality Permanent
Ref. King Co. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow I lydrologic Outlet
No. Source Wetland No.• Location Basin Type•• Acres Species•••' Nat'l Iler.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
•
K.1 King Co.Sensitive MC 9 2AN 5E 33 Cedar R. PSS,PFO 10 ALRU,'SASPP Moderate Permanent Stream Channel to Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'SO quality stream
•
K-2 King Co.Sensitive MC 12 24 515 33 Cedar R POW 1.2 SASPP Low quality Permanent Pond Stream Pipe to stream Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90
K-3 King Co.Sensitive MC 8 24N SE 28 Cedar R. 25 Unknown Permanent Lk.Boren To Lk.Boren Associated with Lk Boron
Areas Folio 90
K-4 King Co.Sensitive MC 7 • 24N 5E 34 Cedar R PSS,PEM 10 SPDO,JUEP Moderate Permanent Stream Channel to Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 quality stream
K-S King Co.Sensitive MC 4 24N 5E 34 Cedar R. PSS,PEM 13.3 SASPP,ALRU,OISA Moderate Permanent Stream Channel to Class 2 wetland;many snags,
Areas Polio 90 quality stream - perches
•
tU K-6 National Wetland MC 28b 24N 5E 35 •
3 Unknown National Wetlands Inventory
Inventory
maps;no county inventory
K-7 King Co.Sensitive MC S 23N 5E 2, Cedar R. PEM,PSS 142 ALRU,JUI?F,SASPP Potential bald Permanent Floodplain May Cr. Channels to Class 1 wetland;stream-
Areas Folio'90 3,4,'11,12 •
eagle wintering May Cr. associated
K-8 King Co.Sensitive MC 11 24N 5E 35 Cedar R PEM,PFO 16.5 ALRU,OISA • Moderate Permanent Headwater Stream Pipe to stream Class 2 wetland
Areas Polio'90 quality y for May Cr.
K-9 VOID
K-l0 King Co.Sensitive MC 13 23N 6E 7 Cedar R. PFO 5 ALRU,SASPP,ACC!, Potential bald Permanent Stream Pipe to stream Class I wetland
Areas Folio'90 LYAM eagle wintering
•
K-11 National Wetland MC 27b 23N 6E 7 4 Unknown National Wetland Inventory
Inventory •
maps;no county Inventory
K-12 National Wetland MC 266 2.-IN 6E 7 Cedar R - 2 Unknown Tributary to National Wetland Inventory
Inventory - May Cr. maps;no county inventory
K-13 King Co.Sensitive MC14 23N 6E 7 Cedar R PFO,PEM 3 FRLA,JUEF,ALRU Moderate Permanent Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90
quality
K-14 King Co.Sensitive MC 15 23N 6E 7 Cedar R PFO,PSS 51 FR1A,ALRU,RUSP Moderate Permanent Floodplain May Cr. Overland to Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 quality May Cr. '
K-15 King'Co.Sensitive MC 6 23N 5E 3 Cedar R. PSS,PFO 3.8 ALRU,SASPP Moderate Permanent headwaters to Pipe to stream Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 quality Iloncy Cr.
•
Table 2. Continued
High Quality Permanent
Ref. King Co. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow Hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Wetland No. Location Basin Type•• Acres Species'" Nat'l Her.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
-
K-16 National Wetland MC 4b 23N SE 10 Cedar R 8 ' Unknown National Wetland Inventory;no
Inventory
'county inventory
K-17 National Wetland LCR/MC 23N SE 11 Cedar R. 5 Unknown National Wetland Inventory,no
Inventory 23b
county inventory
K-18 National Wetland MC 22b 23N SE 11 Cedar R. 7 Unknown National Wetland Inventory,no
• Inventory •
•
county inventory
K-19 National Wetland MC 20b 23N SE 11 ,Cedar It 2 Unknown National Wetland Inventory;no
Inventory
county inventory
K-20 National Wetland MC 21b 23N SE 11 Cedar It 2 Unknown National Wetland Inventory,no
>--s Inventory county inventory
W K-21 King Co.Sensitive LCR 150 23N SE 10; Cedar It PPO 23.7 Unknown Permanent
Areas Folio'90 15
K-22 MC 3 23N SE 11 Cedar IL PSS,PFO 8.2 ALRU,SASPP,ACCI, Low quality Seasonal Urban runoff Channel to Class 2 wetland;degraded
OPIIO •
stream
K-23 King Co.Sensitive - MC 2 23N SE 13 Cedar It POW,PSS,PEM II SPDO,PIIAR,ALRU, Good quality Permanent Stream Pipe to stream Class 1 wetland;snags
Areas Folio'90 ACMA
K-24 National Wetlands LCR 100b 23N SE 13 Cedar It 2 Unknown •
No county inventory
Inventory
K-25 King Co.Sensitive LCR 1 23N SE 13 Cedar It PEM,PSS 03 SASPP Poor quality Seasonal Stream Pipe to stream Class 2 wetland;cattle grazing
Areas Folio'90
K-26 National Wetlands LCR 101b 23N SE 13 Cedar IL 5 Unknown To stream No county inventory
Inventory
K-27 King Co.Sensitive MC 1 23N 6E 18 Cedar It I,PSS 61 SPDO,NYOD Bald eagle Permanent Lk.Kathreen To May Cr. Class 1 wetland
Areas Polio'90
winter visitor tributary
K-28 King Co.Sensitive IC 10 23N 6E 20 Cedar IL I,PSS,PFO 163 NYOD,SPDO,ALRU Moderate Permanent Lk. Channel to Class 1 wetland
Areas Folio'90 value McDonald stream
K-29 National Wetlands LCR I0b 23N SE 22 Cedar It 23 Unknown No county inventory
•
Inventory
K-30 King Co.Sensitive LCR 96 23N SE 22 Cedar R 23 Unknown
Areas Folio'90
Table 2. Continued
High Quality Permanent
Ref. King Co. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Wetland No.' Location Basin Type" Acres Species"' Nat'l 11cr.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
K-31 King Co.Sensitive LCR 3 23N SE 23 Cedar R. PEM,PLO 2 TYLA,ALRU Moderate Permanent Overland Unknown Unknown Class 2 wetland
Areas Polio'90 value seasonal
K-32 National Wetlands LCR 8b 23N SE 23 Cedar R 2 •
Inventory
K-33 King Co.Sensitive LCR 17 23N SE 23 Cedar IL PEM,LAB 2 TYIA Low value Permanent Overland Unknown Overland Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 --
K.34 National Wetlands LCR 5b 23N SE 23 Cedar R. 2 Unknown No county inventory
Inventory
K-35 King Co.Sensitive LCR 6 23N SE 23 Cedar It LAB,PUB 14 Algae,ALRU Good quality Seasonal Flow through Overland to Class I wetland
1--+ Areas Folio'90 Cedar R.
K-36 King Co.Sensitive LCR 103 23N 5E 23 Cedar R - . 7 Unknown
. Areas Folio'90 -' -,
K-37 King Co.Sensitive LCR 7 23N SE 23 Cedar It PAB 0.9 Open water Poor quality Permanent Pond Pipe to stream Class 3 wetland
Areas Polio'90
K-38 King Co.Sensitive LCR 37 23N 6E 19 Cedar B. 25'
' Areas Folio'90
K-39 National Wetlands LCR 104b 23N 6E 29 Cedar It 23 Unknown No county inventory
• . Inventory
K-40 King Co.Sensitive LCR 105 23N 6E 29 Cedar R. 20
Areas Folio'90•
K-41 National Wetlands .LCR Illb 23N 6E 29 Cedar R • 3 Unknown No county inventory
Inventory . - _
K-42 National Wetlands LCR 112b 23N 6E 32 Cedar'R- 3 Unknown No county inventory .
Inventory .
K43 King Co.Sensitive _ LCR 29 23N 6E 32 Cedar R. PEM 1.3 TYIA Poor quality Permanent Unknown Channel to Class 2 wetland;grazing.around
Areal:Polio'90 stream arca
K-44 King Co.Sensitive LCR 42 23N 6E 5 Cedar B. PUB,PSS 15 SPDO,ALRU,RUPA Moderate Permanent Peterson Lk. Lake Channel to Class 2 wetland •
Areas Folio'90 quality stream
K-I5 King Co.Sensitive 1-CR 28 23N 6E 31 Cedar R. PFO,PSS,L 83 ALRU Yes;bog Spring Lk. Class 1 wetland;bog •
Areas Folio'90
•
•
Table 2. Continued •
High Quality Permanent
Ref. King Co- Wetland Dominant Habitat/ or Flow Hydrologic Outlet
No. Source Wetland No. Location Basin Type" Acres Species'•• Nat'l tier.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
K-46 King Co.Sensitive LCR 15 23N 5 25 Cedar IL PFO,PSS 17 TSIIE,LEGR,SASPP Yes;bog •Permanent Lk.Desire To Lk.Desire Pipe to lake Class 1 wetland;snags
•
Areas Folio'90
K-47 King Co.Sensitive LCR 14 23N 6 30 Cedar R. PFO,PSS,PUB 43 TSIIE,LEGR Yes;bog Permanent Open channel Class 1 wetland,peat extraction
Areas Folio'90
to stream site
K-t8 King Co.Sensitive LCR 102 23N 6 30 Cedar R. 10 Unknown Five small wetlands
Areas Folio'90
K-49 King Co.Sensitive LCR 16 23N 5 25, Cedar R PSS,PEM,PAD 14 LEGR,TYLA,NYOD, Yes;bog Permanent Unknown Unknown Pipe to stream Class 1 wetland
Areas Folio'90 36 TSIIE
K-SO King Co.Sensitive LCR 18 23N 5 35 Cedar R. 3
Areas Folio'90Two wetlands
1--,
K•51 King Co.Sensitive LCR 25 ' 23N 5 35 ' Cedar IL PSS S LEGR,SPDO Yes;bog Permanent Overland Unknown Overland. Class 1 wetland
Areas Folio'90
undefined
' K-52 King Co.Sensitive LCR 23 23N 5 34 Cedar IL PFO,PSS 7.8 FRLA,TSIIE,SPDO Yes;bog Permanent Overland Unknown Overland Class 1 wetland •
Areas Polio'90
undefined
K-53 King Co.Sensitive LCR 22 23N 5 34 Cedar R' PSS,PUB 12 LEGR,SPDO Yes;bog Permanent Unknown Unknown Pipe to stream Class 1 wetland
Areas Folio'90
K-54 King Co.Sensitive. SC 5 23N 5 34 Green R. PEM . 3 TYLA,JUEF Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown Channel to pipe Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90
value
K-55 King Co.Sensitive SC 21 23N 5 3 Green R. 2 '
Areas Folio'90
K-56 King Co.Sensitive SC 9 22N 5 3,4 Green R PSS,PFO,PEM 82 SASPP,SPDO,TSI1E, Good quality Permanent Overland Unknown Overland to Class 2 wetland
' Areas Folio'90 JUEF stream
K-S7 King Co.Sensitive SC 4 22N 5 4 Green R. 1'SS 4 SPDO Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown Channel to Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 quality stream
K-58 King Co.Sensitive SC 6 22N 5 4 Green IL POW 0.6 Open water Poor quality Permanent Unknown Unknown None Class 3 wetland
Areas Folio'90
K-59 King Co.Sensitive SC 7 22N 5'4 Green R POW 0.4 Open water Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown None Class 2 wetland
Areas Polio 90 quality
KLO National Wetlands SC 13b 23N 5 33 Green IL 2 Unknown No county survey
Inventory
Table 2. Continued
•
•
Iligh Quality Permanent
Ref. King Co. Wetland Dominant Habitat/ . or flow Ilydrologic Outlet
No. Source Wetland No.• Location Basin Type•• Acres Species••• Nat'l Iler.Site Seasonal Pattern Connections Type Comments
K-dI King Co.Sensitive SC 104 23N 5 28 Green R. 4
Areas Folio'90
K-62 King Co.Sensitive SC 8 22N 5 4 Green R. POW,PFO 3:4 SASPP,open water Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown Channel to Class 2 wetland •
Areas Folio'90 - quality stream
K-63 King Co.Sensitive SC 2 23N 5 28, Green K. PSS,PFO,POW, 134 SASPP,1.BGR,TSIIB, Moderate Permanent Overland Stream Pipe-and Class 1 wetland;bog area Is
Areas Folio'90 33 PBM TYLA,open water quality overland drying up
K-64 King Co.Sensitive LCR 20 23N 5 28 Cedar R. PSS ' 3 SASPP,ALRU Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown Pipe Class 2 wetland;inside Cascade
Areas Polio'90 quality Park
K-65 National Wetlands SC lob 23N 5 28 Cedar It 1 Unknown No county survey
r-+ Inventory
K-66 King Co.Sensitive SC 1 23N 5 29 Cedar R. PBM 7.1 TYLA Moderate Permanent Unknown Unknown Channel to Class 2 wetland
Areas Folio'90 quality stream
K-67 King Co.Sensitive SC 21 23N 5 32 Cedar R. 5 Unknown
Areas Folio'90
K M King Co.Sensitive BR 6 22N 5 4,5 Green K. I,PSS,PBM 62.6 NYOD,SPDO Good quality Permanent Unknown Unknown Channel to Class 1 wetland;snags
Areas Folio'90 - • Panther Cr.
• MC.•May Creek
LCR•• Lower Cedar River
IC- Issaquah Creek
SC••Soon Creek
BR• Black River
•• Refer to Appendix A for definition of wetland types.
•
•••Refer to Appendix B for definition of species acronyms. 06/14/91
•
Table 3. City of Renton Critical Areas - Stream Corridor Inventory
•
City of Reach Channel Wetted Estimated/ Salmonid
Ref. Creek WDP WDP Renton Length Width Width Observed Pool: Bank Fish
No., Name No. Drainage Subbasin Location Reach (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) flow(cis) Gradient Riffle Cover Habitat Comments
S-I Unnamed tributary, 0020 Black R. Valley 22N SE Sec.5 Upper 1,525 5-10' 3-5' —1' 20-30% 0:100 Good cover No;barricred headwaters;residential
Springbrook Cr. • and buffers
S 2 Unnamed tributary, 0021 Black R. Valley 22N SE Sec.5 Upper 1,275 5-10' }5' —1' 20-30% 0:100 Good cover No;barriercd Ilcadneaters;residential
Springbrook Cr. •
and buffers
S-3 Unnamed tributary, 0020 Black R. Valley 22N SE Sec.6 Lower 1,300 5-10' 3-5' —1' 7-8% 0:100 Good cover No;barricrcd Ileadwaters;residential
Springbrook Cr. and buffers
S-4 Unnamed tributary, 0021 Black R. Valley 22N SE Sec.6 Lower 1,250 5-10' 3-5' —1' 7-8% 0:100 Good cover No;barriered headwaters;residential
Springbrook Cr. and buffers
S-5 P-1 Pond and 0005 Black R. Valley 23N 4E Sec.13 Lower 3,950 50-2W varies dependent <1 100:0 Shrubs and Limited;poor Could provide winter
Springbrook Cr.
r_a on grasses water quality habitat if pump station is
�.) pumping passable upstream to
- juvenile coho
S-6 Springbrook Cr. 0005 Black R- Valley 23N 4E Sec.24 Mid 1 6,705 50 50 dependent <I All glide Grasses and Limited;poor Could provide winter
-
on landscaped water quality habitat if pump station is
pumping passable upstream to
juvenile coho;light
Industrial
S-7 Springbrook Cr. 0005 Black R. Valley 23N 4E Sec.25 Mid 2 5,750 50 50 dependent <1 All glide Shrubs and Limited;poor Could provide winter
on grasses water quality habitat if pump station is
pumping passable upstream to
juvenile coho;light
industrial
S-8 Springbrook Cr. 0035 Black It Valley 23N 4E See.36 Mid 3 2,200 50 50 dependent <1 All glide Shrubs and Limited;poor Could provide winter
on grasses water quality habitat If pump station is
pumping passable upstream to
juvenile coho;light
industrial
5-9 May Cr. 0282 So.Lake Lower May Cr. 24N 5E Sec.32 Lower 9,250 20 15 6-8 1 20:80 Sec Comments Yes;Chinook, Sparse alder below 405;
Washington coho,sockeye, 60-80%cover above 405;
steclhead wide buffer(40'+);
residential
5-10 May Cr. 0282 So.Lake Lower May Cr. 24N 5E Sec.33 Mid 1,300 20 IS Obv.6-8 1 20:80 See Comments Yes;Chinook, 60-80%cover,wide buffer
Washington Rcc.Avg. coho,sockeye, (40'+);residential
22 steclhead
•
Table 3. Continued
•
City of Reach Channel Wetted Estimated/ Salmonid
Ref. Creek WDP WDF Renton Length Width Width Observed Pool: Bank Fish
No. Name No. 'Drainage Subbasin Location Reach (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) I'low(cfs) Gradient Riffle Cover Habitat Comments
S-11 Honey Cr. 0285 So.Lake Honey Cr. 23N SC Sec.4 Lower 6,450 10' 5' 7 5-8% 7 Forested; Yes;coho Primary tributary to May
Washington 100'+buffer Cr.;lighi residential
S-l2 Honey Cr. 0285 So.Lake Honey Cr. 23N SE Sec.3 Upper 3,650 7 ? <1 >2 1:8 Deciduous and Not likely Light commercial and
Washington 8t evergreen residential
trees;shrubs
S-13 Kennydale Cr. — So.Lake So.Kennydale 23N SE Sec.5 All 1500 7' 3' —1' 10+ 7 Shrubs and Not likely,too Good buffer and canopy,
Washington blackberries steep residential
S-14 John's Cr. — So.Lake No.Renton 23N 5E Sec.8 Lower 1,150 15 10 3-5' <1 7 Shrubs and Not likely;poor Industrial
Washington trees habitat
5-15" John's Cr. — So.Lake No.Renton 23N SE Sec.8 Upper 5,750 10' S' 3-5' <1 7 Shrubs and Not likely Industrial
1--s Washington trees
CO
S-16 Unnamed tributary — So.Lake No.Renton 23N SC Sec.8 All 1,300 7' 3' ? 5 7 7 Not likely Industrial
to John's Cr. Washington
S-17 Gypsy — So.Lake Gypsy 24N SE Sec.29 All 2,625 10' 5' —1' 7-10 0:100' Shrubs and Not likely,too Sparse cover,small buffer,
Washington berries steep residential
S-18 Cedar R 0299 Lower Cedar R Cedar Outfall 23N 5E Sec.7 Lower 4,500 140 120 Rec.Ave. , <1 All glide Sparse to none Yes;chinook, Industrial
, 710 coho,sockeye,
stenthead
S-19 Cedar IL 0299 Lower Cedar R Cedar Outfall 23N SE Sec.18 Mid 1,700 120 100 Rec.Ave. <1 All glide Interspersed Yes;chinook, Residential
710 shrubs and coho,sockeye,
trees steelhead
S-20 Cedar R- 0299 Lower Cedar R Mt.Olivet/ 23N SE Sec.17 Lower 6,700 120 100 Rec.Ave. <1 All glide Interspersed Yes;chinook, Residential
Tiffany'Park 710 shrubs and coho,sockeye,•
trees - steclhead
S-21 Cedar R. 0299 Lower Cedar R Mt.Olivet/ 23N SE Sec.16 Lower 3,100 120 100 Rec.Ave. <I All glide Interspersed Yes;chinook, Residential
Tiffany Park 710 shrubs and coho,sockeye,
trees , steelhead
5-22 Cedar IL 0299 Lower Cedar R Maplewood 23N 5E Sec.21 Mid 4,575 120 100 Rec.Ave. <1 All glide Interspersed Yes;chinook, Residential
710 shrubs and coho,sockeye,
trees steelhead
5-23 Cedar It 0299 Lower Cedar R Not noted on 23N SE Sec.22 Mid 3,000 120 100 7 <1 All glide Interspersed Yes;chinook, Residential
city watershed - shrubs and coho,sockeye,
map trees steelhcad
•
•
•
Table 3. Continued
City of Reach Channel Wetted Estimated/ Salmonid
Ref. Creek' WDF WDF Renton Length Width Width Observed Pool: flank Fish
No. Name No. Drainage Subbasin Location Reach (ft.) (ft.) (ft.) Flow(cfs) Gradient Riffle Cover Habitat Comments
S-24 Maplewood Cr. 0302 Lower Cedar R Maplewood 23N SC Sec.21 Lower 320 7 5 1-3 <1 0;100 None Limited;echo Narrow,open channel
•
through Golf Cr.
5-25 Maplewood Cr. 0302 Lower Cedar R Maplewood 23N SC Sec.15 Mid 3,150 10• 5• 1-3• 1-8 10:90• Good cover. No;barriered Forested and residential
and buffers
S-26 Maplewood Cr. 0302 Lower'Cedar R Maplewood 23N SE Sec.10 Upper Two 7 5 —I• <1 7 Good cover No;barricrcd Residential
forks; and buffers
2,350'
5-27. Unnamed tributary — Lower Cedar R. Tiffany Park 23N SE Sec.21 All 5,500 7• 3• 7 20-30 at 5:95• Broken canopy Not likely,too Residential in upper
to Cedar R mouth; steep reaches
rest 1-8
r--+ S-28 Panther Cr. 0006. Black R Panther Cr. 23N SE See.30 Lower 2,0e0 10 5 1-3 1-3 25:75 Broken canopy Yes;coho Culvert at Talbot Road
blocks upstream fish
•
page
•Pitimated from topographic maps. 06/14/91
and underbrush. Extensive areas of cleared land occur along the riverbank, primarily in
developed areas. Riprap bank protection has been placed along some sections of the river,
particularly in sections of downtown Renton.
Anadromous salmonids which use the lower Cedar River include chinook
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisuteh),and sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and steelhead
trout (O. mykiss). These salmonids primarily use this lower section (within the Renton City
limits) as a migration corridor for adults, and a rearing corridor for juveniles. Chinook and
sockeye salmon spawn in the mainstem river, while coho salmon spawn in the smaller
tributary streams. However, spawning primarily occurs upstream, beyond the eastern
boundary of the city.
May Creek (Map ID Numbers S9 and 10). May Creek originates from Lake
Kathleen and flows westerly for approximately 8.6 miles to Lake Washington near
Kennydale. Approximately 2 miles of the stream is within the Renton city limits. May
Creek Park provides a protective buffer.of open space between most of the creek and
adjacent areas within the city.
Between Lake Washington Boulevard and Lake Washington, May Creek is
channelized with some riprap bank protection. This section of the creek skirts a commercial
land use area, and very little bank vegetation is present.
The lower portion of the stream, from Lake Washington Boulevard to approximately
river mile (RM) 1, flows within a broad ravine with a moderate slope of about 2.5%. Dense
deciduous growth is present along the lower mile of stream. Between RM 1 and RM 2, the
stream lies within a steeper sided ravine. The bank cover remains dense, but consists of a
mixed conifer and deciduous stand, with conifers and shrubs covering the upper slopes.
The creek channel averages about 15 feet in width, with the substrate composed
primarily of gravel and cobble. Instream habitat is comprised predominantly of high quality
riffle habitat, glides, and a small percentage of pools.
Several anadromous salmonids use May Creek for spawning and rearing. Coho
salmon are the dominant species with chinook and possibly a few sockeye occurring
occasionally. Cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and steelhead also occur in the stream in limited
numbers (Schneider pers. comm.).
Honey Creek (Map ID Numbers S11 and S12). The following description of the
lower reaches of Honey Creek was obtained from a report prepared for the City of Renton
Public Works Department (Watershed Dynamics Inc. 1990). Honey Creek is a 1.2 mile-long
tributary to May Creek,which flows to Lake Washington within the Renton city limits. The
lower reach of Honey Creek (below Sunset Boulevard) flows through a narrow, steeply
incised canyon, which supports a dense canopy of evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as
various understory shrubs. A sewage pipeline parallels the creek throughout most of its
lower reach. An access road for the sewer line runs adjacent to the creek and crosses the
creek in several locations.
20
e lower reach of the creek averages 8 feet in width and is generally shallow.
Stream substrate is largely composed of 3 to 6 inch gravel, with larger cobble substrate
commo throughout the creek. Stream gradient is moderately steep, varying from 2.5% to
7%. I tream habitat is comprised predominantly of high gradient riffle habitat, with a
small p rcent pool an ru
e upperage reachof of Honeydn habitat.Creek (above Sunset Boulevard) lies on a gentle slope
(approximately 1%). Through the uppermost two-thirds of the upper reach, the creek has
a mode, ately wide riparian buffer and good canopy cover consisting of primarily deciduous
trees. The land use along most of Honey Creek is low density residential. However, the
creek traverses ?n area of light commercial development along Sunset Boulevard through
a culvert.
Several partial blockages to fish migration may exist in the lower reach of the creek.
These blockages are the result of elevation changes and debris dams, with the degree of
blockait varying with creek flow.
everal salmonid species are known to be present in the lower reach of Honey Creek,
including cutthroat trout and coho salmon. There was insufficient data to determine if the
cutthroat trout were resident or anadromous. The upstream extent of fish use in Honey
Creek not known.
To augment natural coho spawning in the Honey Creek, students in the Renton
School District elementary schools have planted approximately 2,800 coho salmon fry each
year (E ler pers. comet.).
ennydale Creek (Map ID Number S13). Kennydale Creek is a small creek located
between, Lake Washington and Interstate 405. The creek originates near Interstate 405,
flowing down a moderately steep hillside for approximately 1,500 feet to Coulon Park,where
it discharges to Lake Washington.
The streamside vegetation consists of a dense canopy of large deciduous trees and
understory of shrubs. In addition, the Renton Parks Department has recently completed
vegetation enhancement activities to provide cover for waterfowl and shade for the creek
on the section of creek that flows through Coulon Park (Betlach pers. comm.).
Fish habitat is limited in the creek because of the steep gradient and low flows. Fish
have not been reported in the literature and were not observed in the creek during the
survey.
Johns Creek and Unnamed Tributary (Map ID Numbers S14 through S16). Johns
Creek is,a manmade drainage which was built to convey stormwater runoff from the Boeing
plant (Berg pers. comm.). The channel collects runoff along the east side of the plant, flows
through 'Coulon Park, and discharges to Lake Washington.
d
Areas of the streambank within Coulon Park have been enhanced to provide habitat
for waterfowl and other wildlife that use the creek. Streamside vegetation within the park
21
•
includes cottonwoods (Populus spp.), and various ornamental shrubs and trees. Deciduous
trees and shrubs line the creek above the park.
Fish habitat in the stream is most likely poor because of inferior water quality, high
temperatures, and low flows. Anadromous fish have not been observed in the creek, and
probably do not use the creek for either spawning or rearing. Sculpins (Leptocottus sp.) and
suckers (Catostomus sp.) are the only fish species which have been observed in the lower
section of Johns Creek by park personnel (Berg pers. comm.).
An unnamed tributary to Johns Creek is located in the industrial section of the city
-ear the Boeing plant. This tributary has a higher gradient and carries less flow than Johns
Creek. Fish habitat is likely poor in this tributary as well.
Springbrook Creek and Unnamed Tributary Streams (Map ID Numbers S1
through SS). Springbrook Creek is formed by four east valley tributaries including the
mainstem, a tributary originating from Springbrook Springs, Mill Creek, and Harrison Creek
(Washington Department of Fisheries 1975). Springbrook Creek is considered one of the
major tributaries to the lower Green River (Metro 1991). From its headwaters in Kent, the
creek flows north for approximately 10 miles along the east valley hillside before entering
the Black River channel. A pumping station was constructed at the mouth of the Black
River channel by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in 1971 to prevent waters from the
Duwamish River from backing up into the old Black River channel and Springbrook Creek.
A downstream and upstream salmonid fish passage facility was incorporated into the
pump station facility. A Denali fish ladder was installed in the pump station to allow
upstream passage of adult salmonids. According to the Washington Department of
Fisheries, however, the operation of the pumping plant precludes the upstream migration
of cutthroat and steelhead trout (Metro 1991). This could indicate that upstream passage
of juvenile coho salmon during the winter would also be restricted. The airlift pump station
that passes downstream migrant salmonids typically operates from April 1 to mid-June
(Allmendinger pers. comm.)
In 1984, Springbrook Creek was channelized to contain increased peak flows from
local drainages north of Interstate 405 and the Southcenter area. The channel is
approximately 8 miles long and is called the P-1 (primary) Channel (Metro 1991). Because
the P-1 Channel generally follows the former Springbrook Creek channel, it is referred to
as both the P-1 Channel and Springbrook Creek (Metro 1991). In 1984, SCS widened the
P-1 Channel between the pump station and Grady Way to form the P-1 Pond.
Prior to channelization, Springbrook Creek supported runs of coho salmon and other
anadromous species such as steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus
malma). The Washington Department of Fisheries currently release 80,000 to 100,000 coho
fry annually into the P-1 Channel. Adult progeny from these releases return to Springbrook
Creek to spawn. A fish counter at the pump station indicates that 47 to 166 adult coho
ascended the fish ladder each year between 1983 and 1990 (Allmendinger pers. comm.) (see
Table 4).
22
i ..
Table 4. Adult Salmonids Ascending the P-1 Pump Station
at Black River during the Years 1983 to 1990
Year Quantity
1983 - 1984 155 ,
1984 - 1985 119
1985 1986 47
1986 - 1987 82
1987 - 1988 166
1988 - 1989 95
1989 - 1990 77
Source: Metro 1990
•
The P-1 Channel does not provide habitat suitable for either adult spawning, because
of lack �lif suitable spawning substrate. The fact that adult salmon ascend the fish ladder and
enter the P-1 Channel suggests that spawning occurs farther upstream in the creek and its
tributaries. The channel provides limited juvenile rearing habitat due to poor water quality
(e.g. elevated summer water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels) (Metro 1991).
Unnamed Independent (Map ID Number S17). A small unnamed creek which flows •
to Lakel Washington is located near the northern boundary of the city and drains a small
sparsely populated hillside to the east of Interstate 405. The drainage basin of the creek is
small Old steep, with an average stream gradient of 7 to 10%. A narrow band of
stream lank vegetation comprised of shrubs and berry bushes, lines the creek. It is likely
that the steep gradient precludes fish entering all but the lower most reaches of the creek.
Ianther Creek (Map ID Number S28). The following description of Panther Creek
was obtained from a 1990 report prepared for the City of Renton Public Works Department
(R. W. ieck and Associates 1989).
panther Creek originates at Panther Lake, a shallow, dystrophic lake located outside
the Renton city limits. From Panther Lake, the creek generally flows northwest, entering
the Renon city limits at Talbot Road, and continues into the Panther Creek wetlands. The
creek pisses through a culvert under Talbot Road which empties approximately 4 feet above
the stye grade and forms a barrier to fish migrating upstream
ear the south end of the wetland, the creek flows through a culvert under the State
Route 1 7 into a 36-inch-diameter culvert, then flows in an open channel along the East
Valley 'ghwayto Southwest 34th Street,where it makes a 90 degree turn to the west, flows
for a sh rt distance on the surface, then enters an underground pipe to Springbrook Creek.
I
23
Fish habitat in Panther Creek is limited for several reasons including low
summertime flows, migration barriers, and conveyance pipes between Springbrook Creek
and the Panther Creek wetland.
A fishery survey conducted by R. W. Beck and Associates in 1989 yielded one adult
and one juvenile rainbow trout, and several nongame species. These fish were thought to
originate from Panther Lake rather than residing in the lower creek.
I Maplewood Creek. Maplewood Creek is a small tributary to the Cedar.River, located
in.the Maplewood area of Renton. Two forks form the headwaters of the creek; they
converge several thousand feet downstream to form the mainstem. The mainstem flows
through a relatively steep ravine, then is channelized through the Maplewood golf course.
The upper reaches of the creek (above the confluence of the headwaters) are
characterized by a dense riparian corridor, which creates a good buffer between the creek
and residential development. Instream,habitat is composed of long riffles, with occasional
shallow pools.
The middle reach of the creek (between the confluence of the headwaters and the
golf course) has a steeper gradient, but is characterized by the same riparian and buffer
characteristics, as well as similar instream habitat. The primary land use surrounding the
middle stream section is residential.
The lower reaches of Maplewood Creek flow through the Maplewood Golf Course.
This stream section is a channelized, low-gradient riffle and contains virtually no riparian
cover. Below the golf course, the stream is conveyed, through culverts, to the Cedar River.
Fish use in Maplewood Creek is restricted to the lower reaches of the creek due to
the presence of a diversion structure and a bedload trap on the creek just upstream of the
golf course. Anadromous fish use below these structures are likely restricted due to the
small stream size, lack of cover and structure, and higher summer stream temperatures.
Fish were not observed during the survey.
Unnamed Cedar River Tributary. This unnamed tributary is approximately 1 mile
in iilength and enters the Cedar River about 1 mile east of Interstate 405: The creek
originates in Tiffany Park and enters a culvert at the corner of Talbot Road and South 15th
Street.
Upstream of the culvert the gradient varies from 1 to 8%. The stream is buffered
from surrounding residents. by the thick stand of deciduous trees present in the park.
Anadromous fish use in the creek is unlikely due to the steep gradient between the exposed
stream channel and the Cedar River.
24
Sphere of Influence
1Table 5 presents the inventory of streams within the sphere of influence of the city.
Figure 3 identifies the location of those streams. A total of 37 miles of streams were
iden ':ed from the King County sensitive area map folio (1990) and the Washington
Dep. ,sent of Fisheries stream catalog (1975).
Table 6 presents a summary of lakes (also see Figure 3) within the sphere of
influence. These lakes total 259 acres.
•
25
•
•
Table 5. City of Renton Critical Areas - Sphere of Influence Stream Corridor Inventory
City of Reach Channel Wetted Pstimated/ Salmonid
•
Ref. Creek WDF WDF Renton Length 'Width , Width Observed Pool: Bank Fish
No. Name No. Drainage' Subbasin Location Reach (mi.) (ft.) (ft.) Flow(cfs) Gradient Riffle Cover Habitat Comments
SIK Big Soot Cr. 0072 Soon Cr. N/A 23N SE 28,33 3.0 <1% Chinook,coho,
22N SE 3,4
chum
S2K Unnamed tributary N/A Soon Cr. N/A : 22N SE 3 0.60 2-3% Coho likely ' Class 2;contains salmonids
of Big Soon Cr.
(King Co.map folio)
S3K- Molasses Cr. 0304 Lk.Washington N/A 23N SE 22,27 2.1 8.2% Coho,sockeye Short section flows in
culvert under subdivision;
steep gradient •
S.K Madsen Cr. 0305 Lk.Washington N/A 23N SE 22,23, 2.9 2.3% Colic. Steep.gradient in middle
26 - portion of creak
SSK Unnamed tributary N/A Lk.Washington N/A 24N SE 28 0.8 3-4% Unknown Small creek flows through
•
of Lk.Boren
residential area
S6K McDonald Cr. 0212 Issaquah.Cr. N/A 23N 613 7,16, 2.6 2.0% Coho
tV 17
C7\
S7K Unnamed outlet N/A Issaquah Cr. N/A 23N 6E 17 0.8 SS% •
Possibly,none Steep gradient
stream of Lk. listed
McDonald
SSK Unnamed tributary 0313 Cedar R N/A 23N SE 23,24, 0.4 >5% Unknown All have impassible barriers
of Cedar R 25
59K Unnamed tributary 0312 Cedar R. N/A 23N SE 23,24, 0.7 • >5% Unknown All have impassible barriers
.of Cedar R •25 .
SIOK Unnamed tributary ' 0311 Cedar R. N/A 23N SE 23,24, 1.7 >5% Unknown All have impassible barriers
of Cedar R 23
SI IK Unnamed tributary 0307 Cedar R. N/A 23N SE 13,23, 1.0 3.0% Unknown Impassible barrier
. of Cedar R 2q
S12K Unnamed tributary 0308 Cedar R. N/A 23N SE 13,23, 1.0 3.0% Unknown Impassible barrier
of Cedar.R. . 24 ,
S13K Unnamed tributary 0309' Cedar R N/A 23N SE 13,23, 0.2 3.0% Unknown Impassible barrier
of Cedar R 24
S1 Unnamed tributary 0310 Cedar Ft. 23N SE 13,23, 1.2
4K 3.0% Coho In lower reaches
of Cedar R. 24
•
SISK May Cr.mainstem 0282 S.Lk. N/A 24N SE 33,34 5.2 <I% Chinook,coho, Low gradient flows through
Washington 23N 5E 3,2, sockeye May Valley
11,12
• 23N 6E 7 •
-
Table 5. Continued
City of Reach Channel Wetted Estimated/ Salmonid
Ref. Creek WUP • WDP Renton Length Width Width Observed Pool: flank Fish
No. Name No. Drainage Subbasin Location Reach (ml.) (ft.) (ft.) Flow(c(s) _ Gradient Riffle Cover Habitat Comments
S16K Unnamed tributary 0297 S.Lk. . N/A 23N 6E 7 1.0 <1%in Coho Lower half flows through
of May Cr. Washington May May Valley,upper half
Valley flows through steep hillside
SI7K Unnamed tributary 0294 • S.Lk ,N/A 23N 6E 6 1.3 1.0% Coho unlikely Too steep
of May Cr. Washington
S18K Unnamed tributary 0295 .S.Lk. N/A !23N 6C 6 0.7 8.7% Coho unlikely Too steep
of May Cr. Washington
'S19K Unnamed tributary 0296 S.Lk. N/A 23N 6E 6 0.4 1.0% • • Coho likely Extension of 0249
of May Cr. Washington
520K Unnamed tributary 0292 S.Lk. N/A 23N SE 1,2, 13 47o Unknown Steep gradient
of May Cr. Washington 12
S21K Unnamed tributary 0293 S.Lk. N/A 23N 5E 1,2, 1.65 i 8.0% Unknown Steep gradient
N of May Cr. Washington 12
S22K Unnamed tributary 0291 S.Lk. N/A 24N SE 35 1.6 63% Unknown Steep gradient
of May Cr. Washington
1
S23K Unnamed tributary 0289 . ' S.Lk. N/A 24N SE 35 0.8 9.0% - Unknown Steep gradient in'middle
of May Cr. Washington • suction
S24K Unnamed tributary 0290 S.Lk. N/A -24N SC 35 0.3 9.0% Unknown Steep gradient in middle
of May Cr. Washington suction
S25K Unnamed tributary 0287 S.Lk. N/A 24N SI!34 1.0 2.4% Unknown Outlet of Lk.Boren;steep
of May Cr. Washington • gradient near mouth
S26K Unnamed tributary 0286 5.Lk. N/A 24N 5E 33 0.8 5.1% Unknown Sleep gradient
of May Cr. Washington
S27K Honey Cr. 0285 S.Lk: N/A 2IN SC 32,32 1.0 2.4% Coho Steep gradient
Washington
S28K Unnamed tributary '0284 S.Lt N/A 23N Sn 4 1.2 3.1% Coho Steep gradient
of May Cr. Washington
S29K Unnamed tributary 0277 S.Lk. N/A 24N SE 35,36 0.2 20% Unlikely Steep gradient near mouth
-of Coal Cr. Washington
530K Unnamed tributary 0278 S.Lk N/A 2AN SC 35,36 0.45 20% Unlikely Impassible barriers
of Coal Cr. Washington' • downstream
•
06/14/91
Table 6. City of Renton Critical Areas - Sphere of Influence Lake Inventory
.Lake City of Renton Surface Fish
Name Subbasin Location Acres Habitat Comments
Panther N/A R5E T22N Sec.5 31 No Eutrophic lake becoming wetland
McDonald N/A R6E T23N Sec.20 17 Unknown Poor watcr quality
Desire N/A R5E T23N Sec.25,36 71 Yes; rainbow and cutthroat
N trout
Co
Spring(Otter) N/A R6E T23N Sec.31 68 Yes; brook,cutthroat,
rainbow trout; perch;catfish
Peterson N/A R6E T22N Sec.5 3 Unknown Majority of Iake Peterson lies outside
of boundary
Kathleen N/A R6E T23N Sec. 18 51 Unknown Poor water quality
Boren N/A R5E T24N Sec. 28 18 Unknown
CITATIONS
Printed References
Boeing Company. 1991. Longacres Park development information letter to the City of
Renton, Don Erickson. Renton, WA_ January 11, 1991.
City of Renton. 1981. Wetlands study: A reconnaissance study of selected wetlands in the
City of Renton. Prepared by the City of Renton Planning Department and
Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc.
1991a. Kennydale Apartments, 4000 Block of Lincoln Avenue Northeast.
Memorandum to Planning and Development Committee from Lynn A. Guttmann,
dministrator, Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Renton, WA.
. 1991b. The Orchards mixed-use development, supplemental draft environmental
impact statement. Renton, WA.
1991c. Black River Corporate Park tracts A and B office buildings, final
environmental impact statement. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
David Evans and Associates. 1989a. Wetland delineation of the Alaska Distributors site,
Renton, Washington. Prepared for Alaska Distributors Company, Seattle, WA_
1989b. Wetland delineation for the Seattle Times facility.
•
Earth Consultants Inc. 1990. Wetland delineation of the Rivertech Corporate Park.
Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Bellevue, WA.
IES Associates. 1990a. Biological report of the Austin Property, Renton, WA.
.1 1990b. Biological evaluation and wetlands delineation, Cascadia Property
Southeast 120th Street and Duvall Avenue Southeast for Northward Properties,
Bellevue, WA.
IES Associates and Scoles and Associates. 1990. Preliminary wetlands evaluation of the Al •
lac site Southwest 27th Street, Renton, WA. Prepared for Al Pac Associates,
Seattle, WA.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990a. Letter to Washington Department of Ecology
regarding wetlands on tract C (northside).
. 1990b. Wetland report of the Vyzis Southgate property, Bellevae,WA.
29
King County. 1983. King County wetlands inventory. Three volumes. Seattle, WA.
. 1990. Sensitive areas map folio. King County Department of Parks, Planning and
Resources. Seattle, WA.
Metro. 1978. A profile of water quality in the Cedar-Green River basins. Technical
appendix no. 5. Seattle, WA.
. 1990. Water quality status report for marine waters 1989. Seattle, WA.
. 1991. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement- Metro treatment plant
at Renton. Technical appendix. Seattle, WA.
Mejtro. 1991. Metro Treatment Plant at Renton, WA_ Draft supplemental environmental
impact statement. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell et al.
Raedeke Associates Scientific Consulting. 1989. Wetland assessment of the Washington
Technical Center, Renton, WA. Prepared for Davis Real Estate Services, Seattle,
WA.
. 1991a. Puget Western, Inc. Materials Management Complex (MMC) property,
Renton, WA. Letter report.
. 1991b. Conceptual wetland mitigation plan for the Puget Western Business Park,
Renton, WA. March 11, 1991.
R.W. Beck and Associates. 1989. City of Renton, WA, Panther Creek wetlands/P-9
channel design wetland inventory. Draft.
. 1990. City of Renton east side Green River watershed plan. Seattle, WA.
Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1989. Wetland delineation of the Container Corporation of
America site, Renton, WA. Prepared for James Garrison, Bruce Blume and
Company, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
. 1981. Mercer Island and Renton quadrangles. National wetland inventory maps.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil survey, King County area, WA.
Washington Department of Fisheries. 1975.A catalogue of Washington streams and salmon
utilization. Volume 1. Puget Sound Region.
Watershed Dynamics Inc. 1990. Honey Creek habitat survey. Prepared for City of Renton
Public Works Department.
30
d -
Other Documents Reviewed, but not Cited
Bogle Gates. 1990. Alaska Distributors Co. File No. SA-128-89. Declaration of non-
significance response letter to City of Renton. Renton, WA.
City of Renton. 1990. KPFF Consulting Engineers seeking approval to reconfigure a 25.5
acre existing parcel to replat four (4) lots into two (2) lots. Community Development
Department preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner. Renton, WA.
. 1991. The Austin Company site plan approval for an office park complex.
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works preliminary report to the Hearing
Examiner. Renton, WA.
. 1981. Earlington Park - Required mitigation. Review of proposal, draft EIS and
final EIS. Letter to First City Equities. Renton, WA.
. '1987. Wetlands, an pverview of city policy draft issue paper. Renton, WA.
. 1990. Bruce Blume and Company. File No: SA - 112-89. Approval for a
warehouse/office complex. Office of the Hearing Examiner. Renton, WA.
Glacier Park Company. 1990. Alaska Distributors Co. site and storm retention plans
review. Letter.
•
TES Associates. 1989. Wetlands enhancement plan and retention/detention pond
re' vegetation plan of the Renton east project,Kent, WA, for Dick Gilroy, Northward
Properties. Bellevue, WA
KPFF Consulting Engineers. 1990. Glacier Park short plat: ECF; SHPL-125-89. Seattle,
WA
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1990. Review of Vyzis Southgate property
buffer and mitigation proposed. Olympia, WA.
Personal Communications
Allmendinger, Harry. Pump Plant Operator. King County Public Works Department,
Renton, WA. May 23, 1991 - telephone conversation.
Berg, Randy. Park Employee. Renton Parks Department, Renton WA. May 17, 1991 -
telephone conversation.
31
Berg, Randy. Park Employee. Renton Parks Department, Renton WA. May 17, 1991 -
telephone conversation.
Betlatch, Leslie. Open Space Coordinator. Renton Parks Department, Renton, WA.
May 20, 1991 - telephone conversation.
Epler, Susanna. Science Specialist. Renton School District, Renton, WA. May 17, 1991 -
telephone conversation.
Schneider, Phil. Habitat Biologist. Washington Department of Wildlife, Mill Creek, WA.
May 20, 1991 - telephone conversation.
32
Appendix A. Wetland Types
APPENDIX A
Wetland Types as Defined by the Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States
Wetland Type Definition
II
POW Palustrine open water
PSS Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland
I' L Lacustrine
PAB Palustrine aquatic bed
PUB Palustrine unconsolidated bottom
PEM Palustrine emergent wetland ,
it PFO Palustrine forested wetland
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979
if
II
Appendix B. Wetland Plant Acronyms
Appendix B. Wetland Plant Acronyms
A assumed wetland CUSA . . . . saltmarsh dodder (Cuscuta salina)
ACCI vine maple (Acer circinatum) CYSC . . . . Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius)
ACMA . . big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) DAGL . . . . orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)
ADPE maidenhair fern (Adiatum pedatum) DECE . . . . tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa)
AGAL red-top bentgrass (Agrostis alba) DIFO . . . . bleeding heart (Dicentra formosa)
AGSPP bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) DISP saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
AG l'b . . . . colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis) DRAR coastal shield fern (Dryopteris arguta)
ALPL . . . .. common water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica) . DRAU mountain wood-fern (Dtyopteris austriaca)
ALPR . . . . meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratense) DUAR dulichium (Dulichium arundinaceum)
ALRU . . . . red alder (Alnus rubra) ELOV ovate spikerush (Eleocharis ovata)
ALSPP . .•. . foxtail (Alopecurus spp.) ELPA creeping spike rush (Eleocharis palustris)
ASSU . . . . Douglas aster (Aster subspicatus) ELSPP spike rush (Eleodzaris spp.)
ATFI lady fern (Athyrium filix femina) EPAN . . . . fireweed (Epilobium angustifolia)
ATPA saltbrush (Atriplex patula) EPWA . . . . Watson's willow-herb (Epilobitun watsonii)
BEAQ Oregon grape (Berberis aquilinum) EQAR . . . . horsetail (Equisetum arvense)
BENE dull Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) EQHY . . . . common scouring rush (Equisetum hyemale)
BLSP deer-fern (Blechnum spicant) EQ'iE . . . . giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia)
BURREED burreed (Sparganium spp.) FEAR . . . . tall fescue (Festuca anindinaceae)
CAAQ water sedge (Carex aquatilis) FERU . . . . red fescue (Festuca nubra)
CALY Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei) FESPP . . . . fescue (Festuca spp.)
CAOB slough sedge (Carex obnupta) FILBERT . filbert (Coizylus comuta)
CASPP sedge (Carex spp.) FRLA . . . . Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
CIAR Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) . GAAP . . . . catchreed bedstraw (Galium aparine)
CIDO . water hemlock (Cicuta douglasii) GASH . . . . salal (Gaultheria shallon)
CINQUE marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla palustris) GASPP . . . bedstraw (Galium spp.)
CIVU Russian thistle (Cirsium.vulgare) GEMA . . . largeleaved avens (Geum macrophyllum)
COCO brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia) GERO . . . . Robert geranium (Geranium robertianum)
COMPLAN common plantain (Plantago major) GLEL . . . . tall manna grass (Glyceria elata)
COST red-osier dogwood. (Corpus stolonifera) GRIN . . . . gumweed (Grindelia integrifolia)
CRDO Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) HOBR . . . . meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum)
CRSPP hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) HODI . . . . ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor)
Appendix B. Continued
__ HO_LA ._._._-._velvetgr_ass-(Holcus-lanatus) _ __ —___ P--HCA-._._.-.-Pacific-ninebark-,Physocar_pu. capitatus) ---
HYPE . . . . St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) PHPR . . . . timothy (Phleum pratense)
IMNO . . . . touch-me-not (Impatiens noli-tangere) PISI Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)
IRPS yellow flag (Iris pseudacorus) PL palustrine
JACA . . . . fleshy jaumea (Jaumea carnosa) PLLA English plantain (Plantago lanceolata)
JUAC . . . . taper-tip rush (Juncus acuminatus) PLMA seaside plantain (Plantago maritima)
JUBU . . . . toad rush (Juncus bufonius) POCU Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
JUEF . . . . soft rush (Juncus effusus) POHY water pepper (Polygonum hydropiper)
JUEN . . . . dagger-leaf rush (Juncus ensifolius) POMU sword fern (Polystichum munitum)
JUSPP . . rushes (Juncus spp.) POPA Pacific silverweed (Potentilla pacifica)
JUTE . . . . slender rush (Juncus tenuis) POPE spotted lady's thumb (Polygonum persicdaria)
KAOC . . . . swamp laurel (Kalmia occidentalis) POPR Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)
LEGR . . bog labrador-3PSMEtea (Ledum groenlandicum) POSPP smartweed (Polygonum spp.)
LEMI . . . . lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) PO'1'R black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
LOCO . . . . bird's foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) PRVU common selfheal.(Prunella vulgaris)
LOSPP . . . ryegrass (Lolium spp.,) PSME Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
LOIN twin-berry (Lonicera involucrata) PTAQ . . . . bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum)
LOPE perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) PYFU . . . . western crabapple (Pyres fusca)
LYAM skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) RAAQ . . . . water buttercup (Ranunculus aquatilis)
LYSA purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) RAOR . . . . straightbeak buttercup (Ranunculus orthorhynchus)
MADI false lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum dilatatum) RARE . . . . creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
MAMA pineapple weed (Matricaria matricarioides) RHPU . . . . cascara (Rhamnus purshiana)
METR bog bean (Menyanthes trifoliata) RIBR stink currant (Ribes bracteosum)
MISPP . . . . monkey-flower (Mimulus spp.) RIHU stinking currant (Ribes hudsonianum)
MYLA . . . . forget-me-not (Myosotis laza) RILA swamp gooseberry (Ribes lacustre)
NUPO . . . . spatterdock (Nuphar polysepalum) RINA liverwort (Ricciocarpus natans)
NYOD . . . . American water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) RISA red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum)
OECE . . . . Indian plum (Demlaria cerasifonnis) RONA . . . : water-cress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum)
OESA . . . . water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) RONO Nootka rose (Rosa nootkana)
OPHO . . . . devil's club (Oplopanax horridum) RUCR curly dock (Rumex crispus)
PHAR . . . . reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) RUDI Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor)
'la
•
Appendix B. Continued
RULA evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) TRAR . . . . arctic starflower (Trientalis arctica)
RUPA thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) TREMBLIN trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides)
RUSP salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) TRMA . . . . seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum)
RUSPP blackberry (Rubus spp.) TRRE . . . . white clover (Trifolium repens)
RUUR dewberry (Rubus ursinus) • 'I'RSPP . . . clover (Trifolium spp.)
SARA House elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) TRTA . . . . little transenella (Transennella tantilla)
SASPP willow (Salix spp.) TSHE . . . . western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
SAW pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) TYLA . . . . common cattail (Typha latifolia)
SCAC hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) URDI . . . . stinging nettle (Urtica dioica)
SCAM American bulrush (Scirpus americanum) UTMI . . . . lesser bladderwort (Utricularia minor)
SCFL river bulrush (Scirpus fluviatilis) VAOV . . . . evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum)
SCMA saltmarsh bulrush (Scirpus maritimus) VAPA . . . . red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)
SCMI small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) VEAM . . . American brooklime (Veronica americana)
SCVA softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) VESC. . . . . marsh speedwell (Veronica scuttellata)
SISU hemlock water parsnip (Sium suave) VIPA marsh violet (Viola palustris)
SOAU . . . European mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia) VISA vetch (Vicia sativa)
SODU . . . . bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera) W wetland
SOSC . . . mountain ash (Sorbus scopulina)
SPAL smooth cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora)
SPDO Douglas' spirea (Spiraea douglasii)
SPMA saltmarsh sandspurry (Spergularia marina)
SPSPP sphagnum (Sphagnum spp.)
STCO Cooley's hedge-nettle (Stachys cooleyae)
SYAL common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)
TAOF dandelion (Taraxacum officianale)
'I'EGR fringe cup (Tellima grandiflora)
THPL western red cedar (Thuja plicata)
TITR trefoil foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata)
TOME pig-a-back (Tolmiea menziesii)
ATTACHMENT G —.
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-93-076,ECF
APPLICANT: City of Renton Development Services
PROJECT NAME: Shorelines Master Program -Amendments
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposal is for legislation to amend portions of the existing Shorelines
Master Program. The proposed amendments are: 1) Provision of specific shorelines/environmental designation(s) for
Springbrook Creek from Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd Street at the south (Section 5 Shorelines Master Program);
2) Amendment of the "wetlands/wetland areas" definition (Section 9 Shorelines Master Program); and, 3) Clarification of
the appeals procedure from actions of the Hearing Examiner (Sections 1.03/2.02/2.10). This proposal is considered a
non-project (programmatic) action under SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-060).
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed Shorelines Master Program amendments includes modifications
to areas located: 1) Along that portion of Springbrook Creek which begins at Grady Way and continues to SW 43rd Street
(the Kent/Renton boundary); 2) Wetlands/wetland areas associated with water bodies (including floodplains/floodways) •
throughout the City. .
LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made by the Environmental Review Committee under the authority of Section 4-6-
6, Renton Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information, on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be
involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fifteen (15) days from July 26, 1993. Any interested party may
submit written comments or appeal this decision in writing by 5:00 p.m., August 10, 1993. You should be prepared to
make specific factual objections. Contact City of Renton, Development Services Division to read or ask about the
procedures for SEPA appeals.
PUBLICATION DATE: July 26, 1993
DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 1993
SIGNATURE : •
( /
...\\__-7.--- ---------____- - .
Lynn A. uttman , Administrator DAfiE
Departm t of P nning/Building/Public Works
-_.�� �_ ��� -7—z/✓ 3
Sam Chastain, Administrator DATE
Comm nity Service Department
.in (3-&' /7/v ' -2,
;Le heeler, Fire Ch f
DATE !
R� o t n Fire Departm nt
•
dnssig.doc
,:.;::::.:'{•::::•::::::}::•:;;}>:i::•:::;•::::b::vi:<:::::::isii;:::::>::::n::;>:;.:;:::.::;b:7:::t_;•:;y:r:;:::::::;:G:i:;::::>:;;::::;:•:i:;::;;;::•;:::G;k::�':'';'S:b;;a::'<6>i::>::;::>:::::;>:.:::::<:r:%:::::>;>;::S;::;>:o;;;;a;;::v,:::>:;::::;::.::;;;;:.>;:»:.s::::::.:::%::;::;•>:::.::a:;::.:;:
•
....................................:...:.........................................E��IR.. .�i
Purpose of Checklist: •
The State Environmental. Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider
the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must
be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The
purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and
to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring
preparation' of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known., or give the best
description,you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you
really do not know the- answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not
apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional
information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of Checklist for Non project Proposals: •
Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN
ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For non project actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist
to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected
geographic area," respectively.
City of Renton En, ironmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments• _
06/02/93 Page 2 , Fi
•
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: _:
Shorelines Master Program -Amendments
2. Name of applicant:
Donald Erickson
Principal Planner
DeveloRment Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: •
Donald Erickson
Principal Planner
Develokment Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton Washington 98055
4. Date checklist prepared:
May, 1993
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Renton
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): •
Amendritients to the. Shorelines Master Program will be recorded and implemented following review and
adoptio- by city and state agencies.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with
this proposal? If yes, explain.
No. However, the Shorelines Master Program is amended every four years (Shorelines Master Program
2.12), in' keeping with the Shorelines Management Act, as necessary to reflect new City regulations and
policies
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,
directly related to this proposal.
In preparing this proposal the City has relied, in part, upon environmental information available in the City's
regulations, including, but not limited to, the Environmental Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance
and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
9. Do you' know whether applications are pending for governmental app-rpvals of other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. -
The City is in the process of reviewing both private developments and public improvements which could be
directly affected by the proposed amendments to the Shorelines Master Program.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist ,' ;Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 3
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1.
The Department of Ecology (DOE) must approve this proposed non-project action. No other approvals are l'
required, as the proposed amendments to the Shorelines Master Programs are defined as a non-project
action (SEPA Rules WAC 197-11-704 and 197-11-774).
•
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the
project and affected geographic area.
The proposal is for legislation to amend portions of the existing Shorelines Master Program, reflecting areas
now under SMP and local jurisdiction. As such, this proposal is considered a non-project (programmatic)
action. No development is proposed in conjunction with this non-project-action.
The proposed Shorelines Master Program Amendments are listed briefly below. A more extensive
description is attached (Exhibit 1): •
• Provision of specific designation(s) for Springbrook Creek from Grady Way at the north to SW 43rd
Street at the south (Shorelines Master Program Section 5);
•
• Provision of a specific designation for portions of the southern bank of the Cedar River between the
intersection of the Cedar River and Maple Valley Highway on the west and the eastern boundary of
• the City (Shorelines Master Program Section 5);
s , Amendment of the "wetlands" definition (Shorelines Master Program Section 9)
• Clarification of the appeals procedure from actions of the Hearing. Examiner (Shorelines Master
Program (Sections 1.03/2.10)
The amended SMP is intended to be consistent with the State Shorelines Management Act. This Act, under
definitions for wetlands (RCW 90.58.030 [2] [f]), allows any county or city to determine that portion of the 100
year floodplain which is to be included in the local master program as long as such portion includes, as a
minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred (200) feet therefrom
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location
of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, town ship, and range if
known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the
affected geographic area(s). Provide a legal description, affected geographic area plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
The proposed Shorelines Master Program amendments includes modifications to areas located on the
attached map - Exhibit I). Specific affected areas include:
• That portion of Springbrook Creek which begins at Grady Way and continues to SW 43rd Street (the
Kent/Renton boundary).
• That portion of the southern bank of the Cedar River between the intersection of the Cedar River and
Maple Valley Highway on the west and the eastern boundary of the City.
In addition selected areas of the City which host wetlands associated with water bodies (including
floodplains/floodways) will be modified.as a result of the adoption of the proposed SMP amendments. These
areas are now incorporated into the City's recently adopted Wetlands Management Ordinance.
These modifications are proposed in order to ensure that the Shorelines Master Program is consistent with
other local ordinances ,addressing shorelines/wetland preservation and utilization. The. proposed
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 4 , •
modifications are intended to be consistent, as well, with the Shorelines Management Act (SMA); these
modifications have been developed under the "local options" provision of the SMA.
{
(Note:11 A proposal is also being made to clarify language describing appeal procedures from shorelines
relatec decisions as currently located in the Shorelines Master Program [SMP] Sections 1.03 and Section
2.10. As this is an administrative amendment rather than an amendments to those sections of the SMP which
addreiss environmental topics, this administrative action will receive no further attention in the Environmental
11
Checklist.). Additional information on this amendment is reported in Exhibit 1.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
EARTHI
a. General description of the affectedgeographic area (circle one); flat, rolling, hill steep
)� 9� Y�
slopes, mountainous, other
As this is a non-project action, there is no site per se. These amendments would apply to those areas
within the City of Renton which are covered with water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, floodways and
lands adjacent to waterbodies: The basin in which the City of Renton lies was formed through
glaciation; the underlying terrain is composed of glacial till.
•
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?)
As this is a non-project action, there is no site per se. Within the affected geographic area under the
jurisdiction of the SMP, there are varying slopes, ranging from 0% slope to slopes of 40% or greater
(up to 100%).
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)?
If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
As this is a non-project action, there is no site per se. Within the affected geographic area under the
jurisdiction of the SMP, the U. S. Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County indicates that
four soil types are found: Alderwood Association, Oridia-Seattle-Woodinville Association, Everett
Association and Bausite geographic•area-Alderwood Association.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
As this is a non-project action, there is no site per se. Within the affected geographic area under the
jurisdiction of the SMP within the major valleys and shoreline bluffs may be susceptible to gravity
slides or seismic events where they are bordered by steeply sloped unconsolidated glacial deposits.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments do not include
specific developments that could directly result in filling and/or grading impacts. With future specific
public or private development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA
Rules, examination of fill and grade impacts would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, City
regulations and policies.
f. 'Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
!This questions is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in erosion. With
those future specific public or private development applications which require environmental review
City of Renton Environmental Checklist , ; Shorelines Master Program Amendments
' 08/02/93 Page 5
under SEPA Rules, examination of erosion-related impacts would be required, based upon SEPA
Rules, City regulations and policies.
•
•
•
•
•
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93
1, Page 6
g. About what percent of the affected geographic area will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for AXample, asphalt or buildings)?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in impacts from the
introduction of impervious surfaces. With those future specific public or private development
applications which required environmental review under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts related
to changes in impervious surfaces would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, City regulations and
policies.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in impacts to the
earth: With those future specific public or private development applications which require
environmental review under SEPA Rules, examination of measures to mitigate impacts to the earth
would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, City regulations and policies.
2. AIR
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile,
odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in impacts to.air
. quality. With those future specific public or private development applications which do require
environmental review under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts to air emission would be required,
based upon SEPA Rules, City regulations and policies.
b. Are there any off-affected geographic area sources of emission or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in air emissions.
With those future specific public or private development applications which do require environmental
review under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts to air quality would be required, based upon SEPA
Rules, City regulations and policies.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in air emissions.
'With those future specific public or private development applications, which do require environmental
review under SEPA Rules, examination of measures to mitigate impacts to air quality would be
required, based upon SEPA Rules, City regulations and policies.
3. WATER
a. Surface Water:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of' the affected
geographic area (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream
or river it flows into.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist "Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 7 •
The proposed non-project action (amendments to the SMP under the local option as
described in RCW 90:58.030 [2] [f]) includes specific designations to: (i) Springbrook Creek
(from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd Street on the south), and (ii) to the southern
boundary of the Cedar River from the intersection of the River with Maple Valley Highway on
the west to the eastern boundary of the'City,
In addition, a proposed amendment to the SMP definition of "wetlands" (and associated
floodways and floodplains) is intended to apply to wetlands and floodways/floodplains
associated with shorelines in the affected geographic area.
•
As this proposal for amendments to the SMP is a non-project action, rather than a specific
development action, no direct impacts to surface water will occur from the SMP amendments.
With future specific developments for which environmental review is required under SEPA
Rules, applicants would be required to provide information concerning impacts to surface
water bodies, based upon SEPA Rules, City regulations and policies.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No. The proposed non-project SMP amendments, as permitted under the "local option"
authorities (RCW 90.58.030 (2) (f)), do not include any development actions.
Designations for Springbrook Creek and Cedar River: The proposed amendments, which are
designed to provide specific designations for sections of the Springbrook Creek and Cedar
• River (as described in Exhibit I), would permit selected types of development (in areas which
are a minimum of 200 feet beyond the ordinary high water mark of these waterbodies) to be
exempt from review under the SMP. The development standards now provided under the
SMP would be replaced with similar (or more stringent) standards provided under SEPA
Rules, and local policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review
Ordinance, the Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management
Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and
Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
At present, in areas designated with an Urban environment, selected types of development
are allowed within 200 feet of the mean high water mark of the waterbody. There are also
use and setback requirements for the Conservancy environment within 200 feet of the mean
high water mark of the waterbody. These standards would be retained, except that the
ordinary high water mark would. replace the mean high water mark for use/setback
measurements. The development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced
with similar (or more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local
policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review Ordinance, the
Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Aquifer
Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance, Flood
Hazards Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and Mining, Excavation and
Grading Ordinance. (For additional information concerning current development
requirements, see the existing SMP and Exhibit 1 herein; for additional information
concerning proposed amendments to the SMP, see Exhibit 1).
Wetlands: The proposed revisions to the definitions of "wetlands" will retain within the
wetlands definition: (i) those "lands" which are within two hundred (200) feet landward of the
ordinary high water mark on a horizontal plane, and (ii) those "floodplains" which are located
within two hundred (200) feet landward of the ordinary high water mark of and are contiguous
with the streams, lakes and tidal waters subject to the provisions of the [Shorelines
Management] Act. The development standards provided under the SMP would be applicable
in these wetland areas. Also applicable would be those standards provided under SEPA
Rules, and local policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review
Ordinance,,. .the Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02J93
Page 8 . •
•
Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management
Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and
Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
These revisions are intended to create consistency between the SMP and, other related local
ordinances (Wetlands Management Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
etc.).
The proposed "local option" amendment to redefine the "wetlands" may result in future work
in areas which are now defined by the City as being FEMA floodplains/floodways that are
more than two hundred feet (200 feet) from the ordinary high water mark of those water
bodies. Areas which are now interpreted by the Shorelines Hearings Board to be "associated .
floodways/floodplains may also be permitted to support development under the proposed
SMP amendments, however that development would generally be exempt from review under
the SMP. The development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with
similar' (or more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local
policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review Ordinance, the
Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Aquifer
Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance, Flood
Hazards Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and Mining, Excavation and
Grading Ordinance. (For additional discussion of changes affecting floodplains/floodways
see Exhibit 1)
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result' in impacts related to surface water
bodies. With those future specific public or private development applications for which.SEPA
Rules require environmental review, examination of surface water body impacts would be
required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations (as described above).
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the affected geographic area
•
that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in fill and/or dredge
actions. With those future specific public or private development applications which do
require environmental review under SEPA Rules, examination of any anticipated filling action •
would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
14) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in surface water
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications which do
require environmental review under SEPA Rules, examination of any anticipated surface
water impacts would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
15) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the affected
geographic area plan.
The City of Renton acknowledges the Federal_Emergency Management Act (FEMA) 100 year
floodplains, as mapped by FEMA in 1989; these maps, when utilized, are employed subject to
the King County Surface Water Management Ordinance (as ado-Pied under the City's Surface
and Storm Water Management Ordinance). Adherence to these maps occurs, as/if
necessary to establish development standards which are sufficient to enable property owners
to seek compensation from FEMA in the event of flooding of a property located on a mapped
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02J93 Page 9
FEMA floodplain. The City also acknowledges a mapping of wetlands accomplished in 1992,
as a result of technical studies performed by a certified geological engineering firm; these
studies form the basis:- for more refined, specific floodplain mapping within the City.
Adherence to these technical studies is required to establish development standards which
are sufficient to address likely flooding events for specific properties.
Portions of Springbrook Creek lie within the FEMA floodplain, but outside of the 100 year
floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton. Portions of
the Creek lie within both the FEMA floodplain and the associated 100 year floodplain. (See
Exhibit II)
Portions of the Cedar River lie within the FEMA floodplain, but outside of the 100 year
floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton). Portions of
the River lie within both the FEMA floodplain and the 100 year floodplain as defined by the
City. (See Exhibit II)
The proposal addresses wetland areas which lie within the FEMA floodplain, but outside of
the 100 year floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton.
There are also wetlands which lie in the FEMA 100 year floodplain, and within the 100 year
floodplain, as determined by technical studies conducted for the City. (See Exhibit II)
The proposed modification to the SMP will result in an amendment to the "wetlands"
definition which will include modifications to the ways in which floodplains are addressed.
The amended definition will include and address only those floodplains which are "contiguous
floodplain areas landward two hundred (200) feet from ... [the] ordinary high water
mark...associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions
of the [Shorelines Management] Act". The development standards now provided under the
• SMP would be replaced with similar (or more stringent) standards provided under SEPA
Rules, and local policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review
Ordinance, the Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management
Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and
Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
With this revised definition, the FEMA floodplains will continue to be recognized, as/if
necessary, in order to ensure that local properties are insured by FEMA for protection against
any flooding damage.
(Note: Wetlands which are not associated with water bodies are not addressed in the SMP.)
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that would directly result in
discharges of waste materials to surface waters. With those future specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules,
examination of any anticipated discharges of waste materials to surface water would be
required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
b. Ground Water:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose,and.approximate quantities ifknown.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that would directly result in
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93
Page-10 •
•
discharges of waste materials to ground waters. With those future specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules,
examination of any ant16lpated discharges of impacts to ground water would be required,
based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the
number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve.
This questions is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that would directly result in
discharges of septic tanks to surface waters. With those future specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA,
examination of any anticipated discharge impacts to ground water from septic tanks would be
required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
c. Water Runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters, If so, describe.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in storm
water runoff to lands or waters. With those future specific public or private development
applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of
proposed storm water management systems would be required, based upon SEPA Rules,
and City policies and regulations.
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in waste
material entering ground or surface waters. With those future 'specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules,
examination of proposed waste material impacts and provision of waste management
systems would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could directly result in impacts to runoff,
and/or. to ground or surface waters. With those future specific public or private development
applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of measures
to mitigate impacts to ground or surface waters would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City
policies and regulations.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist / Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06102/93 - Page 11
•
4. PLANTS
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the affected geographic. area:
The proposed amendments to the SMP incorporate areas.within and/or adjacent to water
bodies, wetlands, floodplains and floodways in various locations throughout the City of
Renton. The vegetation marked with an "x" below may be found in some or all of the affected
areas:
x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
•x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
x shrubs
x grass
x pasture
crop or grain
x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
x water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in direct impacts to
vegetation. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of any anticipated impacts to
vegetation would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City regulations and policies.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the affected geographic area.
No endangered or threatened vegetation is known to be within the affected geographic area.
d.' Proposed landscaping; use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the affected geographic area, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in direct improvements to
vegetation. With those future specific public or private development. applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of any anticipated impacts to
vegetation and measures to add landscaping and/or to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
affected geographic area would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City regulations and
policies.
4
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93
Page 12
•
•
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the affected geographic
area or are known to be on or near the affected geographic area:
The proposed amendments to the SMP affect areas within and/or adjacent to water bodies (and their
associated wetlands, floodplains and floodways) in various locations throughout the City of Renton.
The animal species identified below may be found in some or all of the affected areas.
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, woodpecker, wren, duck, goose, owl, etc.
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, raccoon, squirrel, weasel, coyote, voles, etc
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the affected site
The bald eagle, which is a protected species, has been sighted in the affected geographic area; no
nests have been located in this area. Other species of interest, such as the great blue heron, red
tailed hawk, and several types of raptors have been observed at various locations within the affected
geographic area.
c. Is the affected geographic area part of a migration route? If so, explain
The Cedar River is a fish migration route used by the Chinook, Coho and Sockeye Salmon, as well as
steelhead and cutthroat trout. The Catalogue of'Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization
contends that "for its size, the Cedar River, in this section, supports one of the largest populations of
salmon in the State."
Typically, other shorelines of the state (e.g. May Creek, Lake Washington, etc.) host salmonids during
some portions of the year.
The entire State of Washington is included within a migration route for birds, known as the Pacific
Flyway. This flyway, as it overlies Renton, is used by a variety of migratory birds, including, but not
limited to the Canadian goose.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
This question is not applicable herein because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in direct impacts to wildlife.
With those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review
'is required by SEPA Rules, examination of any anticipated impacts to wildlife and the provision of
(measures to protect or enhance wildlife would be required, based upon SEPA Rules, and City
regulations and policies.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project. action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in direct energy impacts.
With those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review
is required under SEPA Rules, examination of any proposed energy systems would be required,
based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
•
City of Renton Environmental Checklist. - Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 13
F
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could result in direct solar energy
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of any proposed solar energy
systems would be required, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments, which could include energy conservation
systems.. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of any proposed solar energy
systems would be required, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP. amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could require emergency
services. With' those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of emergency •
management systems would be required, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and
regulations.
' 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could directly impact
environmental health. With those future specific public or private development applications
for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of systems for
control of environmental health hazards would be required, based upon SEPA Rules and City
policies and regulations.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could directly result in noise
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of noise impacts would be
required, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the affected geographic area.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 I 1 Page 14 •
1
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments. are
i programmatic and do-not include specific developments which could directly result in noise
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of noise types/levels would
be required, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
i
i This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could directly result in noise
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, noise control systems would be required
to address noise impacts, based upon SEPA Rules and City policies and regulations.
1
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE
a. 'What is the current use of the affected geographic area and adjacent properties?
Current land uses within the City of Renton include single-family development (G-1 and R-1); multi-.
family development (R-2, R-3,R-4), commercial uses (B-1); public uses (P-1), offices (OP);
manufacturing parks (MP), light industrial uses (L-1), to heavy industrial uses (H-1). Some portion of
the City is undeveloped also; undeveloped lands include those which are vacant but available for
permitted land uses and those which are undeveloped because development cannot be permitted or
,supported thereupon (e.g. steep slopes, lands under or adjacent to waters).
,Future use of lands and shorelines will be addressed by the proposed SMP amendments, which are
designed to address/be compatible with the City's goals and objectives for development as addressed
lin, for example, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Wetlands Management Ordinance, and the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
1
The proposed amendment to the SMP would amend the "wetlands" definition to modify the ways in
which wetlands (including fioodplains) are addressed. This amendment is allowed under RCW
90.58.030 (2) (f), as a "local option." The amended definition will include and address only those
wetlands which are "lands" or "contiguous floodplain areas" that are "landward two hundred (200) feet
from ... [the] ordinary high water mark...associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are
'subject to the provisions of the [Shorelines Management] Act".
With this revised, definition, development occurring within floodplains (as defined by the City and/or
as defined by FEMA) which are located outside of the two hundred (200) foot mark would be subject
to SEPA Rules and City environmental/land use policies and regulations, but would be exempt from
consideration under the SMP. The development standards now provided under the SMP would be
•
replaced with similar (or more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local
policies/regulations including, but not limited to the Environmental Review Ordinance, the Wetlands
Management Ordinance, the Environmentally Sensitive. Areas Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Area
Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Land
Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, and Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
or example, projects which are proposed for areas outside of the 200 foot mark, and which require
environmental review under SEPA Rules, would 'be required to present materials which identify
impacts to affected geographic areas. Similarly, under SEPA Rules, the applicant would be required
ito provide mitigation appropriate to the land use and to the underlying land.
FEMA floodplain maps will continue to be recognized, as/if necessary, n order to ensure that local
properties are insured by FEMA for protection against any flooding damage. These maps, when
utilized, are employed subject to the King County Surface Water Management Ordinance (as adopted
under the City's Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance).
I
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
C6/02/93 Page 15
b. Has the affected geographic area been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
Within the affected geographic area, generally, and in the vicinity of water bodies specifically affected
by the SMP, many properties have been used, historically, for agricultural purposes. The City of
Renton is not an agricultural community at this time.
c. Describe any structures on the affected geographic area.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific development sites which host structures.
Within the City of Renton, generally, and in the vicinity of water bodies specifically affected by the
SMP, properties which are currently developed include structures utilized for a variety of purposes, as
permitted by the Land Use Zoning Map, the SMP, and related ordinances.
d. , Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which.could result in the demolition of
structures. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of demolition impacts would occur,
based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations,
e. What is the current zoning classification of the affected geographic area?
