Planning Comm PKT 04-04-2007
Apri14,2007
7:00 p.m.
Commissioners
Hope Elder, Chair
Dave Osaki
Merle Pfeifer
Wayne Carlson
Kevin King (Alternate #2)
City of Federal Way
PLANNING COMMISSION
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
5. ADMINISTRATNE REPORT
6. COMMISSION BUSINESS
. PUBLIC HEARJNG
Proposed Amendments to the City's
Shoreline Master Program
7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
8. AUDIENCE COMMENT
9. ADJOURN
Dini Duclos, Vice-Chair
William Drake
Lawson Bronson
Richard Agnew (Alternate #/)
Caleb Allen (Alternate #3)
City Staff
Kathy McClung, CDS Director
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
E. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant
253-835-2601
} 1111"\ P. citvo ffedel'alwav. com
K:\Planning Commission\2007\Agend~ 04.04-07.doc
.~
CITY OF ~
Federal Way
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Planning Commission Public Hearing
April 4, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
The City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) establishes a vision for shorelines within the city and
regulates development activity within shoreline areas. State law requires that local SMPs are updated
every 7 years. The City has received an SMP grant from Department of Ecblogy. The grant requires
completion of our SMP update by June 2007 (with final adoption following Dept. of Ecology review
likely in fall of 2007).
II. BACKGROUND
The proposal is to amend the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master.Program (FWCC Chapter 18, Article
III and Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan). The proposal also includes adoption of a Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization Report, Shoreline Restoration Plan and Shoreline Cumulative Impact
Analysis. The proposed amendment is considered a comprehensive update to the SMP and has been
prepared consistent with Department of Ecology guidelines (WAC 173-26-201).
The proposed Shoreline Master Program amendment is a citywide non-project action that affects
activities and developments along Puget SOuild and SMP regulated lakes within the City limits. The
proposed amendments also include regulated shorelines within the city's Potential Annexation Area
(PAA), which will be effective when and if the area annexes to the city. The existing City of Federal
Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was last amended in 1998-1999. City of Federal Way SMP
update materials include an inventory, characterization, restoration plan, and all other required SMP
components for SMP regulated shoreline areas both within the existing City limits and within the City's
PAA.
The shoreline areas regulated under the Federal Way SMP include appr.oximately 4.84 miles ofPuget
Sound shoreline in the city limits and a total of approximately 12.09 miles of lake shoreline, within City
and P AA. Table 1 below outlines the shoreline planning areas included in the SMP update.
The shoreline jurisdiction in Federal Way includes subtidal and intertidal lands of the marine shoreline;
lakes greater than 20 acres in area and their beds; associated wetlands; and adjacent uplands within 200
feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of marine waters and regulated lakes.
Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Area
Reach Approximate General Description
Shoreline Number Length
(miles)
Coastal Puget IA 1.67 From the City limits boundary with Des Moines
Sound - East on Puget Sound, near 1 SI A venue South,
extending west to Dumas Bay
Coastal Puget 1B 1.43 Dumas Bay
Sound - Dumas
Bay
Coastal Puget lC 1.74 From Dumas Bay extending west to the City
limits along the King/Pierce County line,
Sound - West including Dash Point State Park
Steel Lake 2 1.69 Inside the City limits, west of 1-5.
Star Lake 3 1.33 Inside the northeast portion ofthe City's PAA,
near the boundary with City of Kent
Lake Dolloff 4 1.81 Inside the northeast portion of the City's PAA,
near 1-5 and Military Road.
Lake Geneva 5 1.12 In the southeast portion of the City's PAA,
southeast of SR 18.
North Lake 6 2.16 Inside the City limits, between 1-5, SR 18, and
Military Road
7 2.12 Partially in the City limits, partially in the
Lake Killarney southeast portion of the City's PAA, east ofI-5
and SR 18.
8 1.87 In the southeast portion ofthe City'sPAA, near
Five Mile Lake Military Road.
Approximately 4.84 miles ofPuget Sound
Total 16.93 shoreline and approximately 12.09 miles oflake
shoreline.
See map in Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
The proposed SMP amendment is, in part, a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. It contains
general goals and policies for several elements: Shoreline Use, Public Access and Recreation, Circulation,
Historic and Cultural Resources, and Conservation and Restoration. Economic development and critical
areas components are embedded within the Shoreline Use Element. In addition, goals and policies are
identified for each ofthe shoreline environment designations, as described in greater detail below.
The proposed SMP amendment contains three different shoreline environment designations - Shoreline
Residential Environment, Urban Conservancy Environment, and Natural Environment. . The shoreline
2
environment designations are applied to different portions of the shoreline, based on their natural and
built characteristics. Shoreline environment designations function as an overlay to provide additional
policies and regulations in addition to the development standards and protections afforded in underlying
zoning classifications.
