Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-02-2005 ITEM VIII-A-1
ACITY OF xay V i�1V AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM WASHINGTON Agenda Subject: Date: Critical Areas Ordinance 04/20/2005 Department: Attachments: Budget Impact: Planning Ordinance No. 5894 including Exhibit A; The MCS Environmental Inc. 'Best Available Science" white paper; listing of comment letters received to date (letters have been provided to City Council previously - copies are available for review at the Planning and Community Development Department). Administrative Recommendation: City Council to approve Ordinance No. 5894. Background Summary: The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that all local jurisdictions in the State adopt a critical areas ordinance. In 1995 the GMA was amended to require counties and cities to include best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. The City of Auburn initially began a process to update its critical areas regulations in 1999. Since that time numerous study sessions were held with the Planning Commission in the development of a revised critical areas ordinance. On August 3, 2004, September 7, 2004 and November 3, 2004 the Auburn Planning Commission conducted three separate public hearings on the proposed critical areas ordinance. Considerable testimony, both oral and written, was provided. Exhibits that the Planning Commission considered in its review included a document entitled "City of Auburn Best Available Science White Paper, Auburn, Washington -- Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting" prepared by MCS Environmental Inc. dated October 21, 2004. The White Paper reviewed best available science for minimum buffer widths for certain critical areas. On November 3, 2004 the Auburn City Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed critical areas ordinance. Reviewed by Council & Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: ❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&O ❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor ❑ Hearing Examiner ® Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance ❑ Parks ❑ Human Services ® Planning & CO ❑ Fire ❑ Planning ❑ Park Board E] Public Works ❑ Legal ❑ Police ❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ❑ Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Information Services Action: Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No Council Approval: ❑Yes []No Call for Public Hearing Referred to Until_!_/_ Tabled Until _/_/_ Councilmember: Norman Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: May 2, 2005 1 Item Number: VIII.A.1 AUBURN* MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April Since the time of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the proposed critical areas ordinance on November 8, 2004, November 22, 2004, December 13, 2004, January 10, 2005, January 24, 2005, March 14, 2005, March 28, 2005, April 11, 2005 and April 25, 2005. In addition, the proposed critical areas ordinance was presented to the Public Works Committee on November 22, 2004 and April 11, 2005. On April 25, 2005 the PCD Committee made a recommendation to the City Council. The proposed critical areas ordinance is intended to be a new section to the Auburn City Code (Chapter 16.10. The exhibit attached to Ordinance No. 5894 has strikeout and underline only to assist the City Council in identifying Planning Commission recommendations (distinguished with strikethrough (deletions) and underline (additions) text. Changes proposed subsequent to the November 3, 2004 Planning Commission recommendation are distinguished with a shaded text background, again using strikethrough for deletions, underline/bold text for additions. The proposed ordinance contains "WHEREAS" statements. These statements provide background and findings to explain the rationale for adoption of the proposed ordinance as presented to the City Council. In general, those findings state and acknowledge • Three separate public hearings were held by the Auburn Planning Commission; • A document entitled "City of Auburn Best Available Science White Paper, Auburn, Washington Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting" dated October 21, 2004 was prepared by MCS Environmental. • Testimony regarding what constitutes Best Available Science received by the City Council and the Planning Commission has been diverse and at times conflicting. If a clear definition of Best Available Science existed then the process of updating the City's critical areas regulations logically should not have resulted in such varied testimony and information. • Many cited studies of critical areas assess areas outside of the State of Washington and do not address highly developed urban settings or areas with conditions specific or unique to an area such as the Green River Valley (which has a high degree of success in wetland mitigation efforts). • That viewing the City's critical areas regulations in isolation is not an appropriate approach to determining the City's ability and commitment to protect critical areas. • The City has identified projects on its Six Year CFP that demonstrate the City's on-going commitment to environmental protection and enhancement of critical areas for the public benefit. This includes but is not limited to, the Auburn Environmental Park, storm drainage regulatory improvements, water resource protection programs, vulnerability assessment recommendations and stream and wetland improvements to Olson Creek/Wetland. • The City of Auburn has a longstanding history of successful wetland mitigation efforts that is recognized, in part, by public agencies as evidenced by two wetland mitigation projects completed by Washington State DOT and another under construction by the Port of Seattle. • The City's successful record of wetland mitigation is due to factors such as the presence on the valley floor of alluvial soils that have been previously disturbed as farm land and easily revert to hydric soil conditions, the presence of hydrology capable of sustaining wetlands due to the local influence of rivers, floodplains and areas that can be minimally excavated to achieve groundwater influence, and the prevalence of wetland adapted native plant species in nearby sites and as a natural seed bank within area soils. • Concerns regarding failure of wetland mitigation sites is not well founded in Auburn. • Auburn has several regulations in addition to the critical areas ordinance that provide for environmental protection and natural resource management including the City's Design and Construction standards which address issues such as erosion control and surface water Page 2 of 8 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance Aoril 26, 2 management, the City's zoning code, subdivision code, Shoreline Master Program and the application of the State Environmental Policy Act. • Auburn has an optional Environmental Element in its GMA Comprehensive Plan consisting of 89 policies that provides a substantive basis under SEPA to further protect critical areas. • The GMA's 14 State planning goals relate not only to the environment and open space and recreation but also speak to issues such as reducing sprawl, economic development, permits, property rights, affordable housing and public facilities and services. • The record includes public comments from environmental interests as well as testimony from organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, frequent customers of the city's permitting services and building industry representatives. The record demonstrates that testimony was received that have a direct bearing on furtherance of a range of statewide planning goals such as, for example, the environment, permit processing, the provision of public facilities such as schools, economic development and housing. • The Auburn Comprehensive Plan has 22 framework goals, including one that speaks directly to flexibility in land use regulations stating "To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources, cultural resources and critical lands and in overall compliance with this Comprehensive Plan." • To provide flexibility and to acknowledge buffer widths may need to be adjusted based on site- specific conditions related to a specific application, the proposed CAO has provisions to both increase and decrease buffer widths. • WAC 365-195-010 (3) states that major features of the GMA framework includes "...that the process should be a "bottom up" effort... with the central locus of decision-making at the local level". • After taking into consideration the City's Comprehensive planning framework, Best Available Science, local environmental conditions, other City regulations that serve to protect the environment, and other local factors, the City has developed critical areas regulations that will protect critical area functions and values, including habitat for anadromous fish. • Best Available Science is evolving to evolve and the City will continue to monitor the Best Available Science and consider amendments to the critical areas ordinance in the future should the science provide evidence that such amendments are warranted. • The procedural requirements of SEPA and 60 -day State agency notification have been met. The following matrix contains a list of text changes proposed to the critical areas ordinance since the November 3, 2004 Planning Commission recommendation. The matrix identifies the source, location, and when appropriate, briefly details the justification for these proposed changes (minor typographical corrections are not listed). Page 3 of 8 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April Proposed Chane Location Proposed Bv Justification Delete references to p. 16.10-4 PCDC Woodland resources not woodland resources required to be addressed in CAO. Delete reference to p. 16.10-7 PCDC Woodland resources not woodland resources required to be addressed in CAO. Delete Drip -line p. 16.10-8 PCDC This definition pertains definition specifically to the regulation of woodland resources. Delete definitions of p. 16.10-10 and 16.10- PCDC Concept of high and low Nigh Impact Land Use 11 impact land uses deleted from and Low Impact Land proposed CAO. Use Slight modification of p. 16.10-10 Staff Will make definition Injection Well grammatically consistent with definition. other definitions. Delete references to pgs. 16.10-12 and PCDC Woodland resources not woodland resources 16.10.13 required to be addressed in and significant CAO. ve etation/trees Delete Wetland Class pgs. 16.10-15 and Staff (Proposed Definitions are unnecessary and Wetland Subclass 16.10-16 change brought and can be confusing as they definitions before PCDC and are different from Wetland PW Committee on Classification. November 22, 2004. Delete Woodland p. 16.10-16 PCDC Woodland resources not Resources definition required to be addressed in CAO. Expansion of CAO p. 16.10-17; 16.10-18 PSE and Public Facilitate maintenance of exemptions, including (section 16.10.040 (A)) Works Staff existing infrastructure. provision for minor (Proposed change utility projects and brought before inclusion of vegetation PCDC and PW management as part of Committee on normal operations and November 22, maintenance of streets 2004) and utilities. Include among exemptions not required to seek 14 days written approval from the Director. Allows, as an P. 16.10-18 (Section PCD Committee Provides more flexibility for exemption, for a 16.10.040(A)(7) - (discussed at April small additions to single family limited expansion of Exemptions) 11, 2005 meeting) residential uses if there are no single-family demonstrated impacts. Limits residential buildings in total expansion to 500 square a buffer. feet and no closer to critical area than existing non- conformin dwellin . Page 4 of 8 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April 26, 2005 Proposed Chane Location Proposed By Justification Reword exemption to p. 16.10-18 Staff This language clarification allow emergencies enables the Director to confirm when the Planning an emergency existed in the Director is not past. This will permit available to authorize emergency activities to occur work. legally when the Planning Director is unreachable for a determination. Add exemption for p. 16.10-19 PCDC/staff To clarify exemption applies to activities in storm and activities in storm and water water quality basins quality basins and "wetlands" and "wetlands" created created by poorly maintained by poorly maintained or plugged culverts or lines, or plugged culverts or and artificially created ditches lines and artificially that are not used by salmonids. created ditches that are not used by salmonids. Include statement P. 16.10-19 Public Works Provides more clear statement related to non- (Section 16.10.040(E)) Committee/PCD with respect to acknowledging conforming uses and Committee non -conforming uses. development. (discussed at April 11, 2005 meetin s Remove exemption pgs. 16.10-17 and PCDC Woodland resources not relating to woodland 16.10-18 required to be addressed in resources CAO. Reword language p. 16.10-19 (section PCDC Improve code clarity. regarding exemptions 16.10.040(D)) that require written notice to the cit Add language that p.16.10-20 PCDC Clarifies when a critical areas states that critical report is required. areas reports are to be submitted when a critical area is believed to exist. Rephrase Critical p. 16.10-19 (sec. Staff (Proposed Revise to indicate the maps Areas Maps 16.10.050) change brought are available, but not adopted references. before PCDC and as part of the ordinance. p. 16.10-21 (sec. PW Committee on 16.10.080 (B3)) November 22, 2004. Page 5 of 8 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April 26 2005 Proposed Chane Location Proposed By Justification Revise definitions of Page 16.10-24 PCD Committee Definitions of class Il, III and IV Class II, II and IV (discussed at April streams now better reflect streams based on Section 16.10.080(D) 11, 2005 meeting) language used by the State review of term Department of Natural "significant potential for Resources (DNR) in its use by salmonids" in definition of stream class the definition of a class types. II stream. Delete source p. 16.10-27 Staff (Proposed The contents of the table are reference for wetland change brought not, in their entirety, reflective buffer table. before PCDC and of the contents of this PW Committee on publication. November 22, 2004. Revise wetland buffer p. 16.10-27 and 29 PCDC Revise wetland buffer table to width table. encourage more flexibility. The high impact and low impact land use concept has been removed. Buffers are now within a range, with the higher range to be applied based on criteria identified in ACC 16.10.090(E)(1 Revise buffer width p. 16.10.27 PCDC (discussed at Increase provides more averaging allowed for Jan. 24. 2005 flexibility in allowing buffer wetlands from 25% to meeting) width averaging for wetlands. 35%. Revise buffer width p. 16.10.28 PCDC (discussed at Increase provides more reduction allowed for Jan. 24, 2005 flexibility in allowing buffer wetlands from 25% to meeting). width reduction for wetlands. 35%. Add language that p. 16.10-28 PCDC (discussed at Provides protection for enables the Planning Jan 24, 2005 wetlands by ensuring the Director to require meeting) director has authority to require additional wetland greater wetland buffers. buffer width. Delete specific pgs. 16.10-29 PCDC (discussed at Amendment provides flexibility minimum additional Jan. 24, 2005 in determining the appropriate stream buffer widths meeting) increase in stream buffer for "Threatened, widths in these situations Endangered or based on review of application. Sensitive species" but instead include language that additional buffer widths can be increased to address this situation. Page 6 of 8 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April 26 2005 Proposed Chane Location Proposed Bv Justification Specify that the pgs. 16.10-29 and PCDC Provides certainty as to the director has authority 16.10-30 maximum buffer that might be to increase stream expected. buffers widths up to 50 percent above those buffers identified in the stream buffer table for class I, II and IV streams. Amend Class III Page 16.10-29 PCD Committee Provides more flexibility in the stream buffer width (discussed at April administration of Class III from 50 feet to 25 feet 11, 2005 meeting) buffer widths. and provide the director authority to increase stream buffers widths up to 100 percent above this amount. Delete reference to p. 16.10-30 PCDC Unclear what commitments this requiring a buffer width language would make. greater than the minimum to comply with a City -adopted basin plan in accordance with County, state or federal plans to preserve endangered or threatened species. Allow buffer width p. 16.10-31 PCDC Provide slightly more flexibility averaging for class II for buffer width averaging for and class III streams to certain stream classes. be 35% Allow buffer width p.16.10-31 PCDC (discussed at Provide more flexibility by reduction for streams Jan. 24, 2005 allowing for reduction of stream up to 35% meeting) buffers upon appropriate justification. Delete references to p. 16.10-34 & 16.10-35 PCDC Woodland resources not woodland resources. required to be addressed in CAO. Delete references to pgs. 16.10-38 and PCDC Woodland resources not woodland resources. 16.10-39 required to be addressed in CAO. Delete source p. 16.10-40 Staff (Proposed The contents of the table are reference for wetland change brought not, in their entirety, reflective replacement table. before PCDC and of the contents of this PW Committee on publication. November 22, 2004. Delete significant tree p. 16.10-40 PCDC Woodland resources not replacement ratios. required to be addressed in CAO. Page 7 Agenda Subject: Date: Ordinance No. 5894 — Critical Areas Ordinance April Proposed Chane Location Proposed By Justification Delete woodland pgs. 16.10-46 & 16.10- PCDC Woodland resources not resources language. 47 required to be addressed in CAO. Add New Section pgs. 16.10-50 and PSE (Proposed This section will ensure the 16.10.170 (Special 16.10-51 change brought necessary utility infrastructure Exception for Public before PCDC and can always be constructed to Agencies and Utilities) PW Committee on support approved and label the November 22, development, even if it cannot "Severability" section 2004.) completely avoid a critical as 16.10.180. area. Page 8 of 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5894 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.10 TO THE CITY OF AUBURN CITY CODE ENTITLED "CRITICAL AREAS" WHEREAS in 1995 the GMA was amended to require counties and cities to include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas; and, WHEREAS RCW 36.70A.130(4) requires that counties and cities to take action to review and, if needed, revise their development regulations to ensure the development regulations meet the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn conducted a "consistency' review of its development regulations and identified areas to be addressed to ensure compliance with the Growth Management Act, as amended; and WHEREAS, as a result of the consistency review, the City of Auburn identified an update to its critical areas regulations as the development regulation requiring amendment to satisfy the GMA update requirements of RCW 36.70A.130(4); and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn initially began a process to draft updated critical areas regulations in 1999; and, WHEREAS, prior to holding public hearings numerous study sessions were held with Planning Commission in the development of the updated and revised critical areas regulations; and, WHEREAS, after proper notice published in the City's official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearings, the City of Auburn Planning Commission on August 3, 2004, September 7, 2004 and November 3, 2004 conducted separate public hearings on the proposed critical areas ordinance; and, WHEREAS, at the public hearings the City of Auburn Planning Commission heard public testimony and took evidence and exhibits into consideration; and, WHEREAS, said exhibits included a document entitled "City of Auburn Best Available Science White Paper, Auburn, Washington Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting" prepared by MCS Environmental dated October 21, 2004 which reviewed best available science for buffer widths for certain critical areas; and, WHEREAS, thereafter on November 3, 2004 the Auburn City Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed critical areas ordinance; and, WHEREAS, following the Planning Commission recommendation the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Auburn City Council reviewed the proposed critical areas ordinance on November 8, 2004, November 22, 2004, December 13, 2004, January 10, 2005, January 24, 2005, March 14, 2005, March 28, 2005, April 11, 2005 and April 25, 2005; and, WHEREAS, after due consideration and review of the Planning Commission recommendation and public testimony, the Planning and Community Development Committee of the Auburn City Council did, on April 25, 2005, make a recommendation to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is pursuing a project entitled the Auburn Environmental Park (AEP) which is just one example demonstrating the City's on- going commitment to environmental protection and enhancement of critical areas for the public benefit; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn is in the process of providing both stream and wetland improvements to Olson Creek/Wetland, which provides cool, clean water, spawning and refuge habitat and other functions along the Green River system; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn's adopted Six Year Capital Facilities Plan identifies program improvements to promote environmental quality including, but not limited to, the Auburn Environmental Park (referenced above), storm drainage regulatory improvements (to address comprehensive planning and/or regulatory responses); water resource protection program to implement programs to protect city water resources and vulnerability assessment recommendations for city water resources; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has a longstanding history of successful wetland mitigation including the Thormod wetland site, the Aero -Controls wetland mitigation site, and the Anglo- America Insurance Auto Auction site; and, WHEREAS, certain mitigation sites in Auburn have been used for site visits and training opportunities and are viewed as a model for successful wetland mitigation efforts; and, WHEREAS, sites within the City of Auburn are sought for wetland mitigation by public agencies including two wetland mitigation projects completed by Washington State DOT and another under construction by the Port of Seattle; and, WHEREAS, the City's successful record of wetland mitigation is due to factors such as the presence on the valley floor of alluvial soils that have been previously disturbed as farm land and easily revert to hydric soil conditions, the presence of hydrology capable of sustaining wetlands due to the local influence of rivers, floodplains and areas that can be minimally excavated to achieve groundwater influence, and the prevalence of wetland adapted native plant species in nearby sites and as a natural seed bank within area soils; and, WHEREAS, consideration of said successful record wetland mitigation and local natural features and conditions has been considered in the development of the critical areas ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission each received considerable public testimony, diverse and at times conflicting, regarding what constitutes Best Available Science and what is the appropriate regulatory scheme for the City to pursue with respect to the protection of critical areas; and, WHEREAS, if a clear definition of Best Available Science existed then the process of updating the City's critical areas regulations logically should not have resulted in such varied testimony and information; and, WHEREAS, were there a clear definition of Best Available Science then it would have been expected that such direction and specificity would have been included in the State legislation which required that it be considered in the development of the critical areas update process; and, WHEREAS, it became apparent throughout this process that Best Available Science literature and conclusions are varied, oftentimes resulting in a disparity of buffer width ranges given the specific nature and intent of the study, uses studied, and its geographical applicability; and, WHEREAS, by way of example, many of the available studies of critical areas assess areas outside of the State of Washington and do not address highly developed urban settings nor necessarily conditions specific or unique to an area such as the Green River Valley (which has a high degree of success in wetland mitigation efforts) and are therefore open to interpretation; and, WHEREAS, viewing the City's critical areas regulations in isolation is not an appropriate approach to determining the City's ability and commitment to protect critical areas; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has several regulations in addition to the critical areas ordinance that provide for environmental protection