Within the City of Renton, generally, and in the vicinity of water bodies specifically affected by the
SMP, properties are zoned for one of the following purposes: single-family development (G-1 and R-
1); multi-family development (R-2, R-3,R-4), commercial uses (B-1); public uses (P-1), offices (OP);
manufacturing parks (MP), light industrial uses (L-1), or heavy industrial uses (H-1).
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the affected geographic area?
Within the City of Renton, generally, and in the vicinity of water bodies specifically affected by the
SMP, properties may be designated on the Comprehensive Plan for one of the following purposes:
single-family development; multi-family development, commercial uses; public uses, offices;
manufacturing, or industrial uses.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the affected
geographic area?
Within the affected geographic area, environmental designations- for waterbodies include "Urban",
"Conservancy" and "Natural" (See Exhibit I). With the proposed amendments to the SMP, specific
new designations for shorelines of the state would be.as follows:
Springbrook Creek: The portion of the Springbrook Creek which is currently being proposed for
specific designation, is now designated as an "Urban" environment, based upon Section 5.04 of the
SMP. The proposed amendments to the SMP call for Springbrook Creek to be specifically
designated as:
• an "Urban" environment for that portion of the Creek which is located generally between Grady
Way and approximately SW 27th Street and then between SW 31st Street (if extended) and SW
43rd Street. (See Exhibit I)
• a "Conservancy" environment for that portion of the Creek which is located generally between
SW 27th Street and SW 31st Street (if extended), and which is abutted by wetland areas owned
by the City (labeled on the City's Wetland Map as Wetland 12/Category I. and Wetland
13.B/Category I and II). (See Exhibit I).
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 16
Cedar River: The portion of the Cedar River which is described as the southern shoreline, between
Maple Valley Highway on the west and the eastern City boundary, which is currently being proposed
for specific designation, is now designated as an "Urban" shoreline, based upon Section 5.04 of the
SMP. At this time, this portion of the Cedar River is being proposed to be designated as an "Urban"
environment.
h. Has any part of the affected geographic area been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify. •
Under the City of Renton's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, all lands and waters which
are subject to requirements of the following ordinances may be considered to be environmentally
sensitive areas: the Shorelines Master Program, the Greenbelt Ordinance, Wetlands Management
Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance and Resource Conservation Zone Ordinance.
In addition, selected lands and waters which are subject to the following ordinances may also be
defined as environmentally sensitive areas: Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance; Mining,
Excavation and Grading Ordinance; Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, Flood Hazards
Ordinance; Flooding and Geologic Hazards Ordinance.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project (programmatic) action, the SMP
amendments do not include specific development that could result in direct impacts to specific
• environmentally sensitive areas. With those future specific public or private development
• applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations,
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
',This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments which could result in the addition of residents
and/or employees within the City. With those future specific public or private development
applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts
related to changes in population would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations. .
j. 'Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in the displacement of
residents and/or employees within the City. With those future specific public or private development
applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts
related to changes in population would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
IT-his question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in the displacement of
residents and/or employees within the City. With those future specific public or private development
applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of mitigation
for population displacement would occur; based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in changes to land. uses
City of Renton Environmental Checklist • Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 17
within the City. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required tender SEPA Rules, examination of impacts related to changes in
land uses and shorelines use would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or
low-income housing.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in changes to the type of
housing stock within the City. With those future specific public or private development applications
for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts related to
changes in the type of housing stock would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle,
or low-income housing. -
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in changes to the number of
housing units within.the City. With those future specific public or private development applications for
which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts -related to
changes in the number of housing units would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations. •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if,.any:
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in housing impacts within
the City. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of measures to mitigate housing
impacts would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
15. AESTHETICS
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments. With those future specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination
of affected geographic area plan (e.g. height, exterior facade materials) impacts would occur, based
upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in impacts to views. With
future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is required
under SEPA Rules, examination of view-related impacts would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and
City policies and regulations.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist " - Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93
?age.18
C. I Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
This question is not applicable=because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in aesthetic impacts. With
those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is
required under SEPA Rules, examination of mitigation measures to address aesthetic impacts would
'occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. 'What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in light/glare impacts. With
'those future specific public or private development applications for which•environmental review is
required under SEPA Rules, examination of light/glare impacts would occur, based upon SEPA
'Rules, and City policies and regulations.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
'This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in light/glare impacts. With
those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is
required under SEPA Rules, examination of light/glare impacts would occur, based upon SEPA
Rules, and City policies and regulations.
c. . What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
11
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could be affected by off-site light/glare
impacts. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of off-site light/glare impacts would
occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light,and glare impacts, if any:
III his question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments do not include
specific developments that could result in light/glare impacts. With those future specific public or
private development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules,
examination of measures to control light/glare impacts would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and
• City policies and regulations.
12. RECREi4TION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
The City offers numerous recreational opportunities, including activity centers and/or observation
points. Major facilities include Cedar River Park, Liberty Park, Coulon Park, and a network of
pedestrian and/or bicycle trails. Under the City's Master Parks and Trails Plan, public trails are in
place or are planned adjacent to the cedar River and Springbrook Creek.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in impacts to recreational
Uses. With those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental
City of.Renton Environmental Checklist • Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/P2J93 Page 19
review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of recreation impacts would occur, based upon
SEPA Rules, and City policies-and,regulations.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The SMP, as it exists, provides a series of standards for recreational opportunities in shoreline areas
(SMP Sections 4, 6, and 7), which ensure the provision of adequate, appropriate recreational
activities (e.g. public trails, observation areas), while preserving the integrity of the vicinity
waterbodies (i.e. deltas, marshes, lakes, streams, wetlands). The. proposed amendments to
formalize shoreline designations for the above-described portions of Springbrook Creek and portions
of the Cedar River and the proposed amendments to the definition of "wetlands" do not impose or
permit any alterations to the SMP recreational standards.
Further, as the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project action °programmatic), there are no
specific developments now being submitted for consideration that could result in impacts related to
recreational uses. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of recreation impacts and
mitigation measures would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
Restrictive covenants could be required to ensure that environmentally sensitive areas are utilized
solely for parks and open spaces.
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the affected geographic area? If so, generally describe.
There are no places or obJects on the affected geographic area reported to be listed on, or proposed
for, national state, or local preservation registers.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the affected geographic area.
Historically, several areas included within the City of Renton were utilized by the Duwamish Tribe for
a variety of purposes (i.e. shelters, hunting grounds, burial affected geographic areas); those affected
geographical areas are of interest to both the Duwamish and the Muckleshoot Tribes, as well as to the
State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, to the University of Washington and to
certified archaeologists.
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (or programmatic) action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to specific areas of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance. With those future specific public or private
development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination
of historic, archaeological, scientific, and/or cultural impacts would occur on the proposed
development site, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
•
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in impacts/mitigation,
measures to protect historic, archaeological, scientific, and/or cultural impacts. With those future
specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is required under
SEPA Rules, mitigation measures to protect significant historic, archaeological, scientific, and/or
cultural sites would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments-
06/02/93 'Page 20
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the affected geographic area, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. ,Show on affected geographic area plans, if
any.
,The City of Renton as a whole is served by a comprehensive streets network; major transportation
corridors include Interstate (I) 405, State Route (SR) 167, Maple Valley Highway (SR 169), Sunset
:Boulevard (SR 850), and the Benson Highway (SR 515).
The SMP, as it exists, provides a series of standards for roadways serving sites within shoreline areas
(SMP Sections 4, 6, and 7), which ensure the provision of adequate, appropriate access routes, while
preserving the integrity of vicinity waterbodies (i.e. deltas, marshes, lakes, streams, wetlands). The
proposed amendments to formalize shoreline designations for the above-described portions of
'Springbrook Creek and portions of the Cedar River and the proposed amendments to the definition of
"wetlands" do not impose or permit any alterations to the SMP roadway/access standards.
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (programmatic) action, there are no specific
(developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to specific transportation
systems. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
(environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of transportation impacts would
occur with respect to the proposed development, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations.
b. Is affected geographic area currently served by public transit?. If not, what is the approximate
.(distance to the nearest transit stop?
METRO Transit currently operates throughout the City of Renton.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project
eliminate?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in the addition or removal of
parking spaces. With those future.specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of parking impacts and mitigation
measures would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
•
d. ,Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
treets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private?
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets. With those future specific public or private
(development applications, for which environmental review is required under SEPA Rules,
examination of roadway impacts and mitigation measures would occur, based upon SEPA Rules, and
City policies and regulations.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
The City of Renton offers water, rail and air transportation.
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (programmatic) action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to specific transportation
systems. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
•
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93 Page 21
•
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts related to these
transportation systems would oc,r,A.ir with respect to the proposed development., based upon SEPA
Rules, and City policies and regulations.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,
indicate when peak volumes would occur.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project action, the SMP amendments are
programmatic and do not include specific developments that could result in the addition or elimination
of vehicle trips. With those future specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of vehicle trip impacts would occur
and mitigation measures would be provided, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and
regulations.
g. , Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:..
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (programmatic) action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to specific transportation
systems. With those _ future -specific public or private development applications for which
environmental review is required under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts and mitigation
measures related to these transportation systems would occur with respect to the proposed
development, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
15. Public Services I
a. ' Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. •
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (programmatic) action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to public services. With those
future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is required
under SEPA Rules, examination of impacts related to these public service systems would occur with
respect to the proposed development, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
As the proposed SMP amendments are a non-project (programmatic) action, there are no specific
developments under consideration that could result in impacts related to specific public services.
With those future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review
is required under SEPA Rules, examination of mitigation measures related to public service systems
would occur with respect to the proposed development, based upon SEPA Rules, and City policies
and regulations. •
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the affected geographic area: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
The City of Renton currently is served by the following utilities: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, cable television, and sanitary sewers and/or septic systems.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,-the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the affected geographic area or in the im.ral.ediate vicinity which might be
needed.
This question is not applicable because, as a non-project (programmatic) action, the SMP
amendments do not include specific developments that could result in the use of utilities. With those
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02/93
Page 22
I
future specific public or private development applications for which environmental review is required •
under SEPA Rules, examination.Qf utilities impacts and mitigation measures would occur, based upon
SEPA Rules, and City policies and regulations. .
C. SIGNATURE
I, the u dersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is
understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in
reliance' upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my
part. •
Propon nt: �,.
I
Name Printed: �jV .L,� K-, 0 /C-K011-)
Date: 0D 10 - 10
City of Renton Environmental.Checklist • Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/02J93 Page 23 •
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NON PROJECT ACTIONS
(These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do
not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the
elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to
result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the
proposal were not implemented.
1. ' (a) How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly increase discharge to water; emissions to
air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise, as the
modifications would be a non-project action. Impacts such as discharge to water, air emissions,
production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or production of noise which could
occur with future development, as a result of the proposed amendments to the SMP, are anticipated
to be limited to a level which can be sufficiently and safely accommodated within the City of Renton
and within the affected region. In most cases, with the proposed SMP amendments, in combination
with other state and city policies and regulations which control development, impacts occurring with
future development would be fewer than those impacts which would occur under the existing SMP.
•
Springbrook Creek: The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion.of the Creek between SW 27th and
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [Wetlands No. 12 and 13.B]
would be designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in impacts related to discharge to water,
•
air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or production of noise
in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with
current types/levels of development. Similar or reduced impacts are forecast because, until 1991
when the DOE designated the Creek as a shoreline of the state, the City had permitted development
in the vicinity of the Creek at a more intensive level than will be permitted with the Urban and
Conservancy designations now proposed. For these newly proposed designations, development
standards are established which would control impacts related to discharge to water, air emissions,
production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or production of noise within
shorelines areas.
Cedar River: The proposed designation of the southern shoreline of the Cedar River as an "Urban"
shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in impacts from discharge to water, air emissions, production, storage or
release of toxic or hazardous substances and production of noise, in conjunction with future
developments, which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of
development. Under maximum permitted development, based upon the Urban environment, similar
or reduced discharges to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous
substances or production of noise are forecast because the City has planned for inclusion and
accounted for the development of this area exclusively with parks and open space, based upon the
urban shoreline designation, in conjunction with its annexation program. Further, the City has
established development policies and regulations which will control impacts from discharge to water,
air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or production of noise.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to RCW 90.58.030[2][f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
City of Renton.Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93
• Pam 24
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in Section
1.b below.
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
' provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain regulations, but
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
these parameters for development, again, the City anticipates a similar or reduced level of discharge
to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of tOxic or hazardous substances and/or
production of noise in conjunction with future developments. This conclusion is based upon the fact
that approximately eighty-five percent. (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which would become
available for development is located in the. Green River Valley, where prior to 1991, when the
Department of Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state, the adjacent floodplains
and uplands were all designated for urban level development; thus, regulations for discharge to water,
air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances and/or production of
noise have been designed to control impacts to the affected areas. The remaining fifteen percent
(15%) or 56 acres of land which would be potentially available for development is in the vicinity of
water bodies such as the Cedar River, May Creek etc; affected properties would be primarily "infill"
'' properties in areas which now are subject to existing development standards and which would
continue to be subject to such standards.
(b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted underr the amended SMP, while protecting the community and the region against
significant impacts from discharge to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or
' hazardous substances and production of noise.
With specific development applications, the City requires that proponents provide information
concerning impacts from discharge to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or
hazardous substances or production of noise and provide mitigation sufficient to address identified
impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City regulations and policies including (but not limited to) the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance,
Storm and Surface Water Management Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance, Flood
Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials Ordinance,
Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and
Grading Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, PSAPCA Regulations, and, where applicable, the Shorelines
Master Program, Also, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (as mandated by the State Growth
Management Act) is intended to set standards for the type/intensity of development throughout the
City in a manner which establishes guidelines for limitations to discharge to water, air emissions,
production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances or production of noise.
These plans and regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Based upon these
regulations it is likely that there would be reduced discharge to water, air emissions, production,
storage or release of toxic or hazardous substances and production of noise as compared with that
which has occurred under historical development standards.
2. (a) How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life
because the modifications would be a non-project action. Impacts.to plants, animals, fish, and/or
marine life which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposed amendments to the
SMP, are anticipated to be well within the "carrying capacity" of the existing fauna and flora. In most
cases, with the proposed SMP amendments, in combination with other state and city policies and
regulations which control development, impacts occurring with future development would be fewer
than those impacts which would occur under the existing SMP.
Springbrook Creek: -The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion of the.Creek between SW 27th and
-City of Renton:Environmental Checklist • Shorelines Master Program Amendments
0,5/11/93 Page 25
•
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [Wetlands No. 12 and 13B] '`
would be designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in effects upon plants, animals, fish, and
marine life, in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts
occurring with current types/levels of development. Similar, or reduced impacts are forecast
because, until 1991 when DOE designated the Creek as a shoreline of the state, the City had
permitted development in the vicinity of the Creek at a.more intensive level than will be permitted
with the Urban and Conservancy designations now . proposed. For these newly proposed
, designations, development standards are established which would control impacts related to plants, •
animals, fish, or marine life within shoreline areas.
Cedar. River: The proposed designation of the southern shoreline of the Cedar River as an "Urban"
shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life in conjunction with future
developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of
development. Under maximum permitted development, based upon the Urban environment, similar
' or reduced impacts to plants, animals, fish and marine life are forecast because the City has planned
for inclusion and accounted for the development of this area exclusively with parks and open space,
based upon the urban shoreline designation, in conjunction with its annexation program. Further, the
City has established development policies and regulations which will control impacts to plants,
animals, fish and marine life.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to RCW 90.58.030[2][f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in. Section
2.b below.
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain regulations, but
•
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
these parameters for development, again, the City anticipates impacts to animals, plants, fish and
marine life in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts
occurring with current types/levels of development. This conclusion is based upon the fact that
approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which would become available
for development is located in the Green River Valley, where prior to 1991, when the Department of
Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state; the adjacent floodplains and uplands
were all designated for urban level development; thus, plans for protection of plants, animals, fish
and/or marine life have been designed to serve the affected areas. The remaining fifteen percent
(15%) or 56 acres of land which would be potentially available for development is in the vicinity of
water bodies such as the Cedar River, May Creek etc; affected properties would be primarily "infill"
properties in areas which now are required to protect animals, plants, fish and marine life and which
would continue to be required to provide such protection with future.development.
(b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine:life are:
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted under the amended SMP, while protecting the community and the region against
significant adverse impacts to plants, animals, fish and/or marine life.
With those specific development applications for which environmental review is required under SEPA
Rules, the City requires that provide information concerning impacts to plants, animals, fish and/or
marine life and provide mitigation sufficient to address identified impacts, subject tp SEPA Rules and
City regulations and policies including (but not limited to) the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water
Management Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and
Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, Land Clearing and
Tree Cutting Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and Grading Ordinance, PSAPCA Regulations, and, as
City of Renton Environmental Checklis Shorelines Master Program Amendments -
06/11/93
Page 26
applicable, the Shorelines Master Program, Also, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (as
mandated by the State GrowthVanagement Act) is intended to set standards for the type/intensity of
development throughout the City in a manner which establishes guidelines for protection of plants,
animals, fish and marine life.
These plans and regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Based upon these
regulations it is likely that there would be reduced impacts to animals, plants, fish and marine life as
compared to that which has occurred under historical development standards.
3. (a) How would the proposal be,likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly increase demands on energy or natural
resources because the modifications would be a non-project action. Impacts to energy or natural
resources which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposed amendments to the
SMP, are anticipated to be well within the capacity limitations of those resources. In most cases, with
the proposed SMP amendments, in combination with other state and city policies and regulations
which control development, impacts occurring with future development would be fewer than those
impacts which would occur under the existing SMP.
Sprinqbrook Creek: The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion of the Creek between SW 27th and
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [Wetlands No. 12 and 138]
would be designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in demands for energy or natural
resources in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from demands
occurring with current types/levels of development. A similar or reduced level of use is forecast
because, until 1991 when the DOE designated the Creek as a shoreline of the state, the City had
• permitted development in the vicinity of the Creek at a more intensive level than will be permitted
with the Urban and Conservancy designations now proposed. For these newly proposed
designations, development standards are established which would control impacts related to energy
•
or natural resources within shoreline areas.
Cedar River: The proposed designation of the south shoreline of the Cedar River as an "Urban"
shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in demands for energy and/or natural resources in conjunction with future
developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of
development. Under maximum permitted development, based upon the Urban environment, a
similar or reduced level of demand for energy and/or natural resources is forecast because the City
has planned for inclusion and accounted for the development of this area exclusively with parks and
open space, based upon the urban shoreline designation, in conjunction with its annexation program.
Further, the City has established development policies and regulations which will control impacts to
energy and/or natural resources.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to RCW 90.58.030[2][f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in Section
3.b below.
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain regulations, but •
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
these parameters for development, again, the City anticipates a sim-i+ar or reduced level of demands
-for energy and/or natural resources, in conjunction with future developments. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which
would become available for development is located in the Green River Valley, where prior to 1991,
when the Department of Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state, the adjacent
floodplains and uplands were all designated for urban level development; thus, energy and natural
•
City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93 Page 27
resources are anticipated to be sufficient to serve the affected areas. The remaining fifteen percent
(15%) or 56 acres of land which would be potentially available for development is in the vicinity of
water bodies such as the Cedar River, May Creek etc; affected properties would be primarily "infill"
properties in areas which now are subject to existing development standards and which would
continue to be expected to comply with applicable development standards in the future.
(b) Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted under the amended SMP, while protecting the community and the region against
significant adverse impacts from use of energy and/or natural resources.
With specific development applications, the City requires that provide information concerning impacts
from discharge to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of toxic or hazardous
substances or production of noise and provide mitigation sufficient to address identified impacts,
subject to SEPA Rules and City regulations and policies including (but not limited to) the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance,
Storm and Surface Water Management Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance, Flood
Hazards Ordinance, Flooding -and Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials Ordinance,
Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and Grading Ordinance, PSAPCA
Regulations, and, as applicable, the Shorelines Master Program, Also, the City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plan (as mandated by the State Growth Management Act) is intended to set standards for
the type/intensity of development throughout the City in a manner which establishes guidelines for
• limitations to use of energy and/or natural resources.
These plans and regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Additionally, the
permitted type of use and intensity of use would be coordinated to ensure appropriateness based
upon the supply of energy and natural resources. Based upon these regulations it is likely that there
• would be reduced impacts to energy and/or natural resources as compared to that which has occurred
under historical development standards.
4. (a) How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such. as parks, wilderness, wild
and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural affected geographic
areas, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated/eligible for governmental protection, because the modifications would be a non-
project action. Impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for
governmental protection which could occur with future development, as a result of the proposed
amendments to the SMP, are anticipated to be well within the carrying capacity of those areas. In
most cases, with the proposed SMP amendments, in combination with other state and city policies
and regulations which control development, impacts occurring with future development would be
fewer than those impacts which would occur under the existing SMP.
•
Springbrook Creek: The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion of the Creek between SW 27th and
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [Wetlands No. 12 and 13B]
would be designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in impacts to environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated/eligible for governmental protection in conjunction with future
developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of
development. Similar or reduced impacts are forecast because, until 1991 when the DOE designated
• the Creek as a shoreline of the state, the City had permitted development in the vicinity of the Creek
at a more intensive level than will be permitted with the Urban and Conservancy designations now
proposed. For these newly proposed designations, development standards are established which
would control impacts related to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for
governmental protection within shoreline areas.
City of Renton Eivironmental Checklis Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93 Page 28
Cedar River: The proposed designation of the south shorelines of the Cedar River as an "Urban" •
shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for
governmental protection in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from
impacts occurring with current types/levels of development. Under maximum permitted
development, based upon the Urban environment, a similar or reduced level of impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for governmental protection are forecast
• because the City has planned for inclusion and accounted for the development of this area
exclusively with parks and open space, based upon the urban shoreline designation, in conjunction
with its annexation program. Further, the City has established development policies and regulations
which will control impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for
governmental protection.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to RCW 90.58.030[2][f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in Section
4.b below. -
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain regulations, but
•
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
the above-described, parameters for development, again, the City anticipates impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for governmental protection in
conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring;with
current types/levels of development. This conclusion is based upon the fact that approximately
• eighty-five percent (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which would become available for
development is located in the Green River Valley, where prior to 1991, when the Department of
Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state, the adjacent floodplains and uplands
were all designated for urban level development; thus, plans for protection of environmentally
sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for governmental protection have been designed to serve
the affected areas. The remaining fifteen percent (15%) or 56 acres of land which would be
potentially available for development is in the vicinity of water bodies such as the Cedar River, May
• Creek etc; affected properties would be primarily "infill" properties in areas which are also subject to
development standards designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated/eligible for governmental protection.
(*)The City of Renton acknowledges the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) 100
year floodplains, as mapped by FEMA in 1989; these maps, when utilized, are employed
subject to the King County Surface Water Management Ordinance (as adopted under the
City's Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance). Adherence to these maps occurs,
as/if necessary to establish development standards which are sufficient to enable property
owners to seek compensation from FEMA in the event of flooding of a property located on a
mapped FEMA floodplain. The City also acknowledges a mapping of wetlands accomplished •
in 1992, as a result of technical studies performed by a certified geological engineering firm;
these studies form the, basis for more refined, specific floodplain mapping within the City.
Adherence to these technical studies is required to establish development standards which
are sufficient to address likely flooding events for specific properties.
Portions of Springbrook Creek lie within the FEMA floodplain, but outside of the 100 year
floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton. Portions of
the Creek lie within both the FEMA floodplain and the associated 100 year floodplain. (See
Exhibit II)
Portions of the Cedar River lie within the FEMA floodplain, but outside of the 100 year
floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton). Portions of
City of Renton,Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93 Page 29
the River lie within both the FEMA floodplain and the.100 year floodplain as defined by the
City. (See Exhibit II) -
The proposal addresses wetland areas which lie within the FEMA'floodplain, but outside of
the 100 year floodplain as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton.
There are also wetlands which lie in the FEMA 100 year floodplain, and within the 100 year
floodplain, as determined by technical studies conducted for the City of Renton. Finally, there
are isolated wetlands which are outside of the FEMA floodplain/floodway and outside of the
City defined floodplain. (See Exhibit II)
The proposed modification to the SMP will result in an amendment to the "wetlands"
definition which will include modifications to the ways in which floodplains are addressed.
The amended definition will include and address only those floodplains which are "contiguous
floodplain areas landward two hundred (200) feet from ... [the] ordinary high water
mark...associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions
of the [Shorelines Management] Act". With this revised definition, the FEMA floodplains will
continue to be recognized, as/if necessary, in order to ensure that local properties are insured
by FEMA for protection against any flooding damage.
(b) Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted under the amended SMP, while protecting the community and the region against
significant adverse impacts from discharge to water, air emissions, production, storage or release of
toxic or hazardous substances and production of noise.
With specific development applications, the City requires that provide information concerning impacts
to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible for governmental protection and
provide mitigation sufficient to address identified impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City regulations
and policies including. (but not limited to) the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
Environmental Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water Management
Ordinance, Wetlands Management Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and Geologic
Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and Grading Ordinance, PSAPCA Regulations, and, as
applicable, the Shorelines Master Program, Also, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (as
mandated by the State Growth Management Act) is intended to set standards for the type/intensity of
development throughout the City in a manner which establishes guidelines for limitations to impacts
• upon environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated/eligible'for governmental protection.
Development of these lands would continue to be controlled, as applicable, by the FEMA floodplain
map, and related regulations, for purposes of ensuring reimbursement for damages which could
, result in the event that flooding occurs in those areas which are mapped as floodplain by FEMA. (Also
see discussion in the ECF and in Item #5 below.)
These plans and regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Based upon these
regulations it is likely that there would be reduced impacts to environmentally sensitive areas or areas
designated/eligible for governmental protection as compared to that which has occurred under
historical development standards.
•
5. (a) How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly affect land-a-od shoreline use because the
modifications would be a non-project action. Impacts to land and shoreline use which could occur
with future development , as a result of the proposed amendments to the SMP, are anticipated to be
well within the standards established for those uses. In most cases, with the proposed SMP
amendments, in combination with other state and city policies and regulations which control
City of Renton Environmental Checklir Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93
Page 30 -
•
development, impacts occurring with future development would be fewer than those impacts which
would occur under the existing SMP.
Springbrook Creek: The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion of the Creek between SW 27th and
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [ No. 12 and 13B] would be
designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in impacts to land and shoreline use which are
similar to, or reduced from, impacts occurring with present levels of development.. Similar or
reduced impacts are forecast because, until DOE designated the Creek as a shoreline of the state in
1991, the City had permitted development in the vicinity of the Creek at a more intensive level than
I will be permitted with the Urban and Conservancy designations now proposed. For these newly
proposed designations, development standards are established which would control impacts related to
land and shoreline use.
•
The City's Land Use Plan is intended to provide for type and intensity of land and shoreline uses
I which are compatible with existing land and shorelines resources and 'which would be consistent
with/permitted under the Zoning Ordinance and the existing/amended SMP, as well as under other
local and state regulations. •
Cedar River: The proposed designation of the south shoreline of the Cedar River as an "Urban"
I shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in land use and shorelines use impact, in conjunction with future developments,
which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of development.
Under maximum permitted development, based upon the Urban environment, similar or reduced
levels of land use and shorelines use are forecast because the City has planned for inclusion and
accounted for the development of this area exclusively with parks and open space, based upon the
I urban shoreline designation, in conjunction with its annexation program. Further, the City has
established development policies and regulations which will control impacts to land use and/or
I shorelines use.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to RCW 90.58.030[2][f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in Section
5.b below.
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain regulations, but
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
these parameters for development, again, the City anticipates a similar or reduced intensity of land •
use and shoreline use in conjunction with future developments. This conclusion is based upon the
fact that approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which would become
available for development is located in the Green River Valley, where prior to 1991, when the
Department of Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state, the adjacent floodplains
and uplands were all designated for urban level development; thus, transportation plans, public
services plans and utilities plan have been designed to serve the affected areas. The remaining
fifteen percent (15%) or 56 acres of land which would be potentially available for development is in
the vicinity of water bodies such as the Cedar River, May Creek etc; affected properties would be
primarily "infill" properties in areas which now receive services and which are included in future
• service plans.
•
(b) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted under the amended SMP, while protecting the community. and the region against
significant adverse impacts from land use and shoreline use. With specific development applications,
• the City requires that provide information concerning land use and shoreline use impacts and provide
, City of Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93 Page 31
mitigation sufficient to address identified impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City regulations and
policies including (but not lirrtito--to) the Environmentally Sensitive Areas.Ordinance, Environmental
Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance, FEMA
Map (as applicable), Wetlands Management Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and
Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting
Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and Grading Ordinance, Noise Ordinance, PSAPCA Regulations, and,
as applicable, the Shorelines Master Program, Also, the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (as
mandated by the State Growth Management Act) is intended to set standards for the type/intensity of
development throughout the City in a manner which establishes guidelines for limitations to land uses
and shoreline uses.
•
These plans and regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Based upon these
regulations it is likely that there would be reduced impacts to land uses and shorelines uses as
compared to that which has occurred under historical development standards. In most cases, with the
proposed SMP amendments, in combination with other state and city policies and regulations which
control development, impacts occurring with future development would be fewer than those impacts
which would occur under the existing SMP.
6. (a) How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services
and utilities?
The proposed amendments to the SMP would not directly increase demands on transportation or
public services and utilities because the modifications would be a non-project action. Impacts to
transportation or public services and utilities which could occur with future development, as a result of
the proposed amendments to the SMP, are anticipated to be well within the capacity limitations of
these existing public services.
Springbrook Creek: The proposed designation of Springbrook Creek as an. "Urban" shoreline from
Grady Way to SW 43rd Street (with the exception that the portion of the Creek between SW 27th and
SW 31st that is in the vicinity of Category I and Category II wetlands [Wetlands No. 12 and 13B]
would be designated "Conservancy") is anticipated to result in demands for transportation or public
services and utilities in conjunction with future developments which are similar to or reduced from
demands occurring with current types/levels of development. A similar or reduced level of demand
is forecast because, until 1991 when the DOE designated the Creek as a shoreline of the state, the
City had permitted development in the vicinity of the Creek at a more intensive level than will be
permitted with the Urban and Conservancy designations now proposed. For these newly proposed
designations, development standards are established which would control impacts related to
transportation or public services and utilities within shoreline areas. •
The City's Valley Transportation Improvement Plan (which includes properties throughout the Green
River Valley, including those in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek) is intended to provide for
transportation services which are sufficient to support developments which would be permitted under
the SMP and under other local and state regulations. The Valley Transportation Plan will be updated
by the City in conjunction with the revisions to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (as mandated
by the State Growth Management Act). These modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are being
planned to incorporate the type/intensity of development throughout the Valley in a manner which is
consistent with the amendments proposed to the SMP.
Similarly, based upon the City's current and proposed public services and utility plans (e.g. the
Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sewer Plan, and Fire Mitigation Plan), sufficient
resources are available (or can be provided through tax revenues and mitigation fees) to provide
public services and utilities to support future development in the vicinity of Springbrook Creek.
Cedar River: The proposed designation of the south shoreline of the Cedar River as an "Urban"
shoreline from the intersection with Maple Valley Highway on the west to the.City's eastern boundary
is anticipated to result in demands for transportation, public services and utilities in conjunction with
future developments which are similar to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels
of development. Under maximum permitted development, based upon the Urban environment,
City of Renton Environmental Checklis; Shorelines Master Program Amendments
06/11/93 Fage 32
similar or reduced impacts to transportation, public services and utilities are forecast because the
P P , , City
has planned for inclusion and accounted for the development of this area exclusively with parks and
open space, based upon the urban shoreline designation, in conjunction with its annexation program. •
Further, the City has established development policies and regulations which.will control impacts to
transportation, public services and utilities.
Wetlands: The proposed modification of the "wetlands" definition (pursuant to-RCW 90.58.030(2](f])
would exclude floodplains beyond the 200 foot mark from the associated waterbody. With this
amendment, those areas beyond the 200 foot marker which are proposed for development in the
future, the development standards now provided under the SMP would be replaced with similar (or
more stringent) standards provided under SEPA Rules, and local policies/regulations listed in Section
6.b below.
At maximum, approximately 366 acres of land which now is subject to the wetlands/floodplain
provisions of the SMP, would be potentially exempt from the SMP wetlands/floodplain•regulations, but
this land would continue to be subject to SEPA Rules and other City policies and regulations. With
the above-described, parameters for development, again, the City anticipates demands for
transportation or public services and utilities in conjunction with future developments which are similar
to or reduced from impacts occurring with current types/levels of development. This conclusion is
based upon the fact that approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the acreage (or 310 acres) which
would become available for development is located in the Green River Valley, where prior to 1991,
when the Department of Ecology declared Springbrook Creek a shoreline of the state, the adjacent
floodplains and uplands were all designated for urban level development; thus, transportation plans,
public services plans and utilities plan have been designed to serve the affected areas. The
remaining fifteen percent (15%) or 56 acres of land which would be potentially available for
development is in the vicinity of water bodies such as the Cedar River, May Creek etc. Affected
properties would be primarily "infill" properties in areas which now include transportation plans, and
receive services and utilities; these properties are included in future development/service plans.
(b) Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
•
Local, state and federal legislation provide sufficient standards to support developments which would
be permitted under the amended SMP, while protecting the community and the region against
significant adverse impacts to transportation systems, public services and utilities. With specific
development applications, the City requires that provide information concerning impacts to
transportation systems, public services and utilities and provide mitigation sufficient to address
identified impacts, subject to SEPA Rules and City regulations and policies including (but not limited
to) the Environmental Ordinance, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Aquifer Protection •
Ordinance, Storm and Surface Water Management Ordinance, Wetlands .Management Ordinance,
Flood Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Hazardous Materials
Ordinance, Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance, Mining Excavation, and Grading Ordinance,
Noise Ordinance, PSAPCA Regulations, and,-as applicable, the Shorelines Master Program, Also,
the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Transportation Plan, Water Plan, Sanitary Sewer Service
Plan and related documents (as mandated by the State Growth Management Act) are intended to set
standards for the type/intensity of development throughout the City in a manner which establishes
guidelines for limitations to transportation systems, public services and utilities. These plans and
regulations support the amendments proposed to the SMP. Based upon these regulations it is likely
that there would be reduced impacts to transportation systems, public services and utilities as
compared to that which has occurred under historical developments.
7. (a) Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements for the protection of the environment.
The proposed amendments to the SMP have been developed with the intent to ensure that the SMP
is consistent with local, state and federal laws. For example, with the proposed amendments the
SMP would be consistent with SEPA Rules and with City regulations, including, but not limited to the
Environmental Review Ordinance, the Wetlands Management Ordinance, the Environmentally •
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Aquifer Protection Area Ordinance, Surface and Storm Water
City or Renton Environmental Checklist Shorelines'`Master Program Amendments
C1,/02l93
Page 3.3
Management Ordinance, Flood Hazards Ordinance, Flooding and Geologic Hazards Ordinance, Land
Clearing and:Tree Cutting Ordinance, and Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
The amended SMP is also intended to be consistent with the State Shorelines Management Act. This
Act, under definitions for wetlands (RCW 90.58.030 [2] [f]), allows any county or city to determine that
portion of the 100 year floodplain which is to be included in the local master program as long as such
portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred
(200) feet therefrom. Similarly, the SMA permits the City to establish shoreline environment
designations for shorelines of the state. Finally, the SMA permits the City to establish hearing and
appeal responsibilities for the Hearing Examiner ( for more information see Exhibit 1).
The SMP amendments are intended to continue to acknowledge applicable federal standards and -
regulations, such as those established under the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) ("'),
the U.S. Army Corps„ and NEPA.
("`) The City of Renton acknowledges the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) 100
year floodplains, as mapped by FEMA in 1989; these maps, when utilized, are employed
subject to the King County Surface Water Management Ordinance (as adopted under the
City's Surface and Storm Water Management Ordinance). Adherence to these maps occurs,
as/if necessary to establish development standards which are sufficient to enable property
owners to seek compensation from FEMA in the event of flooding of a property located on a
mapped FEMA floodplain. The City also acknowledges a mapping of wetlands accomplished
in 1992, as a result of technical studies performed by a certified geological engineering firm;
these studies form the basis for more refined, specific floodplain mapping within the City.
Adherence to these technical studies is required to establish development standards which
are sufficient to address likely flooding events for specific properties.
NOTE: The proposed amendments to clarify that decisions of the Hearing Examiner are to be appealed (where
appeal rights exist) to the Shorelines Hearing Board have not been discussed specifically in this section of the
Environmental Checklist. This proposed amendment is considered to be an administrative action with no direct or
indirect environmental impacts. (Please see Exhibit I).
SIGNATURE
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is
understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon
this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
Proponent:
Name Printed: �Du4(.-D /�)
Date: 1=i I l
ATTACHMENT H
i k
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Iuly 28, 1993
TO: City Council •
Mayor Earl Iymer
y ann, Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works
VIA: �• `
FROM: Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendation on the amendments to the
Shoreline Master Program
RECO I I RED ACTION: Designate Springbrook Creek a Shoreline of the city with
Conservancy and Urban Environment designations on various portions of the stream; modify the
definition of"wetlands or wetlands areas" and clarify the proper appeals procedure.
I. Narrative Summary of Meeting
fing of
March 10, 1993: All commissioners present except Herb Po he a There were Jeff ,no publicecommentse
proposed amendments was given by Staff and a Public Hearing
Motion carried to adopt amendments to the Shoreline Master Program:. Commissioners raised the
question of notifying one property owner inadvertently missed and reopening the hearing the next
available meeting.
June 23, 1993: Commission met, with Don Jacobson and Mary Redd absent.
Staff briefed the Commission on the republication of the amendments to the SiviP along Springbrook
Creek from SW Grady Way to SW'43rd Street, including a portion of the area which had been
inadvertently omitted in the first public hearing notice. The public hearing was reopened to allow
public comments.
Chris Clifford testified that the designation should reflect what is currently in the area not what the
area is slated for in the Land Use Element.CH�eknotedotheecurrently n Cole-$owronelo�et�1���Srequested k
Natural Environment designation for th
Creek be designated Natural Environment in recognition of the wildlife in the area.
The public hearing was closed. Commission reaffirmed its earlier unanimous approval for the
amendments, including housekeeping amendment to Section 1.03 of the SNIP. As a second item, Staff
:1uly 28, 1993
Page 2
and Commission discussed an Urban Environment designation along Cedar River in the City's park
property. Commission referred this issue back to staff for additional consideration of the issues of
internal consistency with the newly adopted Land Use Element, park development mandates for the
property ;and site specific'concerns.
II: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE FOR VOTE
The Planning Commission met on June 23rd to consider amendments to the City's Shoreline Master
Program proposed by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department that would:
1) designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way on the north and SW 43rd on the south, a
shoreline of the City;
2) provide a Conservancy Environment designation for that portion of the Springbrook Creek
beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the north to SW 31st Street on the south
abutting City owned wetlands in this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in
the vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently acquired Wetland Mitigation Bank.;
3) provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of Springbrook Creek beginning
from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd on the south that are not designated as Conservancy
Environment;
4) modify the definition of "Wetlands or Wetlands Areas" to only include those areas defined by the
«i d di ance and within 200 feet landward, on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high
water mark of a designated waterbody (with the language "ordinary high water mark" replacing
an existing reference to "mean high-water line," and removing the 100 year floodplain/floodway
from the definition of wetland/wetland areas).
5). revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the SMP to clarify that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing
Examiner decision on shoreline matters is to the Shorelines Hearing Board.
During the Phase II rewrite of the City of Renton's Codes, the relationship of the City's Shoreline
Master'Program and the Wetland Ordinance should be clarified especially in terms of the definition of
wetland/wetland areas.
The June 23rd public hearing followed an earlier public hearing held on March 10, 1993, at which all
of the above changes were considered, except the revision clarifying the appeal procedure of actions
taken by the Hearing Examiner on shoreline matters.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt these changes after environmental
review has been completed on these proposed amendments.
For: Unanimous
Against: None
•
Page 3
Note: Fora more complete review of testimony and discussion, please refer to the transcribed minutes
available in the Planning Department. '.
II �_
Signed:
PLANNING COMMIS O CHAIR
•
PCSHOR.DOC/Judy Wright •
•
ATTACHMENT I
September 13, 1993 _ Cit':l..Co`irnncil: Minutes Page 393
Action: Council schedule a public hearing 9/27/93 to consider the
applicant's request.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Comprehensive Plan: 2. E-20 Earl Price/Fred Steiner: Request to rezone a parcel two lots north
Errata,Zrce teiner of SW Victoria Street between Hayes Place SW and Hardie Avenue SW,
from Mixed Residential (MR) to Multi-Family Infill (MF-I).
4-0
0 (0 P+
i.co Planning and Development Committee Review: This rezone request
n> N J �` would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the parcel's
v:a
land use designation from Single-Family up to 4 Units/Mix to an Existing
T . Rikt Multi-Family District. Adjacent parcels would also be required to have
their zoning and land use designations changed to form a multi-family
W! -,_, district. The Committee is of the opinion that a public hearing should be
1� held on this request jointly with all other Comprehensive Plan
U
c ? amendments generated by the Errata and Comprehensive Plan update
process. Such a hearing would be held prior to adoption of the
w 113 Comprehensive Plan in July, 1994.
`° Action: Council concur in schedulingapublic hearingfor this request
. cv q
c 0 jointly with all other proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, prior to
112.2 ,F, the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in July, 1994.
a MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY MATHEWS, COUNCIL
o
,� CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Comprelie sieve an: 3. E-21 James Dalpay: Clarification of the request to rezone parcels located
Errata, Dalpay approximately at 3955 Sunset Boulevard NE from Mixed Residential
(MR) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN).
Planning and Development Committee Review: The Committee reviewed
the applicant's presentation clarifying his areawide rezone request, and is
of the opinion that a public hearing be held so full Council can consider
the request as stated above.
Action: Council schedule a public hearing 9/27/93 to consider the
applicant's request.
MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL
CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Public Works: Shoreline Referred 8/23/93 - Planning and Development Committee Chairman Stredicke
Master Program presented a report recommending concurrence in the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and staff to approve amendments to the Shorelines
Master Program as follows:
- Designate Springbrook Creek between Grady Way on the north and SW
43rd Street on the south a shoreline of the City;
- Provide a Conservancy. Environment designation for that portion of the
Springbrook Creek beginning from approximately SW 27th Street on the
north, to SW 31st Street on the south, abutting City-owned wetlands in
this area, and for that portion of the west side of the Creek in the
vicinity of SW 38th Street abutting the City's recently-acquired Wetlands
Mitigation Bank;
•
September 13, 1993 Renton City Council Minutes Page 394
- Provide an Urban Environment designation for those sections of
Springbrook Creek beginning from Grady Way on the north to SW 43rd
on the south, that are not designated as Conservancy environment;
o r; - - Modify the definition of "wetlands" or "wetland areas" to only include
-i _�' those areas within 200 feet landward, on a horizontal plane, from the
..E.) �n ordinary high water mark of a designated water body (with the language
v ' "ordinary high water mark" replacing an existing reference to "mean high-
`` water line," and removing the 100 year floodplain/floodway from the
definition of wetland/wetland areas);
W .g •-4` - Revise Sections 1.03 and 2.10 of the Shorelines Master Program to clarify
d a) !jet that the proper appeals procedure of Hearing Examiner decisions on
', shoreline matters is to Shorelines Hearings Board.
0
0:: `�'—� • The Committee further recommended, upon the advice of the City Attorney,
U •
that this matter be referred to City Council on September 13, 1993, in order
713)
that Council may authorize the City Clerk to accept and file the above-listed
c amendments to the Shorelines Master Program (pursuant to Section 4-19-2 of
.(7., 0 the City's Zoning Ordinance). MOVED BY STREDICKE, SECONDED BY
co
.0 w ICis
SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.
o JZZ. CARRIED.
C c City Attorney Warren clarified that the intent of this report was to comply
its co
with City Code requirements to modify the Shorelines Master Program. He
stated that the amendments will be sent to the Department of Ecology for
publication and appeal period.
Comprehensive Plan: CA Councilman Stredicke stated that he will draft and present a new motion next
Zoning Buffer week to include a solid, site-obscuring fence as a buffer requirement when
commercial and residential zones abut.
Community Services. Referred 8/16/93 - Community Services Committee Vice Chair Nelson
Committee presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to
Parks: Cedar River Trail approve the authorizing resolution which will allow preparation of an
Extension Project, WSDOT interlocal agreement as follows:
Interlocal,I greement
The agreement will allow Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) to obligate the Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant Funds
for the construction phase of the Cedar River Trail Extension Project in the
amount of $200,055.00. The Committee further recommended that the
resolution be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY NELSON,
• SECONDED BY SCHLITZER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
REPORT. CARRIED. (See later resolution.)
Finance Committee - Finance Committee Chair Mathews presented a report recommending approval
Finance: Vouchers of Claims Vouchers #103974 - 104816; four wire transfers in the total amount
of $4,229,348.20; approval of Payroll Vouchers #119917 - 120808; and 725
direct deposits in the total amount of $2,116,130.55. MOVED BY
MATHEWS, SECONDED BY NELSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED.
Transportation Committee Referred 6/14/93 - Transportation (Aviation) Committee Vice Chair Schlitzer
Transportation: North presented a report stating that inasmuch as planning and zoning requirements
Renton Pa king are going to be enforced, the Committee has addressed the parking and zoning
Enforcement enforcement concerns of the North Renton citizens.
The Committee recommended.to Council that the parking ordinance be
amended to conform to parking provisions of the zoning ordinance. MOVED
- faepPk'e- CQ
DC4, 4* S.7Y1
SHORELINE' MASTER PROGRAM
CITY OF RENTON
DECEMBER 5, 1983
II
5 � I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
f '
Introduction 1
Procedures 5
Shorelines of the City 13
Goals and Policies 14
Environments ' 20
General Use Regulations 23
Specific Use Regulations 25
7.01 Airport - Seaplane Bases 25
7.02 Aqualculture 26
7.03 Boat-launching Ramps 26
7.04 Bulkheads 27
7.05 Commercial Developments 28
7.06 Dredging 28
7.07 Industrial Development 30
7.08 Landfill 31
7.09 Marinas 31 ,
7.1.0 Mining 32
7.11 Parking 32
7.12 Piers and Docks 33
7.13 Recreation 34
7.14' Residential Development 35
7.15 Roads and Railroads . 36
7.16 Stream Alteration 36
7.17 Trails 37
7.18 Utilities 38
g Variances and Conditional Uses 41
9 Definitions 43
� I
LIST OF FIGURES (MAPS) '
5-1 Map of Environments 22-A
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
1.01 I BACKGROUND
For several years there has been growing concern among citizens, local
government and State government about the increasing pressures affecting the
utilization of the shorelines within the State. In general, shorelines are of
limited supply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for such
traditional uses as ports, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as new
demands for recreational subdivisions, private housing, commercial and
industrial uses. More people, higher incomes, more leisure time, and general
business growth have combined to create a heavy use of the shorelines.
In the fall of 1970, the Washington Environmental Council circulated an
initiative petition known as the Shorelines Protection Act, or Initiative 43, and
gathered enough signatures to certify it to the legislature meeting in 1971.
Initiative 43 placed the primary responsibility for the planning and
implementation of the Act with State government. The legislature then had the
choice of accepting Initiative 43, passing a substititue measure, or taking no
action whatsoever. They chose the second option and enacted engrossed
substitute House Bill #584, which was called the Shoreline Management Act of
1971, and it subsequently became Initiative 43B. Initiative 4.3B called for local
control of planning and implementation of the Act.
In November of 1972, both measures were placed on the ballot, and the State's
voters selected the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.48). This Act
is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our State are among our most
"valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted development of
these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and
management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of
uncoordinated and piece-meal development of our State's shorelines.
1.02 REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have
the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering
the regulatory requirements of the Act, with the Department of Ecology acting
in a supportive and review capacity. As set forth in the provisions of the Act,
local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements:
1. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial
development on wetlands of designated water.bodies.
2. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which includes a survey of
natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership.
3. Development of a Master Program to provide an objective guide for
regulating the use of shorelines.
- 1 -
1.03 COMPLIANCE IN RENTON
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 directs all local
governments to develop a Master Program for the management of all shorelines
and associated wetlands lying within the corporate limits. This Master Program
has been prepared to comply with the requirements of that Act and to
formulate guidelines which will regulate the future utilization and development
of the shorelines lying within the corporate limits of the city of Renton.
Specifically, this Master Program affects the shorelines of Lake Washington,
Cedar River, Green River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek, and
any other shoreline later coming under the jurisdiction of the Act.
In compliance with the first requirement of the State Act, and as part of this
Master Program, the City of Renton is establishing a permit system, under
which a permit would have to be obtained for any substantial development .
proposed within aforementioned shorelines, within the city limits of Renton.
Substantial _development, according to the law, means any development on
which the fair market value exceeds $1,000.00, or any development which would
interfere with the normal public uses of the water or shorelines. As part of
that permit system, the following are considered general exceptions to the
permit requirement*:
1. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures.
2. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family
residences.
3. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by
the elements.
4. Construction of barns or similar agricultural buildings.
5. Construction or modification of navigational aids.
6. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a
single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which
residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average
grade level.
7. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the
non-commercial use of the owner of a single family residence, the cost of
which does not exceed $2,500.00.
* (Applications for Exceptions must still be submitted to and approved by
the Building and Zoning Department.)
However, any development which occurs within the city's shoreline, as defined
by the Act, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the
intent of the State law.
Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative
responsibility lies jointly with the Building and Zoning Department and the
Policy Development Department, but the permits are reviewed in the event of
dispute by the Land Use Hearing Examiner, who has the authority to approve or
deny permit applications. Liberal provisions for appeal of permit decisions to
the State of Washington Shorelines Hearings Board are also provided.
- 2 -
In compliance with the second requirement of the Act, the Renton Planning
Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural
characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the City's
shoreline. The inventory was completed in October, 1972, and provided a
substantial basis for the development of this Master Program. The
environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are
documented in that inventory.
In compliance with the third requirement of the Act, the City of Renton, with
the help of its local citizens, has developed a Shoreline Master Program to
serve as a guide for regulating use of the City's shorelines. Included therein is
a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations,
and provisions for variances and conditional uses, that were enacted as part of
an overall plan which will regulate the future utilization and development of
the shorelines lying within the corporate limits of the city of Renton.
1.04 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASTER PROGRAM
The Shoreline Management Act requires that Renton's Shoreline Management
Program serve as an objective guide for regulating use of the City's shorelines.
As defined by the Act, the Master Program is to be general, comprehensive, and
long-range (20-30 years) in order to be applicable to all of Renton's shorelines.
"General" means that the policies, proposals, and guidelines are not directed
towards any specific sites. "Comprehensive" means that• the Program is
directed toward all land and water uses, their impact on the environment and
logical estimates of future growth, and it also means that the Program shall
recognize the plans and programs of other governmental units, and adjacent
jursidictions. "Long range" means that the Program is to be directed at least
twenty (20) to thirty (30) years into the future, look beyond immediate uses, and
follow creative objectives rather than a simple projection of current trends and
conditions.
The basic intent of this Master Program is to provide for the management of
our City's shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a
manner which will promote and enhance the best'interests of the general
public. This Master Program has further been formulated to protect the public
interest and general welfare in the City's shorelines and, at the same time, to
recognize and protect owners' legal property rights consistent with the public
interest. The goals and policies of this Master Program are formulated so as to
enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public
use is consistent with, and does not impair, legal private property rights. It is
recognized that the shorelines of the city of Renton are located within a major
I urbanized area and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of
additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and
development of the shorelines. An attempt has, therefore, been made to
present a planned, rational, and concerted effort to increase coordinated and
optimum utilization of the shorelines of the city of Renton.
- 3 -
Additionally, this Master Program has also been formulated so as to provide for
uses of our shorelines in the following order of preference:
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on
shoreline's of state-wide significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines.
7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary.
It should also be noted that the Department of Ecology has designated Lake
Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning. The Lake
Washington Regional Shoreline Goals and Policies adopted by the Regional
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 31, 1973, have been considered in the
formulation of this Master Program.
This Master Program should be read in its entirety and be considered as a
whole. The goals and policies and specific uses of this Master Program were
developed in an attempt to provide long-range planning which would govern the
future utilization and development of our shorelines. Although it is anticipated
that this Master Program will need to be revised from time to time as
additional shorelines are annexed and become subject to the provisions of this
Act, as planned unit developments are established and as additional experience
is gained working with this Act during its initial implementation period, it is
felt that the general goals and policies of this Master Program provide the
general guidelines under which future utilization and development might occur.
We feel confident that these final guidelines are expressive of the concerns of
the citizens of the City of Renton for the management of their shorelines. This
Master Program has been written with the spirit of optimism, with the hope
that our legacy of natural grandeur in the City of Renton will be more wisely
used in the brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that succeeding
generations might have it to enjoy.
In 1982, the Renton Planning Commission recommended revisions to the Master
Program in accordance with the provisions requiring periodic review. The
Renton City Council adopted revisions to this Master Program in late 1983.
- 4 -
SECTION 2. PROCEDURES
2.01 INFORMATION PRIOR TO SUBMITTING APPLICATION
Prior to submitting an application for a substantial development permit or an
exemption from a substantial development permit, the applicant should
informally discuss a proposed development with the Building and Zoning
Department. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the.
requirements of this Master Program, Building and Zoning procedures, and
enforcement procedures.
2.02 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
2.02.01' Application Forms and Fees
No substantial development shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City
without first obtaining a "substantial development permit" from the Building
and Zoning Department. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms
and in a procedure prescribed by the Building and Zoning Department.
Application forms may be revised from time to time by the Building and Zoning
Department without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should
be designed to obtain for the Building and Zoning Department such information
as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified. Applications
shall be made by the property owner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract
purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property and, except for
applications filed by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agencies,
shall be accompanied by a receipt issued by the Finance Department showing
payment of the applicable fees which are established by the fee schedule
ordinance.
2.02.02 Publishing and Posting
The applicant shall cause to be published notices thereof once a week for two
(2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the area where
said development is proposed, provided, however, that the Building and Zoning
Department shall have the right to require additional publications by the
applicant in a newspaper of general circulation in a neighboring jurisdiction if it
appears that the proposed project may affect the environment of such
neighboring jurisdiction. The applicant shall bear the cost of publication.
- 5 -
Three (3) copies of the notice shall be posted prominently on the property
concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred (300) feet
thereof. Each such notice shall include a statement that persons desiring to
present their views to the Building and Zoning Department with regard to said
application may do so in writing to that Department and persons interested in
the Building and Zoning Department's action on an application for a permit may
submit their views in writing or notify the Building and Zoning Department in
writing of their interest within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication
of such notice. Such notification or submission of views to the Building and
Zoning Department shall entitle those persons to a copy of the action taken on
the application. The applicant shall submit proof of publication to the Building
and Zoning Department within ten (10) days after the last date of publication.
An affidavit of publication by the newspaper shall be sufficient.
2.02.03 Review Guidelines
Unless exempted or authorized through the variance,or conditional use permit
provisions of this Master Program, no substantial development permit and no
other permit shall be granted unless the proposed development is consistent
with the provisions of this Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act of
1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology
thereunder.
2.02.04 Burden of Proof on Applicant
The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent
with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the
applicant.
2.02.05 Conditional Approval
Should the Building and Zoning Director and/or the Policy Development
Director find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria
imposed by the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, he
may deny such application or attach any terms or condition which he deems
suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and objective of this Master
Program.
2.02.06 Administrative Appeals
Where an application is denied or changed, per 2.02.05, an applicant may appeal
the decision denying or changing a "substantial development permit" to the
Land Use Hearing Examiner. The Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have the
final authority to interpret this Master Program for the City of Renton. See
Section 2.10 for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board.
- 6 -
2.02.07 Notification of City Departments
It shall be the duty of the Building and Zoning Department to timely furnish
copies of all applications and actions taken by said department unto the Public
Works Department and City Clerk and such other officials or departments
whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed development.
2.02.08 Bonds
The Building and Zoning Department and the Policy Development Department
may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of Renton to
assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said
department on any substantial development permit. Said bond shall be in an
amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be '
carried out within the time stipulated.
2.03 EXEMPTIONS
2.03.01 Exemptions from Permit System
The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose
of this Master Program:
A. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter
80.50. RCW.
B. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not
exceed $1,000, if such development does not materially interfere with the
normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State.
C. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments,
including damage by accident, fire or elements.
D. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family
residences.
E. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by
the elements.
F. Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on wetlands.
G. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a
single-family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which
residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average
grade level and which meets all requirements of the State agency or local
government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed
pursuant to this chapter.
I. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the
non-commercial use of the owner of a single-family residence, the cost of
which does not exceed $2,500.
- 7 -
. 1
J. Any development on shorelines of the City included within a preliminary
or final plat approved by the City prior to April 1, 1981, if:
1. The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary
plat was approved after April 30, 1969; or
2. Sales of lots to purchasers with reference to the plat, or substantial
development incident to platting or required by the plat, occurring
prior to April 1, 1971; and
3. The development to be made without a permit meets all
requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant
to this Master Program; and
4. The development does not involve construction of buildings, or
involves construction on wetlands of buildings to serve only as
community, social, or recreational facilities for the use of owners of
platted lots and the buildings do not exceed a height of thirty-five
(35) feet above grade level; and
5. The development is completed by June 1, 1973.
2.03.02 Exemption Certificate Procedures
Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of this Master
Program, as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section, may make
application for a no-fee exemption certificate to the Building and Zoning
Department in the manner prescribed by that department.
2.04 REVIEW OF APPLICATION
2.0'4.01 Review Criteria
The Building and Zoning Department and the Policy Development Department
shall review an application for a permit based on the following:
A. The application.
B. The environmental impact statement, if one is required.
l ,
C. Written comments from interested persons.
D. Information and comments from other City departments affected.
E. Independent study by the Building and Zoning Department and the Policy
Development Department.
F. Evidence presented at a public hearing, should the Building and Zoning
Department and the Policy Development Department decide that it would
be in the public interest to hold a public hearing. The Building and Zoning
Department and the Policy Development Department shall have powers to
prescribe rules and regulations for such hearings.
- 8 -
i
•
2.04.02', Additional Information
The Building and Zoning Department may require an applicant to furnish
information and data in addition to that contained or required in the application
forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously
been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the City's
Environmental Review Committee shall cause to be prepared such a statement,
prior to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
would require such a statement.
2.04.03 Administrative Standards
In addition to the criteria hereinabove set forth in this Section, the Policy
Development Department may from time to time promulgate additional
procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to
writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and
the Department of Ecology.
2.05 APPLICATION TO THE PERMIT SYSTEM TO DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKEN
PRIOR TO JUNE 1, 1971
2.05.01 Permit Required
Substantial development undertaken on the shorelines of the City, prior to June
1, 1971, shall not require a permit except under the following circumstances:
A. Where the activity was unlawful prior to June 1, 1971.
B. Where there has been an unreasonable period of dormancy in the project
between its inception and June 1, 1971.
C. Where the development is not completed prior to June 1, 1973.
D. Where, development occurred prior to June 1, 1971, on a shoreline and
continued onto a different lake, river or tributary after June 1, 1971, a
permit shall be required for the substantial development undertaken after
June 1, 1971.
2.05.021 Phasing
' Substantial development undertaken prior to June 1, 1971, shall not continue
without a permit until other phases that were not an integral part of the
development being followed at the time construction commenced.
2.06 TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
2.06.011 Construction Commencement
Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this
Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years after the approval of
the permit by the City, or the permit shall terminate. If such progress has not
been made, a new permit shall be necessary. [WAC 173-14-060(1)]
1
I - 9 -
1
•
2.06.02 Construction Completion
A permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of no more than five
(5) years; provided, however, that a project for which a permit has been granted
has not been completed within five (5) years after the approval of the permit,
the Building and Zoning Department shall, upon such expiration, review the
permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the permit for a period up
to one (1) year. Otherwise said permit shall terminate provided, however, that
no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and
extension prior to the expiration date of said permit. [WAC 173-14-060(2)]
2.06.03 Review Period
No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no
building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by
the City until thirty (30) days from the date of final approval and granting of
the permit, or until all review proceedings are completed as were initiated
within the thirty (30) days of the date of final approval by the City of Renton.
2.06.04 Transferability of Permit
If a parcel which has a valid substantial development permit is sold to another
person or firm, such permit may be transferred to the new owner upon proper
application to the Building and Zoning Department. The Building and Zoning
Department may transfer said permit provided there will be no change in the
proposed development.
2.07 RULINGS TO STATE
Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under
authority of this Master Program, whether it is an approval or denial, shall,
with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed concurrently with.
the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the Building and
Zoning Department.
2.08 ENFORCEMENT
All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforced by the Building and
Zoning Department. For such purposes, the Building and Zoning Director or his
duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer.
2.09 RESCISSION OF PERMITS
2.09.01 Non-compliance with Permit
Any substantial development permit issued by the City under the terms of this
Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Building and Zoning
Department of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with
conditions of the permit. If the holder of the permit chooses, he shall be
entitled to a hearing before the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
- 10 -
2.09.02 Notice of Non-compliance
Such rescission and/or modification of an issued permit shall be initiated by
serving written notice of non-compliance on the permittee, which notice shall
be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address
listed on the application or to such other address as the applicant or permittee
may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or
permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as
provided by law.
2.09.03 Posting
In addition to such notice, the Building and Zoning Department shall cause to
have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one (1) posting shall be at
or within the area described in the permit.
2.09.041 Public Hearing
Before any such permit can be rescinded or modified, a public hearing may be
held at the permittee's written request by the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
Such written request must be made by said permittee not later than 14 calendar
days following service of notice upon permittee.
2.09.05 Final Descision
The descision of the Land Use Hearing Examiner shall be the final descision of
the City on all applications. A written descision shall be transmitted to the
Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such
other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the
legislative body of the City.
2.10 APPEALS
Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development
permit on shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a permit pursuant to
the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the State of
Washington Shorelines Hearing Board by filing a request for the same within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the final order and by concurrently filing copies of
such request with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office
as provided in Section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. A copy
of any such appeal notice shall likewise be filed with the Building and Zoning
Department and the City Clerk of the City of Renton.
2.11 PENALTIES
2.11.01 Prosecution
Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable under conviction by a
fine not exceeding five hundred ($500) dollars, or by imprisonment not
exceeding ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each
day's violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense.
- 11 -
i
2.11.02 Injunction
The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions as
are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines within the City
in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this
Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
2.11.03 Public and Private Redress
Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who
violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit
issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private
property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the
affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may
bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private
persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on
their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has
been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by violation, the
Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished
within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such
relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award
attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.
2.12 AMENDMENTS
The City shall review this Master Program every four (4) years hereafter, or
sooner if necessary. Any amendments to this Master Program shall be reviewed
first by the Planning Commission, which shall conduct at least one (1) public
hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council, which may hold at least one (1) public
hearing before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be
submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with
Section 19 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
- 12 -
SECTION 3 - SHORELINES OF THE CITY
3.01 Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the
jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By State standards, the
Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State-wide
Significance, and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the City
of Renton. In addition, the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River,
Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines within the City. These 18
miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable
resource not only to the City of Renton, but also to the State Metropolitan
Area of which Renton is an integral part.
3.02 Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which makes it valuable and
preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of
priority (as established by Chapter 90.5.020 RCW):
1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest for
shorelines of state-wide significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
3.03 In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act:
1. Cedar River.
2. Green River.
3. Lake Washington.
4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31st Street in the
southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32-24-5E WM
downstream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington.
5. Springbrook Creek north from S.W. Grady Way.to the Black River.
6. Black River.
The above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
3.04 The jurisdiction of this Master Program includes shorelines and wetlands as
defined in Section 9.
- 13 -
1
. 1 • FIGURE 3-1 '�
Ili\ r.
it It:. ii • 1
( ,.._j
SHORELINE , --� ��
— --
MANAGEMENT I �4 < k •A, T OF 1971 .:_4 1 ,��,
1 AL n I. b
___-r _ __
1r I MAY
■
CREEK
i • Al iti 61
Its
—_ ' LAKE lC— I
bYASHINGTON PMMIEDII
- --------—-Ti - ---
e
MEI Ili= 1
, ov-N., \41 MI
•
--_ .a P'�VI 'PA' L:. ItI �ME . --
. r,l( ■ il 1 N 1 .
ir r rI I_.
-■= I, / \ tyr = '1
k -._. ��hi)
-ems I . .. j Alpo �i -
N Iplilio )1mi -zzore. \,
rigr 111.11;611 '" .
: irqUlatribl. bi -
. ak. ,Atid 170. k, ' :\ 1111111::8,e Mb . MI . .
' 41.7,4„.....a . maga I IN HMV/ .4 - Up
i`(._ -'.'
�I BLACK i�[1 hlh 4 II CEDAR 11=-- -L
H • � ) 1 RIVER **weir �,,J INI/!- +� RIVER rjdo� 1 I -
1
SPRINGBROOK
- _�
- -�� �r CREEK ;1
f
SIN
...0.&. ..._.-. . ' • - ." ! -.,' '4_, -4111y0.-
. ' • • 4,„ -.....ininillire fink' Aik_....... • . ---\
441\14 -__..,;.taulititil . --) 1 ; 1 tel 411N-V\ -•-__ •,,
I i iss. m ik ..,. Alts 'T -MI 41' bli--. 7. 11_4 PI illainir%= • lir
i iIrS 7**-
1 1 , iIiuii1 .". , e r
-!: — E. -' UPI ' _ .
Nli
HI _ .
. r ' . ) 1 . . . L ,
-7-1-'-773.-- ---------\:_/---,,,
�� GREEN !
RIVER , t I - { H
rr_
' t)i - ',
- I11 -\'
1] L-., .-. , -3-hfl l dI11 gi I UI..
d1I •
�� f �'� LAKE
..' Vt'' ''' . .
13-A
SECTION 4. GOALS AND POLICIES
4.01 SHORELINE USES AND ACTIVITIES ELEMENT
4.01.01 Goals:
A. Shorelines of the City are to be planned and coordinated to afford best
use of the limited water resource.
B. Shorelines of the City are to provide natural amenities within an urban
environment.
4.01.02 Policies:
A. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned
for:
1. Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be
evaluated in relationship to potential long-term effects on the
shoreline.
2. Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance
the natural amenities of the shorelines and which depend on a
shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines:
3. Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and
regulatory standards should not increase the density of intensity of
shoreline uses or activities except on a demonstrated need
considering the shorelines and then only in accordance with the
policies contained herein.
4. Plans should be developed for shorelines particularly suited for
water-dependent uses or activities.
5. Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and
integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible.
6. Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating
new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or
for general enhancement of shoreline areas.
7. Shoreline uses and activities should be discouraged if they are
objectionable due to noise or odor or if they create offensive or
unsafe conditions in relation to reasonable and appropriate uses and
activities.
B. Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water related should be
encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline.
C. All shoreline developments shall be designed and constructed to protect
the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners.
- 14 -
I ,
4.02 CONSERVATION ELEMENT
4.02.01 Goal:
The resources and amenities of all shorelines situated in the City of Renton are
to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future
generations.
4.02.02 Policies:
A. Existing natural resources should be conserved.
1. Water quality and water flow should be maintained at a level to
permit recreational use, to provide a suitable habitat for desirable
forms of aquatic life, and to satisfy other required human needs.
2. Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected,
improved and, if feasible, increased.
3. Wildlife habitats should be protected, improved and, if feasible,
increased.
4.. Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as 'open
space for passive forms of recreation. Access and use should be
restricted, if necessary, for the conservation of these areas.
B. Existing and future activities on all shorelines and wetlands within the
City of Renton should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the
environment.
C. The City of Renton should take aggressive action with responsible
governmental agencies to assure that the discharges from all drainage
basins are considered an integral part of shoreline planning.
1. Soil erosion and sedimentation which adversely affect any shoreline
within the city of Renton will be prevented or controlled.
2. The contamination of existing water courses will be prevented or
controlled.
D. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educational or scientific value
should be identified and protected.
1. Public and private cooperation should be encouraged in site
preservation and protection.
2. Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from
intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined.
E. Festivals and temporary uses involving public interest and not
substantially or permanently impairing water quality, water flow or
unique and fragile areas may be permitted per Chapter 5-21 of the
Renton Municipal Code.
- 15 -
F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405
should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that
such development would permit and provide for the continuation of
the existing natural character of the shoreline.
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 should be left
in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible.
4.03 ECONOMIC ELEMENT
4.03.01 Goal:
Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and
economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged.
4.03.02 Policies:
A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be
discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are
permitted, reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should
be provided.
B. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an
efficient manner.
1. Economic uses and activities should minimize and cluster that
water-related portion of their development along the shoreline and
place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge
location.
2. The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be
limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions.
3. Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic
view.
C. Multiple use of economic developments on the shoreline should be
encouraged to provide public recreational opportunities wherever feasible.
D. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other
vessels should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible.
1. Commercial dockings and marinas shall meet all health standards.
2. Marinas and other economic activities shall be required to contain
and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with
boating activities.
E. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be
discouraged.
F. Containment or mitigation of pollutants shall be required of all economic
activities on the shoreline by property owner and/or operator.
- 16 -
li
4.04 PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT
4.04.01 Goal:
Increase public accessibility to shorelines, and preserve and improve the natural
amenities.
4.04.02 Policies:
A. Public access should recognize and be consistent with legal property
rights of the owner.
B. Just compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired
for public use.
C. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with
public safety and preservation/conservation of the natural amenities.
D. Public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout
publicly owned shoreline areas.
E. Public access from public streets shall be 'made available over public
property or by easement.
F. Future multi-family, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial
and industrial developments shall be encouraged to provide public access
along the water's edge.
G. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall not be denied
to owners of property contiguous to said corridor.
H. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures,
multi-family, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and
P >
industrial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to
and along the water's edge if physically feasible.
I. High-rise structures on the shoreline shall be prohibited, but could be
permitted adjacent to the shoreline if:
1. Views of the shoreline would not be substantially obstructed due to
topographic conditions, and
2. Some overriding considerations of the public interest would be
served.
Shoreline low-rise development should provide substantial grade level
views of the water from public shoreline roads running generally parallel
to the water's edge.
J. Both passive and active public areas shall be designed and provided.
K. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking
shall be provided at frequent locations.
- 17 -
I
• L. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic
consideration in the design of shoreline areas to which public access is
provided, including the trail system.
M. In planning for public access, emphasis should be placed on foot and
bicycle paths rather than roads, except in areas where public boat
launching would be desirable.
4.05 RECREATION ELEMENT
4.05.01 Goal:
Water-related recreational activities available to the public are to be
encouraged.
4.05.02 Policies:
A. Water-related recreational activities should be encouraged.
1. Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved.
2. Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number.
3. Areas for specialized recreation should be developed.
4. Both passive and active recreational areas shall be provided.
B. Recreational fishing should be supported, maintained and increased.
C. Public agencies should be encouraged to buy shoreland, as it becomes
available for sale, based upon an established plan declaring public intent.
D. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand
recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development,
and maintenance of waterfront areas.
E. Subject to state and federal regulations, the water's depth may be
changed to foster recreational aspects.
4.061 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
4.061.01 Goal:
Minimize motor vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian traffic within the
shorelines.
4.06.02 Policies:
A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible and should
be restricted to existing rights-of-way.
B. Public transportation should be encouraged to facilitate access to
shoreline recreation areas.
- 18 -
i
C. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including provisions for maintenance, •
operation and security, should be developed.
1. Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by
pedestrian and bicycle pathways.
2. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in'new
or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines.
3. Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in
publicly financed transportation systems or rights-of-way,
consistent with public interest and safety.
D. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be
discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial' and
industrial areas.
4.07 RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT
4.07.01 I Goal:
Existing residential uses are to be recognized, but future residential
development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines
consistent with legal property rights of the owner.
4.07.02 Policies:
A. Residential uses over water shall not be permitted.
IB. Residential development should not be constructed in unique and fragile
', areas. "
C. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline
should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available.
D. Residential structures near the shorelines shall be set back from the
water's edge at least twenty (20) feet.
E. Future shoreline subdivision and planned unit developments (P.U.D.)
should provide regulated public access to and/or along the water's edge.
F. Low density development should be encouraged in future residential
developments along the shoreline.
G. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space
areas.
H. - All further development on the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI-405
should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline.
1. Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that
such development would permit and provide for the continuation of
the existing natural character of the shoreline.
2. The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI-405 should be left
in an undeveloped state as much as possible.
- 19 -
• T
• SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTS
5.01 THREE ENVIRONMENTS
Three environments, Natural, Conservancy, and Urban, shall be designated to
provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively
{ different shoreline areas. The environmental designation to be given any
specific area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the
biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for
development and the goals and aspirations of local citizenry. Shorelines have
been categorized according to the natural characteristics and use regulations
have been designated herein.
5.02 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
5.02'I01 Designation of the Natural Environment
A. Objective: The objective in designating a Natural environment is to
protect and preserve unique and fragile shoreline or wetland environments
in their natural state. The Natural environment is intended to provide
areas of wildlife sanctuary and habitat preservation.
B. Areas to be Designated as a Natural Environment:
1. Areas that are unique or fragile.
2. Floodways areas.
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: The only human activity that is
acceptable is for floodway drainage or storage. All other human
activities including recreation are considered inappropriate.
5.02.02 Acquisition of Natural Areas:
The City of Renton recognizes that preservation of Natural shoreline areas can
only be assured through public acquisition. Therefore, where private
development is proposed in areas so designated, the City shall require
dedication as necessary for flood storage.
5.02 03 Jurisdiction:
That portion of the north bank of the Black River lying west of its confluence
with Springbrook Creek, shall be designated Natural (see figure 5-1).
5.03 CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENT
5.03 01 Designation of the Conservancy Environment
rf
A. Objective: The objective in designating a Conservancy environment is to
protect, conserve, and manage existing areas with irreplaceable natural or
aesthetic features in essentially their native state, while providing for
limited use of the area. The Conservancy environment is intended to
provide a pleasant break in the surrounding urban community. This
environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs
of Renton.
- 20 -
B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment:
1. Areas of high scenic value.
2. Valuable areas for wildlife habitat.
3. Hazardous slope areas.
4. Flood-prone areas.
5. Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense
development.
6. Areas with unique or fragile features.
C. Acceptable Activities and Uses: Activities and uses considered to be
acceptable in a Conservancy environment are those of a nonconsumptive
nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that
are to be predominant in a Conservancy environment are low density
residential, passive agricultural uses such as pasture or range lands; and
passive outdoor recreation.
5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment
A. Commercial Uses: Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations,
which shall be contained wholly within the dwelling unit.
B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations: Any such activity shall
be allowed only by the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
I I
C. Industrial Uses: All industrial activities are prohibited in a Conservancy
environment.
D. Recreation Use: In the Conservancy environment, recreation uses shall be
limited to passive recreation.
1. Permitted Uses:
(a) Public hiking and bicycle trails. o
(b) Non-motorized public fishing.
(c) Public wading and swimming spots.
(d) Public areas for nature study.
(e) Public picnic areas.
2. Uses Allowed by Hearing Examiner:
(a) Public overnight camping areas.
E. Residential Uses:
1. Permitted Uses: Low-density single family residences.
2. Prohibited Uses: Multi-family residences of two 2. units or more.
F. Utilities:
1. Local Service Utilities: The necessary local service utilities shall be
permitted for approved activities and uses within the Conservancy
environment and shall be underground per City code requirements.
2. Major Utilities: Major utilities may be allowed only by approval of
the Land Use Hearing Examiner and only if they cross the
conservancy area in the shortest feasible route.
- 21 -
1
5.03.03 Jurisdiction
That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that portion of the south bank
of the Cedar River, 2,500 feet east of FAI-405, shall be designated conservancy
(see figure 5-1).
5.04 URBAN ENVIRONMENT
5.04.01 Designation of the Urban Environment
A. Objective: The objective of the Urban environment is to ensure optimum
utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for public
use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing
development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a
multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses.