The proposed SMP amendment contains development standards and use regulations to be applied in each
shoreline environment. Generally, "standards" refer to setbacks, height limitations, buffers, and design
guidelines or preferences. "Use regulations" refer to the allowance or prohibition of specific uses (such
as recreational, commercial, or residential development) in each shoreline environment. The standards
and regulations address shoreline modifications (such as bulkheads and shoreline stabilization structures,
piers and docks, land clearing and grading, etc.) and specific shoreline uses (such as commercial,
residential, and recreational development). The SMP development standards also address management
and protection of critical areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) located in the shoreline. The proposed
development standards and use regulations have been carried forward, altered, or newly created from the
existing SMP. In some cases, development standards and regulations that occur in other sections of the
municipal code have been directly integrated into the SMP.
The proposed SMP amendment also contains a chapter addressing shoreline restoration goals, objectives,
and opportunities (Shoreline Restoration Plan). Partnership and funding opportunities are identified and
potential site-specific projects are discussed.
Finally, the proposed SMP amendment contains administrative procedures such as permit submittal
requirements and review procedures for exemptions, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits,
Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, and Shoreline Variance Permits. These elements have been updated
from the existing SMP to clarify procedural requirements and reflect current practice.
III. Overview of Proposed Code Amendments
See Exhibit 1- Proposed Regulations Summary Table (also included in last packet).
IV. Follow-Up on Planning Commission Comments from September 21, 2005, Meeting
Due to the short turnaround time, responses to commission questions are not included in this packet, but
will be addressed at the Public Hearing on April4lh.
V. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the proposed SMP, including Inventory and Characterization Report, Goals and
Policies, Environment designations Map, Shoreline Regulations, Cumulative Impact Analysis and
Restoration Plan, with any Planning Commission changes identified at the April 4, 2007 Public Hearing,
be recommended for approval to the City Council.
VI. Reason for Planning Commission Action
FWCC Chapter 22 "Zoning," Article IX, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for
Comprehensive Plan and city code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role ofthe
Planning Commission is as follows:
3
I. To review and evaluate the Comprehensive Plan amendments and city code text regarding
any proposed amendments.
2. To determine whether the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and code text
amendment meets the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-530 and 22-528 respectively.
3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment and code text amendment.
VII. DECISIONAL CRITERIA
FWCC Sections 22-528 and 530 provide criteria for code text amendments and Comprehensive Plan
amendments respectively. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed code text
amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments with the criteria provided by FWCC Section 22-528
and 530. The City may amend the text of the FWCC and Comprehensive Plan only ifit finds that:
1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan (FWCC text amendments only).
The proposed FWCC text amendment is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP) goals and policies. SMP goals and policies are proposed to be amended as part of this
update process. The proposed goals and policies are consistent with the proposed code changes,
which are intended to implement the goals and policies.
2. The proposed amendments bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare.
The proposed FWCC text amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment bear substantial
relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare. The amendments address goals and policies and
regulations to implement the goals and policies, affecting shorelines of the city, a valuable and
important resource for the community. Rational development of city shorelines benefits the health
and welfare of the community.
3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City.
The proposed FWCC text amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment are in the best interest of
the residents of the City because they establish a vision and a plan and related regulations addressing
shoreline development activity. The proposed amendments will result in superior protection of
valuable shoreline functions and processes while allowing compatible uses of the shoreline, both for
private and public benefit.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and
with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment (Comprehensive Plan
amendment only).
The proposed amendment is consistent with Chapter 36.70A RCW. Chapter 36.70A, more
commonly referred to as the Growth Management Act, applies statewide to larger cities. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the portions of the act, which address critical areas
protection, open space and recreation, citizen participation and coordination and urban growth.
4
Likewise the proposed amendments are consistent with the portions of the Comprehensi \Ie Plan not
affected, specifically, the general goals and policies of the Land Use Element, the Natural
Environment Element and the Potential Annexation Areas Element .
vu. Planning Commission Action
Consistent with the provisions of FWCC Section 22-539, the Planning Commission may take the
following actions regarding the proposed code text amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendments:
1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text ainendn:Jents and Comprehensive
Plan amendment as proposed;
2. Modify the proposed FWCC text amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendment and
recommend to City Council adoption ofthe FWCC text amendments and Comprehensive
Plan amendment as modified;
3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWCC text amendments and
Comprehensive Plan amendment not be adopted; or
4. Forward the proposed FWCC text amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendment to
City Council without a recommendation.