and natural resource management including the City's Design and Construction standards which address issues such as erosion control and surface water management, the City's zoning code, subdivision code, Shoreline Master Program and the application of the State Environmental Policy Act; and, WHEREAS, the City of Auburn developed and adopted an optional Environmental Element in its GMA Comprehensive Plan in 1995 that now consists of 89 policies related, but not limited, to wetlands, habitat, erosion hazard areas, floodplain management, energy management, air quality, and endangered species that provides a substantive basis under SEPA to further protect critical areas; and, WHEREAS, the GMA (RCW 36.70A.020) identifies 14 State planning goals intended to guide the preparation of comprehensive plans and development regulations, several of which are furthered by this critical areas ordinance, including goals related to the environment and open space and recreation; and, WHEREAS, these State Planning goals also speak to issues such as reducing sprawl, economic development, permits, property rights, affordable housing and public facilities and services; and, WHEREAS, the State planning goals reflect that the effort to update critical areas regulations must be viewed in context of the larger comprehensive planning scheme envisioned by the GMA and that striking a reasonable balance between such goals is appropriate; and, WHEREAS, the record not only includes public comments from environmental interest groups but also includes testimony from organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, the School District, frequent customers of the city's permitting services and building industry representatives that speak to the impact of critical areas regulations and which testimony has direct bearing on furtherance of certain statewide planning goals such as, for example, permit processing, the provision of public facilities such as schools, economic development and housing; and, WHEREAS, within the framework of regulatory predictability the critical areas ordinance provides some level of flexibility in the application of buffers, both to increase and decrease the buffer widths identified in the regulations depending on site specific conditions; and, WHEREAS, the provisions for increasing and/or decreasing buffers widths contained within the critical areas ordinance relies on ensuring that critical area functions and values within the larger ecosystem are identified and protected; and, WHEREAS, this flexibility allows not only for the protection of the environment but also allows the City to consider and weigh other GMA goals and regulatory mandates cited above; and, Whereas, one of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan (Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1, Framework Goal 2) framework goals speaks to flexibility in land use regulations and states; "To provide predictability in the regulation of land use and development, especially where residential uses are affected, but to also provide flexibility for development through performance standards that allow development to occur while still protecting and enhancing natural resources, cultural resources and critical lands and in overall compliance with this Comprehensive Plan."; and WHEREAS, one of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan framework goals (Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1, Framework Goal 17) speaks to economic development and states "To ensure the long term economic health of the City and the region through a diversified economic base which supports a wide range of employment opportunities for Auburn's residents and those of the region and through the promotion of quality industrial and commercial development which matches the aspirations of the community."; and WHEREAS, one of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan framework goals (Auburn Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 1, Framework Goal 18) speaks to Environment and Natural Resources and states, "To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment, preserve the quality of life, and to protect the area's most unique, sensitive and productive natural resources. To encourage natural resource industries within the City to operate in a manner which enhances, rather than detracts from, the orderly development of the City." and WHEREAS, WAC 365-195-010 (3) states that major features of the GMA framework includes "...that the process should be a "bottom up" effort ... with the central locus of decision-making at the local level'; and, WHEREAS, after taking into consideration the State planning goals and the City's Comprehensive planning framework, the City has developed critical areas regulations that, when taking into consideration Best Available Science, local environmental conditions, and other City regulations that serve to protect the environment, will protect critical area functions and values, including habitat for anadromous fish; and WHEREAS, over time the City expects the body of Best Available Science to evolve and grow, particularly with more information specific to the Puget Sound Region given the requirement that best available science be included in the development of critical areas regulations; and, WHEREAS, the City will continue to monitor the Best Available Science and consider amendments to the critical areas ordinance in the future should the science provide evidence that such amendments are warranted; and, WHEREAS, SEPA review (City SEPA file SEP04-0021) was conducted on the critical areas ordinance with a Determination of Non -Significance issued July 20, 2004, a final DNS issued August 5, 2004 with no appeals having been filed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance was sent to the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and other State agencies for the 60 -day review process in accordance with RCW 36.70A.106 and received by DCTED on June 18, 2004; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new chapter 16.10 entitled Critical Areas and attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "A" is adopted as part of to the Auburn City Code. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED: PASSED: APPROVED: PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk City Attorney As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Chapter 16.10 CRITICAL AREAS Sections: 16.10.010 Purpose and Intent. 16.10.020 Definitions. 16.10.030 Applicability -Regulated Activities. 16.10.040 Exemptions and Non=Conformini uses: 16.10.050 Critical Areas Maps. 16.10.060 Relationship to Other Regulations. 16.10.070 Critical Area Review Process and Application Requirements. 16.10.080 Classification and Raring of Critical Areas. 16.10.090 Buffer Areas and Setbacks. 16.10.100 Alteration or Development of Critical Areas -Standards and Criteria. 16.10.110 Mitigation Standards, Criteria and Plan Requirements. 16.10.120 Performance Standards for Mitigation Planning. 16.10.130 Monitoring Program and Contingency Plan. 16.10.140 Procedural Provisions. 16.10.150 Reasonable Use Provision. 16.10.160 Variances. 16.10.177 Special lfxcevtion for Public Agencies and Utilities 16.10.180 Severability. Section 16.10.010 Purpose And Intent. A. The City of Auburn contains numerous areas that can be identified and characterized as critical or environmentally sensitive. Such areas within the City include wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, significant trees, geologic hazards, groundwater protection areas, and flood hazards. B. The City finds that these critical areas perform a variety of valuable and beneficial biological and physical functions that benefit the City and its residents. Alteration of certain critical areas may also pose a threat to public safety or to public and private property or the environment. The City therefore finds that identification, regulation and protection of critical areas are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The City further finds that the functions of critical areas and the purpose of these regulations include the following: Wetlands Wetlands perform a variety of functions that include maintaining water quality; storing and conveying stormwater and floodwater; recharging 16.10-1 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. groundwater; providing important fish and wildlife habitat; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation. Wetland buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect wetland resources from harmful intrusion. The primary goals of wetland regulation are to avoid adverse wetland impacts; to achieve no net loss of wetland function and value — acreage may also be considered in achieving the overall goal; to provide levels of protection that reflect the sensitivity of individual wetlands and the intensity of proposed land uses; and to restore and/or enhance existing wetlands, where possible. Streams 2. Streams and their associated riparian corridors provide important fish and wildlife habitat; help to maintain water quality; store and convey stormwater and floodwater; recharge groundwater; and serve as areas for recreation, education and scientific study and aesthetic appreciation. Stream buffers serve to moderate runoff volume and flow rates; reduce sediment, chemical nutrient and toxic pollutants; provide shading to maintain desirable water temperatures; provide habitat for wildlife; and protect stream resources from harmful intrusion. The primary goals of stream regulation are to avoid adverse impacts to streams and associated riparian corridors; to achieve no net loss of functions and values of the larger ecosystem in which the stream is located: to protect fish and wildlife resources; to protect water quality through appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream enhancement and rehabilitation. Wildlife Habitat 3. Wildlife habitat provides opportunities for food, cover, nesting, breeding and movement for fish and wildlife; maintains and promotes diversity of species and habitat; coordinates habitat protection with elements of the open space system; helps to maintain air and water quality; helps control erosion; serves as areas for recreation, education, scientific study, and aesthetic appreciation; and provides neighborhood separation and visual diversity within urban areas. The primary goals of wildlife habitat regulation are to avoid adverse impacts to critical habitats for fish and wildlife; to achieve no net loss of functions and values of the larger ecosystem in which the wildlife habitat is located; to implement the goals of the Endangered Species Act; to promote connectivity between habitat areas to allow for wildlife movement; to provide multi-purpose open space corridors; and where possible to provide for fish and wildlife habitat enhancement and rehabilitation that reflect the sensitivity of the species. 16.10-2 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Groundwater Protection Areas 4. Groundwater protection areas provide a source of potable water and contribute to stream discharge/flow. Such areas contribute to the recharge of aquifers, springs and/or wells and are susceptible to contamination of water supplies through infiltration of pollutants through the soil. The primary goals of groundwater protection regulations are to protect groundwater quality by maintaining the quantity of recharge; avoiding or limiting land use activities that pose potential risk of aquifer contamination and; to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to groundwater protection areas through the application of performance standards, and to comply with the requirements of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Washington Administrative Code that require Group A public water systems to develop and implement a Wellhead Protection Program. Geologic Hazard Areas 5. Geologic hazard areas include lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landslides, erosion, seismic, or volcanic activity. The primary goals of regulating geologic hazards are to avoid and minimize potential impacts to life and property by regulating and/or limiting land uses where necessary, and to conduct appropriate levels of analysis and ensure sound engineering and construction practices to address identified hazards. Flood Hazard Areas 6. Floodplains help to store and convey stormwater and flood water; recharge groundwater; provide important areas for riparian habitat; and serve as areas for recreation, education, and scientific study. Development within floodplain areas can be hazardous to those inhabiting such development, and to those living upstream and downstream. Floods also cause substantial damage to public and private property that results in significant costs to the public and individuals. The primary goals of flood hazard regulations are to limit or condition development within the 100 year floodplain to avoid substantial risk and damage to public and private property and that results in significant costs to the public and individuals; to avoid significant increases in peak stormwater flows or loss of flood storage capacity and; to implement the objectives of the Draft Mill Creek Flood Control Plan, if and when adopted. 16.10-3 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. . stabilizi"g _. and H , preeip . quality; . .,enitme Th� primangoals of . ; .. ... or iti appropriate O-aoe-- to fl. ) , C. This chapter of the Auburn City Code and other sections as incorporated by reference contain standards, procedures, criteria and requirements intended to identify, analyze, and mitigate potential impacts to the City's critical areas, and to enhance and restore degraded resources where possible. The general intent of these regulations is to avoid impacts to critical areas. In appropriate circumstances, impacts to specified critical areas resulting from regulated activities may be minimized, rectified, reduced and/or compensated for, consistent with the requirements of this chapter. D. It is the further intent of this chapter to: (1) comply with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) and implementing rules to identify and protect critical areas 14— Manag ,and to perform the review of development regulations required by RCW 36.70A.215; (2) develop and implement a comprehensive, balanced and fair regulatory program that avoids impacts to critical resources where possible, that requires that mitigation be performed by those affecting critical areas, and that thereby protects the public from injury, loss of life, property or financial losses due to flooding, erosion, landslide, seismic events, soil subsidence, or steep slope failure; (3) implement the goals and policies of the Auburn Comprehensive Plan including those pertaining to natural features and environmental protection; as well as goals relating to land use, housing, economic development, transportation, and adequate public facilities; (4) serve as a basis for exercise of the City's substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the City's Environmental Review 16.10-4 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Procedures, where necessary to supplement these regulations, while also reducing the City's reliance on project -level SEPA review; (5) provide consistent standards, criteria and procedures that will enable the City to effectively manage and protect critical areas while accommodating the rights of property owners to use their property in a reasonable manner; (6) provide greater certainty to property owners regarding uses and activities that are permitted, prohibited, and/or regulated due to the presence of critical areas; (7) coordinate environmental review and permitting of proposals involving critical areas with existing development review and approval processes to avoid duplication and delay pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, RCW 36.70B; (8) establish conservation and protection measures for threatened and endangered fish species in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Growth Management Act requirements to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries, WAC 365-195-925; (9) alert members of the public, including appraisers, assessors, owners, potential buyers or lessees, to the development limitations of critical areas and their required buffers. E. Best Available Science. The City has considered and included the best available science in developing these regulations, consistent with RCW 36.70A.172 and WAC 365-195-900 et seq. This has been achieved through research and identification of relevant technical sources of information, consultation with experts in the disciplines covered by this chapter, and consultation and requests for technical information regarding best available science from state and federal resource agencies. Preparation of this Chapter has included the use of relevant non-scientific information, including consideration of legal, social, policy, economic, and land use issues. This reflects the City's responsibilities under numerous laws and programs, including other provisions of the Growth Management Act, and the need to weigh and balance various factors as part of decision making to accomplish municipal objectives. This may result in some risk to the functions and values of some critical areas. The City will also use its authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to identify, consider and mitigate, where appropriate, significant adverse effects on critical resources not otherwise addressed by the regulations of this chapter. The City intends to review and monitor implementation of its critical areas regulations and to use an adaptive management approach. It will make adjustments to the regulations, as appropriate, in response to changing conditions, new information about 16.10-5 November. 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. best available science, or empirical data indicating the effectiveness of its regulatory program. This will occur in the context of the City's ongoing review and revision of its Comprehensive Plan and development regulations pursuant to the Growth Management Act. Additional information, both scientific and non-scientific, regarding compliance with WAC 365-195-915 (c), including identification of risks to resources, is contained in the findings and conclusions and the overall record supporting adoption of Auburn's critical areas regulations. Section 16.10.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply. Anadromous Fish. Fish that spawn and rear in freshwater and mature in the marine environment, such as salmon, steelhead, sea -run cutthroat, and bull trout. Applicant. The person, party, firm, corporation, or other entity that proposes or has performed any activity that affects a critical area. Aquifer. Generally, any water bearing soil or rock unit. Specifically, a body of soil or rock that contains sufficient saturated permeable material to conduct groundwater and yield economically significant quantities of groundwater to wells or springs. Artificially Created Wetland. Wetlands created from non -wetland sites through purposeful, legally authorized human action, such as irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, retention or detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. Best Available Science. As defined in the Procedural Criteria for Adopting Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations for Best Available Science at WAC 365-195-900 et seq. Buffer or Buffer Area, Critical Area. A naturally vegetated, undisturbed, enhanced or revegetated zone surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and value, and is an integral part of the resource's ecosystem. City. The City of Auburn. Clearing. The removal of timber, brush, grass, ground cover or other vegetative matter from a site, which exposes the earth's surface of the site, or any actions, which disturb the existing ground surface. Comprehensive Plan. The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan as now adopted or hereafter amended. 16.10-6 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Critical Area, or Environmentally Sensitive Area. Areas that possess important natural functions and embody a variety of important natural and community values. Such areas include wetlands, streams, fish and wildlife habitat, geologic hazard areas, groundwater protection areas, and flood hazard areas, i If not conducted properly, development or alteration of such areas may cause significant impacts to the valuable functions and values of these areas and/or may generate risks to the public health and general welfare, and/or to public and private property. Critical Area Report. A report prepared by a qualified consultant to determine the presence, type, class, size, function and/or value of an area subject to these regulations. Also see "Stream Reconnaissance Report," Wetland Impact Assessment Report" and "Wildlife Report." Critical Erosion Hazard Areas. Lands or areas underlain by soils identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service) as having "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazards. This includes, but is not limited to, the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD), and Indianola (InD). Additional soil groups may be identified through site-specific analysis. Critical Geologic Hazard Areas. Lands or areas subject to high or severe risks of geologic hazard, including critical erosion hazard areas, critical landslide hazard areas, and critical seismic hazard areas. Critical Habitat, or Critical Wildlife Habitat. Habitat areas associated with threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitor or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. Such areas are identified herein with reference to lists, categories, and definitions of species promulgated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Non -Game Data System Special Animal Species) as identified in WAC 232-12-011 or 232-12-014; in the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; or by rules and regulations adopted currently or hereafter by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries. Critical Landslide Hazard Areas. Lands or areas where there is a high (Class III) or very high (Class IV) risk of landslide due to a combination of slope, soil permeability, and water. Critical Seismic Hazard Areas. Lands or areas where there is a high risk of seismic events and damage. Delineation Manual, Wetland Delineation Manual, or Wetland Delineation Methodology. The manual and methodology used to identify wetlands in the field, as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual(Pub. #96-94), adopted by the Department of Ecology in 1997 (pursuant to RCW 90.58.380/36.70A.175), and 16.10-7 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. which is based on the U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). Use of this manual is required by RCW 90.58.380/36.70A.175. Department. The City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development or successor agency, unless the context indicates a different City department. Director. The Director of the City of Auburn Department of Planning and Community Development or successor agency. Earth/Earth Material. Naturally occurring rock, soil, stone, sediment, or combination thereof. Enhancement. The improvement of an existing viable wetland, stream or habitat area or the buffers established for such areas, through such measures as increasing plant diversity, increasing wildlife habitat, installing environmentally -compatible erosion controls, increasing structural diversity or removing plant or animal species that are not indigenous to the area. Enhancement also includes actions performed to improve the quality of an existing degraded wetland, stream, or habitat area. See also, "Restoration." Erosion. A process whereby wind, rain, water, and other natural agents mobilize and transport soil particles. Erosion Hazard Areas. Lands or areas that, based on a combination of slope inclination and the characteristics of the underlying soils, are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of erosion. Erosion hazard areas are classified as "low" (areas sloping less than 15 percent) or "high" (areas sloping 15 percent or more) on the following Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil types: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD) and Indianola (InD). Additional soil groups may be identified through site-specific analysis. Excavation. The removal or displacement of earth material by human or mechanical means. Existing and Ongoing Agricultural Activities. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops and livestock. Such activity must have been in existence as ofJuly I, 1990 (the effective date of the Growth Management Act.)] The definition, includes but is not limited to, operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, irrigation systems, changes between agricultural activities or crops, and normal operation, maintenance or repair of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities, which bring an area into agricultural use from a previous non-agricultural use, are not considered part of an ongoing activity. An operation ceases to be ongoing when 16.10-8 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. the area on which it was conducted is proposed for conversion to a non-agricultural use or has lain idle for a period of longer than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program. Forest practices are not included in this definition. Exotic. Any species of plant or animal that is foreign and not indigenous to the lower Puget Sound area. Fill/Fill Material. A deposit of earth material placed by human or mechanical means. Filling. The act of transporting and placing (by any manner or mechanism) fill material from, to, or on any surface water body or wetland, soil surface, sediment surface, or other fill material. Geologic Hazard Areas. Lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landslides, erosion, seismic or volcanic activity. Grading. Any excavating, filling, clearing, leveling or contouring of the ground surface by human or mechanical means. Groundwater Protection Areas. Land areas designated by the City beneath which groundwater occurs that is a current or potential future source of drinking water for the City. Habitat Management. Management of land and its associated resources/features to maintain species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not imply maintaining all habitat or individuals of all species in all cases. Hazardous Materials. Any material, either singularly or in combination, that is a physical or health hazard as defined and classified in Article 80 of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted or amended by the City, whether the materials are in usable or waste condition; and any material that may degrade ground water quality when improperly stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged. Hazardous materials shall also include, without exception, All materials defined as or designated by rule as a dangerous waste or extremely hazardous waste under Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; Any substance defined as or designated by rule as a hazardous substance under Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; and Petroleum or petroleum products, including any waste oils or sludges. Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement. A form provided by the Fire Department and completed by a business owner that provides specified information regarding hazardous materials at the business. 16.10-9 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Hydrologically Isolated. Wetlands which: 1) have no surface water connection to a lake, river, or stream during any part of the year; 2) are outside of and not contiguous to any 100 -yr floodplain of a lake, river, or stream; and 3) have no contiguous hydric soil between the wetland and any lake, river, or stream. May also be a pond excavated from uplands with no surface water connection to a stream, lake, or other wetland. hi -Kind Wetland Mitigation. Replacement of wetlands with wetlands whose characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. Injection Well. aNmo�=A "well' that is used for the subsurface emplacement of fluids. (from WAC 173-218-030) Intentionally Created Streams. Streams created through purposeful human action, such as irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, and canals. This definition does not include stream modifications performed pursuant to City authorization, such as changes or redirection of stream channels. Lahar. Mudflows or debris flows associated with volcanic activity and which pose a threat to life, property, and structures. Landslide. Episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock. Landslide Hazard Areas. Areas that, due to a combination of slope inclination, relative soil permeability, and hydrologic conditions are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landsliding. Landslide hazard areas are classified as Classes I-IV based on the degree of risk as follows: (a) Class I/Low Hazard. Areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. (b) Class II/Moderate Hazard. Areas with slopes of between 15 percent and 40 percent and that are underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. (c) Class III/High Hazard. Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent that are underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. (d) Class IV/Very High Hazard. Areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with identifiable zones of emergent water (e.g., springs or ground water seepage), areas of identifiable landslide deposits regardless of slope and all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. 16.10-10 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. The slopes referenced above includes only those where the surface drops ten (10) feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of twenty-five (25) feet. Mature and Old-growth Forested Wetlands Wetlands containing mature orold-growth forested areas eng grally requiring a centuryor more to develop. These systems represent two priority habitats, as defined by the. Washington Department_of Fish and_Wildlife, Mitigation. Activities which include: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. While monitoring without additional actions is not considered mitigation for the purposes of these regulations, it shall ray be part of a comprehensive mitigation program. Mitigation Sequencin& Considering or performing mitigation actions, as defined in the definition of "mitigation", in a preferred sequence from (a) through (e). Avoidance is preferred and must be considered prior to pursuing other forms of mitigation. Native. Any species of plant or animals which are or were indigenous to the lower Puget Sound area. Natural Heritage Wetlands._ Wetlands that are identified_bv scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality,relatively undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support State listed__threatened or endanngered plants Off -Site Mitigation. Performance of mitigation actions, pursuant to standards established in this chapter, on a site or in an area other than that proposed for conduct of a regulated activity. 16.10-11 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Out -of -Kind Mitigation. Replacement of wetlands or habitat with substitute wetlands or habitat whose characteristics do not closely approximate those adversely affected, destroyed, or degraded by a regulated activity. Permanent Erosion Control. Continuous on-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity, or pollutants after development, construction, or restoration. Plant Association of Infrequent Occurrence. One or more plant species which because of the rarity of the habitat and/or the species involved, or for other botanical or environmental reasons, do not often occur in the City of Auburn. Examples include but are not limited to: a) Wetlands with a coniferous forested class or subclass consisting of trees such as western red cedar, Sitka spruce, or lodge pole pine growing on organic soils; b) Bogs with a predominance of sphagnum moss, or those containing sphagnum moss, and typically including one or more species such as Labrador tea, sundew, bog laurel, or cranberry; Priority Habitats and Species. Habitats and species of local importance and concern, as identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) program. "Priority species" are those fish and wildlife species of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to habitat alteration. 'Priority habitats" are those areas with unique or significant value to many fish or wildlife species.. Qualified Consultant. For purposes of these regulations, qualified consultant shall mean a person who has attained a degree from an accredited college or university in the subject matter necessary to evaluate the critical area in question (e.g., biology, ecology, or horticulture/arboriculture for wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and f geology and/or civil engineering for geologic hazards, and hydrogeologist for groundwater protection areas), and/or who is professionally trained and/or certified or licensed by the State of Washington to practice in the scientific disciplines necessary to identify, evaluate, manage, and mitigate impacts to the critical area in question. Reasonable Use. A legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory taking cases. Regulated Activity. Activities that have a potential to significantly impact a critical area that is subject to the provisions of this chapter. Regulated activities generally include, but are not limited to, any filling, dredging, dumping or stockpiling, release of contaminants to soil or water, draining, excavation, flooding, clearing or grading, construction or reconstruction, driving pilings, obstructing, clearing, or harvesting. 16.10-12 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Restoration. Actions taken to reestablish wetland, stream or habitat functional values, and the characteristics that have been destroyed or degraded by past alterations (e.g., filling or grading). See also, "Enhancement'. Salmonids. The family of fish which includes salmon, trout, and char. Secondary Habitat. Areas that offer less diversity of animal and plant species than priority habitat but are important for performing the essential functions of habitat. Seismic Hazard Areas: Areas that, due to a combination of soil and ground water conditions, are subject to risk of ground shaking, subsidence, or liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. These areas are typically underlain by soft or loose saturated soils (such as alluvium), have a shallow ground water table, and are typically located on the floors of river valleys. Site. The location containing a regulated critical area and on which a regulated activity is proposed. The location may be a parcel or portion thereof, or any combination of contiguous parcels where a proposed activity may impact a critical area. Slope. An inclined earth surface, the incline of which is expressed as the ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. The slopes referenced above includes only those where the surface drops ten (10) feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of twenty-five (25) feet. Spring_ A source of water where an aquifer comes in contact with the ground surface. Streams. Those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed that demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water and includes, but is not limited to, bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds and defined -channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not intended to include artificially created irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water devices, or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or created for the purposes of stream mitigation. 16.10-13 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Stream Reconnaissance Report. A type of critical area report prepared by an applicant's qualified consultant to describe a stream and to characterize its conditions, wildlife, habitat values and water quality. The report also includes an analysis of impacts. Structural Diversity. Vegetative. The relative degree of diversity or complexity of vegetation in a wildlife habitat area as indicated by the stratification or layering of different plant communities (e.g. ground cover, shrub layer and tree canopy), the variety of plant species and the spacing or pattern of vegetation. Substrate. The soil, sediment, decomposing organic matter or combination of those located on the bottom surface of the wetland, lake, stream, or river. Temporary Erosion Control. On-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity, or pollutants during development, construction, or restoration. Tertiary Habitat. Habitat that supports some wildlife but does not satisfy the definition of secondary or priority habitat. Tree. Any self-supporting perennial woody plant characterized by natural growth of one main stem or trunk with a definite crown, and maturing at a height of at least six (6) feet above the ground. Tree Base Fee. The current cost of the tree based on species and minimum code required installation size, installation (labor and equipment) maintenance for two years and fund administration. Utility. This includes natural gas, electric, telephone and telecommunications, cable communications, water, sewer or storm drainage and their respective facilities, lines, pipes, mains, equipment and appurtenances. Variance. Permission to depart from the requirements of the specific regulations of this title for a particular piece of property. Volcanic Hazard Area. Areas identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (maps dated 1998 or as hereafter revised) as subject to a risk of large lahars with a recurrence interval of 500-1,000 years. Water Dependent Use. A principal use which can only exist when the land/water interface provides biological or physical conditions necessary for the use. Well. Includes any excavation that is drilled, cored, bored, washed, driven, dug, jetted or otherwise constructed when the intended use of an excavation is for the location, diversion, artificial recharge, or withdrawal of groundwater. 16.10-14 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Wellhead Protection Area. The portion of a well's, wellfield's or spring's zone of contribution defined as such using the criteria established by the City. Wetland or Wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. However, wetlands include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands. (De inition taken from the -Washington State Wetlands Id_entiflcation and Delineation Manual EcolMPublication #96-94.) Wetland Impact Assessment Report. A report prepared by a qualified consultant that identifies, characterizes and analyzes potential impacts to wetlands consistent with applicable provisions of these regulations. A wetland impact assessment may be combined with and include a formal wetland delineation. Wildlife Report. A report prepared by a qualified consultant that evaluates plant communities and wildlife functions and values on a site, consistent with the format and requirements established by this chapter. The report also includes an analysis of impacts. Section 16.10.030 Applicability - Regulated Activities. 16.10-15 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any activity that potentially affects a critical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempt. Such regulated activities include but are not limited to: 1. removing, excavating, disturbing or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or materials of any kind; 2. dumping, discharging or filling with any material; 3. draining, flooding or disturbing the water level or water table, or diverting or impeding water flow; 4. driving pilings or placing obstructions; 5. constructing, reconstructing, demolishing, or altering the size of any structure or infrastructure; 6. destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading, harvesting, shading, or planting vegetation that would alter the character of or impact a critical area; 7. releases of contaminants to soil or water; 8. activities that result in significant changes in water temperature, physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and pollutants; and 9. any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the Director. B. To avoid duplication, the following permits and approvals shall be subject to and coordinated with the requirements of this chapter: land clearing; grading; subdivision or short subdivision; building permit; planned unit development; shoreline substantial development; variance; conditional use permit; and any other permits that may lead to the development or alteration of land. C. Administrative actions such as rezones, annexations, and the adoption of plans and programs, shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. However, the Director may, using discretion permit any studies or evaluations required by this chapter to use methodologies and provide a level of detail appropriate to the administrative action proposed. Section 16.10.040 Exemptions and Nonconforming Uses A. The following activities performed on sites containing critical areas as defined by this chapter shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities, as defined in this chapter; 2. Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, grass -lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, retention or detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands or streams created as mitigation or that provide critical habitat for salmonids and except when the site contains another critical area; 16.10-16 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. 3. A eti vitt .s a ffi e fing l ydf; d..gieE ily isel 4e [Gat..get= .ill or et .e f speeified] wetlands e iselated wethed afeas indiyidu,.11. s .fuller than 2,500 7 ,5.iv00 v squaf e fiaet and/or cumulatively smallef thffin 10,000 feet in size, and whefi the site ffe ve 3. Normal and routine maintenance, operation r. pair and reconstruction of existing roads, streets, utilities and associated structures, provided that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the impervious area and may not cause further encroachment on the critical area or its buffer, and may not result in adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater quality. Operation and 5. Normal maintenance, repair and reconstruction of residential or commercial structures, facilities and landscaping, provided that reconstruction of any structures may not increase the previous floor area; 6. The addition of floor area within an existing building which does not increase 16.10-17 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. -78. Site investigative work and studies that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization including soils tests, water quality studies, wildlife studies and similar tests and investigations, provided that any disturbance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to carry out the work or studies; 0. Educational activities, scientific research, and outdoor passive recreational activities, including but not limited to interpretive field trips, birdwatching and hiking, that will not have a significant effect on the critical area; 91Q. Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, property or the environment which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow fall compliance with this chapter as long as any alteration undertaken pursuant this subsection is reported to the City as soon as possible. Only the minimum intervention necessary to reduce the risk to public health, safety or welfare and/or the imminent risk of damage to private property shall be authorized by this exemption. The Director shall confirm that an emergency exists or existed and determine what, if any, additional applications and or/measures shall be required to protect the environment consistent with the provision of this section and to repair any damage to a pre-existing resource; 1811. Activities affegting Previously legally filled wetlands or wetlands accidentally created by human actions prior to July 1, 1990 (the effective date of the Growth Management Act). The latter shall be documented through photographs, statements and/or other conclusive evidence; 14-3. Minor activities not mentioned above and determined in &4vaa6� and i wrifin by the Director to have minimal impacts to a critical area. B. Notwithstanding the exemptions provided by this subsection, any otherwise exempt activities occurring in or near a critical area shall comply with the purpose and intent of these standards and shall consider on-site alternatives that avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts. 16.10-18 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. C. Exempt activities occurring in flood hazard areas shall not alter flood storage capacity or conveyance except in conformance with Flood Drainage requirements of Auburn City Code Chapter 15.68. D. j ,; , , rtNo property owner or other entity shall undertake a providing fourteen (14) days notice to the City and receiving confirmation in writing that the proposed activity is exempt. In case of any question as to whether a particular activity is exempt from the provisions of this section, the Director's determination shall govern and shall be confirmed in writing. intrude into critical areas buffers, shall not be reconstructed in such a manner that results in the further intrusion into the buffer area. Structures or developments that are nonconforming solely due to being contrary to the provisions of this chapter, shall not be subject to the non -conforming use provisions of the Auburn City Code Chapter 18.54. Section 16.10.050 Critical Areas Maps. Maas have been developed by the City that show the General location of c These maps shall be used for informational purposes as a general guide only for the assistance of property owners and other interested parties; the boundaries and locations shown are generalized. The actual presence or absence, type, extent, boundaries and classification of critical areas on a specific site shall be identified in the field by a qualified consultant and determined by the City, according to the procedures, definitions and criteria established by this chapter. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or designation shown on the City's maps and the criteria or standards of this section, the criteria and standards shall prevail. Section 16.10.060 Relationship To Other Regulations. A. These critical area regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning, land use and other regulations established by the City of Auburn. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the City, the regulations, which provide greater protection to critical areas shall apply. B. Areas characterized by particular critical areas may also be subject to other regulations established by this chapter due to the overlap or multiple functions of some sensitive or critical areas. Wetlands, for example, may be defined and regulated according to the wetland, habitat and stream management provisions of this chapter. In 16.10-19 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. the event of any conflict between overlapping regulations for multiple critical areas on the same site, the regulations which provide greater protection to critical areas shall apply. Section 16.10.070 Critical Area Review Process And Application Requirements. A. Pre -Application Conference. A pre -application conference is available and encouraged prior to submitting an application for a project permit. B. Application Requirements 1. Timing of Submittals. Concurrent with submittal of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist, or concurrent with submittal of an application for projects exempt from SEPA, a critical area report must be submitted to the City for review when the City believes that a critical area mask be present. The purpose of the report is to determine the extent, characteristics and functions of any critical areas located on or potentially affected by activities on a site where regulated activities are proposed. The report will also be used by the City to determine the appropriate critical area classification and, if applicable, to establish appropriate buffer requirements. 2. Report Contents. Reports and studies required to be submitted by this chapter shall contain, at a minimum, the information indicated in the attachments to this chapter applicable to each critical area. The Director may tailor the information required to reflect the complexity of the proposal and the sensitivity of critical areas that may potentially be present. C. Consultant Qualifications & City Review. All reports and studies required of the applicant by this section shall be prepared by a qualified consultant as that term is defined in these regulations. The City may retain a qualified consultant paid for by the applicant to review and confirm the applicant's reports, studies and plans if the following circumstances exist: 1. The City has technical information that is unavailable to the applicant; or 2. The applicant has provided inaccurate or incomplete information on previous proposals or proposals currently under consideration. D. Review Process. This section is not intended to create a separate critical area review permit for development proposals. To the extent possible, the City shall consolidate and integrate the review and processing of critical area -related aspects of proposals with other land use and environmental considerations and approvals. Any permits required by separate codes or regulations, such as Flood Zone Control Permits or Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, shall continue to be required. Section 16.10.080 Classification And Rating Of Critical Areas. A. To promote consistent application of the standards and requirements of this chapter, critical areas within the City of Auburn shall be rated or classified according to their characteristics, function and value, and/or their sensitivity to disturbance. 16.10-20 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. B. Classification of critical areas shall be determined by the Director based on consideration of the following factors and in the following order: 1. Consideration of the technical reports submitted by qualified consultants in connection with applications subject to these regulations. 