B. High-intensity Land Uses: The Urban environment is an area of
high-intensity land use including residential, commercial, and industrial
development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines
within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas
presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas
planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. On certain shorelines
planned for future urban expansion, there should be limitations based on
the physical aspects of the site.
C. Water-dependent Activities: Because shorelines suitable for urban uses
are a limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within
already developed areas and particularly to water-dependent industrial
and commercial uses requiring frontage on shorelines.
D. Public Access: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning
for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment.
Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for
permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall be
accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and
ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be
designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable,
and the various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized
transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths.
5.04.02 Use Regulations in the Urban Environment
All uses shall be allowed as indicated by Section 7 of the Master Program.
5.04.03 Jurisdiction
1
All shorelines of the City not designated as Conservancy or Natural are
designated as Urban (see figure 5-1).
I I
- 22 -
FIGURE 5-1 l 1Iii
• ENVIRONMENT ! �� 1 V ( , 1
- -
URBAN A
17 ,14. •
. . . CONSERVANCY 4 MAY i ' I
••• NATURAL ' A. l■ CREEK 1 .
igtim
/N • 1 ea �. i
LAKE (TM
WASHINGTON Ihr ��k NI . . . .
1 -- - '',‘, 1111117_. n -
• \
1.;\ e.' -‘ ,, MIN lit10-%.414MgreA 1 I \ I
*N N. • I \\ II" IMIkt4111:1 Fell M .... — .._-.
-- -gypp E
- p\r—liummir, 'd_ rti amino
la - *171%4 iret k , ezir.,101.3 IN
111Mb 111III ��� - -��.w.
- tii_ EliirAviallii11.4 it Thilz±-tie- MA . ,. ' . ,
/ -4-miter .blar I., ..fimummumwow- . • . woo! ,
'( �' BLACK Ch- 41' II CEDAR , r'i - r--� -I
m� C� 1 RIVED ��4��•���; 1'�1/� RIVER �� 1 I l
%' �P�\i\ _ SPRINGBROOK. , Il1. — -- . i_ ` 1. i
1 \ ii V CREEK III !-: _**44 - 1
), ;;��ii• 7111 ..V7-e• --' . . . I -46\Z , - _ ,
i gill N. ; -�
tan ._______ .
--41,r-iria-li ., 1
r---1.011.1 14 1 1 . • (ROL PINEY411EFFATAIK .f-lb . 4Wer. ' '
, Ill .,,
I listmilai.....DIM 19\ N
e
i ____,_ • ' I LitN-floirismi%
i A. --P- 111 I . ., .. ..
, r . ....v, r ..
GREEN ` \
i I IRIVER )VII
r
—� I— 1 I �'. L- — --
i L. I
''"'D I '` ih .
LAKE �
)> NA % YOUNGS i
Pit 11 . fl---4 • fl
22-A
SECTION 6. GENERAL USE REGULATIONS
6.01 APPLICABILITY
This section shall apply to all Shoreline uses whenever applicable. Items
included here will not necessarily be repeated in Section 7, Specific Use
Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all permits.
6.02 I ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
6.02.01 Pollution and Ecological Disruption
The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life
and other wild life (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and
circulation habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other
environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or
facility which may have detrimental effects on the environment.
6.02.02, Burden on Applicant
Applicants for permits must explain the methods that will be used to abate,
avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects.
6.02.03 Erosion
Erosion is to be controlled through the use of vegetation rather than structural
means where feasible.
6.02.04 Geology
Important geological factors - such as possible slide areas - on a site must be
considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the
development permit must be safe and appropriate in view of the geological,
factors prevailing.
6.03 USE COMPATIBILITY AND AESTHETIC EFFECTS
6.03.01 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly
distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and
efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects:
A. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,
1
poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures.
B. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land
traffic, and other structures and activities.
C. Design Theme: Architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping
patterns and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a
uniform or coordinated design, planned for the purpose of visual
enhancement as well as for serving a useful purpose.
- 23 -
D. Visually Unpleasant Areas: Landscaped screening shall be used to hide
from public view any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a
site, for example, disposal bins, storage yards, and outdoor work areas.
E. Outdoor Activities: Work areas, storage, and other activities on a site in
a residential area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonably possible,
to reduce distractions and other effects on surrounding areas. Outdoor
activities of commercial and industrial operations shall be limited to
those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor areas shall
not be used for storage of more than minimal amounts of equipment,
parts, materials, products, or other objects.
6.04 PUBLIC ACCESS
6.04.01 Where possible, space and right-of-way shall be left available on the immediate
shoreline so that trails, non-motorized bike paths, and/or other means of public
use may be developed providing greater shoreline utilization.
6.04.02 Any trail system shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential
property rights.
6.04:03 No property shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the
owner.
6.051 FACILITY ARRANGEMENT - SHORELINE ORIENTATION
6.05O1 Where feasible, shoreline developments shall minimize and cluster the
water-dependent portion of their developments along the shoreline and place
inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge location.
6.06: LANDSCAPING
6.06101 General
The natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous
character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and
shall be compatible with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and
ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized
and preserved as valuable resources.
6.07;, UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS
Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into
the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment.
- 24 -
SECTION 7. SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS •
7.01 AIRPORT - SEAPLANE BASES
7.01.01I Location
A. Airports: A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the
shoreline. However, an airport already located within a shoreline shall be
permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities provided such upgrading and
expansion would not have a detrimental effect on the shoreline.
B. Seaplane Bases:
1. Private: A single private seaplane is permitted per residence.
2. Commercial: New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in
industrial areas provided such bases are not contiguous to residential
areas.
7.01.02 Facilities
A. Airports
1. Future hangars should be set back a minimum of twenty feet from
the water's edge and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing
of airport activities from the area along the water's edge.
2. Tie-down areas should be no closer than twenty (20) feet from the
water's edge for aircraft.
B. Seaplane Bases (Commercial)
1. Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted. Seaplanes may
be stored on the dock or ramps.
2. Tie-down areas may be provided on seaplane ramps.
7.01.03 Landscaping
A. Landscaping shall be required around parking areas in accordance with
City ordinances. '
B. The landscaping shall be compatible with the activites and characteristics
of aircraft in that it should be wind resistant, low profile, and able to
survive under adverse conditions.
7.01.04 Services
Services of aircraft shall conform to FAA standards, which include fuel, oil spill
clean-up, safety and fire fighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian
I'' separation.
- 25 -
• 7.02 AQUACULTURE
7.02.01 Location
A. Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers, EXCEPT in
Natural and Conservancy environments [WAC 173-16-060(2)], ,and along
urban areas developed with residential uses.
7.02.02 Time
Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only.
7.02I.03 Design and Construction
A. All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions:
1. They shall be securely fastened to the shore.
2. They shall be designed for a minimum of interference with the
natural systems of the waterway including, for example, water flow
and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life.
3. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water,
such as swimming and/or boating.
4. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline
uses, if potential conflicts exist.
7.03 BOAT-LAUNCHING RAMPS
7.023.01 Site Appropriateness and Characteristics
A. Water and Shore Characteristics
1. Water depth should be deep enough off the shore to allow use by
boats.
2. Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be
suitable for ramp activity.
B. Topography: The proposed area should not present major geological or
topographical obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Site
adaptation such as dredging shall be minimized.
7.03!02 Dimensions and Location
The ramp should be designed so as to allow for ease of access to the water with
minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface.
I _
7.03�03 Surface and Construction
A. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast
concrete, or other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as
gravel or cinders, will not be used. The material chosen shall be
appropriate considering the following conditions:
_ 1. Soil characteristics
2. Erosion
- 26 -
3. Water currents '
4. Waterfront conditions
5. Usage of the ramp
B. The material shall be permanent and non-contaminating to the water.
7.03.04 Review
Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the
appropriate City department.
7.04 BULKHEADS
7.04.01 General
All bulkheads are subject to the regulations set forth in this Master Program,
except that bulkheads common to a single family residence are exempted from
the permit system set forth in this Master Program and building code.
7.04.02 Bulkhead Permitted
A bulkhead may be permitted only when:
A. Required to protect upland areas or facilities.
B. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection.
C. The bulkhead design has been engineered by an appropriately State
licensed professional engineer, and the design has been approved by the
Renton Department of Public Works.
7.04.03 Bulkhead and Fill
A bulkhead for the purpose of creating land by filling behind the bulkhead shall
be permitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a'
bulkhead shall be included in the application for the landfill in this case. (See
Section 7.08.01, Landfills)
7.04.04 General Design Requirements
A. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific
type of bulkhead design which has been engineered by an appropriately
State licensed professional engineer.
B. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to
minimize damage to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the
application for a proposed bulkhead, the Building and Zoning Department
and the Policy Development Department are to consider the effect of the
bulkheads on public access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible,
bulkheads are to be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic
qualities of the shoreline.
• I
- 27 -
I
• C. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize
alterations of the natural shoreline and to minimize adverse effects on
nearby beaches.
D. In cases where bulkheading is permitted, scientific information suggests a
rock riprap design is preferred. The cracks and openings in such a
structure afford suitable habitats for certain forms of aquatic life. If
there is determined to be a severe rat population, consideration must be
given to construction of a solid bulkhead to eliminate cracks and openings
typical to a riprap structure.
7.05 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS
7.05.01 Location of Developments
A. New commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those
areas where current commercial uses exist.
B. New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither
water dependent nor water related will not be permitted upon the
shoreline.
C. Commercial developments should incorporate recreational opportunities
along the shoreline for the general public.
D. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the
proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view
prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his
permit what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed
commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the
scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area.
7.05.02 Setback
A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to the
water's edge; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this
requirement for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and
along the water's edge.
7.06 DREDGING
7.06.01 Definition
The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water.
7.06.02 Permitted Dredging
Dredging is to be permitted only when:
A. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes, if a definite flood hazard
would exist unless dredging were permitted.
- 28 -
II 1
B. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of material distribution and
water quality, when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or
recreational areas.
C. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease,
the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type
of dredging may only be allowed if the following conditions are met:
1. The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted.
2. The water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic
life.
D. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and
maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shorelines to which,
the public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where
additional public access is provided and/or where there is anticipated to
be a significant improvement to fish or wildlife habitat, provided there is
no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake.
E. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability.
7.06.03 Prohibited Dredging
A. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas (see Section 9.38).
B. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill or construction material,
which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in
Subparagraph .02 above, is prohibited.
7.06.044 Regulations on Permitted Dredging
A. All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by an appropriate State
licensed professional engineer. An approved engineering report shall be
submitted to the Renton Building and Zoning Department as part of the
application for a shoreline permit.
B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the
necessity of the proposed dredging operation.
C. The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that
there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on
recreational areas.
D. The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has
minimal impact or interference with fish migration.
E. Adjacent bank protection:
1. When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall
not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility
rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to
protect the banks.
- 29 -
• i
• i ,
2. If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access
to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the applicant to
propose and carry out a method of restoration of the disturbed area
to a condition minimizing erosion and siltation.
F. Adjacent properties:
1. The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method
of eliminating or preventing conditions that may:
a. Create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity.
b. Damage property in or near the area.
c. Cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or
human life in or near the area.
d. Endanger public safety in or near the area.
G. The applicant shall demonstrate a method to control contamination and
pollution to water, air, and ground.
H. Disposal of dredged material:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged
material.
2. In no instance shall dredged material be deposited in a lake or
stream.
3. In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a wetland area.
4. If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the
applicant shall propose and carry out a method of disposal,that does
not contaminate or pollute water, air, or ground.
7.07 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
7.07 01 Industrial developments are to be permitted only when:
A. They are water related or they provide reasonable public access to and
along the water's edge; and,
B. They minimize and cluster those water-related portions j of their
development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are
not water dependent; and,
C. Any over-water portion is water dependent, is limited to the smallest
reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Land Use' Hearing
Examiner; and,
D. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and,
E. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists
to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with
the industrial development.
7.07 02 Industrial structures should be permitted where they set back 25 feet from the
water's edge.
- 30 -
7.08 LANDFILL '
7.08.01 Landfills shall be permitted only in the following cases:
A. For detached single-family residential uses adjacent to one (1) existing
bulkhead, the property may be filled to the line of conformity provided
the fill does not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet in length along
the water's edge and thirty-five (35) feet into the water, and provided the
provisions of Section 8.02.01 through 8.02.05 are satisfactorily met; or,
B. 'When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill
shall be approved to bring the contour up to the desired grade; or,
C. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general
public; or,
D. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and
fills; or,
E. When landfill is required for flood control purposes; or,
F. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in
subsections A through E above will be allowed only with prior approval of
the Land Use Hearing Examiner.
7.09 MARINAS
7.09.01 Marina shall be permitted only when:
A. Adequate on-site parking is available commensurate with the moorage
facilities provided. [See 7.09.02(F) below]
B. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage
facilities provide.
C. The location of the moorage facilities is convenient to public roads.
7.09.02 Design Requirements
I '
A. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that will minimize adverse
effects on fish and shell fish resources and be aesthetically compatible
with adjacent areas.
B. Marinas utilized for overnight and long-term moorage are not to be
located in shallow-water embayments with poor flushing action.
C. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be evaluated for
compliance with standards promulgated by federal, state, and local
agencies.
- 31 -
. t I
D. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be equipped with
receptacles to receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste, rubbish,
and litter from patrons' boats.
E. Applications for development permits for the construction of marinas
must affirmatively indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain
and clean up any spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating
activities.
F. 1. Parking should be provided in accordance with the following ratio:
private and public marinas: 2 per 3 slips; private marina associated
with residential complex: 1 per 3 slips.
2. Special designated loading areas should be provided near piers in the
amount of one (1) parking space per twenty-five (25) slips; all other
parking areas are to be located one hundred (100) feet from the
water's edge.
7.09.03 Location of Marinas
A. Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington. Marinas must
provide adequate access, parking, and surface water area in relation to
the number of moorage spaces provided.
7.10 MINING
7.10.01 All mining, including surface mining, shall be prohibited.
7.10. 02 Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction
of minerals by removing the overburden and mining directly from the mineral
deposits thereby exposed, including open pit mining of minerals naturally
exposed at the surface of the earth, mining by the auger method, and
production of surface mining refuse. The surface mining shall not include
reasonable excavation or grading conducted for farming, on-site road
construction, or on-site building construction.
7.11 PARKING
7.11.01 Public Parking
A. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline, public parking is to be
provided at frequent locations.
B. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's edge.
C. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize
adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water
view.
7.11.02 Private Parking
A. Private parking facilities are to be located away from the water's edge
where possible.
- 32 -
7.12 PIERS AND DOCKS •
7.12.01 Purpose:
A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or floating upon the water, used as
a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential
purposes.
B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be'
encouraged in those areas, where scenic values are high and where
substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be
created.
7.12.02 Allowable Construction
A. Permits for the following construction of piers or docks will be allowed:
1. Piers-and docks which provide for public use or marinas.
2. Community piers and docks in new major waterfront subdivisions.
3. Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two,
or more waterfront property owners.
4.. Private single family residence piers and docks.
5. Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses.
B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate
in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock.
C. The design of all piers and docks shall be approved by a licensed engineer
or licensed architect.
7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-family Docks
A. Pier Type
1. All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction except
that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of
significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high,
and where one or more of the following conditions exist:
a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling.
b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling.
c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feasible to install piling.
III B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no
more than a roof.
C. Dock Size Specifications
II, 1. The following dock specifications shall be allowed:
a. The dock may extend thirty (30) feet into the water or until a
depth of eight (8) feet is reached, provided the dock length
does not exceed one hundred (100) feet.
II' b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet.
I'
I'
I I
- 33 -
I'
2. Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by
the Land Use Hearing Examiner for good reason, which shall include,
but is not limited to, _conditions requiring greater dock length and
construction.
D. Dock Location and Spacing
1. No •portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of a private,
single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an
adjacent property line.
2. Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a joint dock
facility on either such property, provided there are appropriate
restrictive covenants filed for record running with the land.
7.12.04 Multi-family Residence Docks
A. Resident Moorage
1. Moorage at the docks shall be limited to residents of the subdivision,
apartments, condominiums, or similar developments for which the
dock was built.
B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces
1. The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fraction
less than one.
7.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats
A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage should be
encouraged as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such
buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to
minimize hazards to navigation.
7.12i.06 Commercial and Industrial Docks
A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed:
1. Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having
jurisdiction thereover, the dock may extend into the water one
hundred fifty (150) feet; if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not
reached, the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet
is reached, provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty
(250) feet.
2. The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet.
B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line.
7.13 RECREATION
7.13.01 Definition:
The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or
relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as boating, fishing,
and swimming, or may be passive, such as enjoying the natural beauty of the
shoreline or its wildlife.
- 34 -
7.13.02 Public Recreation
Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the
following criteria are considered:
A. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided; and
B. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the
diversity of demands of the local community; and
C. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the
public use; and
D. It is designed to avoid conflicts with owner's legal property rights and
create minimum detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and
E. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use, and it will be
designed to have a minimum impact on the environment.
7.13.03 Private Recreation
Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the
following standards are met:
A. There is reasonable public access to and along the water's edge if
necessary to have access to such uses; and
B. The primary proposed facility is water dependent; and
C. The secondary proposed facilities are water oriented; and
D. The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on
adjacent parcels; and
E. Adequate, screened, and landscaped parking facilities that are separated
from pedestrian paths are provided.
7.14 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
7.14.01 Residential developments shall be allowed only when:
A. Adequate public utilities are available; and
B. Residential structures are set back inland from the water's edge a
minimum of twenty (20) feet; and
C. Density shall not increase beyond the zoning density outlined in the
Renton Urban Area Comprehensive Plan.
7.14.02 No floating residences are to be allowed.
III '
- 35 -
• 7.15: ROADS AND RAILROADS
7.15.01 Location
A. Major highways, primary arterials, freeways, and railways are to be
located away from shorelands, except in industrial areas, In order that
shoreland roads may be reserved for slow-moving, recreational traffic.
7.15.02 Design Requirements
A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards and are to be restricted to
existing rights-of-way where possible.
B. Roadways located in wetland areas should be limited and designed and
maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural movement of
ground water.
C. All debris and other waste materials from construction are to be disposed
of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body.
D. Road locations are to be planned to fit the topography, where possible, in
order that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be
necessary.
7.16 STREAM ALTERATION
7.16.01 Definition:
Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or
creek. A river, stream or creek is surface water runoff flowing in a natural or
modified channel.
7.16;02 Prohibited Stream Alteration
A. Stream alteration is prohibited in unique and fragile areas.
B. Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable
portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a
parcel of land is prohibited.
C. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to
adjacent parcels.
7.16.03 Regulations on Stream Alteration
A. All proposed stream alterations shall be designed by an appropriately
State licensed professional engineer. The design shall be submitted to the
Building and Zoning Department as part of the application.
B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the
necessity of the proposal.
- 36 -
C. The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects
on aquatic life.
D. Pollution is to be minimized during and after construction.
E. The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained and the
escapement of fish at low water is possible.
F. No permanent over-water cover or structure shall be allowed unless it is
in the public interest.
7.17 TRAILS
7.17.01 Definition:
For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, trails are a non-motorized
transportation route designed primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists.
7.17.02 Permitted Uses
Trail uses shall, be permitted within the shoreline, when the following standards
are met:
A. Provisions for maintenance operation and emergency access have been
provided.
B. Theylink water access points along the shoreline, or they link water
access points along the shoreline with upland community facilities.
C. They are designed to avoid conflict with private property rights and to
create the minimum objectionable impact on adjacent property owners.
D. Just compensation isprovided to the owner for property to be acquired
P P P Y q by
the public.
E. They insure the rights and privacy of the adjoining property owners.
F. Over-water structures required by the trails are determined to be in the
public interest.
G. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user
loads and will have a minimum impact on the environment.
- 37 -
I�
• 7.18 UTILITIES
7.18.01 Landscaping
A. Native Vegetation
1. The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible.
2. When utility projects are completed in the water or wetland, the
disturbed area shall be restored and landscaped as nearly as possible
to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined to be
more desirable.
B. All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel
of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs.
C. Site Screening of Public Utilities:
When a public utility building, telephone exchange, sewage pumping
operation or a public utility is built in the shoreline area, the
requirements 'of this Master Program shall be met and the following
screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements of Section
7.19.01A, Native Vegetation, and the requirements of this section are in
disagreement, the requirements of this section shall take precedence.
1. If the installation is housed in a building, the building shall conform
architecturally with the surrounding buildings and area or with the
type of building that will develop due to the zoning district.
2. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that
does not conform with 1. above, shall be sight screened with
evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth
to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years.
3. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical
distribution substation, shall be enclosed with an eight (8) foot high
open wire fence. Such installations shall be sight screened with
evergreen trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth
to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance
gate(s), within five (5) years.
7.1E1.02 Special Considerations for Pipelines
Installation and operation of pipelines shall protect the natural conditions of
adjacent water courses and shorelines.
A. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor
shall water quality standards be violated.
B. Native soils shall be protected from erosion and natural conditions
restored. Water course banks and bottoms shall be protected, where
necessary, with suitable surface treatment.
- 38 -
C. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically •
controlled shutoff valves at each side of the water crossing.
D. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in
accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transportation',
Commission and subject to review by the City Public Works Department.
7.18.03 Major Utilities -- Specifications
A. Electrical Installations
1. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines
a. New overhead power lines are prohibited in scenic areas,
sensitive wetlands, recreational areas, and public roadways
except when undergrounding is not technically feasible.
b. Structure of overhead power lines should be single-pole type
or other aesthetically compatible design.
2. Electrical Distribution Substations: Electrical distribution
substations shall be at a wetland location only when the applicant.
proves there exists no other site out of the wetland area and when
the screening requirements of Section 7.19.01C are met.
B. Communications: This section applies to telephone exchanges including
radar transmission installations, receiving antennas for cable television
and/or radio, and any other facility for the transmission of communication
systems. Communications installations may be permitted in the shoreline
area only when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water
area and when the screening requirements of Section 7.19.01 C are met.
In an aesthetic interest, such installations shall be located as far as
possible from residential, recreational, and commercial activities.
C. Pipeline Utilities: All pipeline utilties shall be underground. When
underground projects are completed on the bank of a water body or in the
wetland or a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original
configuration. Underground utility installations shall be permitted only
when the finished installation shall not impair the appearance of such
areas.
D. Public Access: All utility companies shall be asked to provide pedestrian
public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not
potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights-of-way are
located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies shall be
encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use
areas for the adjacent public use area.
- 39 -
E. All-inclusive Utility Corridor: When it is necessary for more than one (1)
major utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a
single utility right-of-way is strongly encouraged. It would be desirable
to include railroad lines within this right-of-way also.
7.18.04 Local Service Utilities, Specifications
A. Waterlines: Sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public
Works Department in accordance with American Water Works Association
(AWWA) guidelines.
B. Sanitary Sewer: The existence or use of outhouses or privies is
prohibited. All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There
shall be no septic tanks or other on-site sewage disposal systems. Storm
drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer
system. During construction phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets
may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed. All
sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton
Public Works Department and METRO.
C. Storm Sewers: A storm sewer drainage system shall be required.
Pre-treatment of storm run-off or diversion to sanitary sewers may be
required to keep deleterious substances out of neighboring water courses.
Storm sewer sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public
Works Department in accordance with A.P.W.A. guidelines.
D. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum Products
1. Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall
be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and
the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for
discharge.
2. Oil Separations: These units shall be required at sites that have oil
waste disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be
built to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) or State of
Washington Department of Public Health specifications.
3. Petroleum Bulk Storage and Distribution: Petroleum facilities shall
hereafter not be allowed.
7.18.05 All-inclusive Utility Tunnels
For the distribution of local utilities, utility tunnels under the street
right-of-way are recommended to carry all local utility services.' For new
development, the tunnel could be built at the time of road construction. The
tunnel would include all utility services, both public and private, necessary for
use in the public right-of-way, such as wiring for street lighting and water lines
for fire hydrants and all utility services necessary for the private uses of the
area.
- 40 -
SECTION 8. VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES •
8.01 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
The Renton Land Use Hearing Examiner shall have authority to grant
conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton
Master Program. The power to grant variances and conditional use permits
should be utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will
assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable
manner. It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the Master
Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use, and maintenance and
restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit. Both
variances and conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of
Ecology and the Attorney General's Office for approval or denial.
8.02 VARIANCES
Upon proper application, a substantial development permit may be granted
which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program
where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property,
the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the
Renton Master Program would cause undue and unnecessary hardship or
practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit
by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program
is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a variance. The Land Use Hearing '
Examiner must find each of the following:
8.02.01 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the
subject property, or to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to
other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
8.02.02 The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other
properties on shorelines in the same vicinity.
8.02.03i The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity.
8.02.04 j The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of
this Master Program.
8.02.05 The public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to
the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by
denying it, the variance will be denied, but each property owner shall be
entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use
and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the provisions of this Master Program.
- 41 -
I
8.03, CONDITIONAL USE
Upon proper application, a conditional use permit may be granted. The
objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and
flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With
provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to
include many uses. Uses classified as conditional uses can be permitted only
after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the
use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use
permit will be granted subject to each of the following conditions:
8.03.01 The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area.
8.03.02 The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines.
8.03.03 Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's
Master Program.
8.03.04 The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's
Master Program.
8.04 TIME LIMIT
Conditional permits and variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty
(30) calendar days from the date of receipt by the Department of Ecology and
the Attorney General's office unless written communication is received by the
applicant and the City indicating otherwise.
- 42 -
i f
SECTION 9. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be
construed as specified in this section. Words in the singular include the plural and the
plural, the singular. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory; the word "may" is
permissive.
9.01 ACT: The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW.
9.02 ACTIVITY: A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a
specific action or pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not
limited to fishing, swimming, boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting,
or discharging of materials. Not all activities necessarily require a shoreline
' location.
9.03 I AQUACULTURE: The culture or farming of aquatic animals and plants.
9.04 BOAT LAUNCHING RAMP: A facility with an inclined surface extending into
I the water which allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers.
9.05 BREAKWATER: A protective structure, usually built off-shore for the purpose
of protecting the shoreline or harbor areas from wave action.
9.06 ' BUILDING: Any structure having a roof intended to be used for the shelter or
enclosure of persons, plants, animals or property.
9.07 BULKHEAD: A wall or embankment used for holding back earth.
9.08 BUOY: A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc., to warn of rocks,
shoals, etc., or used for boat moorage.
9.09 CIRCULATION: Those means of transportation which carry passengers or
goods to, from, over, or along a corridor.
9.10 CORRIDOR: A strip of land forming a passageway between two otherwise
separate parts.
9.11 ' DEVELOPMENT: A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of
structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or
minerals; bulkheading, driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other
projects of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal
public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the Act at any
state of water level.
9.12 DOCK: A fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water.
9.13 DREDGING: The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water.
- 43 -
9.14 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: A development which provides a service,
produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in any other use or activity
for the purpose of making financial gain.
9.15 FLOOD CONTROL: Any undertaking for the conveyance, control, and dispersal
of flood waters.
9.16' FLOODPLAIN: The area subject to a 100-year flood.
9.17 HEARINGS BOARD: The Shorelines Hearings Board established by the'Act.
9.18 HIGH RISE: A structure exceeding seventy-five (75) feet in height.
9.19 LANDFILL: Creation or maintenance of beach or creation of dry upland area
by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel or other materials into shoreline areas.
9.20 LICENSED ENGINEER: A professional engineer, licensed to practice in the
State of Washington.
9.21 LOCAL SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities normally servicing a
neighborhood, i.e. telephone exchanges; sewers, both storm and sanitary;
distribution lines, electrical less than 55 KV, telephone, cable TV; eta i
9.22 MAJOR SERVICE UTILITY: Public or private utilities which provide services
beyond the City's boundaries, i.e pipelines, natural gas, water, sewer,
petroleum; electrical transmission lines 55 KV or greater; and regional sewer or
water treatment plants; etc.
9.23 MARINA: A use providing moorages for pleasure craft, which also may include
boat launching facilities, storage, sales, and other related services. '
9.24 MASTER PROGRAM: The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of
Renton and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other
descriptive material and text, and a statement of desired goals and standards
developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in Section 2 of the Act.
9.25 MOORAGE: Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for (temporary
anchorage, but which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are
docks or buoys.
9.26 MULTIPLE-USE: The combining of compatible uses within one development, of
which the major use or activity is water dependent. All uses or activities other
than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or
activity.
9.27 ONE-HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD: The maximum flood expected to occur during
a one-hundred (100) year period.
9.28 OPEN SPACE: A land area allowingview, use or passage which is almost
P g
entirely unobstructed by buildings, paved areas, or other man-made structures.
- 44 -
9.29 PIER: A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a
fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water.
9.30 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Special contractual agreement between the
'developer and a governmental body governing development of land.
9.31 I, PUBLIC ACCESS: A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline
available to the general public. This may also include visual approach. ,
9.32 RECREATION: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play,
amusement or relaxation. The recreational experience may be active, such as
boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural
beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife.
9.33 RESIDENTIAL USES: Developments where persons reside including but not'
limited to single-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums.
9.34 SHORELINES: All of the water areas of the City of Renton, includingf'
reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, together with the lands underlying,
them, except:
A. Shorelines of state-wide significance.
'B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean
annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands
associated with such upstream segments.
IC. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands
associated with such small lakes.
9.35 SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE: Those shorelines described in
Section 3 of the Act.
9.36 SHORELINES OF THE CITY: The total of all "shorelines of state-wide
significance" within the City of Renton.
9.37 STRUCTURE: A combination of materials constructed or erected on the
ground or water or attached to something having a location on the ground or
water.
9.38 SUBDIVISION: A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels.
9.39 i' SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development of which the total cost or
fair market value exceeds one thousand (1,000) dollars or any development
which materially interferes with the normal public use of the shoreline.
9.40 SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: The Shoreline Management
Substantial Development Permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140).
.9.41 UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS: Those portions of the shoreline which (1)
contain or substantially contribute to the maintenance of endangered or
valuable forms of life and (2) have unstable or potentially ' hazardous
topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes).
- 45 -
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Shore_lands Division.
April 1982
•i
ADJACENT LANDS GUIDANCE
' - f
Prepared as a technical assistance document to assist
state and local agencies implement RCW 90.58.340 of
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 .
" I
THIS REPORT WAS FINANCED BY-A GRANT FROM THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WITH '
FUNDS FROM-THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION.AND APPROPRIATED FOR SECTION 308 OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972. A '
Preface
This technical assistance paper is intended to clarify the relationship and
the application of authority of the 1971 Shoreline Management Act to lands
adjacent to shorelands. It is intended to provide nonregulatory guidance
from the department as lead administering agency for shoreline and coastal
management to local and state government advising those agencies how to
more fully utilize and interpret RCW 90.58.340. Section 90.58 340 states
that:
"ALL STATE AGENCIES, COUNTIES, AND PUBLIC AND MUNICIPAL
CORPORATIONS SHALL REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGE-
MENT POLICIES, REGULATIONS, PLANS, AND ORDINANCES
RELATIVE TO LANDS UNDER THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS
ADJACENT TO THE SHORELINES OF THE STATE SO .AS THE [TO]
ACHIEVE A USE POLICY ON SAID LAND CONSISTENT WITH THE
POLICY OF THIS CHAPTER, THE GUIDELINES, AND THE MASTER
PROGRAMS FOR THE SHORELINES OF THE STATE. THE DEPART-
MENT MAY DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE CONTROL
FOR SUCH LANDS. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHALL, IN DEVELOP-
ING USE REGULATIONS FOR SUCH AREAS, TAKE INTO CONSIDER-
ATION ANY RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPED BY THE DEPARTMENT
AS WELL AS ANY OTHER STATE AGENCIES OR UNITS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. "
The directive of this section is for state and local agencies to make their
planning and regulatory policies consistent with the policies and regula-
tions of the Shoreline Management Act. To assist those agencies in achiev-
ing this directive, this document will describe:
(a) Where adjacent lands are
(b) What the problems are
(c) What an inconsistency is
(d) What SMA policies apply
(e) The WDOE process for monitoring and enforcing section 340
There is considerable policy in the shoreline law and regulation that
addresses problems on adjacent lands, however, it is scattered throughout
the regulations. This document will collect that policy into one place and
organize it within the context of explanations of the problems it is intended
to address. This should clarify factors that need to be addressed when
evaluating other plans for consistency.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Preface i
Contents
I . Introduction 1
A. Background and Purpose of Section 340. . 1
B . Nature of Adjacent Lands Problems 3
II . Definition of Adjacent Lands and Consistency 6
A. Coastal Zone Boundaries 6
B. Adjacent Lands Defined 8
C. The Concept of Consistency. 9
D. Methodology for Consistency Reviews 11
Ill . Application of Authority and Compliance 17.
A. WDOE's Interim Authority 17
B. Means to Ensure Guidance Is Carried Out. . 20
C. Procedure to Ensure Compliance. 22
D. Modifications to Monitoring and Enforcement Program 23
IV. Strategy for WDOE Use and Implementation of the Adjacent
Lands Guidance 24
A. Notification 24
B. WDOE Process for Adjacent Land Review 25
C. Shoreland Review and Consultation 26
D. Legal/Regulatory Remedies 27
E. Review of Current Plans 28
V. The Application of Shoreline Policy to
Achieve Consistency 30
A. Use Incompatibilities. 30
B. Water Quality Impacts 35
C . Aesthetics and View Protection 43
• D. Project Integration and Review 48 .
E. Application of WAC Policies to Adjacent Lands 49
Appendix
A. Recommended Practices A-1
ii
I . INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Purpose of Section 340
The Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program (WSCZMP)
was approved in 1976 by the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM).
The basis for the WSCZMP is the 1971 Shoreline Mangement Act, Chap-
ter 90.58 RCW, its 1972 Final Guidelines for Shoreline Management,
Chapter 173-16 WAC, and the local shoreline master programs for
coastal cities and counties. The program also incorporates other
selected state authorities which manage land and water uses in the
coastal zone.
Since 1976 questions have surfaced regarding the application of autho-
rity of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and its interrelationships
with other state and local authorities. Several program refinements
have been made to clarify the program and make it better understood
and more effective. Guidance for the management of the marine aquatic
area (the water surface, column, and bedlands) has been addressed
to strengthen the program in the "wet area". Adjustments have been
made to pare down and spell out the authorities and their application
to the more inland second tier area. This guidance will focus on the
intermediate area between the shorelands and the inland second tier
area with the intent of more fully expanding and implementing the
policy provided in RCW 90.58.340.
Section 340 applies to land use policies. It requires all state and
local agencies to make their policies, plans, and regulations consistent
with the act, the guidelines and the master programs. It gives the,
department authority to make land use recommendations and requires
that local government consider the department's recommendations as,-
well as those of other local governments and state agencies.
The focus is on land areas not regulated directly through issuance
of "Shoreline Substantial Development permits. " Development on
adjacent lands, because of their proximity to shorelands and waters,
- 1 -
Lt 1 ,
both influences and is influenced by the management program for
shorelands. More importantly, many of the legislative policies estab-
lished in the Act and those further refined in the Guidelines require
that attention be given to adjacent lands. Simply stated, wise coastal
resource management will be more fully implemented with the consist-
ency and support of other local, state, and federal programs.
Section 340 applies to comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, envi-
ronmental health codes, and other development-related regulations.
It does not give the state any direct role in permitting or reviewing
projects on adjacent lands. However, since such projects are author-
ized by the regulation and ordinances that are subject to 340 consis-
tency, specific projects can be tests of how well the policies work
and how consistently they are interpreted and applied. As such, a
project could conceivably become a test case as a way to seek review
of a policy within a regulation or ordinance, but the major WDOE
effort regarding adjacent lands will remain focused directly on plans
and regulations.
The Shoreline Mangement Act Guidelines recognize in several places
that many legislative policies and directives in the Act require a more
comprehensive approach than can be achieved through a program
confined to the SMA permit area and specifically state that master
programs cannot be regarded as a substitute for local comprehensive
land use planning. The Guidelines impose the following requirements'
on the development of local programs.
The Master Program.
A master program, by its definition, is general, comprehensive
and long-range in order to be applicable to the whole area for a rea-
sonable length of time under changing conditions.
"General" means that the policies, proposals, and guidelines are
not directed towards any specific sites.,
"Comprehensive" means that the program is directed towards all
land and water uses, their impact on the environment and logical
estimates of future growth. It also means that the program shall
recognize plans and programs of the other government units, adjacent
jurisdictions and private developers. [WAC 173-16-0401
- 2 -
Policy.
(b) Analyze existing policies to identify those 'policies that may
be incorporated into the master program and those which conflict
with the intent of the act. Further, identify constraints to local
planning and policy implementation which are a result of previous
government actions, existing land-use patterns, actions of adjacent
jurisdictions or other factors not subject to local control or influence.
[WAC 173-16-040(2)]
Master Program Elements.
(e) Shoreline use elements for considering:
(i) The pattern for distribution and location requirements of
land uses on shorelines and adjacent areas, including, but not limited
to, housing, commerce, industry, transportation, public buildings
and utilities, agriculture, education and natural resources.
(f) Conservation element for the preservation of the natural
shoreline resources, considering such characteristics as scenic vistas,
parkways, estuarine areas for fish and wildlife protection, beaches
and other valuable natural or aesthetic features. [WAC 173-16-040(3)]
Environments.
This [environmental classification] approach provides an "um-
brella" environment class over local planning and zoning on the shore-
lines. Since every area is endowed with different resources, has ,
different intensity of development and attaches different social values
to these physical and economic characteristics, the environment desig-
nations should not be regarded as a substitute for local planning and
land-use regulations.
(a)(ii) Each of the plan elements should be analyzed for their
effect on the various resources throughout shoreline areas. Since
shorelines are only a part of the system of resources within local
jurisdiction, it is particularly important that planning for shorlines
be considered an integral part of area-wide planning. Further, plans,
policies and regulations for lands adjacent to the shorelines of the
state should be reviewed in accordance with RCW 90.58.340.
[WAC 173-16-040(4)]
In addition to guidance found in the Act, the guidelines, and the
master program, Shorelines Hearings Board and court cases provide
additional direction for the management of adjacent lands.
B. Nature of Adjacent Lands Problems
During the preparation of this guidance, considerable effort was ex-
pended discussing the nature of the problems with local governments.
The discussions revealed two general classes of problems. The first
can be termed "policy conflicts." The zoning ordinances governing
adjacent lands may allow significantly different housing densities or
- 3 -
types of land use that the local master program. Whether or not
such apparent conflicts are inconsistencies as measured against the
overall goals or shoreline management depends on the specifics of the
situation.
Policy inconsistencies often exist due to the historical sequences in:
which shoreline planning has arisen. Typically, in the larger, more
developed counties and incorporated cities, zoning and comprehensive
planning and land use regulations were established prior to the Act.'
This resulted in the master program being superimposed on existing
programs, creating some difficult overlapping and interfacing problems.
On the other hand, these more urbanized areas have experienced the
impacts of growth and developed sophisticated programs and personnel
to deal with complex environmental and administrative problems.
At the other extreme, the shoreline master program was the first
land use control in many of the more rural counties. In this situa-
tion, the comprehensive land use plans and ordinances could easily
take into account the master program and develop a consistent pro-
gram for the adjacent lands. However, the pressures for growth
and resultant problems have not materialized to the point where some
of the more rural counties have seen the need to develop environ-
mental control programs for adjacent lands. This situtation results
in discrepancies in the number and type of land use controls that
are being applied on adjacent lands. The variety of approaches
being used is not a problem in and of itself. In fact, the variety of
physical and topographical settings along with the local political situa-
tion calls for a variety of approaches.
The second class of problems results when the adjacent land regula-
tions do not adequately address the physical impacts of development.
The most consistently cited problem is uncontrolled land clearing
which results in erosion and sedimentation. Although most cities
have clearing and grading ordinances, most counties do not. They
- 4 -
must rely only on subdivision controls or a building permit which
applies too late.
Another issue frequently cited is views. Problems associated with
the protection of views are complex. This issue involves both views
from the land (a question of blockage) and views from the water i((a
general aesthetic issue). Other coastal impacts from development:on
adjacent lands included blocked access, slide hazards, storm drainage,
and nonpoint pollution from logging or farming.
•
•
- 5 -
,
II . DEFINITION OF ADJACENT LANDS AND CONSISTENCY
A. Coastal Zone Boundaries
A state coastal program must have a boundary sufficient to control
direct and significant impacts and include an inland area incorporating
state-defined special management areas, transitional or intertidal areas,
areas subject to tidal flood and erosion, salt marshes and wetlands,
subject to regular inundation, islands, and beaches. (CFR 923.31)
The Washington State coastal zone is the entire area within the fifteen
coastal counties which front the state's 2,300-mile marine shoreline.;
The coastal zone area is further divided into two tiers for program
and administrative purposes. The first is the area within Shoreline
Management permit jursidiction, and the second tier is the remainder'
of each county outside Shoreline Management permit jurisdiction.
In Washington's first tier, the coastal area's most significant and •
sensitive land and water areas are regulated. In all, shoreline
substantial development permit authority applies directly to over
10,000 lineal miles of shoreline. This area includes 3,000 square
miles of inland sea and ocean waters which translates to 157 miles of
ocean shoreline and 2,180 miles of inland marine shoreline. Another.
8,800 miles of freshwater shoreline along 343 lakes and 516 streams.
and rivers are within the first tier of the coastal zone. (See Table 1 . )
1 The SMA applies to streams with a mean annual flow of 20 or more
cubic feet per second, to lakes 20 acres or, larger in size, to a dis-
tance 200 feet back from the ordinary high water mark of fresh and'
marine waters, and most significantly, to "associated wetlands."
Associated wetlands are those areas " . . . which either influence or
are influenced by and are in close proximity to any stream, river,
lake or tidal water or combination thereof. . . ." Associated wetlands
include floodways and flood plains, river deltas, marshes, bogs, and
- 6 -
- _--
W®CT11f`TMI CTATC CAeCT A9 7/l�lr
_ - -- - _ L1_ _
SHORELINE MILEAGE UNDER 3URISDICTION OF
THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT (FIRST TIER)
Marine I Lake Stream Total Total
County SSS & S
SSS* S** Total I SSS S 1 Total SSS S I Total SSS S
1 T
Clallam 6.84 122.86 129.72 (2) 50.0 (7) 29.5 (9) 79.5 (5) 119.4 (39) 394.4 (44) 513.8 212.5 560.9 773.4
Wahkiakun - - - - - - (1) 95.6 (26) 179.5 (27) 275.1 95.6 179.5 275.1
Grays Harbor 105.4 - 105.4 (1) 4.7 (7) 15.2 (8) 19.9 (6) 333.3 (72) 830.1 (78) 1,163.4 484.0 845.3 1,329.
Island 17.0 223.0 240.0 - (9) 14.0 (9) 14.0 - - - 17.0 237.0 254.0 I
3efferson 34.2 172.5 206.6 - (11) 14.2 (11) 14.2 (3) 81.0 (28) 69.4 (31) 150.4 115.2 256.0 371.2
King - 90.8 90.8 (4) 107.6 (74) 158.4 (78) 266.0 (5,) 319.8 (72) 583.0 (77) 902.8 427.4 832.2 1,259.6
Kitsap 52.9 175.7 228.6 - (17) 29.6 (17) 29.6 (0) (7) 33.1 (7) 33.1 52.9 238.5 291.4
Mason 72.9 126.6 199.5 (1) 21.4 (35) 72.5 (36) 93.9 (1) 11.3 (35) 371.3 (35) 382.6 105.6 570.3 676.9
Pacific 155.2 - 155.2 - (6) 20.2 (6) 20.2 (1) 44.0 (68) 382.6 (69) 426.6 199.2 402.8 602.0
Pierce 1.0 215.6 216.6 (3) 19.8 (35) 121.2 (38) 141.0 (3) 137.0 (34) 377.1 (37) 514.1 157.8 713.9 871.7
San 3uan - 372.7 372.7 - (11) 12.8 (11) 12.8 - - - - 385.5 385.5
Skagit 46.8 80.2 127.0 (1) 7.3 (25) 141.8 (26) 149.2 (5) 259.4 (49) 315.7 (52) 575.1 313.5 537.7 851.2
Snohomish 4.0 58.4 62.4 (1) 6.9 (46) 73.0 (47) 79.9 (10) 350.0 (43) 827.0 (53) 1,177.0 360.9 958.3 1,310.2
Thurston 2.0 88.0 90.0 (1) 5.3 (29) 53.0 (30) 58.3 (1) 58.4 140.3 (20) 198.7 65.7 281.3 347.
Whatcom 8.4 97.5 105.9 (2) 11.2 (15) 25.7 (17) 36.9 (1) 100.4 (45) 349.9 (46) 450.3 120.0 473.1 591.1Tota I
Zonel
lCounties 583.5 11,838.0 12,421.4 (16) 236.2 1(327) 781.1 1(343) 1,017.3 1(42) 1,889.6 1(516) 4,853.9 1(576) 7,785.3 12,827.3 17,522.4 110,199.7
AV/L1(818-19)
* SSS = Shorelines of Statewide Significance
** S = Shorelines
( ) = Number of water bodies
i
1 i ,_
1
swamps. The amount of acreage along major flood plains and deltas
at major river mouths and other associated wetlands is considerable.
A strict interpretation of the Shoreline Management Act would limit
its reach to only these waters, "wetlands," and the 200-foot strip of
uplands, i.e. , the legislatively defined permit area. Such a strict'
definition, however, is inappropriate for several reasons. i'
The law itself specifies that it "shall be liberally construed to giv
•
full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted."
(RCW 90.58.900. ) Since dverse impacts of activities often extend
beyond the boundaries of the activity and property lines, an activit'
201 or more feet from the shoreline has the potential for adverse
impacts on the shore and adjacent waters. Moreover, the SMA permit
area rarely coincides with natural divisions of the land based on top--
graphical, geological, and ecological considerations. Logical boundaries
for planning purposes are, rather, the natural features such as the!
tops of bluffs, vegetation limits associated with shore processes, or
manmade features such as railroads and highways.
d
B. Adjacent Lands Defined
Abutting the 10,000 lineal miles of shoreline and associated, wetlands
lie the adjacent lands which this guidance addresses. Adjacent lands',
are those lands immediately adjacent to and abutting lands under per-
mit jurisdiction extending landward to the extent necessary to control
direct and significant impacts to shorelands and to implement the man-
agement policy articulated in the Act, the guidelines, and the mastelr
. program. The inland extent will necessarily vary with the particular
management objectives for the shoreline setting. Generally, the
shoreland/upland, land use relationship diminishes as the distance;
between shoreland and adjacent lands increases to some point where
the influence or interrelationship between the local Shoreline Master'
Program (SMP) and upland use policy no longer exists. In the sam I
manner, the need for control over environmental impacts diminishe
1
- 8 -
with distance inland to some indetermined point where the potential
for impacts to shorelands is eliminated.
This definition has been and will be used to ultimately determine 'the
shoreline interest in any particular area. Some generalization, how-
ever is possible about the types of land that meet this definition.
First, it must be recognized that "lands immediately adjacent to and
abutting. . ." does not mean parcels or lots adjacent to the 200-foot
line, rather it refers to more general areas defined by topography or
geology.
Along rivers and streams the areas of concern are typically the sides
and tops of bluffs adjacent to the flood plains. Erosion, drainage,
and aesthetics are the typical concerns. Along broader river plains
the extent of adjacent lands is more difficult to pinpoint. Highways,
railroads, or vegetative cover may provide convenient demarcations
in those areas. Of particular concern are the tributaries to rivers
that are not covered by the Act. Developable land along the tribu-
taries can generally be condsidered adjacent lands.
Lakes pose similar problems to rivers. In many cases there will :be
rather easily identified slopes where drainage and views are obvious
concerns. There are also many lakes with relatively flat surrounding
topography were the potential for impacts is more a matter of judg-
ment. Again roads, utility corridors, and vegetative changes are
reasonable ways to place adjacent land boundaries on the ground
where they correspond to the general test of impact.
On marine shorelines adjacent land status applies to accretion shore-
forms, steep and gentle bluffs, and the tops of bluffs where a gentle
slope makes the top lie back of the 200-foot line.
A The Concept of Consistency
Consistency among programs is a coastal management goal. The
department's approval process for local master programs, which
- 9 -
t t i
' L ,
occurred primarily from 1974 through 1976 concentrated on consistency]
among master programs and with adjacent lands. Where inconsistencies
were detected the department withheld approval and required that
the issues be resolved. However, the emphasis at the state level at
that time was on assuring that shoreland classifications and standards
were consistent with the Act and Guidelines rather than devoting al
major effort to reviewing, for adjacent lands consistency.
The source of policy for the legal standards by which consistency
between upland, adjacent land programs, and the shoreland program
may be determined is found primarily in the SMA Guidelines for Devel j
opment of Master Programs (Chapter 173-16 WAC). The Guidelines i.
were adopted under Washington Administrative Code as state policy!
and standards for development and approval of local Shoreline Master
Programs. The guidelines served as the basis for Shoreline Substan-
tial Development permits until local governments were able to develop'
approvable master programs. They remain as the standard for the
approval of amendments to local programs. They further provide the;
clearest, most comprehensive policy for state coastal land use policy f
short of the collective application of the local shoreline master pro-
grams.
This guidance emphasizes techniques to achieve a consistent policy
between adjacent lands and shorelands. Because land use is a local
government function with no land use approval authority at the state
level, management of land use is primarily accomplished through local;
�o-
initiative. Section 340, however, allows the department to make recom 4
mendations for adjacent land use and requires local government to
take into account recommendations by state government.
The general definition on which this guidance is based is that a plan,
is inconsistent when it contains policies which allow uses or impacts
that thwart the achievement of the goals of the Act as embodied in
the state guidelines and the local master programs. The following
three situations constitute the most common inconsistencies: I.
- 10 -
r
1 . The overlapping and/or overlying comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance authorize (particularly where such ordinances encour-
age) land uses which are inconsistent with or prohibited by the
local shoreline master program. Permissible and nonpermissible
uses need not directly correspond between programs. However,
the master program's management objectives should not be con-
tradicted or their implementation thwarted by wide discrepancies
between authorized and prohibited generic land use categories
and intensities.
2. The upland program authorizes levels or intensities of land use
activity on adjacent land without sufficient standards and miti-
gation measures such that direct and significant environmental
impacts can reasonably be expected to occur to shorelands.
3. The adjacent lands proposal fails to recognize or to establish a
relationship with the shoreline program. The master program
imposes restrictions on uses, priorities for uses, standards and
environmental controls, and requires aesthetic considerations.
To fully carry out these requirements often requires the support
and reinforcement of programs which apply to adjacent lands.
Moreover, the application of shoreline management principles to
a narrow shoreline strip often results in development pressures
in the area immediately abutting the SMA boundary.
D. Methodology for Consistency Reviews
Each public agency conducting planning is responsible for achievin,g
consistency. Consequently, a mechanism is needed to insure adequate
inter- and intra-agency review to uncover any potential problems.
Since the best defined benchmark for consistency is the local master
program, the review system must involve the appropriate staff of the
shoreline planning agency.
Although most planning is done by the planning departments, other
local agencies with responsibilities for transportation, public works,
- 11 -
recreation, sewage treatment, environmental health, and other also:
prepare plans that result in shoreline impacts from adjacent lands.
Consequently, it is necessary for the consistency review to apply to
all relevant agencies and programs.
While each jurisdiction must determine the exact procedures it will
use the following principles should be included as part of the consis-
tency review system:
1 . All relevant agencies, programs, and activities are obligated to
participate.
2. The coordination should take place as early in the planning pro-
cess as possible.
3. The shoreline planning agency must be included.
4. The process should be identified in policy or procedure manuals,
job descriptions, or in a specific planning process description.
While formal procedures exist to evaluate consistency among land use
programs in most local governments, the review to comply with Sec-
tion 340 warrants additional attention because it is explicitly required
in the Act. It is also recognized that internal coordination rarely
functions in practice as it is intended in theory.
Likewise, state agencies also have the responsibility to comply and
provide a mechanism to insure that attention is given to 340 consis-1
tency. Consultation with local governments is necessary. Where th
impacts of a program are regional or statewide in nature, state agencis
should use this guidance document to identify conflicts and concerns.
In particular, the checklist in this section in conjunction with otherl
chapters of this guide should be used in this circumstance. Since
state agencies' activities are frequently of a limited type of use con-
ducted across a broad area, the checklist, and the policy can be
- 12 -
y 1
easily applied to determine 340 consistency. If additional information
II'
is needed they should contact the Shorelands Division of WDOE.
The method to be used to check consistency varies with the scope of
planning being done. The more general the plan, the more difficult
the determination of consistency. For a general purpose land use
plan, such as a subarea plan, the environment designations are the
place to initiate a consistency check. Since upland classifications for
planning or zoning will usually cover a more expansive area than
shoreline environments, the methodology is straightforward. First,
examine all the shoreline environments that fall within a single stretch
of upland area. Within each such area determine if there are signifi-
cant differences in generic uses or intensity allowed due to zone 'or
environment designations, for example: natural vs. suburban, con-
servancy vs. urban or commercial, conservancy or natural vs. indus-
trial, or urban vs. rural residential or agricultural.
Where the general designations appear to conflict, examine the uses
allowed, the potential impacts, and the policies that apply. Determine
if there are provisions for adequate buffering or other mitigative
measures that would allow the uses to exist compatibly and preserve
the intent of the shoreline designations.
At a conceptual level, an examination of environments vis-a-vis plan-
fling areas will uncover most of the gross inconsistencies. There
may be some instances where seemingly compatible environments would
authorize conflicting levels of uses or allow excessive impacts. This
should be dealt with by a general comparison of performance standards
for the environment classification versus the zoning district. Each
pair of potentially inconsistent designations should also be examined
to determine impacts and mitigative measures.
The following checklist can be used to determine if adjacent land
programs are compatible and will carry out SMA Policy. While it
may require expansion or modification for particular situations, the
checklist provides a systematic, uniform way to uncover problems
- 13 -
Ii
based on the types of uses authorized. While based on the use cate-
gories of the SMA, it is limited to only those uses commonly occuring!
on adjacent lands. It is essentially a summary of problems and appli-
cable policies that are treated in more detail in Chapter V.
1 . Agriculture
a. Are there provisions for buffers?
b. Are there controls in place for nonpoint runoff?
2. Forest Practices
a. Are there provisions for aesthetic protection?
b. Are there provisions for prevention of impacts to small
streams? (Tributary streams with less than 20 cubic feet '
per second mean annual flow.)
3. Commercial Development
a. Is parking considered with reference to shoreline policy?
b. Are aesthetic considerations included?
c. Would the facilities authorized induce excessive pressure
for changes to shoreline uses?
d. Is stormwater treatment required?
4. Mining
a. Is protection against siltation and erosion provided?
b. Is aesthetics considered?
5. Advertising
a. Are aesthetic impacts, views, and protection of natural
appearance considered?
6. Residential Development
a. Are densities compatible with adjacent environments?
b. Is storm runoff management required?
c. Are views considered?
d. Is ground water supply protected?
e. Can sewage load be handled without excessive shoreline
impacts?
f. Are impacts to aquaculture areas from runoff or septic
tanks considered?
7. Utilities
a. Are aesthetic impacts considered?
b. Will maintenance practices impact nearby water bodies?
9i
- 14 -
l
8. Industry
a. Are water quality controls required?
b. Will the upland industry lead to excessive pressure for
shoreline industry?
c. Are the industrial uses compatible with planned shoreline
areas, in noise, light, traffic, appearances, etc.?
9. Solid Waste Disposal
a. Will there be leachate contamination of nearby water bodies?
10. Roads and Railroads
a. Are scenic features required to be considered?
b. Will the facilities induce growth that is incompatible with.
shoreline designations?
11 . Recreation
a. Is consideration given to maintenance of water quality?
b. Will the facility cause excessive pressure for intense shore-
line development?
c. Is parking considered with regards to shorelines?
Simple yes and no answers rarely suffice because there may be valid
reasons for substantial differences in the two plans. For example, a
high residential density on the shoreline and low density on the upland
may be justified on the basis of the desire of people to take advantage
of the view and recreational opportunities along the shore while still
preserving productive' soil on the uplands for agriculture. However,
an inconsistency would obviously exist where a local master program
calls for limited development along a sensitive shoreline designated,
conservancy yet the comprehensive plan for the adjacent lands allows
high densities and mixed uses and provides no standards or controls
for water quality.
Therefore, a consistency determination between a local program and
an adjacent land use plan would be based on a reasoned consideration
of the extent to which permitted development in one area would
adversely affect the other area. The consistency determination would
be based on the factors that affect environmental quality, particular
site conditions, and the aspiration of the citizens as expressed directly
and through adopted land use policy.
- 15 -
i 1
One more example may be useful. In one case there may be height ,
restrictions along the shoreline and none on the uplands. This might
maximize visual access to the water. In another case, height restric-I
tions along the shoreline may be relaxed to allow more concentrated
development and more efficient use of limited space especially where
view preservation is not considered important, e.g. , in an industrial
zone or where the slope is such that the line of sight is not impaired
by higher buildings.
Both local and state governments should explain the findings of their
consistency review in the EIS and SEPA checklist. WAC 197-10- ,
440(6)(f), SEPA, and line 11 of the checklist form require that the
relationship of the proposed plan to other plans be discussed. Both
consistencies and inconsistencies with shoreline management should
be clearly indicated in these sections. This will assist WDOE to
understand the particular circumstances and rationale that are being
applied. When consistency may dictate different levels of activitiesI
on adjacent lands, the agency conducting the planning should explain
its rationale for a finding of consistency in these environmental docu
ments.
1
d
tl
- 16 -
III . APPLICATION OF AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE
RCW 90.58.340 requires local "achieve
governments and state agencies to
a use policy on [adjacent] land consistent with the policy of this chapter,
the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines." The language
is mandatory. The question is how to secure the result.
Once made aware of how to more fully comply through this paper, state
and local agencies can be expected to move toward compliance. Moreover,
in seekingsuch compliance local
p governments must take into consideration
any recommendations developed by WDOE. Thus, this guidance document,
read in conjunction with the statute's directive, should itself serve as a
significant impetus to state and local government action on adjacent lands
planning. However, where local government does not act, WDOE has the
ultimate power to compel adoption of the provisions of its adjacent lands
guidance. The following section analyzes four specific questions relating
to federal regulations for state programs which were requested of the
state by the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
' A. WDOE's Interim Authority
WDOE's "interim" authority during the period while the adjacent lands
guidance is being incorporated by local governments into their adminis-
trative and management policies, regulations, plans, and ordinances.
(See 15 CFR 923.42(c)(2). )
Under the SMA, the attorney general has the authority to "bring
such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to
insure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict
with the provisions and programs of this chapter and to otherwise
enforce the provisions of this chapter." (Emphasis supplied. )
RCW 90.58.210.
While the attorney general by law represents WDOE, the quoted pro-
vision does not refer to this representative capacity. It thus implies
- 17 -
i J f
III
the existence of prosecutorial descretion with respect to what actions,
promoted by WDOE the attorney general's office may choose to pursue.
Assuming, however, that the lawyers are disposed to sue at the direc-
tion of their client agency, authorization to bring suits under RCW 90
.58.210 appears, as to specific individual activities or uses, to be
ilimited in scope to the "shorelines of the state." Whether the autho-
rity could be stretched to direct enforcement actions against individuals
on adjacent lands has never been tested and is, therefore, at the
moment unknown.
But, apart from actions against wrongful uses of shorelines, RCW 90-
.58.210 does speak generally to enforcing "the provisions of this
chapter." Determining what this may mean in the adjacent lands
context requires a look at RCW 90.58.100(2)(e) and RCW 90.58.340.
These are the only two sections of the SMA which mention adjacent
lands. Neither appears to give WDOE authority to enforce anything
against individuals. They are statutory sections referring to planning
by governmental entities, not to direct regulation of specific projects.
The permit section of the SMA, RCW 90.58.140, prohibits substantial
development "on shorelines of the state" in the absence of a permit
from local government certifying consistency of the project with SMA
policies, adopted guidelines, and master program. WDOE's role in
the permit setting is to perform a reviewing role. RCW 90.58.180.
Again, the problem with WDOE's attempting to use the permit require-
ment, even indirectly, as an "interim" means for regulating activity
on adjacent land is its explicit limitation to development on shorelines.
Nevertheless, it is often suggested that at least as to "integrated"
projects, which involve development both within and without the
shoreline strip, the SMA permit mechanism might be applied to adja-
cent lands.
To be sure, the permit section of the SMA may in a selective way be
employed to retard activities on adjacent lands. Merkel v. Port of
- 18 -
t i r
9 I
Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973), established that
upland portions of an integrated project may be enjoined by while
permit issues on the shorelines are being resolved.
However, this is not the same thing at all as saying that substantial
development permits themselves may be conditioned so as to control
activity on adjacent lands -- even for "integrated" projects. Indeed
two recent appellant court decisions seem to decide precisely the
contrary. Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P.;2d
1108 (1979) and Department of Natural Resources v. Thurston County,
92 Wn.2d 656, 601 P.2d 494 (1979).
It might be argued that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
chpater 43.21C RCW, by supplementing the SMA, expands the geo-
graphical reach of SMA permit provisions beyond the 200-foot shoreline
strip. See RCW 43.21C.060. Since it is possible under SEPA to
deny a permit on environmental grounds not contained in the permit
statute, Polygon Corporation v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 578 P.2d 1308
(1978), it ought to be possible to condition permits with environmental
provisions not dictated by the permit statute. See State v. Crown
Zellerbach, 90 Wn.2d 894, 602 P.2d 1172 (1979). Conceptually, such
a process should not be limited to any particular geographical area.
However, as to SEPA-based conditions in SMA substantial development
permits, the Thurston County case, cited above, appears to stand
for just such an illogical limitation.
In any event, even if the power to extend substantial development
permit conditions to adjacent lands exists for projects which are partly
in and partly out of the shoreline area, this does not ipso facto mean
that WDOE thereby has a means for requiring compliance with its
planning guidance relating to adjacent lands. Where master program
provisions embodying such guidance do not exist, there is no posi-
tive law necessitating conformity to the substantive content of such
guidance.
- 19 -
,
,r
The foregoing discussion assumes that in the "interim" period WDOE's
adjacent lands guidance remains just what that term implies: a set`
of recommendations not formally adopted into a state rule or regulation
Means to Ensure Guidance Is Carried Out j
The means WDOE may use to ensure that local government incorpora
tion of adjacent lands guidance is carried out, or in the event that
guidance is not incorporated, the means WDOE will use to directly
apply the adjacent lands guidance. (See 15 CFR 923.42(c)(3). )
RCW 90.58.340, as noted, requires both that local governments con-;
sider WDOE's recommendations for regulation of adjacent lands and
that they achieve a use policy on such lands which is consistent wit
the policy of the SMA, the guidelines, and the master programs for
shorelines of the state. Under its general enforcement powers, WDOE
could bring an action which might result in an order to a local govern
ment to do what the statute commands. But such an order would
not specify what constitutes "consistency" or oblige the local govern,
ment to follow WDOE's guidance.
The order would be nonspecific because of the discretionary nature
of the planning decision involved. Mandamus can compel a public
officer or entity to exercise discretion, but it cannot dictate exactly;
how discretion is to be exercised. See Peterson v. Department of
Ecology, 92 Wn.2d 306, 596 P.2d 285 (1979).
Nonetheless, because local governments must at least consider WDOE'�r
recommendations under RCW 90.58.340, those recommendations, as a
practical matter, are likely to influence strongly the way in which
local governments design their use policies for adjacent lands.
l
If it appears, however, that local governments are not adopting adja
cent lands policies which conform to the guidance which WDOE has
provided as a recommendation, the department could forsake the 1
- 20 -
essentially advisory approach of RCW 90.58.340 and bring the local
adjacent lands program directly under the SMA umbrella.
This should be accomplished by engaging in formal rulemaking and
including the substance of the "guidance" in the official SMA "guide-
lines" which are part of the Washington Administrative Code. The
effect would be to provide the legal basis for compelling the inclusion
of the adjacent lands "guidance" in local master programs.
The term "guidelines" has a specific definition in the SMA. Under
RCW 90.58.030(3)(a) the term means, in part, a set of adopted
standards which "provide criteria to local governments and the depart-
ment in developing master programs." A "master program" is "the
comprehensive use plan for a described area and the use regulations
. . . developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90-
.58.020." RCW 90.58.030(3)(b).
Neither the term "master program" nor the term "guidelines" as related
to master programs is explicitly limited to the shoreline strip. RCW 90-
.58.100(2)(e) states that the master program "shall include, when a;ppro-
priate . . . a use element which considers the proposed general dis-
tribution and general location and extent of the use of shorelines and
adjacent land areas" for various kinds of activities. (Emphasis added. )
This language has been specifically interpreted by the State Supreme
Court to authorize the regulation of activities on adjacent lands by
means of master programs (though not by means of permit). Weyer-
haeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721 , 736, 592 P.2d 1108 (1979).
It is appropriate, therefore, for the guidelines which provide the
standards for master programs to include standards for the generally
required use element which considers adjacent lands.
The importance of all this is that local governments are required by
law to conform their master programs to the official SMA guidelines.
RCW 90.58.080. If any local government refuses to do so, WDOE has
- 21
the ultimate authority to adopt master program provisions for the
local government which are consistent with the state adopted guidelines.
RCW 90.58.070.
C. Procedure to Ensure Compliance
The procedure which the WDOE may use to review and ensure state
and local government compliance with the adjacent land guidance.
(See 15 CFR 923.42(c)(4).)
WDOE could establish a system of review of state and local government
compliance with its adjacent lands guidance. Assuming such a system,
is established, the means for ensuring compliance depends on whetherl,
the agency has relied on the recommendatory provisions of RCW 90- r
.58.340 as to adjacent lands program content or the mandatory approach
of including adjacent lands guidance in the SMA guidelines.
If the former course is followed, WDOE is limited to informal pressure
-- admonition, suggestion, and persuasion -- and, perhaps the
manipulation of CZM pass-through funding to coerce local action.
If the latter course is adopted, locally developed master programs
(and all their parts) implementing the guidelines as to adjacent lands
cannot become effective until adopted by WDOE through formal rule-
making pursuant to the state Administrative Procedure Act. RCW 90-
.58.120; RCW 90.58.090.
This scheme allows WDOE to review all provisions of every locally
adopted master program for "consistency" with the SMA and to refuse
to adopt any part of such a program found wanting in this regard.
Thus, WDOE could insure that the local programs for adjacent lands
appropriately embody the substance of this guidance on the subject.
However, as discussed in answer to question 1 above, absent applica
- 22 -
J I
bility of the SMA permit program to adjacent lands, direct enforcement
power against individuals may not be available to WDOE.
D. Modifications to Monitoring and Enforcement Program
Any appropriate modifications to the WDOE's monitoring and enforce-
; ment program necessary to extend the program to include the adjacent
lands guidance and/or certified local applications of that guidance.
(See 15 CFR 923.42(d). )
Under existing authority, WDOE has the ultimate power to obligate the
creation of local land use programs on adjacent lands which conform
to guidance WDOE has developed. There is no legal impediment to
WDOE's setting up a procedure to monitor such programs.
At present, however, implementation is essentially left to local govern-
ments and WDOE as issues arise. The existence of any direct enforce-
ment powers in WDOE on adjacent lands under the SMA along or under
the SMA as supplemented by SEPA is highly questionable. Of course,
where WDOE is empowered to act on such lands under statutory pro-
grams, for example, the state water pollution control program of chap-
ter 90.48 RCW, it may indirectly enforce its adjacent lands guidance
where the provisions of the two programs are directed toward the same
ends.
I '
- 23 -
IV. STRATEGY FOR WDOE USE AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE ADJACENT LANDS GUIDANCE
Section 340 clearly places the responsibility for achieving consistency
on each local and state agency. WDOE is authorized to development
recommendations for adjacent land use to carry out the consistency!
required in the Act. For this purpose the technical assistance docu
ment will be supplied to all appropriate agencies to assist them in
exercising their Section 340 responsibilities. Although local govern-
ments have the primariy resonsibility for land use planning, the
guidance applies equally to state agencies in developing plans for
highways, parks, ferry terminals, and other important infrastructure
that can affect shoreline development patterns and cause coastal I'
resource impacts.
. i
tl
A. Notification
The primary means for notification and monitoring of ongoing and
future adjacent land activity is the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). While existing procedures are adequate, the department
will place more emphasis on the use of the SEPA review process.
The guidance explains how local and state agencies should use
WAC 197-10-440(6)(f) to become aware of possible inconsistent pro-
posals.
WAC 197-10-440(6)(f), SEPA Guidelines, requires that the EIS shall
identify how the proposal is consistent or inconsistent with "existing,
comprehensive land use plans and zoning regulations applicable to
the proposal." This language has historically been used generically
rather than specifically so that a project or a plan is already required
to discuss the interrelationships with the entire relevant spectrum of
local plans, e.g. , sewage treatment plans, transportation plans, capital
development plans, and local master programs.
The environmental checklist also provides a way to identify inconsis-
tencies between a proposed plan and the SMA. Line 11 of the check]
- 24 -
i
list requires the project sponsor to specify other plans which affect
the proposal. Between Section 340 and RCW 90.68.100(2) it is evident
that the local master program policies and SMA guidelines apply to
adjacent lands and therefore represent a plan affecting the property
(or in this case the plan) in question.
B. WDOE Process for Adjacent Land Review
All Actions under SEPA are registered with WDOE. The department
is responsible for publication of a weekly register of all SEPA actions
in the state. The initial decision is whether Shorelands Division
should conduct a review. This requires the SEPA Review Section to
be alert to the need to trigger a Shorelands Division review. As a
precaution the Shorelands Division will simultaneously scrutinize the
weekly SEPA register. Subsection (6)(f) of the SEPA Guidelines
should identify significant consistency issues with shoreline manage-
ment.
In order to focus department efforts on the more significant programs
which may have impact on shorelands, review of the following type
of local plans will be emphasized: comprehensive plans; zoning ordin-
ances; subarea plans; urban waterfront plans. State agencies whose
plans will be reviewed for 340 consistency include: Conservation
Commission; Ecology (solid waste, water quality); Fisheries; Game,
Natural Resources (marine lands, forestry); Transportation (ferries,
highways); and Parks and Recreation.
State agency planning may cover a broad range of subjects not all,, of
which would raise 340 consistency issues. Since it is difficult to
categorize this planning more thoroughly, the strategy will be for
the Shorelands Division to automatically review all plans from certain
agencies and for Shorelands staff to determine whether complete review
is needed. This will be done as much as possible through examination
of Subsection (6)(f). State agency activity will also be scrutinized
- 25 -
1
through the federal A-95 review process. Other state agency plans
may be routed to Shorelands if Subsection (6)(f) indicates a need.
1
Another aspect of the system that will be instituted for the remainder
of the local grant program will be to ask local governments to notifj
us on their quarterly reports of any planning occurring in their juris-
diction that has potential 340 consistency implications. Such informal-
tion is frequently discussed in the course of routine contacts betweei
Shorelands staff and local planners, but it could .be more formalizedtl
The purpose would be to enable Shorelands 340 review to occur at
an earlier more formative stage of plan development.
JI
Inconsistencies on adjacent lands may also become apparent when
major project is proposed at some specific location. As part of its
monitoring function WDOE will also use the SEPA process and contacts
with local planners to identify such signficant projects.
C. Shoreland Review and Consultation
The initial review will be to examine Subsection (6)(f) of the SEPA
Guidelines to see how consistency between the subject plan and Sec N
tion 340 is addressed. The plan itself will then be reviewed to deter-
mine if Ecology concurs with the judgments in the EIS and/or to
determine if any remaining inconsistencies are significant enough to
warrant involvement by WDOE.
If a subject plan is determined to have inconsistencies WDOE will
prepare comments, discuss the situation with local staff, appear a
hearings, involve other state agencies, supply additional information ,
or employ other consultative strategies to influence the final plan.
If this consultative process were purely a Shorelands Division initia-
tive, it might not be very effective. Section 340, however, states
that other agencies must give consideration to DOE recommendations
on use regulations for adjacent lands. This gives WDOE recommend+
- 26 -
tions, especially in conjunction with this document, considerably more
weight than would otherwise be the case.
The consultation/comment process is the first stage of possible WDOE
intervention on adjacent lands. It is not envisioned that this will
always be necessary, but will be triggered by a determination that
the policies proposed are inconsistent with the applicable shoreline
policies for adjacent lands that are identified in the Guidance. This
judgment represents a complex weighing of various factors while
focusing on the impacts of development allowed under the proposed
policies and whether those impacts make it essentially impossible' to
achieve goals for the preservation of ecological balance, the protection
of productive resources, the maintenance of aesthetics, the oppor-
tunity for recreational use and enjoyment, and other goals of the
SMA.
Legal/Regulatory Remedies
The guidance outlines the possible legal regulatory remedies available
to the department. The strategy envisions that the initiation of these
measures would be triggered by only the more extreme or intractable
situations. Most adjacent lands issues would be dealt with through
the consultation and comment process.
The potential measures open to WDOE as outlined in Chapter III are:
a) Mandamus action requiring agencies to abide by 340 directive;
b) adopt WACs requiring adoption of adjacent lands policy into local
master programs; c) persuasion; and d) use of 306 grants.
The last two are utilized as part of this strategy. The first two .will
be utilized as the situation requires. Mandamus actions will be used
in specific instances, whereas use of the regulation approach will
only be invoked if there is an apparent need for a general improve-
; ment in the management of adjacent lands. The latter action would
respond to widespread patterns of inconsistency.
- 27 -
Special area plans for particularly problematic areas will be encouraged.
Although not a legal remedy, per se, it is a substantially more direct
action to modify a subarea plan or a zoning ordinance to address
specific problems. It is often far more productive to address specific
problem areas. An agreement between affected parties to develop a
special area plan may be a way to forestall the more costly and in-
volved process of invoking the legal remedies.
Another legal possibility might be to focus on a major project that
has adjacent land factors associated with it. Through such a test
case type approach, if successful, requirement to achieve consistency
might be strengthened and highlighted. Such a case might be a
project that was permitted under a contested policy on adjacent lands.
Review of Current Plans I'
The major emphasis of this strategy is to institute a process that will
enable WDOE to become involved with other agencies during the devel-,
opment of plans on adjacent lands. It does not address existing
plans that are not being revised. These will be the subject of a
306 grant condition. The scope of this review will emphasize the
following: a) city and county comprehensive plans, subarea plans,
and zoning, ordinances will be reviewed; b) this guidance will provide'
a format to be utilized for the review; c) the review will concentrate
on identification of policies that should be modified or eliminated,
rather than identification of new policies; d) the review format will
identify the major review topics to be covered and the review need
not exceed that scope.
This review of current plans will identify specific conflicts that need
attention as future plans for the jurisdiction are developed. The
review will be accomplished by local governments because of their
familiarity with the specific geographic area involved, knowledge of
ordinances, and awareness of issues that are problematic.
- 28 -
a r
•
Near the beginning of the next CZM grant period WDOE will hold a
technical workshop on the implementation of the strategy. The work-
1, shop will explain the strategy outlined in this section. Agencies and
interested groups with responsiblities and interests in coastal planning
will be invited.
I' I
- 29 -
•
V. THE APPLICATION OF SHORELINE
POLICY TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY
The discussion of consistency problems and applicable shoreline policy is
divided into three major types of potential problems:
1 . Consistency between shoreland uses and adjacent land uses.
•
2. Consistency with respect to impacts from land uses, however appro-
priate the use may be.
3. Integrated projects that are partly within and partly outside the
permit area.
• This section addresses in detail each situation. Physical impacts are sub-
divided into two major categories: water quality impacts and aesthetic
impacts.