VIII. EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Proposed Regulations Summary Table
Exhibit 2 Agency Review Comments
Dueto the size of the SMP documents they have not been reproduced. All the proposed documents were
Included in the Packets from February 14 and March 28 as noted below. Please contact staff if you need
additional copies of any of these items.
*
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (February 14 Packet)
Goals and Policies (February 14 meeting - handout at meeting)
Restoration Plan (February 14 Packet)
Cumulative Impact Analysis (February 14 Packet)
Regulations (March 28 Packet - Revised version)
*
*
*
*
5
~.on
to;3 .5
"0-.,
;3-"'
,.-,~
~,~
CI) '"
'"
--"S
~ E
tho
oU
p:~
~......
t;E
'" '"
~~
"' '
cr-
i.8
ON
.a "
CI)~
~.g
~ \;l
ca~
Is
"0
"'
\'-<
tl)
......
~
b
~
g
;:l
r/).
,-..
S
tl)
'0
.~
c5
u
~
e:-
rn
g
....
~
~
~
tl)
~
....
~
l-<
~
"d
tl)
VJ
o
g.
l-<
p..
--
0 ,...-.c
<"I 0'-
f'"", 00
-.b <"I N_
o .~ 0\ "'.,
OON ....
~'-"' ....-5. o~B _bIl
0""' P "" -5~
...: :.a~ OpS:; .S <
.... UN ...... .~ 'Q)(/) :a
C"l ~ --' 'O"OU ~e~ ~
I 0.... B..g-<
\,0 ....C"l ~ ,8
N, ~~ 8 .... \$:
<"I p.~ ~~-<
t"- ~N ....8 .
.... SJ. o p.~ (/)g
~ .~~ Q~ 'g 0-0
gu ~-5Cl -5<"1
\$: -. .... .~ ~ \$:
;.:::-< ~ '0 ..g
t} e\$: 0.... g ~;::su
p. ,g ~~ oo~
~ '" ~ ~ g.-g ~-5"O
...... ci ta"O~
"0 0 0 .... Cl) ....
~ ~.~ p..... go U Q) ""'
'iii~"O 'p~~
o 0 .t:: ....
.... p a~ ~ oSn
~ ~..g ..... 0 ~e~
. S!l .- '" ~ U
"0 ."';: 3 P ~ ~ -5000
B S.... .g.; .S '" .a "'l
~ ell Q)~Or-'l
.... 0 ~~"O ~ ~ 0'\ .~
$0 ~-5~
~ '6 ~ ell",,,, "'S~.s
~ o ~ ~ ~gu~
0)...... .... 0 0)
0 e 0 ~ ~ ~ 0\.... ~....
'p 0) '" .~~~ . ..-otl)p'
;g .~ V1 'Q) ~ ~N ~ -.a "0 S
g..-S o .~ .g ::: '" c 0
.~ <U U
0) . <U (S ~,;::..t::C"l (/) ~u
0 ~ p (/)00C"l \1:l....... ~
'"
.~
~:
r.;::
a.Q~
..
~".~
';1:;-<:
s:l~
.2
....
t,/
...
rJJ
~\
~.
~
~.g
.a,s
.a U
\,.; . .
~l~
~ .~ 1 *.
"'';:\~~
g g Q'~
'p ~ o~
'13 <.) U .d
1.e\*-d"O
Q) Jj (Il'~
-;1~e
zco21
'"
"5
~ g
'$ .,;:;
~.~
'e. .~
g'S
'P "0
~g
:.g -< !>b
Sp., I':i
'" \1:l'"
~ (/) ~.
~'W~
11! "0 <:r'
o g~,
<"I
~
....
00
....
'2
--'
'<t
~
....
oG
.......
'" ~
l:l 'i
, 0 cJl
-.c; -.c;~
~ ~
Q) '0
c:i ~
t 0-
j e-
z ....
~ ~
'~-'.~.
"C
...
<n
~
...
z,
~
s
'l)
"'~~
'~ ~ (/)
~ g~
ta 5'~
o .... 0)
.;: ~ ~
''5 ~ s
...... ;>,:.0
o.a Cl)
gSe
'p "0 0
~~e-
e~ 8
p., ~.8
q
--'
'<t
\,0
~
00
....
I '" ,6....
1:1 ;::s
.~ .g c '0
~ ta .g .e
~~ ...~~ ~
o~ ~oo "0
~;:.., '3 <.... ....