2. Application of the criteria contained in these regulations; and 3. Critical areas maps maintained by the Planning and Community C. Wetland Classification. Wetlands shall be designated Category I, Category II, Category III, Category IV and as Artificially Created according to the criteria in this section. Wetland classifications incorporate the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (DGEDept. ofEcology, 2004,_Publication# 04-06-- 02_5-1-993). The -wetland rating -categories -shall be applied as -the -regulated -wetlands exists on the date o€July- t 1990 - (the -e€fective-date -aftheGrowth-Management-Aet}or-as the regulated "v`r'ctiaiad-airu`y' nuiurui�caQr[cr� oras sth ies—Wetland rating-eategories-slrall-not-be altered to recognise illegal modifications. Welland rating categones_shall be applied as the-wetland_e_.xis. is on the date _of adoption of the rating system by the local-government�as the wetland naturally changes thereafter, or as the wetland changes in accordance with permitted activities. Wetland ratingcategories shall not change due to illegal modifications. 1. "Category I Wetlands" are those wetlands which meet any of the following criteria: Forested Wetland. a ---the- documented—eeeur ei , ix3 dv�d by -federal -or -state agencies -within-the wetland of plant,-animalk or fish -species listed by the federal- goveniment or -State -of Washmgton-as `—`endangered'% or L-Ih eatened!% or b. -----high-quaWnative w ed-ir or-which-quali€y for inclusion -inWashington Natural Heritage program maintained by the State Department of Natural -Resources; or reattt waterfowl c meentrat3Vn aI 1 _r 16.10-21 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. d. ---wetlands-with-irrephieeahleecological- attributes -per--Washington e--wetlan >, w a -I1�,a33�LL�i�ated-as Category I by-the-City-of-Auburn—,pursuant to criteria in the Washington State-Wetland-R-atingSystem-for Western -Washington. 2. "Category II Wetlands" are those wetlands which are not Category I wetlands and which meet any of the following criteria: a_. provide high levels of some_functions bein diffic_ult,.-thou not impossible to replace or b. perform most functions relatively wellscoring 5g 1-69 out of 100 points (DOEWetlandsRating Stem 2004)• a.--------wetlend-3 th--a-doeumented-occurrencewithin- the wetland -o€a 1-vr �'iuL�u-1i33ccs—cnl3uicaine'-©r-se%nSitiVe--Speeie5-9. p1{�, ani'nla"r fish-5pE8 l 9r b. - wetlands that contain ``priority'' species or habitats documented by the-Washingten-Department of FishandWildlife-Priority Habitat and Species -program; -or �i—VYe[IRII6 T-VPIIIl �irgnallV-GfIL{ LUY14-LMI�aSUeTV13111131.LL iJ}'-cll{. wlflan{S report required -by these -regulations;- whieh-may-nat be- adequately reptieated-through oreationor-restoration;-,ar • nifteant-hahitat volae (greaterthanor-equal� 4 41.o ..,e41..«.ln «n ,j F ..,� .11... 41.e..o .-o....l n4:..«.,\• peiriLSAJ1Llg-I.Y1G l'VLTIALIQTT6 M 1V1111 requlre{S V�-µ1V.7V ll.sR"IULI V313'�, or e: - --- wetlands of local -significance -as now -or hereafter --designated as Cat ursuant-to-criteria- the Washington State-Wetland-RatingSystem for -Western -Washington: 3. "Category III Wetlands" are those wetlands that are not Category I or II wetlands, and which meet any -of -the following criteriona: a. provide moderate levels of functions scoringbetween 30-50 out of 100 points (DOE Wetlands Ratline System 2004). a.-- --wetland tat -value Ewhere-the-habitat-seore-is less- ts-using-the-wetlands-rating-€reld-data-forni, as required by these regulations); or lr -- wetlands -of local-signifieance as new or hereafter designated -as Category TYT L 'L. enteri State Wetland -luting -System -for Westerr Washington 4. "Category IV Wetlands" are those wetlands that meet any of the following criteriona: a. -__ provide.low levels of functions, scoring less than 30 out of 100 points DOE Wetlands Rating System. 200W. a. wetlands that are less -than one acre that -are hydrologically isolated, -and that-are-eemprised of only -one -vegetated class which is L.0 � uv-�v-areia-cer'L:r� vy iicrlL:�svlc-idsl�rlar'u Ilucn� vu�.I�vl usi3� or-cattarl;-or 16.10-22 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. _-----b-.—wetlands-that-are-less-than-two-aeres -that-are hydrol�solateia id 984/oof-the-areal-eoverage-is-any-eetnbination-e# invasive-or-axetilr plants (as- listed 3- of -the -Washington State Wetlands Dating -System -for WesternWashingIeo. 5. "Artificially Created Wetlands" are purposefully created landscape features, ponds and stormwater detention or retention facilities. Artificially created wetlands do not include wetlands created as mitigation, and wetlands modified for approved land use activities. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated to the Director through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites are excluded from regulation under this section. D. Stream Classification. Streams shall be designated Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV according to the criteria in this section. When ...efe than one steam mann in pfesent an the propetty in question ., segments), it will 1.....1..ssified n ording to the steam etass present along the maje«:t...)F the length within a given section. The stfeam elass shall ehange at the peim at whieh the maj vt aty vf the a..ugu. feeeives a differefit elassifiefftien7._ 1. "Class I Streams" are those natural streams identified as "Shorelines of the State" under the City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program. 2. "Class II Streams" are those natural streams that are not Class I streams and are either perennial or intermittent and have one of the following characteristics: a. c6niihibsi habitat " b 9igiiitl, a t� to«o 7 fbrase h; _Q1 rva '� Or 1�.hk significant recreational value, as determined by the Director. 3. "Class III Streams" are those natural streams with perennial (year round) or intermittent flow and coo not Eft aiii ash habiita rno 4. "Class IV Streams" are those natural streams and drainage swales with channel width less than two feet taken at the ordinary high water mark, that do not contain fish habitat afe net used by fish. 5. "Intentionally Created Streams" are those manmade streams defined as such in these regulations, and do not include streams created as mitigation. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Intentionally created streams may include irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales and canals. Intentionally created streams are excluded from regulation under this section, except manmade streams that provide "critical habitat', as designated by federal or state agencies, for salmonids. E. Wildlife Habitat Classification. Wildlife habitat areas shall be classified as critical, secondary priority or tertiary according to the criteria in this section. 16.10-23 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. 1. "Critical Habitat" are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: a. the documented presence of species or habitat listed by federal or state agencies as "endangered", "threatened", "candidate", "sensitive", or "priority"; or b. the presence of unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries er faptor nesting trees; C. Category I wetlands, as defined in these regulations; or d. Class I streams, as defined in these regulations. 2. "Secondary Habitat" is habitat which is valuable to fish and wildlife and supports a wide variety of species due to its undisturbed nature, a diversity of plant species and structure, presence of water, or the area's size, location, or seasonal importance. 3. "Tertiary Habitat" is habitat which is not classified as critical or secondary. It is habitat which, while supporting some wildlife and performing other valuable functions, does not currently possess essential characteristics necessary to support diverse wildlife communities. Tertiary habitat also includes habitat which has been created purposefully by human actions to serve other or multiple purposes, such as open space areas, landscape amenities, and detention facilities. F. Groundwater Protection Areas. Groundwater protection areas in this ordinance correspond to water resource protection areas, which are described in the Water Resource Protection Report prepared for the City by Pacific Groundwater Group, December 2000. Water resource protection areas are based on time -related "capture zones" also referred to as "time -of -travel zones" which are derived using a numerical groundwater flow model developed for the City and upon geologic conditions. A capture zone is the area that supplies groundwater recharge to a pumping well or a spring. A time -related capture zone is the area that supplies groundwater recharge to a pumping well or spring within a specified period of time. The location of Groundwater Protection Areas have been revised to include all of a parcel where capture zones include a portion of the parcel. Groundwater Protection areas have been divided into four zones as follows: • Groundwater Protection Zone 1 represents the land area overlying the 1 -year time -of -travel zone of any well or spring owned by the City. • Groundwater Protection Zone 2 represents the land area in the central part of the City beneath which the principal aquifer used by the City for water supply is overlain by highly permeable sand and gravel deposits. These geologic conditions provide a direct pathway for contaminants that may be released to the soil to reach the aquifer. • Groundwater Protection Zone 3 represents the land area overlying the region between the 1 -year and 10 -year time -of -travel zone of any well or spring owned by the City. • Groundwater Protection Zone 4 represents the land area within the City limits not designated as Water Resource Protection Zones 1, 2 or 3. 16.10-24 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. G. Geologic Hazard Classifications. Geologic hazard areas shall be classified according to the criteria in this section. 1. Critical Erosion Hazard Areas. Critical erosion hazard areas are lands or areas underlain by soils identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, as having "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazards. This includes the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD), and Indianola (InD). 2. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are classified as "Class I," " Class lI," " Class III", or "Class IV" as follows: (a) Class I/Low Hazard: Areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. (b) Class IUModerate Hazard: Areas with slopes of between 15 percent and 40 percent and that are underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel, or glacial till. (c) Class III/High Hazard: Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent that are underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. (d) Class IV/Very High Hazard: Areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with mappable zones of emergent water (e.g. springs or ground water seepage), areas of known (mappable) landslide deposits regardless of slope, and all areas with slopes 40 percent or greater. 3. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are lands that, due to a combination of soil and ground water conditions, are subject to severe risk of ground shaking, subsidence, or liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. These areas are typically underlain by soft or loose saturated soils (such as alluvium), have a shallow ground water table and are typically located on the floor of river valleys. Section 16.10.090 Buffer Areas And Setbacks. General Provisions A. The establishment of on-site buffers, buffer areas or setbacks shall be required for all development proposals and activities in or adjacent to critical areas. The purpose of the buffer shall be to protect the integrity, function, value, and resources of the subject critical area (in the case of wetlands, streams, and/or wildlife habitat areas), and/or to protect life, property and resources from risks associated with development on unstable or critical lands (in the case of geologic hazard areas). Buffers shall typically consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation retained or established to achieve the purpose of the buffer. No buildings or structures shall be allowed within the buffer unless as otherwise permitted by this Section. If the site has previously been disturbed, the buffer area shall be re -vegetated pursuant to an approved enhancement plan. Buffers shall be protected during construction by placement of a temporary barricade, notice of the presence of the critical area and implementation of appropriate erosion and sedimentation 16.10-25 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. controls. Restrictive covenants or conservation easements may be required to provide long-term preservation and protection of buffer areas. B. Required buffer widths shall reflect the sensitivity of the particular critical area and resource or the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity proposed to be conducted on or near the critical area. C. Buffers shall be measured as follows: 1. Wetland buffers — the buffer shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland edge as delineated and marked in the field using the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual; 2. Stream buffers — the buffer shall be measured from the ordinary high water mark; 3. Geologic hazard area buffers shall be required for critical landslide hazard areas and shall be measured from the top and toe and along the sides of the slope. D. Buffer Width Variances. A variance from buffer width requirements may be granted by the City subject to the variance criteria set forth in r'r6 ACC section 16.10.160 of these regulations. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, shall be considered by the Director. Variances requests which exceed 10 percent shall be considered by the Hearing Examiner. E. Buffer widths shall be established for specific critical areas according to the following standards and criteria: 1. Wetland Buffers shall be established as follows: 16.10-26 November, 2004 Weiland Minimum Maximum Catvg=ory Buffer Width Buffer Width (See ACC' Cate o ! I 1 0' 00' 100' Cate o !III 25' SO' '' Category IV 25' 16.10-26 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Different buffer width requirements may apply to various portions of a site, without requiring averaging or variances, based on the site plan, the intensity of land uses in various locations, and differences in the category of wetland. a. Buffer width averaging may be allowed where the applicant demonstrates to the Director that the wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics, that lower intensity land uses would be located adjacent to areas where buffer width is reduced, that width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values and/or that the total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. Buffer width averaging may be allowed only where such reduction shall not result in greater than a X5,35 percent reduction in the buffer width established in this section and the applicant demonstrates the following: i. The proposed buffer area is extensively vegetated and has less than 25 percent slopes, and the reduction will not result in adverse impacts to the wetland; or ii. The project includes a buffer enhancement plan, as part of the mitigation required by this chapter and has less than 25 percent slopes. The buffer enhancement plan shall use plant species which are native to the project area, and shall substantiate that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for wetland functional values; or iii. The acreage included in the buffer would substantially exceed the size of the wetland and the reduction will not result in adverse impacts to the wetland and the project includes a buffer enhancement plan which ensures that the reduction will not result in adverse impacts to the wetland. b. Buffer width may be reduced by up to 2 35 percent if an applicant undertakes measures approved by the Director to enhance or restore the buffer. The restoration or enhancement may include, but is not limited to, planting of native trees or shrubs, increasing the diversity of plant cover types or replacement of exotic species with native species which approximate in composition a naturally occurring plant community. C. Application of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall not result in a buffer width less than 25 feet. d. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the wetland buffer and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the Director within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the wetland. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impacts which may be permitted in appropriate cases include permeable pedestrian trails, viewing platforms, and utility easements, provided that any impacts to the 16.10-27 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. buffer resulting from such permitted activities shall be mitigated. Uses permitted within the buffer shall generally be located as far from the wetland as possible. e. Where existing buffers are degraded, the Director may allow limited filling within the buffer when the applicant demonstrates that the buffer will be enhanced according to standards of this chapter, including appropriate soil preparation, will not result in slopes exceeding 25 percent, and there will be no net loss of wetland or buffer functions and values. f. Long term protection of a regulated wetland and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following methods. It shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the City, a conservation organization or land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. The location and limitations associated with the wetland and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with Stream Buffers shall be established as follows: Stream Minimum Class Buffer Width Ra ffe .Widtl (c et) fe (feet) mti,..,_....-.nd c...z.,__,.fed 16.10-28 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Class I (see item b. below) 100 Class II 75 Class III = NAj Class IV 25 NAj a. The applicable minimum buffer for Class I streams shall be the larger of the buffer established by these regulations or that established by the City's Shoreline Master Program. b. The buffer widths required in this section may. be increased by the Director un to -a maximum of 50 percent for Class:iI II and IV streams and unto 100 percent for Class`III streams in response to site-specific conditions and based on the report information submitted to characterize the functions and values of the stream. This The applicant may propose to implement one or more enhancement measures, listed in order of preference below, which will be considered in establishing buffer requirements: i. Removal of fish barriers to restore accessibility to anadromous fish. ii. Enhancement of fish habitat using log structures incorporated as part of a fish habitat enhancement plan. iii. Enhancement of wildlife habitat by adding structures that are likely to be used by wildlife, including wood duck houses, bat boxes, nesting platforms, snags, root wads/stumps, birdhouses, and heron nesting areas. iv. Additional mitigating measures may include but are not limited to: (a) Landscaping outside the buffer area with native vegetation or a reduction in the amount of clearing outside the buffer area; (b) Planting native vegetation within the buffer area, especially vegetation that would increase value for fish and wildlife, increase stream bank or slope stability, improve water quality, or provide aesthetic/recreational value; (c) Creating a surface channel where a stream was previously culverted or piped; (d) Removing or modifying existing stream culverts (such as at road crossings) to improve fish passage and flow capabilities which are not detrimental to fish; (e) Upgrading retention/detention facilities or other drainage facilities beyond required levels; or 16.10-29 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. (f) Similar measures determined applicable by the Director. C. No structures or improvements shall be permitted within the stream buffer area, including buildings, decks, docks, except as otherwise permitted or required under the City's adopted Shoreline Master Program, or under one of the following circumstances: i. when the improvements are part of an approved enhancement, restoration or mitigation plan; or ii. for construction of new public roads and utilities, and accessory structures, when no feasible alternative location exists; or iii. construction of foot trails, according to the following criteria: (a) designed to minimize impact of permeable materials; (b) designed to minimize impact on the stream system; (c) of a maximum width of twelve (12) feet; (d) located within the outer half of the buffer, i.e., the portion of the buffer that is farther away from the stream; or iv. construction of footbridges; or V. construction of educational facilities, such as viewing platforms and informational signs. d. Averaging of stream buffef Mdths shall net be allowed, Buffer width averaging may be allowed for Class II and Class III streams only provided that all of the following are demonstrated by the applicant: i) One or more of the enhancement measures identified in ACC 16.10.090(E)(2)(b)(i) through (iv) is implemented; ii) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less in area than contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging: iii) The buffer width averaging will result in stream functions and values equal or greater than before averaging; and 16.10-30 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. ef. Long term protection of a regulated stream and its associated buffer shall be provided by one of the following methods except for the portion of Class I streams which are owned by the State Department of Natural Resources. The stream and buffer shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement dedicated to the City, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. The location and limitations associated with the stream and its buffer shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the King or Pierce County Recording Department. Wildlife Habitat Areas. a. Buffer widths for critical habitat areas shall be determined by the Director based on consideration of the following factors: species recommendations of the Department of Fish and Wildlife; recommendations contained in the wildlife report and the nature and intensity of land uses and activities occurring on the site and on adjacent sites. Buffers shall not be required for secondary or tertiary habitat. b. Buffer widths for critical habitat areas may be modified by averaging buffer widths or by enhancing or restoring buffer quality. C. Certain uses and activities which are consistent with the purpose and function of the buffer for critical habitat areas and do not detract from its integrity may be permitted by the Director within the buffer depending on the sensitivity of the habitat area. Examples of uses and activities with minimal impact which may be permitted in appropriate cases include permeable pedestrian trails and viewing platforms and utility easements, provided that any impacts to the buffer resulting from permitted facilities shall be mitigated. When permitted, such facilities shall generally be located as far from the critical habitat area as possible. d. Long term protection of critical habitat areas and their associated buffer(s) shall be provided by one of the following methods. The critical habitat area and buffer(s) shall be placed in a separate tract on which development is prohibited, protected by execution of an easement, dedicated to the City, a conservation organization, land trust, or similarly preserved through a permanent protective mechanism acceptable to the City. The location and limitations associated with the critical habitat area and its buffer(s) shall be shown on the face of the deed or plat applicable to the property and shall be recorded with the King or Pierce County Recording Department. 16.10-31 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. 4. Geologic Hazard Areas. a. Required buffers widths for geologic hazard areas shall reflect the sensitivity of the geologic hazard area in question and the types and the risks associated with development and, in those circumstances permitted by these regulations, the type and intensity of human activity and site design proposed to be conducted on or near the area. b. Required buffers may vary in width. The widths of the buffer shall reflect the sensitivity of the geologic hazard area in question and the types and density of uses proposed on or adjacent to the geologic hazard. In determining the appropriate buffer width, the Director shall consider the recommendations contained in any geologic hazards report required by these regulations and prepared by a qualified consultant. C. Buffers may be reduced to a minimum width of 15 feet when the applicant demonstrates through the geologic hazard report that the reduction will adequately protect the geologic hazard and the proposed development through use of proposed engineering techniques. Section 16.10.100 Alteration Or Development Of Critical Areas - Standards And Criteria. Alteration of specific critical areas and/or their buffers may be allowed by the Director subject to the criteria of this section.Alteration shall implement the mitigation standards as identified in ACC spction 16.10.114 Ceetieiis lz, and the performance standards of ASC sectio 16.10:120 and the monitoring requirements of ACC seetidn ffr 10:13of these regulations. A. Wetlands: 1. Category I Wetlands: Alterations of Category I wetlands shall be avoided subject to the reasonable use provisions of this chapter. 