Other physical impacts to land, wildlife or air are not discussed in detail
because they are considered under SEPA and are not specific to the coastal
Zone.
A. Use Incompatibilities
The major technique for shoreline planning is to classify the various
areas along the water's edge into different "environments." The
purpose of the "environments" is to "encourage uses in each environl;�
ment which enhance the character of that environment" and to be thegg
vehicle for the placement of "reasonable standards and restrictons or�
developments so that such development does not disrupt or destroy]
the character of the environment." (WAC 173-16-040(4) Environment I�
p. 4,5) The approach envisioned is to use performance standards so,
that the "particular uses or types 'of developments placed in each
environment (will not cause) effects detrimental to achieveing the
• objectives of the environment designations and local development
- 30 -
criteria." The same considerations apply to use incompatibilities on
adjacent lands.
This philosophy means that the standard for measurement of consis-
tency between adjacent and shoreline uses is the objective of the
environmental designation. This logic, however, does not necessarily
mean that the same type or intensity of use allowed on the shore is
necessitated on the adjacent area. As in the example of parking,
achieving the objectives in the coastal strip may imply that sometimes
uses excluded from the edge should occur on adjacent lands in order
to maximize efficiency of use of coastal resources. Nonetheless, the
opposite is the general rule, i.e. , adjacent land development should
not create undue pressure for use of the shoreline beyond what 'is
intended in the environmental designation.
These principles are obviously difficult to apply in a mechanistic
way. It is precisely here that the need for comprehensive planning
at the local level is most highlighted and is why the state guidelines
repeatedly assert that the SMA is not a substitute for comprehensive
planning. The following discussion outlines the major areas of use
conflicts and the general principles that apply.
Residential Development
Density of development often differs between shorelands and adjacent
lands. Where development pressure on the shorelines is great (par-
ticularly for residences), and property values are correspondingly
high, economics dictates small lots and dense development. The adja-
cent uplands, on the other hand, may be in large ownerships owing
to regulation or its lower desirability as a place to live.
The opposite density pattern also occurs. A productive, fragile, or
hazardous shoreline may have avoided intensive development through
SMA designation as natural or conservancy environment and remain
in near natural condition. However, intensive upland development
- 31 -
' n
4
can produce water quality deterioration, erosion, subsurface drain-1
age, or other negative coastal impacts. In this case, shoreline protec-p'
tion limited to 200 feet may not be effective.
l
In general, density adjacent to natural or conservancy environmentsi
should be limited to protect those environments' "natural" objectives.'
For urban and rural environments adjacent densities may be higher
than the shoreline environment allows in order to accommodate growth
pressure. Given that runoff and sewage treatment are problems with,
any dense development, they are still easier to accommodate away
from the shoreline rather than directly on it. In other words, where
you have lower density already, protect it. When you have growth
. i
pressure accommodate it where the impact is least. Although not fi
explicitly stated as shoreline policies, these principles flow from thel
concepts of the environmental designations.
Platting and subdividing are of concern. Prior to 1971 shorelines
were often platted without regard to the capacity of the land to
support intensive development. Thus, substandard lots were created
on a significant portion of the state's waterfront. Today, with con-
cern for environmental quality and the protection of public health,
ways to deal with this problem are being sought. Substandard lots
should be designated as nonconforming uses and amalgamation of lots:'
required. Where old plats have locked in high density residential
land use patterns at the shoreline, the planning for adjacent lands ;
should accommodate such needs as community septic drainfields.
Property lines are usually developed along rectangular grids with
little regard to topography, groundwater or other elements of the
environment, and these ownership patterns hinder natural systems
planning. Platting and subdivision development should be done with 1
consideration for natural systems, in order to provide sewage treat-
ment, runoff retention, erosion control, and enhancement of aesthetics.
32 -
Parking
Integrated shoreline/upland planning should recognize the need for
parking. Shorelines are to be reserved for water-dependent or water-
related use and made accessible for public use and enjoyment;.
Vehicle parking is usually a prohibited or discouraged nonwater-
dependent use. Moreover, parking lot runoff or vehicle movement
may damage sensitive shoreline habitat. However, provisions for
adequate parking is essential for public access and water-dependent
uses. Plans for adjacent areas should accommodate parking if the
shoreline is to be compatibly developed with regard to preserving
shoreline resources, providing public access, and meeting legitimate
needs of water dependent or related uses.
Industrial Uses
The SMA envisions industrial uses primarily in urban environments.
Industrial uses on adjacent lands could lead to several coastal impacts
unless strict performance standards, buffer strips, etc. are used ,to
prevent them. In one area of western Washington an upland was
committed to heavy industrial use, while the adjacent shoreline was
designated conservancy in the local master program. Although this
may present a potentially incompatible combination, in this example
industrial use of the shoreline has been tightly confined to piers or
pilings with minimal disruption of the beach and bluff. Strict perform-
ance standards concerning pollutant discharges have been enforced,
and no disruption of beach processes or shallow-water biological
activity has been allowed.
As a general rule, however, conservancy and rural shoreline environ-
ments are characterized by agricultural uses and housing. Heavy
industry in most cases will not be compatible with those environments
for the same reasons it is not compatible with suburban neighborhoods.
Adjacent land industry should be "limited to near-urban or rural
environments that would typically be more highly developed. Only
when pre-existing development patterns and limited alternative sites
- 33 -
exist . should industrial development be planned next to natural or
conservancy shorelines.
Industrial Uses in the Urban Setting
In highly urbanized settings, the buffering of residential and indus;'
trial uses is a concern. In most cases, harbor areas have been
designated by the Washington Constitution and are reserved for tradi-
tional navigation and commerce (narrowly construed). Although the
SMA promotes shoreline industrial uses in ports, their proximity t
residential areas can lead to conflicts.
A recent example has been objections by residents of Magnolia and
Queen Anne Hill in Seattle to port plans to create a container-typel
terminal on Piers 90 and 91 . The residents object to potential lights;
and noise as well as visual disruption. In Everett, a similar situation
exists where residents along bluffs overlooking waterfront industrial
areas have objected to additional industry locating in vacant areas.
City zoning in areas adjacent to ports should take into account poten;-
tial conflicts and regulate uses such that potentials for conflict are
not exacerbated. Although areas adjacent to ports are generally
highly developed, they may be going through transitions where poten
tial for conversion to new uses exists. In such cases consideration'
should be given to pressures that may be created by adjacent uses'
relative to port industrial activities and expansions. High density
housing, for example, may create additional conficts over port expan;'-
sion projects.
Such adjacent uses are not necessarily incompatible. SMA policy I
encourages ports to allow waterfront access and viewpoints whenever
feasible. SMA policy, however, also encourages the use of existing
ports to accommodate industrial needs, so port expansion needs should
be given careful consideration. Adjacent uses should be planned to
create an overall land-use pattern that accommodates both needs.
- 34 -
Associated Wetlands
On "associated wetlands" shoreline jurisdiction extends to the edge
of the wetlands, rather than 200 feet beyond as defined in the Act
for water bodies. Unregulated development could take place in such
close proximity to wetlands that they could suffer adverse impacts.
The Guidelines recognize wetlands as extremely important to the food
chain, important as ground water recharge areas, and tremendously
valuable for flood control (WAC 173-16-050). Planning and project
approval adjacent to associated wetlands should be done in considera-
tion of the need for buffers or other protective measures.
Utilities
Development of sewage treatment plants and the location of interceptors
are major determinants of urban growth. When sewers are to be.
developed on adjacent lands, recognition must be given to the fact
that they will induce growth, if they are not already a part of dense
urban development. This may lead, in turn, to pressure for a con-
version to more density along the shoreline as well. Sewage treat-
ment facilities should not be planned for lands adjacent to shorelines
that are intended to remain in low intensity uses. The shoreline
policy for rural environments emphasize the concern:
"New developments in a rural environment are to reflect the character
of the surrounding area by limiting residential density, providing
permanent open space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks
from water to prevent shoreline resources from being destroyed from
other rural types of uses. [WAC 173-16-040(4)(iii)]
! B. Water Quality Impacts
The major environmental concern from development on adjacent lands
is the potential for direct or indirect environmental impacts to water
bodies under the jurisdiction of the SMA. While the federal and state
water quality programs apply direct authority to maintain water qu'al-
' ity standards, land use controls by local governments over adjacent
- 35 -
d s
lands are also necessary for achievement and maintenance of water
quality in the state's receiving waters. This section generally outline '
the types of environmental impacts anticipated and the coastal zone
policies intended to mitigate those impacts. Table II displays the
types of impacts that can be anticipated from the most common adja
cent land use activities..
Adjacent land use programs and regulations should contain provisions
to insure that environmental impacts are recognized and mitigated. The
following legislative policy declarations from RCW 90.58.020 state the
need to reduce impacts on the state's waters from land use activities.
The WDOE regulations interpreting these legislative declarations stipu �
late more specifically how local master programs are to mitigate impact
from shorelines and adjacent lands.
ti
"The policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the
public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water?9
of the state and their aquatic life, . . ."
"The public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities
of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest
extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the stater
and the people generally."
"To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with cones
trol of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environmentN,
or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shorelines."
Development on adjacent lands primarily affects coastal resources
through the mechanism of runoff causing erosion, sedimentation, anal
water quality degradation. The distance between adjacent lands an4
water bodies tends to mitigate the typical impacts associated with
shoreline projects such as interference with littoral drift, obstruction
to fish migration or spawning, or destruction of nutrient rich inter-
tidal habitat.
The eight major categories of physical environmental impacts and
problems of primary concern in the adjacent lands are summarized
here. WAC citations containing policy related to the impacts are
given after each discussion. •
- 36 -
c
TABLE II. POTENTIAL COASTAL IMPACTS .
Adjacent Erosion from Contaminant Flooding from Direct Discharge Discharge of I Slide Hazards Withdrawal Increase Use
Land Cleared/Disturbed Run-off from Increased Volume of Effluents to Effluents to I from Bluff of of Fragile
Uses Sloped Land Developed Lands of Storm Run-off Surface Waters Ground Water I Developments Ground Water Systems (Other
Commercial/ From clearing/ From roofs, Adds to total. Many possible Many possible From clearing, Possibly
Industrial grading. parking, etc. types. types. weight. significant.
Development
r T F
Residential From clearing/ From roofs, Adds to total. If treatment Cumulative From clearing, Cumulatively Possibly
Development grading. driveways, plant used. problem. drain fields, significant. significant.
roads. etc.
T I- -I
Forest From machinery, From roads. From reduced From debris in From roads, (Loss of
Practices skidding. absorption. streams. loss of cover. shade cover)
F T I
Mining From clearing,, Possible. From separation Possible. From loss of Possible.
plants, process. cover.
overburden.
Agriculture From cultivating, From fertilizer, From irrigation From ferti- Possibly
irrigation. herb/pesticide. return. lizer, herb/ significant.
pesticide.
Utilities From R/W From herbicidal if pipeline
clearing. clearing. rupture.
Roads From construction. From surface. I Adds to total. From ditches. From cuts.
Recreation Possible from From fertilizer,' Possibly
construction. herbicide use. ' significant.
I I I i I I I I
AV/L3(B18-19)
Land Clearing and Soil Disturbances
Runoff from cleared land is the most common problem cited by local
planners. It results from residential, commercial, industrial, ands
recreational development, or from road construction as well as forest
practices, agriculture, and mining operations. It can cause siltation
in streams or waterways and lead to significant coastal resource daml.
age to anadromous fisheries spawning areas and the degradation off
water quality. Lakes and poorly flushed marine embayments are most
severely impacted by siltation from uncontrolled erosion. Depending
11
on the make up of the siltation it may raise B.O.D. levels and affect
aquatic plant growth by reducing the available light. Controlling
runoff in coastal Washington is complicated by climatic factors such als
seasonal rainfall fluctuations. Projects which are begun during th a
dry summer months must include provisions for revegetation befor I
heavy rains begin in the fall.
A clearly related impact - the increased volume or surge of runoff
from both cleared and developed land in riverine areas and waterways
within developed drainage basins - can be significant. The impact)
is increased flooding with attendant scouring of bed materials and
erosion of channel walls. The scouring of gravel beds during highl
flows combined with the heavy silt loads from high water erosion can
ruin gravel spawning beds and smother or rupture fish eggs presently
deposited. The increased runoff from development can also lead to
flooding in downstream communities.
Agriculture.
"(c) Local governments should encourage the use of erosion
control measures, such as crop rotation, mulching, and strip cropping
and control cultivation in conformance with guidelines and standards
established by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agri
culture." [WAC 173-16-060(1)]
Aquaculture.
"(v) Shellfish resources and conditions suitable for aquaculture
only occur in limited areas. The utility and productivity of these !
sites is threatened by activities and developments which reduce water
quality such as waste discharges, nonpoint runoff and disruption of
bottom sediments. Proposed developments and activities should be,
- 38 -
o
I'
I; .
.: evaluated for impact on productive aquaculture areas. Identified
lI impacts should be mitigated through permit conditions and performance
I! standards." [WAC 173-16-060(2)]
Forest Management Practices.
Guidelines:,
1 "(a) Seeding, mulching, matting and replanting should be
11 accomplished where necessary to provide stability on areas of steep
ii slope which have been logged. Replanted vegetation should be of
similar type and concentration as existing in the general vicinity of
1; the logged area." [WAC 173-16-060(3)]
"(d) Proper road and bridge design, location and construction
I; and maintenance practices should be used to prevent development of
il roads and structures which would adversely affect shoreline resources."
1 "(e) Timber harvest practices in shorelines of the state should
be conducted to maintain the state board of health standards for
i.
i. public water supplies.."
i "(f) Logging should be avoided on shorelines with slopes of
., such grade that large sediment runoff will be precipitated, unless
adequate restoration and erosion control can be expeditiously accomp-
lished." ,
"(h) Logging within shoreline areas should be conducted to
I ensure the maintenance of buffer strips of ground vegetation, brush,
j alder and conifers to prevent temperature increases adverse to fish
1 populations and erosion of stream banks."
I
I. Mining. .
t. "(a) When rock, sand, gravel and minerals are removed from
�i shoreline areas, adequate protection against sediment and silt produc-
e tion should be provided." [WAC 173-16-060(6)]
1
I
li Utilities.
I., "(a) Upon completion of installation/maintenance projects on
1.
l; shorelines, banks should be restored to preproject configuration;',
l' replanted with native species and provided maintenance care until
I,I the newly planted vegetation is established." [WAC 173-16-060(9)]
" Road and Railroads
I'I "(b) Roads located in wetland areas should, be designed and
1, maintained to prevent erosion and to permit a natural movement of
ground water."
"(c) All debris, overburden, and' other waste materials from
construction should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their
I' entry by erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any
water body." [WAC 173-16-060(18)]
I'I
I!
1
- 39 -
Runoff from Developed Lands
The sources of runoff from developed lands vary widely and the par-
ticular problems vary with the exact nature of the contaminants
,involved. The sources are urban and suburban developments of aII
types: residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational. The
potential contaminants vary widely but include: oil from roadways;
fertilizers and pesticides from landscaped areas; organic matter such
as leaves and grass clippings; bacteria and viruses from animal feces;
and toxic metal compounds. Agricultural areas and utility right-of-
ways may also contribute runoff containing nutrients from fertilizer
and/or toxicants from herbicides and pesticides. The initial impacts
may be felt in small streams and runoff channels and storm discharge
that lead to larger rivers and streams that constitute the first tier
of the Washington Coastal Zone. Runoff also occurs directly over'
the ground as sheet erosion to lakes and bays. Depending on whether
the pollutants are nutrients, toxicants, or oxygen depleters, effect
can be contamination of shellfish beds, increased mortality of juveni,e
fish, decreased waterfowl reproduction, the probability of disease
from drinking water, or various illnesses from skin contact.
Agricultural Practices.
"(a) Local governments should encourage the maintenance of a
buffer of permanent vegetation between tilled areas and associated
water bodies which will retard surface runoff and reduce siltation.
[WAC 173-16-060(1)]
Aquaculture.
"(v) Shellfish resources and conditions suitable for aquaculture
only occur in limited areas. The utility and productivity of these
sites is threatened by activites and developments which reduce water
quality such as water discharges, nonpoint runoff and disruption of
bottom sediments. Proposed developments and activities should be
evaluated for impact on productive aquaculture areas. Identified
impacts should be mitigated through permit conditions and perform-
ance standards." [WAC 173-16-060(2)]
Residential Development.
"(a) Subdivisions should be designed at a level of density of
site coverage and of occupancy compatible with the physical capabilities
of the shoreline and water." [WAC 173-16-060(8)]
- 40 -
"(g) Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facili-
ties, must be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local
health regulations. Storm drainage facilities should be separate, not
combined with sewage disposal systems."
Recreation.
"(j) In locating proposed recreation facilities such as playing
fields and golf courses and other open areas which use large quan-
tities of fertilizers and pesticides in their turf maintenance programs,
provisions must be made to prevent these chemicals from entereing
water. If this type of facility is approved on a shoreline location,
provisions should be made for protection of water areas from drain-
age and surface runoff." [WAC 173-16-060(21)]
Direct Discharges to Surface or Ground
Direct discharges to surface water are usually associated with Indus-
trial or commerical uses except storm drainage which is considered in
the previous sections. This type of effluent is regulated by the
state and federal Clean Water Acts and under the direct control of
NPDES permits. The total amount of such discharges, however, ; is
determined by the overall level of development allowed. Adjacent
land planning should address the cumulative impact of such discharges
that could occur in the coastal zone.
Discharges to ground through septic tanks and drainfields, dry wells
for storm runoff, and retention ponds of various sorts, if they are
not impermeable, cause various waterborne contaminants to enter the
ground water. Although they may be located outside the first tier,
the contaminants may reach surface water bodies if they drain to an
impermeable layer that in turn forms part of the profile of a river
bed, lake, or Puget Sound. The contamination that results can cause
or contribute to loss of fishability, swimability, and drinkability,
similar to surface discharges.
Ports and Water-related Industries.
"(c) Sewage treatment, water reclamation, desalinization and
power plants should be located where they do not interfere with and
are compatible with recreational, residential or other public uses,of
the water and shorelands. Waste treatment ponds for water-related
industry should occupy as little shoreline as possible." [WAC 173-
16-060(10)]
41
II
Slide Hazards
Although slide hazards are more common within the shoreline area
where wave action undercuts bluffs, the conditions which make sloping
areas hazardous often continue landward or occur beyond the shore �I.
land area. Along some rivers unstable bluffs may occur at the edge
of the flood plains just beyond the first tier. The primary problem
with these bluffs is the hazard they present to homes or other develop-
ment built either within the area or too close to the top of the bluff.
Heavy rains can saturate the soil, dramatically increase its weight,
and increase internal water pressure sufficiently to cause a slide.
The tendency of these areas to seek their equilibrium slope profile
though slides can be compounded by removal of vegetation, installa=
tion of septic tanks, or other soil disruption. The shoreline resources
involved are not so much the issue as is the safety of the people
involved and the economic costs of such a loss, although some sedimen-
tation damage can also occur.
Ground Water Withdrawal
Ground water withdrawal can result from commercial, residential, or
industrial development. The aquifers underlying coastal areas gent
erally extend further than the 200-foot boundary or the associated
wetlands of the first tier. Heavy withdrawal from shallow aquifers
could pose a risk in some areas of saltwater intrusions as hydrostatic
pressure is reduced.
Residential Development. I.
"(h) Adequate water supplies should be available so that the
ground water quality will not be endangered by overpumping."
[WAC 173-16-060(8)]
Fragile Systems
Fragile shoreline systems have been identified and protected in local
shoreline master programs. However, most of these outstanding
natural or cultural features could be threatened or impacted by uncon-
- 42 -
a
trolled development on adjacent lands. ' Nonpoint and point discharge,
and physical alteration from adjacent development has potential to
affect fragile shoreline systems such as dunes, wetlands, and shellfish
beds. Since a major policy of the Shoreline Management Act is to
protect the natural resource systems, attention should be given 'to
reducing the impact from all development on sensitive natural systems.
The balance between protection .of the resource feature and providing
public accessibility requires careful coordination between the shoreline
and abutting land use programs.
Recreation.
"(b) Access to recreational locations such as fishing streams
and hunting areas should be a combination of areas and linear access
(parking areas and easements, for example) to prevent concentrations
of use pressure at a few points."
"(d) Attention should be directed toward the effect the develop-
ment of a recreational site will have on the environmental quality and
natural resources of an area."
"(f) To avoid wasteful use of the limited supply of recreational
shoreland, parking areas should be located inland away from the
immediate edge of the water and recreational beaches. Access should
be provided by walkways or other methods. Automobile traffic on
beaches, dunes and fragile shoreland resources should be discouraged."
"(i) Facilities for intensive recreational activities should be
provided where sewage disposal and vector control can be accomplished
to meet public health standards without adversely altering the natural
features attractive for recreational uses." [WAC 173-16-060(21)]
C. Aesthetics and View Protection
The protection of visual assets of shorelands and water bodies i& a
primary objective of shoreline management. In developing and apply-
ing a program to shorelands and adjacent lands, consideration must
be given to protection of the visual quality of the shoreline resource
and to maintenance of view corridors to waterways and shoreland
features. While projects wholly outside the area under the jurisdiction
of the SMA cannot be directly regulated through "shoreline substantial
development permits," Section 340 can be applied to adjacent land
use planning. While aesthetic values are highly subjective and sub-
ject to variable interpretation, the protection of views is spelled out
- 43
rather clearly, and techniques and procedures have been established
to minimize the loss of view.
In a broad, comprehensive statement of RCW 90.58.020 the Legislature
directs that: "In the implementation of this policy the public's oppor
tunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shore
lines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible
consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people,
generally." In development of the state guidelines and the local master
program the Act in RCW 90.58.100(2)(f) requires: "A conservation
element for the preservation of natural resources, including but not
limited to scenic vistas, (and) aesthetics, . . . ."
The Act then goes on to make one of its most specific policy, regul 1-
tory statements in Section 320 regarding the protection of views:
•
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any
new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-
five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the 1
state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of
residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where
a master program does not prohibit the same and then only
when overriding considerations of the public interest will be ,
served.
The most significant case relating to the protection of residential{
views is the Washington State Department of Ecology, et al. v. Pace-
setter Construction Company which was ruled on by the State Suprem
Court in November 1977. j
Significantly, the court cited favorably many authorities for the pro-
position that the protection of aesthetic values alone justifies the
exercise of the police power without payment of compensation. The
court went on to point out that they did not need to rest their dec -
sion solely on aesthetics due to the unchallenged findings of the case
establishing that the loss of view substantially reduced the values of
neighboring shoreline properties.
{
- 44 -
f
r i
t K
In May 1973, Pacesetter purchased a residential lot on Lake Wash-
ington. The area is subject to setback and height requirements;.
Subsequently, the lot was divided into two parcels. In August 1974,
another party, the Huntleys, purchased an adjoining house and lot,
and were assured by Pacesetter that the project construction would
not block their view.
In September 1975, the Huntleys brought suit against Pacesetter on
setback and height violations of the Shoreline Management Act. The
Department of Ecology joined the suit as plaintiff, and obtained a
temporary restraining order. By then, foundations had been poured
for both houses and two of three stories on the lakeside house had
been framed.
In March 1976, King County Superior Court found in favor of the
Huntleys and WDOE and ordered removal of both houses and restora-
tion of the site to its original condition. The superior court also
awarded the Huntley's accrued and continuing damages for loss of
view until abatement and attorney fees. Court costs were awarded
to both the Huntleys and WDOE.
The lower court was subsequently upheld by the state supreme court.
The Justices defended the height and historic setback requirements
of the SMA as well as pointing out that "Much decisional law upholds
a government regulation protective of aesthetic values whether or not
accompanied or combined with the protection of economic values. . .
Many cases hold protection of aesthetic values alone justify the exer-
cise of police power without payment of compensation. . . ."
This language, coming from the State Supreme Court renders this
decision a landmark case in the state in regard to the role of aesthetics
in resource and land use regulation. Although it applied to a case
within the SMA permit area, it significantly reinforces the general
principles of aesthetic regulation and planning concerning shorelines,
- 45 -
H
The other significant Shorelines Hearings Board case involving broad
questions of aesthetics and reviewed by a state superior court is the
Hama Hama Company v. WDOE and the Attorney General. The Haml
Hama Company proposed a large sand and gravel mining operation and
barge facility on Hood Canal, a scenic recreational water body defined
as a shoreline of statewide significance. Since the Hama Hama propos I
involved some 3,800 acres, most of which were beyond shoreline man
agement jurisdiction, its findings are particularly relevant to the
management of adjacent lands. The following excerpts from the
Board's Conclusion of Law (SHB No. 115) highlight the need to
consider adjacent lands aesthetic impacts in scenic resource areas:
Intensive land uses or developments within the shoreline of
Hood Canal, a shoreline of statewide significance, should be
discouraged or prohibited. It is difficult to perceive a use
more intensive and incompatible with the present shoreline
and aesthetics of Hood Canal than the construction proposed
by the Company. The pier, conveyor and barge-loading
facilities will intrude upon the magnificent grandeur that is
now existent, converting the natural characteristics and
beauty of the existing shoreline into one marred by this
proposed industrial enterprise. Only when there is a clearly
defined and present necessity for tolerating an abuse of
nature's scene should an intrusion of the type here suggested
be allowed in Hood Canal. Under what circumstances such
a necessity might be found to exist, we need not now deter-
mine. Suffice it to say that it is not now present.
The policy section of the Shoreline Act also mandates the
preservation of the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical
and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state. . . .
The landward portion of the shoreline of the site is not
natural, but rather is traversed by a public highway. The
water portion of the shoreline, however, is now in its natural
state and must be preserved for preferred uses which are
consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage
to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent
upon use of the state's shoreline.
The Guidelines require aesthetic consideration in development of th
local master program. The following guideline policy statements mal<c
the most direct requirements for aesthetic and view protection con-f
siderations, and further indicate the broad scope of aesthetic concern .
- 46 -
I';
Marinas.
ii ) Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating
new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or for the general
enhancement of shoreline areas. [WAC 173-16-040(5)]
Forest Practices.
(c) Shoreline areas having scenic qualities, such as those pro-
•
viding a diversity of views, unique landscape contrasts, or landscape
panoramas should be maintained as scenic views in timber'harvesting
areas. Timber havesting practices, including road construction and
debris removal, should be closely regulated so that the quality of
the view and viewpoints in shoreline areas of the state are not
degraded. [WAC 173-16-060(3)]
Commercial Development
(c) An assessment should be made of the effect a commercial
structure will have on a scenic view significant to a given area or
enjoyed by a significant number of people. [WAC 173-16-060(4)]
Signs
Signs may be pleasing or distracting, depending upon their
design and location.
(a) Off-premise outdoor advertising signs should be limited to
areas of high-intensity land use, such as commercial and industrial
areas.
(b) Master programs should establish size, height, density, and
lighting limitations for signs.
(c) Vistas and viewpoints should not be degraded and visual
access to the water from such vistas should not be impaired by the
placement of signs.
(d) Outdoor advertising signs (where permitted under local regu-
lations) should be located on the upland side of public transportation
routes which parallel and are adjacent to rivers and water bodies
, (unless it can be demonstrated that views will not be substantially
obstructed).
(e) When feasible, signs should be constructed against existing
buildings to minimize visual obstructions of the shoreline and water
bodies. [WAC 173-16-060(7)]
Utilities.
The installation of this apparatus necessarily disturbs the land-
j;; scape but can usually be planned to have minimal visual and physical
effect on the environment.
(a) Upon completion of installation/maintenance projects on shore-
lines, banks should be restored to preproject configuration, replanted
with native species and provided maintenance care until the newly
planted vegetation is established.
(b) Whenever these facilities must be placed in a shoreline area,
the location should be chosen so as not to obstruct or destroy scenic
views. Whenever feasible, these facilities should be placed under-
ground, or designed to do minimal damage to the aesthetic qualities
of the shoreline area. [WAC 173-16-060(9)]
•
47 -
I V
Residential.
(a) Subdivisions should be designed at a level of density of
site coverage and of occupancy compatible with the physical capabili
ties of the shoreline and water. [WAC 173-16-060(17)]
Roads.
(e) Scenic corridors with public roadways should have provision
for safe pedestrian and other nonmotorized travel. Also, provision;
should be made for sufficient view points, rest areas and picnic areas
in public shorelines. [WAC 173-16-060(18)]
it
D. Project Integration and Review
Integrated projects, when closely examined, represent a slightly I
different application of Section 340 than previous examples. They
involve the application of shoreline policies to projects rather than
planning, and the scope of such applications is somewhat limited.
The concept of project integration and review is that an entire
project should be reviewed as a complete entity whether or not juris
dictional boundaries bisect the tract of land under review. Large ;
parcels of land and elongated lots, for example, are both common
types of project sites that lie partly within and partly outside of the
shoreline. Does the entire project fall under SMA jurisdiction or
merely that portion within the 200-foot zone? That question was
addressed in Weyerhaeuser v. King County. The case dealt with i
logging practices and construction of a road and bridge that was
within and without the shoreline jurisdiction. The court held that
the county could require water quality conditions to the permit for1
the acitivities that were substantial developments (the road and
bridge). Conditions relating to other logging practices out of the
permit area were struck down because, those practices are not sub-
stantial developments.
In a related case, Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, the upland portion
of a marina project was begun before a substantial development permit
had been issued for the shorelands portion of the project. The
Supreme Court ruled that the two portions of the project were so
interrelated that one could not proceed without a coercive effect upon
- 48 -
the other. Therefore, the shoreline issues were to be resolved and
a permit approved before the port could proceed with development. of
the adjacent lands.
These decisions indicate that an integrated approach to developments
that span the permit area is important to avoid detrimental impacts
on the shorelines.
Based on the rationale of these cases, the WDOE advises local govern-
ments that a comprehensive approach is required for the entire inte-
grated project where any portion of the development falls within the
shorelines of the state.
Another variation is where a tract of land spans the 200-foot bound-,
ary, but the actual development is entirely outside the SMA permit
area. Permitting authority is not as clear in this example since
conditions are not exactly as found in Merkel. Nevertheless, local
governments have been successfully applying SMP policies to such
projects under the integrated project rule. Authority to do so is
found in the state environmental quality standards. Environmental
quality statutes and regulations apply to the entire state, and are
broad enough to encompass most, if not all; of the relevant shoreline
issues.
E. Application of WAC Policies to Adjacent Lands
The WACs cited in this section are not limited in application to the
coastal permit area. Although they do not generally refer to a geo-
graphic scope directly, the state regulations state that application of
the master programs and guidelines is not limited to the permit area.
The physical standards expressed or implied in the WACs can clearly
be applied to adjacent lands. Several examples should make the point.
"Proper road and bridge design . . . should be used to prevent
development . . . which would adversely affect shoreline resources."
Roads and bridges on adjacent lands can obviously affect shoreline
- 49 -
� I
resources and should be addressed through other planning require-
ments. "Subdivisions should be designed (to be) . compatible,
with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and water." This same
standard can and must be (under 340) applied to the policies of sub.l
area plans or zoning ordinances. "Adequate water supplies should;
be available so that ground water quality will not be endangered byl
overpumping." Adjacent subdivisions clearly can impact this resource.
4j
Section 340 directs other planning efforts to take account of this
impact and follow the same standards; i.e. , do not authorize so manit
houses that resultant water use will cause saltwater intrusion.
Similar statements can be made for each WAC cited, but the point is
evident. These WACs are the enforceable standards. Since they
are applied through the local master programs, usually in more
detailed form, those local master program policies apply in a similar,
manner. Following the same reasoning that is applied to the shoreline
permit area, if no specific standards exist the general policies of th
Act and intent of the environmental designation is used as the standard.
•
•
. f
ti
hl,
II
Iy
h
- 50 -
APPENDIX
Recommended Practices
This section outlines specific techniques that can be employed to address
particular problems. The approaches discussed are not exhaustive, there
are undoubtedly other techniques that can also be applied.
A. Use of SEPA Sensitive Areas
A useful technique provided by SEPA is the provision in WAC 197-
10-177 that allows counties or cities to designate environmentally
sensitive areas. The philosphy is that within these sensitive areas
the normally exempt activities could have significant environmental
impacts. The section requires designated sensitive areas to be mapped
with the maps referenced by the local SEPA ordinance. The major
impact is that the local, government can then select various exempted
activities that will no longer be exempt. The major activities no longer
exempt are listed below (from SEPA Guidelines):
1(a) residential structures of four units or less
(b) farm buildings less than 10,000 square feet
(c) office, school, commercial buildings less than 4,000 square
feet
(d) grading, filling, excavating and septic tank installation for
exempted buildings
9(b) the sale of publicly owned real estate
10(a) short plats
18(b) storm water lines/equipment
(f) chemical means to maintain utility R/Ws.
There are four main types of areas where focus is needed.
1 . Areas where shellfish are raised and where the uplands have
the potential for extensive developments with septic tanks and
either high water tables or clay soils that could cause septic
I .
1'
A-1
tank effluent to reach the intertidal areas. Such an area would
typically be a small watershed leading into a lagoon or bay or
possibly a spit. Areas where shellfish are raised are usually'
protected waters with slower tidal changes.
2. Areas where erosion is likely to reach tributaries of salmon,
spawning streams, lakes, or enclosed bays. This would typically
be hillsides that are not so steep as to preclude development
and have permanent or intermittent streams immediately below;)
them. Hillsides above larger streams would typically have a
flood plain area that would absorb erosion from bluffs beyond
the flood plain, but tributaries of such streams may have drain-
age areas where erosion would cause a problem.
3. For areas posing slide hazards away from waterways erosion is
not the problem, but development on top of such bluffs, even''
though away from the shoreline may pose a hazard to health
and economic well-being.
4. Depletion of ground water and salt water intrusion. Through
SEPA such areas could be designated as environmentally sensitiv-
and special conditions applied to development and subdivision.
In addition some items normally exempted from SEPA could be
brought under review, most notably short plats.
A good example of the use of a sensitive area occurred in Pierce
County adjacent to the Burley Lagoon where oyster beds in the lagoo
were decertified due to excessive coliform in the lagoon waters.
Although some of the shoreline is designated "urban," and there,.
were some apparent health violations in the shoreline area, creek,,
sampling indicated that the problems were not restricted to the shore.
line area. The lagoon drainage basin is characterized by tight clay
soils with very little topsoil. The embayment was developed around
the fringes of the water with a few commercial uses and numerous]
residences. Farther inland are some livestock operations and a dui
pond that contribute to the problem. The area seems to be generally
A-2
y s
affected by a variety of nonpoint sources of pollution from septic
tanks, animal waste runoff, siltation/erosion from construction, and
use of herbicides.
The immediate response to the problem was to declare the entire water-
shed a sensitive area and to enforce the septic tank standards to the
utmost. Drainfields had to be 3 feet above the water table, or if on
an impermeable layer a mound system was required. Subsequent
work has been done to control other sources of pollution in the bay.
By direction of a county commission's resolution, the county staff
are investigating ordinances to accomplish the following goals:
1 . Identify those water areas and uplands to which special regula-
tions will be applied because any changes in kind or intensity
of use may threaten water quality;
2. Allow no categorical exemptions from any required review process
within the identified area in keeping with WAC 197-10-177;
3. Evaluate each development proposal in terms of the capacity of
the soil to support the proposed density, taking into considera-
tion all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, soil tex-
ture (particle size), soil type, soil depth, water table, and
specific climatic conditions;
4. Require storm water disposal and on-site waste systems to meet
such standards as would mitigate any adverse effects on water
quality;
5. Include comprehensive site preparation, grading, excavation,
dredging and landfill regulations to prevent runoff and siltation
of aquaculture tidelands;
A-3
6. Control practices and procedures of government and private�.
enterprises in order to prevent toxic substances and chemicals
from impacting the water quality of aquaculture areas;
7. Regulate animal keeping operations or practices so as to prevent
and/or control pollution of surface waters; and
8. Include a provision for civil penalties for ordinance violations.
While the exact details of these plans or ordinances have yet to be:
' worked out, the sensitive area provided a convenient handle for desig
nating the geographical area of concern and evaluating development
more closely while plans are being developed. The sensitive area
designation by itself does not create clearing and grading ordinances
or better drainage controls. It does provide a readily available way
to delineate those areas that need special attention.
Another example is in San Juan County where they declared all con-
servancy, natural, and rural areas in the comprehensive plan to be,
sensitive areas in order to better control sprawling subdivisions,
contiguous short plats and withdrawals from limited aquifers. Although,
this extensive use of sensitive areas has been challenged in court it
indicates the potential of the tool to address adjacent lands.
B. Stormwater Runoff Control
Urban storm water runoff has long been recognized as a major source
of pollution but historically had been viewed with indifference by
local government and residents. As cities and towns developed, the!
primary concern was rapid conveyance of storm water away from streets,
highways, parking lots, and shopping centers to the nearest stream,
river, lake or bay. Little attention was given to possible adverse
effects on downstream communities, while water quality impacts on
lands, streams, and ground water which received storm water were9
virtually ignored. ti
nl
A-4
Waters discharged from separate storm sewers contain a variety ''of
pollutants. Rainfalling on an urban area picks up pollutants from
the air, dusty roofs, dirty sidewalks and streets, traffic by-products,
metallic corrosion, oil and chemical spills, litter, fertilizers and pesti-
cides.
{
The average BOD5 concentration in separate storm sewer effluent': is
approximately equal to secondary sewage treatment plant effluent.
Bacterial concentration is two to four orders greater than the stand-
ards for water contact sports. Microbiological studies of urban storm
waters have shown that consistent recovery of pathogenic organisms
is possible. This indicates that, in general, urban storm water di's-
charges may be hazardous to health. The quantity of urban storm
runoff is increasingin direct proportion to urban growth rates. ,.'If
urban receiving waters are to retain beneficial uses other than becoming
a convenient disposal system for urban runoff, local storm water
management programs are necessary.
III
The appropriate technical solutions an.d techniques for controlling the
quality of urban storm water discharges are available. Examples
include municipal street sweeping, zoning requirements for drainage
improvements during development, clearing and grading ordinances,
building codes that reduce erosion during construction, and many
others. What is lacking, however, is the local commitment to address
urban runoff problems in a comprehensive ,fashion and to assume
responsibilities for taking the necessary preventive and control actions.
The state water quality program is presently working on plans to
develop NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,)
permits for the major urban areas of the state. The program will
begin with a pilot effort in Bellevue to work out the details of devel-
1.
oping a general NPDES permit for storm water runoff. The second
stage of this effort will extend the program to eight other urbanized
areas of the state, and a third stage will be to work with smaller
cities on a voluntary basis.
A-5
1 ,,, 4
-rf 7,
Although this effort will be primarily a water quality program, it isll,
mentioned in the current context of shoreline management for two
reasons. One, storm water runoff is a major pollutant affecting
shoreline resources, and two, several of the techniques envisioned in
the comprehensive storm water management plans are "planning" typo
ordinances such as clearing and grading ordinances or better zoning
requirements for drainage during development. Improvements in ,
these local ordinances that result in improved water quality will bej'
examples of consistent planning for adjacent lands.
4
This water quality program under Section 208 will necessarily be imple-
mented over a number of years. In the meantime, however, the prob1
�r
lems only get worse and more expensive. The earlier these problems
can be recognized and dealt with, the lesser it will be in the long]
run for both public and private developers. To illustrate, recently'
a large development in the Coal Creek basin of King County was
stripped and cleared in late summer. September rains washed a lard
portion of the project into a creek killing many fish. The developer
received a $25,000 fine from WDOE when a $1 ,000 worth of drainage.
controls could have prevented the entire problem. II
From the public and planners' points of view the most significant
example is the cost of rehabilitating developed drainage basins in
urban areas. In King County, The Juanita Creek drainage basin is
80 percent developed. The cost to prevent the current flooding and
water quality problems is $3.9 million or $873 per acre. On the othe
hand, estimated costs for rehabilitation in the May Creek basin
(10 percent developed) is $338 per acre. While these figures are
admittedly estimates, the general conclusions that prevention of drain ,
'age problems is cheaper than correction will undoubtedly hold. ,
Part of the development of the 208 plan will be to select a management
agency in each jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, as growth occur
and planning needs become more intense, periodic reevaluation or i
implementation of new ordinances occurs. Shoreline planners who)
I
are aware of the 208 effort can give support to early implementation)
A-6
of some of the components of the comprehensive storm water manage-
ment program.
Since storm drainage control is very expensive to implement after an
area has been developed, Snohomish County has adopted a istorm
water drainage plan which concentrates efforts on certain problem
basins where needs are the greatest. They have developed several
basic principles in their plan to control drainage. Excerpts from their
plan indicate the major features:
1 . A "Drainage Basin Master Program" should be developed for
each basin. It should have four elements:
(i) The Physical Design Element should provide a drainage
basin improvements plan which specifies the improvements to be
made to the major drainage systems in both incorporated anl'd
unincorporated areas. (ii) The Operational Element should
define the functions to be performed in the basin and designate
responsiblity for them among the participating local jurisdictions.
(iii) The Financial Element should identify how costs will be
shared and revenues generated. (iv) The Policy-Making Element
should establish a means or process of guiding the basin-wide
effort, involving all general purpose local governments in the
basin. Each of the elements may vary somewhat from basin to
basin depending on which local agencies are involved, what the
needs are, and the stage of the Master Program. This concept
is conceived as a dynamic approach which responds to changes
effectively, and the elements should be brought together in a
single document following the completion of all four.
2. The county should seek agreements with the cities in each basin
to participate in the development of the "Drainage Basin Master
Program" for that basin. The cities should agree to participate
in designing, preparing, and implementing the Master Program
A-7
and to adopt the Drainage Basin Master Program elements when
they are completed.
k
3. A special budget fund in the county should be earmarked only
for surface water management, and equitable methods of obtaining
revenue for that special fund should be established. Chap-1
ter 36.89 RCW provides for such a fund. Revenue should be;
planned for three types of functions: Administrative and plan
ping, maintenance and operations including regulation/enforcement,
and major capital improvements. Administrative and planning
revenues should be generated uniformly across the entire service
area. Maintenance and operations should be funded at a basic
level uniformly throughout the service area, with special mainI
tenance and operations in certain basins funded only from within
those basins. Major capital improvements should be funded solely
within the basin served by those facilities.
C. Clearing and Grading
One aspect of storm water control which was frequently mentioned in
the local government survey was erosion from cleared land. A clearing
and grading ordinance addresses problems like clearing land prior t4
development and leaving it bare for long periods, erosion from bar
slopes during construction, and erosion from land left unlandscaped
after construction.
The following section provides a summary of the major items that
should be covered in a clearing and grading ordinance. They are,
taken from a Clark County 208 plan for storm water management.
rl
1 . General Policies to be addressed in construction-related pollution
control such as clearing and grading ordinances:
A-8
I-
X
Ll ..
Ali
Administrative:
- Designated authority
- Permit procedure with fees established
- Proposal from developer/designer to include soil conservation
plan for project
- Inspection authority established
- Enforcement authority established
Technical:
- Erodibility potential of exposed soils
- Type and location of the construction activity
- Extent of exposed soils
- Time period of exposure of readily-erodible soils
- Expected frequency and intensity of rain storms (and wind)
- Length, steepness., and surface roughness of exposed soil
slopes
Resitance of the soil to compaction and the stability of soil
aggregates
- Water infiltration capacity of the soil profile •
- Chemical, physical, and biological nature of subsurface
soils
- Size, density, and type of vegetative cover contiguous to
site
,II
Applicant
The developer/designer should also address these considerations
when designing his facility and an appropriate erosion control
program. There exists considerable literature from which the
developer/designer can draw for techniques to mitigate adverse
effects in these areas. Some of the more common techniques
are sediment trapping ponds, terracing of slopes, vegetative
covers and synthetic materials to hold soil onto slopes, seasonal
construction, buffers, filters, and water treatment, particularly
A-9
coagulation-sedimentation. Wherever possible, site drainage
• recharge should be provided. Where soil conditions do not allow
recharge, "runoff release should be controlled. A preliminary
survey should be undertaken' by competent personnel to deter;
mine the possible problems expected to be encountered during
the construction phase. Some of these problems may be mitigated
in the actual design of the facility. Other unmitigated problems
should be addressed in an erosion control plan which would
accompany the facility design. These are submitted for approv9I
to the permitting agency together with a bond to guarantee that
the plan is followed. Inspectors from the permitting agency
should determine that the developer/designer complies with the
approved erosion control plan and is not violating water quality
standards. If he is in violation, the bond is used to carry out
L
the necessary corrective practices. Injuctions can be used as1
enforcement tools. However, these are not as effective because!
the agency is left with no enforcement except work stoppage •
which in some cases, only aggravates the problem.
2. Installation of stream crossing structures where stream crossin
is needed, or any other activities in the stream or buffer area
should first be approved and a permit granted by the appropriat9
implementing agencies.
3. Encroachments on stream flow by landfills, culverts., dikes, and
buildings should be prohibited.
4. Changes in drainage areas caused by diversions and grading
should first be approved and a permit granted by the appro—
priate agencies.
5. Development of borrow pits in the shoreline area should be
restricted.
rr
A-10
•
x �
6. Disposal of sediment spoil and other solid wastes in the shoreline
area should be prohibited.
7. Floodplain excavation work should first be approved and a permit
granted by the appropriate agencies.
8. Stream channel alterations should be prohibited after the imple-
mentation of the proposed stream system modifications except
where permitted by the appropriate agencies.
9. Disposal of petroleum wastes, pesticides, and other chemicals
should be in conformance with established solid and hazardous
waste disposal practices.
10. Construction of access and haul road should first be approved
and a permit granted by the appropriate agencies.
•
11 . Construction or any clearing and grading within setback zones
of streams, bogs, lakes, or other vulnerable water bodies should
be prohibited except for access proposes. In some areas greater
distances may be necessary.
12. A drainage control plan requiring that runoff from new develop-
ment comply with runoff restrictions imposed by item "4" above
should be adopted.
Additional information on clearing/grading ordiances can be obtained
from Glenn Grace, Department of Ecology, 459-6071 . Other sources
of information are METRO in Seattle; and the City of Bellevue, Public
Works Department which is working with WDOE on the first NPDES
general permit.
D. Agricultural Practices.
Agricultural activity often results in runoff of water contaminated
with herbicides, fertilizers, animal fecal material, or silt. The pre-
A-11
Y7
1 .2
viously cited policies of the SMA simply encourage good conservations
practices by farmers. The problems of impacts from agricultural
practices- is not primarily one of land use. Effective control of the
problems lies primarily in the sphere of the state "208" water quality
program. The tilling of fields and allowance for buffer strips are not
regulated as developments within the SMA permit jurisdiction let alone
on adjoining lands. The general policy towards agricultural lands
within comprehensive plans has been to preserve those lands for prop-
ductive use and to slow and direct the extent to which the lands ar?�,jj
converted to suburban uses. Given the appropriately favorable vieve
of agricultural uses in land-use planning it is important to encourage
voluntary compliance with the water quality programs for agriculture.
To achieve control of farm runoff there are several possible practicer
that can be employed. They have been compiled by the state 208
water quality program in their "208 plans for dairy waste managementV,
irrigated, and nonirrigated agriculture."
When agricultural uses on adjacent lands are identified as a particular
problem, the best approach is to work with the Department of Ecology
regional office or water quality section to determine what specific
plans and practices apply to those operations. The water quality,
plans are implemented through a variety of measures ranging from i'
the requirement to get NPDES permits for large dairy farms to the
voluntary compliance with guidelines to financially assisted efforts!
through the Soil Conservation Service.
E. Forest Practices
The management of forest practices is primarily a state function veste1
in the departments of Ecology and Natural Resources. Local govern-
ments are prohibited from developing permit systems specifically for
forest practices. Local government may regulate forest practices
only as part of land use or zoning authorty when the land is being
converted to another use. If the land is not being converted to
A-12
r
another use, local, land use policies and standards for forest prac-
tices may only impose additional requirements or more restrictive
requirements if they are consistent with the state Forest Practices
Act and then only on lands platted after 1960. (Note that these
provisions do not restrict the application of the local shoreline man-
agement master program with the area under SMA jurisdiction. )
Outside SMA permit jurisdiction, local government direct authority .is
limited. Any local government concerns regarding general policies :of
forest practices could be addressed through the Department of Ecology
or the Department of Natural Resources. Forest practice regulations
with respect to water quality are reviewed once a year by state agencies.
Local governments could participate in this process by public comment.
A-13
•
:1:" r •
•
•
! ; . '
•
•
rA •
THE � ,:.G3E 1 T LUE ;' 1
fi,� TT . . f .y. � -y�y
.AN A�° C• �.J.1L19 ..9_ Y•y‘•:. �9 F� �`I'i .1�V GT®1!9
f,
_
.:'�,, , ..r ..,...:: ,;' may. ..
. r
a �.
-4
>••f•J
, Q f` p{ ,a �•.�
�v aa
.E
x `t:r i
6 ..0 �d: " jj V Fes. p
r`:
'Rig
r 1'.
1• r.�
,7 „
. y•
i .
r�(
h•° ki
1 -. : • �+ I4 17. r>)�x r .J . fr . ;;. ff♦ J h ' y. is ' • _._Y ` .N •- Alfl�� wi 1Ti. k �K r.rw 1! "r, ..='
, .P -
y • •
• - D
t
i 'aL%
Y
'1
4 -
) ::t
is�4+n
•
!
r.
1�
r ' ...'''''''''-':'''.-..;''. ;`')iiV.•:;:'"'.. ..• .---:.: ,....:'-'': • -
.
,i.
,1 -
i
p /
i,j•
•
�ri;l'
r5
^
:1
_ f ��jjl
It -
��t.
ii
1.,.
4/�'
'j_
.Iv
C'
• '1.
7 -
hL • 1
t�
Qr•'
%:r'is -
L' • �l
'1
y r-
.: . /
:
� IT' .
ryr..
t :
r
t'.
r
1
i�
.i r, t
P 1•
AST EP HE N .J S I 'E H P •ti.
SC,� TT: ��O
y
j: -
Y
x( :, .. . r WASHlNGTON.-.GAMEI DEPARTMENT
NON-, GAME PROGRAM
;:. • '
I, I
t r
3 I
� I
I !
y I
THE GREAT BLUE HERON IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
j I
.
'
. I
I I
BY: STEPHEN J. SHIPE AND WILLIAM W. SCOTT
URBAN NONGAME PROGRAM
Washington Game Department
509 Fairview Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98109
July 1981
i I
t ;
(Graphics by Jaimie Orogo)
� I
'
Z z
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION: The Bird and its Habitat/Study Area 1
INTENT AND METHODS OF THIS STUDY 3.
THE ROOKERIES: PEASLEY CANYON 6
DUMAS BAY COUNTY PARK
MAURY ISLAND
SEAHURST COUNTY PARK
WEOWNA BEACH COUNTY PARK
WOODINVILLE / CRYSTAL LAKE
GRASS LAKE
Summary of Preferred Habitat 20
Summary of Disturbances 24
Recommendations 25
Recommendations for Further Study 26
Literature Cited 27
APPENDICES: 1 ) Notice Used as Poster and Sent to Newspapers 28
2) Land Cover Classification 29
3) Aerial Photos Used in Study 31
4) Roosting Sites and Unverified Nest Sites 32
•
L.
INTRODUCTION: THE BIRD AND ITS HABITAT
The Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias , is the largest member of the family Ardeidae
in the Pacific Northwest. It stands 3'2 to 4'2 feet tall and has a six-foot wing-
span. The Sandhill Crane is the only long-legged bird in the west that is larger.
In addition to its size, the Great Blue Heron is distinguishable by its long legs,
long neck (which is folded in flight) , and a long daggerlike bill . They are a
blue-gray color, with adults whiter about the head.
Heron nests are usually found in or near the top of tall trees where they are
protected from high winds and human disturbance. Among the species of trees they •
nest in, in this area, are: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga mensiesii ) , western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla),, red alder (Alnus rubra), and northern black cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa). In other areas nests have also been found in many other
locations, including: on the ground, rock ledges, sea cliffs, among tule rushes,
and even on duck blinds in Texas. It's not known whether herons nest in these
situations in the Northwest.
Nests are large platforms quite often measuring over two feet across. The herons
repair and add on to them year after year. The male usually gathers sticks for
the nest while the female arranges them. Herons are colony nesters with heronries
ranging in size from several hundred pairs to one or two pairs. The small heronry
is usually due to a location in a less desirable area, or to its being a newly
established colony. Very often, several nests are placed in a single tree. Re-
gardless of the number of nests in a tree, each pair is highly territorial of
their own nest and will aggressively defend it. Although most of this action
is directed against other Great Blues, attacks and threatening displays have been
observed against other species.
The Great Blue Heron occurs in various habitats. These include edges of salt-
water bays and estuaries, on lakes and ponds, along rivers and streams, and in
marshes and meadows. Their main foods, which they snatch with their long bills,
include: fish, amphibians (mostly frogs) , snakes, small mammals, crustaceans,
aquatic and land insects, and a small amount of vegetable matter (Cottam and
Uhler, 1945) . Herons using dry, upland fields subsist mainly on small mammals.
These include shrews, voles, rats, ground squirrels, pocket gophers and, rarely,
young muskrats. Young birds of other species, rails and other marsh birds, are
infrequently taken.
Great Blue Herons are seasonally monogamous with the male selecting the breeding
territory during late February to early March. The territory usually contains
an old nest and all hostile and sexual displays, copulation and nesting activities
occur in it. When the Great Blues have just arrived in spring, they are very
aware of any approach by man and the entire colony will flush at the slightest
disturbance. As the breeding season proceeds, they flush much more reluctantly
and return more rapidly (Cottrille and Cottrille, 1958). Two years is generally
accepted as the age when Great Blue Herons first breed (Bent, 1926) . Eggs are
usually laid by the first of April with an incubation period of about 28 days.
Number of eggs vary from two to six, with an average of about two surviving to
fledge. The young are ready to fledge after two months, or by the end of June.
Based on an analysis of 349 recoveries of birds banded as nestlings, mortality
in the first year of life has been estimated as 71 percent, and average annual
mortality in subsequent years as 29 percent. The mortality rate is highest in
the first year from August to December after which losses steadily decline
(Owen, 1959).
1
•
Z T
Winters may be spent in warmer climes as far south as northern South America,
with birds returning by early March. Herons also reside the year round' in King
County.
There are six accepted subspecies of Ardea herodias in North America. The color
tone in the neck and upper parts is considered a major subspecific characteristic.
It becomes apparent from the juvenal plumage on. The six subspecies in North
America are: A. h. herodias, A. h. wisdi , A. h. treganzai , A. h. hyperonca, and
A. h. sancti-lucae. A. h. fannini occurs in western Washington, while A. h.
herodias, A. h. treganzai , and A. h. hyperonca all occur elsewhere in the state.
STUDY AREA
King County, in the western portion of the state, includes parts of eastern
Puget Sound and the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains. It is bounded
on the west by Puget Sound and on the east by the crest of the Cascade Mountains.
Running north-south in the Puget lowlands, it is bordered on the north by Snoho-
mish County and on the south by Pierce County. Vashon Island, located a few
miles southwest of Seattle in Puget Sound, is also included. The county averages
60 miles east-west by 40 miles north-south and totals 2152 square miles. Eleva-
tion, varies from sea level to 7,986 feet at the summit of Mt. Daniels in the
northeast corner. Also included is a saltwater shoreline of 95 miles.
•
•
INTENT AND METHODS OF THIS STUDY
; I was introduced to Ron Hirschi , the urban biologist for the Seattle Region of
the: State Game Department, in February, 1981 . I told him I was interested in
doing a volunteer project to gain some experience as a wildlife biologist. Among
several suggestions he made was to do an inventory of Great Blue Heroni (Ardea
herodias) rookeries in King County. , For several reasons--ease of observation,
limited access to transportation, confinement to King County, and limited funds--
I decided to do this study. Because of the time needed and the type of observ-
ing, involved, I enlisted the help of a fellow wildlife biologist and friend,
Bill Scott. Bill was an equal partner in all aspects of this project,' except
for, the final write-up at which time he was out of town.
The'first thing to be done was to define the scope of the study. Whatlaspects
were most important, secondary, hopeful , and unattainable? Since all subsequent
information would be dependent upon the location of the rookeries, location was
designated as being of primary importance. The aspects of secondary importance
were then easily identified. They included: ownership of the land including
whether any special status or zoning was involved, distance to nearest' disturb
ance and description of that disturbance, potential disturbances or threats, a
general description of the habitat in which the nests were located, number of
nests per rookery, and a brief history or historical observations concerning each
rookery. The hopeful category consisted of the number of active nests per colony
and ;a close approximation of the number of birds per colony. For the purposes
of this study the number of eggs laid per nest and the number of fledglings per
nest would fall under the heading of unattainable.
The reason for this study was twofold. The- first was to supply the Game Depart-
ment with much needed information on the life history of the Great Blue Heron. in,
King, County, particularly its breeding requirements and habitat preferences. The
second reason was to provide a basis-for future decisions concerning development
in areas of proven importance to known wildlife populations.
The next step was to set up an information gathering method that would be as
thorough as possible. A three part system was decided upon. The first and most
easily obtainable was to use the Game Department's own computer records to verify
and/or update previously reported heronries. The heronries at Peasley ;Canyon,
Dumas Bay County Park, and on Maury Island were the three that were already known.
The second part was to contact those in the area who had an intimate knowledge
of biirds and their habits. These included professional biologists, those active
in organizations such as the Audubon Society, and those who had a well-known
knowledge of a particular area through work, continual observation or other means.
This' method didn't prove as successful as was originally hoped. No "new" heron-
rieswere found by this means, although additional information on previously
known heronries was obtained. The third part was the broadest and' most' success-
ful means used. For lack of a more precise label I refer to it as "word-of-
mouth." This term includes information passed on to an intermediary and then to
me, and also to the most useful method; having notices concerning the study printed
in many of the community newspapers in the King County area as well as in the
newsletters of the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club. The notice (Appendix l )
fell under the heading of a public announcement so there was no charge for having
it included in the newspapers. The only restriction was one of space and the
notice appeared only when the space was available. .
The response to the notices was very good. In the 22 to 3 months that they'ap •
-
geared in area newspapers', 30 to 40 calls were received. Some were duplicate
3
. y L
j
i calls reporting the, same heronry, .but 20 to 25 were still left to check. Of
. 1 " all the .sightings reported and subsequently examined, only six were actual
/ heronries. . Out of those six, two were already known to the Game Department,
4 ; so only four "new" heronries were located by this process. However, many roost-
i ing, feeding, and sunning sites were pinpointed. The. notice in the paper was
the most time consuming and at times frustrating of the three methods employed,
but the eventual benefits derived more than made up for the usual nonproductive
running around. ,
' Once a heronry's existence was verified, the investigation proceedediin two
directions. The first was to obtain as much information from the person who
reported the site as possible. This consisted mainly of historical observations--
• ' haw long have you been aware of its existence, etc.--and •ownership of the land
•
on which the heronry was situated. Occasionally, people would provide other in •
-
fermation. This tended to be their own estimates of total heron numbers, favor-
iie feeding grounds (nearby lake, etc.) and what they knew about perceived and/or
potential disturbances.
Thee second .part of the investigation was onsite examination. As thorough an .
accounting of nests in a heronry as possible was the primary objective. Locating
the nests depended on several factors. The time of year "and type of :trees the
netts were in were very important factors. If the nests were located' in decidu-
•• ous trees and found before the trees had leafed out, then getting an accurate
count was fairly simple. If the nests were located in deciduous trees that had
already leafed out or were in conifers, then other means had to be us;ed". If it
was relatively early in the breeding season (March or April), using. the herons'
themselves was. the best means available. Since the herons will flush, early in •
the br:eedingiseason: at the approach of a human, alll that was needed was for the,
two. investigators, to, approach the. heronry from different directions and note
1. which trees. the herons, took off from.. We could then view those trees froth: the.
' base, and try to, count the number of-nests in each. If it was later, in the season
(May or. later), another method had. to be used. Herons flush. much less easily
during this time, so the calls, the chicks made in the nests were used to, approxi-
X ' mate the location of the rookery. Once the general area was d'efi'ned,Ibroken egg .
shells and' droppings at the base of the trees was used to pinpoint actual nest
V . trees. Viewing the trees from the base was again used to estimate the total
il
number of nests per tree. Oftentimes this wasn't too successful, so a. particu-
lar tree would. then be viewed' from different angles and different distances to
enhance the accuracy of the count.
4
I
Several ether characteristics of each heronry were also looked for and` noted in
conjunction with the main task of nest number estimation. These included nest
tree species identification, a general description of the surroundinglhabitat
(including age estimation of the stand of trees: mature, second growth, old
i.
growth) prevalent understory vegetation, association of heronry with water (stream,
lake, marsh, salt water), and the distances to disturbance and other features.
These features included the nearest water, and suspected or expected feeding
' grounds. • L
t Next, an estimate of total number of active nests per colony was made:' " This esti-
1 imate only applied to the colonies investigated after the eggs had hatched. As
I. • , previously mentioned, eggshell fragments at the base of trees was used as a cri-
a , ; terion for establishing the existence of a nest in that particular tree. It.was
also used to establish if' that nest was also active. Incases in which several
x nests were located in single trees, a couple :of other assumptions were made. If '
! many_ shell , fragments were found and scattered around. the tree, "then it was assumed,
•
} + 4
i
1 '
. . .
. ,
:.. • i
. ;
ii
1
. that not all of the eggs could have come from one nest and, therefore, more
than one of the nests was active. Occasionally, herons could be seen quite -
easily occupying more than one nest in a single tree. The problem Was thus
easily eliminated in these cases. At the other extreme, when neither eggshell
fragments nor herons attending the nest could be seen, very conservative esti-
,
•
i . mates concerning the number of active nests per tree were made (usually one half
v to one quarter of the total number observed).
I
Finally, with the aid of the Department of Natural Resources 1978 aerial photos
, of King County (1 :12,000 scale), percentage estimates of land cover/land use
types within a 300 meter radius of the heronry were made. A mylar sheet was
i placed over the aerial photo and then a circle representing a radius of 300 meters
' 1 (m) was drawn. All the land cover/land use types were then identified and also
traced. Each separate type was labeled using a modified form of the Coastal
Zone Land Cover/Land Use Classification (Washington Game Department, 1979). See
: 1 Appendix 2 for the classification. The traced heronry was, then pla6ied over a
Dot Grid which had a corresponding 300m radius circle previously drawn on it.
. 1 . The percentage of each type of land cover/land use was then easily determined.
,
• i
The distance to the nearest disturbance and to the nearest open water, wetland
. N
or stream was also determined from the aerial photos. This was done, by measur-
ing the linear distance to the desired object and then converting to the correct
t 5
dimensions. See Appendix 3 for a list of the aerial photos used during this
study.
. ,
i .
_
1 .
i
I
1
t
4,
1
i
t.
i
:..
IF •
f .
f
i •
7 -
1 i
5
1'
/‘
THE ROOKERIES
The following discussions describe each heron rookery mapped in Figure 1 .
Appendix 4 lists other reported potential nest sites at which we found no evi-
dence of rookeries. Many were roosts and could be future sites for rookeries
whjile others maybe used as nesting areas and need further investigation.,
•woodinville/crystal lake
•weowna
seahurst
maury isla d
dumas • - . grass lake
peasley canyon
Figure 1 . Map of King County and Known Locations of Heron Rookeries.
1
•
fi .. , PEASLEY CANYON
The Peasley Canyon 'rookery is the best known and most avidly followed of, the
rookeries in King County. It is located at the southwest corner of the inter- '
.s;ection of Highways 18 and 167, about three miles west of Auburn. ' '
The rookery is a unique example of wildlife benefitting from human disturbance.
,It is located on the site of an .old borrow pit created during highway construc-
tion in 1956. Subsequent runoff from Mill Creek combined with seepage from the
hill formed a pond and marsh which are now integral features of the site. The
first heron arrived in 1968 (personal communication, Sharon Steiner, Rainier
Audubon Society).
.
The .property on which the rookery is located is owned by three' entitl'es.. The
hill on which the nests are located is owned by the Geodecke Development Company
of Lynnwood. The marsh, the former borrow pit, is owned by the State Highway .
D,epa.rtment. King County owns the remainder of the property which consists of a
strip extending up Peasley Canyon on the southwest side.
• Although the rookery seems to be quite successful , it is surrounded by consider
• able disturbance. The most obvious is the highway system which passes by closely
on the north and east sides. To the south, and situated at the top of the nest
site hill , is an expanding gravel pit being operated by the Geodecke Development
Company. Finally, there is a house•on the hill at the southeast corner of the
site. The highways present at least two major problems for the birds. The first.
is the continual noise and its impact on nesting success. The second is the
hazard of individual cars as the herons fly over the highways on their way to
their feeding grounds. The disturbance with the greatest potential for adversely
affecting the rookery is the gravel pit. Aerial photos indicate that it is less
than three years old and already is altering the site. Material has been; bull-
do;zed over the edge at the top of the hill , killing, and removing vegetation. As
' a result, an accelerated amount of erosion is occurring and may very soon prove
to, be quite deleterious.
1
The 15 nests. counted in late, February are all in mature red alders on the hill
onl the south side of the marsh. All have excellent views of the marsh and pond.
Many other trees are mixed in with the alder, including willow, "Douglas fir,
western hemlock, western red cedar, and big-leaf and vine maple. The forest
floor is very moist because of the continual seepage. Red elderberry is the
most prominent understory species.
Prifeeding ncipal among the sites is
1
the marsh and pond at the base of the hill ,
' ! and surrounding cultivated fields where herons feed on field mice andjother rodents.
Itis suspected that they also feed in many places around the area because several
sightings of varying distances have been reported. These sites include North '
' Lake and Puget Sound.
l
,
Because this rookery was investigated before the active breeding season began,
the number of active nests could not be established. It has been conservatively
estimated that a minimum of twenty herons occupy the Peasley Canyon site.
' The land. cover at Peasley Canyon (Figure 2) within a 300m radius of the rookery
was: 52 percent'mature, forest; 18 percent freeway/right-of-way,
16.5 percent
l 'grassland, three percent other. paved highway, 2.5- percent parking lots, .2.5 per-
cent.freshwater marsh, 1 .5 percent perennial- stream and associated riparian, ,
. 7 . .
one percent high density grassland/low density residential , one percent low
density grassland/low density residential , one percent pond, and one percent
underground stream section.
The nearest water is approximately 120m and the nearest disturbance is 90m. This
information was obtained from a 1978 aerial photo when the now active gravel pit
at ,the south side above the nests was not present. This disturbance is much
closer than 90m.
The continued survival of the Peasley Canyon Rookery is dependent on maintenance
of the nest trees. This can best be achieved by monitoring the development of
the, gravel pit at the top of the nest site hill . If it looks like it will soon
interfere with the rookery, then some form of accommodation should be reached
with the owners. The most important point is that this agreement has to be reached
before the damage becomes irreversible.
M3
3,, 32 c A
171.301.141i 411'
.1%1Illticoiratt Nit"-
Figure 2. Peasley Canyon Land Cover/Land Use
(See Appendix 2 for Explanation of Symbols for this and the
following Land Cover Maps)
fi
}
P
5•
8
i .
j •
•
DUMAS BAY COUNTY PARK
Dumas Bay County Park on Puget Sound in southwest King County is the site of
•
• a young and apparently thriving 'heronry. The park is .located on Dumas Bay be- '
' tween Dash Point State Park to .the southwest and Lakota Beach County Park ,to
the northeast.. Access to the park 'is via the beach at ,the foot of 39th Avenue
S.W. or by a dirt road off 44th Avenue S'.W.
Accuracy of historical observations is somewhat uncertain, but several callers
' estimated the heronry's age at eleven years.
The nest sites are located along a stream on 'the western edge of the park. Owner-
' of the actual nest sites is somewhat uncertain. From the information gathered
itiappears that the nests are on land owned by two different parties,. IKing County
Parks Department and a private landowner.
Thies heronry is surprisingly isolated considering its location. It is bounded
on :three sides by developments, yet it appears to be a very successful' colony.
To 'the west of the nests, at the top of the ridge which forms a natural boundary,
are' several new houses which may now be a negative impact. To the east is 39th
Avenue S.W. which is also very highly, developed.* On. the south side several more
houses are located, but they are older and much more spread out. The greatest
disturbance affecting this colony is the use of Dumas Bay Park by motorbikes and
other ATV's. Abundant evidence of their activity is readily apparent on the
dirt road running through the park. Local residents also commented onithis problem.
Wher. visited. in fate February, 1981,. 24 nests were located. All of the; nests:
are'Iin mature red alders in the stream drainage mentioned' earlier. Associated
with the alder are big-leaf maple and 4 small number of conifers. Understory
•! vegetati'on includes skunk cabbage, red elderberry, Vacci ni um spp. , devil's club,
and willow spp. pp`' �
The nest trees are: located approximately 100m west ofia: pond
•
and marsh also located in the park.
1
This pond and marsh, and Puget Sound (Dumas Bay), are the main feedinggrounds
for -the colony. Many sightings along Puget Sound to the north and south,.indicate-
,that the herons often disperse over varying distances from the rookerylto feed.
•
. This rookery was investigated in the early stages of the breeding season, so the
number of active nest sites is not known. Eighteen herons were counted on the
day 'of the investigation so; a ,conservative estimate'would put the colony .size at
20: to 25 adults.
The land' cover at Dumas Bay (Figure 3) within a 300m radius of the rookery was
49 percent mature forest, 19 percent intertidal , 16 percent low density,grassland/
low density residential , four percent freshwater marsh, three percent eelgrass,
2.5 ;percent algal community, 1 .5 percent freshwater swamp; 1 .5 percent high den-
sityIgrassland, 1 .5 percent pond, one percent perennial stream, and one percent
low density grassland (non-vegetated -portions in this .area were greater' than
50 percent of the area). ,
The distance to the nearest water is Om as the rookery is located along; a stream-bed. j 'However, it is doubtful that this -water is used since the' canopy is quite-
. thick and 'would restrict the heron's maneuverability; 'it is- approximately .150m
tom Dumas Bay marsh and 100m to the bay. . The nearest disturbance is approximately
• 9
•
•
•
•
The disturbance which local residents viewed as the most potentially harmful
was the continued presence of motorbike enthusiasts who use the trails in the
park. Restriction and elimination of this problem should be the primary concern
of the county if they want this colony to survive.
•
•
Figure 3. Dumas Bay Land Cover/Land Use
•
10
.
1
MAURY ISLAND
The rookery on Maury Island (which is attached by a land bridge to Vashon. Island)
is the least investigated of the known rookeries in King -County. It is situated
on! a thickly wooded slope.of Maury Island adjacent to the large houselcalled
"The Castle" and directly to the southeast of' Burton Acres Park on. Vashon. It
isl only accessible by boat, which wasn't available during our two visits to search
for the site.
The rookery was reported by several sources two or three years ago to the Game
Department, and its existence has been substantiated. Ownership of the land,
number of nests, number of birds, nest tree species, and surrounding flora are
' all unknown at this time. However, while trying to find an overland approach,
several new developments were observed on the top of the hill above the rookery.
The land cover at the Maury Island site (Figure 4) within a 30Cm radius of the
rookery was 74.5 percent mature forest, 11 .5 percent intertidal , 11 percent peren-
nial stream and associated riparian area., and three percent eelgrass. ; The nearest
water was Om . as this rookery is located along a streambed; however, as in the
Dumas Bay rookery, the herons probably do not use the stream because of the re-
stricted access. The nearest disturbance was outside the 300m radius circle
and was estimated to be 400m from the rookery.
. An ;investigation by boat is essential if additional information is ever tcY be •
. obtained. This must be done as soon as possible so that any possible encroach-
, ment by, developers can be altered to insure the survival of the rookery.
.
-
1.
"IS
illik%' : , 1
Figure 4. Maury Island Land Cover/Land Use
i
7
• .
•
11
1
i •
SEAHURST COUNTY PARK 1
• 1
Seahurst County Park is located on Puget Sound between S.W. 132nd and S.W. 143rd.
The area was formerly known as Ed Munro County Park. Access to the park is by
S.W. 140th.
From all indications this i.s a very
young colony. The person who provided the
information concerning the colony's existence says that it is only three years
old.
The property on which the nests are situated is entirely within the bounds of
the park owned by the King County Parks Department.
Seahurst Park covers a large area which offers the birds a substantial amount of
isolation. However, there are several factors present which may contribute
negatively to the success of the colony. These include a nature trail which
runs parallel to the nests at a distance of 80 to 100m on the north, many houses
bultalong the eastern boundary of the park, the much used beach area about 130m
to; the west, the entire park as a congregating area for local young people and
associated noise, and a large number of crows which may harass the herons. None
of these disturbances seem too serious at this time.
The four nests are located in two western hemlocks about 130m from the nature
trail entrance on the beach at 10 degrees south of east. The site is very wet
with several areas of standing water. The trees are on a moderately north facing
slope. The stand in which the nests are located is a mixed alder, maple, hem-
, lock, cedar, and Douglas fir stand of mostly, mature trees. North of the nests,
across the trail , is an extensive stand of 25 to 30-year old alder.
Puget Sound is probably the most preferred feeding site for this colony. Lake
Burien is only two to three miles to the southeast and is probably used extensively.
It was also reported that the herons are often seen flying, directly east in the
mornings toward Lake Washington..
•
Twelve adult herons were seen in mid-March and later in the breeding season eighteen
were reported in the area by a local resident. If these are all from this rookery,
then several more nests may be present.
•
The} land cover at Seahurst County Park (Figure 5) within a 300m radius of the
rookery was: 45 percent mature forest, 22 percent pole stage forest, 18 percent
lowidensity grassland/high density residential , six percent high densi1ty shrub/
low density residential , five percent intertidal , and four percent low; density
grassland/recreation area.
Theidistance to the nearest water was 240m and the distance to the nearest
disturbance was 85m.
,Since all the observed disturbances seem to be of moderate impact, all should
be monitored so that impacts can be identified before a negative influence is
felt.
1,:
12
e •
Figure 5. Seahurst County Park Land Cover/Land Use •
•
•
13
r WEOWNA BEACH COUNTY PARK
Weowna Beach County Park is located on the western side of Lake Sammamish between
S+E. 8th and S.E. 23rd. It lies between west Lake Sammamish Parkwayl, which
separates it from the lake on the east, and 168th Avenue S.E. on itslwestern
edge.
Little information on the history of this rookery is available, but residents
in the neighborhood say that they have been aware of its existence for five to
• seven years.
The nests are all located within park boundaries owned by the King County, Parks
Department.
The main drawback of the choice of Weowna Park as a heronry site is its shape.
It is a long but very narrow park. This results in much more exposure to poten-
ti!al disturbances from outside the park compared to a comparably sized park with
broader configurations resembling a square or circle. '
I
West Lake Sammamish Parkway on the east and 168th Avenue S.E. on the west! are
the two major disturbances modifying the park's configuration. There; is also an
extensive network of trails throughout the park used by everyone from!•joggers to
partying young people. Evidence of vegetation destruction and small scale con-
struction--treehouses, etc. , also present a potential problem., 1
1
The four nests in this rookery (all active this year) are located in a( small
ravine due east of the intersection of 168th Avenue S.E. 21st Place.. ; They are
Iodated in the tops of four old growth; Douglas firs approximately 80 to 100 feet
up.I The park is mostly old growth Douglas fir with a heavy understory of vine
maple, currant, elderberry, nettles, and smlal.
Lake Sammamish to the east and Phantom Lake directly to the west are probably
the; most extensively used feeding sites. Phantom Lake is at the southeast; end
of the Lake Hills Green Belt, an undeveloped area which includes Larsen Lake,
and! runs northwest for a couple miles to 148th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 2nd Place.
.
This colony was investigated in late May after all the young birds had hatched',
so a reasonably accurate estimate of the population can be made. - Five to ten
young were most assuredly present, so the colony's size is approximately 13 to
.18. .