~~ ",~g~ ~
; .~ ~ 1 ~ 'B ~ '" ~ Ul
"'" 0 ~ ~ __ 'p B ~ ~ 0 to
_ Cl) Q) ... O).~ 0 Cl) 0 0 Q)
.~d ~~\$:u~~<\Z<
:::
~. ...
to
-
~~
~'+3
Po.,
0$
~c
$'~
'e- .'0
'6'6
~%
oU
p:.oll
~ .9-
~a
~*'
., .
Cr--
-.;::0
.,0
:g "'.
<J')~
~;::;
~1Ja
.,;$
';:)
."
.,
\l-o
..
.S
"t.
o
.s::.
<fJ
f')
.::>
.::>
M
..
.s::.
....
...
..
-d
1:
;l
....
1:
..
S
..
...
.~ .
r:::
~
\\
~
~
t-""
\
~
~
e
~
t,)
.~
o
u
~
e
'"
g
......
~
"3'
bO
~
~
.~
'd)
o
~
-0
~
'"
o
%
p:.
..oS
c4~
~OJi
t;.-%~
0S~g
< . %.;:;
'7 ~ .~ ~
~.,g '6- ~
.';, ~ e '8
.~.~~ 8
.S' .... '0
~~~.s
,~'.s::.~ 0
<;;~~o
.s~~Ji
.... 0) ~-d
g.s::.e'ia
S.... o)-d
O)g~,-E
-p. oil -d '"
S .S ~ oil
.... "'e ~.s
~ o....-d
~~.~ ~
%h~l .
~ e'.:g. oil ~
~ G=;' S.~ ?,
.....; 0 'iij ~
e..... 0 0) III
~~~"i3S
it
\\
e .
C!lC -d
'" ..
-d ~ .:e .~
~~C!lCr:::
'~l'i.e"
..~..'"
~ ~~~.
~~$~
'-,l; ...
l~~~
m<J').Q
~i ~i
...s~Q)~
..- o.p ~. A:
s.,~ ... ..... <.)
e~ ';.J t' ~
$~.S~Q)
-de.:l. ~.''!1.
..Q)......~
.r:. f.I) ~, ~'., ~
~ ~ ~ ~. p,
~$"QQ~
u ~ 0
.$0,;4"'"
1=l-d~;)
.~ 'ia e $.
.s~ ~~
a~S'-
.....~o
..,;, ';>:> S,;4 .
p 'it.'-:I Q-
S ,&,l"-\ 1>. .g
....o"s'O)1'l.
5.....~"'~
s~ "'-d....
CMO<<l'ia~
~ ;) ~~.IX.
0): III <<l '>I
'Pr.... .... 1'1
j?o';t.m:.:::
~""Ci . ~
%..,;,...~~
-;z:.~.$'iav:.
\
,
\
\
~,
--
'$.t4J-
~..a .~
~~~
~ 0'-
...s::'"
oatil"
.....Ie:>::
~....
III $
s'-'O.....s
0.0 0 '-
0'.""..... ';zl
1$, ~ \/"1 :a
'Pr. ... c~ ..,
~..;::. <<l.~
~1U ~~
-s.$ 0 0 .
1'l. "" ~ 0.""
<:I ~ . O'~
~~ :...... <<l
.:; 'a '$. ~ 0)
'" _ ",,"" 'i;h
1'l..<;:; "'" "" '"
<::> ~ ~ ~.~
(..I. ~ 0 0 ""
::"~ -d <.l:l 0)
'::l..,'ia,;4~
..c>"\i::O....,
:5 ~ k; $ .~
$I%.%1j,~
~ is'
~ ~
~ .~
$%'"
.....~'l!
~~r3
~
---
~~
0"-
t"-i::
~~
..... \'
~
~
t
m
..,f,
,..-..0
<=> '-
<=> 0
""'"
~~
'"
~~
'"
~
o~
..og-
... os
...s'"
.~ Q .e ~
?;"~ os'~
... ~z ~ .
$~.e~\
-de.:l.O~
eJ~t....-'l~~'
.'(1,.:~ ~i
~ c:i ~ o,l Q
~$"Q~;l
~ -'c. . tfl..
~ $';:)
~;)s;~
a~ '0
~o 'O.~
'~.s:.. ~ ~'.
~e~~
.13 ~ o. .2-
....., ~ ~
e$'l2."""
o ",'t:l 0
~ .... '- p"
_,;40~
<:I ~ -d 'l)
a e 'ia oS '03
<:l~ts'dl
$.s.%~~
\
B bll
~'B
0..Q)
::> Q)
,...,::E
~ ,~
CI) V>
V>
'f~
!;ho
eU
p..bll
~ .5
~ 2
'" '"
::EP:;
Q) ,
or--
;'::::0
Q)O
aN
..c: "
CI)~
:>-'..c:
'" u
;3: :;;
c;::E
t:l
"0
Q)
~
v
:0
CIl
t-<
~
~
::l
CZl
-.