2. Category II Wetlands: a. Alteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations; and b. Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed, replacement ratios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations. C. No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. Category III and IV Wetlands: a. Alteration and mitigation shall comply with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of these regulations; and b. Where enhancement, restoration or creation is proposed, replacement ratios shall comply with the requirements of these regulations. C. No net loss of wetland functions and values may occur. 16.10-32 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. B. Streams: 1. Relocation of a Class II, III and IV stream exclusively to facilitate general site design shall not be allowed. Relocation of a stream may take place only when it is part of an approved mitigation or enhancement/restoration plan, and will result in equal or better habitat and water quality, and will not diminish the flow capacity of the stream. 2. Bridges shall be used to cross Class I streams; boring/micro- tunneling may be considered for utility crossings if it would result in the same or lower impacts as bridging. 3. Culverts are allowable only under the following circumstances: a. only in Class II, III, and IV streams; b. when fish passage will not be impaired; C. when the following design criteria are met: i. oversized culverts will be installed; ii. culverts will include gradient controls and creation of pools within the culvert for Class II streams; iii gravel substrate will be placed in the bottom of the culvert to a minimum depth of one foot for Class II and Class III streams; d. the applicant or successors shall, at all times, keep any culvert free of debris and sediment to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. 4. The City may require that an existing culvert be removed from a stream as a condition of approval, unless the culvert is not detrimental to fish habitat or water quality, or removal would be a long-term detriment to fish or wildlife habitat or water quality. C. Wildlife Habitat 1. Critical Habitat: Alterations of critical habitat shall be avoided, subject to the reasonable use provisions of this chapter. 2. Secondary Habitat: Alterations of secondary habitat may be permitted provided that the applicant mitigates adverse impacts consistent with the performance standards of ACC Section 16.10.120, and other requirements of this chapter. 3. Tertiary Habitat: Alterations of tertiary habitat are permitted consistent with applicable provisions of these regulations and provided that no other regulated critical area is present. Aloodl.._a n_ woodieffid be 16.10-33 November. 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. a W D. Groundwater Protection Areas: 16.10-34 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Requests to establish the following land uses and activities applied for on or after the effective date of this ordinance shall be prohibited in Groundwater Protection Zones 1, 2, and 3: a. class V injection wells that inject industrial, municipal, or commercial waste fluids (as defined in WAC 173-218- 030); b. surface impoundments for treating, storing and disposing of dangerous waste (as defined in WAC 173-303-040 and WAC 173-304-100); C. waste piles for treating or storing solid waste (as defined in 173-303-040, WAC 173-303-660 and WAC 173-304-420); d. hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (as defined in WAC 173-303-040); C. all types of solid waste landfills (as defined in WAC 173- 04-100); f. on-site sewage systems (as defined in WAC 246-272- 01001) except as related to RR, Rural Residential zoned properties; g. recycling facilities that accept, store, or use hazardous materials; h. underground storage of hazardous materials excluding the underground storage of petroleum and other regulated substances as regulated by WAC 173-360; i. use, storage, treatment, or production of perchlorethylene (PCE), other than in closed-loop systems that do not involve any discharge of PCE; j. petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage; k. petroleum -product pipelines not associated with underground storage of petroleum and other regulated substances as regulated by WAC 173-360; and 1. storage or distribution of gasoline treated with the additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). E. Geologic Hazard Areas: 1. General Standard. The City may approve, condition or deny proposals for the alteration of geologic hazard areas, as appropriate, based on the degree to which the significant risks posed by critical hazard areas to public and private property and to public health and safety can be mitigated. The objective of mitigation measures shall be to render a site containing a critical geologic hazard as safe as one not containing such hazard or one characterized by a low hazard. In appropriate cases, conditions may include limitations of proposed uses, modification of density, alteration of site layout and other appropriate changes to the proposal. Where potential impacts cannot be effectively mitigated or where the risk to public health, 16.10-35 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. safety and welfare, public or private property, or important natural resources is significant notwithstanding mitigation, the proposal shall be denied. 2. Specific Standards: a. Class IV Landslide Hazard Areas: Alteration shall be prohibited subject to the reasonable use provisions of this chapter. b. Critical Seismic Hazard Areas: i. For one-story and two-story residential structures, the applicant shall conduct an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions; or ii. For all other proposals, the applicant shall conduct an evaluation of site response and liquefaction potential including sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the International Building Code. C. When development is permitted in geologic hazard areas by these regulations, an applicant and/or its qualified consultant shall provide assurances which, at the City's discretion, may include one or more of the following: i. A letter from the geotechnical engineer and/or geologist who prepared the geologic hazard report required by these regulations, that the risk of damage from the proposal, both on-site and off-site, are minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report, that the proposal will not increase the risk of occurrence of the potential geologic hazard, and that measures to eliminate or reduce risks have been incorporated into its recommendations; ii. A letter from the applicant, or the owner of the property if not the applicant, stating its understanding and acceptance of any risk of injury or damage associated with development of the site and agreeing to notify any future purchasers of the site, portions of the site, or structures located on the site of the geologic hazard; iii. A legally enforceable hold harmless agreement, which shall be recorded as a covenant and noted on the face of the deed or plat, and executed in a form satisfactory to the City, acknowledging that the site is located in a geologic hazard area; the risks associated with development of such site; and a 16.10-36 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. waiver and release of any and all claims of the owner(s), their directors, employees, or successors, or assigns against the City of Auburn for any loss, damage, or injury, whether direct or indirect, arising out of issuance of development permits for the proposal; and iv. Posting of a bond; guarantee or other assurance device approved by the City, to cover the cost of monitoring, maintenance and any necessary corrective actions. G. Flood Hazard Areas: Development Standards are defined by Auburn City Code Section 15.68. Section 16.10.110 Mitigation Standards, Criteria And Plan Requirements. A. Mitigation Standards. 1. Adverse impacts to critical area functions and values shall be mitigated. Mitigation actions shall generally be implemented in the preferred sequence identified in this chapter. Proposals which include less preferred and/or compensatory mitigation shall demonstrate that: a. All feasible and reasonable measures as determined by the Department have been taken to reduce impacts and losses to the critical area, or to avoid impacts where avoidance is required by these regulations; b. The restored, created or enhanced critical area or buffer will be as viable and enduring as the critical area or buffer area it replaces; and c. No overall net loss will occur in wetland or stream functions and values. The mitigation shall be functionally equivalent to or greater than the altered wetland or stream in terms of hydrological, biological, physical, and chemical functions. B. Location and Timing of Mitigation. 1. The preferred location of mitigation is on-site. Mitigation may be allowed off-site only when it is determined by the Department that on-site mitigation is not scientifically feasible or practical due to physical features of the property, or, in the case of wetlands, where the affected site is identified as appropriate for off-site mitigation in the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), April 2000. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to demonstrate that mitigation cannot be provided on-site or is consistent with the SAMP. When mitigation cannot be provided on-site, mitigation shall be provided in the same drainage basin as the permitted activity on property owned, secured, or controlled by the applicant where such mitigation is practical and beneficial to the critical area and associated resources. Mitigation sites shall be located within the City. rosourees; tho 1@0360" of fniti&atiaa in 0__ free feplaeemerA A811 in the .0titter'00-- -e 014 site rplaermeftf 16.10-37 November. 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Director A.11 In • TL,...,pg. .-s... 40i1g, P.,, L_11 L, al._ i___Lg__ f__':W reqeirmems of this Smian: The 400 baso &e A -A installation(lab@r and , f@r two n and f6fld ii. O—P-1-ded @14b, far the planting of tfGes sttitable for 32.In-kind mitigation shall be provided except when the applicant demonstrates, and the Department concurs, that greater functional and habitat value can be achieved through out -of -kind mitigation. 43.When wetland, stream or habitat mitigation is permitted by these regulations, the mitigation project shall occur near an adequate water supply (river, stream, groundwater) with a hydrologic connection to the critical area to ensure a successful mitigation or restoration. A natural hydrologic connection is preferential as compared to one which relies upon manmade or constructed features requiring routine maintenance. 5-_4.Any mitigation plan shall be completed before initiation of other permitted activities, unless a phased or concurrent schedule that assures completion prior to occupancy has been approved by the Department. C. Wetland Replacement Ratios. 1. Where wetland alterations are permitted by the Director, the applicant shall enhance or create areas of wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses. The compensation shall be determined according to acreage, function, type, location, timing factors and projected success of enhancement or creation. 2. The following acreage replacement and enhancement ratios shall be implemented however, the Department may vary these standards if the applicant can demonstrate and the Director agrees that the variation will provide adequate compensation for lost wetland area, functions and values, or if other circumstances as determined by the Director justify the variation. Except as provided for Category IV wetlands in ACC section 16.10.110 (C)(3) below, Tin no case shall the amount of mitigation be less than the area 16.10-38 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. of affected wetland. The Director may at its discretion increase these standards where mitigation is to occur off-site or in other appropriate circumstances. 3. Category IV wetlands can either be mitigated by either: (i) Meeting one of the replacement ratios (*see following table), -or(ii) Implementing mitigation which ensures no net loss of values and functions of the larger ecosystem in which the critical area is located. Wetland Creation Wetland Rent Enhancement Wetland Category Ratio (Acres) Ratio (Acres) (Acres Created or Enhanced: Acres Impacted) Category I 6:1 12:1 Category II Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category III Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 IV* 1.25:1* 2.5:1* ~11,111-1191,1111-11 2-INNOM-WAN. Section 16.10.120 Performance Standards For Mitigation Planning. 16.10-39 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. A. The performance standards in this section shall be incorporated into mitigation plans submitted to the City for impacts to critical areas. 1. Wetlands and Streams: a. Use plants native to the Puget Lowlands or Pacific Northwest ecoregion; non-native, introduced plants or plants listed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture as noxious weeds (WAC 16-750) shall not be used; b. Use plants adapted to and appropriate for the proposed habitats and consider the ecological conditions known or expected to be present on the site. For example, plants assigned a facultative wetland (FACW) wetland indicator status should be used for sites with soils that are inundated or saturated for long periods during the growing season. Use nearby reference wetlands or aerial photos to identify plants suitable to the site conditions and hydrologic regimes planned for the mitigation site. Avoid planting significant areas of the site with species that have questionable potential for successful establishment, such as species with a narrow range of habitat tolerances; c. Utilize plant species heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant communities described in Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington (Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess 1988) or other regionally recognized publications on native landscapes; d. Specify plants that are commercially available from native -plant nurseries or available from local sources. If collecting some or all native plants from donor sites, collect in accordance with ecologically accepted methods, such as those described in the Washington Native Plant Society's Policy on Collection and Sale of Native Plants, that do not jeopardize the survival or integrity of donor plant populations; e. Use perennial plants in preference to annual species; the use of annuals species should be limited to a temporary basis in order to provide erosion control, support the establishment of perennial plants, or if mitigation monitoring determines that native plants are not naturally colonizing the site or if species diversity is unacceptably low compared to approved performance standards; f Use plant species high in food and cover value for native fish and wildlife species that are known or likely to use the mitigation site (according to reference wetlands, published information, and professional judgment); g. Install a temporary irrigation system and specify an irrigation schedule unless a sufficient naturally -occurring source of water is demonstrated; h. Identify methods of soil preparation. For stream substrate or wetland soils, at least one foot of clean inorganic and/or organic materials, such as cobble, gravel, sand, silt, clay, muck, soil, or peat as appropriate shall be ensured. The stream substrate or wetland soils shall be free from solid, dangerous, or hazardous substance as defined by RCW 70.105 and implementing rules; 16.10-40 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. i. Confine temporary stockpiling of soils to upland areas. Identify construction access routes and measures to avoid resultant soil compaction. Unless otherwise approved by the Director, comply with all applicable best management practices for clearing, grading, and erosion control to protect any nearby surface waters from sediment and turbidity; j. Show densities and placement of plants; these should be based on the ecological tolerances of species proposed for planting, as determined by a qualified consultant; k. Provide sufficient specifications and instructions to ensure proper placement and spacing of seeds, tubers, bulbs, rhizomes, springs, plugs and transplanted stock, and other habitat features, and to provide a high probability of success, and to reduce the likelihood of prolonged losses of wetland functions from proposed development. 1. Do not rely on fertilizers and herbicides to promote establishment of plantings; if fertilizers are used, they must be applied per manufacturer specifications to planting holes in organic or controlled release forms, and never broadcast on the ground surface; if herbicides are used to control invasive species or noxious weeds and to help achieve performance standards, only those approved for use in aquatic ecosystems by the Washington Department of Ecology shall be used; herbicides shall only be used in conformance with all applicable laws and regulations and be applied per manufacturer specifications by an applicator licensed in the state of Washington; and m. Include the applicant's mitigation plan consultant in the construction process to ensure the approved mitigation plan is completed as designed. At a minimum, the consultant's participation will include site visits to inspect completed rough and final grading, installation of in -water or other habitat structures, and to verify the quality and quantity of native plant materials before and after installation. n. Signs and fencing of wetlands and streams critical areas: 1. Temporary markers. The outer perimeter of the critical area or buffer and the limits of those areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur, and verified by the Department prior to the commencement of authorized activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction, and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place. 2. Permanent signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter, the Department may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a critical area or buffer. Permanent signs shall be made of metal face and attached to a metal post, firmed anchored, or 16.10-41 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. other materials of equal durability approved by the Director. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every fifty feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The sign shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the Director: "Habitat Conservation Area" Do Not Disturb Contact the City of Auburn Planning Department regarding uses and restrictions 3. Fencing. (a) The Director shall condition any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this Chapter to require the application to install a permanent fence at the edge of the critical area or buffer, when fencing will prevent future impacts the critical area. (b) The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the critical area or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site. (c) fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this Subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes habitat impacts. 2. Wetlands: Do not exceed a maximum water depth of 6.6 ft (2 meters) at mean low water unless approved as part of a planned interspersion of wetland vegetation classes and deep -water habitats; a. Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H:1 V) in the wetland unless it can be clearly demonstrated by supporting documentation that wetland hydrology and hydric soils capable of supporting hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation will be created on steeper slopes; b. Do not exceed a slope of 25 percent (4H:1 V) in the wetland buffer; and c. Limit deep -water habitat (>6.6 ft at mean low water) in compensatory wetland to no more than 60 percent of the total area, and approach this limit only when deep -water habitat is highly interspersed with wetland vegetation classes, including aquatic bed, emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested. 3. Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: a. Incorporate relevant performance standards from the preceding Subsections 1 and 2, as determined by the Director; 16.10-42 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. b. Include the following additional mitigation measures in mitigation planning: i. Locate buildings and structures in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on critical habitats used by priority or threatened or endangered species and identified by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Priority habitats include, but are not limited to, riparian areas, streams, wetlands, caves, snags and logs, talus, and urban natural open space; ii. Integrate retained habitat into open space and landscaping; iii. Wherever possible, consolidate critical habitats into larger, unfragmented, contiguous blocks; vi. Use native plant species for landscaping of disturbed or undeveloped areas and in any habitat enhancement or restoration activities; v. Create habitat heterogeneity and structural diversity that emulates native plant communities described in Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington (Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess 1988) or other regionally recognized publications on native landscapes; vi. Remove and/or control any noxious weeds or exotic animals which are problematic to the Critical habitat area as determined by the Director or consultant hired by the City to review the mitigation plan; and; vii. Preserve significant or existing native trees, preferably in stands or groups, consistent with achieving the goals and standards of this chapter; the plan shall reflect the report prepared pursuant to Seeti x ACC Section 16.10.070. 4. Geologic Hazard Areas: a. Incorporate relevant performance standards from the preceding Subsections, as determined by the Director; b. The following additional performance standards shall be reflected in proposals within geologic hazard areas: i. A geologic hazard report shall be prepared to identify and evaluate potential hazards and to formulate mitigation measures; ii. Construction methods will not adversely affect geologic hazards or will reduce adverse impacts on geologic hazards; iii. Site planning shall minimize disruption of existing topography and natural vegetation; iv. Impervious surface coverage shall be minimized; v. Disturbed areas shall be replanted with permanent vegetation as soon as feasible pursuant to a mitigation or landscape plan; vi. Clearing and grading shall be limited to between April 1 and October 31 unless the geologic hazard report specifically addresses measures necessary to perform clearing and grading during other portions of the year; 16.10-43 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. vii. The limited use of retaining walls that minimize disturbance or alteration of existing natural slope areas are preferred over graded slopes; viii. Temporary erosion and sedimentation controls, pursuant to an approved plan, shall be implemented during construction; ix. A drainage plan shall be prepared for large projects as required by the City Engineer; x. Development shall not increase instability or create a hazard to the site or adjacent properties, or result in a significant increase in sedimentation or erosion. 5. Groundwater Protection Areas. A mitigation plan is required of all development except an individual single-family or two-family (duplex) dwelling unit. The mitigation plans shall include the following minimum measures and incorporate the appropriate responses. a. Groundwater Protection Zones 1, 2 and 3 i. Indicate how hazardous materials shall be stored and used such that any unauthorized release or discharge of the hazardous materials is prevented. ii. Specify that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers shall be applied in strict conformance with manufacturer's instructions and by persons licensed to perform such applications, if applicable. iii. Document hazardous materials management procedures, including, but not limited to operations plans, drawings and as -built diagrams, emergency response and spill cleanup plans, and employee training documentation. This information can be provided in the form of copies of permits or other documentation required by other authorities. iv. Indicate that any fill material shall be documented to be free of contaminants that exceed Method A and Method B soil cleanup standards specified in Chapter 173-340 WAC prior to placement on the ground, if applicable. v. Specify that any contaminant release reported to the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) per Chapter 173-340 WAC shall also be reported to the City of Auburn Public Works Department concurrent with notification of Ecology. vi. Include a provision that the mitigation plan will be kept up to date. Updates shall occur whenever there is a change in use or business occupancy or when there are significant changes in facility operations or hazardous materials management. A copy of the plan is to be available for review by City inspectors at the business or businesses within the development. The plan should cover the facility site in general as well as have a section(s) specific to any tenants within the development. Groundwater Protection Zone 4 16.10-44 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. i. Business owners shall implement best management practices for water resource protection. 