Then and cover at Weowna County Park (Figure 6) within a 300m . radius, of the
rookery was 39 percent mature forest, 21 .5 low density
grassland/high density
residential , 12.5 percent old growth forest, 8.5 percent low density shrub/
high density residential , 6.5 percent mature forest/low density residential ,
five percent intermittent stream, four percent low density grassland/paved high-
' way, and three percent lake.
r
The ';distance to the nearest water was 230m and the distance to the nearest
disturbance was 110n.
1
Since nothing can be done at this stage about the shape of the park, the next
best' insurance is to maintain the neighboring greenbelt. Potential damage !in-
flitted by nonthinkingpark users should
also be monitored. If there is a.
s definite danger, steps should be taken to restrict access to the nesting area.
LHr
14
i
),10
?1t AA 11,1
)s2 93
r r
.041/4 321ce
si 0
Figure 6. Weowna Beach County Park Land Cover/Land Use
•
•
•
15
W00DINVILLE / CRYSTAL LAKE
This rookery is the most isolated, and also the largest in King County. It is
located 4 to z mile northwest of the end of N.E. 198th Street. A dirt road
from the end of the street comes to within approximately 100m of the rookery
at'which point striking off through the woods is necessary. Access to this area
is, via 194th N.E. which turns north off the Woodinville-Duvall Road, approxi-
mately five miles east of Woodinville.
This rookery is only known to a few people and the person who reported its exist-
ence has been aware of it for "several " years. It is without a doubt many years
older than that.
The site is located on a large tract of privately owned land. The area is used
for growing commercial firewood, subsequently the entire forest is from 0 ,to 40 or
60 ;years•
old.
The logging operation is the greatest disturbance. Logging roads and frequent
patches of clear cut areas, within 200m of the colony, are not uncommon. The
owners may know about and respect the rookery since that area is the most isolated
and amongst the oldest of the stands on the property. A popular feeding site,
Crystal Lake, has become quite developed in the last few years, and many other
new developments are arising in the vicinity.
' The nests are spread over a ridge top in the 40 to 60 year old stand, located in
Douglas fir and western hemlock trees. These are the main two species in the
forest but some white pine is also interspersed. The understory is sparse, con-
sisting of a deep covering of leaf litter and almost no vegetation.
Crystal Lake is about one mile northwest of the colony and is probably the favorite
feeding area. Lake Washington is not too far away and may also be a food source.
This colony was visited in late May; therefore,' all the young birds were well-
dev�eloped and very noisy. Twenty-two nests were counted, twenty-one of which
were thought to be active. A population estimate would range from a conservative
50 to a more likely 80 birds.
The' land cover at the Woodinville site (Figure 7) within a 300m radius of the
rookery was: 86 percent mature forest, 7 percent mature forest/partially thinned,
2.5, percent regenerating forest, 2.5 percent low density grassland/uni'mproved roads,
one percent low density grassland/high density residential , and one percent grass-
land.
The'! distance to the nearest waterwas estimated to be 370m while the nearest
disturbance was 220 m.
,The, land cover classification derived for the Woodinville rookery is probably
the least accurate of all the rookeries. This is because intensive development
and logging has continued in this area in the three years since the aerial photos
were taken. An ideal solution to this problem would be to document the site
,with more recent photo coverage.
Foremost in efforts to keep this colony intact is-to convince the property owner
to maintain an adequate buffer zone. Secondly, the wild state of the undeveloped
end`of Crystal Lake should be protected to provide a convenient and undisturbed
feeding area.
16
13
6 "`
406
411-' g
Figure 7. Woodinville/Crystal Lake Land Cover/Land Use
17
j GRASS' LAKE
This rookery is located to z mile south of Grass Lake, between LakeFSawyer
and Lake Morton, on' the wooded property 'just south of a house trailer. on the
19000 block of S.E. 229th.Place. •
.
. This rookery is the oldest of'the known rookeries in King County. Residents
report that it already existed when they first moved there in 1955.
The i
property s privately owned, but is used considerably in common by many of
- the residents as a place to walk and recreate.
• i
The most serious disturbance, verified in June, is the problem of young people
shooting at, and at least one, hitting the birds. The proximity of several
houses may be unsettling to the. herons but the colony is so old that the houses
may present no problem as long as shooting is controlled. Another possible dis-
tur',bance may be posed by Black Diamond Airfield which is only about 2lmile from
the site. Several new areas of development are also within a one-mile radius
of the 'nests.
The nests are located in a second growth coniferous woods dominated by, western
hemlock. Some cedar, Douglas fir, cottonwood, and alder are also present. The
eight nests observed were distributed one each in four western hemlocks, and
four in a very large, old cottonwood. The undergrowth is dense, consisting
mainly of swordfern, vine maple, and regenerating hemlock. The ground is very
moist and several -areas of standing, water are present.
1
I There are many lakes within five miles of the rooker ' and all
Y of them, are pro-
bably used to some extent. The closest, and probably most used, are Grass Lake,
i Lake Sawyer, and Lake Morton. Grass Lake is the closest and- was also once the
site of a bullfrog farm. -
Of the eight nests sighted, six were conservatively assumed to be active, so a
1 population of about twenty seems very reasonable. This rookery was investigated
y in late June so the estimate includes young herons as well as adults. '
Theland cover at Grass Lake (Figure 8) within a 300m radius of the rookery was:
mature forest, 51 percent; high density grassland/low density residential , 11
percent; high density grassland/recreation or other open space (in this case
R power line right-of-way, 11 percent; freshwater swamp, 88.5 percent; pond or small
i lake, five percent; low density grassland/unimproved road, four percent; high
density grassland/unimproved road, three percent; low density grassland/low den-
sity residential , 2.5 percent; low density grassland/high density residential,
1 .51percent; and high density grassland, 1 .5 percent. 1
This distance to the nearest water was 230m while the distance to the nearest
1 disturbance was approximately 20m.
1 The immediate survival of this heronry is dependent upon correcting the behavior
of those responsible for the current shooting of some of the birds: The long
term survival will depend on the current owner's ability or resolve to maintain
the nest site and mature forest buffer in the face of all the new development '
i in the area. If the owner decides to sell , the county or other organizations
e should be looked for to purchase or otherwise protect the land.
i
1 .
1
.
18
9s O
3�C H s
---"—"m1141i1P117
ta.3^A a
3
Figure 8. Grass Lake Land Cover/Land Use
•
•
•
19
- I
SUMMARY OF PREFERRED HABITAT
In xamining the surroundings of the seven known heron rookeries in King County,
certain generalizations can be made regarding habitat preference. A heavily
wooded area is preferred without exception; 60 percent of the area within a
3OOm radius of the nest sites was mature forest. Additionally, all nests were
within the largest contiguous patch of mature forest within that 3OOm radius
circle. These woodlands ranged from 40 to 60-year old second growth to 200-year
oldlgrowth. Most of the nests are in mixed conifer stands, but two are in
mature red alder forests. More often than not, the floor of the nesting woods
is moist with standing water often present. Six of the rookeries are on slopes
including steep hills, streambanks and ridge tops. The seventh site was situ-
ated on level terrain with some standing water present beneath the nest trees.
A proximity to fresh water also seems to be a necessity. Ponds, marshes, streams,
and ;lakes are individually or all found closely associated with each nest site.
Several of the colonies are also very near salt water where significant feeding
activity occurs. Approximately 12 percent of the area within a 3OOm radius of
the 'nests was water of some type. Other land cover types occurred to a lower
areal extent. See Table I for a summary of land cover percentages and Table II
foridistances to nearest water source.
•
•
•
r
N i
jtx I '
r A
I
20
TAB,LE• I. PERCENTAGE LAND 'COVER TYPE PER ROOKERY
ROOKERY
1
au
r
c
ea c
,-• 0 N L Y
cor L co a s- .r. N
(C{CL O MI p N N
N (CIVIO=CC1 t6 O CL MI-IC' a v cm .-, Cl) 3 3 �-° Total X
Pond 20 acres (121 ) 1 1 .5 -
- -• 5 7.5 1
Lake! 20 acres , (122) - - - - -
3 - 3 .4 •
Perennial Stream (131 ) • 1.5 1 11 - - -
13.5 • 2
Underground Stream Sec (131DF) 1 - - - - - - 1 .14
Intermittent Stream (132) - - - - 5 - - 5 .7
Freshwater Marsh (212) - 4 - - - - - •4 .5
Eelgrass . (215) - 3 3 - - - H 6 1
Kelp 'or Algal Comm. (216) - 2.5. - - -
- - 2.5 .35
w Intertidal Region • (217) • - ' 19 11.5 5 -
- - 35.5 5
w Freshwater Swamp (221 ) - 1 .5 - - - - 8.5 10 1 .4
Hi-Den. Grassland (HDG)(311 ) 16.5 1 .5 - - 1 1 .5 20.5 3
Q HOG/Low-Den. Res. (LDRI(311AA) 1. - - - -
- 11 12 2
HDG/Unimproved Road* (311CC) - -. - - - - 3' 3 .4
1
HDG/Open Space* (311F) - - - - - - 11 11 1 .5
1
Hi-Den. Shrub • (312) 2.5 2.5 .35
HDS/LDR* . (312AA) - - - . 6 6 1
Low-Den. Grassland(LDG)(321 ) 0 1 - - - - - 1 .14
LDG/L6R*
. • (321AA). 1 16 - - - - 2.5 19.5 3
LDG/HDR* • . (321AB) - . - - 18 21 .5 1 . 2.5 43 6
• LOG/Fr'eeway* .. (321CA) 18 - - - • - - ' 18 2.5 '
LDG/Paled Highway (321CB). 3 - - _ 4 - . - 7 1
-* Disturbance present
TABLE I. PERCENTAGE LAND COVER TYPE PER ROOKERY (continued)
•
ROOKERY
•r•-•
1C1 -IL
(— 0 >, tri
>, its _c itt S- C/1 CU
(ci E ms a. 0 fa 0 to
Lci.) cc' ‘1 u' To ta• 1 Y
LDG/Unimproved Road* (321CC) - - - - - 2.5 4 .6.5 1
• LDG/Parking Lots* (321CF) 2.5 - - - - - 2.5 .35
LDG/Open Space* (321F) - , 4 .5
LD Shrub/HDR* • (322a) - - - - 8.5. - - 8.5 1 .2
cx Regenerating Forest (41 ) - - - - 2.5 - 2.5 .35
8 Pole Stage Forest (42) - 22 - - • - 22 3
Mature Forest (43) 52 49 74.5 45 • 39, 86 51! 396.5 57
Mat. For./LDR* (43AA) - 6.5 - - 6.5 1
Mat. For./Thinning* (43HB) - -• - - - 7 - 7 1
Old GrOwth Forest • (44) • r - - - - 12.5 - - 12.5• 2
* Di
4 sturbance present
TABLE II. DISTANCE FROM ROOKERIES TO NEAREST WATER
•
ROOKERY
a)
r
a +'
>
c
-a S Y c0
crsN
N > ( a sa- cp t rt7 Y •r
c0 r (ES a. 0 c0 0
0 fCS cc) ctf Vl d) el a 0 1.. c6
a C) o � V) 3 CD _1
Distance in 120 0* 0* 240 230 370 230 170
Meters (m)
* •
Nest trees located along stream.
.
SUMMARY OF DISTURBANCES '
Each heronry" is faced with human. induced disturbance, but these can be categorized
. almost totally into two types. The. first is the problem caused by proximity of •
the heronry to highways. - Several of the colonies are within 100 to �150 meters
• pf state highways, residential streets,' logging roads or dirt-bike oaths. The '
number of vehicles and the,associated noise can't help but have some negative
1 iiimpact on the birds. Emissions from the vehicles most likely have some effect
a,s well , Peasley Canyon being the most likely victim. A recent study reported
1 high concentration ,of lead from samples taken below the nests at Peasley Canyon'
1 (Fitzner et al . in preparation). The study indicated higher concentrations of
4 lead (29 ppm) than at other Washington rookeries sampled at Richland (3.3 ppm)
and the Potholes (0.79 ppm). At the Peasley site,. high lead levels 'iere' also •
i recorded in samples taken 'below adjacent trees, not subject to dropOings from
g the herons (20 ppm recorded at this control site), - This suggests that lead at
1 the Peasley Canyon rookery is derived primarily from airborne deposiition and •
r that the birds probably do not have high concentrations of lead. However, the ,
I .
herons (and humans or other organisms) are being subjected to high levels of
lead at this site and future monitoring is recommended.
z .
The second type of disturbance common to all heronries is from the ever-increas-
ing amount of development occurring in the county. New houses are invading 'the
nesting sites of many of the herons while as many and possibly more are facing.
exclusion from their feeding sites by development of more and more lakes and
wetlands. ,
r Approximately 22 percent of the area within a 300m radius of the rookeries was
some form. of' major disturbance--residential or transportation. Several other
disturbances affect individual heronries in the 'county. An expanding graver
pit, logging operations, trails located at or near nest trees; and' shooting
t young birds are all disturbances that have been identified in King' County. The
average distance to nearest disturbance was 135m. See Table III fora summary.-
of each site's distance to nearest disturbance.
i
f i
t
x • 1
1
a f
TABLE III. DISTANCE FROM ROOKERIES TO NEAREST DISTURBANCE
x i ROOKERY
i .
r-
N •;
} al C '0 S--le rt5 C '
r- 0 V, C S., C1 •r- Vf
` Rf i fLf t (CS3 S- "0 In O
is IO C E ed =r cOCt. O al . O ICY .
„ W to •=CO «s v, a, W Cl. 0 L to
r .dC.) 0. � � N 3 3 CO X
Distance in .
Meters (m) 110 20 400 85 110 220 20 135
ff '
r
24
.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Limiting or restricting the size and location of new developments is; the single
most important need for insuring the continued existence of Great Blue Heron
rookeries in King County. Buffer zones must be established. Areas of preferred
feeding must be identified and protected, and undeveloped greenbelts; should be
established between the rookeries and feeding sites. These recommendations are
now impossible for several of the known rookeries in King County, but as develop-
ments continue and (hopefully) more rookeries are found, these or similar require-
• ments should be enacted. We can only assume that rookeries have already been
lost due to disturbance and actions must be taken to prevent furtherilosses.
Buffer widths will vary from site to site but an approximate distance of 200m
can be recommended based on studies in Oregon. Werschkul et al (1976) observed
that nest occupancy was significantly higher in undisturbed areas; the average
distance from the nearest disturbance to active nests at one of them study sites
was 219m. Inactive nests were an average of 148m from the.nearest point of dis-
turbance.
The same kinds of requirements should apply to proposed roads which would be
located close to a rookery. Overused trails should have the foot traffic re=
diced, either by closing the trail or rerouting the present ones away from the
rookery. Dirt bikes should be. forbidden.
Those responsible for continually harassing, harming or killing birds! should; be)
adequately punished, especially those shooting or otherwise killing, birds.
Funding, education, and an appreciation for nature are all needed to bring such.
recommendations to realization. The sooner we begin educating and instilling
an; appreciation for nature, the sooner the money will become available for the
survival of the Great Blue Heron. (Editor's note: Ironically, Stevel makes this
statement after having devoted considerable amounts of his own time to this
study--a study entirely without funds; he deserves our thanks for his; effort. ).
25
•
icy 1
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
This study should provide a basis for a continuing investigation of Great Blue
Heron rookeries in King County. Foremost in this continuing study should be
the search for more rookeries. All the aspects looked at for each heronry in
this study should also be applied to the newly discovered ones.
i
The amount of effort applied to each heronry should also be expanded.; The most
obvious and most helpful would be to monitor each heronry on a year to year
basis. Changes in population, number of nests, and type, number of, and proxi-
milty to disturbances could then be easily evaluated. Included in this effort
• would be investigations to establish clutch size, number of birds fledging, total
population, and a determination of feeding area.
1
One of the best ways to monitor the land cover/land use changes over the years
would be by obtaining current aerial photos of the rookeries. Distance to and
type of disturbances could then be easily measured and identified. Also, trends
towards harmful situations could be found early enough to alert the proper people,
thereby insuring the rookery's survival .
As ,the years pass and the scope of the study expands, many new and important .
discoveries will be made. This study is by no means a revelation into the complex
requirements of a successful Great Blue Heron rookery, but it hopefully provides
a solid foundation for such a resolution. '
. I
'
I� I
•
{
7 I
i 1
•
•
•!I
tl
26
Literature Cited.
'Bent, 1926. U. S. Nat. Mus. Bull . 135*
Cottam and Uhler. 1945. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 272.*
Cottrille. and Cottrille. 1958. U.niv. Mich. Mus. Zool . Misc. Pub. '0102.*
Fitzner, R. E. , W. H. Rickard, and W. T. Hinds. In preparation. Heron colonies
as indicators of food chain contamination; trace metals and radionuclides.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
(Owen, 1959. Auk (76) 464-470.*
Washington Game Department. 1979. Land Cover/Land
Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Washington Department sof�Ecology.
In:cation.
Werschkul , David F. , Ellen McMahon and Mary Leitschuh, 1976. Some effects
of human activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon. Wilson Bulletin
88(4): 660-662.
I I
•
•
* In: . Palmer, Ralph S. 1962. Handbook of North American Birds, Vol . 1 .
Yale: University Press. 567 p.
27
APPENDIX 1
NOTICE USED AS POSTER AND SENT TO NEWSPAPERS
REQUEST FOR GREAT BLUE HERON NEST SITES
Know the location of a Great Blue Heron nesting area? The Washington Game
Department is conducting an inventory of nest sites and would appreciate hearing
from you. Herons often build their bulky stick nests in trees and may place
them singly or in a colony (heron rookery). Heron nests are large and can often
be seen from a distance. The nesting season will be underway soon and nest
sites may be threatened by disturbances of many kinds. Knowledge of these lo-
cations will help protect these valuable and very watchable wildlife.
Please contact Steve Shipe (363-3874) or Ron Hirschi (464-7767) or write Ron
Hirschi , Washington Game Department, 509 Fairview North, Seattle 98109.
The following information would be appreciated: Location, number oflnests, and
any historical background (how long nests have been present, land use changes,
nesting success. . . ).
•
•
/
•
/ //// 7:4 /t
/ J
28
• .
i
APPENDIX 2
1
' LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION Delineate Cover Types and determine Disturbance
Factors. Measure percentage of area for each cover type and length of' linear
;' features. Also, measure distance to nearest disturbance. and to nearest open
water, wetland, or stream. '
1 WATER
11 MARINE
- 1
1 111 Bay or Estuary i
112 Open Water
12 FRESHWATER .
' 121 Pond/Slough
g (Less than 20 acres)
122 Lake/(Greater than 20 acres)
13 RIVER OR STREAM and associated Riparian
131 Perennial
132 Intermittent
•
2 WETLANDS
21 NONFORESTED WETLANDS
: 211 Sa1'tmarsh.
1 212 Freshwater Marsh
213 Bog
L 214 Shrub Swamp
' 215 Eelgrass
i
216 Kelp or other Algal Community '
. 217 Other intertidal (algae may be present)
22 FORESTED WETLANDS •
• 221 Freshwater Swamp
•
3 NONFORESTED UPLANDS
31 VEGETATED MORE THAN 50 PERCENT
311 Grassland
312 Shrub
j 32 VEGETATED LESS THAN 50 PERCENT
1 321 Grassland
j 322 Shrub , .
• i
29 . •
APPENDIX 3
AERIAL PHOTOS USED IN STUDY
Department of Natural Resources flight NW-78 (Black and White, 1 :12,000)
.No. Date
•
Peasley Canyon 59A-66 06-02-78
•
Dumas Bay 53B-37
05-20-78
'Maury Island 50B-49 05-20-78
Seahurst Park 54A-89 05-31-78
Weowna Park 66B-54 78
Woodinville/Crystal Lake 67C-79 06-03-78
•
Grass Lake _ 67C-31 06-03-78
•
•
•
31
• APPENDIX 4
GREAT BLUE HERON ROOSTING SITES OR UNVERIFIED NEST SITES
1 ) 27257 8th Avenue S. Woodmont area • <
Roosts on = • .-�- • . .
a redwood near,thlshouse'
2) 2111 S.W. 174th - Normandy Park area
Seen fishing on tidal flats and piers • lots of possible sites for nesting,
_,
but none found. '.,,, 4
3) 3421 S. 194th - On Angle Lake': - .
As many as three seen on pier - no possible nest sites at lake.
4) On 23rd Avenue S. between 304th and 300th S. by Wildwood Park.
t Privately owned pond - herons 'feed there often but no nests.
5) Large pond at 7th S.W. .and S.W. 320th .
One adult and one juvenile"seen. ;'Looks like an excellent location for a
nest site, but none found. 'Privately owned and parts being developed.
6) Near 160 block of Maple Wild Avenue:nearThree Tree Point.
Roosts on large Douglas fir,.(10715years). Beach side of street.
7) 4106 Aikins Avenue (and adjoining properties) W. Seattle
Seen for five to six years",in_Douglas firon .jointly owned property. Three
fledglings seen last year.:.° ;`;•:.: . :.:,
8) 4838 S.W. LeDroit Place. ;:W. Sea ttlC : ;-
Seen "sunning" in Douglas fir on cliff facing Puget Sound (for three years)
9) Tradition Lake - Issaquah watershed - Issaquah - Tiger Mt.
Often seen at the lake by hikers, but no nests verified.
10) Issaquah Creek - Issaquah
Two or three often seen :roosting.:,yalong .creek ,in several conifers.
11) Large pond located directly��across:from Wilderness Rim
Development (across railroad 'tracks
). Off,I-90 at Exit 32 (436th St. )
First exit east of north_end.
`' .32.
12) Maple Valley Highway- On property located at 15025 Maple Valley Highway.
Thickly wooded north-facing slope overlooking small pond and farm. (Property
has been sold and a church is to be built towards end of year. One to
three birds seen for six years.
13) Morningside Park and adjacent marsh - Yarrow Bay on Lake Washington. At
least one pair seen for last three years often seen feeding on boat docks
at properties around the,marsh. ,
14) Swamp Creek - Kenmore.-` One pair.seen in area between Bothell, Way and 180th,
and 80th and 73rd.
•
•
` a°d'-'� 'i::. -_ ,
•
•
• 1.:
:; 33
•
THESIS �.ii? , L��;'1;`iC DEPT.
RESPONSE OF BREEDING GREAT BLUE HERONS TO
HUMAN DISTURBANCE IN NORTHCENTRAL COLORADO
•
•
•
Submitted by
Diana Krammer Vos
Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Spring, 1984
•
ABSTRACT
RESPONSE OF BREEDING GREAT BLUE HERONS TO
HUMAN DISTURBANCE IN NORTHCENTRAL COLORADO
1
Reactions of nesting great blue herons (Ardea herodias) to
human disturbance were studied during the 1981 and 1982 breeding
seasons at the Fossil Creek and Lonetree Reservoir heronries. All •
human activity within 100 m of the heronries was monitored and
rates of human intrusion were documented. Reactions of herons to
i
human activity were grouped into 3 categories: minimal, local, and
general responses. Rates of human intrusion were lowest (minimum =
0 intrusions/hr of observation) early in the breeding season, and
i
. peaked in June and July (maximum = 1. 33 intrusions/hr of observa-
tion): Sixty-seven percent of all human intrusions caused minimal
i
response. Local responses were elicited towards 27% of the human
f disturbances and only 6% resulted in a general response. Herons
were most disturbed by land-related activity
and least by boating
`' activity. Heron response to human activity decreased as the breeding
1
season progressed, with an increasing percentage of minimal responses
(28.6 - 95.9%) .being elicited each month.
Heron response also varied
between sites. Productivity ranged from 2.65 to 2.82 young/nesting
attempt and 2.82 to 2. 96 young/successful nest, and was sufficient to
iii
.../
•
maintain a stable population. Recommendations to reduce human dis-
turbance of breeding great blue herons are discussed.
•
Diana Krammer Vos
Department of Fishery and
Wildlife 'Biology
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
Spring, 1984
•
• j
7
V "
-- I
I I
1
j I
� I
t
ji
5
1
I •
iv
•
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Management of great blue heron nesting areas can be divided
into 3 categories: (I) restrictive or warning measures, (2) inter-
pretive or educational measures, and (3) measures to maintain and
improve great blue heron breeding habitat.
Impacts of human disturbance on great blue herons can be reduced
by establishing buffer zones free from human activity around, nesting
•
sites. Based on results of this study, a buffer zone of 250 m on land-
and 150 m in water is recommended. These distances encompass the
greatest distances at which human recreational activities caused
herons to abandon nests at any time throughout the breeding season,
plus an additional 50 m. The additional 50 m is suggested for 2
} reasons. First, prior to flushing from their nests, herons may already
be disturbed by the presence of humans since by the time they fly,
they have already had to physiologically adjust for flight (Geist
1975) . Although no exact measurements were recorded,
c rded, herons often
appeared to be aware of human intruders at distances more than 50 m
beyond -the distances at which they flew. Further, herons may not
have appeared to be disturbed by human activities while they actually
were since animals can be disturbed or stressed yet show no overt
behavioral responses (Thompson et al. 1968) .
Individual heronries should be examined independently since
heron response varied significantly between sites. Vegetative structure
and the past history of human activity at a particular site may demand
( . .
54
lesser or greater distances for buffer zones depending upon the situ-
ation. At some sites, there may be physical lirmtiations restricting the
size of a buffer zone. For example, there may be a narrow channel
next to a heronry where it would be difficult to create a buffer zone
of 150 m. In such a situation, human activity should be kept to a
minimum by Iimiting the number of boats within the area and restrict-
ing boating activity during the middle of the day and early in the
breeding season.
Buffer zones should be maintained from mid-February before
herons arrive at breeding sites until early August when sites have
11 been deserted for the year. Restrictive signing and fencing methods
( for creating buffer zones on land are reviewed by Buckley and
Buckley (1976) . Buoys can be used to form boundaries around heron-
ries in water.
In addition to restrictive or warning measures, interpretive and
educational signs should be placed at entrances to recreational areas
with heronries and, if appropriate, within sight of heronries. Signs
should describe what heronries are, describe and depict .species breed-
ing there, and discuss why human interference is detrimental. In
some areas, boardwalks or viewing outlooks with educational exhibits
can be established. In addition, lectures or tours can be given by
area personnel.
Besides protecting breeding great blue herons from human disturb-
ance, efforts to maintain and improve existing breeding habitat should
be considered. Great blue herons in Colorado require riparian habitat
for breeding. The importance of riparian habitat for many other
species has been recognized as well (Carothers and Johnson 1975,
55
Gaines 1977, Bull 1978) . Riparian ecosystems are among the most pro-
ductive and valuable wildlife habitats wherever they occur (Hubbard
1977, Fitzgerald 1978, Schrupp 1978) . Riparian habitat throughout
i
Colorado is steadily being lost (Borden 1978, Crouch 1979) and cutting
I
of trees for firewood- has become a major problem (Tubbs 1980) .
I
I Unregulated tree cutting should be prohibited in public areas and land-
i
owners should be educated to the consequences of extensive tree cutting
f
and removal as regeneration of cottonwoods has been virtually absent.
t This lack of regeneration is due primarily to changes in water manage-
}
ment and cattle grazing (Crouch 1979) .
Nesting of great blue herons can contribute to death of nest trees
I
(Miller 1943, Kerns and Howe 1967, Vermeer 1969, Wiese 1978) . To help
Ipreserve a heronry, trees could be structurally reinforced by managers
during the non-breeding season if possible. If nest trees continue to
j deteriorate, artificial nesting structures could be developed. Artificial
! nest structures have been used successfullybygreat blue herons r eons
(Henny and Kurtz 1978, Sandilands 1980) and other heron species
l'
(Wiese 1976, Hafner 1982). Design and implementation
g p tion methods for
effective artificial nest structures have been discussed by Meier (1981) .
IIn addition to maintaining and preserving existing habita
t, an
attempt to create additional potential breeding habitat should be made.
Cottonwood regeneration should be promoted as recommended and out-
s
lined by Beeson (1983) and, when methods for successful propagation
of cottonwoods are improved,p plantings should be done. Other tree
and shrub species can be- planted to provide better vegetative buffers
around heronries.
.:�i}'-g°.v.'ts}•,gj^" 'f'- . 4 '.�.. fi'""r .-`' '-T l.e•M_ =..1' ..-iri. -" '•-4n,C'a`�.T' h . ,-,S,Y ' iril.^•"Sv :•r '
,t 4. ,Z. y r ( J �` 1•. . a1' ,, .as T's_ l,^ f,-.N tL r, !.,.�.. ar,.
.+ - .t. ` }-`^ `, ""�c'��#'' j' .1 r�.t,:Y ,ty; :L, Y } ...s Z.-a..;.�.• f.si�:�' '.* .,� ..>< d yr�';. w1.�ftr,a.::` :iSd. '.s
• ti4 i: Y. cis 9•'` ��q�+. •a •j� a '�' W e l ; ,C.• •' ' t. s.,4e-0 tis 4-.. 0 �41,1 ....is r _ '�y �� - -(i tper
4-•' d�.Y, "• ', ,,•,:"I a�IIr: •1a, r' '+�k... .„ . . ' _.j�,' „2 F 1 `t'� 1 ;:tY''rr•�' �.•,r.r 7'_' - ' ninE '' ...
`w - .S ,, '•a• • via . eti.t ' , •:*s, i' f 1 x S �T;�S`,I-ds,.„,,,:t 3, ,• A;�r.,{ �. ' n w ,,, • • $ 'F .'fs -tea-'�. . '•xr i t� ► , '•# -e•e; j. -sFj""A� y m. �1� � :"., • 4. '� ..r.,1 A+-- .
e �} lJF °,t i f a ; A +a ! �yi Y }*"sue. .r� �� �x, ti=°�h 1v7'Jt
•
660 THE WILSON BULLETIN • Vol. 88, No. 4 "^� Decembi
."4:4
f TABLE , • . -w4' ^
. fri:
FOODS OF 6 FULVOUS WHISTLING DUCKS FR05t COLLETON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA •'- ?!• SUCCESS OF GREAT B1.U1
•
( Percent Volume 'C Number of
'°`k4' Location Active 1
Rem. (No.Occurrence Percent
Gullet Gizzard Total -_ i. (Co.)
t r-;- .
' Panicum dichotomiflorum 6 67.9 40.9 62.8 ' CoIumbia R, 161
i , Cuphea carthagensis° 5 22.5 4.3 19.0 V* Clatsop Co.
f Panicum agrostoides 6 4.3 30.4
g -•':',",--P. Wheeler, 33
Fimbristylis autumnalis° 1 3.6 ''-" ` Tillamook Co.
15.9 5.9 ;nth
Paspalum bosdanum° 5 1.0 2.4 1.3 Ball Mt., 15
' Eleocharis sp. 3 - ''""` Lincoln Co.
Echinochloa welteri 6 . 0.6 0.6 ' 0.6 ',- Mill Creek, 18
Paspalum dissectum° 5 0.1 - 0.1 ••-'4.--; ,•- Lincoln Co.
•Items which contributed only a trace amount Z agnina Bay, 35
Cladium (<0.1%) in either the gullet or gizzard are Lincoln Co.
• jamaicense, Cyperus polystachyos, Digitaria ranguinalis, Hydrocotyle sp„ Panicum cer-
• rucosum, Paspalum floridanum,° P. laeee,° P. setaceum,b Polygonum hydropiperoides, P. lapothi- Beaver Creek, 32
folium, P. punctatum, Rhynchospora macrostachyab Scirpus olneyi, Setaria glouca, bivalves --
lusca), and insects (Insecta). (Mol- Lincoln Co.
b These occurred in no other duckspecies in the 44
peat marsh area. Reynolds Ck,
�: Lincoln Co.
14 duck species in the samples. We identified 24 food items; but only 7 contributed 88
, . Si Lanew Co.
more than trace amounts to the diet (Table 1). Grasses made up 74.1% of the total food . Northe o 97
volume, and fall panic grass (Panicum dichotomiflorum) composed about 63%. Redroot Spit,
(Lechraathes caroliniana), which was the principal item in other ducks (mostly Anas Coos l Co.o 86
South Slough,
spp.and Aythya spp.) from the peat marsh,did not occur in the Fulvous Whistling Ducks. Coos Co.
Fall panic grass and redroot were managed species-of food plants in impoundments in x. 97
the peat area. Seeds of 8 species that did not occur in other ducks from this marsh'com_ Bandon,
posed over 26% of the.volume. Of these, marsh waxweed (Cuphea carthagensis) and --:'3 Coos Co. 38
fringed sedge (Fimbristylis autumnalis) were particularly important. ; Rogue R.,
_ ': Curry Co.
These foods are similar to those used by the species in Louisiana,as revealed by analysis -of digestive tracts and droppings from areas under rice cultivation (Meanley and Meanley, -1 _ •This;s an average number of Y
'Wilson Bull.'71:33-45, 1959). Meanley and Meanley (op. cit.) described areas where
most food plants grew as grassy places in rice fields that were just high enough above `" ''••
:; the influence of man in the he:
water for convenient feeding. The 8 major food plants and most lesser food plants in our typically built their nests from
analysis grew most abundantly along dikes and impoundment margins, except for fall . - (Tsuge.heterophylla). and silk
panic grass that was abundant inside impoundments as well. Rylander and Bolen (Auk a '-• only ardeids present is those 1
'91:86-94, 1974) depict this duck as an aquatic siever with skeletal structures adapted - - Five of 12 heronries (42%1
for this feeding niche. . r_
heronries had recent clearcutt:
Further studies are needed to gather information on the natural history and behavior ' formed 1974 after destructs
of this little-known species. Its successful range expansion may be reflected partially in = activities Seven heronries we
the adaptation to similar feeding habitats between old and new range sites.-J. LARRY other obvious influences of Ina
LANDERS AND A. SYDNEY JOHNSON, School of Forest Resources and Institute of Natural bras 36.3 active nests (n = 3
Resources, Uniu.of Georgia,Athens 30602. Accepted 6 Aug. 1976. • '
•�1 = 5). 'We have no iDformati•
newly formed heronries was lc
'Some effects of human activities on the Great Blue Heron in Oregon.-During for the area enclosed by the
the breeding season of 414_we-ipok part in a survey to determine the locations and nuns- • 4 _ nests rie for the 3 disturbed
II heronries (t - 3.98,PCO.OI
her of nests in heronrie of thereat Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) on the Oregon coast. • "`- o
• We collected data on n Jttnq activity, physical size of the heronries, and, indirectly, on nests/ha Data on fledging sl
•
•
I_ u:
CC-
a� Cn .0 -7.4 -
• . .. .: ; „, .. 4,
vs! i-• � 0 "at re W�," ;ti~. _ 5 •__ 7 `! ga�.;a ' �yrJ_ ,.� yr v t ‘5.-At,' '<4 v r y
!i ,� ; :f :t . a1 . rt em. 6 w : • l;-' f 4 •
" ?^ z}, ,,,,,,,„,_,..„.„,„...„rem.,,,.,..,:! . �af •, (.,,, .ly;7' i '/_ ': ., ,rm 'xly, + v i•4.,e .�Y:,40s7 r' T;'�' -1 , !{t: 6/ff , :P+•�(�:4i't?'r�t. , ..,K4.�^-; .. ,.M 41;�,Y �:'�'; I 1z.•f ytiT t�;rr;,, ;.,.e,St� "` L .:• ,Y:- , =si ..Y - ._.,. - : ! .5..-sP-;f:+ ay ,; a
•
4.
Ytirffi 3:A.•F,fiv."yF•; _ 'a4'•a•/>.'_ ,i•; • :::14.'' 'ii:. ••tl•I•e .,.- #-•."i.:' _Y- ;`�i.::i .�yt‘.;s:; -.:l•Cir41' ". -:.yr.:i'- it�;•.,.-
4� �" _ r,,: .', -i t7•'e. . •ArjY'4a .X.,�''e ',..' w'a
•.,y --to.6,.-t;'ail i• i•w-.♦,'•r,+
December 1976 - GENERAL NOTES 661
-"i `')"• "Ate-4t.? 'q
: • TABLE 1 • I. `` r4.' '' -„ 7
- SUCCESS OF GREAT BLUE HERONS AT HERONRIES IN WESTERN OREGON l •'
Number of Nests `set,�i �."�_ P.Va
I Location Area Fledging !. - -.' z , .
(Co.) Active Inactive (ba) Bate* Notes c f +<�'��i-
Columbia R., 161 14 0.36 2.70 undisturbed ?" ' 1-: t: ,,, ' ' ,
ggyy���� �'yJ ir>
t O Co. (a=43) ,; Y•' . .. ...^fl
Cla s P I,-
Wheeler, 33 21 024 220 logging road p _s` ' .4 `v.�'lt1Z
r,m; a +�
'Tillamook Co. (n=21) =:= � _ -a +�y
▪�;:. Ball Mt., 15 0 0.12 - newly formed i''`il.• 1",'• ' ' ., xN
rr. Lincoln Co. . , "': k, ,„,,,,...„-A ztra,
_� _ •'aWk '4r7 f
,:i Mill Creek, 18 - 121 - - undisturbed 'ti'' : ' .a;,'
•_ Lincoln Co. - - - t 1 .fir •• it .• - a� d� T
>� ,Yaquina Bay, 35 newly formed <<_! • . .� - 3�5 tii•il :�,E
y. i Lincoln Co. rr ' 4`
• 1; ,•,
_r • Beaver Creek, 32 . 18 0.41 - clearcut near t• -_ � 3 'k
Lincoln Co. i5 .' ' ,�_r,: k
;.<�, Reynolds Ck.; 44 14 0.65 - clearcut near I - 44,
'` ' +X; y-
':, , Lincoln Co. 'I t .,.1.=,. . , : i>`�`3r
5iuslaw R, 88 4 0.36 2.53 undisturbed Yri ▪ `♦; ? ?rs
Lane Co. • (a=16), It�w • .•w. o ff-3 . a�r
North Spit, 97 7 0.36 - undisturbed at"' Z.. .p" rr tr
Coos Co. "C.1 • •.3.:'.i'Av.. ;t1',I 1-AgW-R; �
South Slough., 86 3 024 2.58 undisturbed lilt` = =
Coos co. (n=30) 1.^ _e• _- m--: y }.• __�'
Bandon, 97 12 0.53' •2.18 undisturbed '4;i ` _'- �> ,
Coos Co. (n=22)' V,15;( i 1 ; ,-.j:` .'�':•'`t '
38 0.08' ` - undisturbed s'tx == : '^..:
Rogue R., - cirj , P • fie:
• Curry Co. ;titi• I, . .' .,-(t. ' ° `
`fit '
"• i • per successful nest at 7-8 weeks. I ili: 't •' ;,, a
:_- t This is an average number of young ,,,; . :?� yd e c��,d
1
p�
(r 1 I.it •,n'y. ...,�i.-.)i 1�'.L'�1m, '.P'T
=Y.t- i the influence of man in the heronry. In those heronries we examined, Great Blue Herons it _,= -4' .. Y�• ..:11
=3`• typicallybuilt their nests from 7 to 25 m in red alder (lllnus rubra), western hemlock lt!• '_ra '
lit .t ' ^ •
(Tsuga heterophylla), and sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis). Great Blue Herons were the ` ' ,='` 36
.4F; y + .
only ardeids present in those heronries examined. - 3 i -., ^.i+G�r '1�
w:: 1 ; Five of 12 heronries (42%) had been affected by logging operations. Three of the i,.1lf ::r -• ti .•s s?3`'
'.1- heronries bad recent clearcutting or road construction within 0.5 km, and 2 had newly I, i i %�-. - ":
3'{L 7:- y:� J FY-,ft:'
;�,• formed in 1974 after destruction of nearby 1973 heronries by logging or logging related �; ,: '•.�` * ' '4
activities. Seven heronries were undisturbed in terms of current land management or -. ;
4 r;.... other obvious influences of man• Mean colony size for the areas with logging operations ;- `�.;. • '
t-,-,. was 36.3 active nests (n = 3), while for undisturbed areas it was 107.2 active nests (n A . f r •4.,h;
=:«�
`3;= 5). We have no information on colony size in previous years. Colony size for the 2 �fi ' ' � °xy 's
.�� newly formed heronries was 15 and 35 active nests (Table 1). Nest density was measured t'•' 1$` 47 r .; '- " .-_
g I it• ;y. 1 i 1,1r,Velj' „ ,;.-1'-for the area enclosed by the peripheral nest trees. There was an average of 94.4 active k• nc� : - '1- ^ - 1:
-'�''F nests/ha for the 3 disturbed heronries-and 2592 active nests/ha for the 5 undisturbed •j xl•l,•r=r-r",••":141Z1.--' ,7. , . "-^s'•'?.` heronries (t = 3.98, p < 0.01). Nest.density for 1 newly formed heronry was 35.8 active 4 y •_, d � '' i="f
' nests/ha. Data on fledging success per successful nest were collected from blinds when x' ; t`- 'it`' ,41," ,,. .
=.+ate` it;, ` ..y:c lr'. 4=�,.
fFil �g.:-,4v Cr'I F- Yv -.�,,1�
oFT • cif••
'K . 1 sE jy gC ') �S K`�
v . jc.... `'a .,•24""' .,4,,ter .
':%` • il;
' FF y
T k F n � i+.p
3 t£: -. ri:cfA y ' lA:VNam•
•tti..5 y,. �� :F' ,",:: d 'vSa'. •: £ tl f.,� i1;' y�7; �f; :tt. .y•1;.• w 1�•,r:• -, 'fi i y..tr rt=' ,,,,.. YL
.x', 11'41-#&,,•ri d+ vrr,': ".at,•: S; vas t' 00.• r. el 'S , ''s '`R",t irViM1''�x:. ier4:?:1•, l.T:'4':. ;• 1 a`-•
f:r $�•G
:iY"Y.. �C•. - 3,4��..e)•A;"a T^t�'y.1j�,. �i � •�e"e`c^ ',.'...' .. id!�r-".N;7 ..�'F�q,I`7��[5P���.j.`�, .•+fY;,,.�•'�''?".'�Fi.i'S ..�,yi. t:�7�i..yy�U''�.far� a 1.. .(.a %i• 7•t`� n.rr c�r 'I;'-
}f --•:))I`fi-, - „ .f�V,,��' ?4` `Y 12F A'•`. • •S �1 ":1' ✓. q. l l fN.s03'. •�=mot-i
`� .� {s :1,. �'��. dtP.. ,�j�..:'E t'4:e�5:•:.."•�'Y 41 l , .ti•'.�.. 6 ;oi { t'S.y�l^� a_ ���G^ _
0. P.� •c n_ l • 'J' ...1.-ty;• �. c ,p•r• Z>.j .f ,t 14.4 ''i y,ry,.4, .. : ,i.= �., .; .. ; y„{
�r-,'�r,, ',htA '.}'�r��c.._ �7 R _ `M' i !� '��'h',y'� �•'f' �-�''"`'2• �'fr•{rj'�2!'n� r�'••:�a�,`�'•�,,�,•4it..A<:!}y'I'at•. ',7. {2y,.�.,c''j' i,4,�7�i'.
•-.r' r Kc � -�, W'•t• ,r ,'w F� to
,f��. k.t' y"ry.,,�>: { 'pAr , ,('^UW.• �',r•5 �.,,i•.R{.1 l;:? l i 1"4: j ,, i4`1(11 ' i'},^a••
�' N"f ♦Y N � ''>� +•�:f�o♦ , �a,r+r l' l >?S �}�';: '�'d. `, „�`• >i<' t•. a'..
:� 's' e_.ra'.kyE":. . e' X', " :+ �,,• t"' the', '15 i �l !e(Y 94c.r,,1�f§,S •fia r:....i4, p ltk;cc-F r4'_=• ?•' ..
:i�a; lQr, a.•'^. • r •-ert*Tvo.;ti�• •••.']. 1 s.�-+ir , r�, ♦ irfi•..`,'tr.••r''`."i?^ :-.i! '? `PjY:. .` ,?Si,,s:k_, i',•,l:( ` 4 a ..,, J4..•�` _.$ ?"
!l:fy':".?'-l✓yl . _Y:-• •�. ,++(>�t\/.� '"Y�°` t'. 4',S9 �,,}'• y> -'�S�.FLN ,1 �.. yT"�) - rYe f' 4n�.h F. �J
) - .. .',_..•_>y�� = '�'\� ." y>.•✓,.l,lµ^ Imo•))•» 'le .t•'V..yh�� f ,I', h,',a c,.�,-.ni -.4Y.>V.. -,� ' t... _ ..
�a,iDti.:S' 'ir.3.^"'t: „:„, _ :�: Y,- - -v..c•-so-'' -.' - - '
•
•
i• � '„ ti+ t . !.-'•.iJ- d 't• b y Y,.0.}`4 "9u-f.1r.; r' -'_ a y _€ .t+.r..... ::' AL' sue%
� ,a.vL ,,.,,,,�i •.," i - VA:' y=v:_`. .,RY: �.::d' t 4' ]>F,:- _ i��' J_��.
:• ;'''t y,'•V• X'( [.x�.°4'.• - i `.?. .. .�tf{w. C.i`. *,. :- .,,"°�.�"rt;-.- C i-..Tt :,r. ,.. YID'h- •"" .i`i+.w`•X.y-• ::
.,av : '."` Y.•.,.. °• `.:r . �i AE• if't\'p�yz_,�C' ,.-1 , ..i. .fiat :
is 'tt.'-"V .',•^' c ' .�.. ''''' •X -8E• .u. I* -rt'e r 'R,4''w"tb- ,r...,A. „4.,,,..'' � 5+ ; �?; "�'• r
,..t c ..`,, ; •,�' a?;'�� ?tsi' S � t1�s� ,jir ( • ' ' f�j's7 tt*"li :�`+.
`• t t; ? Y•.$ r,. i . •�.n` :rYc',r. ' 44• P '��,.', ' ''
•
Y..-.may.;+
'-N•_�
t 662 THE WIISON BULLETIN • Vol. 83, No. 4 >4�;• Dec
.i. °r'r'7i. 1
the young were approximately 7--8 weeks old at 4 undisturbed heronries and 1 disturbed '. heronry. Though we realize ❑ --•'.:g edzing rate should have been measured at more disturbed = 0. 200
sites, it is worth mentioning that the fledging rate at the Wheeler heronry (disturbed) $';' " I
Ras 22 young per nest.(n = 21), one of the lowest figures obtained at any of the •-.`.•:"
E'• heronries. :..•,iti.- meters
• Nest oceupancy, defined as active nests in relation to total number of nests, was sig.• "'''z'
;•
...
x ' nificantly higher in undisturbed areas. In the disturbed areas 67% (n = 162) were ac-
tive; 93% (a =573) were active in undisturbed areas (x = 79.8, p < 0.005). Within . 3- A.
a disturbed heronrythe
probable effect of human disturbance on nest occupancycould - •-....• -...-
be quantified. For example, the average distance from the nearest point of disturbance' "1-•.-_•
• to active and nonactive nests in the Wheeler heronry - i t �
(Table 1) was 148 in (n = 21) It•
for inactive nests and 219 m (n = 33) for active nests (t = 5.62, p < 0.001). This
phenomenon of nesting activity shifting away from the point of disturbance was ob- -` =• • '.. e
`served in those heronries with logging operations nearbyand such a movement in any "` I I,
_ direction was unnoticed.in undisturbed heronries. ?i • i
This study was in part financed by a grant from the Portland Audubon Society and a ,1: i i \
NSF Grant (GY-11420).—Dsvm F. WERSCH ;t.K , Dept. of Zoology, Miss. State Univ., :'it '
Mississippi State 39762; Eu.a \icMAEoN, Oregon Inst. of Marine Biology, Charleston - /
97420; ANn 1 L'av LErrscatH,Dept.of Biology, Univ.of Oregon,Eugene 97421. Accepted ':'-':•::: i I
13 October 1975.
-
Swimming by Bobwhite ehicks.—On 8 June 1975 when driving over an unpaved -
rural road in Granville County, North Carolina; I saw a female Bobwhite (Colinas vir-
ginianus) cross the road close in front of me with her brood of 8 recently hatched chicks. •
j FIG. 1. Seasonal va at
On coming to the water-filled ditch at the side of the road the mother bird flew across
-the ditch, and the chicks followed her by swimming. The ditch was about 0.5 m wide and • •
the water in it a maximum of 8 cm deep. The second techuiquz is
ram titular clan (a mated pail
To further test the swimming ability of Bobwhite chicks, I later placed 2 three-day-old mapping to determine the
incubator-hatched chicks on the water of a farm pond about 1 in from its shore. The -' number of birds in the clay
• chicks quickly swam to shore, swimming with the head and about of the body above ' the birds are observed. T:
• the surface of the water. -. i
; adult pairs in spring in Y
I know of no published report of swimming by Bobwhite chicks. However, Stoddard
... and Management of the
(The Bobwhite Quail its Habits, Preservation and Increase, Charles Scribner's Sons, New - :1..' :. 1
York, N. Y., 1931) noted that older Bobwhites swam when placed on a water surface - - -_-.4,..,',': __ Timbers dur Researcsuh Sta.,er n TaF
!� Tth es ing mm f
after removal of their flight feathers. Also, S _ '
chorger (The Wild Turkey its History and
Domestication, Univ. Okla. Pros, Norman, 1966) reported Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) j We have determined th
poults being able to swim surprisingly well.—PAUt- A. STEWART, 203 Mooreland Drive, '
cockaded Woodpeckers on
Oxford, NC 27565. Accepted 13 July 1976. -i: Research Park of the U.S.
�_. South Carolina_ The bird•:
•
Seasonal variation in foraging
=-' which they were positively
territory of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers.The trees was subsequently n
•
• habitat requirements of the endangered Red cockaded Woodpecker (Dendrocopos bore- �' The maximum area fora€
• ails) must be known in order to implement effective forest management practices for the y- foraging points. The mir
a preservation of this species. The few published estimates of territory size for this wood- -. connecting as many Perin
•?�; - pecker are of 2 types. Estimates derived by dividing the size of a discrete area by the _' Clan A consisted sold:
number of clans occupying that area can provide information on their minimum require. .T This nestling survived al
`' ments if it is assumed that (a) all of the habitat is suitable, and (b) the birds are "'9t logging operations disrup
present at maximum density. This technique has produced estimates of 26.7 and 67.7 ha Yc. were observed foraging f<
• �. per clan in 2 Texas forests (Lay and Russell, Auk 87:781-786, 1970) and 862 ha per a of 15.8 ha of longleaf pi:
- clan in South Carolina (Beckett, EBBA News 37:3-7, 1974)- - increased 112.7% to 33.f
�s •
.
-4 4'¢ .17"‘4:-k.
f I „•? ,,! 'Ar? y'1� 4 r • 43Vigkt.a ::r" L ..c .a. 'ili ( • :•-i'�. _ ,. 's�., iL�`?,r` /. :ate'^rn`.!:a7�.ti.�wJ.,.+,r ... '° r',i': '�th �� �. ,h T 1 },:.0:
P " .:- V .y,�g�,��'A(.4.f1� :J. '."A .a z 4•-. s 0 � r:� • 4-1 l�•z 'pf`-.4d ..,,i t i. ,;:4•6 4' •�+i "' .a�F
r�i'�+�.• V _ 7 .47:3�„�r!0'4 Ii; a, • (✓t •3..i. .t71 • ,x°tAw. :+ ss a'-`..5.� ' f+ -A.,-'''g"' � q ..' S 1j�{, �_�.F�� t �•'�,Sri v* r.. ^(. '' ,,p �i �fp}.15.. ,� i. �`3ivr�,c7J),i• r,A ,r"sz-=a!y
:;t=, l �2� r ►a„ F ,tie;`^� .. '`•-• t. i. 'Apt. �w x' � .` ••..4 h! T% •L's.. y i' ti-: �,'
t s. + u;r ., L k c` 4` aZ g-' tom. . '`• .p'. 44; ° r. !i~.
'-�i�4, ,. { �3' i£-,, " v rp:"V• ''�''+A::. .i Y„3S' /t' Ea 9,,:'. l�•• 'i"'• , 3:9r'.
' ,. ;r n '��r -Ri_ .�`�"�es�' .i?•F.s_"s' ';:...;.��::"�?..,>. .:, c`••,: ?�'r?� r-+�'� '+i�i-f7-- j
?,. R- Y.:k :� .' 5�^!,*'{`a��c:�'r. ;t =r-•i..r.. ..). ..?a ;.r;'��`*:' .�". c p »..•. ;,;.,,,_�;./.x.8f.� c{'tb;i. ��' .h.-i..►fi t•'. a�.,'f"x•.�.:5 '.ex1�i.•'e .
.. _ _- -._• _. _ _Z � r}:'�': :fi -j'+r. •�`•. .�.�. � 'h"' •1'>.:c �{�'•'=' t �.i •.
THURSTON COUNTY PLANNING. DEPARTMENT REPORT
•
' HEARINGS EXAMINER .HEARING
SEPTEMBER 4, 1984 .
CASE: AA-TCO-4-84
APPELLANT: John Blyth
REQUEST
Appeal of an administrative decision requiring certain mitigating! measures as
conditions of large lot subdivision approval (Case No. LL-0266) .
C;ENERAL INFORMATION
•
A!. Appellant: John Blyth •
Oyster Bay Associates
5310 Marian Drive N. E.
Olympia, WA 98506
Location:. Approximately , mile east of the north end of Scott Road.
C t • Legal Description:
•
A portion of the SWi of the NE* in Section 26, Township 19 North,
• Range 3 West, W.M. •
• D. Area: 45.9 acres
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
•
The appellant is appealing ppealing four of the conditions of approval for large lot
subdivision application case number LL-0266 as set forth in the Planning
Department letter dated August 6, 1984 (see attached) . Mr. Blyth
representing Oyster Bay Associates alleges that the conditions + discriminate
against Oyster Bay Associates and would be too costly to implement, and
• further that the road in question was constructed in 1976.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
•
On February 5, 1984, Oyster Bay Associates submitted an application and
environmental checklist for a large lot subdivision. The proposed
development encompassed 45.9 acres and would be divided into 4 lots, .
consisting .of• three 10-acre lots and one .15.9-acre parcel. Access'. to the
subdivision would be by way of a 60-foot wide private easement connecting
the subject property with Scott Road, a County road located approximately
one-half mile west of the subject property.. • A. road and utility easement along
the west 60 feet of the property would provide access. for each of the lots.
A large wetland area covers the easterly `third of .the site. The total'.area of
the and is ap
proximately pproximately. 18 acres, with an unnamed creek on the .
southwesterly boundary and a drainage ditch on the northwesterlyl,boundary.
•
� - I
Case No. ,AA-TCO-4-84 2 ket; September 4, 1984
q
A ;Great Blue. Heron rookery-, with approximately 32 nests is located in the
alder trees in what is proposed as Lot 1 of. the Iar_ge lot subdivision. While
112; not an endangered species at this time, the Great Blue Heron �is protected
is; and unless its habitat is preserved, it could . become endangered in the
future.'
After substantial research and several- meetings and conversations with
affected departments and agencies,.. the County Environmental Review Officer
issued a mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance on April 19, 1984. The Final
Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on. June 11 , 1984 and , included 12
mitigating measures (see attached) . Mr. Blyth filed an administrative appeal
on, .June 19, 1984. However, the staff persuaded him to hold the appeal ' in
abeyance until the Health and • Public Works Department's comments were
received and the large lot subdivision ' review process was' completed.
Preliminary large lot subdivision approval was granted by the Planning
Department on August. 6, 1984..
•
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THURSTON CO. LAND USE REGULATORY CODES
Thurston County Zoning, Ordinance, Chapter 20.36
Thurston County Platting and Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 18.28
Thurston County State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 17.08
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
A. The subject project complies with all applicable County ordinances and
plans, provided the following mitigating measures are attached as
conditions to the development of the large lot subdivision:
•
1 . Locate in the field and map the eastern and southern boundaries of
the Heron rookery on the adjacent property to the west in
conjunction with either the Washington State Department of Game.
2. Locate on the survey/recording document the adjacent Great Blue
Heron Rookery and from the eastern and southernmost nests within
the rookery, indicate., an area within a 660-foot radius- from the
rookery which shall be identified as "Blue Heron Management Area."
The following wording shall be placed on the recording document:
•
"Blue Heron ' Management Area: No clearing, grading,, .fillingF
or construction is permitted without the written authorization
of the Washington- State:Department of Game and the Thurston
County`-Planning= Department."' .
• 3. ' Locate in the field and map on the survey/recording document the
edge' of the "wetland" as defined by Section 20.36.020(2) of the
' Thurston County Zoning Code, or the boundary of the elevation to
be 'established by the Washington State Department of Ecology
regarding RCW 90.54.020(3) (a) . From this boundary provide for a
50-foot vegetative buffer upland of the wetland edge and a 25-foot
buffer along either side of the outlet stream in Lot 1 . 1
1
A ti ►. -
Case No. AA=TCO74-84 3 September 4, 1984
4. Provisions for a weir device to regulate the elevation of the
"wetland" will . be permitted within the streamside buffer on Lot 1
and the outlet stream on Lot 4. The property owner shall work
with the Department of Ecology to construct and/or maintain the
existing elevation control devices (beaver dams) on site prior to
final approval of the recording document.
5. In addition to the above, a movement corridor extending between
the, northernmost and southernmost nest, thence extending easterly
to the wetland shall a-Iso be so located and mapped on the recording
document. -
6. The wetland, the 50-foot wetland buffer, and the movement corridor
shall :be identified on the recording document as "Tract A -- Open
Space." The following shall also be placed on the recording document:
"Tract A -- Open Space: No clearing, grading or filling shall
be permitted without. the written authorization of the Thurston
County Planning Department."
IT
7.. The' location of the north/south access road or easement into; the;
site should be located as far to the east as possible to' minimize the.
impact (traffic, noise, visual, human disturbance, etc. ) upon the
adjacent Heron Rookery. This, access road or easement should
generally follow a curvilinear route;, meeting the aforementioned
conditions and will bisect "Tract A" but will not be part of "Tract
A.H Such an alignment shall take into consideration the location
and' extent of existing ground cover and seek to retain substantial
tree cover where possible. The access road or. easement may also
bisect the "Blue Heron Management Area" provided' the
aforementioned locational factors are utilized.
8. The physical- road improvements on site shall be the minimum
allowed by the Thurston County Public Works Department to reduce
clearing within 660, feet of the Heron Rookery.
9. The proposed road alignment along the west property line shall be
abandoned and revegetated prior to final approval of the recording
document and should not be used as an access route for pedestrians
or vehicles.
Within . one-half mile,._- from the Heron Rookery, . .all construction'
activities -which _ require. a building permit, . .and any -. clearing?
activities shall only-be allowed between July_ 16 to..January .31 . so as 4
tooccur .when the herons are not on their -nests.*
11 . The Thurston .County Planning Department encourages the
proponent to either: (1 ) record "Tract A -- Open Space" and
• "Blue Heron Management Area" as •a .Conservation Easement with .the
Washington State Department of Game; or (2) to dedicate the same
to another public agency which manages wetland preserves. If an
agency is unwilling to' accept the donation or easement at the time
of recording, then- the recording document shall be conditioned so
L n
• Case No. AA-TCO-4-84 4 September 4, 1984
as to allow for the transfer of title or recording of the easement at
a future date.
(NOTE: The donation of land or a conservation easement can
provide the property owner with tax incentives on his/her federal
income tax for a period of up to five (5) years depending upon
income level and the dollar value of the contribution. If retained in
private ownership, property tax relief may also be available from
the Thurston County Assessor by recording a Conservation
Easement-, enrolling in the Thurston County Open Space Program,
or both. )
.12. Should new scientific data become available on the Blue Heron which
may lessen these conditions, the property owner(s) may request a
supplemental review by the Thurston County Planning Department
and Department of Game which may result in an amendment to the
recording document.
B.' The following findings of fact outline the authority upon which the
mitigating measures are based:
1 . Pursuant to Chapter 17.08.010 of the Thurston . County Code
• regarding the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , "the County
and its departments have and should exercise the authority to deny
or condition all public and private proposals to prevent or mitigate
specific adverse environmental impacts identified in environmental
document." (a) (1 ) "Any governmental action . . . may be denied
or conditioned pursuant to this chapter only on the basis of specific
adverse environmental impacts which are both identified in
environmental documents and stated in writing by the responsible
official of the acting governmental agency. The decision denying or
conditioning the action shall be in writing, and shall state the
findings of the responsible official and the reasons for the
decision." (b) (2) "If an action is denied or conditioned . . . the
decision may be appealed by the applicant . . •. " (b) (3) .
2. The Substantive Authority provisions granted under Section RCW
43.21 C.060 of SEPA and referenced in #1 states in part:
That any governmental action, not requiring a
• legislative decision, may be conditioned or denied pursuant to
this chapter only on the basis of specific adverse
environmental impacts which are both identified in the
environmental documents prepared pursuant to the chapter and
stated in writing by the responsible official of the acting
governmental agency. In the case of counties . . . such
conditions or denials . . . shall also be based upon policies
developed by the appropriate local governmental authority and
incorporated into resolutions, regulations, ordinances, plans,
or codes . . ."
•
c+ . r-
•
Case No. AA-TCO-4-84 5 September 4, .1984
3. Further, the provisions of Chapter 20.36 shall apply to this project
regarding the on-site wetland which meets the requirements of
20.36.020(2) definition of "wetland." As described in 20.36.030,
"The review authority may approve, deny or condition approval of a
proposed development," and as such the review authority may
• prescribe more restrictive standards than those in the underlying
zone.
CI. The Public Works and Health Department's conditions placed on the large
lot approval are not contested by the applicant.
" I
DI. Thurston County has a long history of commitment to protecting
environmental resources from adverse influences. In the late 1970's, the
;Commissioners denied the plat of Wood Point on Lake Lawrence because
the bald eagle habitat located within the plat boundaries would have been
adversely affected by the subdivision. The Commissioners' decision was
ultimately upheld , by the Supreme Court in Department' of Natural
Resources v. Thurston County, 92 Wn.2d 656, 601 P.2d 494 ;(1979).
More recently the Thurston County Hearings Examiner approved the
preliminary plat of "West Totten, Acres" on September 16, 1 1980. This
subdivision request abutted the appellant's property to the• northwest
and consisted of 11 lots on 25 acres. Although preliminary plat approval
expired in August of 1983, the plat was conditioned to protect the heron
rookery from construction and clearing activities during nesting months.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
•
Based upon the preceding analysis, the Planning Department recommends:
denial of the administrative appeal.
RO:Ide/TCHE4
.
•
VGke,L G S "
i .
i •
•
,T ATE.o�
JOHN SPELLMAN �s _ = ,>'. ire OF ReffeNv. MOOS
Governor i �``�;889 a° (44041.. A 1 Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON •
N a lga4
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4 policy
DEvEopmen
Mail Stop PV-71 s Olympia, Washington 98504• • (206) 459-6000
January 1984
Public agencies and groups with an interest in Shoreline and Coastal Management in
the State of Washington:
Enclosed are four reports prepared for the Department of Ecology on performance of
selected portions of the state Shoreline/Coastal Zone Management program. The
studies, designed to evaluate strengths, shortcomings, and overall performance, were
conducted by consultants and staff. The four areas investigated were: I
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE WASHINGTON SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT ACT by Nancy H. Pearson and Jeanne L.
Koenings, League of Women Voters of Washington.
INVENTORY OF WETLAND RESOURCES AND EVALUATION
OF WETLAND MANAGEMENT IN WESTERN WASHINGTON
by Marc E. Boule, Nancy Olmsted and Tina Miller, Shapiro
and Associates, Seattle.
{
AN EVALUATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO WASHINGTON'S
SHORELINES SINCE , PASSAGE OF THE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 by James W. Scott.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM HANDBOOK AND
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM STUDY: ANALYSIS
REPORT by Nancy Fox and Susan Heikkala with Keith
Dearborne, Marc Hershman and Jens Sorenson.
i
The reports were intended to evaluate performance of the state program in carrying
out state legislative and congressional policy. They will be used by the department in
refining and modifying the state Shoreline and Coastal Zone Management programs
and in the allocation of resources to various functions within those programs. We
hope the evaluations will be used by public agencies and public interest groups in
furthering coastal and shoreline resource management and protection.
For additional information or if you would like to comment on the reports, give us a
call:
Public Access--Jim Scott 206/459-6286
Wetland Evaluation--Bill Obert 206/459-6277
Master Program--Bob Saunders 206/459-6282
Public Perception--Don Peterson 206/459-6285
Sincerely,
Don Peterson, Supervisor
Shorelands Planning Section
DP:sa 3 .
.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE
WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
j
I I • .
.
1 '
1
•
Submitted to
Washington State
•
Department of Ecology '
1 ,
- By ,�`, r
. z w ,
, I • 4 .. >, ,
i
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHINGTON
�.
® July 1983
„,..--,p„.
4\
1 ._.
, .
, .....t..... . ......„, , ,
, . ...v-1.-..4,.. _,-:-. -;•;g7--.:-3.. --...-ai_
,I
1
I
1 I
• I
1
•
iI
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE
WASHINGTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
•
Submitted to
Washington State
Department of Ecology
•
By
•
• League of Women Voters of Washington
July 1983
THIS REPORT WAS FINANCEb BY A GRANT FROM THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WITH
FUNDS;FROM THE IHATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
D•._,:. 1, r Ar r,POPiIATf.D FUR SECTION 306
_ \ . )I IF NI;;JAC O-1 F:N1 ACT' Oi. 1972.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 1983 eight hundred and six (806) Washington State citizens were
interviewed for a public opinion survey conducted by the League of Women
Voters of Washington for the Department of Ecology. The survey was
designed to evaluate the Shoreline Management Act which has been the
state law coordinating development of the shoreline for the past 11 years.
MAJOR FINDINGS
s Eight out of ten people visit a shoreline at least several
times a year and one out of three go at least monthly or more.
• Puget Sound and Washington's lakes are the most popular
shoreline destinations of Washington residents.
• When asked what they do at the shore, 3/4 of the people
"observe nature" frequently.
• Half of the people engage in activities such as
boating, swimming, fishing and camping.
• Fully half of the state's residents see a shoreline on a daily
basis.
• Nine out of ten people think having a view of the water is important.
• One out of three people are drawn to the state's shorelines by
its natural character and scenic beauty.
• One in four are drawn by the peacefulness and serenity.
• Litter at the beach detracts from beach visits for almost half
of the state's residents.
• Wildlife areas and public parks receive the highest priority
for waterfront location as opposed to office buildings and multifamily
housing which receive the lowest priority for development on the waterfront.
i
• There is general satisfaction (45% and 35%, respectively) with
the amount and location of waterfront development that has already occurred
on state shorelines.
• Three out of four people have either never heard of the Shoreline
Management Act or are only vaguely familiar with it.
• Half of the state's residents feel there is enough public access
• to beaches, lakes, rivers and streams, while one-third feel there is not
enough.
in Of the goals of the Shoreline Management Act, four out of ten
people feel the most important goal is to minimize damage to the ecology
of the shorelines.
• Almost 9 out of 10 people feel citizen participation in shoreline
planning is an important goal of the Act.
• Almost 9 out of 10 people are willing to have certain shorelines
managed more stringently if those shorelines are of particular value to
the whole state.
• 1 in 4 people feel that the shorelines have improved over the
last ten years; 1 in 4 feel they have gotten worse; while 1 in 3 think
they have stayed about the same.
• 1 in 5 people mention "user fees" when asked how shoreline
management activities should be funded. -
SUMMARY •
Lakes, rivers, and coastal shorelines throughout Washington are a
heavily used natural resource. Most Washington residents use the shoreline
for recreational activities, and they value the shorelines for their
scenic beauty and serenity, as well. Not only is visiting the beach important
ii
to the state's citizens, but having visual access to the water is also
important.
The goals of the Shoreline Management Act that were most important to
;Washington residents had to do with minimizing ecological damage to the
shoreline, preserving public access to the shoreline, and encouraging
citizen participation in shoreline planning.
Philosophically, Washington residents are willing to see their
individual freedoms limited if it means more environmental problems can
be solved.
Washington residents want to see high priority given to wildlife areas
and public parks when waterfront development is at issue. They want office
buildings, apartments, and condominiums given a low priority or even no
priority at all for waterfront location.
There is general satisfaction with the laws governing the shorelines
and with enforcement of those laws, although the majority of people are
unaware or only slightly aware of what those laws are (including the
Shoreline Management Act itself) .
Ten year's later, there is still substantial agreement that state and
local governments should share in the management responsibilities for state
shorelines.
The uses and values Washington residents place on their shorelines
are clearly consistent with the goals of the Shoreline Management Act,
and while people may not have name recognition of the Act, they agree that
, the goals are important.
iii
•
"I just love the water here. I no longer have
the urge to go in, which I used to do when I
was younger, but I still like to look. I think
it's given me a great deal of peace."
--James Beard, 8.0 year old
food consultant and author,
on the Oregon coast
June 1983
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was directed by and the report written by Nancy H. Pearson
and Jeanne L. Koenings with the assistance of a League Advisory Group.
The Advisory Group's members were Lee Carpenter, Kara Kondo, and Betty
Tabbutt.
• Interviewing was done by 125 local League of Women Voters members
throughout the state.
Computer services were provided by The Evergreen State College.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary i
I. Introduction 1
II . The Sample - Who Was Interviewed 3
III. Findings 10
• A. Level of Public Use of Shorelines 11
B. Appropriate Uses of Shorelines 17
C. Public Knowledge of the Shoreline Management Act 23
D. Successes and Failures of the Shoreline 26
Management Act
E. Level of Government Appropriate for 32
Managing Shorelines •
F. Funding 37
IV. Expectations for Future Management 41
Appendices
A. Methodology
B. Analysis of Sample Characteristics - Reliability,
Validity
C. Training Schedule and Press Release
D. Frequencies and Percentages of Responses
E. Coding Book and Questionnaire
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Number of interviews by county 4
Figure 2. Graphic display of sample demographic 8
characteristics
Figure 3. Miles of shoreline in Washington State by 12
type of waterbody and region
•
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Sample characteristics compared to state population 5
2. Profile of sample: Washington residents 18 years 6
and older
' 3. Frequency of shoreline visits 13
4. Frequent activities on shorelines 13
5. Frequency of seeing shorelines 16
6. Importance of seeing shorelines 16
7. Shoreline uses, with relative priority and ranking 18
8. Priorities for uses on shoreline 20, 21
9. Satisfaction with amount and location of development 22
10. Familiarity with the Shoreline Management Act 24
11. Adequacy of shoreline access 28
12. Overall assessment of Act 28
13. Satisfaction with shoreline laws and enforcement 31
14. Preference for management of shorelines 33
15. Choice between state or local government 33
16. Profile of Washington residents' priority for protecting 36
individual freedom or solving environmental problems
17. Preferences for financing methods 39
'18. Importance of Shoreline Management goals 43
19. Management of special shorelines 37
20. Comparison of sample and weighted percentages for B_3
selected issues based on sex
1
.
k
II
f 1
I
{ i
' I. INTRODUCTION
1 1982 marked the 11-year anniversary of the Washington State Shoreline
I Management Act. Washington State's Shoreline Management Act is unique
. j in this nation because it was initiated by the citizens of the state
1 before the federal government encouraged local coastal planning in
li exchange for federal funding. Washington's Shoreline Management Act
1
Iis also unique in including lakes, rivers, and streams in its coverage,
in addition to marine coastlines.
I:ii
Because voters chose local over state control of their shorelines,
I
J Washington's citizens and their local governments have decided over !
I
j the past 11 years how their shorelines should be used. This means that
1
citizens throughout the state have been drawn- into the process of
,shoreline planning. Despite (ot perhaps because of) such broad citizen
involvement, the history of shoreline planning in this state has been
one of controversy. Local interests have often conflicted with state-
wide, interests. Development interests have conflicted with preservation
interests. In urban. areas competition for scarce shoreline resources is
intense. But throughout this all; planning under the Shoreline Management
. j Act has moved forward. • I
_ In the past, major' funding for. these shoreline. activities has been
. t
provided by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Now, however, ,that
1
source of funding is drawing to a close, and Washington State citizens
must provide direction on whether to fund shoreline planning activities
ly from the state's deficit-laden budget. Charged with administering the ,
Shoreline Management Act, the Department.of Ecology felt it was important
to evaluate the Act based on a survey of the public's perception of ;
II I
II
appropriate management of shorelines and the law including its successes
and failures over the last 11 years. Such a survey would be conducted
I I
statewide and would be a random sample survey, designed to gauge a broad '
cross;,'section of public opinion. •
I�fter competitive review by the Department of Ecology in January
1983, I; he League of Women Voters of Washington was chosen by the
Department of Ecology to design and implement this survey. The League
u
1
of Wom;gn Voters is a volunteer', non-profit, non-partisan citizen
organization and, as such, does not support or oppose political parties
or cadidates. The League has earned its reputation as a credible
and efllfective force promoting responsible, responsive state government. .
II
The League is particularly involved in promoting informed and active •
III
participation of citizens in government. .
IE
III
'I .
�II
II'
1
II
.I
I
l
,II
,II
I Ii .
I
li .
q
hi 2
1
II. THE SAMPLE - WHO WAS INTERVIEWED
By randomly selecting the telephone numbers to be called, the
survey aimed to sample a cross-section of people who reflected the
demographic composition of the state's citizens in terms of age, sex,
occupation, education, and income.
The 806 citizens who were interviewed in this survey came from
almost every county in the state (Figure 1) . A few counties with very
low populations had no people interviewed (Columbia, Ferry, Garfield,
Lincoln, and Pend Oreille) , although calls were made in an attempt to
obtain interviews. King County, containing 30.7% of the state's
population, accounted for 246 (30.5%) of all interviews. The other
counties bordering Puget Sound (Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan, Island,
Snohomish, Kitsap, Mason, Pierce, Thurston) comprise 32.6% of the state's
population, and they accounted for 32.5% (262) of the total interviews.
Counties in the southwest part of the state and ocean counties (Clallam,
Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Lewis, Skamania, Clark, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum,
Pacific) with 11.7% of the state's population, accounted for 93 interviews
or 11.6% of the total number. Eastern Washington counties, with 24.7% of
the state's population, made up the remaining 25.5% or 205 interviews.
Of the 806 people interviewed, 119 (15%) own waterfront property,
although only 72 people live on that property either year-round or
part of the year. Waterfront owners are spread evenly across the state.
Many of them are retired people, although they come from all occupational
classes.
Length of residence in the state was considered to be another
important factor that might influence how people responded to our
3
ND
WHATCOM OKANOGAN FERRY STEVENS PE
OREIIL
�LE
fl 23 •
- =_ SAN-_JU•N -_c - i. _
12 6 0 5 0
10/CLALLAM 1 �� SNOHOMiSH
CHELAN
62
10 BPOKANE
DOUGLAS
JEFFERSON 7 LINCOLN
•
3 ) SAKI -
NG
72
S
1
MASON r &i,
2 245
GRAYS HARBOR
6 I� KITTITAS GRANT
l 13 1; - -
L- I( 4- PIERCE ADAMS WHITMAN
' � 12 11
i y THURSTON 94 3 10
26 YAKIMA 17
",I
LEWIS FRANKLIN
GARFIELD
3 11 27 BENTON 8 WALLA I 0
WALLA I COLUMBIA
A
!� ,� 1 COWLITZ SKAMANIA 21 I ^ ASOTIN
WAHKI KA 14 8 0 4
1
KLICKITAT
GLARK .
3
37 STATE OF WASHINGTON
Figure 1 . .Number of interviews by county. Regions identified by heavy solid lines.