......
-
-
v
]
~
r..5
u
~
~
'--'
CI)
!::
.~
.....
CIl
~
V
~
V
.S
Q)
I-<
o
.c::
CZl
"0
v
CI)
o
0..
o
I-<
p...
.5
'"
o
0..
'0
==
o
~.
o
\Il
~
o
Z
'lJ
.:::; 'Ii
~ ~
"a~
@2
-.;:: \1
t'd '"
~~
'" ....
@ .S
U !:i
'" 0
~.~
.~ t).
~. ~
~ ~i
~
V.
\0
-
,
00
-
==
ae'
~
t'd
t:
o
'"
=
o
U
=
o
~
'S'
C()
0.
;>
.,.j
t'd 0 Q)
Q)~ ...~-:;
lS'lJ ~ &3o~
6 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
go~:>-oS'lJ
oI ~ S i'5 ~'~'S ~
0.... t'd P ~ ~ ~';:l 0
-';::0 '1).(I}PJ:!
w i6 '#J "0 0.. '1) t'd +;l
g~d!~~oSo'o
.0 8. ~~ "0. ::::a ~
1) = '1): V g 8.. ~ 0
""aj ~ ~ <r> ;3,' ci E!
.s 63 .~ &< - ~.,g (5 .
'. t) <<i -d ~:e t'd .... "0
.S '" !:i (I} 0 a. 5h &3 ~
:€ !a..s t<l t 8. . ill , 8 .t;j
:3: oS .~ -a .8 ~\~; 8. E
,-..
""
...-- ~ --
O'.s .~
~ ti)' ~
\0 ~ ~
,.......l ~__
obc.j,~
.-I I "'<
,-..
""
'-'
,-..
0_
'-'l::S
o ...
t-- ::3
~~
-I'
g 6'
't)' ;:
0( :0:: ~
\O,.g~
~S5
~IV
'"
(I}
'fa
:::~
.9 OJ ~
t) t) .~
~ ~'i::
got)
0.. 0.. '"
~VJ"~o
;~ ....,x
~~~~
o '" l:: N
.- ~ ~ '-"
.~ 5h ~ N
e~ (Ji'~
Po.t ~\O
c; ~".-::: ~
._........J::J M
a1~~~
fE'..c: (I} U
(I} "0 .2 <(
.~ 'E co ~
50 g a .
OJj;;;j_CI)
:;; Cd.~ S
~:~:B
~tE~~
"oVJ..........
.- ~ ~ 2
~ ~ .... '"
~ ~ 0 ~
OJCl)"O':::
E5a!agJ
......'"
0.....
o 0
"'",
0-," '"
~0Jl
..c: "
up.,
...
~
o '"
....'1:1
liii
~1.g
._ .,... = ..J
=o~=~
,Ss('/)2s
~ 'I~ ~ ::i .~
= '" ""
('/) ii ~ s .~
~@o.g~
E l1) ~ ~
(I} .2 !:i ..cl <Fi
E i<ltz: .S ~ ~
~8o tJvaiti
q).S 8:l'~ 1A "0, "0 .s
:>. ;3'~ = ':l ::::c
~.~ ~,. ~.~ i ~ ~
<8::r:oS~'lJb[l~
l!l~~~~6[::S
.S oS ~ tt ~ ] .9' ~
.~ '- .... 'lJ oS':: ~ t:;
oo~~",O(l}"\:3
.... "0 '" '" ,- ~ "d :0::
o..~~"O(I}">::",~
<;; i::..c: 'S ~;;:{ '1) :0::
'0 ~ ~ 0 ~;:; ~ ~
'1)'i<l<l:lE!~1 0-
~ ~ (5 ~.!'!!~ ttJ.l
0'
'-'
v
\0
.-I
,
00
.-I
'"
~
at::
.Q
t'd
::t::
"0
.~
S
-;
('/)
';
.~
.....
.i:!:
U
-.6
B~
~'::l
p.~
~'$
~,~
~.~
~e
'6'n%
oC)
.... t>ll
P-<~
.... ,~
B a
ii:
0) ,
~t""
,~ 0
.,0
:g "'.
(/)~
~-'6
~~
(;'$
~
0)
\J.o
~
:P
c<3
I-
~
\
if)
r:-
a
~
't)
.~
c5
u
'7
~
if>
g
.....
(;;
10
~
~
~
'0
fA
-0
~
if>
o
%
~
p..