6. A10@dIand a, minituum no dist"rb—o- The Gitymayreqt1ire @008ftraetion of of a protected tree Ain the ro@t mene a Timm Wing ""tiiities maybe required as app- reduee damage to the tree's foot syst... @f utilities to save a tree or tr@vs aitte is meeed@d' b@ Section 16.10.130 Monitoring Program And Contingency Plan. A. For all actions requiring a mitigation plan, a monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant to evaluate the success of the mitigation project and to determine necessary corrective actions. This program shall determine if the original goals and objectives are being met. The monitoring program shall be 16.10-45 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. reviewed and approved by the City prior to implementation. The monitoring program shall include a contingency plan in the event that implementation of the mitigation plan is inadequate or fails. B. A performance and maintenance security is required to ensure the applicant's compliance with the terms of the approved mitigation plan. The amount of the performance security shall equal one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the cost of the mitigation project for the length of the monitoring period; the Director may agree to reduce the security in proportion to work successfully completed over the period of the security. C. Incorporate the following into monitoring programs prepared to comply with this chapter: 1. Appropriate, accepted, and unbiased qualitative or precise and accurate quantitative sampling methods to evaluate the success or failure of the project compared to performance standards approved by the City; 2. Quantitative sampling methods that include permanent photopoints installed at the completion of construction and maintained throughout the monitoring period and shall also include permanent transects, sampling points (e.g., quadrants or water quality or quantity monitoring stations), and wildlife monitoring stations; 3. Clearly stipulated qualitative and quantitative sampling methods that are approved by the City before implementation by the project proponent; 4. Appropriate qualitative and/or quantitative performance standards that will be used to measure the success or failure of the mitigation. For wetlands, streams and habitat areas these will include, at a minimum, standards for plant survival and diversity, including structural diversity, the extent of wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and habitat types and requirements as appropriate; all proposed standards are subject to review and approval by the City or the consultant selected by the City to review the monitoring plan; 5. Monitoring programs for an appropriate a minimum period of three years for buffer enhancement and a minimum of five years for other types of mitigation programs tir :c, ;:suftH. � hFee * by feats that include, at a minimum; preparation of an as -built plan; biannual monitoring and preparation of annual monitoring reports following implementation; and a maintenance plan. More stringent monitoring requirements may be required on a case-by-case basis for more complex mitigation plans; 6. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director by December 1, of the year in which monitoring is conducted. The reports are to be prepared by a qualified consultant and must contain all qualitative and quantitative monitoring data, photographs, and an evaluation of each of the applicable performance standards. If performance standards are not being met, appropriate corrective or contingency measures must be identified and communicated to the Director and upon concurrence, implemented to ensure that performance standards will be met. 16.10-46 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Provision for the extension of the monitoring period beyond the minimum timeframe if performance standards are not being met at the end of the initial five-year period; and provision for additional financial securities or bonding to ensure that any additional monitoring and contingencies are completed to ensure the success of the mitigation. Section 16.10.140 Procedural Provisions. A. Interpretation and Conflicts. The Director shall have the authority to administer the provisions of this Chapter, to make determinations with regard to the applicability of the regulations, to interpret the intent of unclear provisions, to require additional information, to determine the level of detail and appropriate methodologies for critical area reports and studies, to prepare application forms and informational materials as required, and to promulgate procedures and rules for unique circumstances not anticipated within standards and procedures contained in this section. Administrative interpretations may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner as prescribed in Auburn City Code section 18.70.050. B. Penalties and Enforcement. Compliance with these regulations and penalties for their violation shall be enforced pursuant to the procedures set forth in Auburn City Code Chapter 1.25. C. Appeals from Critical Area Review Decisions. Appeals of critical area review decisions shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Auburn City Code section 18.70.050. Section 16.10.150 Reasonable Use Provision. A. The standards and requirements of these regulations are not intended, and shall not be construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable use of private property. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Hearing Examiner that strict application of these standards would deny all reasonable use of a property, development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions. B. Applications for a reasonable use exception shall be processed as a Type III decision, pursuant to Auburn City Code section 14.03.030 and Auburn City Code chapter 18.66. C. An applicant for relief from strict application of these standards shall demonstrate that all of the following criteria are met: 1. No reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and its buffer is possible; There is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activities proposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in density and similar factors, that would 16.10-47 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. allow a reasonable and economically viable use with fewer adverse impacts; 2. The proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to affected critical areas; 3. All reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured; 4. The inability to derive reasonable use is not the result of the applicant's actions or that of a previous property owner, such as by segregating or dividing the property and creating an undevelopable condition; and 5. The applicant shall demonstrate that the use would not cause a hazard to life, health or property. D. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to provide evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made. E. Approval of a reasonable use exception shall not eliminate the need for any other permit or approval otherwise required for a proposal by applicable City codes. F. Except when application of this title would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the title shall pursue a variance as provided in ACC Section 16.10.160. Section 16.10.160 Variances. Applications for variances to the strict application of the terms of this chapter to a property may be submitted to the City. Minor variances, defined as up to and including 10 percent of the requirement, may be granted by the Director as a Type II decision as defined by Auburn City Code section 14.03. Variances requests which exceed 10 percent may be granted by the Hearing Examiner as a Type III decision, pursuant to Auburn City Code section 14.03.030 and Auburn City Code Chapter 18.66. Approval of variances from the strict application of the critical area requirements shall conform to the following criteria: 1. There are unique physical conditions peculiar and inherent to the affected property which makes it difficult or infeasible to strictly comply with the provisions of this section; 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the building footprint and access; 3. The proposed variance would preserve the functions and values of the critical area, and/or the proposal does not create or increase a risk to the public health, safety and general welfare, or to public or private property; 4. The proposed variance would not adversely affect surrounding properties adjoining; 5. Adverse impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposal are minimized; and 6. The special circumstances or conditions affecting the property are not a result of the actions of the applicant or previous owner. 16.10-48 November, 2004 As recommended by the Planning and Community Development Committee on April 25, 2005. Section 16.10.170 Special Exception for Public Agencies and Utilities' Section 16.10.180 Severability. If any provision of these regulations or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of these regulations or the application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. 16.10-49 November, 2004 CITY OF AUBURN BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE WHITE PAPER Auburn, Washington REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING 41H�" Prepared for City of Auburn October 21, 2004 MGSEavlronfnental, Inc. Environmental Logic CITY OF AUBURN BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE WHITE PAPER Auburn, Washington REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING FINAL Preparedfor City of Auburn Planning and Community Development 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001-4998 Prepared by MCS Environmental, Inc. 6505 — 216' Street SW, Suite 100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 October 21, 2004 340099.001 CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ I 1.1 WASHINGTON STATE LAwAND REGULATIONS ...........................................................1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ............................................................... ........................................... 2 2.0 BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE SOURCES RECOMMENDED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ...................3 2.1 WETLANDS ....................................................... ..................................................... 3 2.2 STREAMS ............................................................................................................... 4 2.3 WOODLAND RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ......................................................6 2.4 SPECIES-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 6 2.4.1 Birds ....................................................................................................... 7 2.4.2 Mammals ................................................................................................ 8 2.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ....................................................................... 8 2.4.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Species .............................................................9 2.4.5 Plants ..................................................................................................... 9 3.0 OTHER BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE SOURCES .....................................................10 3.1 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... 10 3.2 STREAMS ............................................................................................................. 11 3.3 WOODLAND RESCURCESAND WILDLIFE HABITAT ....................................................11 3.4 SPECIES SPECIFIC ........................................................................ ....................... 11 3.4.1 Birds ............................................................ ........................................ 11 3.4.2 Mammals .............................................................................................. 12 3.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................... 12 3.4.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Species ...........................................................12 3.4.5 Plants ................................................................................................... 12 4.0 BUFFER WIDTH DETERMINATIONS ......................................................................... 13 4.1 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... 13 4.2 STREAMS ............................................................................................................. 14 4.3 WOODLAND RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT .......................................... -- ...... 14 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 17 OCTOBER 21, 2004 1 MCS ENVMONMENTP TABLES Table 1 Functions Provided by Wetland, Streams, and Riparian Areas Table 2 Best Available Science Recommended Buffer Widths for Various Functions Table 3 Priority Habitats and Species Identified in Auburn, Washington Table 4 Summary of Recommended Buffer Widths and Proposed CAO Requirements FIGURE Figure 1 Range of Minimum Buffer Widths for Specific Buffer Functions OCTOBER 21,2004 11 MCS ENVIROFN NTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING City Of Auburn Best Available Science White Paper 1.0 INTRODUCTION This paper is intended to assist the City of Auburn (City) in developing a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) for fish and wildlife conservation areas and wetlands within the City's boundaries. Best available science recommendations for minimum buffer widths to protect fish and wildlife conservation areas and wetlands are reviewed. 1.1 WASHINGTON STATE LAW AND REGULATIONS The Washington Growth Management Act requires that local governments consider reliable scientific information, referred to as "best available science," when adopting policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365- 195-05 establishes the criteria for determining whether information can be considered to be best available science. Best available science is considered to be information that is obtained through a valid scientific process and has the following characteristics: ♦ Peer Review—Information has been critically reviewed by other persons who are qualified scientific experts in that scientific discipline. The criticism of the peer reviewers has been addressed by the proponents of the information. Publication in a refereed scientific j oumal usually indicates that the information has been appropriately peer-reviewed. ♦ Methods—Methods that were used to obtain the information are clearly stated and able to be replicated. The methods are standardized in the pertinent scientific discipline or, if not, the methods have been appropriately peer-reviewed to assure their reliability and validity. ♦ Logical Conclusions and Reasonable Inferences—Conclusions presented are based on reasonable assumptions supported by other studies and consistent with the general theory underlying the assumptions. The conclusions are logically and reasonably derived from the assumptions and supported by the data presented. Any gaps in information and inconsistencies with other pertinent scientific information are adequately explained. ♦ Quantitative Analysis—Data have been analyzed using appropriate statistical or quantitative methods. OCTOBER 21, 2004 1 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OF AI URN BAS WMTE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL ♦ Context—Information is placed in proper context. The assumptions, analytical techniques, data, and conclusions are appropriately framed with respect to the prevailing body of pertinent scientific knowledge. ♦ References—Assumptions, analytical techniques, and conclusions are well referenced, with citations to relevant, credible literature and other pertinent existing information. In March 2002, the Washington State Office of Community Development (OCD) issued a report, Citations of Reconvnended Sources ofBest Available Science for Designating and Protecting CrikcalAreas that lists resources that state agencies have identified as meeting the characteristics of best available science. 1.2 OBJECTIVES A key component of most, if not all, CAO for fish and wildlife conservation areas and wetlands is the requirement of minimum buffer widths to protect critical areas. This issue paper summarizes information on buffer widths from resources recommended by the OCD (2002). MCS staff reviewed the 66 resources presented in the OCD report (2002) under the following categories for their relevance to the City of Auburn. ♦ Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species and Habitats ♦ Naturally -Occurring Ponds (under 20 acres) ♦ Waters of the State ♦ State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas ♦ Special Consideration for Anadromous Fish Cycles The best available science information on buffer widths has been organized to evaluate recommendations for protecting different critical area fimctions, as well as recommendations that have been made to protect specific fish and wildlife species and wetlands that may occur within and near the City's boundaries. It should be noted that most of the available best available science literature evaluates various buffer widths with respect to impacts from logging or agricultural practices, not urbanization, and therefore buffers types evaluated are typically either mature forest or grass swales. No reference was identified that evaluated buffer width based on the nature of the existing vegetative community (e.g., mature forested, shrub, or grass dominated). CCTOBER 21, 2004 Z MCS ENVIRONIENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL 2.0 BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE SOURCES RECOMMENDED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This section identifies the functions ofwetlands, streams, and riparian corridors and summarizes the buffer widths recommended by sources identified by the OCD to protect these functions. Many functions of wetlands, streams, and associated riparian areas are essential to fish and wildlife survival and productivity. These functions can be grouped under four main categories: hydrological, geomorphological, ecological, and water quality (Table 1). Numerous studies have evaluated buffer characteristics to determine what buffer widths are needed to protect the various functions of critical habitats (Figure 1, Table 2). A range of recommended buffer widths is given for each function because the numerous conditions described in the literature do not allow for any sort of normalization. For example, a stream in a deep, narrow valley on a north -facing slope would require a narrower, forested buffer to maintain appropriate temperature than a stream of similar size in a shallow, wide valley. 2.1 WETLANDS Wetlands provide a wide variety of functions including: flood storage, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, food -chain support (detritial export), wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge and discharge, and passive and active recreation (FHA 1983). Impacts on wetlands with these functions and the uplands adjacent to them (wetland buffers) with these functions could decrease water quality, increase flooding, and reduce wildlife habitat. Buffer characteristics, such as slope and vegetative cover, as well as property ownership, influence their ability to reduce adverse impacts from development. For example, densely vegetated, gentle slopes are most effective at protecting water quality, trapping sediment, and removing nutrients (Castelle et al. 1992). Appropriate buffer widths should be based on their existing functions, values, and sensitivity to disturbance, buffer characteristics, land -use impacts, and desired buffer functions. Protecting water quality has been recognized as an important function of wetland buffers (Castelle et al. 1992; FHA 1983). Buffers protect water quality by trapping sediment and removing nutrients and fecal coliform from stormwater before it enters the wetland and by providing shade to help regulate temperature. Castelle et al. (1992) looked at a buffer's ability to trap sediment and remove nutrients adjacent to agricultural and logging activities. Recommended buffer widths range from 12.5 to 288 feet (3.8 to 88 meters [m]), depending on the slope and vegetative cover. The buffer's ability to protect water quality increases with its width. Generally, the more gentle and densely OCTOBER 21, 2004 3 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FATAL vegetated the buffer, the smaller the buffer needs to be to effectively trap sediment and remove nutrients and fecal coliform. Wetland buffers also deter direct human impacts on wetlands. The larger the wetland buffer, the less likely the wetland and associated wildlife will be impacted by refuse dumping, filling, excavation, vegetation trampling, vegetation conversion, and noise. Adjacent land use has been shown to account for much of the variation in impacts to wetlands, with dense residential areas causing the greatest amount of human disturbance (Shisler et al. 1987, as cited in Castelle et al. 1992). In dense residential areas, buffers of 50 feet (15 m) are often reduced by homeowners converting the buffer to lawn (Castelle et al. 1992). Evergreen buffers can reduce street noise between 0.2 to 0.3 decibels (A) per foot, so that a 20 -foot -wide (6-m) buffer would decrease noise by 4 to 6 decibels (A) (Hams 1985, as cited in Castelle et al. 1992). Several wildlife species are wetland -dependant for all or a portion of their life history stage. To retain wetland -dependant wildlife, buffers need to retain their structure for 200 to 300 feet (61 to 91 m) beyond the wetland edge, especially where there is an open -water component to the wetland or where there is heavy use by migratory birds or heron (WDFW 1992). 2.2 STREAMS Like wetlands, streams and associated riparian corridors provide flood storage, flood -flow reduction, surface and subsurface flow, and groundwater recharge and discharge. Impacts on critical areas with these functions could create lower base flows, higher and more destructive peak flows, and change how long such extremes persist. Riparian areas help regulate streamflow by intercepting rainfall, promoting infiltration, and maintaining the natural hydrologic cycle (Castelle et al. 1992; Knutson and Naef 1997). Vegetation in the riparian area can impede surface runoff and its roots can increase soil porosity, both of which increase infiltration and groundwater recharge. Vegetative litter increases humus in the soil and increases the adsorption and infiltration of the soil (Castelle et al. 1992). These processes moderate storm -related flows, reducing the magnitude of peak flows and the frequency of flooding (Debano and Schmidt 1989, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). A riparian area in which the stream is integrated with its adjacent floodplain can minimize damage from flood waters and foster the exchange of nutrients and organic materials between aquatic and riparian areas to the benefit of both (Junk et al. 1989, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Recommended buffer widths to maintain hydrology range from 164 to 492 feet (50 to 100 m) depending on site-specific and watershed conditions, such as the amount of impervious surfaces (Knutson and Naef 1997). OCTOBER 21, 2004 4 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Pefmittmg FINAL Riparian corridors help maintain water quality by trapping sediments in runoff, absorbing nutrients, and providing shade. If riparian corridors are too narrow, water quality can suffer from increased sediment, nutrients, and other pollutant loads; higher water temperature, and/or lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. The best available science literature indicates effective buffers for water quality range from 32 to 298 feet (10 to 91 m), depending on the type of adjacent land use (e.g., feedlot, silviculture) and the function of interest (e.g., sediment trapping, temperature moderation) (Castelle et al. 1992; Young 1989; Johnson and Ryba 1992; Knutson and Naef 1997). Generally, sensitive systems require wider riparian areas than degraded systems with lower habitat values (Castelle et al. 1992). Buffers with widths ranging from 26 to 312 feet (8 to 95 m) have been reported to reduce sediment and nutrient loads in streams (Young 1989; Castelle et al. 1992; Knutson and Naef 1997). Forested buffers ranging from 36 to 151 feet (1 I to 46 m) wide have been shown to provide adequate shade to maintain water temperatures in small streams (Knutson and Naef 1997; Castelle et al. 1992; Lynch et al. 1985). Riparian corridors contribute to the formation of several geomorphological functions such as bank stability, large woody debris (LWD) recruitment, pool spacing and size, and channel complexity. All of these functions are important to aquatic life. The loss of the riparian corridor often results in increased erosion, decreased recruitment of LWD, and decreased channel complexity, including reduced pool size and frequency (Knutson and Naef 1997, Castelle et al. 1992). Recommended buffer widths to maintain LWD recruitment and channel complexity range from 98 to 164 feet (30 to 50 m), depending on channel type and dominant LWD recruitment process (Knutson and Naef 1997). Riparian areas are the main contributors to the aquatic food web (Cummins 1974, Adamus and Stockwell 1983, and Budd et al. 1987, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Streamside vegetation provides a constant source of the leaves, wood, insects, spores, and other material that is the basis of a complex food web. Some fish (suckers, whitefish, and minnows) feed directly on vegetative detritus while other fish (e.g., salmon and trout) feed primarily on the aquatic insects that feed on the detritus (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). A mixture of deciduous and coniferous litter, as well as instream LWD, provides optimal year-round food sources for fish and aquatic invertebrates. Deciduous leaves have a large surface area and decompose rapidly, providing an excellent food base during summer and fall. Conifer needles, on the other hand, decompose slowly to provide a more constant food source throughout the year (Cummins 1974 and Gregory and Ashkenas 1990, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). LWD provides cover for fish and aquatic invertebrates (Knutson and Naef 1997; Bolton and Shellberg 2001). LWD is likely recruited to the City's streams by streambank erosion, windthrow, or mortality, with most recruited from within 148 feet (45 m) of the streambank (Knutson and Naef OCTOBER 21, 2004 5 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL 1997). Maintaining an adequate source of vegetative litter and LWD recruitment requires a buffer width of 49 to 98 feet (15 to 30 m) depending on the dominant LWD recruitment process (Erman et al. 1977, Newbold et al. 1980, and Roby et al. 1977, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997; Johnson and Ryba 1992). 