Table 1. Sample Characteristics Compared to State Population
Sample State
Characteristics Population
(% of 796) (% of 2,992,796)
Age Group
18-24 9.3 18.5
25-34 26.5 24.9
35-50 31.0
49.3 42.2
51-64 18.3
65 and over 14.9 15.3
Sex (%. of 797) (% of 2,992,796)
Males 36.9 49.7
Females. _ 63.1 50.3
(% of 804) (% of 4,132,156)
Educational Level
Less than High School 8.1 11.5
High School Graduate 29.4 37.3
Some college, bus. , voc. 32.2 21.3
College Graduate 18.1 19.0
Post-graduate 12.2 Not available
(% of 729) (96 of 1,086,000)
Family Income
Less than $10,000. 14.4 17.0
• $10-19,000 23.5 27.4
$20-29,000 28.2 27.8
$30-49,000 20.4 21.8
Greater than $50,000 10.4 6.0
Median category: Median income: $21,696
$20-29,000
5
TABLE 2. PROFILE OF SAMPLE; WASHINGTON RESIDENTS 18 YEARS AND OLDER
YEARS OR RESIDENCY 1 AGE GROUP OCCUPATION EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
I I I
0-10 21-30 11-20 31-40 41-50 )50 118- 25- 35- 51- +65 1 Mgr Prof Tech, 81 Col Svc Fish Hekr Studt Ret 10.S. H.S. Some post- Coll Post
24 34 50 64 Sales Agr second grad grad
X of 161 157 128 167 77 116 73 210 244 145 124 1 39 112 162 7B 50 22 170 22 117 164 . 236 256 144 96
REGION 1 ;
X of 806 1 1
I I
King County 30 1 33 32 31 34 30 19 1 38 30 32 30 21 1 31 40 40 18 26 4 25 27 26 1 22 21 27 47 40
Other Puget Sound 33 1 36 28 34 30 34 34 1 32 35 31 38 2B 1 26 32 26 42 40 23 3B 36 34 1 31 36 37 26 27
Counties 1 1 I 1
Southwest, Ocean 12 1 6 10 13 14 12 17 1 4 8 14 14 15 1 15 B B 5 14 9 21 4 11 16 15 11 8 7
Counties 1 1 1 1
Eastern Washington 25 25 30 21 23 25 29 1 26 27 22 18 36 1 31 20 26 35 20 64 16 32 29 31 28 26 19 26
SEX I INCOME CATEGORY REGION . 1 OCCUPATION
' (thousands)
1 MEN WOMEN 1 <10 10- 20- 30- 50+ King Puget -SW, Eastl Mgr Prof Tech, B1 Col Svc Fish Hmkr Studt Ret
1 1 19 29 49 Co Sound Ocean 1 Sales Agr
294 503 1 109 . 177 211 154 78 245 262 93 205 1 39 112 162 78 50 22 170 22' 117
REGION 1 1 OWN WATERFRONT PROPERTY
X of 806 1 1 X of805 1
King County 30 1 31 29 1 22 24 30 36 41 No 85 86 B4 85 87 1 92 87 83 92 90 77 92 91 76
Other Puget Sound 33 1 36 31 1 32 33 36 32 26 Yes 15 14 16 15 13 -I 7 13 17 8 10 23 8 10 24
Counties 1 I (X of 15X)
Southwest, Ocean 12 9 13 1 15 14 11 10 9 but do not reside there ( 7) 10 5 5 5 1
Counties 1 1 and reside there full time ( 6) 4 10 5 4 I
Eastern Washington 25 24 27 1 31 30 24 22 24 and reside there part tine ( 3) 3 1 4 4 1
•
questions. Survey participants were grouped by ten-year time periods.
, All of the ten-year groups are fairly equal, except for those living,
in Washington from 41 to 50 years which accounted for only 9.5% of the
total sample. (These data are not available for the true population. )
We asked the age of each person interviewed. 10% of our sample is
between the ages of 18 and 24; 26% between 25 and 34; 30% between 35 and
• 50; 18% between 51 and 64; and 15% over the age of 65. In comparison
, with the state's population, this survey slightly undersampled the youngest
. age group, while middle age groups were somewhat oversampled (see Table 1) .
Only 8% of our sample had not finished high school. 29% had
graduated from high school; another 32% had at least some college,
business, or vocational education; and 30% had finished college or had
' some post-graduate education. Our sample slightly underrepresents the
lower educational levels and overrepresents the higher educational levels
(see Table 1 and Table 2) .
People were also asked to give their occupation. The largest groups
interviewed included homemakers (22%) , white-collar workers (21%) , retired
people (15%) , professionals (14%) , and blue-collar workers (10%) . Comparison
with the state's population is difficult because of the way state occupational
groupings are reported. State officials report that there were 15.3%
retired people in the state in 1982.
Income levels reported by Washington residents interviewed in this
• survey show that 13.5% of the sample earned less than $10,000 per year
(in 1982 before taxes) ; 22% earned $10-19,000; 26% earned $20-29,000;
'19% earned $30-49,000; and .10% reported earning..over $50,000 per year.
Less than 7% of the people being interviewed declined to answer this
,question. Compared with' the true state population, our sample underrepresented
•
III
•
I1;li
•
FIGURE 2
GRAPHIC DISPLAY OF SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
•
AGE GROUP YEARS OF RESIDENCY
1G-24 (97.) ******4 0-10 (207.) 4444444444444444
25-34 ;(Ii26%) 4444*444444444**4+444 11-20 (167.) 4444444444444
35-50 ['i31%) 44444444441444444444.4444 21-30 (20%) **444444*44444*4 •
.11
51-64 : 18%) 44444444444444 31-40 (21%) 44444441*4**44*4*
65, over 05%) 444414444444 41-50 (10%) 4444****
I
over 50 (147.) 444444444444
.111
11'
I III
I!INCOME CATEGORY EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
Under $10,000 i1(14%) ************** Below High School (B,%) *4444*
,IV
l
$10 19,000 11(22%) *4144444#*444444444444 High School (30%) r ***44*44*44*441444444444
$20-29,000 ;',(26%) *44444444**4*44444444*4*44 Some college/business/ *** ****f********44******
vocational school (32%)
li
$30-49,000 F1(19%) 444444444444444444f
111
' College graduate (16%) *4444444444444
$50,000 or sore:(10%) *4444*4444
loi Post-graduate (12%) **44444444
no response !19%)
III
ill OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS
Exec., Mgr. (5%)''11 444* Blue Collar (10%) 44444444
Pro$ess'l (14%) n'1 ***44444444 Homemaker (21%) 4444441444444444f
jd
Supp't/Tech/Sales�li(20%) **4444*4444***4* Student (3%) *4
iI
Service (6%) 4444* Retired (14%) ***444*4*4**
Fish, Agric. (3%j 4* Other (4%) *44
III
,
I'll 8
!,I
I
the lower income levels and overrepresented the higher income levels
' (Table 1. )
Men made up 36.9% of our sample and women 63.1% (Table 1) . The
actual ratio of men to women 18 years old and older in the state
population is 49.7:50.3, a marked difference from the sample ratio of
37:63. This is a phenomenon of telephone interviewing. Women tend to
answer the telephone more frequently than men. Extensive checks were
made as the analysis began to determine whether this misrepresentation
of the sexes would affect the results. Of all the demographic charac-
teristics, sex had the least impact on public perception of state
shorelines. In the few instances sex differences appeared, they are
shown in the tables with the sample weighted to provide true proportions
of men and women.
The sample size was selected to obtain a sufficient number of
responses, proportionately from all counties in the state, to produce
reliable estimates of the opinions of all Washington residents. The
degree of reliability or certainty that the sample represents the true
population is 95%. We are confident that the results would not be any
different for a sample of similar size and with similar characteristics
more often than five times in 100. The sampling error for this size
sample and the level of confidence is 4%; that is, the percentages
reported in the findings may be four percentage points in either direction.
Where responses are taken from smaller segments of the sample, conclusions
may he less precise.
9
III . FINDINGS
All of the questions asked in this survey were designed to shed
lightIon Washington residents' beliefs, behavior, knowledge, and
attitudes regarding these seven objectives:
lu
HA. Level of public use of shorelines
Ir
'IA. Appropriate uses of the shoreline
; C. Public knowledge of the Shoreline Management Act
,''AID. Successes and failures of the Shoreline Management Act
'I
'IIF. Level of government appropriate for managing shorelines
F. Priority attached to funding of shoreline management
G. Expectations for future management of shorelines
II
; The findings of the survey follow, presenting each objective
separiately.
�II
•
li
1
I..
„II
ill
ill
Iiu 10
�11 •
I�I
ii'
A. LEVEL OF PUBLIC USE OF THE SHORELINE
One of the first areas we wished to explore was the level of use
by individuals of Washington's shoreline resources. How often do
Washington residents actually visit a shoreline, where do they go,
,afiat do they do when they get there?
Given the 20,634 miles of salt and freshwater shorelines in Washington
State, it was not surprising that 85% of our sample visit a shore at least
several times a year and 36% go at least monthly or more. Of the 6%
who never visit the shore, 75% are over 50 years old. Younger people
Were more likely than 'older people to visit the shore as often as once
a month, but retired people were also frequent users of the shorelines
(see Figure 3 and Table 3) .
When asked What type of shoreline they most frequently visit,
respondents chose lakes and Puget Sound as the most population destinations
(lakes, 29%; Puget Sound, 26%) with rivers or streams being the
destination of 16% of our sample and the ocean, 11%.
Residents of Eastern Washington most frequently visit lakes and
rivers, while Puget Sound and King County residents most frequently
visit Puget Sound. The southwest and ocean counties' most frequent
destination is, not surprisingly, the ocean.
There are also differences in destinations shown by different age
groups. People under 35 were more likely to visit lakes while those in the
5•.1-64 age range were more likely to visit the ocean. Puget Sound was
visited equally by all age groups.
In addition to the frequency of visits and the type of shoreline
visited, we wished to know what people did when they went to the shore.
11
•
---- _-Western - - — - - — -- -
-
1352 --- ---- -
LAKES
2290 Eastern
948
Western
RIVERS AND 9928
STREAMS Eastern
15,913 5985
Western 00000000 ee 000e000 0000000
MARINE 2421
2421 Eastern
-0-
Western
T-OTAL 13,701
SHORELINES Eastern
20,634 6933
•
Figure 3. Miles of Shoreline in Washington State, by Type of Waterbody and Region
(Department of Ecology, 1982) .
•
TABLE 3. FREQUENCY OF SHORELINE VISITS
"Do you go to lakes, rivers, or other shoreline areas in Washington once a year, several times a
a year, once a month or more, almost daily, or not at all?"
REGION AGE GROUP OCCUPATION
(King Puget SW, East :18- 25- 35- 51- +65 :lit Col 81 Col Svc Hmkr Ret
Co Sound Ocean 24 34 50 64
X of 245 263 93 205 73 210 244 145 1241 314 100 50 170 245
VISIT FREQ'CY
% of 806.1
Daily 11 1 10 14 14 7 1 10 14 10 8 12 10 13 14 10 13
Monthly 25 1 34 25 20 18 1 37 29 29 19 11 1 30 31 24 18 17
Sevrl!Yr 48 1 47 45 50 52 1 47 51 49 54 36 1 49 41 52 55 40
Yearly 10 : 5 11 6 14 1 6 5 8 10 20 1 8 10 10 9 16
Never 6 1 3 • 5 9 9 1 1 .5 4 8 20 1 3 5 - 8 14
•
TABLE 4. FREQUENT ACTIVITIES ON SHORELINES
"From the following list of things people often do at the shore, would you tell me which of them
you do frequently when you go to the shore?
, 1 AGE GROUP •
118- 25- 35- 51- +65
24 34 50 64
% of 73 210 244 145 124
ACTIVITIES
% of 796
Fish 48 52 50 51 49 35
Boat 42 1 51 47 45 38 27
D10 clams 30 18 24 33 40 27
Swim 46 59 65 52 28 17
Camp 44 44 54 48 45 18
Observe Nature 72 77 79 72 73 57
13
i,
•
The questionnaire offered choices of seven activities as well as an open
choice) in which people specified an activity not previously mentioned.
Not suTprisingly, recreational activities were the predominant use of
the shoreline. Only 6% of those who went to the shore went there for
work-related activities. Almost three-quarters of those going to the
shore (72%) said they "observed nature" frequently. This was by far
the most common activity at the beach. Other activities, such as boating,
fishing, swimming and camping were frequently engaged in by 40-50% of
our sample. Examples of other popular activities were walking and
hiking, water sports, picnicking, and hobbies (Table 4) .
As much as the activities that attract people to the beach,
there are qualities about the shoreline that make it a desirable place
to visit. Our sample was asked what those qualities are, and each person
was allowed two responses. 242 of the 1063 responses given had to do
with the natural character and scenic beauty of Washington's beaches.
205 were connected with the peacefulness and serenity of the shore, 135
had to do with the activities available, 135 with the general atmosphere
of the beach, and 129 with the interaction with the natural world
(see Appendix D for detailed responses) .
•
;There were also things that detracted from Washingtonians' visits
to the shore. When asked what those were (again, allowing two responses
per person) , litter was the most frequently mentioned problem, drawing
352 responses out of a total of 941 responses. Crowds detracted from
124 people's visits to the beach, but an almost equal number said nothing
detracted from their visits. Less frequently mentioned problems included
poor water quality, abuse of the site (including driving on the beach) ,
excessive noise, and overdevelopment of the shoreline.
14
All of the above discussion concerns actual physical use of the
shoreline area. But Washingtonians also "use" their shoreline for visual
enjoyment. When asked how frequently they see a shoreline, fully half
said they see a shoreline on a daily basis. Another 20% see a shoreline
at least weekly. Only 1 in 10 of this state's residents see a shoreline
as little as once or twice a year. (Table 5) .
Not only do Washington's citizens see shorelines frequently, but it
is important for them to be able to do so. The "shoreline is not a
resource taken lightly. 59% of Washington state residents feel that
having a view of the water is very important, while another 30% said
it was somewhat important. Only 11% said having a view of the water
was not important to them. The importance of visual access to the
water was evident across the state and was independent of geographical
area (Table 6) .
From the preceding discussion, it is apparent that Washingtonians
are aware of and use their shoreline resources heavily, not only for
recreational purposes, but for aesthetic enjoyment as well.
The next section focuses on what types of uses Washington residents
feel are most appropriate for the shoreline and how they feel about
previous development of the shore.
15
P i
•
•
III
•
TABLE 5. FREQUENCY OF SEEING SHORELINES
"Some people seldom visit a shoreline for recreation or work, but look at it often. How
often do yo'u see a shoreline?"
'
VISUAL FREQUENCY
(count) i;: of 801)
' Daily 415 52
Weekly 155 19
Monthly 134 17
IOnce or twice yearly 84 10
Never 13 2
I�I
TABLE 6. IMPORTANCE OF SEEING SHORELINES
"Haw important is it to you to be able to have a view of the water?
IIII
REGION ) AGE GROUP OCCUPATION
•
h, )King Puget SW, East :18- 25- 35- 51- +65 ;Wt Col B1 Col Svc Hmkr Ret
I Co Sound Ocean 24 34 50 64
of 245 263 93 205 1 73 210 244 145 1241 314 100 50 170 245
VISUAL ACCESSI
X of '789
Very imot 59 ! 61 62 54 55 53 59 61 54 64 62 57 52 57 60
Somewhat 30 30 28 . 34 31 1 40 32 27 35 18 29 31 38 . 30 25
impt y11
Not impt 111 1 9 11 12 14 ) 7 9 12 11 18 9 12 10 13 15
III
16
Ii
B. APPROPRIATE USES OF THE SHORELINE.
Although the respondents in our sample aren't very familiar with
the principle law in the state that governs uses of the shorelines
(see Section C. Public Knowledge of the Shoreline Management Act) , they
do have definite opinions as to what uses should have priority for those
• shorelines. Survey participants were asked to rank nine different types
of development as high, medium, or low priority based on whether they
should be located on the waterfront. (Table 7)
The highest priority was assigned by our sample to wildlife-natural
areas and public parks and facililities. 82% thought wildlife-natural
areas should be given high priority and 70% thought public parks should
be given high priority. Half the sample thought fish and shellfish
farming should have a high priority for locating on a Waterfront. At
the other end of the scale, commercial, industrial, and multifamily
housing uses received the largest "low or no priority at all" ratings,
with office buildings rated low or no priority by 92% of our sample,
apartments and condominiums by 80%, industrial facilities by 64%, and
shops and restaurants by 59%. Almost half of the sample considered
marinas to be only a medium priority for waterfront usage. Agricultural
activities received priority ratings evenly divided between high, medium,
and low priorities, perhaps indicating uncertainty over how dependent
farmers and ranchers are on waterfront location. These ratings mostly
spanned all age groups, regions of the state, occupations, and lengths
of residence in Washington, indicating wide citizen agreement on these
priorities (Table 8) .
•
17
TABLE 7. SHORELINE USES, WITH RELATIVE PRIORITY AND RANKING
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Priority
X of 805 X of B05 X of B05 X of 805
Wildlife, Natural Areas 82 Marinas 44 Office Buildings ' 50 Office Buildings 42
Public Parks, Facilities 70 Fish, Shellfish Farming 35 Apartments, Condominiums 47 Apartments, Condominiums 33
m
Fish, Shellfish Farming 49 Agricultural Activities 36 Shops and Restaurants 44 Industrial Facilities 23
Marinas 25 Shops and Restaurants 34 Industrial Facilities 41 Shops and Restaurants 15
Agricultural Activities 23 Public Parks, Facilities 25 Agricultural Activities 28 Agricultural Activities 9
Industrial Facilities 10 Industrial Facilities 24 Marinas 23 Marinas 5
Shops and Restaurants 6 Apartments, Condominiums 16 Fish, Shellfish Farming 9 Fish, Shellfish Farming 3
Apartments and Condominium 3 Wildlife, Natural Areas 14 Public Parks, Facilities 4 Public Parks, Facilities 1
Office Buildings 1 Office Buildings 6 Wildlife, Natural Areas 3 Wildlife, Natural Areas .2
TABLE 8 (al. PRIORITIES FOR USES ON SHORELINES
"The Shoreline Management Act was adopted primarily to control future uses of lake, river, and coastal shorelines,
but different people have different ideas on how the shoreline areas of our state should be used. ...Do the
following uses, in your opinion, have a high, medium or low priority, or no priority at all?"
REGION ; YEARS RESIDENCY ; AGE GROUP ; OCCUPATION
;King Puget SW, East;0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40:18- 25- 35- 51- 65+ ;Nt Cal 81 Col Svc Hmkr Ret
; Co Sound Ocean ; 24 34 50 64
Z of 245 262 93 205 ; 160 128 157 167 193 ; 73 210 •243 145 124; 314 100 50 170 117
• MARINAS
I. of 795; ; I
I I I I
I 1 I
High 25 ; 27 22 29 25 ; 16 28 23 30 28 ; 29 20 21 30 36 ; 19 35 28 24 29
Medium 45 ; 42 50 37 44 ; 48 43 45 43 45 ; 51 47 43 47 37 ; 47 40 42 49 44
Low 23 ; 24 24 25 30 ; 29 24 27 18 20 ; 14 28 29 20 15 ; 28 23 24 20 15
No prior. 5 ; 6 3 8 3 ; 6 5 2 8 5 ; 6 4 7 3 8 ; 5 1 6 6 7
INDUSTRY
Z of 795;
•
High • 10 ; 7 8 18 13 ; 7 6 11 13 12 ; 11 9 9 12 11 ; 9 18 16 7 10
Medium 24 ; 24 26 24 21 ; 17 20 22 28 28 ; 19 19 27 28 26 ; 15 30 20 29 32
Low 41 ; 46 41 33 37 ; 38 50 45 37 33 ; 44 50 39 39 30 ; 47 35 44 36 34
No pr'ty 23 ; 21 23 20 26 ; 22 23 22 19 23 ; 25 21 24 19 26 ; 25 15 20 24 19
•
1 I 1
WILDLIFE •
-
NAT. AREAS
Z of 806;
I I I I
High 82 ; 82 84 03 81 ; 88 90 B7 81 85 ; 93 91 80 77 74 ; 63 82 78 88 74
Medium 14 1 14 14 12 16 ; 11 10 10 14 27 ; 7 8 IA 19 17 ; 15 16 16 8 21
Low 2 ; 3 2 5 2 - 3 5 4 I 2 3 6 ; 2 2 4 2 3
No pr'ty .2 ; .4 - - .5 - - - - - 1 - - 2 1 -
I I 1
PARKS
of 605; ;
I I I
I I I
High 70 ; 70 70 74 68 ; 69 68 69 70 72 ; 62 71 70 75 68 ; 66 70 72 77 69
• Medium 25 ; 26 26 19 25 ; 27 29 28 24 19 ; 36 27 24 21 23 ; 28 27 26 18 24
I 3 I 2 2 5 I 2 I 3 .,
Low 4 1 3 5 4 I L 2 5 J I - L 7 3 _ 15 2 L
No pr't'v 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 - 2 1 - - 1 2
i I I
. 19
p 1
•
TABLE 8 (hi. PRIORITIES FOR USES ON SHORELINES
11
REGION ; YEARS RESIDENCY ; AGE GROUP OCCUPATION
I ;King Puget SW, East10-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 ;18- 25- 35- 51- 65+ 1Nt Cal 81 Col Svc Hwkr Ret
' Co Sound Ocean ; ; 24 34 50 64
of 245 262 93 205 ; 160 128 157 167 193 ; 73 210 243 145 124: 314 100 50 170 117
SHOPS, RESTAUR, 1 ; 1
X of 805;
High 6 , ; 6 5 6 8 1 5 5 6 8 7 1 8 4 5 7 12 5 8 6 6 B
Medium 34 1 32 37 40 32 ; 32 32 35 34 39 ; 30 33 31 42 36 26 41 32 37 43
Low 44' f 51 41 31 45 1 45 48 48 45 37 ; 48 54 46 40 29 54 41 44 41 29 .
None 15" 1 11 16 23 14 ; 18 15 11 13 6 ; 14 '9 18 12 22 13 10 18 15 9
OFFICE BLDGS
X of 8041
High l; ; - - 4 3 1 - 3 1 3 - ; 3 1 - 2 1 1 4 - - -
Medium 6 ; 6 8 4 4 1 8 5 3 6 8 ; 7 4 6 4 10 4 8 - 7 12
• Low 50 ; 53 49 42 52 ; 53 50 54 53 42 ; 45 63 49 49 36 52 55 57 46 41
None 42 ; 41 43 50 38 ; 39• 42 41 37 48 ; 45 31 42 46 49 42 33 43 44 44
APTS, CONDOS
X of 8041
High 3 ; 2 2 3 5 5 2 4 4 1 6 2 2 2 6 3 4 - 1 4
Medium 16 1 17 14 16 17 ; 15 17 17 16 16 ; 21 15 15 17 14 15 17 10 17 20
Low 47 53 47 45 42 1 48 48 49 52 40 ; 41 56 46 44 40 48 52 58 44 40
: 35 , 7 g 3 i 33 v 37 39 , 3 35
None JJ � LB JJ 36 a5 •15 .,1 31 LB J8 .,J L7 J4 JI J, a� 27 32 ��J 34
FISH FARMING ;
X OF 0051
High 49, 1 47 56 61 36 ; 40 45 48 59 51 137 49 48 57 52 148 55 56 49 50
Medium . 35; ; 41 32 25 38 1 44 36 36 32 28 ; 52 39 38 27 24 ; 37 29 26 35 33
Low 9,, 110 8 8 12 ; 9 12 10 7 10 1 7 9 11 10 9 ; 10 12 14 7 6
None ' 1 2 2 3 5 ; 4 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 4 12 2 2 3
AGRICULTURE !{ 1
7. of 8012; I
High 23 1 18 24 27 27 1 22 20 22 26 24 ; 27 26 21 20 26 1 17 44 26 25 23
Medium 36 1 36 27 30 38 1 39 36 42 39 24 1-36 41 39 36 23 ; 40 27 44 38 26
Low 26 1 35 27 28 23 1 30 27 26 26 32 : 32 25 31 30 27 1 34 21 22 23 30
None 91 9 10 12 8 ; 7 11 8 8 11 ; 4 7 10 12 11 17 7 6 12 12
•
'III
•
20
The above questions on use priorities were very specific questions
on future development of the waterfront. But the respondents were also
asked a series of general questions on their satisfaction with the amount
and location of development that has already occurred on the shorelines
of Washington.
Almost half of the sample (45%) thought that the amount of existing
development was about right, while a third (36%) thought that there was
too much development on the shore. Those people who have lived in
Washington less than 20 years were more likely to think there is too
much development on the shore than those who have been residents of
Washington for over 20 years (Table 9) .
Concerning the location of existing development, one-third (35%)
of the sample was mostly satisfied and one-third (33%) had neutral feelings.
One-fifth (20%) were dissatisfied with where waterfront development has
occurred. Owners of waterfront property were more likely to be satisfied
with waterfront development location than others (Table 9) .
The general satisfaction with the amount and location of existing
waterfront development shown by the sample is similar throughout all
regions of the state (Table 9) .
21
11
TABLE 9. SATISFACTION WITH DEVELOPMENT AMOUNT AND LOCATION
i
• III;
"Do you think the amount of development that has occurred on state shorelines is too little, about
right, or too much?'
f REGION YEARS OF RESIDENCY I OWN
li''. WTRFRONT
:King Puget SW, East 10-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Over Yes No •
Co Snd Ocean 50
X of 245 263 93 204 1 82 79 128 157 167 177 116 119 686 .
AMOUNT '
';li 1of 805
ill, ' ; 1
Too little 61 6 35 10 6: 4 4 6 6 9 12 4: 4 7
About right 46: 40 45 57 461 38 49 41 46 45 43 54: 62 43 .
Too muchl; 361 41 42 23 28: 44 31 43 36 32 30 34; 25 37
Don't knw 12: 13 7 11 201 15 17 10 12 14 16' 8f 9 13
111 i
"To what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the location of development that has already '
occurred on the shorelines?'
LOCATION, '
'1 7. of 805 : ,
Satisfied 35: 37 34 33 35: 23 38 33 35 36 36 42: 45 33
Dissatis''ied 20: 21 24 12 17: 24 16 20 21 20 1B 16: 15 20
Neutral II 33' 29 34 42 33: 37 37 34 33 33 31 28: 29 34
Don't know 121 14 7 13 16: 16 9 13 11 11 14 13: 10 13
II
• i'
l
i
II
I,
22
1
C. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
The third area we wished to explore was how much Washington citizens
' knew about the Shoreline Management Act.
Of all the people surveyed, almost one-third (29%) had never heard
of the Shoreline Management Act; close to half (44%) were only vaguely
familiar with it. The remaining group (26%) was either"somewhat or
very familiar with the law. This segment was asked to name some provision
of it; more than one-third (just one in ten of the total sample) bonnected
the law with restrictions on development; a few thought of provisions
such as permits or access. One in four, however, were unable to name
anything connected with the law or confused shoreline laws with other
water-related laws .
Waterfront owners are twice as likely to be very familiar with the
Shoreline Management Act as non-waterfront owners (see Table 10) .
All four regions of the state have similar proportions of people
•
claiming to be only vaguely familiar with the Act (42% - 47%) .
Citizens who are unaware of the existence of the Shoreline Management
Act are most likely to live in Eastern Washington, least likely to be
residents of King County. Conversely, of the four regions, King County
residents most often (33%) claim to be somewhat or very familiar with
the Act, while the eastern region has the fewest in that category.
Not surprisingly, the length of time a person has lived in Washington
affects his or her awareness of the law; the longer one has lived in the
state, the more likely one is familiar with the Act. About half of the
0-10 year residents said they had never heard of it; less than one in
; ten were very familiar with it. The 11-40 year residents were most likely
23
l 'I
• TABLE 10. FAMILIARITY WITH THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
"How familiar ith the Shoreline Management Act would you say you are?" .
REGION ; YEARS OF RESIDENCY OWN SEX
1 WTRFRONT
:King Puget SW, East ; 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 >40 Yes No 1 Men Women
, Co Snd Ocean
X of 245 262 93 205 : 160 128 157 166 191 : 119 677 f 485 503
FAMILIARITY
X of' 797
not aware 30 : 25 26 33 38 ; 53 31 30 20 17 12 33 21 34
vaguely familiar 44 42 47 45 44 ; 28 48 50 54 44 ; 50 44 ; 44 44
somewhat famili!ar 21 : 27 20 21 13 13 14 17 24 32 28 20 1 27 17
very familiar 5 6 6 1 4 6 6 3 2 7 11 4 8 3
"What part ofothe Act have you heard the mast about?' (question to those answering 'somewhat" or 'very", above)
number
in group T. of 203 X of 806
—
"' development restrictions 76 37 9
II
1 permits 13 6 2
access 6 3 4
I�I
'11 other 54 27 8
confused other regulations 18 09 2
don't know 36 18 4
group total 203 100 -26
not asked 603 74
sample total 806 -100
24
to say they were vaguely aware of the Act. The proportion who were
somewhat or very familiar increased only for those residents living in
the state 40 years or more.
Men showed greater familiarity with the Act than women. Six males
to every four females were somewhat familiar with the Act. Of those who
had never, heard of the Act, the proportions were six women for every four
men.
Only a small number (4%) of the sample had had direct experience
with the Shoreline Management Act through its permit process, the primary
tool for regulating new development on the shoreline. The survey cannot
make many generalizations about this sub-group because of its small size
relative to the state population. It is probable, however, that permit
applicants were more familiar with the Act than non-applicants -- the
sample indicated perhaps twice as familiar; their opinions on management
issues might be a suitable topic for separate study.
25
•
D. SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
Has the Act helped, in fact, to "prevent the inherent harm in an
•
uncoorlinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines"*, as
the Ac,t states in its policy statement? Through the survey we attempted
to learn whether the varied interests Washington citizens have for their
shorelnes have been met during the 11 years of shoreline management.
1
We asked for opinions about development and the permit process, about
access, and about what qualities attract or detract from people's
enjoyment of shore visits. Respondents were also asked directly for
an overall assessment of the decade-old Act, and how satisfied they were
generallly with shoreline laws.
section A previously described the high level of use of shoreline
II
resources by citizens for recreation, relaxation and interaction with
nature'li
: It also pointed out the importance to people of visual access
to shoreline areas. Many of the qualities which make the shorelines most
attractive for people to visit are those which the Shoreline Management Act
was designed to protect and preserve. The fact that many survey respondents
had nq! complaints about their shoreline visits may be a measure of some
success. The principle complaints about shoreline visits, litter and
. crowds1,i, while not a failure of the Act, are still of interest to the
Department of Ecology, which (with other local and state agencies)
administers laws related to water quality, litter control, and uses of •
parks and beaches.
II The Shoreline Management Act does include among its goals minimizing
any interference with the public's use of the water. When asked whether
li
1
*RCW 90.58.020
1 26
there is enough or not enough access to beaches, lakes, rivers and
streams, fully half, 51%, of the respondents said enough. Almost 4 in
10 (38%) said not enough, and the remainder didn't know.
There are only small differences on this question about the four
regions examined. Puget Sound residents, excluding King County, are
somewhat more likely to feel that access in insufficient. People in the
eastern part of the state are more likely to not know. Younger people are
much more likely than older people to feel there is enough access. Those
who say access is not sufficient are spread evenly across all age groups.
The state's senior citizens, many of whom visit shorelines infrequently,
are more likely to be unsure of access sufficience. How long a person
has lived in the state does not affect perception of inadequate access,
but the response of "enough access" is concentrated in the 6-10 and
41-50 year length of residence groups (Tablell).
Unrestricted construction on both private and public shorelines of
the state was the major reason the Shoreline Management Act was adopted.
How do state citizens feel about development on shorelines now? Our findings
show that close to half (45%) said the amount of development is "about right,"
but only nine percentage points fewer, 36%, said there is too much. Feelings
about the location of development are more neutral; one-third each 'were
mostly satisfied or neutral, and only one fifth were dissatisfied. Those
who were dissatisfied with development amount or location are likely to be
residents of Puget Sound counties (excluding King County) . Southwest and
ocean county residents said there was not enough development (Table 12) .
27
1.
Ifl TABLE 11. ADEQUACY OF SHORELINE ACCESS
I I
"Is there enoifigh or not enough public access to beaches, rivers, lakes and streams?"
III
1 AGE GROUP 1 REGION 1 YEARS OF RESIDENCY
1d •
le- 25- 35- 51- 65+1 King Puget SW, East 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 )50
1 24 34 50 64 1 Co Snd Ocean
Xi;of 73 210 244 145 1241 245 263 93 204 82 79 128 157 167 177 116
ADEQUACY
of ;I'7981
Enough 1 51: 64 57 49 48 401 51 45 60 521 52 63 48 54 46 40 531
Not enough 381 30 37 43 41 331 40 44 32 331 33 34 44 40 42 39 32
Don't know ;' 111 6 6 8 11 271 9 11 8 151 15 2 7 7 12 21 161
i'
it
TABLE 12. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINES
"Overall, during the past ten years do you believe Washington's lakes, rivers and coastal shorelines have
improved, ;gotten worse, or stayed about the same?"
.I1
1 AGE GROUP 1 REGION YEARS OF RESI➢ENCY I OWN
WTRFRONT
I 18- 25- 35- 51- 65+1 King Puget SW, East I0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Over I Yes No
24 34 50 64 1 Co Snd Ocean 1 50 1
X'io1 73 210 244 145 1241 245 263 93 204 1 82 79 128 157 167 177 116 1 119 686
,111
111
ASSESSMENT 1 1
X of 117981 1
The same 'I' 381 40 39 37 46 331 34 40 42 411 22 43 44 47 35 34 401 37 39
25I 22 26 26 28 20 10 19 20 30 35 281 33 24
Improved ,.I'' �.,� :.. 27 231 3125128 ..
C 1 a 2 � I 25 22
Worse �1221 1'= 20 26 18 261 24 29 16 1.,� �724 26 16 27 �b �0� ., ca
Don't know 141 18 14 22 10 18: 14 10 11 191 51 14 10 10 7 5 121 4 16 .
I il;
28
.Is
ti
11
'
With less than half the state's citizens expressing satisfaction
with the amount and location of development, some might feel that the
Act is failing. On the other hand, if even smaller numbers of people are
dissatisfied, and in fact roughly 60% are either satisfied or neutral
on both questions, the Act could be considered a success in controlling
shoreline development.
Gaining opinions of those persons who have had experience with the
shoreline management permit process provides another way to assess the
effectiveness of the Act. In 'our sample, 33 respondents had applied for
a shoreline permit (4% of the total sample). Fourteen of these applicants
said their experience with the process was satisfactory, and an almost
equal number said it was unsatisfactory. This size group is too small to
make generalizations about all permit applicants, and we suggest the
Department of Ecology look for other ways to study the successes and
' failures of this aspect of shoreline management,
The survey asked respondents whether, overall, Washington's
shorelines during the past ten years had improved, gotten worse, or
stayed about the same. A plurality (38%) answered "about the same".
The percentages saying "improved" (25%) and "worse" (22%) were almost equal
to each other. Principal factors seen contributing to shoreline improvement
were better water quality and generally cleaner or better maintained areas.
Improved facilities also received high marks. Other factors mentioned were
better access, the imposition of development restrictions, and a generally
higher level of citizen concern. (Table 12)
Topping the list of reasons given for shorelines being worse now than
'a decide ago was overdevelopment, followed by polluted water and overuse
29
I I �
I ,
or abuse. A few respondents thought that an increase in litter or decline
in maiitenance had made shorelines worse.
Goals of the Act are implemented through the shoreline law, its
regulations and the local master programs, but three-fourths of the
population, as described in Section C above, is not familiar with this
specific law. Instead, when connecting governmental control or management
of state shorelines with law, they think collectively of all the legal
,111
controls which apply to uses of lakes, rivers, streams and coastal areas,
whether instituted or enforced at the federal, state or local level.
The .su"rvey asked state residents .to what extent they were satisfied or
dissatisfied with these laws generally. The responses follow somewhat
the sane proportions as the responses on development, allowing for a
II
higher;lproportion who couldn't answer. 40% were mostly satisfied, 15%
were mostly dissatisfied, and 26% were neither one nor the other.
Approximately the same proportions responded about satisfaction with
enforcement of those same laws: 38% satisfied, 19% dissatisfied, 23%
neutral, and 20% didn't know.
The differences for both general questions showed up most clearly
in theiiPuget Sound region for both general questions (Table 13) .
Do these data indicate clearly whether the Shoreline Management Act
has been a success or failure? No. But Washington residents are clear
that shoreline resources are important to them, and why. The proportions •
who are not happy with shoreline uses are relatively small. The large
number of people who are unaware of the Act or its related laws may he
a target for shoreline managers who wish to strengthen the connection in
people's minds between the shorelines of this state and the laws governing '
these' shorelines.
30
TABLE 13. SATISFACTION WITH SHORELINE LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT
'To what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the present laws governing the
uses of Washington's shorelines?'
•
I AGE GROUP I REGION 1 YEARS OF RESIDENCY OWN
WTRFRONT
16- 25- 35- 51- 65+ King Puget SW, East I0-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 `50 Yes No
I 24 34 50 64 Co Snd Ocean 1
' X of 73 210 244 145 124 245 . 263 93 204 : 82 79 128 157 167 177 116 119 686
LAWS, GENERALLY I ;
X of 805I
Satisfied 40: 41 41 39 47 30: 38 40 47 371 42 43 38 40 35 40 431 40 39
Dissatisf'd 151 8 11 13 18 24: 17 15 17 111 6 10 13 13 15 22 22: 18 14
Neutral 26I 34 31 26 20 21I 25 32 16 251 32 5 30 27 28 22 17I 24 26
Don't know 20I 16 17 22 15 26: 20 13 19 271 21 22 20 20 22 14 181 18 20
I
'How satisfied or disssatisfied would you say you are with governmental enforcement of state shoreline laws?'
WITH ENFORCEMENT 1 I I
X of 804;
I I I I
Satisfied 361 36 35 38 49 30: 39 34 47 36: 29 35 30 42 41 38 421 29 40
Dissatisf'd 191 12 17 19 17 21; 20 25 14 13I 8 11 24 15 17 23 241 33 17
Neutral . 231 29 32 21 17 18! 19 25 23 25I 26 30 24 24 26 18 13: 20 23
Don't know 20I 23 16 22 17 25I 22 16 16 25I 27 23 21 19 16 21 211 18 21
I
31
E. LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATE FOR MANAGING SHORELINES
ren Washington citizens voted on the Shoreline Management Act
initiative 11 years ago, they were given the choice of vesting more power
over shorelines in the state government or in local government. The
voters, chose local governments. We were interested in finding out how
state residents felt now about that issue. Who should have responsibility
for managing Washington's shorelines?
State residents are evenly divided in terms of preference for
state or local government as managers of the shorelines. When asked
"Who should have the major role in managing the shorelines," 56% mentioned
state Or local governments alone or in combination, 24% preferred property
ownerslor a combination of owners with one or more levels of government,
and the remaining people mentioned the federal and state government levels
togetFi'gr (4%) or the federal level in some other combination (6%) .
If future actions or funding demands require a balance between state
and ideal governments other than what presently exists within the Shoreline
Management Act, state citizens say today that they prefer local government
in the; stronger role, though by only a slim margin. 50% expressed a
preference for local government; 44% prefer state government.
When the data on government management preferences are analyzed to
discov,ier whether any differences appear between subgroups of the state' s
population, we find significant differences based on educational level
between those preferring higher (i.e. , federal) levels of management versus ,
lower .!(i.e. , local) levels. (Table 14)
.1Those persons with less than a high school education more often
prefer major control of shoreline management in the hands of owners rather
than control residing with any government. Where respondents' education
32
•
TABLE 14. PREFERENCE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SHORELINES
"In addition to uses of our state's shorelines, a very important question is the responsibility government should
have in attempting to achieve (the Shoreline Management Act] goals. Who should have the major responsibility
for managing the shorelines, in your opinion?"
REGION EDUCATION ; FIRST PRIORITY
King Puget SW, East <H.S. H.S. Some post- college Post- Freedom Environ Neutral
Co Snd Ocean second. grad grad
of 245 263 93 204 ; 64 236 256 144 96 1 182 435 146
•
LEVEL OF GOVT
• of 786 1 ;
all govts 8 ; 9 7 11 7 : 3 7 8 10 12 ; 4 11 5
federal 6 1 5 9 3 3 2 6 5 5 6 3 B 3
federal + state 4 1 6 3 2 5 3 8 4 1 1 6 1
state 15 1 14 13 13 17 17 13 15 17 15 9 16 16
state + local 29 31 30 27 24 19 25 33 30 35 ; 20 32 33
local 14 10 13 17 17 ; 12 17 15 11 7 24 12 8
some govt + owners 13 1 18 12 9 10 12 14 12 10 18 18 10 16
owners alone 11 5 11 15 15 1 29 14 9 8 3 ; 20 5 18
TABLE 15. CHOICE BETWEEN STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
"At some time in the future, if government takes on greater responsibility for the shorelines, would you prefer
tp have state or local government take the stronger role?"
REGION ; EDUCATION FIRST PRIORITY
:King Puget SW, East <H.S. H.S. Some post- college Post- :Freedom Environ Neutral
• I Co Snd Ocean second. grad grad
% of 245 263 93 204 ; 64 236 256 144 96 182 435 146
LEAD ROLE?
of 744
State 47 48 41 47 41 : 57 44 43 52 52 1 31 53 50 '
Local, 53 ; 46 53 45 53 1 43 56 57 46 48 1 69 47 50
•
•
33
'lil
II
is at the high school level or higher, their preferences are less clear,
althou h as the educational level increases there is
9 generally greater
• approval of federal involvement or the state/local combination.
The reader should remember, in interpreting percentages based on
educational level, that our sample somewhat underrepresents the state's
true population at the lower end of the education scale and over-
represents the college-educated population. While the preference trend
remains valid, the figures in the tables for the true population would
shift :toward higher proportions preferring owner-controlled management.
Differences based on educational level disappear when the choice for
managing shorelines in the future is between only state and local
government levels. The differences reported among the least educated
.11
to the post-graduate level range between 43% and 57% compared with the
overall 47% for state government and 53% for local government (Table 15) .
(here are also differences apparent among regions when the population
has achoice of the full range of governments or property owners as
managers. When asked who should have major shoreline management
responsibility, Eastern Washington and the southwest and ocean county
residents picked owners alone (but not owners with government) or local
government in preference to higher levels. Eastern Washington respondents
i
had aljhigh proportion (41%) of the don't know answers.
The one-third of the state population living in Puget Sound counties
(excluding King County) represent very closely the overall statewide
proportions on this question, with the exception of stronger responses
- in this group favoring some federal involvement in shoreline management.
King County residents, another third of the state population, also
favor" federal involvement, but in combination specifically with the state,
34
I�I�
or government plus the owners of the property. They are the only regional
, group to show the government plus owners preference. An explanation is
that possibly the greater amount of pressure on shoreline resources in the
highly urban county has resulted in a feeling that balance among government
interest and owner interests can best meet their special management needs.
When asked to choose between state and local management, however, the
four regions were very similar.
Another subgroup in this survey divided state residents by their
attitudes regarding governmental interference with individual rights in
order to achieve public environmental goals. We found in this category
clear distinctions when respondents were asked to choose between state
and local governments to take the lead role in future management
responsibility. State residents who have a greater concern for protection
of individual freedom favor local government by two to one. Those whose
greater concern lies with environmental solutions at the expense of
individual freedom favor state government management, though by a smaller
margin. If there is no particular concern for either point of view, there
is also a neutral opinion on state versus local government (Table 16) .
Washington residents in 1983 seem to be in agreement with the
philosophy adopted in the 1971 Shoreline Management Act that state and
local governments should share responsibility for managing the shorelines.
35
•
TABLE 16. PROFILE OF WASHINGTON RESIDENTS' PRIORITY FOR PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM OR:
SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
11,
'Some people have suggested that protecting the public's interest in the environment may require sore governmental
activity. Other people feel this threatens individual freedoms. Which of the following statements best
fits your opinion? (1) I am sore concerned about protecting individual freedom even if that makes it difficult
to solve environ'aental problems. (2) I am more concerned about solving environmental problems even if
this makes it difficult to maintain as such individual freedom as we now have. (3) 1 have no greater
concern for one than the other.'
REGION AGE GROUP ( OCCUPATION
• King Puget SW, East:18- 25- 35- 51- +65 (Mgr Prof Tech, 81 Col Svc Fish Hmkr Studt Ret •
Co Sound Ocean 24 34 50 64 Sales Agr
u' X of 245 262 93 205 73 210 244 145 124: 39 112 162 ' 78 50 22 170 22 117
FIRST PRIORITY
X of 777)
1 1
) ) (
Greater concern for 23 17 24 29 30 17 18 23 33 31 ( 23 12 20 28 25 32 29 23 32
individual freedom
Greater concern fort 55 { 62 61 50 48 61 64 56 52 50 56 70 56 51 52 50 56 59 52
solving environ- �I '
mental problems hj
No greater concern; 19 21 15 21 22 22 18 21 15 19 ( 21 18 24 21 23 18 15 18 16
for one than other,
1 I 1
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL SEX INCOME CATEGORY
(thousands)
<H.S. H.S. Some post- Coll Post ( MEN WOMEN 1<10 10- 20- 30- 50+
second grad grad ) ( 19 29 49
X of 64 236 256 144 96 ( 294 503 ( 109 177 211 154 78
FIRST PRIORITY it
X of 771)
1 •
Greater concern far 23 36 27 24 19 17 25 23 35 23 17 19 38
individual freedom (
Greater concern for 55 ) 31 53 61 62 64 55 58 1 51 56 65 64 44
solving environ-,
mental problems ( '
; (
No greater concern 19 ( 33 20 15 20 19 20 19 1 15 •22 19 17 18
for one than other
36
F. FUNDING
In addition to opinions about the degree of management by government
and which level of government should accomplish it, the survey asked for
Washingtonians' views on funding shoreline management. Respondents were
given a choice among several alternative funding methods: "taking funds
away from other areas," "increasing existing taxes," "finding new sources
of revenue," or "some other means." They were then asked to be more
• specific about the method they chose. Widespread support emerged for
finding new sources of revenue, specifically imposing user fees on shoreline
uses. Six in ten state residents preferred new sources, while only one in
ten supported each of the other categories -- increasing existing taxes,
shifting funds within existing budgets, or something else. (Something
else meant, to a few respondents, specifically no more taxes or fees of
any kind.)
Of those who felt new sources are the best source of future revenue,
user fees were mentioned almost seven times as often as any other type of
new revenue. Lottery funds, an income tax, volunteer efforts, and new taxes
on polluters and boaters each received several votes.
Among those preferring existing tax increases, the sales and property
taxes led the choices of those who made suggestions, with tobacco and liquor
taxes and bond levies being mentioned less often.
For those who felt existing government funds could be shifted to
shoreline spending, "waste in government" was almost three times as popular
a target as defense/military, welfare, or the Department of Transportation
budgets.
These specific suggestions came, from small numbers of people, since
even where the respondent made a choice of financing methods, he or she could
37
often not offer a specific source. The total number of "don't know" responses,
329, almost matches the total combined suggestions given, 388. This reflects,
perhaps, the difficulty the average citizen has suggesting appropriate
funding solutions for public management issues.
Because the actual number tallied for many of these suggestions is
quite small, their proportions cannot be interpreted in this survey to
represent the views of all Washingtonians. The counts and their percentages
appear in Appendix D.
An examination of the responses in larger groups on the question of
a;preferred funding method shows small differences based on income and
education and no significant differences among the four regions (Table 17) .
Looking at the responses by income categories, support for increased
taxes and shifts from other areas increases as family income increases.
Greatest support for the predominant "new revenue sources" method came
from middle income groups. A preference for "something else" was slightly
stronger among lower income groups. Increased taxes was the choice for
a,relatively large group in the highest income category.
Similarly, among education levels, those at the upper levels offer
stronger support to tax increases and shifts within existing areas, while
the less well educated tend to prefer "something else". The largest
priority group, new revenue sources, was named almost evenly by people
from all educational levels.
Among the five age groups, new revenue sources are supported almost
equally by youngest and middle age groups, but less so by the over 65
group. Seniors also show a low preference for shifting government
funds; support for that method is greater among young people.
38
.
TABLE 17. PREFERENCES FOR FINANCING METHODS
'Whichever level of government has the greater responsibility, how should their efforts be financed?' ,
REGION ; AGE GROUP ; SATISFACTION WITH I FIRST PRIORITY INCOME ; EDUCATIONAL LEVEL
; ; SHORELINE LAWS 1 ': (thousands! ;
• ;King Puget SW,. East 118- 35- 51- 65, ; Mostly Neut Mostly ;Freedom Environ Neutral ; <10 10- 20- 30- 50, ; <H.S. H.S. Some post Coll. Post
Co Sound Ocean ; 34 50 64 ovr ; Satis Dissat ; . ; 19 29 49 over ; second. grad grad
X of 244 263 93 2051 283 244 144 124; 318 211 118 ; 184 441 151 ; 108 177 211 154 78; 64 235 256 144 96
FUNDING METHOD ; ;
- X of 805 ; ; ; '
' I ; I I. I
From other 11; 15 8 9 101 15 11 11 2; 11 - 11 10 ; 9 12 10 ; 9 9 13 11 13: 8 9. 11 15 13
areas ; '
I ; I
I
Incr. taxes 9 9 7 9 11: 7 11 9 9; 11 6 8 9 -10 5 8 6 7 14 15; 5 6 8 12 15
, I
New sources 59 ; 60 64 61 53; 62 62 60 481 63 61 57 ; 52 62 63 52 63 66 62 541 50 60 64 55 62
I , I I I ;
_ Some other 11 ; 7 12 12 14; 9 9 13 15: 8 13 15 ; 16 9 13 ; 14 11 10 8 6; 14 14 9 10 6
' I ' ' I I
Don't know 10 ; 9 9 10 12: 7 7 7 261 7 9 10 ; 14 7 9 ; 17 11 4 5 121 23 11 8 B 4
•
•
•
‘o
III
Two other areas where the survey looked for relationships between
attitu'ies and funding shoreline management were Washington residents'
genere_ satisfaction with shoreline laws, and their preference between
individual freedom and environmental problem-solving. Where people are
generally satisfied with existing shoieline laws, they also tend to
support new taxes or new revenue sources. If they are mostly dissatisfied •
with ohoreline laws, their preference for some other funding source is
relatively stronger. Where respondents say they prefer protecting
individual freedom even if environmental problem solving becomes more
difficult, their preferred funding source is something other than the
three choices offered. The group who expresses a greater concern for
solving environmental problems even at the expense of some individual
freedom supports all three methods. This seems to say that where solving
environmental problems is important to people, they are willing to pay
for th'e solutions.
•
ii
,111
40
IV. EXPECTATIONS FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT
We were interested not only in the impact the Shoreline Management
Act has had on Washington's shorelines since its passage 'll years ago,
but also in getting a sense of where shoreline management should be headed
during the 1980's. What are the shoreline issues that the state's citizens
feel still need attention? What shoreline resources are most important
to Washington residents? In this section we examine the direction which •
seems to emerge from our findings, as well as report some new findings.
Visual Access
One of the first issues covered in the survey was visual access,
that is, being able to see the water. . As more development occurs on
the shore, the possibility for blocked views increases. Almost 90%
of our sample said that being able to have a view of the water was
important to them. This widespread response for view access was given
for all geographic areas of the state, indicating support for future
efforts to protect views of the water. (We realize that some communities
have already addressed visual access concerns in their local shoreline '
master programs. )
Physical Access
Physical access was also addressed in the survey. Citizens were
• asked about the adequacy of public access to beaches, lakes, rivers,. and
streams. Half of the sample thought there were presently enough ways to
get to the waterfront, while slightly more than a third felt there was
not enough public access. Broken down by age groups, we find that all
ages mention "enough access" more than "not enough"; however, it is'
apparent that the younger age groups are more satisfied with the amount
41
ofaccess than older groups (Table 11) .
Golls
An important indicator for the future direction of management of
state shorelines is the importance people place on the goals of the
Shoreline Management Act. The four goals stated in the survey were:
1. To preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy the
shorelines of the state;
2. To minimize damage to the ecology of the shoreline
areas;
3. To give priority to new uses on the shoreline which ,
are dependent on having access to the water;
4. To encourage participation of the state's citizens
in shoreline programs and governmental performance. •
Respondents were asked two separate questions about the above goals.
The first question asked which of the first three goals was most important
to the respondent. The largest group, 43%, felt the goal of minimizing ,
damage to the ecology of the shoreline, was most important, while 31%
felt preserving the public's opportunity to enjoy the shore was the
most important goal. The third goal, giving priority to new uses which
afire water-dependent, was most important to only 6% of the sample.
Many of the remainder (17%) indicated all three goals or two of the three
gals were important to them. Differences among regions of the state
•
were small on this question. (Table 18)
People who chose the first or third goals as being most important
to them were also more likely to feel that there was not ehough development
on the shorelines. At first glance this seems inconsistent, however, a.
possible interpretation of this finding is that those who value the
public's opportunity to enjoy the shorelines most (a non-development
position) also felt there was not enough recreational development,
42
TABLE 18. IMPORTANCE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT GOALS
"Among the goals of the Shoreline Management Act are the following: to preserve the public's opportunity
to enjoy the shorelines of the state; to minimize damage to the ecology of the shoreline areas; and
to give priority to new uses on the shoreline which are dependent on having access to the water. Of these
three goals, could you pick the one which is most important to you?'
REGION AGE GROUP
•
:King Puget SW, East 18-24 25-34 35-50 51-64
Co Sound Ocean
• % of 243 255 90 202 73 207 242 143
MOST IMPORTANT GOAL
7. of 779
To preserve public opportunity 32 29 31 40 34 1 29 22 29 41
to enjoy shorelines
To minimize damage to ecology of 44 46 44 38 44 47 58 44 33
shorelines
Give priority to new uses on shore- 6 1 6 8 3 6 1 4 3 7 11
line dependent on water access
All or more than one are important 17 18 17 19 15 20 17 20 14
•
"Another goal of the Act is to encourage participation of the state's citizens in shoreline programs
and governmental performance. Is this goal very important to you, somewhat important, or not important?"
•
IMPORTANCE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1
of 790 :
Very important 45 : 46 48 35 43 1 42 42 46 49
Somewhat important 44 1 44 41 50 46 1 53 49 44 39
Not important 11 1 10 11 15 11 1 5 9 10 13
43
�II
while those who valued placing water-dependent uses on the shore most (a
pro-development position) thought there was not enough of other kinds of
development on the shore, such as commercial or industrial (Table 18) .
The implications for future management of the shorelines are that
those .activities which protect and enhance the ecology of the shore
areas are more likely to garner public support. While half the sample
thought there was enough public access to the shorelines, the goal of
preserving this access is important to a large proportion of state
residents.
The second question asked about goals of the Shoreline Management
Act concentrated on citizen participation in local programs and
governmental enforcement of the Act. Fully 86% of the sample said that
.9
goal was either very important or somewhat important to them. Given
such overwhelming support for citizen involvement, the Department of
Ecology might give thought to broadening opportunities for citizen
participation in shoreline planning activities.
Priority for Shoreline Uses
P, s discussed earlier, a series of questions was asked about the relative
priority different uses of the shoreline should have. Citizens were asked
to set priorities for the following uses on the shore: marinas, industrial
facilities, wildlife-natural areas, public parks and facilities, shops and
restaurants, office buildings, apartments and condominiums, fish and
shellfish farming, and agricultural activities. The highest priority was
assigned by our sample to wildlife-natural areas and public parks and
facilities. About half of our sample thought fish and shellfish farming
was a high priority use of the shoreline. At the other end of the scale,
44
low or no priority ratings were given to industrial facilities, shops
and restaurants, office buildings, and apartments and condominiums.
Marinas and agricultural activities were rated more evenly across the
priority ratings (Table 7 ) . It is apparent from these results that
' citizens of Washington wish to see more priority given to wildlife-
' park uses than commercial-industrial uses .on their shoreline. These findings
cut across all age groups, lengths of residence, and waterfront ownership
patterns.
Development on Shorelines
Despite the high priority given to the wildlife-park uses, almost
one-half of our sample thought that the amount of development that has
already occurred on state shorelines is about right, while one-third
thought that too much development has occurred on the shorelines. A
second question asked about the appropriateness of the location of that
development which has already occurred. Two-thirds of the sample were
either mostly satisfied or felt neutral about the location of existing
development. 20% were mostly, dissatisfied with the location of develop-
ment. The implications of these findings for future management are that
while there is general satisfaction with the development that has already
occurred under and before the Shoreline Management Act, future planning
for new development should take into account the high priorities for
wildlife and public recreational uses the public places on its shoreline
resources.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance
No matter what uses are being planned for shorelines, state residents
45
1
min 1 are willingto have certain shorelines managed more
overwhel g y
I;
strictly than others if they have particular value to the whole state.
This question was asked because the Shoreline Management Act describes
"shorelines of statewide significance" which are to be treated differently
than other shorelines. Enforcement of this section of the law has been ]
„Ir
difficult. Our survey shows that there is widespread public support for ;
the concept of managing more significant shorelines more stringently than
ii
other shorelines. The support is statewide, varying by only 10 percentage
points, from 80% support in Eastern Washington to 90% in King County.
Among age groups, support is absent only from those 65 and over, although
it
they were more likely to have no opinion at all than to be opposed
(Table 19) .
The questions discussed above focus on specific shoreline issues,
however, the survey also asked several general questions in order to
assess broader issues and philosophies. One such question asked people
IV
to choose which was more important to them: "protecting individual
freedom even if that makes it difficult to solve environmental problems"
or "solving environmental problems even if this makes it difficult to
maintain as much individual freedom as we now have." A neutral choice,
"having no greater 'concern for one than the other," was also offered.
Ov r half of our sample, 55%, were more concerned about solving environ-
mental problems even at the expense of individual freedom. Fewer than
half that amount, 23%, were more concerned about individual freedom.
The larger group, who are generally younger, more highly educated, and
in professional occupations, is spread across the state, although they
ar`e least likely to reside in Eastern. Washington. The smaller group
(concerned more with individual freedom) , consisting of older citizens,
at both ends of the income scale, and less well educated, live in all
r,egior,s of the state in relatively equal numbers (Table 16) .
46
•
TABLE 19, MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL SHORELINES
"Are you willing to have certain shorelines managed more stringently than others if they have particular
value to the whole state?'
REGION ; AGE GROUP
;King Puget SW, East 118-24 25-34 35-50 51-64 65,over
Co Sound Ocean
Z of 243 255 90 202 1 73 207 242 143 116
WILLINGNESS FOR MORE STRICT MANAGEMENT
of 806
Yes 86 ; 90 86 87 80 ; 89 89 91 86 74
No 8 ; 6 10 3 10 6 7 4 10 12
•
Don't know 6 4 5 10 10 ; 6 4 5 4 14
•
•
•
47
Overall Assessment of Shorelines
Another more general question asked for an overall assessment of
shorelines over the past ten. years. Had they improved, gotten worse, or
stayed about the same? 25% felt shorelines had improved, 22% felt they
ha;l„ gotten worse, but a plurality, 38%, felt they had stayed about the
same. People living in the Puget Sound counties (excluding King County)
were 12 times more likely to say the shorelines had gotten worse than
that they had improved. How long a person has lived in Washington was
not a significant factor in people's perception of the improvement in
shorelines. These findings indicate that the public, particularly those
people in the Puget Sound counties, sees the need for improvements in
the overall management of the shoreline. The findings also point out
that this topic, whether shorelines have improved or not, is an area
where more public education is needed, perhaps focusing on building an
awareness of the pressures on the shoreline resource, how problems of
this sort are solved, how citizens can make a difference.
,
I
48
SUD IGN3ddV
Appendix A
Methodology
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Design
To help design the survey questionnaire, we felt it would first be helpful
to discuss shoreline planning issues with a variety of groups from across
the state. A meeting was held with representatives of six groups
experienced in application of the Shoreline Management Act. These groups
represented environmental organizations, sportsmen's clubs, aquacultural
and agricultural interests, realtors and developers, and businessmen.
We held a half-day discussion and from that meeting developed a list
of topics to be covered in the questionnaire. In addition to these
topics, the Department of Ecology contract specified that the questionnaire
should consider these areas of interest:
--level of public use of shorelines resources
--appropriate uses of the shoreline
--the public's knowledge of the Shoreline Management Act
--successes and failures of the Shoreline Management Act
--level of government appropriate for managing shoreline
--priority attached to funding shoreline management
--expectations for future management of shorelines
• A pre-test was conducted to check the adequacy of the first draft of
the questionnaire. This pre-test consisted of 25 telephone surveys
conducted by the project directors and the League advisory group. The
pre-test indicated that some questions were not easily understood and that
the questionnaire was too long. A second draft of the questionnaire was
reviewed by Dr. Don A, Dillman of Washington State University, an expert
in the field of survey research. Dr. Dillman suggested several changes
A-1
ail
IY
to eliminate bias in the wording of the questions. The final questionnaire,
then, was the product of diverse groups, and was repeatedly refined to
elicit maximum information in a short time period ,(12-15 minutes) . A copy
of the questionnaire is in Appendix E.
Sample', Selection
1
In order to draw a statewide sample, telephone numbers were obtained from
all telephone exchanges in use. The diverse telephone exchanges were sampled
by proportion of county population in order to appropriately distribute
the sample. Four-digit, computer-generated random numbers were attached to
each 'prefix, giving a 7-digit telephone number. Because we expected that
some numbers would not he in service and some people would refuse to be
interviewed, 4000 numbers were generated, whibh was nearly five times
greater than the number of required interviews. Only residential
households were interviewed, so business and institutional phone numbers
could not be used.
Interviewer Training
This survey was a statewide League of Women Voters project and, as such,
local League units throughout the state participated by providing member
inteOiewers. We recruited 125 local League members as interviewers and
we required them to attend one of a series of training sessions held
during a two-week period in March and April 1983. During each training
session , we instructed the interviewers on proper administration of the
questionnaire, how to handle questions regarding the survey, and proper
coding of responses. We required each interviewer to complete a sample
questionnaire during the training session which we then checked to ensure
that each questionnaire was administered in a like manner and that answers
were being properly recorded.
'f
A-2
1'
Interviewing •
Interviews were conducted during the two-week period of April 11 through
April 24, 1983.
Prior to the beginning of interviewing, the local League units issued press
releases to their local media announcing the survey (see Appendix
• Interviewers conducted their interviews at different times of the day and
evening, as well as on "eekends in order to obtain a broad cross-section
• of citizens. A total of 806 interviews were obtained during this two-week
session.
Coding
After completing the interview, the interviewers forwarded the completed
questionnaires to the project directors for review of accuracy, verification,
and coding. The questionnaire consisted of both fixed response and open
response questions. The fixed response questions gave a series of choices
from which the respondent chose one or more answers. The open response
questions did not limit the respondent's range of responses. After
we received 100 questionnaires, we prepared a list of responses to the
open response questions and we grouped similar answers into categories.
These categories allowed us to code all the open response questions into
a form compatible with computer entry. See Appendix D for the contents
of the Code Book.
Data Entry
Coded data from the 806 questionnaires were keypunched onto a tape
suitable for computer entry. The data were double punched in order to
assure accuracy.
A-3
Data Plrocessing
Computer processing of the survey data was handled through facilities at
The Evergreen State College, using the Statistical Package for the Sobial
Sciences (SPSS) Program.
Control cards (variable names, value labels, etc.) had been previously
entered .and sample runs made on the pre-test data to check the file for
1
accuracy. Verification of the accuracy of keypunching and coding operations
was accomplished through a visual check of a data print, with corrections
made to provide clean data for processing.
An initial run on the data established frequencies -- a count of responses
given for each category of each question. Based on an examination of these
result's, the continuous variables for a respondent's age and length of
state 'residency were grouped into logical categories. Later, other
values were regrouped, or new variables created, to provide meaningful
comparisons. One such example was the formation of four regions from
the separate counties, with comparable population and similar shorelines
characteristics.
The first data runs also compared characteristics of the sample to known
characteristics of the state's population (see Appendix for these
results) .
Further analysis of the data continued through cross-tabulations to look
for differences in response patterns among different subgroups of the
sample'. Application of statistical tests such as chi square and gamma
aided in determining significance of the relationships revealed by the
crosstabulations.
A-4
Appendix B
Reliability and Validity of the Sample
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SAMPLE
The description which was presented of the sample population in
Chapter II refers to a degree of assurance that the findings represent
the true population of Washington residents 18 years old and older. We
stated that the survey sample of 800 interviews offers results that are
at least 95% reliable, with a sampling error of + 4%. There are additional
aspects of reliability and validity, however, which this section will
address.
Content Validity. Were the right questions included in the
questionnaire? By talking with people during the questionnaire planning
phase who are familiar with a broad range of shoreline management issues,
our aim was to accurately represent in the interview as many of those
issues as possible. By using the telephone method of interviewing,
the depth of response was not as great as it would have been had we used
face-to-face or mailed-in interviews. An attempt was made to introduce
more variety and depth to this telephone survey by including a large
number of open-response questions, ratheivthan limiting responses to the
researchers' choices.
Bias in Question Wording. Careful attention was given to the way
questions were worded in order to present each issue in as neutral a
• manner as possible, to avoid emotion-laden terms, and to provide consistency
in format.
Bias in Sampling Method. Although high response rates in telephone
sampling can be easily achieved, and random digit dialing reaches a higher
proportion of the population than telephone directory sampling, the fact
that telephones are not present in every Washington household, and do not
•
B-1
represent equal populations in each household that does have a phone,
inherently biases the sample. Underrepresented groups are those that
are low-income (less likely to own a phone) and young people (more mobile,
1
or sharing a phone with family or housemates) . Moreover, survey research
indicates that women are likely to be overrepresented because they
answer phones more often than men.
These known risks do not necessarily make telephone sampling less
valid; the bias is often well within sampling error when results are
compared with known characteristics of the population. We have made such
a comparison in Table 1 with the demographic characteristics, and pointed
out in the text, places where interpretations must be made judiciously
because of potential bias. The overrepresentation of women in this
sample, is acknowledged; comparisons of this bias on selected issues
appear in Table 20 which compares actual results with hypothetical,
weighted results. We do not believe this sample variability introduces
significant bias into the resulting data because of the high number of
questions where there were no significant differences of opinion between
males and females. In the few instances where significant differences
do appear (familiarity with the Shoreline Management Act, preference for
li
a level of government to manage shorelines, qualities detracting from
shoreI'visits) , the findings are weighted to match the true population.
,I�
lip
B-2
•
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF SAMPLE AND WEIGHTED PERCENTAGES FOR
SELECTE➢ ISSUES, BASED ON SEX
ISSUE PERCENTAGES COMPARED ACTUAL SAMPLE WEIGHTED
X Men X_Women X Men X Women
Frequency,of visits Visit almost daily • 41.4 58.6 53.8 46.2
* Visit once a year • 32.5 67.5 44.2 55.8
Qualities:that attract Recreation/activities available 36.4 61.6 49.3 50.7
Beauty and scenery 36.1 61.9 49.0 51.0
Calm, peacefulness 40.8 59.2 53.3 46.7
Importance of visual access Very or somewhat important 36.2 63.8 59.8 63.7
Familiarity with Shoreline Vaguely familiar 36.6 63.4 48.8 51.2
Management Act * Somewhat or very familiar 50.0 50.0 62.2 37.8
* Never heard of it 26.6 72.6 37.3 62.7
Most important goal Public opportunity to enjoy shorelines 36.2 62.2 49.0 51.0
Minimize ecological damage to shorelines 32.4 66.5 44.6 55.4
First priority between protecting Protect individual freedom, tho environmental 38.5 61.5 50.8 49.2
freedom or soving environ. problems problems more difficult to solve
Solve environmental problems even if it means 35.6 64.4 47.7 52.3
•
limiting individual freedom
Managing special shorelines Yes, manage more stringently 35.9 62.8 48.6 51.4
Choice for lead role in * Prefer state over local government' 42.2 56.4 55.2 - 44.8
shoreline management * Prefer local over state government 31.7 67.5 43.7 56.3
Overall assessment I Shorelines have stayed same 41.4 58.6 54.4 45.6
Shorelines have improved 34.8 64.7 47.0 53.0
Financing method New revenue source 34.4 64.6 55.4 61.8
f differences between men and women are greater than amount which can be attributed to chance alone
B-3
Appendix C
Training Schedule and Press Release
SCHEDULE FOR TRAINING SESSIONS
League of Women Voters Shorelines Public Perception Survey
DATE CITY TIME MEETING LOCATION INTERVIEWERS
MARCH 28 Monday Vancouver 7 pm Jane Young's home Clark Co LWJ
401 Santa Fe Drive •
29 Tues Richland 12 noon Rita Mazur's home Benton-Franklin,
2332 Ferndale Walla Walla LWVs
29 Tues Pullman 7:30 pm Lenna Harding's home LWV Pullman
NE 1105 Myrtle
30 Wed Spokane 10 am Riverview Terrace LWV Spokane
30 Wed Chelan 6:30 pm Campbell's Resort Okanogan UAL
(dinner) LWV Wenatchee
31 Thurs Ellensburg 1:30 pm Public Library Kittitas Valley
3rd and Ruby Yakima Co.
meeting room
APRIL 4 Monday Bellevue 7:15 pm 1000 ONB Plaza Lk. Wash. East
10800 NE 8th
(Mr. Matsen's office)
5 Tues Everett 10 am Room 312 Snohomish Co.
Everett Comm Coll Bell-Whatcom Co
brown bag lunch Skagit Co. UAL
Camano Isl. UAL
Whidbey Isl. UAL
6 Wed Tacoma 12 noon 702 Broadway Tac-Pierce LS+V
(LWV office) Kitsap Co DV
brown bag lunch North Mason UAL
7 Thurs Olympia 9 am Public Library Thurston Co
E 8th & Franklin Grays Harbor
meeting room
11 Mon Seattle 9:30 am* 1402 18th Av Seattle LWV
(LWV office)
* This is a change from the previously discussed 10 am
Clallam Co and King County South leagues had not yet decided which session to
attend at this writing
C-1
i I
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF WASHIINGTON
HORELINES PUBLIC PERCEPTION SURVEY
i-directors: 28 March 1983
IEANNE L.KOENINGS
619 E For Further Information Contact:
ly)lympia, 98501
WA
206)786-8788
QANCY H.PEARSON I Nancy Pearson, (206)582-3543
;708 Bridgeport Way,W. 'll Jeanne Koenings, (206) 786-8788
Tacoma,WA 98467 League Coordinator: Gretchen Starke, 892-8617(H) (503)221-6073(W)
206)582.3543
Ivisors:
.EE CARPENTER •
;224 164th Ave.SE Press Release For Immediate Release
ssaquah,WA 98027
(ARA KONDO I
I601 Hilleraft PUBLIC OPINION SOUGHT ON SHORELINE ISSUES
fakima,WA 98901
3ETTY TABBUTT
1213 Cove Lane NW Public opinion concerning Washington's lake, river, and coastal
)lympia,WA 98502
shorelines is being sought by the League of Women Voters under
vi
contract to the state Department of Ecology. According to Gretchen
I Starke, Coordinator for the Clark County League of Women Voters,
"We will be telephoning people during the second and third weeks of
April as part of a statewide public opinion poll. The Department
of Ecology wants to know how people in Washington feel about our
shorelines, what issues concern them about shorelines."
The survey is part of an evaluation of the Shoreline Management
Act, passed eleven years ago as a result of a citizen initiative.
Local League units throughout the state are participating in the
survey and will be contacting citizens in the random sample survey.
Eight hundred (800) interviews will he conducted statewide to
determine how often people visit a shoreline, what they do there,
how satisfied they are with shoreline laws and governmental
enforcement of them, and how satisfied they are with the amount and
location of development on the shorelines.
Results of the survey will be released in mid-summer.
C-2
111 Monrloe Center • 1810 NW 65th Street ® Seattle, Washington 98117 ® (206) 789-8683
•
Appendix D
Frequencies and Percentages
of Responses
SHORELINES PUBLIC PERCEPTION SURVEY
Frequencies and Percentages
of Responses
1. I 'd like to begin by asking whether you go to lakes, rivers, or other
shoreline areas in Washington
Frequency Percentage
Once a year 77 9.6%
Several times a year 388 48.1
Once a month or more 204 25.3
Almost daily 89 11
Not at all 48 6
Don't know
2. Do you most often go to a
Lake • 232 28.8
River or stream 131 16.3
Puget Sound 208 25.8
The Ocean 86 10.7
Lakes and Rivers 22 2.7
Puget Sound and Ocean 6 .7
Puget Sound and Lakes 27 3.3
All equally or some other combo. 42 5.2
N/A (skipped) 44 5.5
3. I'm going to read a list of things people often do at the shore. Would
'you tell me whether you do them frequently when you go to the shore?
Work-related activities 45 5.6
Fish 384 47.6
Boat 337 41.8
Dig clams 238 29.5
Swim 370 45.9
Camp 352 43.7
Observe nature 583 72.3
Some other activity 289 39.9
Don't know
D-1
it
Besides the activities we do there, there are many qualities that attract
people to the shores of, Washington.
4. Wh'lit draws you to visit the shoreline? (Two answers coded. ) (open-ended)
1st choibe 2nd choice
Beauty, scenery 194 48
; Quiet, peacefulness, calm 142 63
Like the water 82 32
I:Nature 85 44
Recreation/activities available 99 36
Human attractions 22 10
.'Get away 45 26
,,The atmosphere there 74 61
Don't know 14
Not answered 49 482 (listed only
one choice or
no answer)
5. On the other hand, there may be some things that detract from your enjoyment
of the shoreline. From your o"n experience, what, if anything, bothers you the
most when you visit the shore? (open-ended)
Litter 299 53
;Crowds 107 17
Water quality 44 27
Abuse of site 52 39
Noise 25 15
Development 28 12
Something else 70 3.1
Nothing 100 22
Don't know 13 2
6. Some people seldom visit a shoreline for recreation or work, but look
at it cVten. How often do you see a shoreline?
Frequency Percentage
'Daily 415 51.5
'Weekly 155 19.2
Monthly 134 16.6
Once or twice a year 84 10.4
Never 13 1.6
Don't know
11
7. How important is it to you to be able to have a view of the water?
Very important 472 58.6
Somewhat important 240 29.8
Not important 91 11.3
Don't know
D-2
8. Do you feel there is enough or not enough public access to beaches,
lakes, rivers and streams?
Enough 408 50.6
Not enough 309 38.3
Don't knciw 88 10.9
9. In situations where there are problems with the use of the shoreline,
citizens often look to law or government to resolve them. This happened
in Washington 10 or 12 years ago. I'd like to know to what extent you are
satisfied or dissatisfied Aith the present laws governing the uses of
Washington's shorelines.
Mostly satisfied 318 39.5
Most dissatisfied 118 14.6
Neither one nor the other 211 26.2
Dont' know 158 19.2
10. Both state and local governments carry out these laws. How satisfied
or dissatisfied would you say you are with governmental enforcement of
state shoreline laws?
Mostly satisfied 302 37.5
Mostly dissatisfied 153 19.0
Neither one nor the other 185 23.0
Don't know 164 20.3
11. The principal law governing Washington shorelines was adopted by the
voters in 1972 following a citizen initiative. It is called the Shoreline
Management Act. Would you say that you have never heard of it, are vaguely
familiar with it, somewhat familiar with it, or are very familiar with it?
Never heard of it (skip to Q. 13) 237 29.4
Vaguely familiar with it (skip to Q. 13) 355 44.0
• Somewhat familiar 165 20.5
Very familiar 40 5.0
Don't know 9 1.1
12. What part of the Act have you heard the most about? (open - ended)
• Restrictions on development 76 9.4
Permits 13 1.6
Specific case mentioned 10 1.2
Access 6 .7
Something else 44 5.5
Confused with other laws 18 2.2
The next several questions are about this shoreline law, whether you are
familiar "ith it or not.
D-3
I
Among the goals of the Shoreline Management Act- are the following: to
preserve the public's opportunity to enjoy the shorelines of the state;
to miniiize damage to the ecology of the shoreline areas; and to give
priority to new uses on the shoreline which are dependent on having access
to the water.