.~
ta
6-
.... ~-b
O)O~
~~-<t
~ ~,~
.9 'in ..-4
~~~
~ 0
p. -.; ~
.s ~ ,;,
~'S'6
~ Q'~
~~.-;
<o"'bO
.... 5 <>
~~ :
..., ~ 0)
~...:;
<o:co
t) '.;::: .-0
~gg
e 6-~
p.....;2:',
~~(/)
....~<>
'" ~.:;
'6 t:: ~ .
'(h E ~ G
.s: '" ~-;:.
O~"ON
p:...oN
.." U
g..,,<
~g~
<> . .
g .~.g
~~<o
'?~~
~<l)O
.....~~
5 0.. ell
9-o~
.c.....
:!:; 0 i:l
.~ di "d
g'.a ~
.."..,,~
gg~
,>G '?:! ~
....ell~
~-%<l)
p.<l)~h
o~"'c-
~()g~
"'~\:lr-
i:l...............
00;1,'-"
~O)O).....
~o""~
P.e ~ J,
%O~~
t~Pc~
pVir'.....
s~,
~
~,
'iJ').
t
~
~
o
~
~'~
..-,
~
0)"" ,-s.',
r./) OJ
tt.
~, ~
-1~
t>ll
.a
~ ~
,. 't:l ~
.~ -a e <>
1}~&)'<l)e
;;&~-tlg,
~ 1)'~ c$
t'6~i~g
If:: \? ~ <<l 'r) ~
g ~ ~ ~-.:) ~
.;:;..~O)~
~ .... Vi O).\:l "..
,s::i .;, "".0 ~,~ .
'6~~~et::'8
.~ S ~, <<l, ~ ~ .g
<l:l 0) 0\'0 0 '" ~
(Ii ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~
~'s, -% \;\ ~ .~ ~
7: ~' ~ g p'o ....
~
..:t.
'-0
.....
.
00
.....
~
-a
~.
(!j
...
OJ
~
~
t-
'%
.0
~J,
~c-;\
0<'"
o..~
l~
\~.
-a~
~~
Vi ....
i:l,g
~ '"
'8~
0....
..., 0
~....
.....'"
~~
0) 0
~~
~ta
.:; :::l
~ ,t.e
~ '?
......" .
:,~s
.S~~
~oq
.-0 '(j; ...;;,.;
.~ ..".....-t
61..~
~
..::::-
<<O::d
~~
p.-;=:
'a~
~~
o~
0<'"
<or--
0.....
::::u
.g<
~~
~ aj
o'S
e:-o)
go
.e~
.... <>
~.:;
~.~
'" '"
.~ ~
',;::l %
5 p.
o 0
:.=:cs
.gt
p...""
.." rh
~'g
-g'
.~ g
~t
1'%
~....
~.tn
<09-
'a g.
..,,\U
~~
.~ ~
0) l::l
$0
'"
8S
.~~
'? 0)
l::l l::l
.:;, ~
~~
<0
~ r..i
0-.:)
~g
0) <V .
~.s ~
'l) '- ~
<.) 0
~",.
ul::l~
'p .9......
~o:g
p...~<o
~
<.I
'i
+Ol:,
~
.~
O'
'0
Q) ~
~ <.)
~....
'::l
~o
'2
oO~
,....""
C> .....
0::> 0
""'"
-0:, ~
.... '"
{iP-<
i
<l) .
.o~
.........
'"
%~
~~
..".
'e t
0....
<.) '?
ell
t.e
.~ $
l~
"'....
~tl
<0 ~
ep.
~ .s
. 0)
tl ,.:l
''S''S
'~'a .
~.,.-l~
~~c-
'~s~
~~€
,. ~ .
'S'<a .....
,.., c ~
~._ I
~~~
or>
~
~
u
~
i
"'"
,.;..
~
r-'"
0'-
o 0
"'",
a;"
_OIl
~~
i
~ U'J ~
~ ~ ~ ~ S '6
4) OQ 0 "d VJ';::
~ .0 4) ~.~
_~ ,~<.)E
5VJ~ggB
"d~~~.g"d
5 <.) tl 4) ..... 4)
fr~~~~6b1;-
"d ~ e ~ ~.~ ~
';:;';;; 0 ~ S "d Co
~E~ca"dj?;;;
~ ;:l'~',p .g - C'l
...E"dl:l<D~-b
<2';:: t.g 4) E C'l
"0'- ~ 'Cii ~ ~
4)6<.)4)4)~t-
34)l.P...\a"'G-
o ~ 'Q ~ >> 0 U
:a ~ ~.~ ~ ~ <'.
o-VJa~c~
\a~~"i'~OQ?
tl)t)G).2t1)~U;
~ 'S ';:; ~ ~ .~ <0
o VJ ~..... ;:l p. ~
"d~3~~3P.