2.3 WOODLAND RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Approximately 85% of Washington's terrestrial vertebrate species use riparian habitat for essential life activities (Thomas et al. 1979 and Brown and Johnson 1985, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Riparian areas provide more niches and thus higher species diversity than any other habitat type in our region (Oakley et al. 1985, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Some wildlife species have specific needs that require using streams, wetlands, or riparian areas for at least a portion of their life cycle. Others use riparian areas and other wooded areas as travel corridors for daily, seasonal, or once-in-a-lifetime migrations (Knutson and Naef 1997). In the urban environment, riparian areas associated with wetlands and streams typically offer the most green space, allowing permanent or temporary refuge for wildlife to move through the urban landscape with some protection from such human impacts such as noise, light, domestic animals, odors, and debris (Castelle et al. 1992; Knutson and Naef 1997). In addition, these areas can act as corridors linking several otherwise isolated natural areas and woodland resources. This allows for the large home ranges that larger animals require, a need that would not be met if they were confined to a single isolated area (Noss 1993, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Other important functions of riparian areas include facilitating dispersal and consequent gene flow between populations, "rescue" of small populations from extinction, and allowing species to shift their ranges over long distances (Hams 1988, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Buffer requirements can vary greatly, depending on the species, and can range from 30 to 984 feet (9 to 300 m), with an average of 289 feet (88 m) (Knutson and Naef 1997). 2.4 SPECIES-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Specific requirements are described for species known to occur or that could occur within the City and that are listed as species of concern by federal or state agencies. Species potentially occurring within the City limits were first identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Species of Concern List (2004). The Washington State Gap Analysis Program (WDFW 1999) was then consulted to determine which of those identified as species of concern are known or have the potential to occur within City limits. OCTOBER 21, 2004 6 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Petmitting FINAL 2.4.1 Birds Riparian areas cover less than one percent of the western United States, but vegetation in these areas provides habitat for more breeding bird species than any other vegetation type (Knopf and Samson 1988). Various studies in the United States have shown the importance of riparian habitat for birds. Species diversity, richness, and relative abundance have been positively correlated with buffer widths (Milligan 1985). Current evidence, mostly from studies of forest stream buffers, suggests that buffers need to be between 164 to 656 feet (50 and 200 m) wide in order to reduce or eliminate negative impacts such as nest predation due to edge effects (Bolton and Shellberg 2001; Knutson and Naef 1997). Bald Eagle—The bald eagle is a federal and state Threatened Species (WDFW 2004). This species is included because City limits are within its home range. Recommended buffer widths vary from 164 feet (50 m) for perching sites to 656 feet (200 m) from feeding areas (Knutson and Naef 1997; Rodrick and Milner 1991; Stinson et al. 2001). Great Blue Heron—The great blue heron is a state Monitored Species (WDFW 2004). This species is included because City limits are within its home range. Recommended buffer widths range from 328 feet (100 m) for feeding areas to 984 feet (300 m) for nesting areas (Knutson and Naef 1997; Rodrick and Milner 1991). Some evidence suggests that heron colonies close to human activities can tolerate more disturbance than colonies in undisturbed areas. Pileated Woodpecker—The pileated woodpecker is a state Candidate Species (WDFW 2004) that could occur within City limits (WDFW 1999). Pileated woodpeckers are insectivores that forage on large snags, logs, and stumps, so maintaining these habitat elements is important (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Recommended buffer widths are from 49 feet (15 m) for migration routes and 492 feet (150 m) for nesting areas (Knutson and Naef 1997). Purple Martin—The purple martinis a state Candidate Species (WDFW 2004) that could occur within City limits (WDFW 1999). Purple martins are insectivores that nest near open water in the cavities of snags and old pilings with easy access and clear openings. Although no buffer width recommendations were identified, maintaining snags and old pilings is important, especially near moist or wet sites where flying insects are abundant (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Osprey—The osprey is a state Monitored Species (WDFW 2004) that could occur within City limits (WDFW 1999). Recommended buffer widths vary from a 200 -foot (61 m) no -cutting zone around nest sites and water bodies to restricted activities 656 feet (200 m) around nest sites during the nesting season, April 1 through September 15 (Rodrick and Milner 1991). OCTOBER 21, 2004 7 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Pemnitting FINAL 2.4.2 Mammals Small Mammals—Small mammals (moles, bats, shrews, etc.) are more diverse and abundant in riparian than upland habitats (Doyle 1990 and Gomez 1992, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Riparian areas typically support all or most species found in adjacent uplands, as well as such obligate streamside species as water shrew, marsh shrew, nutria, muskrat, and water vole. The presence of water, abundance of food (aquatic and terrestrial vegetation and invertebrates), moist microclimate, abundance of edge habitat, and dense cover provide resources to support a high abundance and diversity of small mammals. Riparian buffers need to be large enough and retain enough habitat value for species that depend on riparian habitat, including late -successional stages, to persist (O'Connell et al. 1993, as cited in Bolton and Shellberg 2001). Recommended buffer widths range from 39 to 305 feet (12 to 93 m) for small mammals (Knutson and Naef 1997). Large Mammals—Riparian habitats provide large mammals (opossum, beaver, coyote, raccoon, etc.) with ample prey and carrion, a productive and varied plant community, aquatic habitat, and transportation corridors (Raedeke et al. 1988, as cited in Bolton and Shellberg 2001). Aquatic species such as otter, beaver, nutria, muskrat, and mink are most affected by changes in size and composition of riparian areas (Raedeke 1988, as cited in Bolton and Shellberg 2001). Riparian habitat along smaller headwater streams is usually insufficient to support large mammals, but lowland riparian habitats along large rivers can support large mammals. The recommended buffer width for large mammals is 328 feet (100 m) (Knutson and Naef 1997). Townsend's Big -Eared Bat—Townsend's big -eared bat is a federal Species of Concern and a state Candidate Species (WDFW 2004) that could occur within City limits (WDFW 1999). Riparian areas provide a steady source of drinking water and abundant food resources that attract bats (Knutson and Naef 1997). This species is included because City limits are within its home range. No recommended buffer widths were found. 2.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles Eighty percent of Washington amphibian species are considered obligates of streams, ponds, wetlands, and riparian habitat and rely on streams and associated pools for areas for foraging, refuge, reproduction, and larval development. Some amphibian species are completely aquatic; others may never enter streams but require the moist and cool conditions provided by riparian habitat (McAllister 1995). Small, non -fish -bearing streams are particularly important to amphibians because they are free from competition and predation by fish (Gomez 1992, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Due to their limited mobility, small home ranges, and sensitivity to water quality, especially temperature and sedimentation, amphibians are very sensitive to alterations of riparian and aquatic habitat (Nussbaum et al. 1983, as cited in Knutson and Naef 1997). Washington reptiles that use aquatic and riparian systems for most of their life stages include the western pond turtle, OCTOBER 21, 2004 8 MCS EN VIRONN@NTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL painted turtle, and western terrestrial garter snake (Johnson 1995). These species feed, breed, and find cover in aquatic habitat and riparian areas adjacent to ponds, marshes, and slow-moving streams. Logs are particularly important for cover and basking sites for these species (Knutson and Naef 1997). Recommended buffers for amphibians and reptiles range from 98 to 312 feet (30 to 95 m), depending on the species (Knutson and Naef 1997). Western Pond Turtle—The western pond turtle is a federal Species of Concern and state Endangered Species (WDFW 2004) that could occur within City limits (WDFW 1999). This species is included because City limits are within its home range. Recommended buffer widths range from 656 to 1,640 feet (200 to 500 m) (Rodrick and Milner 1991; Hays et al. 1999; Larsen 1997). 2.4.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Species Anadromous and Adfluvial Fish—Anadromous and adfluvial fish are found throughout many of the streams running through the City (Table 3). These species include chinook, chum, coho, and sockeye salmon and steelhead, cutthroat, and bull trout. Numerous studies have been done to determine minimum buffer widths for the protection of salmonids. Buffers between 33 to 349 feet (10 to 76 m) in width, depending on the species studied, are required to maintain stream characteristics important to salmonids (Young 1989; May 2000; Knutson and Naef 1997). Resident Fish—Resident fish are found throughout many of the streams running through the City. These include resident cutthroat trout, stickleback, sculpin, and lamprey. Buffers between 33 to 98 feet (10 to 30 m) in width, depending on the species studied, are required to maintain stream characteristics important to these fish (Young 1989; Knutson and Naef 1997). Aquatic Insects and Macroinvertebrates—Aquatic insects and macroinvertebrates are an important food source for many fish species, including salmonids. Insect species include mayflies, stone flies, and caddis flies. The recommended buffer width to protect aquatic insect and macroinvertebrate habitat is 98 feet (30 m) (Knutson and Naef 1997). 2.4.5 Plants Ripanan and aquatic plants provide food, shelter, shade, and organic leaf litter to organisms of the stream corridor (Bolton and Shellberg 2001). Although no recommended buffer widths for sensitive plants species were identified, buffer widths recommended for the protection of other wildlife are likely sufficient to maintain any sensitive native plants. OCTOBER 21, 2004 9 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL 3.0 OTHER BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE SOURCES This section discusses buffer widths recommended for various functions and species from publications that meet the definition of best available science but were not listed in the OCD report (2002). 3.1 WETLANDS Several researchers have looked at a wetland buffer's ability to trap sediment and remove nutrients ad) acent to agricultural and logging activities. Recommended buffer widths range from 12.5 to 288 feet (4 to 88 m), depending on the slope and vegetative cover (Broderson 1973; Lynch et al. 1985; Young et al. 1980). The buffer's ability to protect water quality increases with its width. However, buffers can only be effective if they are not subj ect to channelized flow (Broderson 1973). Typically the effectiveness of buffers to trap sediment and reduce nutrient and fecal coliform loading is a non-linear relationship, thus a disproportionately wide buffer is required to remove small increments of sediment (Wong and McCuen 1982). For example, Wong and McCuen (1982) found that a 100 -foot (30-m) buffer was effective at removing 90% of the sediment in stormwater but a 200 -foot (61-m) buffer was required to remove 95% of the sediment. Buffer widths around 100 feet (30 m) were observed to trap 75% to 90% of the sediment (Young et al. 1980; Lynch et al. 1985; Moring 1982). Generally, the more gentle and densely vegetated the buffer, the smaller the buffer needs to be to effectively trap sediment and remove nutrients and fecal coliform. Buffers also help to regulate water temperature and account for up to 90% of temperature variation (Barton et al. 1895). Fifty -foot (15-m) buffers provide 85% of the shade, and buffer width could decrease with the increasing tree height (Broderson 1973). Brazier and Brown (1973) showed that a 73 -foot -wide (22-m) buffer was adequate to maintain temperatures, and Lynch et al. (1985) suggested a 98 -foot -wide (30-m) buffer was needed to maintain temperatures. However, all indicated that buffer widths were dependant on slope, exposure, vegetation composition, and vegetation height. Adjacent land use has been shown to account for much of the variation in impacts to wetlands, with dense residential areas causing the greatest amount of human disturbance (Shisler et al. 1987; Desbonnet et al. 1994). In dense residential areas, buffers of 50 feet (15 m) are often reduced by homeowners converting the buffer to lawn. In dense land -use areas, increased buffers of 100 to 164 feet (30 to 50 m) were recommended (Shisler et al. 1987; Desbonnet et al. 1994). OCTOBER 21, 2004 10 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL 3.2 STREAMS To provide maximum storage of floodwater and thus maximum protection from floods, buffers should encompass the entire floodplain. Because this is not practical in most areas, buffers should be as wide as possible and include adjacent wetlands (Wenger 1999). To maintain channel complexity, forested buffers ranging from 49 to 427 feet (15 to 130 m) are recommended (Wenger 1999). To maintain bank stability, buffer widths from 30 to 49 feet (9 to 15 m) are recommended (VANR 2001; Palone and Todd 1998). Buffers with widths ranging from 33 to 164 feet (10 to 50 m) are recommended to reduce sediment and associated nutrient loads in streams near cultivated fields (Vought et al. 1995). Buffers with widths ranging from 16 to 118 feet (5 to 36 m) are recommended to reduce sediment and associated nutrient loads in streams near livestock (Young et al. 1980; Prosser et al. 1999). Based on studies testing their effectiveness, grass filter strips at least 30 feet (9 m) wide are recommended to remove between 84% and 99.9% of the sediment and 54% to 90% of the nutrients from nrnoff (Ghaffarzadeh et al. 1992, Madison et al. 1992, and Dillaha et al. 1989, as cited in Castelle and Conolly 1994). Although narrow buffers (15 feet [4.5 m] wide) have been shown to be very effective in the short term in trapping sediment and nutrients, a 98 -foot -wide (30-m) buffer is recommended under most circumstances for long-term effectiveness (Wenger 1999). Forested buffers ranging from 33 to 98 feet (10 to 30 m) wide are recommended to provide adequate shade to maintain water temperatures in small streams (Broderson 1973, Barton et al. 1985, Brazier and Brown 1973, and Beschta et al. 1987, as cited in Castelle and Conolly 1994; Wenger 1999). 3.3 WOODLAND RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT Heavily forested buffers between 20 to 105 feet (6 to 32 m) are recommended to reduce the noise from commercial and industrial areas to ambient levels (Harris 1985; Groffman et al. 1990). Buffer requirements of wildlife can vary greatly depending on species. Recommended buffer widths vary from 10 to 351 feet (10 to 107 m) (Castelle and Conolly 1994; Wenger 1999). 3.4 SPECIES SPECIFIC 3.4.1 Birds Retaining mature, forested riparian corridors provides habitat for some species that otherwise would not inhabit an area. S everal authors examined a wide range of buffer widths in relation to bird species present, recommending widths ranging from 49 to 574 feet (15 to 175 m). Most sources OCTOBER 21, 2004 11 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Perrnitting FINAL recognize that even a small (less than 164 feet [50 ml), forested buffer can greatly enhance the diversity of songbirds compared to herbaceous riparian buffers (Wenger 1999; Palone and Todd 1998; VANR 2001). 3.4.2 Mammals Even narrow buffers can provide considerable habitat benefits for many mammals. While 20 -foot (6-m) buffers provide sufficient habitat for small mammals, diverse riparian wildlife communities require buffers of 328 feet (100 m) or more (Wenger 1999;VANR 2001; Palone and Todd 1998). 3.4.3 Amphibians and Reptiles Several studies to determine the habitat needs of amphibians and reptiles have recommended buffers ranging from 10 to 36 feet (3 to 11 m), depending on the species (VANR 2001; Wenger 1999). 3.4.4 Fish and Other Aquatic Species The recommended buffer width for the protection of salmonids is 98 feet (30 m) (Hickman and Raleigh 1982 and Moring 1982, as cited in Castelle and Conolly 1994). A 98 -foot (30-m) buffer is also successful in maintaining aquatic invertebrate population in streams adjacent to logging activities (Erman et al. 1977, as cited in Castelle and Conolly 1994). 3.4.5 Plants We did not review any other sources on buffer widths for protecting rare plant species. OCTOBER 21, 2004 12 MCS FEVIRONNIENTA CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL 4.0 BUFFER WIDTH DETERMINATIONS Best available science resources indicate that a wide range of buffer widths for streams and wetlands can be effective, depending on the function of interest and site-specific conditions. Appropriate buffer widths vary according to function, intensity of adjacent land use, buffer characteristics (dominant vegetation, slope, etc.), and the value of the resource. Although recommended buffer widths in the documents reviewed ranged from 10 to 1,312 feet (3 to 400 m) for both wetlands and streams, several publications indicated that a buffer of at least 50 feet (15 m) is necessary to protect functions under most conditions (Broderson 1973; Castelle et a1. 1992; Castelle and Conolly 1994; Young 1989). In areas of intense land use, recommended buffer widths increased to 100 feet (30 m) or greater (Broderson 1973; Wong and McCuen 1982; Lynch et al. 1985; Shisler et al. 1987; Desbonnet et al. 1994). Even larger buffers are necessary to protect terrestrial functions such as wildlife habitat (Young 1989, Bolton and Shellberg 2001, Wenger 1999). Buffer widths less than 50 feet (15 m) appear to provide little protection to wetlands or streams undermost conditions. In developing its CAO, the City of Auburn must consider the issue of buffer widths for many locations where existing residential, industrial, or agricultural land uses have altered riparian corridors and where there is insufficient land to set aside to meet large minimum buffer recommendations. Additionally, other options may exist to replace buffer functions (e.g., sediment traps in catch basins, detention vaults); although these have their own issues that need to be addressed and often require frequent maintenance. For many of these locations, the City must decide what functions can reasonably be protected given current land -use practices. 4.1 WETLANDS The primary goals of the City's wetland regulation are to avoid adverse wetland impacts; to achieve no net loss of wetland function and value; to provide levels of protection that reflect the sensitivity of individual wetlands and the intensity of proposed land uses; and to restore and/or enhance existing wetlands, where possible. To aid in the regulation of wetlands, wetlands are often rated to differentiate between wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, rarity, irreplaceability, and the functions they provide (Ecology 1993). The City identifies wetlands by four categories: Category I, II, III, or IV (Auburn City Code [ACC] 16.10), with Category I being the highest valued wetland. Literature indicates that there is a correlation between the intensity of land use adjacent to the buffer and the intensity of impacts to the wetlands. That is, the more extensive and intensive the land use, the greater the impact to the wetland, and the larger buffer that is required to be effective at protecting wetland functions (Castelle et al. 1992; Shisler et al. 1987; Desbonnet et al. 1994). Thus, OCTOBER 21, 2004 13 MCS ENVIRONW@HTA CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL a two -tired regulation for wetland buffers, based on wetland category and adjacent land use is recommended In many areas buffer widths in existing residential, industrial, or agricultural land - use areas have already altered riparian corridors and there is insufficient land to set aside to meet the minimum buffer recommendations. Within these areas, other structural alternatives may be useful for mitigating loss of some functions (e.g., sediment catch basins, detention vaults). For protection and maintenance of most wetland functions, the reviewed literature suggests that effective buffer widths should generally range from: 50 to 100 feet (15 to 30m) for wetlands with minimal to moderate habitat functions adjacent to low -intensity land -use areas and 75 to 125 feet (23 to 38 m) adjacent to high-intensity land -use areas; and 150 to 300 feet (46 to 91 m) for wetlands with high -habitat functions. 4.2 STREAMS The primary goals of the City's stream regulation are to avoid adverse impacts to streams and associated riparian corridors; to protect fish and wildlife resources; to protect water quality through appropriate management techniques; and, where possible, to provide for stream enhancement and rehabilitation. To aid in the regulation of streams, streams are often rated to differentiate between them based on their sensitivity to disturbance, geomorphic features, and fish use (WAC 222). The City identifies stream by four categories: Class I, II, III, or IV (ACC 16.10), with Classes I and II having documented anadromous fish use. For protection and maintenance of streams, the reviewed literature suggests that effective buffer widths should generally range from 16 to 200 feet (5 to 61 m) to protect water quality and fish habitat. Much larger buffer widths (30 to 1,312 feet [9 to 400 mJ) are required to provide wildlife habitat. 