13. Of, these three goals, could ydu pick the one which is most important
to you?'
Preserve public's opportunity to enjoy 254 31.5
Minimize damage to ecology 349 43.3 •
Priority to new water-dependent uses 49 6.1
All are important to me 137 17.0
None are important to me 7 .9
Don't know 9 1.1
i
14. Another goal of the Act is to encourage participation of the state's
citizens in shoreline programs and governmental performance. Is this goal
very important to you, somewhat important, or not important?
Very important 352 43.5
Somewhat important 346 42.9
Not important 89 11.0
Don't know 19 2.4
The Shoreline Management Act was adopted primarily tb control future uses
of lakei; river, and coastal shorelines, but different people have different
ideas on how the shoreline areas of our state should be used. I !m going
to readiiyou a list of possible uses of the shore, then ask "hether, in your
opinion) these uses have a high, medium, or low priority, or no priority at all.
Percentages only
High Medium Low No priority Don't Know
15. Marinas 25.2 44.5 23.3 5.3 1.5
16. Industrial facilities 10.2 23.8 40.8 22.7 2.2
17. WiIdlife-natural areas 82.4 14.3 2.5 0.2 0.6
18. Public parks and Facilities 69.7 24.9 3.6 0.9 0.7
19. Shops & restaurants 6.3 34.5 44.2 14.6 0.2
20. Office buildings 1.2 6.1 50.0 41.6 0.9 ,
21. Apartments & condominiums 2.9 15.9 47.3 33.0 0.7
22. Fish & shellfish farming 49.0 35.0 9.0 2.6 3.8
23. Agricultural activities, 23.1 35.7 28.3 9.2 3.2
such as grazing & growing
crops
D-4
24. Where shorelines are already developed, they are mostly used for
residences, businesses, industry, or recreation. I'd like to ask next if
you think the amount of development that has occurred on state shorelines is
Too little 51 6.3
About right 366 45.4
Too much 288 35.7
Don't know 100 12.4
25. Now I'd like to know to what extent you are satisfied or dissatisfied
with the location of development that has already occurred on the shorelines?
Are you
Mostly satisfied 282 35.0
Mostly dissatisfied 158 19.6
Neither one ndr the other 266 33.0
Don't know 99 12.4
New developments and activities on the shorelines may require a permit
under the Shoreline Management Att.
26. Have yuu ever applied for a shoreline permit?
Yes 33 4.1
No (skip to Q. 29) 771 95.7
Don't know
27. Would you consider your experience with the permit process
Satisfactory 14 1 .7
Unsatisfactory 13 1 .6
Neither one nor the other 4 .5
Don't know 1 .1
N/A (skipped) 774
28. In what way was your experience unsatisfactory?
See list on page E-11
D-5
i III
I!
In addiltion to uses of our state's shorelines, a very important question is
the responsibility government should have in attempting to achieve goals
like the ones we talked about earlier.
29. WhQ .should have the major responsibility for managing the shorelines in
your opinion?
1
Federal government 46 5.7%
State government 115 14.3
Local government 108 13.4
(State and local government 229 28.4
All three governments 66 8.2
State and federal governments 34 4.2
;Owners and the government 104 12.9
;Owners of the property 86 10.7
'Don't Know
30. Some people have suggested that protecting the public's interest in the
environment may require more government activity. Other people feel this
threatens individual freedoms. Which of the following statements best fits
your opinion?
.,1 am more concerned about protecting 185 23.0
;;individual freedom even if that makes
it difficult to solve environmental
''problems.
!,I am more concerned about solving 441 54.7
environmental problems even if this
iMakes it difficult to maintain as much
individual freedom as we now have.
I have no greater concern for one than 151 18.7
:the other.
;Don't kno" 28 3.5
31. Are you willing to have certain shorelines managed more stringely than
others if they have particular value to the whole state?
Yes 693 86.0
No 63 7.8
(Don't know 50 6.2
32. At; some time in the future, if government takes on greater responsibility
for the' shorelines, would y"u prefer to have state or local government take the
stronger role?
State government 351 43.5
Local government 397 49.3
(Don't know 51 6.3
D-6
33. Whichever level of government has the greater responsibility, ho0 should
their efforts be financed?
By taking funds away from other areas 88 10.9
(Skip to Q. 36) 70 8.7
By increasing existing taxes (Skip to Q. 35) 478 59.3
By finding new sources of revenue 79 9.8
Some other means
Status quo 10 1.2
Don't knob"' 80 9.9
34. Can you name a possible ne0 source?
N/A 327 41.0
User fee 164 20.3
• Lottery 26 3.1
Inbome tax 25 2.1
Boat tax 17 2.2
Volunteer effort 18 3.2
Tax polluters 3 .4
Something else 34 4.2
Don't kndw 192 23.8
35. Which tax would ydu prefer to see increased?
N/A 732 90.8
Sales 15 1 .9
Tobacco, liquor 7 .9
Property 16 2.0
Bonds 6 .7
Other 11 1 .4
Don't know 17 2.1
36. Do you have a particular area or activity in mind?
N/A 720 89.3
Waste in government 22 2.7
Defense/military 8 1 .0
Welfare 8 1 .0
Department of Transportation/ferries 5 .6
Other 3 .4
Don't know 40 5.0
37. We've asked you about a lot of different aspects of Washington's lakes,
• rivers and coastal shorelines. Now, overall, during the past ten years do
you believe these shorelines have
Improved 201 24.9
Gotten worse (Skip to Q. 39) 1.78 22.1
Stayed about the same (Skip to Q. 40) 309 38.3
Both better and worse 6 0.7
Don't know 110 13.6
D-7
Ili i
38. How have the shorelines improved?
N/A 616 76.4
Cleaner 47 5.,8
Water quality 20 2.5
More concern/awareness 10 1 .2
Development restri'tions 13 1 .6
Maintenance 20 2.5
Facilities 44 5.5
Access 19 2.4
Don't know 10 1 .2 •
39. How have the shorelines gotten worse?
N/A 623 77.3
Overdevelopment 52 6.5
Polluted water 39 4.8
Litter 22 2.7
Overuse, abuse 38 4.7
Maintenance poorer 10 1 .2
Something else 20 2.5
Finally,; I'd like to ask you a few questions about yourself that will help
with the statistibal analysis.
40. Do ;you own waterfront property?
ii
I,
Yes 119 14.8
No (Skip to Q. 42) 686 85.1
41. Do 'you live on that property?
N/A 681 84.5
Yes, year round 48 6.0
Yes, part of the year 24 3.0
No 53 6.6
42. How manyyyears have you been a resident of Washington State?
-5 82 10.2
6-10 79 9.8
1.1-20 128 15.9
91-30 157 19.5
31-40 166 20.6
41-50 77 9.6
Over 50 116 14.4
43. How old are you?
18-24 73 9.1
25-34 210 26.1
p-50 244 30.3 '
I51-64 145 18.0
r. 5 or older 124 15.4
'd
D-8
44. What is the last year of schooling you completed?
Less than high school 64 7.9
High school 236 29.3
Some college/business/vocational 257 31.8
College graduate 144 17.9
Post-graduate 96 11.9
Refused 8 1.0
45. What is your business or occupation?
Executive, managerial 39 4.9
Professional 112 14.1
White collar 163 20.7
Service 49 6.2
Fishery, Agriculture, Forestry 22 2.8
Blue Collar 78 9.9
Homemaker 170 21.6
Student 22 2.8
Retired 117 14.8
Unemployed, disabled 17 2.0
46. Which category best describes your approximate family income, before
taxes, for the last year?
Under $10,000 109 13.5
$10-19,000 177 22.0
$20-29,000 211 26.2
$30-49,000 154 19.1
$50,000 or over 78 9.7
Refused 50 6.2
Don't know 24 3.0
47. Record Respondent's sex:
Male 294 36.5
Female 503 62.4
No answer 9 1 .1
D-9
Appendix E
Coding Book
COMPUTER
CODE
SHORELINES PUBLIC PERCEPTION SURVEY
INTERVIEWER
LOCAL LEAGUE
DATE
Resp.
PHONE NUMBER CALLED 1-4
see
COUNTY CODE attached
CC
5-6
(INTERVIEWER: ALL CAPITAL LETTERS INDICATE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU AND ARE NOT
TO BE READ TO THE RESPONDENT.
YOU MAY VARY THE FOLLOWING INTRODUCTION SLIGHTLY, HOWEVER, YOU MUST DETERMINE
IF THE PHONE NUMBER CALLED IS A RESIDENCE SINCE WE ARE NOT INTERVIEWING
BUSINESSES? .AND IF THE RESPONDENT IS A RESIDENT OF WASHINGTON AND 18 YEARS
OLD OR OLDER. IF THE PERSON YOU ARE SPEAKING TO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF WASHINGTON
OR IS UNDER 18, ASK TO SPEAK TO 'SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS A RESIDENT OR WHO IS
18 OR OLDER.
WHEN YOU RECORD THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF. THE RESPONSE. )
Hello, this is of the League of Women Voters. We are
doing a public opinion survey of Washington residents to find out how people
feel about the state's shorelines which include lakes and rivers, as well as
saltwater areas. The questions I need to ask take about 10 minutes. Is this
a convenient time for my call? (IF NOT, ARRANGE A CALLBACK TIME. )
1. I 'd like to begin by asking whether you go to lakes, rivers, or other
shoreline areas in Washington
1. . . .Once a. year
2. . . .Several times.a year 7
3. . . .Once a month or more
4. . . .Almost daily
5. . . .Not at all (SKIP TO Q. 6)
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
2. Do you most often go to a
see
1. . . .Lake attached
2. . . .River or stream ?
3. . . .Puget Sound
4. . . .The Ocean
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
•
E-1
it
-2-
3. I 'm doing to read a list of things people often do at the shore.
Would, you tell me whether you do them frequently when you go to
the shore? (INT. : PAUSE FOR EACH ITEM. )
1. . . .Work-related activities
2. . . .Fish
3. . . .Boat
4. . . .Dig clams
5. . . .Swim ___
6. . . .Camp
7. . . .Observe nature •
8. . . .Some other activity (SPECIFY) see attacf-ed
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
li J
Besides the activities we do there, there are many qualities that
attract people to the shores of Washington. •
4. What, draws you to visit the shoreline? (INT. : PROBE IF RESPONDENT see
HAS DIFFICULT TIME.
EX. : Can you think of • 18-I'
any qualities at all?)
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
5. On the other hand, there may be some things that detract from your
enjoyment of the shoreline. From your own experience, what, if
anything, bothers you the most when you visit the shore? see
attar)
•
2(l__
8. . . .NOTHING
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
6. Some: people seldom visit a shoreline for recreation or work, hut
look! at it often. How often do you see a shoreline?
1. . . .Daily22
2. . . .Weekly
3. . . .Monthly
4. . . .Once or twice a year
5, . . .Never
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
7. How !important is it to you to be able to have a view of the water?
1. . . .Very important
2. . . .Somewhat important 23
3. . . .Not important
9. . . .DON' T KNOW
11
F-2
4
-3-
. 9. Do you feel there is enough or not enough public access to beaches,
lakes, rivers and streams?
1. . . .ENOUGH 24
2. . . .NOT ENOUGH
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
9. In situations where there are problems with the use of the shoreline,
citizens often look to law or government to resolve them. This
happened in Washington 10 or 12 years ago. I 'd like to know to what
extent you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the present laws
governing the uses of Washington's shorelines.
1. . . .Mostly satisfied 25
3. . . .Mostly dissatisfied
?. . . .Neither one nor the other
°. . . .DON'T KNOW
in. Roth state and local governments carry out these laws. How satisfied
or dissatisfied would you say you are with governmental enforcement of
state shoreline laws?
1. . . .Mn stly satisfied 26
•3. . . .'!nstly dissatisfied
2. . . .Neither one nor the other
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
11. The principal law governing Washington shorelines was adopted by the
voters in 1972 following a citizen initiative. It is called the
Shoreline Management Act. Would you say that you have never heard of
it, are vaguely familiar with it, somewhat familiar with it , or are .
very familiar with it?
1 . . . .NEVER HEARD OF IT
2. . . .VAGUELY FAMILIAR
. . ..... . ..SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR
4. . . .VERY FAMILIAR
KNOW
. . . .... . .DON' T
12. What part of the Act have you heard the most about?
( INT. : PROBE, SUCH AS "Can you think of anything at
all that you've heard ahout it?) f see
attached
29
°. . . .DON' T KNOW
The next several questions are about this shoreline law, whether You are
Familiar with it or not .
E-3
•
•
. -4-
Among the goals' of the Shoreline Management Act are the following: to
preserve the pubplic' s opportunity to enjoy the shorelines of the state;
to minimize dam'„ge to the ecology of the shoreline areas; and to give
priority to neW uses on the shoreline which are dependent on having
access to the water.
13. Of, these three goals, could you pick the one which is most important
to you? '
1. . . .To preserve public's opportunity to enjoy shorelines a}_2h1��, ,
2. . . .To minimize damage to the ecology of the shoreline .
. . . .To give priority to ne" uses on shoreline which are
' dependent on having access to the water
4. . . .ALL ARE IMPORTANT TO ME
5. . . .NONE ARE IMPORTANT TO ME
'19. . . .DON'T KNOW 1
14. Another goal of the Act is to encourage participation of the state's
citizens in shoreline programs and governmental performance. Is this
goal very'qmportant to you, somewhat important, or not important?
, 1. . . .VERY IMPORTANT - 30
2. . . .SOMENHAT IMPORTANT
. 3. . . .NOT IMPORTANT .
19. . . .DON'T KNOW
Tne shoreline anagement Act was adopted primarily to control future uses . .
of lake, river' and coastal shorelines, but different people have different
ideas on how the shoreline areas of our state should be used. I'm going
to read you a 'list of possible uses of the shore, then ask whether, in your
opinion, these uses have a high, medium, or low priority, or no priority i
at all. '
No priority
High Medium Low at all DK
15. Marinas I 1 2 3 4
16. Industrial facilities 1 2 3 4 9 -
,I
17. WildlifetI;natural areas I 2 3 4 9 ( '
18. Public parks and facilities 1 2 3 4 9 (.
19. Shops and restaurants 1 2 3 4 9 -
20. Office biildings 1 2 3 4 9
21. Apartments & condominiums 1 2 3 4 9
22. Fish & shellfish farming 1 2 3 4 9 -
23. Aoricultulral activities, such 1 2 3 4 9
as crazing & growing crops
1
F-4
-5-
24. Where shorelines are already developed, they are mostly used for
residences, businesses, industry, or recreation. I'd like to ask
next if you think the amount of development that has occurred on
state shorelines is
1. . . .Too little
40 2. . . .About right
3. . . .Too much
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
25. Now I'd like to know to what extent you are satisfied or dissatisfied
With the location of development that has already occurred on the
shorelines? Are you
1. . . .Mostly satisfied
3. . . .Mostly dissatisfied u1
2. . . .Neither one nor the other
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
New developments and activities on .the shorelines may require a permit
under the Shoreline Management Act.
26. Have you ever applied for a shoreline permit?
YES 42
2. . . . NO (SKIP TO Q. 29)
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
27. Would you consider your experience with
the permit process
•
1. . . .Satisfactory (SKIP TO Q. 29)
3. . . .Unsatisfactory -1y, -. -
2. . . .Neither one nor the other (SKIP TO 0.29)
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
• ) 28. In what way was your
experience unsatisfactory? see
attached
44
9. . . .DON' T KNOW
•
F-5
' C
ri
•
1'
-6-
In addition to uses of our state's shorelines, a very important question is
the responsibility government should have in attempting to achieve goals
like the ones we talked about earlier.
29. Who should have the major responsibility for managing the shorelines
in your opinion? • we
at .Ach,.• •
1. . . .Federal government 45
2. . . .State government
3. . . .Local government
4. . . .Combination of government levels (SPECIFY)
•
8. . . .Owners of the property
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
•
30. Some 0,Iople have suggested that protecting the public's interest in
the en ironment may require more government activity. Other people
feel this threatens individual freedoms. Which of the following
statements best fits your opinion?
• 1. . . .I am more concerned about protecting individual
freedom even if that makes it difficult to solve 46
environmental problems.
2. . . .I am more concerned about solving environmental .
problems even if this makes it difficult to maintain
as much individual freedom as we now have.
3. . . . I have no greater concern for one than the other.
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
31. Are you willing to have certain shorelines managed more stringently
than others if they have particular value to the whole state?
• 1. . . .YES 47
2. . . .NO
9. . . .DON' T KNOW
32. At some time in the future, if government takes on greater
responsibility for the shorelines, would you prefer to have state
or local government take the stronger role?
1. . . .STATE GOVERNMENT
2. . . .LOCAL GOVERNMENT 48 •
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
•
F-6 •
•
•
_7_
33. Whichever level of government has the greater responsibility, how should
their efforts he financed? ( INT. : READ RESPONSES 1 THROUGH 4. ) see
attached
1. . . .By taking funds away from other areas 49
or activities (SKIP TO Q. 361
2. . . .By increasing existing taxes (SKIP TO Q. 35)
— 3. . . .By finding new sources of revenue
4. . . .Some other means (SPECIFY)
(SKIP TO Q. 37)
9. . . .DON' T KNOW (SKIP TO Q. 37)
Ne
34. Can you name a possible new source ? see .,
attached
50
9 DON'T KNOW
35. Which tax would you prefer to see increased?
see
attached
9. . . .DON'T KNOW 51
136. Do you have a particular area br activity in mind?
see
attached
9. . . .DON' T KNOW 52
37. We' ve asked you about a lot of different aspects of Washington' s
lakes, rivers and coastal shorelines. Now, overall, during the past
ten years do you believe these shorelines have
see
T1. . . . Imoroved attached
2. . . .Gotten worse (SKIP TO O. 39) 53
3. . . .Stayed about the same (SKIP TO O. 40)
9. . . .DON' T KNOW
38. How have the shorelines improved? see
attached
(SKIP TO Q. 40) 54
9. . . .DON' T KNOW
)39. How have the shorelines gotten worse? see
attached
9. . . .DON' T KNOW 55
•
•
F-7 1
I V
I' g
_8_
I
Finally, I'd like to ask you a few questions about yourself that will
help with the statistical analysis.
40. Do you•down waterfront property?
i
' 1. . . .YES
2. . . .NO (SKIP TO Q. 42) 56
8. . . .REFUSED
9. . . .DON'T KNOW '
• 4I. Do you live on that property?
• 1. . . .YES, YEAR ROUND
2. . . .YES, PART OF THE YEAR 57
3. . . .NO
'I 9. . . .DON'T KNOW
•
42. How many years have you been a resident of. Washington State?
• I 58-59
8. . . .REFUSED
43. How of are you?
'I 8. . . .REFUSED 60-63
1
44. What is the last year of schooling you completed?
I,
'' 1. . . .Less than high school
2. . . .High school • 62
3. . . .Some college/business/vocational school
4. . . .College graduate
' 5. . . .Post-graduate
8. . . .REFUSED
45. What is your business or occupation? (INT. : PROBE FOR COMPLETE ANSWER. )
.sec:
attach,
7. . . .RETIRED (SPECIFY FORMER ' 63-64
• BUSINESS OR OCC. )
• 8. . . .REFUSED
46. Which 'category best describes your approximate family income,
beforeitaxes, for the last year?
1. . . .Under $10,000 • 65
2. . . .$10-19,000
3. . . .$20-29,000
4. . . ..$30-49,000
5. . . .$50,000 or over
8. . . .REFUSED •
9. . . .DON'T KNOW
I'd like to thank you very much for sharing your opinions today.
47. RECORD RESPONDENT'S SEX: (INT. : DO NOT READ THIS TO RESPONDENT. )
1. . . .MALE 2. . . .FEMALE
66
1 F-8
Coding Book
Q. 2 responses: Q. 3(8) responses:
1. . . .Lake 1. . . .Land sports
2. . . .River or stream 2. . . .Water sports
3. . . .Puget Sound 3. . . .Passive recreation
4. . . .Ocean 4. . . .Social activities
5. . . .Lakes and rivers 5. . . .Nature interaction
6. . . .Puget Sound and ocean 6. . . .Hobby
7. . . .Lakes and Puget Sound 7. . . .WaJking/hiking
8. . . .Some other combination or
1-4 equally
9. . . .Don't know
Q. 4 responses: Q. 5 responses:
1. . . .physical attributes, scenic beauty, 1. . . .litter
view 2. . . .crowds
2. . . .calming feelings 3. . . .water quality (oil spills, weeds,'
3. . . .water (waves, tides, running water) trash in water)
4. . . .nature, outdoors (beach, wildlife, 4. . . .driving on beach, abuse of site/
fish, clams, driftwood) vandalism/drinking/horses on beach
5. . . .recreation/activities available 5. . . .noise
,6. . . .visual enjoyment/human attractions 6. . . .commercialism, overdevelopment, signs
(watching peole, boats, picnics) 7. . . .other
7. . . .Get-away 8. . . .nothing
8. . . .Atmosphere 9. . . .don't knout
9. . . .Don't know
Q. 12 responses: Q. 13 response:
1. . . .access Add to 4. . . .All or more than one
2. . . .construction restrictions/
regulated uses
3. . . .permit process
4. . . .regulations not within SMA
5. . . .specific case mentioned
6. . . .other
Q. 28 responses: Q. 29 responses:
0. . . .Skipped 1. . . .federal or federal/anything else
1. . . .no response else except state
2. . . .response 2. . . .state
3. . . .local
4. . . .state/local
5. . . .all three governments
6. . . .federa/state
7. . . .owners and any government
8. . . .owners
9. . . .don't know
E-9
Q. 33 responses: Q. 34 responses:
4. . . .some other means (unspecified) 1. . ..user fee
5. . . .status quo, no more taxes 2. . . .income tax
3. . . .boat tax
4. . . .volunteer effort/fund drives
5. . . .lottery
6. . . .taxing polluters
7. . . .other
Q. 35 !responses: Q. 36 responses:
•
1. . . .sales tax 1. . . .waste in government
2. . . .ciigarette and liquor 2. . . .military/defense
3. . . .property tax 3. . ..welfare
4. . . .bonds 4. . ..DOT/ferries
5. . . .other 5. . ..other
Q. 37 responses: Q. 38 responses:
1. . . .improved 1. . . .cleaner
2. . . .gotten worse 2. . . .improved water quality
3. . . .stayed the same 3. . . .improved public awareness/concern
4. . . .both improved and gotten worse 4. . . .restrictions on development
9. . . .don't know 5. . ..improved maintenance
6. . . .more public parks, better facilities
7. . . .improved access
8. . . .other
Q. 39 responses:
1. . . .o,lverdevelopment
2. . . .dirty, polluted water
3. . . .hitter
. 4. . . .overuse (crowds/abuse)
5. . . .por maintenance
6. . . .other
9. . . .don't know
Q. 45 ('responses:
00. . . ,not answered
01. . jexecutive, administrative, and managerial
02. . . .professional specialties
03. . . .technical, sales, and administrative support (white collar)
04. . . ,service
05. . . .agricultural, forestry, marine, and fishing
06. . . .precision production, craft, and repair (blue collar)
07. . . Jioperators, fabricators, and laborers (blue collar)
08. . . Lrefused
09. . . lhomemaker
11. . . lstudent
20. . . 171retired, unspecified former occupation
21 through 27. . . .retired, occupation is coded in second column
28. . . I:unemployed, disabled
29. . .'l other
E-10
Specific Responses to
Selected. Questions
Specific Sites Mentioned:
Q. 12:
Cherry Point
Clallam County court case
DuPont-Weyerhaeuser Case
Lake Chelan as the origin of SMA
CBI case
Q. 38:
Lake Vancouver
Birch Bay
Twin Lakes (Snohomish County) •
Lake Union, Lake Washington, San Juans
Crow's Butte at Plymouth
Q. 39:
"State takeover at Ruby Beach destroyed it"
Quotes from Q. 28:
Permitting officials too lax, "I shouldn't have gotten the permit."
Apparent inconsistencies in the law, but we did get it (the permit" so
the experience was only somewhat unsatisfactory.
Lack of time to comply with objectives of the Act, at the county level.
Too much red tape/bureaucracy; no single source of information.
Permit was to dig clams, we could only use it once, didn't get any clams.
Too many bureaus.
Hassle of permitting process, but I understand need is legitimate.
Should be geared for individual situations.
Came down heavy. Unfair. Corps came around and objected to what we
were doing.
Too much red tape.
Felt shoreline didn't care about problem (sic) . .
Very difficult - succeeded eventually.
E-11
it
COUNTY CODES
i t
1 Asotin 41 Skagit
3 Garfield 43 Whatcom
5 Columbia 45 San Juan
7 Walla Walla 47 Island
11,
9 Franklin 49 Snohomish
1
11 Adams 51 Kitsap
13 Whitman 53 Clallam
1 J
15 Spokane 55 Jefferson
17 Pell+d Oreille 57 Grays Harbor
19 Stelllvens 59 Mason
21 Lincoln 61 King
23 Ferry 63 Pierce
25 Okanogan 65 Thurston
27 Douglas 67 Lewis
29 Cr nt 69 Skamania
I
31 Be ton 71 Clark
33 Kll��(ckitat 73 Cowlitz
35 Yakima 75 Wahkiakum
37 Kiltitas 77 Pacific '
39 Ch plan
I,
Region4: Region 2: Region 3: Region 4:
61 1 41 53 1 31
43 55 3 33 „
45 57 5 35
1, 47 67 7 37
49 69 9 39
51 71 11
59 73 13
H 63 75 15
1 65 77 17
19
21
23
25
27
. di 29
E-12
i
• i • ,
cal 6e
• CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS
•
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECTION •
ON PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING
25TH ANNUAL INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, 1960
•
•
•
BUREAU OF GOVERNMENTAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
•
in cooperation with
THE DIVISIONS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION
. • AND
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UNIVERSITY RELATONS
•
• Report No. 144 Odober 1960
•
`I
. i
•
C API TA.[_.
M I'D ROV T PROGRAMS
Proceedings of the Section
on Public Works and Planning
25th Annual Institute of Government, 1960
Theme:
PLANNING - KEY TO FISCAL CONTROL AND ECONOMY?
•
Published by
Bureau of Governmental Research and Services
University of Washington
Seattle
in cooperation with
The Divisions of Continuing Education
and
Public Services and University Relations
Distributed by
University of Washington Press
Seattle 5, Washington
Price - $1.00
Report No. 144 October, 1960
1960 Institute
. - _ _.•_-, --- ..__-_ __ _-.. . -...___---_,.. ._..- _- __._,_._ r .1, t p
Capital Improvement Policies and
P
Programming was the subject of dis
* = `„ '� " ,., ,-`:. �a1� . cussion at the Institute's Planning
:, g„.
': 4< 8 section, July 7. Speakers included 1.
> ''" ,e, , °, ,, ,r,4;� ," to r: Gordon Whitnall, consultant,
' �N:fi ,,, �',-,. i,� ,+:� 1 ,ti. �} 73 i Los Angeles; Mayor Gordon Clinton,
i-73', f' -. , 3 Seattle; Paul Benson, senior planner,
'� MF" . =" '''" " °� 4 1 " Tacoma; Charles Austin, HHFA, San
"'' 1 >, Francisco; Chester Waggener, city
s ` r '�, mi"d manager, Moses Lake; John Swan,
E".
E \, ' ' ,,:�° , „ planning engineer, State Department
A - '"" of Commerce and Economic Develop-
ment;1 g ment; and Harry Halatyn, Ebasco
, -," • ` -- ,' ' Services, San Francisco. City Manager
1. '• • ' "� � ;" '''ti: Dave Rowlands, Tacoma, not in this
--r `; .' F 'e pre-session photo, was a panelist.
w
Standing, 1. to r: Lloyd Kirry, plan- ,1?,,,';': '" '' , �"_; 9g5f ' �;,s � �,' �,. t
ningchief, Department of _ �'���� ` � ' � � �� � � � � �Commerce ' ' E
and Economic Development; Charles ' a 33334443413371 44:4 1. eft; , ; 4 **?'''.
Woodward, planning director, Port-
land; Robert Clark, planning con- 4 4` 'h<, 3 ), 1, '
sultant, Seattle; Dean Hunter, city s I ;�
manager, Mountlake Terrace; War- 1
ren Gonnason, assistant engineer, r m i
iF
' ' �
King County; George Hubbert, city i. .' 1\
manager, Sunnyside; H. E. Mcl\lorris, .41."-. ,. ". V ~, .S . ~33",
engineer, Seattle; G. E. Marshall, city •
/ r,,
supervisor-treasurer, Olympia. Seated: " # , ; �'� � , � .," ,.
Kenneth Cole, councilman, Bellevue; ' , °' V. u'` '
Richard Ford, assistant executive sec- z p r `� fr
retary, Association of County Commis- ''" '� ,
sioners; Mrs. Edgar Horwood, plan
ping consultant, Seattle; and John
r ,'. ,
Spaeth, planning director, Seattle. • ':. .�._.._ �_. . 4.m_ '�- " ,:° �:_"'" .t
_
� (
s
, ''4 fl.;,-‘0. '
14
, '*.,,,,, { �„` ` s/ Lr
(11,?
.,
).+1.`,7:.
i '? ". ,,}a! , :-� 4 ",` ,„ (�a t 1 , Standing, 1. to r: John F. Herman,
8� f „� .f t
., a i�� f 1 + F�a " ,4, j,` planning director, Bellevue; W. Phi]-
i;L', lip Strawn, Washington Research
' ' • 7, �'' Council; L. R. Durkee, Northwest di-
,
':` '' .i l� rector, HHFA, Seattle; Dr. George
1 " ` 1 >_ f, 'VI '"t • : .`" f Shipman, director, UW Institute of
I- s „.„- '� °' ' t ` '° Public Affairs. Seated: WileyCaren-
, , � ���� � �.:.. � Carp
en-
„ t„s,X, `: ter, city clerk, Longview; Felix Reis-
i1 ,,,,,1,,,,.. a ner, consultant, Seattle; Dr. Ernest
Bartley, Universityof Florida; Robert
i, ,, _. f y "'' f` /;r'; Baldwin, planning director, 1\lultno-
-. fi .,
c` _ is, n _.' j ��:,7.. ;It 1 ,, mah County, Portland; and Gordon
I. _'. _ " ": _ ." .;- :r.._.: ;: Whitnall, consultant, Los Angeles.
I v
I II
i I
i I
. J
, I i
II.
'1/1 � •►M 1 1
1\i\i
NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC BETTERMENTS
MODERATOR: JOHN SWAN, Planning Engineer
State Department of Commerce
and Economic Development
Olympia,
INTERROGATOR: CHESTER WAGGENER, City
Manager, Moses Lake
, The forenoon session included the
presentation of the following four
technical papers.
- 1 -
THE NEED FOR AN ORDERLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY
MAYOR GORDON S. CLINTON, SEATTLE
Our experience in administering a capital improvement policy has been quite
limited since Seattle embarked on its first six-year program only this year.
In the past, we did what I am sure many government agencies still do. We
drifted along from year to year and hoped we would have enough money to take
care of projects when the crises arise. It was a make-shift, patchwork plan-
ning of capital improvements. In many instances we found ourselves going
back to the voters almost every election with new bond propositions. Under
our current six-year capital plan we presented all of our needs to the voters
at the March election and do not anticipate that there will be any new G. 0.
bond issues on the ballot until after 1965.
Although this type of programming was new to Seattle, it was not unique. We
found that capital budgets had already been adopted by most of the large and
many of the smaller communities in the country which are faced, as we are,
with rapidly increasing costs and relatively limited incomes. Cincinnati
began its program as early as 1926, while most of the other cities started
during or after World War II. The 1953 Municipal Year Book indicates that
2/3 of all cities over 500,000 in population had capital improvement budgets.
1/3 of the middle-sized cities between 100,000 and 500,000 and 1/2 of the
cities with population between 50,000 and 100,000 had such budgets.
There are many reasons why an administrator should be interested in developing
a sound capital improvement policy:
1. It will assure both public officials and citizens that future
community improvements are planned on the basis of real need and
the taxpayer's ability to pay.
2. It provides protection to the community as a whole from any
special interest which may attempt to force a pet project on the
city at the expense of more essential improvements.
3. It provides a means for anticipating and scheduling major
expenditures so that the city can maintain a sound financial
standing and a balanced program of bonded indebtedness.
4. It schedules the timing of public improvements so that the city
can make the best and most economical use of available personnel
and equipment.
5. It makes possible a more stable level of annual expenditure
for public improvements.
6. It is a means by which public improvement provisions of a city's
comprehensive plan can be realized in a long-range program.
7. It establishes a basis on which the city can request federal
aid for urban renewal projects.
- 2'-
I think it should be emphasized that these benefits can be realized if a program
is carefully developed and executed. It must have central direction either from
a coordinating agency or committee. It must get constant attention, periodic
review, and be adhered to as closely as possible in authorizing capital expendi-
tures. It cannot be a program only on paper just to say you have a capital
improvement program.
A program should not be rigid or unchangeable, It should be a comprehensive
guide, subject to changing conditions and needs. In 1956, our city planning
commission conducted a survey of capital improvement procedures in other cities.
We followed this up with another study in 1959. Both surveys revealed that the
cities that have accomplished results have done so because their programs have
been carefully planned and executed.
We kept these factors in mind in formulating our program. As the over-all co-
ordinating group, I named a capital improvement committee composed of the
chairman of the finance and judiciary committees of the city council, the
chairman of the board of public works, and the city planning director. This
group was representative of agencies most concerned with capital improvements.
The committee had two primary objectives: (1) the preparation of an improvement
program encompassing the essential needs of the city for a six-year period;
and (2) the preparation of a feasible and practical plan for financing this
program within the limitations of our finances. In order to keep consistent
with changing requirements, the plan is subject to annual review and revision
by the committee. A revised program is presented to the city council for
adoption each year, dropping the current year and adding the subsequent sixth
year.
It took us over 6 months to formulate our first six-year plan. The committee
started work in January of 1959 by submitting capital improvement request forms
to all city departments, asking them to resubmit their needs for the period
from 1960 through 1965. When the completed forms were returned, they included
more than 100 major projects totalling many millions of dollars. It was quite
obvious that not all of these could be constructed within current finances.
All of the projects were then submitted to the city planning commission for
review to assure consistency with the city's comprehensive plan.
The committee reviewed the city's revenue picture and developed a financial
plan. Numerous conferences were held with department heads to review specific
projects. Also, meetings were held with the city council to discuss objectives
and review progress. Our last consideration was the establishment of individual
project priorities on the basis of over-all city needs. The final program,
including approximately $325 million in projects was presented to the city
council in June.
The results to date of our effort and work in capital improvement programming
have been most gratifying. At our municipal election this spring, the voters
approved over $31 million in G. 0. bonds for arterials and parks. These bonds
will make possible the complete financing of the program. I believe that this
orderly program was an important contribution to the success of the bond issues.
Seattle citizens could see that the city administration had a balanced, long-
range plan of action. Therefore, they were willing to accept it.
•
•
- 3 •
-
The need for planning has been with us as long as governments have built public
facilities. Today this need is greater than ever before. Government agencies
' of all sizes and at all levels are faced with a serious problem in trying to
stretch the tax dollar and provide for the replacement and expansion of street,
water, and sewer systems, school facilities, and fire stations, to name only a
few of the commirni.ty's capital plant requirements.
Much of this current problem can be traced to a number of factors which have
directly or indirectly influenced our economy as a whole. Shortages of capital
funds during the 1930's limited our ability to provide needed public facilities.
We fell behind while providing for only the most critical ones. World War II
stopped major expansion and construction altogether. We had the money but
lacked other ingredients such as manpower, equipment, and materials. Since
the War, our booming population and the resulting increase in services have
only compounded the problem.
We started the last decade with a backlog from the '30's and '40's but in
addition had to expand and update our capital plant to provide for a growing
population, industrial expansion and general community development. Government
economists see no signs that this is going to level off. They predict that the
need will continue for at least a decade or so.
If we had unlimited resources in the form of capital funds available, our
problem would be merely the question of allocating funds to plan projects. We
could afford to plan from year to year and know that the funds would be avail-
able. However, this is far from our situation today. Capital expenditures
have only been one of the increases in the cost of government. Personnel,
maintenance, and other operational expenditures are taking a substantial portion
of our revenue and tax dollar.
We have no other alternative than to do a better job in planning and budgeting
our capital expenditures. We cannot afford waste, duplication, or drifting.
Capital improvement planning provides the only businesslike way to provide for
a growing city's needs and to achieve an optimum use of available resources.
Business and industry have long recognized the need for orderly planning. They
have employed large research and analyst staffs to plan ahead for future develop-
ment. This is necessary to meet competition. We in government must endeavor to
do a more thorough job of internal planning within our jurisdictions. Munici-
palities, too, must meet competition. There is also a very real need for better
coordination among jurisdictions and agencies at all levels. Unless we can keep
one another better informed, we cannot meet our individual objectives. Much of
our capital improvement programming is interdependent. For example, our arterial
program is dependent upon state and/or federal aid. In most instances, we are
drawing from the same tax source, the property owner. A better exchange of
information among government jurisdictions would provide many of the benefits
found in an individual agency program. We could provide a better level of annual
expenditures for public improvements within a community, time the improvements
so that the area can make the best and most economical use of available personnel
and equipment, and schedule bond issues so that the taxpayer can anticipate a
more balanced tax statement.
- 4 -
More orderly capital improvement programming would also facilitate regional
planning of joint facilities. For example, our current capital improvement
plan calls for a number of joint school district-park department projects
including fieldhouses, playgrounds and other facilities. I am sure more of
this could be done after all agencies in a region have accepted the need for
the orderly programming of capital improvements. This would provide the
framework for joint planning.
- 5
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN—GUIDE TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS POLICY
DAVID D. ROWLANDS, CITY MANAGER, TACOMA
What is the Comprehensive Plan?1
City planning activity is concerned with the land-use pattern of the, future
community and with its public and semi-public facilities and services. A plan
showing the city's desirable future development, the appropriate uses of private
land, and the general location and extent of all necessary or desirable public
facilities, constitutes what is called the comprehensive city plan or master
plan. (It is usually in the form of maps with accompanying policy statements
and statements of development standards. It is often presented in report form
with a great deal of explanatory material.)
The comprehensive city plan must be first, a ba1thiccd and attractive general
design suited to present and probable future needs; second, it must be in scale
with the population and economic prospects of the community; third, it must be
in scale also with its financial resources, present and prospective; and fourth,
it must be in keeping with community sentiments.
' To satisfy these four criteria calls for scientific as well as artistic effort
to produce a city plan of attractive form, pleasing balance, and detail, attuned
to the economic and social activities of the community, economical to carry out,
not over-ambitious or niggardly either in point of scale or cost of execution.
The preparation of such a plan requires the collection, analysis and interpre-
tation of a large body of facts about the past and present, and careful
inquiries about the future.
The preparation of a comprehensive city plan is a fundamental requisite to the
planning process as engaged in by the planning agency. Continually refined and
revised from time to time, the plan serves to integrate numerous public and
private improvements built from time to time. Thus, an efficient, convenient
and attractive community is produced. The master plan is a picture in outline
form of the future community as it might develop if every building erected and
every project undertaken contributed to the improvement of the city.
Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan
How is the actual development of the city brought into conformity with the
proposals recorded in the comprehensive plan? The principal processes employed
in putting a comprehensive plan into effect now include four major activities:
(1) regulation and control of the development and use of private property; (2)
provision of public services, utilities and other physical improvements; (3) the
federally-assisted program of urban renewal and redevelopment; and (4) education
of the public.
We are concerned today principally with the second of these, the provision of
physical improvements by public agencies through the capital improvements pro-
gram. Fitting streets, bridges, drains and sewers, parks and playgrounds,
schools, fire stations, libraries and other public facilities in with the
comprehensive plan is accomplished by two steps:
1These sections based on 3rd Edition of "Local Planning Admin."--ICMA.
- 6 -
1. By requiring that each proposed project be submitted to the planning
agency for review and recommendations before the legislative authority
takes final action
2. By setting up a long-term capital improvements program to determine
priorities among projects.
In providing the services needed by its citizens, the city must build structures
of a relatively permanent nature. It is with these permanent improvements that
'city planning is primarily concerned. Operating programs may change, but a
.misplaced or badly designed structure is a drain on community resources through-
out its whole life. For public structures to be properly designed and located,
they must be included in the over-all planning program.
Plans for capital improvements include the street system, public utilities
systems, transportation systems, the location of open spaces, recreation facili-
ties and public buildings. The planning problems connected with capital
improvements include location and site acquisition, design, financing and
scheduling. Not all of these problems are the direct responsibility of the
'planning agency, but all are of concern as part of the planning process.
An important task of the planning agency is to carry through, in cooperation
with the chief administrator and other city departments, the step-by-step process
that leads from the comprehensive plan, through the capital improvements program
to the annual budget and the actual construction of the facilities. In the past,
. too little attention has been paid to these interdependent steps that are
necessary if the portions of the master plan dealing with public improvements
are to be made a reality. In perhaps no other aspect of city planning is
' administrative coordination of the planning agency with other city offices and
departments so important.
Tacoma's Experience in Capital Improvement Programming
The city council readily agreed that this type of programming would accelerate
Tacoma's developments, that it would pay the city dividends in the long run and
that it should be closely related to the city's long-range plans as prepared by
the planning commission. Another goal was to promote coordination of the city's
program with the programs of other taxing districts within the city including
' the Tacoma School District, the Metropolitan Park District, the Port of Tacoma
and Pierce County.
In Tacoma, the centralized administration of city departments under the city
manager (with the exception of the light, water and belt line utilities)
indicated that a preliminary report of the city's capital improvement needs
should be prepared under the supervision of the city manager's budget officer.
The operating departments were asked to prepare complete lists of needed projects
but to submit requests only for those projects having the highest departmental
priority over the next six-year period. Departments involved included the
public works department, library department, fire department, urban renewal
department, and the planning department (which submitted projects studied by
the planning commission but not directly under the jurisdiction of an operating
department). The park district and ,school district also submitted their
i:(ntstive lists of projects for inclusion in the preliminary report.
- 7 -
The next step was to refer the preliminary program to the planning commission
for its review and recommendations with respect to the comprehensive plan, and
for recommendations on the establishment of priorities. The planning commission
accomplished this review by a series of meetings with each department in which
the project proposals were discussed as they related to the particular section
Hof the city's plan. For example, the public works department proposals for new
street and bridge construction were compared with the city's major street plan
Viand the State Highway Department's program for the construction of the freeway
through Tacoma. The planning commission review was also assisted by staff level
discussions between the planning staff and the particular department staff.
This was the key step in gearing the program to the city's long-range plans. The
planning commission also made recommendations on priorities of projects. However,
this subject will be treated in more detail later on in your program today. In
Tacoma we have also used two additional committees in preparing final recommenda-
tions to the city council, the joint use and planning committee, which is made up
of representatives from the city council, planning commission, library board,
school board, and park board, and a 250-member citizens' committee for Tacoma's
future development. ,The citizens' committee was instrumental in the successful
promotion of voter-approved bond issues which got our initial 19581963 program
"on the road." .
I �
Last year our program was up-dated to the 1960-1965 period and the; recommendations
of the planning commission presented to the city council.. The periodic up-dating
of the capital improvement program is important in order to keep it current with
changes in city needs and with changes in the city's planning requirements. We
have been able to establish a schedule of revision every two years and this
should be eventually worked into a yearly revision. And we are constantly
striving to improve all of our procedures in putting together this program.
The Benefits of Comprehensive Planning and Capital Improvement
Programming Are Important to All Cities and Counties
Obviously, there are distinct differences in the administrative organization of
the various cities, townsiand counties, and differences in organization for
planning. Often, financial resources are severely limited (which is true in
large cities as well as small), but substantial opportunities should exist for
planning and programming, whatever the organizational setup.
In Tacoma, we have a planning department which serves as a staff department
under the administration of the city manager. It also provides staff service to
the appointive planning commission which makes policy recommendations on planning
matters to the city council. This has proved to be an excellent organization
for implementing the comprehensive plan through the capital improvement program.
In some cities, the planning staff may be hired directly by the planning commis-
sion. In this case, a close working relationship between the legislative body
and the commission is desirable. The commission may be given the full
responsibility of preparing and recommending a capital improvements program
based on the comprehensive plan. As an alternative, the mayor may initially
prepare the capital improvements program but it should be referred to the plan-
ning commission for review in relation to the city's comprehensive plan.
In some instances it may be desirable to enter into a contract with a consultant
for the preparation of a comprehensive plan. Such a contract might also include
the preparation of a capital improvement program for carrying out the plan. In
this situation, the planning commission probably has little or no staff and will
- 8 -
be limited to a general review and making recommendations before action by the
legislative body. Both the commission and council should be careful that the
plan and program will be tailored to the financial capabilities of the community.
The importance of the comprehensive plan as a guide to the over-all development
of the community should be continually stressed. Even if you are the mayor or a
councilman in a very small town with noanning commission, time cannot be
better spent than in formulating some long-range objectives for your town's
development. These long-range goals should then serve as the yardstick to
determine which public improvements are most needed and when they should be
constructed.
- 9 -
INVENTORY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND DETERMINATION OF NEEDS"
CHARLES AUSTIN, SPECIALIST, HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, SAN FRANCISCO
In approaching the subject of inventory of public facilities and determination of
needs, it may be well to first consider the overall nature of the problem.
Essentially the total capital improvements program will be the sum of three
components: first, the present backlog of needs for facilities; second, replace-
ment needs; and third, needs for expansion.
The backlog consists of those capital expenditures which should have been made
already, but which have been postponed for one reason or another. The replacement
needs will be both current and future, and the needs for expansion will be all in
the future. The comprehensive plan will have its maximum influence in connection
with the last of these components, but it also should influence backlog and
replacement to the extent-applicable. To illustrate, if an obsolete school
building is located in an area which has become or is becoming industrial,
perhaps that school should only be given minimum rehabilitation, with a replace-
ment to be located in an area of population growth. Here the comprehensive plan
may help to avoid expenditure on a facility which would be poorlylutilized
before its economic life expires.
In setting up for the inventory of public facilities it is important that all,
public facilities be included, regardless of the source of funds from +which the
cost of the facility will be paid. Flood control works may be paid for by
federal.or state contributions, for example, or may be local expenses.; A needed
hospital facility should be listed, although ultimately it may be built by
private subscription. Only by including all needed public facilities can the
true total picture be seen, and the various methods of financing be fully
explored.
The mechanics of compiling the inventory will vary from city to city, but if the
inventory is to take into account all needs the sources of information should be
several. The operating departments: highways, sewers, water, public works,
transit, etc. Revenue producing utilities should be included to emphasize co-
ordination in construction even though financing may be by self-liquidating
revenue bonds. Each department should have the detailed knowledge of existing
facilities_ to establish which are obsolescent or inadequate and to estimate costs.
In addition, it will be useful to get the ideas of civic organizations, neighbor-
hood groups, legislators, and even individuals.
The forms to be used and the instructions for their use should be prepared by
the coordinating agency which will be responsible for assembly of the inventory -
and this does not necessarily mean the planning commission, although it is a
logical coordinating body. The coordinating agency should be responsible for
seeing that the departmental lists are properly related to the comprehensive plan..
This coordination is most essential - because this plan should contain the basic
guides to the form of the community in the future. Where will the residential
areas be and how many people will live in a given area? What areas now.
• residential are expected to be used for another purpose in the future? The
comprehensive plan should answer such questions. 'It is necessary for the
planning staff to work closely with the staffs of the operating departments to
the end of making each departmental list realistic in terms of the city's
probable future development.
- 10 -
I '
In considering the departmental lists, it is well to remember that they should
include major equipment items, land costs, legal and engineering fees, and so
forth as separate items. Engineering fees for example, usually will be needed
some time before construction costs are incurred, and the same applies to land
costs and legal fees. If each of these items is separate for each project
listed, the final budget can take cognizance of the timing of expenses more
accurately. The departmental lists also should include anticipated future
capital expenditures on public facilities on which construction already has
started or which have been officially authorized.
Of course, each departmental list should be in order of priority and the method
of ascertaining this priority substantiated as much as possible. It also should
'indicate which projects are replacement needs, and, where significant, deadline
dates for projects. For example, if a police or fire station is to be demolished
for a new freeway right-of-way, it usually will not be possible to defer replace-
ment beyond a. certain date, and knowledge of this factor is essential to an
intelligent decision on priorities in the over-ell budget.
Another factor which should be carefully undertaken is neighborhood, analysis.
While an overall program of community rehabilitation may be a part of the master
plan, or at least should be coordinated with that plan, the fact that certain
capital expenditures will be required in connection with urban renewal projects
should be given full consideration in determining the need for public facilities.
This is essential not only from the standpoint of including all expenditures in
the capital improvements program, but for programming public facilities which
benefit urban renewal areas and thereby ensure that they will be eligible for non-
' cash grant-in-aid credit for the project. The city in effect will save that
portion of the cost of the facilities which can be credited as being project
benefit. This saving comes about by substitution of the eligible cost of the
facility for an equal amount of the city's share of net project cost, which
• amount otherwise would have to be put up in cash. In some instances a properly
timed program of public works in or near an urban renewal project could result
, in completion of the project at no direct cash cost whatever to the city.
. So far in our consideration of the. subject, we have been dealing with the
factual inventory, which processes, if done thoroughly, may be complex and
difficult, but can be accomplished without undue exercise of value judgments.
We now come to the second half of our subject -- determination of needs. It
is here that the questions of value judgments become paramount.
On first consideration it may seem that value judgments will be easily made, and
in some instances that opinion will be justified. There cannot be much argument
on the immediate need to replace a faltering pump in the city waterworks. Yet
if the capital improvements program is to be most effective, on many other
questions the decisions will be the result of combining technical and professional
advice with citizen desires through liberal application of so-called common sense.
Citizens' committee should be helpful.
As a start toward measuring need, one authority suggests that each department
should set forth in a comprehensive manner a list of its aims and purposes in
terms of ultimate goals for basic human values. While such an approach may seem
a little vague - somewhat idealist and theoretical, I believe there is perhaps
a hidden value of considerable importance in it: that of forcing a re-evaluation
of what each department really is trying to do for the city. A comparison of
these lists will help those who must make decisions on relative priorities to
see more clearly the relative importance of the various functions, and so come
to a better final. decision.
- 11 -
A part of the process of evaluating need involves determination of the level of
service which is deemed adequate. A city of 10,000 that wishes to provide one
acre of park land for each 100 inhabitants is faced with just as large an
administrative problem and as large an expenditure as a city of 25,000 which
proposes to provide an acre of park land for each 250 inhabitants. Standards
have been established by a, number of special-interest organizations for various
city services. For example, the National Recreation Association has established '
standards for recreation areas. Such standards have value as indicators of how
the city compares to the ideal, and as an indication of the cost of services in
some instances, but they cannot be absolute criteria for arriving at levels
suitable for a particular city. Such levels will have'to be determined by a
comparison of the benefit of one facility versus that of another per dollar of
expenditure and this will be a value judgment in which the desires of the
citizenry must be paramount.
There are common-sense methods of evaluating services. Shall a particular storm
sewer be installed? What is its cost compared to the damage which has resulted,
or will result if it is not installed? What is the cost per participant-hour
of a new recreation facility? Would that same sum be more valuable if applied
toward a public health facility? In answering such questions, the exercise of
imagination and ingenuity will disclose a wide variety of such measures of value
which will help in arriving at final determinations.
To the extent possible, it will be helpful to translate the levels of service,
once established, into terms which relate to the comprehensive plan: for example,
park land per capita, residential street per gross acre, and off-street parking
spaces per 100 automobiles. In this manner estimates may be made of future needs
based on the projections of the master plan in terms of population, anticipated
land use demands and increased ratios of car ownership. '
At the outset, consideration was given to the need to classify capital improve-
ments as backlog, replacement or expansion needs. Such a classification will
depend, to some extent on the levels of service determined. If it is decided
that the community should have one acre of neighborhood playground space per
thousand persons and a particular neighborhood has only two acres for a popula-
tion of 3,000 persons, there is a one acre backlog need in that area. Of course,
that does not necessarily mean that an additional acre need be programmed
immediately. On the other hand, if it is decided that two-thirds of an acre of
such space per thousand persons is adequate, no backlog need exists in the
neighborhood.
Probably the ultimate criterion for relative level of service is citizen demand.
The criteria of the professional ideal and the relative cost in most instances
will be 'subordinate to such demand, but they should be used to inform the
citizens so that their demands will be realistic and intelligent. Obviously,
an interpretation of the nature and extent of such demand requires a maximum
of public participation through whatever means can be used with reasonable
practicality. Be aware of a pitfall, however; distribution of demand must be
distinguished from intensity. The wishes of a small pressure group however
strongly expressed, do not necessarily merit the same consideration as the less
coherent desires of the wider body of citizens.
In some jurisdictions the use of citizens advisory committees has been found
very helpful. These committees may be given a specific function, such as review
of the street improvement program, or a general function, such as formulation or
review of the program. By this device, if the personnel of the committee is
well chosen, an excel)ent .indicator of citizen demand is available.
- 12 -
i I i
In concluding my remarks, I would like to emphasize that the process of making
an inventory of public facilities and determining needs does not have to be
complicated or unduly difficult. In bringing out these various complexities
and subtleties, the intent has been to indicate some of the refinements which
will serve to make the program most thorough and most useful. On the other hand,
a capital improvements program based on much less exhaustive methods has value.
The program should be reviewed and renewed annually, with each successive year
more refinements may be added. Even a very generally conceived program is
better than none, in that it represents a beginning in a way of thinking about
the city's capital expenditures which is orderly and foresighted. Furthermore,
the annual renewal of the program serves to remind all concerned that the city
has a long-range future which needs to be considered as the various day-to-day
decisions are made. And this reminder should help to keep the dust off of the
comprehensive plan. -
In summary, the inventory requires a modicum of teamwork. The more people
involved in the process of making an analysis of facilities and needs, the better
will be the community-wide appreciation and understanding of the capital improve-
ment program which results. Teamwork is essential for public betterments.
- 13 -
ASSIGNING PROJECT PRIORITIES: HOW SHOULD RESPONSIBILITIES BE SHARED?
HARRY G. HALATYN, SENIOR PLANNING CONSULTANT, EBASCO SERVICES, NEW YORK
In the development of concepts and techniques necessary to achieve our ends, we
sometimes tend to standardize our approaches excessively. This is particularly
true in a relatively new profession which is struggling for recognition as is
city and regional planning. In short -- the means sometimes over-shadow the ends.
I have opened my remarks on this cautionary note in an attempt to emphasize the
old axiom that the approach in any community planning assignment must be tailored
to the community. Many of you, either as technicians or laymen, have seen the
' disastrous effects of imposing complex zoning regulations on a very small community.
Conversely, simplified zoning will not prove helpful to a very large and complex
urban area. In predominantly agricultural areas different approaches are used
than in densely populated areas again, the need for a "tailor-made" product.
In the assignment of project priorities from the same standpoint we can
immediately see the need for flexibility.
For our purposes, the term Capital Improvements Program is probably a good one
since this is generally understood as the vehicle in the planning process which
provides a long-term financial plan and establishes a project priority list.
Before we can get to a "nuts-and-bolts" discussion of developing a capital
improvements program certain prerequisites must be met:
1. There must be a long-range plan for the development of the community
(It may not seem possible, but I know of several communities which have
had detailed capital improvement programs prepared with no comprehensive
plan as a guide. The authors of these programs certainly must have been
endowed with superlative vision.)
2. There must be permissive enabling legislation.
3. There must be adequate capital budgeting procedures established
since the capital budget is really the short-term capital program.
4. There must be close inter-departmental cooperation since it is only
natural for every department head to think his projects should receive
top priority.
5. There must be clear-cut top administrative policy regarding the
improvements necessary as well as policy concerning politically
inspired pressure for "pet projects."
6. There must be an analysis of the tax and revenue structure of the
community.
Assuming that these prerequisites are present, what should we do about assigning
project priorities in a community of 5,000 to 7,000 population with no real
growth potential as opposed to a community of the same size suffering from a
population explosion? What should be the approach in a city of 50,000; 500,000;
or 5 million? Such differences certainly point to the need for a non-
standardized approach and a few examples can quickly show the different approaches
possible.
In a large eastern city which has a stable growth pattern it is most reasonable .
to follow the standard procedure of preparing a six-year capital improvement
program with a capital budget for the current year and annual review of
priorities. A complete report is prepared each year after the customary inter-
- 14--
views with administrative officials, budget officers and department heads. Here
the city planning commission is the agency responsible for preparing estimates
and recommending priorities.
In a medium-size mid-western city with no planning staff, and another city with
a small planning staff, the city manager is the capital improvements program
administrator and follows essentially the same procedure.
• In a small western city, the city manager -- with no planning staff -- merely
prepares a tabular sheet of projects, priorities and sources of funds.
All of these programs give adequate guidance or certainly some guidance, as
opposed to a large number of communities of all sizes, with no systematic
method of assigning project priorities. One community spends all of its avail-
able capital improvement funds on street improvements and nothing on parks,
police and fire improvements, municipal building, etc. In one other community,
the city manager indignantly advised me that no capital improvements were
needed so no program was necessary. (One wonders whether this community has
funeral plans made.)
Now -- to try to get a little more specific it may be helpful to cite the items
which should be considered in assigning priorities to specific projects within
' the framework of some type of capital improvement program. The following
questions, among others, should certainly be asked:
1. Is the project specifically proposed in the master plan?
2. Was the project previously committed and are the reasons for the
earlier commitment still relevant?
3. What is the urgency of the project in terms of over-all good to the
community, e.g., do hazardous winters require large improvements for
snow and ice removal?
4. Is there some non-public group which can provide the service, if
necessary? For example, can private groups be persuaded to build off-
street parking structures or provide parking lots if the city has in-
sufficient funds.
5. Has the research back of the project been adequate or are some facts
missing?
6. Will there be delays due to citizen or politically inspired opposition?
For example, increased capital outlays resulting from annexation.
7. Is the project sound based on experience in other communities? For
example, flouridation of water with the need for new equipment.
8. Is there a need in the community for "make-work" types of projects?
For example, if there is widespread local unemployment in the building
trade construction-type projects may deserve consideration for the good
of the local economy.
9. Will the project complement other projects? For example, it would
be foolhardy to build a bridge across a river without providing the
necessary access roads.
- 15 -
10. What will be the effect on the total revenue of the city? Will the
project bring in revenue or will it syphon off excessive revenue? Can
it be financed on a revenue bond basis?
11. Is it possible to find new sources of funds to finance a needed
improvement? For example, in Michigan, communities are now creating
public building authorities which issue revenue bonds to be retired by
rents the city pays annually from its operating budget.
12. If funds must be borrowed to finance the project will the service
charges be excessive? If so, it may be better to postpone the project
and accumulate funds gradually on an annual contribution basis to
provide more cash and reduce interest charge.
13. Will the project serve a large segment of the community or a very
small group? As a result, should it be financed by a general obligation
or a special assessment?
14•. Are there any legal problems which might delay the project?
15. Can it be defended against pressure groups?
The answers to these questions should give an insight into the priority
position of any specific project under any system of capital improvement pro-
gramming. They should also serve to bolster our opening thought that we must
be flexible in our approach and tailor it to the specific needs of the community.
One final comment - no matter how carefully a program is prepared and priori-
ties established, there will always be the need to substitute and revise since
urgencies change from year to year. The agency administering a capital improve-
ment program on the basis of resistance to change is likely to impede any
program regardless of technique utilized.
These considerations influence the determination of priorities on capital
improvements for all communities. The small town has certain unique opportunities
for bringing more of the citizenry into this decision-making process than may be
available in the large city. Counties, on the other hand, might adopt certain
of the techniques where permitted by enabling legislation. A process of co-
ordinated planning is essential for all jurisdictions, and particularly to
build a public relations climate for improvements. This is a primary responsi-
bility that all public officials face.
- 16 -
•
•
• •
•
•
• 1
l
I
•
I
I
I
NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC BETTERMENTS
MODERATOR: JOAN F. HERMAN, Planning
Director, Bellevue
INTERROGATOR: GEORGE A. SHIPMAN, Director
Institute of Public Affairs
University of Washington
The afternoon session included the
jpresentation of the following four
technical papers.
I
1
1
- 17 -
1
ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDS FOR ADVANCE ACQUISITIONS
MRS. EDGA.R- MC HORWOOD, CONSULTANT, SEATTLE
Setting the Scene
As a curtain raiser to this afternoon's performance, let me quote to you a-
paragraph from an Act of Parliament, passed in 1592, during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth the First.2
". . .Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, That it shall
not be lawful to any person or persons to enclose or take in
any parte of the Commons or Waste Grounds scituate lienge
or beinge within three Myles of any of the Gates of the said
Cittie of London, nor to sever or to devide by any Hedge
Ditche Pale or otherwise, anye of the said Fieldes lying
within three Myles of any of the Gates of the said Cittie of
London as aforesaid, to the let or hindrance of the trayning
or musteringe of Souldiors or of walkinge for recreacion
comforte and healthe of her Majestie's People. . ."
(By the way, neither the City of London, nor her gracious
Majesty owned any of this land which was to be left open
for the recreation, comfort and health of her people.)
In 368 years, can we be said to have progressed in our attitudes toward open
space for the use of the public?
As a backdrop for the first act of this performance is the recent announcement
by the Bureau of the Census that, of the 28 million increase in U.S. population
from 1950 to 1960, two thirds was in the suburbs of our metropolitan areas.
Population growth, which for many decades has flowed from rural areas to the
cities, now is concentrating on the fringes of cities, bringing with it demands
for city services, but, curiously enough, not for public open space. This
probably stems from the "back yard park" philosophy of our era, which finds
' its ultimate expression in the barbecue pit and the private swimming pool. At
the same time, our central cities are gradually suffocating for want of well
distributed public open space.
We are faced with a sort of split-level scene for our fairy tale: on one
level tremendous pressures for new urban development beyond the confines of
city limits, on the other the lack of amenity and decay in the central areas
of our cities. We must somehow play in both scenes at once; we must find
means of meeting both problems at once. The comprehensive plan and the capital
budget discussed in the morning session define the scope and costs of meeting
the needs under our present goal structure; this afternoon we shall examine
. some of the means of making our fairy tale come true.
2Steen Eiler Rasmussen, London, The Unique City (New York: The
Macmillan Co.) 1937, p. 82.
- 18 -
Where We Stand
Most of my remarks are based on a recently completed study for the Puget Sound
Governmental Conference, an inventory of recreation facilities and open space
for King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish Counties.3 Although this covered only
four counties of the state's 39, it includes more than half the population of
the state, and three of its five largest counties. Its population has nearly
•
' doubled since 194+0; its park acreage, including national forests, has gone up
only one third. Most of this has been added by the state; municipal and county
park acreage has increased only one seventh.. We are serving less than one fifth
• of our population with nearby, walk-to recreation facilities; we have fewer
public swimming pools for King County's million people than Yakima with one-
sixth the population. We have more shoreline with less public access than almost
any other area of the- country: Kitsap County with 420 miles of shoreline has
less than half a mile of it open to the public. In 1950 in King County, one in
every 18 families had a boat; in 1959 it was conservatively estimated that one
in every nine families had a boat; 1960 may actually see one in four families
with a boat.
Our demands for other public lands have increased also. Schools have multiplied,
along with acreage standards for school sites. Utilities are strained to
bursting, and local road, street and arterial needs for the same four counties,
after careful study of minimum requirements are at the $2 billion mark,
according to preliminary figures of the current Highway Needs Study.44
Furthermore, national economic studies show that population seems bound to grow;
national income is increasing, hours of leisure are increasing, mobility is
increasing; all of these point to increased need for public sites. Our present
needs for open space will multiply. Yet large acquisitions of public open space
do not seem to be taking place, and show little signs of doing so. Before
examining specific aspects of funds for advance acquisition, let us look at
the premises on which this proposal is based.
Public, Legal and Official Attitudes toward Open Space (and/or public land
acquisition)
The titles assigned to this afternoon performance and to this speaker pre-
suppose a number of conditions outlined below, which are not in fact true at
this time, and without which we are precluded from reaching what is on the
face of it an obvious solution to public and governmental need, that is capital
budgeting and advance acquisition of public sites. We are actually basing our
performance this afternoon on fairy tale terms, of which the first group is
concerned with citizen attitudes:
1. That there is public recognition of the need for advance acquisition.
There is no sign that the Washington citizens as a whole are aware of
any need for advance, or any other public site acquisition, either in
terms of pressures being applied on government, or statements' through
the press or other communications media.
3Rosemary Horwood, Public Recreation in the Central Puget Sound Region
(Seattle: Puget Sound Governmental Conference) 1960., 2 Volumes.
4This study is currently being conducted by the University of Washington
and the Washington State University for the Legislative Interim Committee
on Roads, Streets and Bridges. Report forthcoming.
- 19
2. That the average citizen believes that public interest rather than
individual interest should or does dominate in the use or control of land.
Unless and until the concept of the general public good or benefit in land
controls is generally accepted above that of the individual owners, advance
reservations of land on the comprehensive plan and even advance acquisi-
tions will also be a fairy tale. For example, under present conditions
and attitudes, two out of three zoning petitions are granted regardless
of any comprehensive plan, a recent study of county planning records
shows.5 Zoning requirements or limitations are very often impossible to
enforce; the common belief is that property ownership carries with it
the right to develop in any way, no matter how this may affect neighboring
properties or the community. We are still strongly influenced by the
pioneer, private development spirit exemplified by the outraged citizen
who came out here to be alone on his 50-foot lot, whether he is being
asked to conform to regulations or is protesting his neighbor's encroach-
ment.
3. That the general public desires government to plan or program its
capital development. The public is showing no signs of giving up the
often stated principle of governmental hands off, or government by least
interference with private desires and local interests. Only a crisis
situation can change this attitude; and if there is a crisis, the public
seems blissfully unaware of it.
Another group of presupposed conditions relates to our legal statutes,
or the legal attitudes toward public land.
4. That our state law will support or encourage or enforce advance
_
acquisitions. We have fooled ourselves into thinking that enabling
legislation is programming legislation. As a corollary to the general
public's attitude toward land, our state enablement has sometimes been
permissive, but rarely mandatory. Cities and counties may acquire lands
for various purposes, but there is nothing in present statutes to
encourage or enforce either acquisition or control of land development
for the public good. In fact, 5the tendency has been to discourage as
inappropriate the taking or holding of land for future use.
5. That means of financing acquisition by municipalities would be
available. Another example of the legal attitude toward governmental
land acquisition is the extreme difficulty of financing land acquisition
by governmental agencies. The problems of the 40-mill limit are too
familiar to rehash; the stranglehold of the state on local units of
government in terms of controlling sources of funds or taxation is
becoming insurmountable.
6. That any unit of local government can or could readily establish
funds for advance acquisition. Unless new sources of revenue are
granted by the state, small units of government, small either in
population or area, can hardly be expected to build up sufficient funds
to buy land for future needs at a rate commensurate with growth. The
resource simply does not exist under present conditions; the units are
too small, the sources of funds too limited, the time required to build
up usable funds too great, and the area to be served often too small to
be practical.
5E. M. Norwood, "Freeway Impact on Municipal Land Planning Effort," a
paper presented to the 39th Annual Highway Research Board Meeting,
Washington, D. C., January 1960.
- 20 -
A final group of conditions relates to the attitudes of public officials and
attitudes toward public officialsand public bodies.
7. That public officials, both elective and appointive, are prepared
for the operation of such funds. With few exceptions the attitude of public
officials is shaped by citizen attitudes and the legal resource available
• does not encourage official action. Furthermore, very few officials are
thinking in long-range terms of what may be needed to meet future needs,
much less in terms of active enforcement of present enablement, or
• meeting present public land needs. For example, as part of the recrea-
tion inventory, policy statements were sought from local park and
recreation officials. With only one exception, there was no written
policy, nor even an orally stated policy to guide official procedure,
decisions or actions.
8. That there is extensive duplication of public facilities and open
space, which could be eliminated by planning or advance acquisition.
The fact is that not only is there no real duplication of facilities or
program, but we are far behind in providing these facilities. 'We have
done ourselves an injustice by the implication that planning will produce
economies by eliminating duplication. The fact is that we are so far
from duplication in amounts, types and distribution of public open space
and sites, that over-use of many sites, encroachment or just plain raiding
of some public sites by other public agencies, and extensive trespassing
on private lands are commonplace.
9. Finally, that advance acquisition will take care of our open space
needs. While it is only too true that we need to control our fringe
areas for most economical development in terms of utilities and service
agencies, a very great part of our need for public space is in areas
already long developed, where the only "advance acquisition" has been
by private individuals to the detriment of the public interest, and where
development is becoming decay.
These are the unpleasant facts, the villains of the piece. Our modern Cinderella,
the comprehensive plan, and her Prince, the capital budget, are going to need a
lot more than glass slippers or a pumpkin coach of advance acquisition funds to
bring about a happy ending to our play. We will need at least three major changes
in public, legal and official attitudes toward land development. These are:
1. A change in public attitude toward land rights, and the establishment
of governmental mandate to buy and control development rights to protect
the public interest and convenience. These have ample precedent in other
states and countries.
2. A change to regarding open space and public space as a public utility,
as necessary as any other public utility in the life of the urban area.
3. A change in the power structure of local units of government, so that
the need of the majority may not be overridden by the chauvinsim of small
units of government.
With these requirements, as part of a magic wand to transform our pumpkin to a
coach and mice to horses, let us proceed to some brief statements on the
establishment of funds for advance acquisition of public sites.
- 21 -
Establishment of Funds for Advance Acquisition
Assuming that the public concept of its interest in land use and development
has become favorable, and assuming that comprehensive plans for a sufficiently
1 large area have been prepared and adopted, why should funds be established for
advance acquisition?
1. Obviously, buying raw land before development is far more economical
than later purchase of the site after development.
2. Sometimes, land which may be needed for public use is offered at
an advantageous price prior to need; the public body should be in a
position to take advantage of this circumstance.
3. Land which. may be designated for future public use may be in danger
of private sale and development; to forestall development unfavorable
to the contemplated public use the public body should be able to buy
land and hold it, or to prevent development for a limited time by
purchasing development rights or other surface rights. •
4. Some sites may need long processes of development before being suit-
able for the ultimate public use for which they are intended. Advance
acquisition would speed the process of development, and might provide
as well a temporary use of benefit to the general public.
5. In some cases, land purchases may be made for later exchange for
more advantageous sites for public use.
In any case, the establishment of funds for advance acquisition should be thought
of as only one segment of a public-land development program, or as only one of
several means of bringing the comprehensive plan for public sites into being.
Funds for advance acquisition would eliminate the present problem so often
faced by public officials that the almost inevitable answer to an offer of land
is the standard, "No money," without even considering the possibility of getting
the site. Such a fund would make some acquisitions possible without the
extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming methods of bond issues and
special levy, elections. However, some changes in enablement and the financial
structure of counties appear' necessary to make this type of fund possible.
Types of Funds
Two types of funds appear possible: revolving and revenue supported. The
revolving fund would have to be supplied with an initial impetus, such as a
bond issue, but might be expected to be self-sustaining in some cases. For
example, if part of a reservoir of public land were sold for private develop-
ment, the proceeds might go into such a fund.
The revenue supported fund has three possible sources of supply. The least
likely source is from tax revenues, especially in smaller governmental units;
our millage system virtually forbids any such allocation. Another source of
• funds might be from a regulation of new plats or new developments; this is
dubious, although it has been made to stick in Oregon (but not in Washington
and other states) as a regulation on land and not a tax. A third source for
the fund may be from license fees of some kind applied to all users or
operators of a given activity generally. For example, in King County, a 250
motor vehicle fee annually (in addition to the $1 taken by state parks) would
yield about $100,000 a year, which over a long term would go far toward meeting
- 22 -
the needs of a capital improvement program for open space for parks and
recreation, although it is certainly a very small drop in the bucket cf.
highway needs. This method of funding appears to offer the most promise
under present circumstances.
How Advance Acquisition Funds Might Be Used
Aside from simply acquiring land in advance, the fund could conceivably be put
to work in other ways. Following are a few of them, not by any means a complete
listing:
1. As a matching fund for local improvement or special assessment districts
acquisitions, to encourage communities to participate in developing local
open spaces.
2. To buy surface rights of development, access or easement, in order
to hold land open, prevent unsightly development, and forestall pre-
mature development, or as a conservation measure.
3. Combined with a tax title land program to build up a "land bank" of
public lands which could be resold for private development at a later
time or sold for public use when local development warranted.
Thus ends the first act of the afternoon performance; Cinderella and the Prince
have yet to get together, and the fairy godmother who can change unfavorable
public and legal attitudes into a coach, and the mice of special funds into
swift coach horses has yet to appear. Perhaps the next act will be more
encouraging.
- 23 -
ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS: A NEW APPROACH--
JAMES GAY, ATTORNEY, WETER, ROBERTS & SHEFELMAN, SEATTLE
In recent weeks, we have witnessed a surprising reaction to the announcements
from the Bureau of Census that our suburbs are growing faster than their urban
centers. The astonishment and alarm evidenced by many city and rural officials
and leaders over this fact has been a surprise to me and probably to most of
you, because for years we have witnessed the mushrooming growth of our suburbs
and the creation of many new housing and shopping developments and even whole
new communities across our countryside.
I would imagine that individuals have more than one reason for moving away from
the city into the surrounding suburban area. However, as people move out to
the country the country seems to pick up and move further out too. Actually
rural open spaces have no place to go; they just disappear. With the advent
of the automobile for all to use it is easier to go further out from the center
of the city. What has occurred has been a spotty leap frog development of
communities, scattered throughout the countryside, each an urban area within
itself. Their locations are not planned and are not based on logic, but in-
stead they mushroom in areas where sufficiently large parcels of land can be
obtained and accumulated to make a housing development economical.
This urban sprawl, as the situation has been fittingly labelled, leads to
bankruptcy in land conservation, depresses spiritual growth of the population,
offends aesthetic sensibilities, hinders governmental fiscal planning, and,
occasionally, leads to private economic bankruptcy. We need not dwell too
long on the land conservation, spiritual growth and aesthetic sensibility
aspects, for I think we all at one time or another have driven through areas
which have been sta-ipped either for highway or developmental purposes and where
the appesiance of the light brown desert of naked subsoil has grated our senses
and made us wonder what we must pay for "progress." I do not mean to be
critical of the builders in our society for I realize that we must have roads
and houses and commercial structures in order that we may be served in our
needs. However, we have other needs, too, which need to be served, such as,
the need for fresh air and light and the need for trees and other vegetation
not only for aesthetic reasons but to replenish the air with oxygen, and to
furnish meeting places for wild life which assist us in controlling the vermin
and insect pests around us. In addition, we and our children need a place
where we can walk among trees or across meadows and escape the clang and
clatter of our civilization and to inspect and admire the nature from which we
Sprang.
In the past, and even today, we in this beautiful area of the country frequently
hear the argument that we need not plan for parks and recreation for it is only
a few miles and an hour until anyone who desires may be in the wilderness. As
a native of Seattle, I need not call back too many years to the time when we were
a few minutes from this same type of wilderness which now takes an hour or so
to reach. It is apparent that the need for such open spaces is being realized
by more and more people who have sought such open spaces in vain in the suburbs.
For a long time planning has been offered as the solution for the problems
of urban sprawl. The chief tools of planning have been the combination of
zoning, subdivision regulation, and official maps. This may be an answer, but
our experience has shown that these tools have not been utilized in time to
prevent the digestion of much desirable open space and the creation of patchwork
- 24 -
communities in rural areas. Rural and regional planning and zoning have not
saved us from suburban blight.
Courts in this state and other jurisdictions have gone very far in upholding
zoning, platting and other police power measures designed to secure and
preserve open spaces. For example, very recently the United States Supreme
Court refused to review the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court upholding
four-acre residential zoning restrictions. This case will be considered a land-
mark in zoning law and in the exercise of police powers by municipalities in
order to control community growth. I submit, however, that four-acre zoning
constitutes a very radical regulation and, even if other courts uphold such a
restriction, it is not one calculated to win many friends among landowners.