"d .>> - 4) 4) .S
c ~ -a .;: "d Z 0
<<100"'5.-
~ <.) "d ~ p.~ gb
~ ~ Q.... /1) (fj.p
...... ~ ~ ~ ~.~
p..~,~,o n is E
%:Pt::~~"<a"d
Zg,~~3~~
~ 'tl
8 0 ~u
S go .~ 8 <'.
~"d 0 8 vi 6'~
~~.E~o-"
g.oe~E~8
_ . 0 '6b <.) l:i -
"g8~oE~~
~ .~ 4-t 0 tn S..b
~.!:l ~ ~;, 4) ~
6h'-= 4) l:l ::a - ~
.......g ~ 0 ~ :9 -
~ 'tn ~ tS ~~ ~ u
~~<2g.~::~
.0 ~ 8 .:= ,.0 ca 7"
Sl55';:;~~ .
"d~...",o(<l~
4) VJ~ ~.VJ l5 0
.~ (1) iU ~... 0.........
g.!:lp::(II~15<O
4) .::: <I) 0 <.) l:l
....svi~Ec.s
.~ """.~ yd e '.:: ca
_<2>>_p.VJ<.) .
5 "d ea ~ 1;; g '6b'2'
dOc.s;:l~O'-"
~<I)<<IVJdtll-r-
p.ol:lcal:l~~RCo
4) 0..0 - -
(;) _r::! .(,,) ...... ~ ',C Q ('t)
;>~C!"<a4)(<l<l)C'l
.g ~ -8 ~ 's ~ :E "b
,. 4) 4)''''' a':a 4) C'l
?':>'Q"'dO,)ol-lr:..
4)0<1)0'" ,gt-
Z ~ OIl 6 .~ ~ VJ .....
~ on
.. .9
-0"
Po..,
;:J~
~,~
<FJ '"
'"
a'S
'" s
\;bo
oU
P::~
.... ,-
~E
.. ..
~p:;
.., ,
Eb
..,0
8<'>
.s:: .
<FJ~
~~
~ \a
ea~
'Q:;
-0
..,
~
~
;>
o
..g
~
VJ
.~
-
~
c
o
<.)
<I)
~
rJJ
Q)
.....
~
t-<
~
~
(/)
~
~
.....
Q)
-
u
.~
c.5
u
~
\3
tf)
.~
~
10
;2.
Q)
~
....
~
o
~
"d
Q)
tf)
o
go
\-;
~
....
Q
. Ii> Ii>
l"S~.J
'> := ~ ::l
4) = := <l)
eX.<l)~e
:=-::~ Q
-!:3~"S
~.~ ~ t
rJJ:=-::oe
~ Q;jI
~ ",.
<J4):=-e
.......Q01l~~
"d ~ oe t'I "bil.e
~O'"':=-
........ Q ~.e a
ta.... ; '" t'I
eX. 4) ~ ..;I' ~ ~
... a "" ,.... "::
...... ~ . oe ..
.~ot:loe~~~
";)~;'lllQllQ
~.~1i\1 ~~
~~
.c$5~
<I), '" a.... 1$
'~'~edO
<I) <I).... ~ ~
~ g~; l'<
~ ~ e.~~-d
..t::,:::: 4) a,~ <I).'
ula-o....ooe
~.;;;8~~1
OIl
00 .S
c to
.g .-
:a ~
g...... ~ ~
0....... d
.a~.il5
.~ ~~s
~, g ~';:;
~ to ~,.,.s
<:>?; 0
s~50
~2la.g
'8'$ %.g
lz: :.a ";;) .....
2 8 ~.~
......p:."d
... ..,
l:l <B ~
o"d - ~
"d~u-5ci<.)
~ .~ ~ .~ '"d <d 0
..... 1=\ .0. ""'5 l:l ..."d
'p~::l 11)0......
:a4)p."dfr~o
o p."d..... "d ~ ~
l:t, ?- ~ ~ ,. ,. ~
......IS OQ ... t ;> .....
::ao~~"<aS~
in ~ ~ .~., ~ VJ-g
tIl .~ ,','. t1'J ~ {d
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~
Q...,;"d2 4) d ~
~~5$'~~
~ g frtn ';::l :a E .