4.3 WOODLAND RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT The primary goals of the City's woodland resources and wildlife habitat regulations are to provide upland areas of wildlife habitat; to implement the goals of the Endangered Species Act; to promote connectivity between habitat areas; to provide multi-purpose, open -space corridors; to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff, to buffer and screen land uses and provide greenbelts; to enhance local air quality, to contribute to the area's appearance and character; to promote real estate values; and to provide health benefits. To aid in the regulation of woodland resources, the City has defined a woodland resource as a forested area of one acre or more composed of native trees and associated understory vegetation and classified wildlife habitat areas as critical, priority or tertiary (ACC 16.10). OCTOBER 21, 2004 14 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL For buffers to provide protection of wildlife species and populations that use wetlands and streams, the literature has documented the need for significantly larger buffers than those adequate to provide other functions. Many wildlife species are dependent upon wetlands or streams for only portions of their life cycles and require adjacent upland habitats to meet the remainder of their life needs. Additionally, some species use upland habitats that are far from the wetland or stream needed for a different life stage. Without access to appropriate upland habitat and the opportunity to move between habitats across a landscape, it is not possible to maintain viable populations of many species. Beyond providing adequate upland habitat adjacent to wetlands and streams, migration corridors between different uplands, stream, and wetlands across the landscape are required to maintain genetically viable populations (e.g., Ecology 1993; Knutson and Naef 1997; Wenger 1999). Heavily forested buffers between 20 to 105 feet (6 to 32 m) are recommended to reduce the noise from commercial and industrial areas to ambient levels (Hams 1985; Groffman et al. 1990). Buffer requirements of wildlife can vary greatly depending on species and vary from 10 feet (3 m) for small amphibians to over 600 feet (183 m) for large mammals and birds (Knutson and Naef 1997; Castelle and Conolly 1994; Wenger 1999). 4.4 COMPARISON WITH THE PROPOSED CAO 4.4.1 Wetlands The City's proposed CAO regulates wetland buffers on a two-tiered system, based on wetland category and land uses. This basic approach is consistent with the recommendations of best available science. Table 4 summarizes the required buffer widths proposed in the CAO and the best available science recommended buffer widths. Buffer requirements in the CAO for the protection of higher classified wetlands (Categories I and II) adjacent to low or high intensity land use areas fall within the range of best available science recommended buffer widths. The buffer requirement for the protection of Category III wetlands adjacent to low intensity land uses is equivalent to the lower end of the range of recommended buffer widths, but is narrower than the recommended buffer width for wetlands adj acent to high intensity land uses. Buffer requirements for the protection of Category IV wetlands adjacent to low or high intensity land use areas are narrower than the best available science recommended buffer widths. 4.4.2 Streams The City's proposed CAO regulates stream buffers on a two-tiered system, based on presense or absence of threatened or endangered species listed under the ESA. Table 4 summarizes the required buffer widths proposed in the CAO and the best available science recommended buffer widths. Buffer requirements for the protection of streams, regardless of Class, fall within the range of best 0--TOBER 21, 2004 15 MCS ENVIRONN@NTAr QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL available science recommended buffer widths. The stream buffer requirements are all 100 ft or less, which is one half or less of the maximum recommended buffer width. However, the maximum buffer width is recommended for the protection of hydrologic and water quality functions, both of which could be partially mitigated in other ways (e.g. detention vaults, sediment trap basins). 4.4.3 Woodland Resources and Wildlife No specific buffer width requirements are proposed for the protection of woodland resources in the CAO, rather a requirement based on percentage is used. That is, in all new development, a minimum of 35% of the significant trees shall be retained (excluding critical areas). Although no literature was reviewed that investigated the functions of woodland resources by area, retention of 35% of the significant trees will provide habitat complexity on-site and if situated properly between properties would provide pockets of habitat placed close enough together to form a migratory corridor (Table 4). No specific buffer requirements are proposed for wildlife habitat within the CAO, rather buffer widths will be determined on a case by case basis by the director. The director will base the required buffer width on a combination of recommendations from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, a wildlife report provided by the land owner or developer, and on adjacent land use activities (Table 4). OCTOBER 21. 2004 16 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL aTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Pentutting FINAL Adamus, P., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. AMethod for Wetland FunctionalAssessment Volume 1. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor, and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:364-378. Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In E.O. Salo and T.W. Candy, editors. StreamsideMcmagement: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Seattle: Universityof Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. Brazier, J.R., and G.W. Brown 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Teruperalure Control. Corvallis: Oregon State University, Forest Research Lab, Research Paper 15. Bolton, S., and J. Shellberg. 2001. Ecological Issues in Floodplain and Riparian Corridors. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for Stream side Studies. Broderson, J.M. 1973. Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality. Master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Brown, B.T., and R.R. Johnson. 1985. Glen Canyon Dam, fluctuating water levels, and riparian breeding birds: the need for management compromise on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. In R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott, and R.H. Hamre, editors. Riparian Ecosystems and TheirManagement: ReconcilingConflicfing Uses. Washington, DC: US Forest Service, General Technical Report RM -120. Budd, W.W., P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream corridor management in the Pacific Northwest: I. determination of stream -corridor widths. Environmental Management 11:587-597. Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992. WetlardBuffers: Use and Effectiveness. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, 92-10. Castelle, A.J., and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23(5):878-882. CCTOBER 21, 2004 17 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY of AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL City of Portland. 2001. Streamside Science and an Inventory of Significant Riparian and Wetland Resources, Discussion Draft. Portland, OR: City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. Cummins, K.W. 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. BioScience 24:631-641. Debano, L.F., and L.J. Schmidt 1989. Interrelationship between watershed condition and health of riparian areas in the southwestern United States. In R. Gresswell, B. Barton, and J. Kershner, editors. Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management. Billings, MT: US Bureau of Land Management Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone: A Summary Review and Bibliography. Narragansett: University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center. Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural non -point source pollution control. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32:513-519. Doyle, A.T. 1990. Use of riparian and upland habitats by small animals. Journal ofMammologv 71:14-23. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1985. Forest Riparian Habitat Study Phase I. Olympia: Ecology, 85-3. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System; Western Washington. Olympia: Ecology, Publication No. 93-74. Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.R. Ruby. 1977. Evaluation of Streamside Bufferstrips for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. Davis: University of California, Davis, Water Resource Center, Contribution 165. FHA (Federal Highway Administration). 1983. A Methodfor Wetland Functional Assessment, Volume L Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, FHA, Office of Research and Development. Ghaffarzadeh, M., C.A. Robinson, and R.M. Cruse. 1992. Vegetative filter strip effects on sediment deposition from overland flow. In Agronomy Abstracts. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Gilliam, J.W., and R.W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural buffer areas and drainage control to remove pollutants from agricultural drainage waters. Pages 145-148 in J.A. Kusler, M. Quammen, and OCTOBER 21, 2004 18 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHUE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL G. Brooks, editors. Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses. US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Army Corps of Engineers, ASWMTechnical Report No. 3. Gomez, D.M. 1992. Small Mammal andHerpetofaunaAbundance in Riparian and Upslope Areas of Five Forest Conditions. Master's thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Gregory, S., and L. Ashkenas. 1990. Riparian Management Guide: Willamette National Forest. Portland: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Grofflnan, P.M., A.J. Gfold, T.P. Husband, R.C. Simmons, and W.R. Eddleman. 1990. An Investigation into Multiple Uses of Vegetative Buffer Strips. Kingston: University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resource Science, NBP 90-44. Harris, L.D. 1988. The nature of cumulative impacts on biotic diversity of wetland vertebrates. Environmental Management 12(5):675-693. Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative barriers: an alternative highway noise abatement measure. Noise - Control Engineer Journal 27:4-8. Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and D W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Western Pond Turtle. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Hickman, T., and R.F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat Study Index Models: Cutthroat Trout. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.5. Johnson, A.W., and D.M. Ryba. 1992. A Literature Review ofRecornmended Buffer Widths to Maintain Various Functions of Stream Riparian Areas. King County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA. Johnson, M.L. 1995. Reptiles of the state of Washington. Northwest Fauna 3:3-80. Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley, and R.E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river -floodplain systems. In D.P. Dodge, editor. Procedures of the International Large River Symposium (LARS), Honey Harbour, Ontario, September 14-21, 1986. Canadian Special Publication, Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 106:110-127. Knopf, F.L., and Samson, F.B. 1988. Ecological patterning of riparian avifaunas. In K.J. Raedeke, editor. Streamside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions. Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution, No. 59. CCTORER 21, 2004 19 MCSENVIRONiv@N CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review dEnvironmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. IkmagementRecommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Larsen, E.M., editor. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume III.Amphibians and Reptiles. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussdlem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling nonpoint-source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:164-167. Madison, C.E., R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and B.J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and grass filter strip effects upon sediment and chemical losses. In Agronomy Abstracts. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. May, C.W. 2000. Kitsap Peninsula Salmonid Habitat Refugia Study. Kitsap County, Port Orchard, WA. McAllister, K.R 1995. Distribution of amphibians and reptiles in Washington state. Northwest Fauna 3:81-113. Milligan, D.A. 1985. The Ecology ofAvian Use of Urban Freshwater Wetlands in King County, Washington. Master's thesis. University of Washington, Seattle. Morgan, J.T. 1998. ArmotatedBibliographyforWashington's Priority Habitats: Freshwater Wetlands and Fresh Deepwater. Olympia Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Moring, J.R. 1982. Decrease in stream gravel permeability after clear-cut logging: anindication of intergravel conditions for developing salmonid eggs and alevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-298. Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, and K.B. Ruby. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinvertebrates in streams with and without bufferstrips. CanadianJourrerl of Fisheries andAguatic Science 37:1076-1085. NCEMC (North Carolina Environmental Management Commission). 2001 [report on the Internet, cited January 7, 2003]. Catawba River Basin Riparian Buffer Protection Rules. Raleigh: North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. <http://dein.ehtff.state.ne.us/nps/catawba.htm>. Noss, R.F. 1993. Wildlife corridors. In D.S. Smith and P.C. Hellmund, editors. Ecologyof Greenways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. OcToR R 21, 2004 zo MCS EN VIRON� QTY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulations and Pemtitdng FINAL Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles ofthe Pacific Northwest. Moscow: University of Idaho Press. Oakley, A.L., J.A. Collins, L.B. Everson, D.A. Heller, J.C. Howerton, and R.E. Vincent. 1985. Riparian zones and freshwater wetlands. In R.E. Brown, editor. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. Porfland, OR: US Forest Service. OCD (Washington State Office of Community Development). 2002. Citations ofRecommended Sources ofBestAvailable Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. Olympia: OCD. O'Connell, M.A., J.G. Hallett, and S.D. West. 1993. Wildlife Use of Riparian Habitats: A Literature Review. Olympia: Washington Department of Natural Resources, TFWWLI-93-001. Palone, R.S., and A.H. Todd, editors. 1998. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, NA - TP -02-97. Prosser, I., L. Karssies, R. Ogden, and P. Hairsine. 1999. Using buffers to reduce sediment and nutrient deliveryto streams. In S. Love and P. Price, editors. Riparian LrmdManagement Technical Guidelines Volume IL On-GroundAIanagement Tools and Techniques. Canberra, Australia: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. Raedeke, K.J., R.D. Taber, and D.K. Paige. 1988. Ecology of large mammals in riparian systems of Pacific Northwest forests. In K.J. Raedeke, editor. StreamsideManagement. Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions. Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 59. Roby, K.B., D.C. Erman, and J.D. Newbold. 1977. BiologicalAssessment of TimberManagement Activity Impacts aad Buf/erstrip Effectiveness on National Forest Streams ofNorthern California. San Francisco, CA: US Forest Service, Earth Resources Monograph 1. Rodrick, E., and Milner, R., editors. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal WetlawlBuffer Delineation. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Draft— Washington State Status Report for the Bald Eagle. Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife OCTOBER 21, 2004 21 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regulah ons and Permitting FINAL Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J. E. Rodiek. 1979. Riparian zones. In J.W. Thomas, editor. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Washington, DC: US Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 553, 40-47. VANR (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources). 2001. Draft Riparian Buffer Procedure. Waterbury: VANR. Vought, L.M., G. Pinay, A. Fuglsang, and C. Ruffinoni. 1995. Structure and function of buffer strips from a water quality perspective in agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 31:323-332. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). June 2004 [report on the Internet, cited September 22, 2004]. Species of Concern in Washington State. Olympia: WDFW. <http://www.wa.gov/wdfwfwlm/diverstyfsoc/soc.htrn>. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1999 [database on the Internet, cited September 22, 2004]. Washington GAP Data Products, Vertebrate Distribution Models. Olympia: WDFW. <http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/Whn/gap/vdm.htm>. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1992. Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife. Olympia: WDFW. Wenger, S. 1999. AReview ofthe Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent. and Vegetation. Athens: University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology, Office of Public Service and Outreach. Wenger, S., and L. Fowler. 2000. Protecting Stream and River Corridors: Creating Effective Local Riparian Buffer Ordinances. Athens: University of Georgia, Carl Vinson Institute of Government. Wong, S.L., and R.H. ML-Cuen. 1982. The Design of Vegetation Buffer Strips forRunoffand Sediment and Control. A Technical Paper Developed as Part of a Study of Stormwater Management in Coastal Areas Funded by Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. Wydoski, R.S., and R.R Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. Seattle: Universityof Washington Press. Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer Delineation Method for Urban Palustrine Wetlands in the Puget Sound Region. Master's thesis. Universityof Washington, Seattle. OCTOBER 21, 2004 22 MCS ENVIRONMENTAL QTY OP AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review dEnvironmental Regulations and Permitting FINAL Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9(3):483-487. 340099mNwpb.w !,alsr.d OCTOBER 21, 2004 23 MCS ENVIROM&NTA TABLES CITY OF AUBURN BAS WfIITE PAPER Review ofEmimm mtel Regdations and Peri" Table 1 Functions Provided by Wetlands, Streams, and Riparian Areas Functions Wetlands Streams Riparian Hydrology Overbank flooding X X Surface flow X X Subsurface flow X X X Flood storage X X Evapotranspiration X X Groundwater recharge X Groundwater discharge X X Geomorphological Pool spacing X Pool size X LWD X Bank stability X X Channel complexity X X Water Quality Sediment X X X Nutrients X X X Dissolved oxygen X X X Temperature X X X Other pollutants X X X Ecological Species dispersal X X X Refuge X X X Food chain support X X X Connectivity X X X Barriers X X X Recreational Passive X X X Active X X X W N O W C� rn W � O N O I- m O O N O N C U C V m y w t ¢ LL N Z C OI C J '2 W ON C O m N d % pl q Ol Ql 61 L r m O m 61 m Oi m OI 01 Ol % loll O O Z Y N d 'o 'o o — o 'o T o %%p 'o 'o 'o o 'o 'o o 'o % o °� 01� m d}} }[J} }}J o' rL CI> }}y>}yYY?i o' dZm U o o W (5$C3iUYU 4 c' d N N O ON O m m N O N % O O O L y r E 0 U N m [O OJ V Ol V N u> vl w CO y M M (a (O CJ !T N W lO cNn J LL E m<o m m m ommoMo � � M cow W h 1+ W T m O O N N l( m M Of v M f� M N O O w w N d M O In N IP N !T O m O m m l I IT a m 0 In 0 o 'en o M C � N O L d � O N N O N N E c 0 u g 3 � y W m m Ol w w w (O O N O N N w d O M 'y M O N W w Z m � � U O U 0 c9 J G N 7 J CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Environmental Regdatiow and Penmttirg Table 3 Priority Habitats and Species Identified in Auburn, Washington Habitat Type Name Priority Species/Habitat Wetland White Lake Open water Wetland Auburn Narrows Park Wetlands Palustrine forested wetland Wetland Mill Creek Riparian Wetlands Palustrine emergent wetland, great blue heron Wetland Green River Riparian Wetlands Emergent, scrub -shrub and forested wetland, great blue heron Stream Green River Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, pink, steelhead, and cutthroat Stream Mill Creek Chinook, chum, coho, steelhead, and cutthroat Stream Unnamed Trib to Green River Unknown Stream White River Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, pink, steelhead, and cutthroat Stream Bowmann Creek Coho and chum Stream Unnamed Trib to White River Unknown CITY OF AUBURN BAS WHITE PAPER Review of Enviro=ental Regulations and Pmxitting Table Summary of Recommended Buffer Widths and Proposed CAO Requirements' NOTES phis table is provided as a summary. Please see the main body of this BAS Report for a full discussion. 2 The maximum buffer width is recommended for the protection of hydrologic and water quality functions, both of Mich could be partially mitigated In other ways (e.g. detention vaults, sediment trap basins) Recommended Auburn's Proposed CAO Buffer Widths Ninimurn Buffer Widths Critical Area/Function (ft) fit Wetlands with minimal to 50-100 Category I - 100 moderate habitat functions Category 11 - 50 adjacent to low intensity land Category III - 25 use areas Category IV — 25 Wetlands with minimal to 75-125 Category 1- 200 moderate habitat functions Category II - 100 adjacent to high intensity Category III - 50 land use areas Category IV — 30 Wetlands with high habitat 150-300 Category I — 200 functions Protect water quality and fish 16--2W Class 1- 100 (minimum 50 additional for habitat threatened, endangered or sensitive species) Class 11 - 75 (minimum 75 additional for threatened, endangered or sensitive species) Class III - 50 Class IV — 25 Protect wildlife habitat 30-1,312 Stream buffers above are minimums. Greater buffers may be required by Director to comply with State or federal plans to preserve endangered orthreatened species. Reduce Noise from 20-105 No buffer specifically. In all new Commercial and Industrial development, a minimum of 35% of the Development significant trees shall be retained (excluding critical areas). Wildlife 10 for small To be determined by the director based on amphibians to recommendations from Fish and Wildlife. A over 600 for wildlife report, and on and off-site land use large mammals activities. and birds NOTES phis table is provided as a summary. Please see the main body of this BAS Report for a full discussion. 2 The maximum buffer width is recommended for the protection of hydrologic and water quality functions, both of Mich could be partially mitigated In other ways (e.g. detention vaults, sediment trap basins) FIGURE 0 0 M 0 N 0 0 N r L 9 9 16 2 � C O1 m V C o ll p N � � O O� v d � U c 'v v OC o v Z in N O o a N Y O m N mo �I 0 0 0 N C6 N 0 O O U N C 0 N m m m > = U O U U V LL� 0 oNf m > N EN CO N N m N O m .O m E N N ' oo pj c m N m > N t/i ro m N N �t O N y m N O� M O — N 3 [6 a) iJ O O N C {6 d m m .O O U m E Q Y '� v Ti a O O N va E N O _ w -.0N 0N mm>a.0 a a> 'O NM N0 N>wN C U U U ID E E O N O N m 0 C -O N ) N N 'O m 'O Co coc w m m N E co a -o N m m m a) 9 N m '� d N ° N V >i m ° m m N N m O O U O¢ N O O O E a> a U N ° O L' N ._ O Y ° m E 'O E U _E N > N �_ N^ca '(i m > > V Nto L6 L_ O am m 0 V N O N NN O N 04 � N U N U N d �. m N w C) m m N E .p O U Q) D m O a CDO Q N O N >. m j� O N a) 7 0 N C N ° y 0 0 1 E i6 N W O m Q o 0N? m m m 0 o civ f0 aai v o f V O O N N N E o tD O �% O O N N Z m j6 m Z O m 6 C O CON m C-4 M E E o N a) N> N Oo `O a � c a`) m°' c U N tq y 0 m .0 N � d' -O N 0 0 N C6 o `m m a a m I E m, N a) a) v� m E E E c a o m E ° a m c. m mQ 1' E a aai .o o o m o .o m U a E P m m W Q '6 0 .o w yw y p 'o CU -mo v m 'O N m d .° c m O m N m m Y m c m N m V N m> (6 m N N i- tN m m .0 O c Co O m v m m m o o ca 0` .. 'o °� csi in N vv'i E E m 4- O V C c c c 3U O J Uco NO ID 1 O O O '� U N t O LL a) Nm m � = oL%tamof N m a mC =N a) w c Y m Um m E m m m m° O Nco m a Y n N c m o a E a L j N o L J t �' 0a N >. 'in- m Om m m m E -0 0 0 0 E Nc Q d y m o .� c m .. ._ >. a n m- 0 a) a U m c .� .� .p .O O 'C m m m C m m C w �o V N w j E O O O Y` U U U o. m -o m m o N m o 0 a) a ° m U R m m m N N m m m .m.. m C ` ul .D — N m— Q O y E O O CL d w y O N .° .° —a) _N �. m E 9 m C V) a) O N .0 .= Q mm 3 m U w c c c E E E m r LL �°, o m o U w Y w O m I c m 'y 'N 'm E E E c a a E w L .N N m 0 '- 0 0 m O E 0 ° -o CO m m U U U a, a of M 3 m m 0 Q E y m E E U- U c M 0 N a m m S E E m E o E E B° E m m m a a .o y Z` Z` �° O m a 0 m>> o U m E m m m m m m m w� .a m m a> .n a> w 0 a E N m m m>> > m a1 O O m O m m O a) >> N !n J Q O o m m¢ n¢ 0¢¢ 0 a¢ U¢ U 2 N m r r r< Or-� O W O N c7 V )O 6 N N N N N N N rl: Cd 04 N � k k 0 \ ) / _ « - ) \ (D 02 \ca - / & j { _U. _ . / ] / k \ E / } ) k \ E 0 - 0 a & m 2 Vi ± ) \ -< / .: _ - \ ) 0 ) \ \ k ) f co2 { a = 3 /i5D 0 ( / ) / 3 E 2 f \ , 2 or _0 \ j \ / � - f / { E co J / \ 0 \ : k.k k \ ) � a)$ f » Ir : ) / 2 « _ - ( j ) ƒ 3 / / / m - m 00 { / { ) } \ \\ \ .5 \( \ \ \ Cl) E E 2 E , - c ( ) /§ % / \\ ) ƒ \® \ } \( \ \ �\ �� LU F £� £] ! om = VE.3 _ Jf £ E E ƒ3 ]t E ® ) i+ « _ ; g - k )E / a E \ /a }� \) } \/ �cq {) ) k /7 » {� { - Z t 2 0 0 / ) / \ { ) \ 3 )