In,this state, moreover, zoning does not assure certainty in controlled community
development. For example, I know a number of cases of property owners in rural
areas joining to incorporate as a city or to annex to an adjoining city for the
purpose of obtaining a change of zoning, in some cases for apartment houses, in
other cases for industrial purposes. Some of these movements were successful
and have resulted in a disruption of orderly plans for the county. Thus, though
one municipality's zoning regulations were a stumbling block to developers, the
new municipality's zoning code became a bonanza to those same developers. Thus,
the pressure for more commercial establishments make zoning and other police
power measures less desirable for the maintenance of open spaces than we might
have wished.
Without going further in analyzing other police power measures, may I suggest
that in recent years a rarely tried procedure has been proposed to furnish us
the desirable open spaces for orderly community growth, adequate light and air,
sufficient recreation facilities and conservation of water and agricultural land
resources. This method suggests that municipalities, counties and states acquire
what have been called "developmental rights" or "conservation easements" over
• presently undeveloped areas surrounding urban centers. One of the prime movers
of the use of this technique has been William H. Whyte, Jr., former Assistant
Managing Editor of Fortune magazine and author of many articles and books on
the subject. It is to him that we owe credit for creating much of the interest
now being directed to this method.
Acquisition of development rights simply means that the local or state govern-
mental agency acquires from the owner of underdeveloped land the rights of that
owner to develop his land by adding structures, signs, etc. and, frequently,
the right to change the topography or the general vegetation of his land. If
the land is a farm, the owner may continue farming his property. If the land
is a forest, the trees will remain. If the land is a river valley or bottomland
or a meadow along a stream, it will continue to be such and may be continued to
be used as it was in the past. But, in no event may the character of that land
be; changed by the owner by the addition of structures or subdivisions or streets
or signs, including billboards, or anything else which will materially change
its character.
The acquisition of development rights is essentially the acquisition of an ease-
ment comparable to the flight path easements surrounding airfields which have
• the effect of preventing the landowner from erecting structures that will
interfere with the flights of planes to or from that airfield. Since these
developmental rights can be called easements, that is one interest in the
bundle of interests in a particular land ownership, there should be very little
- 25 -
difficulty in defining and obtaining such easements, certainly no more difficulty
than the flight path easements on airports, or the flood control easements which
are permitted in this state, or easements for light and air which many private
property owners have, or scenic easements which, exist along many parkways and
parks in states throughout the nation, or easements against advertising signs
along highways. This is, perhaps, why Mr. Whyte has recently indicated that he
now prefers to call the acquisition of development rights by the different name
of! conservation easements, probably as much for public relation purposes as any
other.
In discussing these conservation easements in more detail, we should touch on a
number of aspects of the problem. The first should be the manner of acquisition;
the second should be the uses and purposes of such easements, and the third should
be! the amount of compensation and manner of payment for such easements.
As for the approach in choosing the subject over which the easement should be
acquired, Mr. Whyte suggests that when these conservation easements are acquired
it will not be necessary to have the same thorough research and investigation as
are usually pursued in the purchase of park sites. All that may be desirable is
a brief tour of potential sites and a determination of what the governmental unit
can afford to acquire. Writing from his vantage point near Philadelphia, Mr.
Whyte urges that time is of the essence and that local governments should get
out now in order to preserve the most desirable parcels as soon as possible. Of
course, we out here in Washington are not in such desperate straits as those in
the East who find the crowding almost unbearable, but judging from the rapid
growth of suburban areas throughout the country and in Washington we 'do not have
too much time remaining in which action maybe taken to preserve our open spaces.
It is suggested that local officials investigate the possibilities of preserving
river valleys, some hillsides and desirable farming and other agricultural areas.
T1e local governmental units may use an assortment of methods and procedures for
obtaining these conservation easements. Not infrequently landowners desire to
maintain the present use of their land for years to come and perhaps even after
their death. These people should be encouraged to donate conservation easements
or development rights to the local governmental unit. This would assure the ful-
fillment of the landowner's wishes and would also meet the desire of-the govern-
ment in preserving such areas. The governmental unit should be authorized to
purchase conservation easements in the locations it deems desirable, and, if
such purchases cannot be negotiated, then the governmental unit should be
authorized to condemn them. It is this power of condemnation - the power of .
eminent domain in the sovereign on which I now wish to comment.
Our State Constitution requires two basic elements in connection with the power
of eminent domain in a governmental unit. The first, is that the taking of the
property interest by government shall be for a public, not a, private, use or
purpose. Secondly, in return for such taking, the government shall pay to the
property owner fair and just compensation for the property interest taken.
Let us consider these two elements separately. It strikes me that the key
element in considering conservation easements by condemnation is that of
justifying the taking for a public use. Any enabling legislation on this
• i
I \
- 26 -
subject should make it abundantly clear that the purpose of condemning or
purchasing development rights is solely to preserve the open spaces for the
various public uses which we shall now discuss.
A few of the public uses might be listed as follows:
1. Water Conservation. The preservation of natural river valleys is
useful in a number of respects. First, it offers a natural flood control
device since the bottomland and lower portions of the river valley act
as a sponge to soak up excess rain runoff and river overflow. Wheni these
areas are paved or the topsoil is scraped off and housing or industrial
developments are placed on them, communities downstream lose a portion
of their flood security and the river waters become a greater danger to
them. In addition, avoiding development on these rivers tends to maintain
their relative purity from pollution and silt which otherwise would find
their way into the water. There is, of course, the recreational activity,
such as fishing and swimming, which frequently take place on private
waters, and although the government would not be providing these recrea-
, tional facilities by the preservation, of development rights they,
nevertheless, continue to exist for those whom the private owner permits
on the property.
2. Land Conservation. Frequently, among farmers' groups there appears to
be a great demand for the preservation of prime farmland close to the
metropolitan area. However, this is very difficult to preserve when
developers are seeking just that sort of land and a farmer finds difficulty
in resisting such pressure and attractive prices going therewith. However,
the fact that many farmers wish to preserve their farms and to preserve
farmland generally has led at least one known farming community to adopt
just this solution which I am discussing today. It is reported by Mr.
Whyte that the farmers in Santa Clara County, California, ultimately hit
upon these conservation easements to protect their farmland from the
encroaching patchwork developments stemming from the surrounding urban
areas. As a result the Santa Clara Valley is preserved to farming and
for open areas with limited developments in proper places along the non-
cultivatable hills and other locations. This incidentally has led to a
number of advantages. The value of the farms has, in fact, increased
since they are now undisturbed by highways and nearby housing develop-
ments, and the value of the surrounding residential properties has
increased because of the assured continuance of territorial views which
were not guaranteed before. This method presents some difficulty because
many people are still not convinced of the value of preserving open
spaces in their present use. Too many of us think of open spaces in
terms of parks and playgrounds but can see no advantages in maintaining
agricultural land or forest land in private ownership, not for the public
to tread on but instead for the public to enjoy from a distance.
There is an additional benefit to the public, particularly in rural areas,
in the preservation of agricultural land for that purpose only as it
offers a defense against the growing municipalities which many persons in
rural areas seek to foster. At the present time our only defense, and it
can only be temporary, is that of agricultural and large lot zoning which
prevents any other than agricultural and other limited uses of certain
lands. If there is a valid reason for agricultural zoning there is an
equally valid reason for the government to purchase the future develop-
ment rights on that agricultural land. In each case, the agricultural
- 27 -
character of the land is preserved, but with the use of the conservation
easement method, it is preserved permanently.
One other aspect of land conservation should be alluded to and that is
the necessity of preventing the denuding of our hillsides and valleys
of all vegetation. I know of at least two instances within the last
year in areas around Seattle where as a result of large scale develop-
ments and the usual shaving of the hillside there has been a marked
• increase in road repair costs and sewer repair and maintenance cost due
to the radically increased surface water runoff stemming from those
housing developments. Moreover, the silt and mud which has washed down
on lower properties has resulted in property damage and legal action in
at least one case. This is just a personal observation within the last
year and many of you may have similar experiences stored away in your
memory. Here, for example, some form of land conservation could have
prevented these increased costs to both government and the surrounding
property owners.
3. Recreation. Although parks and play areas must be purchased outright,
they may be greatly complemented by adjoining conservation easements which
maintain the park atmosphere throughout the neighborhood. Moreover,
detached entirely from parks, the fact that the countryside is preserved
in its less developed state makes it enjoyable to the public which drives,
along the roads and through the countryside. It is true that here in
Western Washington, for example, we have many lovely views of mountains
and waters on which no housing development will ever be placed. But
signs and buildings and developments can be placed along the roadsides and
on vista points which can as effectively destroy those marvelous views as
if we had pulled a shade forever across these mountains and waters. The
enjoyment of these views is recreation and that recreational opportunity
should and can be preserved through conservation easements. This is an
argument for esthetics as a public purpose, but I think we have good
authority for that argument, at least as it applies to the power of
eminent domain, in a heralded opinion by Justice Douglas of the United
States Supreme Court. Justice Douglas wrote as follows:
"The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.
The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical,
esthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of
the Legislature to determine that the community should be
beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean,
well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the
present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies
have made determinations that take into account a wide
variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them.
If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that
the nation's capital should be beautiful as well as
sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that
stands in the way."
(Berman vs. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S. Ct. 98 (1954))
4. Control of Urban Growth. One of the most important purposes of con-
servation easements in the mind of Mr. Whyte and of many others is that
of controlling the sprawl of urban growth and some way channelling that
growth into economical and logical patterns. In this respect the
- 28 -
conservation easement will be of value not only for the land it preserves
but, also for the manner in which it concentrates the urban growth into
economical patterns, saving the state and local government many thousands
of dollars of tax money which would otherwise have gone for more expensive
road, sewer, water and other municipal and governmental services.
5. Air Pollution Control. The preservation of open spaces and vegetation
assists us in our efforts to keep our air clean. We may only look to our
southern neighbors to see what horrible possibilities air pollution may
present to municipalities and to the surrounding rural areas. We wonder
how lucky we have been: But it will take more than luck to save us from
the same fate in the years to come, and it is not too early to start
taking those steps which will assist in keeping our air fresh and clean
to breathe.
In addition to the foregoing, I am sure we can all think of still other
possible public purposes to be served from a preservation of open spaces.
Turning now to consideration of the compensation or payment for such easements
or rights so acquired, it is important that the local government have the funds
to make such purchases and to pay for such condemnation. This, of course,
emphasizes the importance of long-range planning in finances and capital
acquisitions and to this end I must stress the great importance of cooperation
and coordination between the local and regional planning, fiscal and legisla-
tive agencies. With reference to compensation in eminent domain cases there
is, of course, a problem presented concerning segregating the interest in
development rights from the remaining interests in the land involved. However,
this always presents a problem whenever there are divided interests in land.
It should present no greater problem than that involved in obtaining flight
easements over lands adjoining airfields or flooding easements in river valleys
or underground sewer or water pipeline easements or view easements or advertising
sign easements. In each instance the value of the particular interest condemned
must be determined by a jury with the aid of experts separate from the value of
the remaining interests retained by the property owner. In some cases a con-
servation easement may cost as much as the land itself, and in that case, perhaps
the purchase of the entire parcel should be recommended. But, in many cases the
whole property will not be subject to the conservation easement or the whole
property without the conservation easement may have sufficiently valuable
remaining uses so as not to be damaged greatly by the separation of the develop-
ment rights. This may be frequently true along bottomland in river valleys
where the water table may be too high to construct efficiently many houses and
where the sewage disposal cost may prohibit housing developments. This may be
likewise true along lakeshores.
Let us be clear about one point and that is that compensation will in fact be
given where damages are determined, and that this will not be the equivalent
of a governmental regulation under the police power where no compensation is
given. For the property owner it should be far more desirable than to be
subject to police power regulations having the same effect. Moreover, the
compensation given will be that required by the Constitution - that is, fair
and just compensation, meaning the fair market value of the interest taken.
I should like finally to cite examples where this method of conservation ease-
ments or other similar methods have been used successfully. I have mentioned
earlier Santa Clara County in California which under a California enabling
statute has succeeded in preserving a beautiful river valley from the rapidly
encroaching, and I might say ugly, urban developments. In that area the farmers
- 29 -
are happy, apparently the developers are now happy, and all of the residents
generally are pleased with the outcome, so pleased in fact that it has served
as a model for a law which is now proposed for Pennsylvania under the apparent
backing of Mr. William H. Whyte, Jr.
In his Technical Bulletin No. 36 of the Urban Land Institute, Mr. Whyte compares
conservation easements with the scenic easements established by California and
the reservation agreements of Ohio. Some similiarities may be found in the
Conservation Act of Ohio, the Federal "Rights In Land Act" and the Massachusetts
Act for the Establishment and Development of the Massachusetts Bay Circuit. In
addition, we in Washington have provisions in our Code concerning the power of
the state and our districts to acquire lands and easements for flood control and
other land conservation purposes which at least represent portions of the
objectives I mentioned with reference to conservation easements.
It is also interesting to note Great Britain has experimented with varying
degrees of success with the acquisition of development rights in order to
protect its countrysides. A discussion of this approach is contained in Haar,
Land Use Planning, pages 5t5-556. Based on the assumption that lands surrounding
reserved open spaces are benefited thereby, one of the approaches suggested for
Britain, is that a portion of the compensation paid to the owner of the reserved
area would be covered by assessments against the properties of the neighborhood
which were benefited by the preservation of the open space. The fact that all
real estate people recognize that one of the factors in arriving at the cost of
residential properties is the availability of open space and the presence of
desirable zoning in adjacent land parcels and neighborhoods leads to the
conclusion that the legislature might well investigate the possibility of pro-
viding for an assessment procedure to assist in financing the acquisition of
conservation easements.
Summarizing, you must all be aware that I have not delved very deeply into
the problems involved in this new approach to the preservation of open spaces.
I have merely sketched the problems with which we are faced now and the draw-
backs of the traditional methods of dealing with these problems and have
suggested that the new approach advocated most strongly by William H. Whyte, Jr.
has many advantages not reflected in the traditional police power regulatory
techniques we so frequently rely upon. In addition to the advantages to the
public body there is the added feature of fairness to the property owner in
the fact that he is compensated for the loss of his development rights. To
my mind this method should be explored and tried before we lose too many of
our open spaces within the metropolitan areas of this state. As I mentioned
earlier, enabling legislation should be enacted and once that opportunity is
made available I am convinced that there are local agencies who will be only
too anxious to test the effectiveness of this method in Washington.
In conclusion, the subject of acquiring development rights presents a challenging
array of new tools (resources) which might be perfected and utilized to achieve
some necessary public betterments. Particularly in those kinds of capital
improvements that require the acquisition and preservation of the vaster
expanses of "open space" does this avenue offer noteworthy possibilities. It
may be an area where the municipal counsel, legislator, planner and public
works official can match wits in offering new techniques particularly suited
for enhancing our outdoor opportunities in the Pacific Northwest, and, at least,
preserve part of this heritage for our next generations.
- 30 -
COMPARISON OF METHODS AVAILABT,F FOR FINANCING
W. PHILLIP STRAWN, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, WASHINGTON STATE RESEARCH COUNCIL,
OLYMPIA
When considering methods of financing public improvements, governmental units
are faced with two basic choices--financing on a "pay-as-you-go" basis or
financing by means of borrowing. This is an oversimplification, of course,
for there are situations in which one or the other of these methods may be
inappropriate or inapplicable. In addition, many governments finance their
capital improvements through some combination of borrowing and pay-as-you-go.
However, the fundamental choice remains between financing with current revenues
and financing with borrowed funds.
This paper will discuss some of the factors which should be taken into considera-
tion when a choice between the two basic financing methods is being made.
Financing on a Pay-As-You-Go Basis
There are three major methods .of paying for public improvements on a pay-as-you-
go basis:
1. Through the use of current' revenues from usual sources.
2. Through the use of a reserve fund or several reserve funds.
3. Through the use of the special levy procedure by local governments.
Almost any form of pay-as-you-go method of financing has a psychological appeal
for many people. The very phrase "pay-as-you-go" has a connotation of sound
fiscal policy and responsible management. There are, of course, advantages to
pay-as-you-go financing which are considerably more important than psychological
appeal.
Probably one of the most obvious advantages of current financing as opposed to
borrowing is the saving in interest costs. A graduated serial bond issue of
$1 million, with an interest rate of 4 per cent, retired over a 20-year period,
has a total interest cost of $4+71,520. Thus, every dollar borrowed under
these circumstances costs 47 cents. If the effects of inflation were taken
into account, this figure would be smaller since in a period of inflation
borrowed funds are repaid with money of reduced value. When the cost of
borrowing can be avoided, the total cost of public improvements is lowered and
the financial demand made upon taxpayers by governments is reduced.
A second major advantage of current financing is that it does not obligate
revenues of future years for debt service payments. This means that that
portion of available revenue which would have been expended for debt service
may be available to meet increased operating requirements, to provide additional
capital improvements, or to permit a reduction of taxes.
Reserve Funds.
The use of reserve funds for capital improvement purposes is a variation of the
pay-as-you-go method. Under this procedure a sum of money is placed in a
reserve fund at regular intervals until such time as the fund accumulates
sufficient resources to finance the desired public improvement. Paying for
capital improvements by this method has essentially the same advantages as
paying from current revenues. An added benefit is the additional money made
-31-
available for the fund's use without taxation as a result of interest earned by
the fund's investments.
One of the criticisms sometimes, made concerning the use, of reserve funds is
that the existence of such funds, especially in governmental units which are
hard pressed financially, creates a temptation to tap the reserve funds for
Purposes other than those for which they were created. The likelihood of a
governmental unit succumbing to such a temptation can be largely eliminated
by proper legal safeguards and effective auditing.
• Another criticism of the use of reserve funds which is heard occasionally is that
such funds create a situation in which present taxpayers are paying for a public
improvement which they cannot presently utilize but which will be utilized by
others in the future who may have contributed nothing toward its cost. While
this may be true, it is equally true that most present taxpayers are utilizing
some public improvements toward whose cost they have not contributed.
There are limitations on the extent to which reserve funds can be used to finance
Capital improvements. These limitations will vary with the public improvement
Under consideration and the governmental unit involved. Sometimes an expensive
improvement may be so urgently needed that a period of years cannot be taken to
accumulate the financial resources necessary for its construction.
Special Levies
A third variation of the pay-as-you-go method is the use of a special levy to
obtain the funds needed for public improvements of the type which are made
:infrequently. A recent example of this was the special 2.6 mill levy passed
by Tacoma citizens at the March, 1960 election. While a fairly small portion
of the levy was for operating expenses, most of the levy was for fire depart-
ment equipment and for improvements in downtown water mains and hydrants.
Recognizing that there are limitations to the extent to which public improve-
ments can be financed on a current basis, it would still seem that the pay-as-
you-go method offers many significant advantages in terms of sound fiscal
policy. As Dr. Webster indicated in his book, Urban Planning and Municipal
Public Policy, a pay-as-you-go system for public iprovements should be the
goal of all communities, except the very smallest.°
Financing by Borrowing
When public improvements cannot be financed on a current basis, the alternative,
short of not making the improvement, is borrowing through the sale of bonds.
Debt has been characterized as providing ". . .a way to modify the restraint
on spending imposed by the piecemeal way we receive our income."7 In creating
debt through the exercise of its borrowing power, a government finds itself
faced with problems which involve basically two areas:
I 1. The revenue sources which will be utilized for repayment of the debt.
1
1 2. The scheduling of debt service payments.
6Donald H. Webster, Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy (New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1958), p. 333.
?Marshall A. Robinson, "Debt and the American Economy," 1958 Proceedings.
of the Fifty-First Annual Conference on Taxation--National Tax Association
THarrisburg, Pa.: National Tax Association, 1959), p. 206.
- 32 -
/////A/i
In servicing debt contracted for capital improvement purposes, governments rely
on revenues produced by operation of the improvement or on taxes; the distinction,
in other words, between revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. A third
category of bonded debt would include limited obligation bonds, i.e., bonds which
pledge revenues from one or two specific tax sources for repayment.
Revenue Bonds
In recent years the use of revenue bonds for purposes other than the traditional
public utility services has become increasingly popular. Revenue bonds, properly
used for a suitable improvement, offer a number of advantages over general
obligation bonds. First of all, the debt service required for revenue bonds
often does not utilize the same revenue sources as those which the governmental
unit draws upon for its operating revenue. Second, in the case of an improve-
ment financed by revenue bonds, revenues are derived from charges to those who
use the facility; thus, governments can undertake projects which may be of real
value to one segment of the public, but of only indirect value to other segments.
A third, and somewhat dubious, advantage of revenue bonds is that they usually
do not come under legal debt limitations. This would be a consideration only for
those governmental units which desire to finance capital improvements 'projects
with bonds but find themselves close to their legal debt limit.
Financing capital improvements by means of revenue bonds is not without pitfalls,
however. For one thing, revenue bonds often :;ear a higher interest rate than
general obligation bonds because they are backed by only the revenue from a
specific facility rather than by the full taxing power of the issuing govern-
mental unit. A second possible disadvantage lies in the difficulty of
estimating and projecting the probable income from the facility's operation
into a fairly long period in the future. In the case of public utilities this
is not so difficult since there is often a history of operations to indicate
growth and use trends. When consideration is being given to f&na.ncing a new
type of facility with revenue bonds, the greatest care must be taken to insure
that estimates of earnings are realistic and are not colored by undue optimism.
This is especially true when use of the facility under consideration will be
optional, witness the financial difficulty of Spokane's Maple Street Toll Bridge
where a "free" bridge exists just a short distance away.
Washington State Bonded Debt
Revenue bonds are generally considered to be bonds whose redemption and interest
costs will be met out of the earnings of a specific facility or facilities.
General obligation bonds are those bonds for whose payment the issuing, govern-
ment has pledged its full faith and credit. That portion of Washington State's
bonded debt which is under the jurisdiction of the State Finance Committee is
like a revenue bond issue; i.e., a specific revenue source is pledged for re-
payment.
Washington's Constitution (Article VIII) imposes a debt ceiling of $400,000 which
may be exceeded only if'the additional debt is incurred to repel invasion,
suppress insurrection, etc., or if it is authorized by law and approved by a
majority vote at a general election. The state has circumvented this restriction
by issuing limited obligation bonds which pledge a specific revenue source (e.g.,
cigarette tax, sales tax, motor fuels tax, motor vehicle excise tax) in payment.
Even the state's general obligation bond issues (school construction bonds of
1949 and institutional building bonds of 1949) pledge specific revenue sources.
- 33 -
Like revenue bonds, limited obligation bonds usually have a higher rate of
interest than general obligation bonds. More important, the extensive pledging
of specific revenue sources introduces a large degree of inflexibility into the
tax structure and freezes certain taxes into the tax structure at fixed rates
for long periods of time. The more rigid the tax structure, the less discretion
the legislature has in determining which revenue sources to utilize and in
determining whether or not to adjust rates.
Bond Form
A characteristic shared by both the state bond issues discussed above and by
municipal general obligation bond issues is that both consist of graduated
serial bonds. Graduated serial bonds are characterized by total annual pay-
ments (principal and interest) being almost equal for the life of the bonds.
The use of graduated serial bonds pyramids annual debt service requirements as
bonded debt is increased. Straight serial bonds on the other hand are
characterized by equal annual principal payments and by declining total (principal
and interest) annual payments over the life of the bond.
Straight serial bonds offer three important advantages over graduated serial bonds.
First, the declining annual debt service requirement of straight serial bonds frees
financial resources for other uses. Second, the more rapid retirement of principal
effected under straight serials helps to recover borrowing capacity more rapidly.
Third, total interest costs over the life of a bond issue are less when the bonds
are straight serials. For example, a 20-year, 4 per cent, graduated serial bond
issue of $1 million will have a total interest cost of $471,520. A similar issue
of straight serial bonds would have a total interest cost of $420,000, or
$51,520 less. Under present law (RCW 39.44.010) municipal general obligation
bonds must be graduated serials. In view of the advantages of straight serial
bonds, it would seem desirable to permit a choice between the two bond forms.
• Debt Limits
One of the factors which may influence the choice of financing methods by
municipalities is the legal debt limit. A city which is approaching its legal
debt limit or has reached it is forced to turn its consideration from general
obligation bonds as a method of financing improvements and to consider other
methods, such as revenue bonds or current financing.
Because municipal debt limits in this state are of very limited significance,
they cannot be used as reliable guides to debt carrying capacity or to methods
of financing improvements. The point is notthat legal debt ceilings are
undesirable, but rather that present ceilings have serious shortcomings. The
general obligation bonded debt limit for Washington municipalities is expressed
as a percentage of the value of taxable property with the value of taxable
property defined as being twice that of the assessed value. This state-imposed
debt limit has little significance for two reasons. First, it does not take into
consideration the effect of overlapping debt. For example, if the City of Tacoma,
Pierce County, the Port of Tacoma District, the Metropolitan Park District, and
the ,Tacoma School District all issued bonds up to their legal maximums, Tacoma's
proportionate share of the total would be equivalent to 43 per cent of its
• assessed valuation. Second, because of the fact that varying ratios of assessed
to actual value are used in this state for property tax purposes, the base used
in computing debt limitations does not have uniform state-wide significance.
- 34 -
There are two additional methods of financing capital improvements which have
not been mentioned thus far. To some extent both methods result from attempts
to avoid debt limitations. One is the lease-purchase arrangement, the other is
the use of authorities or special districts.
tease-Purchase Financing
Under a lease-purchase arrangement, a public improvement is constructed by a
nongovernmental agency and leased to the governmental unit. The lease payments
made by the governmental unit are arranged to pay off the cost of the improve-
ment within the life of the lease. At the end of the lease the governmental
unit acquires title to the property. One of the problems concerning lease-
purchase plans has been the determination of whether or not such plans constitute
a debt. Some courts have held that these plans are, other courts that they are
not. In this state such plans are not considered part of a municipality's
debt. Legal considerations aside, the payments made under a lease-purchase
arrangement may constitute as much a protracted, binding financial obligation
as do debt service requirements on a bond issue. In addition, funds for pay-
ments in either situation are generally derived from the same revenue sources.
Authorities
The use of authorities to finance public improvements varies considerably. Some
authorities, such as Washington State's Toll Bridge Authority are concerned
exclusively with the financing and operation of facilities which are supported
by user charges; e.g., toll bridges, ferry systems, toll roads, etc. In other
instances, an authority is created for the purpose of issuing bonds and con-
structing facilities which are not generally considered self-supporting. A
school building authority, for example, may construct school buildings which
• are then rented to local districts, the rentals being used by the authority
to retire the bonds which it has issued.
The use of authorities as a device to incur additional debt beyond that permitted
by the standard debt limitations can be disadvantageous if it obscures the
fact that authority debt is as much a part of a community's total financial
obligation as is debt of the more traditional governmental units, such as cities
or the state. Additional disadvantages of authorities are that they tend to
diffuse governmental responsibility and that they may result in a governmental
operation less susceptible to public control than usual governmental activities.
Conclusions
In 'conclusion, it must be recognized that determination of the method or methods
to be used in financing public improvements is a decision which cannot be
reached with a large degree of finality. Certainly a pay-as-you-go plan of
financing represents the most desirable goal and every effort should be made to
achieve it. As the International City Managers' Association has stated: "A
sound borrowing policy for any community, therefore, is one which seeks the
conservation rather than the exhaustion of credit. This involves, in general,
borrowing as sparingly as possible and repaying as rapidly as possible."8
However, the choice of method at any given time will involve consideration of
such factors as size of the governmental unit, cost of the improvement in
relation to the size of the government's budget, economic conditions, urgency
for constructing the project, existing financial obligations, existing revenue
structure, nature of the improvement to be constructed, keeping the cost as low
as possible, and debt limitations. The methods available should be considered
81nternati.onal City Managers' Association, Municipal Finance Administration
(Chicago: International City Managers' As3s'rociation, 1949), p. 316.
as resource avenues to the public agencies in the state, the choice being limited
by statutory authority and good judgment as to the most prudent way to handle a
coordinated capital improvement program that spans a period of years.
36 -
TEE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR PUBLIC WORKS, FACILITIES, AND RENEWAL
L. R. DURKEE, DIRECTOR FOR NORTHWEST OPERATIONS, HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY
Norman Mason, the Housing Administrator, in speaking at the 1960 World Planning
and. Housing Congress last May 28, mentioned a reference to planning as far back
as 3000. B. C. He quoted advice set down in hieroglyphics to dwellers in the
Punjab region of what is now Pakistan. One piece of advice was "First lay out
the town and only then plan the houses." He commented that we often do not
follow this piece of sound advice today. He went on in that talk to emphasize
the importance of comprehensive over-all planning. He referred specifically to
the emergence of loosely-knit, loosely-organized -- in fact disorganized --
metropolitan areas which embrace a welter of outdated jurisdictions: a prevalent
situation these days. He spoke of the need for a "total approach" in planning,
not only the contribution of the engineer and the construction man, but also the
political scientist, the economist, the sociologist, and for that matter, the
psychologist. Speakers have referred to the need for an orderly capital improve-
ment policy. We heard of a comprehensive plan as a guide to that capital
improvement policy. Certainly, a capital improvement program cannot come into
being if not preceded by a good deal of over-all comprehensive planning. No one,
however, is deluded by the idea that either the comprehensive plan or the capital
improvement program will remain unchanged for all time. Needs change; new
problems have a habit of cropping up and so do the answers: better answers. In
planning we should never forget that there is no such thing as an all-time, hard
and fast, unequivocal answer.
The Housing Act of 1954 made substantial changes in our concept of urban renewal.
Emphasis was placed on the upgrading of deteriorated areas and the prevention of
slums through conservation and rehabilitation. It is better to avoid, if at all
possible, the necessity for complete clearance and rebuilding. This is
particularly true, of course, where the land use is substantially in the same
use. The Workable Program came into being in the Housing Act of 1954 - a program
to evidence the fact that a city really meant business in approaching urban
renewal. It is essentially a planning program, not only a comprehensive community
plan and neighborhood analysis, but also a plan for administration, a plan for
financing, a plan for the housing of displaced families, a plan to stimulate
citizenship responsibility, and, of course, a plan for enforcement in the way of
codes and ordinances. If the government is going to stand good for up to 2/3
of the net cost of urban renewal, it needs assurance that the local public agency
(municipality) which carries out the project is going to be a workable and work-
ing partner.
Two sections of the Housing Act of 1954 concern planning - Section 701 is on
long-range comprehensive urban planning; Section 702 involves the advance planning
of specific public works - the design, if you please both preliminary and final.
Planning under Section 701 (urban planning) should result, among other things, in
the formulation of a city-wide capital improvement program for public works. The
Section 702 program provides assistance, if needed, in the preliminary design,
or perhaps in final working drawings and specifications of the projects included,
usually in order of priority, in the capital improvements program. It is not,
however, at all dependent on a federally assisted comprehensive plan. Indeed,
most of them are not; but, of course, any public works project should be tied
into some over-allgeneral plan.
Insofar as urban planning is concerned, the purposes are (1) to assist state and
local governments in solving planning problems in metropolitan and other urban
- 37 -
areas including smaller communities, (2) to facilitate comprehensive planning on
a continuing basis, and (3) to encourage state and local governments to establish
and develop planning staffs.
It is a grant program with grants limited so as not to exceed 50% of the estimated
cost of the planning work. It is usually administered through authorized state
planning agencies or through metropolitan or regional planning agencies. Public
bodies eligible for assistance are (1) municipalities of less than 50,000 popula-
tion, (2) counties of less than 50,000 population, or (3) groups of adjacent
communities with a total population of less than 50,000. These categories are
provided planning assistance through state planning agencies. Cities and counties
which have suffered substantial damage as a result of a disaster may receive
planning assistance through the state agency or directly, as may areas where
rapid urbanization has resulted by reason of a federal installation. Planning
assistance in metropolitan and regional areas may be secured either through the
state agency or by direct grant to metropolitan or regional planning agencies.
You will gather that cities of more than 50,000 population are not eligible to
receive urban planning assistance from the federal government under Section 701.
A metropolitan area, however, can receive such assistance. For example, the City
of Tacoma is not eligible to receive 701 planning assistance for urban planning
within the confines of the city limits. It is eligible, however, to receive such
assistance in the Tacoma metropolitan area which includes the city, the fringe
area outside, and adjacent communities. It may receive assistance either through
the state planning agency or directly through the Pierce County Planning Commis-
sion.
Section 701 places emphasis on comprehensive planning as distinguished from
piecemeal or single purpose planning.
"Comprehensive planning" is then defined to include five elements,
"to the extent directly related to urban needs." These are: "(1)
preparation, as a guide for long-range development, of general
physical plans with respect to the pattern and intensity of land
use and the provision of public facilities, together with long-
range fiscal plans for such development; (2) programming of capital
improvements based on a determination of relative urgency, to-
gether with definitive financing plans for the improvements to be
constructed in the earlier years of the program; (3) coordination
of all related plans of the departments or subdivisions of the
government concerned; (4) intergovernmental coordination of all
related planned activities among the state and local governmental
agencies concerned; and (5) preparation of regulatory and administra-
tive measures in support of the foregoing."
In the State of Washington the authorized state planning agency is within the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development. Application forms are secured
from that office and are submitted to that office. From there they are trans-
mitted directly to the Regional Office of the Housing and Home Finance Agency
in San Francisco. To date, planning grants have been approved for 25 small
cities in the State of Washington to a total of $110,575; $64,977 of this
amount has been disbursed. In addition, grants have been approved for two
metropolitan areas in the state for a total of $47,440 with $16,604 disbursed.
Funds are now available to carry on the 701 planning program. And additional
funds have been requested for the next fiscal year.
- 38 -
Section 702 of the Housing Act of 1954+ provides the program for the Advance
Planning of Public Works. It authorizes interest free loans (not grants) for
the planning of specific public works. It is a very simple program. Its
purpose is to encourage public agencies to maintain a reserve of planned public
works which can readily be placed under construction. This promotes economy
and efficiency in construction. Many public works projects fell far short of
meeting the need because they were ill-planned. They were planned too hurriedly,
riot necessarily through lack of vision or foresight, but simply through a lack
of time. Other projects have cost considerably more than they should have cost
because of many changes made during the construction period: change orders given
the contractors after the award of the original contract. The Section 702 pro-
gram is intended to remedy this shortcoming if at all possible.
The planning may include preliminary design only - preliminary drawings, outline
specifications and a cost estimate. This might be for the purpose of providing
information incidental to a bond election or for information to approving agencies.
It is not in the nature of a feasibility survey - feasibility should have
already been determined. If construction is contemplated imminently, the
planning may provide complete working drawings and specifications, ready for
advertisement. As mentioned, there is no interest charge and repayment is not
due until construction is started. It often happens that planning funds are
not available until construction funds have been authorized. At that time the
cost of planning may be repaid. If only a portion of the planned public work
is put under construction, then a proportionate part of the loan may be repaid,
with the balance payable as further construction is started. Any public body
is eligible to receive such loans. This includes state governments and any
subdivision thereof, cities, counties and special districts.
It is easy to understand how helpful this may be to cities which have developed
a capital improvement program - perhaps with assistance from the 701 program,
or perhaps on their own. Those projects with first priority in the capital
improvement program may be planned and thus perhaps a year's time saved in the
start of construction. In the meantime, planning may proceed on down the list
so ,that a project is at all times ready for construction when construction funds
become available.
During the past 12 months some 26 advance planning projects, under Section 702,
have been approved in the State of Washington. The total of such advances is
$1,030,353. Application forms are available from my office. We are glad to
assist applicants in preparing their application and approval of most of them
is made right here. It ordinarily does not take long. Funds are available.
It is needless for me to speak further to you on the importance of long-range
comprehensive over-allplanning and the importance of planning in advance of
the specific projects indicated as the result of the comprehensive planning.
This assistance is given Washington communities by the Federal Government under
Sections 701 and 702 of the Housing Act of 1954 and its subsequent amendments,
and constitutes an important resource for the furtherance of capital improvement
programs.
- 39 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
0 F
25 PLANNING PUBLICATIONS
American Society of Planning Officials, "Capital Improvements Program - Some
Considerations," Planning Advisory Service Information Report No. 3, (Feb. 1951) .
Ball, Charles, "Capital Budgeting: Its Problem Areas," Public Management,
vol. 40:11, pp. 258-261 (Nov. 1958) .
Bragdon, John G., "Advance Planning of Public Works," Public Works Engineers Year-
book. (Chicago: American Public Works Association, 1956) p. 114.
Clapper, Carl W., "Use of Capital Reserve Funds for New Improvements," Municipal
Finance, vol. XXVII, No. 1, pp. 44-48 (August 1954) .
Dugger, George, San Francisco City Planning Commission, Program and Public Improve-
ments in Accordance with the City Plan, (Oct. 1951) .
Green, Philip P., "The ,Capital Budget - How Cities May Efficiently Schedule the
Construction of Public Facilities," Popular Government, vol. XIX, No. 8, p. 5,
(April 1953) .
Harrell, C.A., "How Cities Can Adopt Pay-as-you-go Financing," Virginia Municipal
Review, vol. 26:3, pp. 45-48 (March 1949) .
Haviland, Jeanne-Louise, "Paying for Public Works," Tax Policy, vol. XX, No. 5-6,
p. 11 (May-June 1953) .
International City Managers' Association, Municipal Finance Administration, 4th ed.
(1949), especially Chapter 12, "Long-Term Financial Planning," pp. 353-388.
International City Managers' Association, Municipal Public Works Administration,
5th ed. (1957), especially that part of Chapter 2 pertaining to preparation of
capital improvement programs, pp. 30-34.
International City Managers' Association, Local Planning Administration, 3rd ed.
(1959), especially Chapter 13, "Long-Range Financial Planning," pp. 370-394.
Krangle, Charles S., "Advantages of Long-Term Capital Budgeting," Tennessee Planner,
vol. X, No. 2, (Oct. 1949), p• 39.
Lombardi, Frank, "The Planning Agency and Capital Improvement Programs," Journal of
American Institute of Planners, vol. 20, No. 2, (Spring, 1954), pp. 95-101.
Lawrence, Fred W., "The Capital Improvement Program - A Challenge to a Small City,"
Municipal Finance, vol. XXVI, No. 4, (May 1954), p. 147.
Lee, Eugene C., "Use of Lease - Purchase Agreements to Finance Capital Improvements
Programs," Municipal Finance, vol. XXIV, No. 2, (Nov. 1951), p• 78.
Municipal Finance Officers' Association, "Financial Planning for Governments,"
Municipal Finance, (Feb. 1949) .
Municipal Finance Officers' Association, "Long-Term Financial Planning," Municipal
Finance, (1948), 4 pt.
- 40 -
• it
Iti
Miller, Harold V., Mr. Planning Commissioner,(Public Administration Service, 1954) .
Municipal Finance Officers' Association, A Newer Concept in Municipal Budgeting,
(Chicago: The Association, 1957).
I I
Public Works Committee, Long-Range Program and Municipal Public Works, (Washington,
I', D.C. : National Resources Planning Board, 1941) .
I
Farker, William Stanley, "Capital Improvement Programs," Journal of American
I Institute of Planners, vol. 20, No. 4 (Fall, 1954), pp. 192-195.
Superintendent of Documents, Planning for Public, Works, (Government Printing
Office, 1957) .
c ,
Shaw, George N., "Budgetary Crystal Gazing," Municipal Finance, vol., 21: 3,
II 1 (Feb. 1949), pp. 10-13.
.7rban Land Institute, "Utilities and Facilities for New Residential Development,"
' 11 Technical Bulletin No. 27, (Washington: The Institute, 1955) .
Webster, Donald H., Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy, (New:York: Harper
& Brothers, 1958) .
11
11
I
I I
1 '
I I
I! '
Ip
� II
1 I,
I{+
- 41 -
II{
.c7pziati
capital
improvements
programming ,
on
local
government
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20410
Urban Management
Assistance Administration
•
Office of Metropolitan Development
October 1969
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Urban Management Assistance Administration
Office of Metropolitan Development
REVISED EDITION
OCTOBER 1969
Preface
Small and large communities alike are faced with the difficult task of increasing public services
while staying within the constraints of limited financial resources. Indeed, in many communities it
is becoming impossible to respond to the demand for these services. It is imperative, therefore, that
the best available techniques of municipal management be used to insure that needs for public serv-
ices are matched with available revenues in the most economical and effective manner.
Of particular concern to local residents and officials are the planning and improvement of public
facilities. The construction of health facilities, water supply and sewage disposal systems, schools,
and libraries must keep pace with growing population. Worn and antiquated facilities must be re-
paired or replaced.
Unfortunately, many communities delay needed improvement until crises develop. Others
permit popular or large projects to drain off all available funds. Inadequate planning also results
in the poor location of public facilities and the unrealistic expenditure of public funds.
One municipal management technique to prevent these mistakes is capital improvements
programming, the subject of this Bulletin. Looking beyond year-to-year budgeting in order to
determine what, when, where, and how future improvements should be made, capital improve-
ments programming enables officials to avoid the exhausting impact that unplanned capital ex-
penditures often have on local resources. It can also help local governments to reap the fullest
benefits from Federal and State grants.
This Technical Guidance Bulletin has two purposes: 1) to familiarize local residents and govern-
ment officials with the concept of capital improvements programming, and 2) to describe procedures
that may be followed in the preparation, adoption, and use of such a technique. The material in
the Bulletin was originally prepared under contract with this Department by the National League of
Cities, with the assistance and comment of representatives of such organizations as the American
Public Works Association, National Association of Counties, National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials, International City Managers' Association, American Institute of Planners,
and the Pennsylvania Economy League.
Future Technical Guidance Bulletins now being planned will describe other techniques for the
planning and management of urban affairs. We will also encourage the sharing of knowledge among
all communities, to help local residents and officials learn from the successes and failures of others.
Samuel C. Jackson
Assistant Secretary for
Metropolitan Development
iii
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMMING:
A GUIDE FOR SMALL CITIES, TOWNS, BOROUGHS, AND COUNTIES
What are Capital Improvements?
"Capital improvements" or "public improvements" are major projects requiring the expenditure
of public funds, over and above annual operating expenses, for the purchase, construction, or
replacement of the physical assets of the community. The purchase of land needed for commun-
ity use is a capital improvement, as is the acquisition or construction of facilities, such as—
Airport Library School
City Hall Park Sewage Treatment Plant
Civic Center Parking Garage Sewer System
Courthouse Playground Stadium
Fire Station Police Station Street Lighting System
Hospital Sanitary Landfill Swimming Pool
What is Capital Improvements Programming?
Capital improvements programming is the preparation and updating of a proposed schedule of
public works and related equipment to be built or purchased by local governments during the next
few years. To be effective, it should cover the community's entire range of public facility and serv-
ice requirements. In the program, all future projects are listed in order of construction priority to-
gether with cost estimates and the anticipated means of financing each project.
The capital improvements program is generally based on the locality's comprehensive plan. In
the absence of such a plan, however, it is based on community objectives as defined by the city or
county government and upon proposals submitted by various officials and departments. The land
acquisition and construction activities of all neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions — municipal-
ities,; counties, special districts, authorities, and even the State — should also be included, or at least
considered, in the capital improvements program whenever possible.
A six-year programming period is generally considered to be most suitable. Two or three years is
too short for effective programming because planning and financing of major facilities usually take
a longer period of time. Conversely, a period of seven or more years may project the program too
far into the future to be of practical value.
What are the Advantages of Programming?
Small cities and counties can derive considerable benefits from a systematic approach to planning
capital projects. These benefits, of course, do not come automatically. They are dependent upon
a strong legislative commitment to the program and firm executive leadership in carrying it out. Of
considerable importance, also, is the cooperation of other local governmental units whose programs
are interrelated.
Some of the most important advantages of capital improvements programming are the following:
Focusing Attention on Community Goals, Needs, and Capabilities.—Capital projects can be
brought into line with community objectives, anticipated growth, and financial capabilities. By
planning ahead for projects, those that are needed or desired the most will be constructed first.
Maximum satisfaction will thereby be gained from the money spent.
1
Achieving Optimum Use of the Taxpayer's Dollar.—Advance programming of public works on
an orderly basis will help avoid the possibility of costly mistakes. The program will guide local
Officials in making sound annual budget decisions. In addition, a listing of anticipated future
construction projects may encourage the selection of needed land well in advance of actual con-
struction, and then permit acquisition at lower costs.
Serving Wider Community Interests.—The capital improvements program, once accepted, keeps
the public informed about future construction plans of the community and helps reduce the
ii
pressures on local officials for projects far down on the priority list. In addition, knowledge
about the future physical needs of the community and the financial ability of the local gov-
ernment to fulfill these needs is a valuable aid to private investors.
Encouraging a More Efficient Governmental Administration.—Coordination of capital improve-
ments programming by the agencies of a city, or a county, can reduce scheduling problems,
conflicting and overlapping projects, and overemphasis of any governmental function. In addi-
tion, work can be more effectively scheduled and available personnel and equipment better
used when it is known in advance what, where, and when projects are to be undertaken.
Improving the Basis for Intergovernmental and Regional Cooperation.—Capital improvements
programming offers public officials of all governmental units — city, county, and special
district — an opportunity to plan the location, timing, and financing of needed improvements
in the interest of the community as a whole. Furthermore, because many public works serv-
ices and facilities do not stop at the city or county boundaries, adequate planning and cooper-
ation by the various agencies and governments through a capital improvements program could
help reduce duplication of effort and the cost of such projects, and avoid public inconveniences.
Maintaining a Sound and Stable Financial Program.—Sharp changes in the tax structure and
bonded indebtedness may be avoided when the projects to be constructed are spaced over a
number of years. Where there is ample time for planning, the most economical means of
financing each project can be selected in advance. Keeping planned projects within the finan-
cial capacity of the community helps to preserve its credit rating and makes the area more
attractive to business and industry.
Enhancing Opportunities for Participation in Federal or State Grant-In-Aid Programs.—There are
many Federal and State programs that a local government may draw upon for planning, con-
struction, and financing capital improvements. The preparation of a capital program improves
the local government's chance of obtaining such aid.
Who Participates in the Programming Process?
Assignment of responsibilities for capital improvements programming varies from community to
community, depending upon the form of government, level of staffing, and other local conditions.
Below are listed some of the main participants in the programming process and a description of their
activitie lI
Chiefs Executive.—The chief executive — mayor, city manager, or county manager — usually
assumes)the major administrative responsibility for development of the program. He is involved
in the formulation of the capital improvements policy and may recommend projects for inclusion
in the program.
The degree to which the chief executive participates in programming depends to a great extent
upon local government structure and the legal assignment of powers made by statute, charter, and
2 ,�
ordinance. For example, the role of the chief executive will vary substantially among council-
manager, commission, weak mayor-council, and strong mayor-council forms of city government.
Frequently, the chief executive serves as a link between the program administrator and the gov-
erning body. In this capacity he keeps the governing body abreast of programming developments,
and relates the views of the governing body to the program administrator.
Planning Agency.—The actual work of gathering data and preparing the capital improvements
program may be assigned to the local planning agency, although ultimate responsibility is vested in
the chief executive. The planning agency is in a unique position to perform this role because it reg-
ularly monitors information relative to development on a communitywide basis. Land use informa-
tion and plans for the future development of a community form the basis for capital expenditure
programming. Because one of the planning agency's responsibilities is to set forth basic goals and
guidelines for the future development of the city or the county, it is ideally suited to serve in a
coordinating capacity.
Program Coordinator.—The task of preparing the capital improvements program may be assigned
to an interdepartmental committee composed of key staff personnel from finance, budgeting, and
public works departments if the local government does not have a planning agency or if the planning
agency is not staffed to perform the coordinating role required for capital improvement program
preparation. Under other local conditions, the program may be prepared by a special committee of
the council composed, perhaps, of the chairmen of public works, finance, and other committees with
an interest in the program and representatives of various key departments. In this guide, the indi-
vidual or body charged with these responsibilities is called the "program coordinator."
The program coordinator.must develop working procedures with department heads and other
officials in the city or county who will be involved in the process and, where appropriate, with
other governmental units and planning bodies in the area. He must have certain facts at his dis-
posal. The most important of these are: (1) a complete inventory of the kinds of existing facil-
ities and their condition, (2) knowledge of existing policies for the future physical development of
the community, and (3) basic data concerning the ability of the community to pay for planned
improvements.
Operating Departments.—The primary responsibility of the operating departments in the
programming process is to initiate project requests. These requests are prepared on standard
forms on which information is provided relative to why various projects are needed and how
the projects relate to the departments' other programs and long-range aspirations.
Finance Officer.—The finance officer is responsible for: (1) the financial analysis and projections
needed as a background for capital improvements programming, (2) a review of both the capital and
operating budget implications of individual project requests, and (3) determining the best possible
means of financing each project among alternative methods. If the finance department functions as
a one-man operation or if the staff is too small to assume the additional burdens of these tasks, con-
sultants may be used to gather much of the needed financial data.
Governing Body.—The locality's legislative body should participate in the establishment of goals
and procedures for capital improvements programming. Ultimate responsibility for the adoption,
modification, or rejection of the program lies in the governing body. Individual representatives of
the legislative body may also become directly involved in the preparation of the program as mem-
bers of the planning commission or a special capital improvements committee.
Capital improvements programming usually is most successful when it has been made mandatory.
The council and chief executive should assign specific responsibilities for annual preparation of the
3
1.
,4
program, establish general policy and procedures to be followed, and provide a schedule for comple-
tion cif the various stages. These may be formalized in the city or county charter, administrative
budget calendar, or by ordinance or resolution.
Citizens Advisory Committee.—A citizen committee, representing the community as a whole, may
be established to assist in developing the overall program. Such a group can be particularly helpful
in getting public support for bond issues needed to put various aspects of the program into effect.
Usually appointed by the chief executive, the advisory committee may include representatives of
civic,',business, labor, and other organizations.
Consultants.—Lacking skilled personnel, small communities often seek the help of consultants in
developing capital improvements programs. When the local government must undertake large-scale
publicy,works projects, a professional planner, engineer, or architect may also be called in for tech-
nical assistance. Consultants should be required to work within the framework of established com-
munity goals and under the direction of responsible local officials.
What are the Major Steps in Programming?
Theil''major steps in the programming process are: (1) submission of proposed capital improvements
projects to the program coordinator, (2) financial analysis of both the community's ability to pay for
the projects and means to be used in financing them, (3) review and selection of projects for inclu-
sion in the program in order of their priority, (4) preparation of a tentative six-year program, (5)
consideration and final approval of the program by the governing body, (6) public approval of
financing arrangements for individual projects, and (7) annual review and revision of the program. A
summary discussion of these steps is presented below.
Submission of Project Proposals.—The responsibility for proposing projects for the capital improve-
ments program usually rests with the local government's operating departments. 'In some localities
citizen'organizations, church groups, charitable organizations, local chambers of commerce, union
groups,,and others have been invited to participate in this activity. Project proposals may also be
initiated by the chief executive or members of the city or county council.
Each,department prepares a list, in order of priority, of capital projects believed to be needed or
desirable within the next several years. Guidance should come from the chief executive on criteria
to be used in evaluating projects and the general development goals of the community. The project
proposals should then be submitted according to a predetermined schedule to the individual or
agency i,��the chief executive, planning agency, special,committee—serving as the program coordinator.
The program coordinator supplies each operating department, agency, organization, or individual
with forms on which proposed projects are to be submitted and furnishes appropriate instructions
for their use. The forms may include a detailed sheet for each individual project and one sheet for
a summary of the department's entire capital program.
Certain information should be provided for analysis in the later stages of the programming proc-
ess for each project submitted. Necessary data to be included on the form are:
1. Name, description, location, and purpose of the project;
2. Estimated costs involved in each project, including planning, land, construction, equipment,
and other related costs;
3. Impact of the new projects on operating costs and revenue, including estimated annual costs of
maintenance, additional personnel, and allied equipment needs, as well as anticipated revenue-
producing potential of the project;
4. Scheduling of construction phases and project expenditures;
4
�,II
5. Justification and priority of the project; and
6. Recommendations on how the project is to be financed, including any available grants from
the State or the Federal government.
Each'department should develop a long-term capital improvements plan of its own, as far as 20
years ahead for some functions, to support its justification of proposed projects and to relate pro-
posals to one another. The functional plans prepared by each operating department should be
incorporated into the comprehensive physical development plan of the entire community.
In,the absence of such a plan, a thorough inventory of existing facilities and services, an evaluation
of their adequacy, and a statement of departmental objectives and priorities should be formulated.
Without this type of information, projects listed may represent merely wishful thinking on the part
of the various department heads or may simply reflect the pressures of certain groups for pet projects.
The departmental project requests should then be transmitted to the program coordinator when
completed, along with the summary sheet. The summary sheet should list projects in order of priority
and specify the total and the annual cost of each project.
Financial Analysis of Proposed Projects.—Preparation of financial analyses should be the
responsibility of the finance or budget officer. Based upon financial data supplied by operating
departments, the finance officer should determine: (1) the impact of the proposed capital projects
on the annual operating budget, and (2) the feasibility of the alternative means by which the various
proposed projects could be financed. Possible methods of financing include pay-as-you-go, lease-
purchase, and borrowing. These and other possible alternative methods of financing capital projects
are summarized in Appendix A.
A draft of the proposed six-year improvement program should be prepared by the program
coordinator after the list of capital improvement needs has been evaluated and the financial analysis
has been completed. With such information, the program coordinator will be better prepared to
develop a long-range program that will be acceptable to the local governing body.
Review and Adoption of the Program.—The draft of the proposed capital improvements program
is then transmitted to the legislative body, together with recommendations by the chief executive.
Where the program coordinator is independent of the chief executive, the proposed program may
be submitted directly to the governing body. If the planning agency has not acted as program co-
ordinator, it should be given a copy of the proposed program for review. This should be done to
keep the capital improvements program and the long-range comprehensive community development
plan in harmony.
The program coordinator's report should contain at least the following items: (1) a list of projects
and the proposed timing of their construction; (2) a description and justification of each project; (3)
financial data on the capital cost of the projects, source of funds with which each project is to be
financed, estimates of the resulting maintenance and operation costs, and the anticipated effect of
the program upon the tax rate and indebtedness of the community. Projects recommended for the
first year of the program should be presented in the greatest detail because such detail will be used
as a basis for the current capital budget. In addition, the text of a capital improvements program
may be effectively supplemented by maps showing the location of proposed and existing facilities,
progress photos, and other visual displays.
The submission of the proposed program to the governing body, either by the chief executive or
the program coordinator, should be followed by public hearings at which all interested citizens and
civic groups may express their views. Department heads and the program coordinator may also be
called upon to explain certain aspects of the program at such meetings.
5
After the public hearings, and possibly after further consultations with members of the executive
branch, the council may decide to cancel, modify, or reschedule certain projects, or add new proj-
ects. i„It may also wish to phase a project over a period of years. However, radical revision is less
likely if the program has been carefully prepared.
The entire capital improvements program should be adopted by resolution or ordinance. The
first year of the program should be used to make up the current capital budget. It can either be
extracted and separately adopted as the capital budget of its projects may be incorporated within
the regular annual budget.
The projects assigned to the remaining five years of the program represent a legislative declaration
of intent and facilitate the advance purchase of land and planning of financial resources. The remain-
ing five years may also be used as a means of signifying the manner in which certain projects con-
tinuing beyond one year are to be executed.
Public Approval.—No matter how well the program has been prepared or how carefully it has
been 'weighed and considered by the council, public approval and acceptance are vital to its success.
This is especially true when a referendum must be held to authorize bond issues needed to finance
the program. To this end, it is especially important that the public be kept fully informed about
the program as it develops and the benefits it will produce. If all the explanations are left until the
time for submission of a proposed bond issue to the public for vote, the issue may be defeated and
the program delayed because of confused or inadequate public understanding.
Various methods of securing public confidence and understanding have been used. Newspaper
articles, radio discussions, pamphlets accompanying tax bills and receipts, speeches to civic organ-
izations, and public forums have all been effective. In some communities, citizen advisory
committees and civic organizations have been of great assistance in promoting public acceptance of
the program and in securing necessary consent for its funding. Often such groups have been active
in the.1development and review of the program.
Annual Revision.—The capital improvements program should be reviewed, revised, and extended
on an annual basis. The program must be flexible. Revision is necessary to take account of chang-
ing needs and financial resources. Furthermore, annual revision gives new public officials, either
elective or administrative, an opportunity to present their views with respect to what should be
done and when.
A prlogress and performance report should be prepared annually by the individual departments for
each project authorized in the past capital budget period to aid in bringing the program up to date.
A finalL'accounting should be provided for projects completed and progress reports should be sub-
mitted,ifor projects that will take a number of years to complete. These reports will be of invaluable
assistance to both the program coordinator and the governing body. The information can be used
to plan for similar project requests and to make recommendations about whether the remaining
projects should be continued, revised, or eliminated.
Annual review and revision of the capital improvements program assures that the process will
become a continuing part of the local government budgeting procedure. Such a review optimizes
the likelihood that the program will be consistent with changing demands as well as changing pat-
terns of cost, and that the community will always have a current view of its projected needs.
How Does Programming Relate To: Annual Budgeting? Fiscal Capacity? Long-Range Planning?
Other Governmental Units Serving the Area? •
A local government's capital improvements program affects and is affected by both internal
activities, such as budgeting and planning, and external relationships with overlapping,
6
coterminous, and neighboring jurisdictions. The following is a summary discussion of a few such
relationships.
Annual Capital Budgeting.—Local governments that already have an annual capital budget, or are
in the process of developing such a budget, will note similarities between the capital budget and the
capital improvements program immediately. In the preparation of both documents, information is
collected from the various operating departments and financial officials, woven into a document of
proposed expenditures under the direction of the chief administrator, and submitted to the govern-
ing body for final consideration and adoption. The only significant differences between the annual
capital budget and the capital improvements program is that the latter involves projections for sev-
eral years into the future, as opposed to a one-year period, and should take into account the capital
projects of other governmental units in the area. Once the capital improvements program is adopted,
the relationship between the two documents should be evident, for the first year of the capital
improvements program by department heads, the chief administrator, and the governing body should
result in the preparation of the annual capital budget. Capital improvements programming thus be-
comes a continuing part of the local government's budgeting and management procedure.
Fiscal Capacity.—A realistic capital improvements program is inextricably related to fiscal capacity.
Knowledge of past experience and an awareness of trends in taxation, assessment, and public ex-
penditures for the local government and for other units of comparable size and fiscal capacity are
essential for the development and evaluation of a capital improvements program. Consideration
must be given to State-imposed debt limits, per capita income and expenditures, and the long-term
impact of the various capital projects on both the local government's capital and operating budget.
Long-Range Planning.—Capital improvements programming should be based on long-ranged
physical planning and financial projections. Many communities have prepared a "comprehensive"
or "master" plan for the future physical development of the community. Primary objectives of
these plans are (1) to identify and analyze the major forces that might influence the growth and
change of the community, (2) to set realistic goals for the future development of the community,
and (3) to establish requirements for public facilities. A capital improvements program, like zoning
and subdivision control, is a means of implementing certain aspects of the comprehensive plan.
Where a comprehensive physical development plan exists, the basic facts and projections needed
for sound capital improvements programming are readily available and the plan should provide
criteria to guide decisions on project selection and the assignment of priorities. Where such planning
has not yet been undertaken, land-use, population, and related studies should be made so that the
capital improvements program will not be formulated in the absence of vital information. In addi-
tion, sound programming requires the gathering of financial data so that the program may be
adjusted to the financial capabilities of the community. Appendix B offers a listing of data useful
for an inventory of capital needs.
It is not necessary to have a comprehensive physical development plan or a long-range financial
plan before programming can begin. However, local governments that already possess such infor-
mation will have a head start in the programming process.
Other Governmental Units Serving the Area.—One of the major benefits of capital improvements
programming is that it affords a basis for bringing order out of the complex relationships that exist
among neighboring and overlapping units of local government. In many cases the local government
will have to deal with authorities and special districts with power to finance their activities through
revenue bonds backed by user charges. Although each city, county, or special district may develop
its own capital improvements program, there is a growing recognition that on such matters as streets,
7
highways; schools, parks, and water and sewer facilities there is a need to coordinate planning among
all the major agencies.
A capital program should, to the greatest possible extent, include references to capital facilities
planned by other governmental units serving the community. An exchange of information will help
avoidilduplication and waste in the service provided to the entire community.
Coordination of capital improvements plans for the area as a whole usually depends on voluntary
and informal agreements between various units of government. Through this means, planners in a
small (government should be aware of what other governmental units and planning bodies are doing,
and propose to do, and thus develop their own program accordingly.
More formal coordination may be achieved by the establishment of an areawide capital
improvements committee composed of all governmental and planning units providing services within
a particular area. Such a committee may be composed of: (1) those who have been active in
formulating each government's capital improvements program; (2) representatives of the board of
education and other,special districts and authorities; and (3) spokesmen for neighboring jurisdic-
tions, 'Larger units of government, and metropolitan or regional planning bodies.
Technical and Financial Assistance for Capital Improvements Planning and Projects
Local governments should be aware of any available State and Federal assistance programs in
preparing their capital improvements program. State aid may be comprised of both technical and
financial assistance. In some cases, State planning agencies will prepare specific studies for local
communities and assist them in developing planning programs. Information on State planning aid
is generally obtainable through individual State governments. Inquiries of this type should be
directed to the State planning agency or the State department of commerce, business and econom-
ics, or local affairs. A number of Federal programs also provide assistance for both the planning
and construction of public facilities. These programs include:
1. C'Qmprehensive Planning Assistance Program (Sec. 701, Housing Act of 1954.) Provides
assistance to counties, small communities, groups of communities having less than 50,000
inhabitants, or regional planning agencies, for comprehensive land-use planning and trans-
portation, school, or other public facility planning.
2. Open Space Land Program (Sec. 702, Title VIII, Housing Act of 1961.) Provides grant
assistance for the acquisition, development and/or improvement of developed or undeveloped
land suitable for park and recreation purposes.
3. Advances for Public Works Planning (Sec. 702, Housing Act of 1954.) Provides interest-free
loans to finance preliminary or final plans for all types of public works projects.
4. Giants for Basic Water and Sewer Facilities (Sec. 702, Title VII, Housing and Urban
D11
evelopment Act of 1965.) Provides Federal grants to assist communities in constructing or
expanding basic facilities needed to promote efficient and orderly growth.
5. Public Facility Loans (Housing Amendments of 1955.) Provides long-term loans to small
communities for the construction of needed public works where such credit is not otherwise
available.
6. Grants for Advance Acquisition of Land (Sec. 704, Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965.) Provides grants to cover the interest cost of a loan incurred to finance acquisition of
lard sites for public works and facilities needed in the near future. Construction must be
begun within five years after grant is approved.
8
7. Grants for Neighborhood Facilities (Sec. 703, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965.)
Provides Federal grants to cover costs of developing multipurpose facilities to be used for
neighborhood health, recreation, social, or similar community service facilities.
8. Historic Preservation Program (Sec. 709, Title VII, Housing Act of 1961.) Provides matching
grants to meet the cost of acquisition, restoration, or improvement of sites, structures, or
areas of historic or architectural significance in urban areas. Program grants may be applied
to either public or private properties.
9. Urban Mass Transportation Program (Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964.) Provides
several types of assistance to provide or improve urban mass transportation systems and
service.
In addition, Federal funds are available for such projects as urban renewal, community renewal,
urban beautification, and low-rent public housing.
In order to assist local governments in the task of identifying and selecting programs that are
most suitable to their needs, various State and Federal agencies and other organizations have
compiled handbooks and catalogs of existing aid programs. A selected listing of such publications,
citing the name and address of the agency or organization from which copies may be obtained, is
contained in Appendix C.
9
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATE METHODS OF FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Pay-As-You-Go
Pay-as-you-go is the financing of improvement projects from current revenues. Such revenues
may come from general taxation, fees, charges for services, special funds, or special assessments.
Advantages of this method include the saving of interest costs on borrowed money and providing
for greater future budget flexibility. The major disadvantage is the need to have uncommitted
cash available, which often precludes the financing of extensive capital improvements in a small
community. Reserve fund financing is a variation of the pay-as-you-go method. Under this pro-
cedure funds are accumulated in advance for the construction of capital projects. The accumula-
tion may result from suprlus or "earmarked" operational revenues that are set aside, depreciation
accounts, or from the sale of capital assets.
Genera! Obligation Bonds
Projects providing communitywide benefits may be financed by general obligation bonds.
Through this method the taxing power of the jurisdiction is pledged to pay interest upon and
retire the debt. General obligation bonds can be sold to finance permanent types of improvements
such as i schools, municipal buildings, parks, and recreation facilities. General obligation bonds may
require lthe approval of the electorate and are issued as either sinking fund or, more commonly,
serial bonds.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bonds frequently are sold for such projects as water and sewerage systems, stadiums,
swimming pools, airports, and other revenue-producing facilities. Such bonds usually are not
included in State-imposed debt limits; as are general obligation bonds, because they are not backed
by the full faith and credit of the local jurisdiction. For this same reason, interest rates are almost
always higher than are general obligation bond interest rates and voter approval is seldom required.
Howeve+, care must be taken to assure that estimated net earnings of new facilities are realistic.
Lease-Purchase
Locallgovernments utilizing the lease-purchase method prepare specifications for a needed public
works project and take steps to have it constructed by a private company or authority. The facility
is then lased by the municipality at an annual or monthly rental. At the end of the lease period,
the title'to the facility can be conveyed to the municipality without any future payments. The
rental over the years will have paid the total original cost plus interest. Localities in some States
have used this method to avoid the necessity of calling bond elections or to avoid debt limits. This
type of financing has sometimes proved to be excessively costly. In addition, its legality has been
questioned in some States; in others the obligation is considered as part of the municipal debt.
,I.
Authorities and Special Districts
Authorities and special districts are created in most cases to manage facilities that are supported
by user charges. Toll roads and water and sewerage systems are examples of such facilities. Special
districts ',with power to tax are also created for the purpose of issuing bonds and constructing
10
facilities that may not be self-supporting. Sometimes they are necessary to avoid restrictive debt limits.
The authority device may offer a convenient method of financing interjurisdictional facilities; how-
ever; its use also creates many problems. Chief among these is the scattering of governmental
responsibility. Moreover, it must be remembered that the debt incurred by an authority or special
district is still a part of a community's total financial obligation even where it is not counted in the
debt limit of a general purpose government.
Special Assessments
Public works programs financed most equitably by special assessments are those that benefit
certain properties more than others. Local improvements often financed by this method include
street paving, sanitary sewers, and water mains.
Joint Financing
The proposed program might be surveyed to determine whether certain projects are equally
beneficial to other governmental agencies, authorities, or special districts and if joint financing can
be arranged. Such cooperation may bring about projects that would otherwise have to be deferred
for many years and thus can result in better service and lower costs for the area.
Outside Sources
State and Federal grants-in-aid programs are frequently available to plan, construct, and finance
capital improvements. The possibility of obtaining private gifts for certain facilities—parks, com-
munity centers, or libraries—from individuals, corporations, and foundations should also be explored.
Before defining what projects should be provided by the Government, an effort should be made to
discover if some nonpublic group can provide a service or parts of a needed program. For example,
private groups or business leaders may be persuaded to build offstreet parking structures or provide
lots if the local government has insufficient funds. Civic associations have provided parks and play-
grounds in many communities.
11
APPENDIX B
DATA USEFUL FOR INVENTORY OF CAPITAL NEEDS
Type of Data Character of Data Comments
Inventdry of Existing Number, size, and capacity of An examination of the levels of service
Facilities existing facilities, as well as infor- provided by similar communities
mation on their condition and their may help local governments determine
repaired or replaced schedule. their own requirements for satisfying
present and anticipated needs.
Base Maps Location of existing and projected Maps should include not only the area
facilities and other topographical of the jurisdiction itself but also some
information. of the surrounding area as well, be-
cause some services extend beyond
boundary lines.
Population Studies Trends in age distribution school Estimates of size and location of the
registration, in and out migration, future population are crucial in antici-
and anticipated growth or decline pating future capital needs. In a grow-
of the community. ing community, the basic essentials of
urban living must be kept at an ade-
quate level.
Economic Studies How the community makes its Economic data can facilitate commun-
11 living, trends in employment,and ity decision-making in such areas as
business activity. land use, transportation planning, and
facility needs when coupled with other
information.
Land Use Maps Size and location of areas used for Together with population and eco-
streets, parks, schools, and residen- nomic studies, such information may
tial, institutional, commercial, and be useful in projecting probable future
other development. community land needs and in guiding
the proper location of new public
I facilities.
Future Plans Tentative or adopted plans for the Such plans should be drawn upon in
construction of transportation facil- preparing the capital improvements
I, ities, schools, parks, communitywide program if the community does not
water and storm drainage systems, have a comprehensive physical devel-
and other facilities. opment plan.
1
12 'I
,1
1
APPENDIX C
CATALOGS OF STATE AND FEDERAL AIDS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
State, Grants to Local Jurisdictions
California Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth. State Services for Local Government.
Sacramento: Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth, 1967. 424 pp.
California Legislative Analyst. State Subventions to Local Governments in California.
Sacramento: Legislative Analyst, 1967. 118 pp.
Comiecticut University of Connecticut, Institute of Public Service, State Aid to Local
Government in Connecticut: A Reference Guide to the General Statutes, Storrs,
1968. 26 pp.
Illinois Department of Business and Economic Development. Catalog of State Programs
for Individual and Community Development. Springfield: Department of Busi-
ness and Economic Development, 1967. 442 pp.
Kansas James W. Drury. State Aid in Kansas. Lawrence: Governmental Research Center,
University of Kansas, 1963. 50 pp.
Kanas League of Kansas Municipalities. An Informational Guide to State Services and
Technical Assistance Available to Local Governments in Kansas. Topeka: League
of Kansas Municipalities, 1967. 67 pp.
Massachusetts First National Bank of Boston. State Aid to Local Governments in Massachusetts.
Boston: First National Bank of Boston, 1964. 65 pp.
Missouri Department of Community Affairs, A Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs
Available to Missouri Communities, Jefferson City, 1968. 109 pp.
New Mexico Office of Educational Research and Training. Services and Programs for Individual
and Community Improvement in New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico, 1967. 52 pp.'
Nev York State Comptroller. State Aid to Local Government: Programs of Financial
Assistance to Local Governments Including Purposes, Criteria of Eligibility, Distri-
bution Formulas, Legal Bases, Trends in Amounts Distributed, Sources of
Additional Information. Albany: State Comptroller, 1967. 123 pp..
Ohio Department of Urban Affairs, Division of Intergovernmental Services,'Federal Aid
in.Ohio, Columbus, 1968. 247 pp.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Municipal Affairs. Catalogs of State Aids to Local Government.
Harrisburg: Department of Internal Affairs, 1966. 294 pp.
Tecas Planning Agency Council for Texas. Catalog of State Services to Local Governments.
Austin: Office of the Governor, 1966. 196 pp.
13
Virginia Advisory Legislative Council. Grants-In-Aid: Report of the Advisory Legislative
Council to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia. Richmond: Ad-
visory Legislative Council, 1966. 104 pp.
Federal Aid to Local Jurisdictions
Colorado Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. Federal Aids Available for County
Planning in Colorado. Boulder: University of Colorado, 1966. 53 pp.
Georgia Georgia Municipal Association. A Federal-Aids Manual for Municipalities. Atlanta:
Georgia Power Company, 1966. 118 pp.
Illinoi Bureau of Community Planning, College of Fine and Applied Arts, and Cooperative
Extension Service, College of Agriculture. A Guide to Federal Programs for Illinois
Communities. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1967. 209 pp.
Kansas League of Kansas Municipalities. Federal Aid Guide: A Summary Outline of
Federal Aid Programs Available to Kansas Local Governments. Topeka: League
of Kansas Municipalities, 1966. 71 pp.
Kansas Governmental Research Center. A Guide to Federal Grants and Other Types of
Assistance. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1965. 249 pp.
Maryland State Planning Department. Manual of Federal Aid Programs. Annapolis: State
Planning Department, 1965. 332 pp. 1966 Supplement. 176 pp.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Administration and Finance. A Catalog of Federal Aid
Programs Administered Through Agencies of the Massachusetts State Government.
revised. Boston: Executive Office for Administration and Finance, 1966.
Mississippi Mississippi Economic Council. Analysis of Federal Programs Giving Assistance to
Communities, Municipalities, Counties, and the State for the Development of
Human and Material Resources. Jackson: Mississippi Economic Council, 1966.
50 pp.
Missouri Missouri Municipal League. Federal Aids—A Summary of Programs of Interest
to Missouri Municipal Officials. Jefferson City: Missouri Municipal League, 1965.
7 pp.
New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development. Selected Grants-In-Aid
for Community Development. Trenton: Department of Conservation and Eco-
nomic Development, 1966. 96 pp.
North Carolina Institute of Government. Federal Assistance for Local Governments. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina, 1966. 64 pp. _
Oregon ',' Bureau of Municipal Research and Service. Summary of Federal Aid Programs of
Interest to Counties. Eugene: University of Oregon, 1967.
South Carolina Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. Federal Aid Manual for Local
Governments in South Carolina. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1967.
181 pp.
Texas ! Agriculture Extension Service. Guide to Federal-State Programs for Developing
Resources of Texas Communities. revised. College Station: Texas A & M
University, 1968. 56 pp.
14
Vermont Office of the Commissioner, Department of Administration. Federal Assistance
Programs Administered by State Government. Montpelier: Department of
Administration, 1967.
Washington Association of Washington Cities and Bureau of Governmental Research and
Services. Federal Aids to Washington State and Local Governments. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1966.
Wisconsin Department of Resource Development. State and Federal Aids Available to
Wisconsin Localities. Madison: Department of Resource Development, 1965.
26 pp.
United States U.S. Senate, Committee on Government Operations. Catalog of Federal Aids to
State and Local Governments. Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress, 1964.
154 pp.
United States U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
Handbook of Federal Aids to Communities. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1966. 112 pp.
United States U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Programs of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1967. 49 pp.
United States U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Federal Assistance
in Outdoor Recreation Available to: States, Their Subdivisions, Organizations,
Individuals. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. 83 pp.
United States U.S. House of Representatives, History of Operating Federal Assistance Programs
Completed During the Roth Study; Reprinted from the Congressional Record,
June 25, 1968 (90th Congress, Second Session, House Document #399),
Washington, 1968. 399 pp.
United States U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1969. 610 pp.
United States U.S. Office of Emergency Planning. Federal Disaster Assistance. Washington,
D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. 22 pp._
United States U.S. Office of the Vice President. The Vice President's Handbook for Local
Officials: A Guide to Federal Assistance for Local Governments. Washington,
D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 297 pp.
National League of Cities. Federal Aids to Local Governments. Washington,
D.C. : National League of Cities, 1966, supplements. 200 pp.
National Recreation and Park Association. Federal Assistance for Recreation
and Parks Available to: States, Local Governments, Non-Profit Agencies, and
Organizations. Washington, D.C. : National Recreation and Park Association,
1967.
National Science Foundation, Guide to Programs, Washington, 1968. 79 pp.
Northern Virginia Regional Planning and Development Commission. Federal
Aid Programs for Urban Areas. Arlington: Northern Virginia Regional Planning
and Development Commission, 1966. 37 pp.
15
Center for Urban Studies. A Compendium of Federal Aid Programs for Planning
and Effectuating Urban Physical Development. Chicago: University of Chicago,
1967. 244 pp.
Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Urban Affairs Reporter. Three Vol. Chicago:
Commerce Clearing House, Inc., 1967.
•
•I.
1..
Is
I'
II
Iq
I,
I,
1•
16
h U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1969 0-365-986
'h
Id
16I
6,
'l
.II
Ij'I
l
II
G
11'
I '
1
1
II
d,
10
Id
11011
eleariouhouse
service
HCS—G/2 444111.11.11+