Q) rJJ"d ,d '> % "d
~ ., t ~ ~ 0';< ~
~ QIl..... ~ 0 \-I ~.,;-4
p1. ;:1' d 8 0 ~ "'" ~
p;:. ?> (II "d.- ,c.. ...
ea ~ 0
.~ ~ ~ ~
"d"o cdOll -
t\) 'U' ..c;o' ~"'~~ :;j
1=\0) _._~.o
.~ $: OIl ~ ~ a'~ -d'
e 4) \:1' 0 ijl ijl 0,,0
'l), "<a .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. l:a
p.. tl o. 4) l:l ijl ~', 0 o:t
'0 ~ 1:;-0 0 ~ ~. ~
I:l 0 t'a".$ ~ N~, : ~
\l) 6 II) 2 -0 '8. .0''''' i::-
ta .g 0 p.. -u; .a'rA ~ ...
i~~l ~,'~iii
~ .~~~td~~f'tj
::l ~ 11)..... ~ II) ~, OIl, II)
,!:) 'OIl -d <<l (j a ~
~ .~'<a e ~. (II ~ 't\ g
'\) ~ '8,g !::1' g.,... ';<-
';Zi 0 <.) <<l ~,.\a S Q) e
e ,-...
~
<() <()
'" '"
..... .....
, ,
00 00
- .....
~
<l) '"
Qll :;:
<<I' t'I
'" eX.
0 ~
Q' VJ
~ p..
la'
~ ~
~ llJ)",
0 .$ :=
Q -e.g
Vi 1:::l~
Z ~r:Jj
.jIIIIIII
~ ..;l ~
~ .,; ,.J.
~
'-'
<()
",.
-
I
00
.....
~
...
...
t'I
~
1
...
rFJ.
G;/ ,.....
1:::l '"
.... oe
1~
o~
FA,,;
..:6
~ gf
"0''''
p.Q)
::> Q)
.....)E
~ "
::E ,5:
CI) VJ
~VJ
E 'e
'" E
500
eU
~bl)
E'~
VJ "
'" '"
::Eli:
Q) ,
.5 ,....
_0
~o
0'"
~ .
Cl)oo
N
~~
~ l;;
(;j::E
~
"0
Q)
~
(!)
::0
o:l
E-<
~
~
::s
tI.l
,-..
.....;
.-
.-
(!)
]
~
Un
~
C
r/)
s::l
.8
-
o:l
~
~
(!)
.S
~
.....
o
..s::l
tI.l
"0
(!)
r/)
o
0.-
o
.....
p...
00
Q)
01)
'"
3
o
o
tIl
~
Q,)
~
tIl
....
o
'"
p"
.5
~
o
'5b
o
"0
o
Q,)
Q,)
tIl
;:l
'"
o
~
..s
VJ
Q,)
...
;:l
~
tf.l
-=~~..,
o
o
Z
"0
'l.)
.-
:E
:.;2l0ll
o ~
....p
p"I'/)
1.0 'x
; V
tIl tIl
.15 .~
~Q)
.~1-f
],,~.
"'U
I'/)
!1 .
~.€
~o
~ .s'.~
~"o.
......... p:.
~
-'
V)
\0
,.,..
I
00
,.,..
'"
..
..,
....
Q,)
-=
o(:l
'"
'"
..
~
:P
.:ll
'"
..
'"
~
...;,
.'!l
o
'" I
p,,\O
aN
.- ~
~r-
0"'"
'5bU
.9<
8~
Q,)
....00
@E
o '"
t;::0I)
,~'p
.... 's
I'/) Q,)
:goD
0....
> I'/)
'" ;:l
_ a
~~
a ~
0I)p.
.S a
~~
'O~
@:g
OI)~C
.S cu '-'
~3M'
11) "'tj :::'
~@~
C1l .:a ~ '"
J:i .S' ; 0 :E ,,s::
.s :E e ..... 0 l=l
1$!5!~ '0>0
..~.::; .."':;l
t:I1S&~;~~
1 '" ... '" '5 '", :;l' .;;
"'''''''=C1l'''.:;.....
'> :::: .. C1l l=l' -= = ~
Q,) e'O =.. :;''0
~'''18~';: e~ s
fI) Gi). ~ .,..
. 6
~'.g
.S N
i~~ ~
1.0 8 '"
..<:: .P,
.... g.s
[2, gj. ""'
~ '0 0
:g '0 8
ro >.,;..:{
en m ~
'0 01) OIl
.g ~.:~
gj-o""
U5.8 @
'0'
~
\0'
......
I
00
C1l
=
:5
~'
o(:l
C1l
;:I
.Q
'0'
..
'"
Q
.n
!EXHIBIT' -,-.---13
.-\0
0....
~ 0
.\0
'" "
- 00
..c '"
~p..
:!
Agency Comments - Draft SMP .
We've received comments from King County, Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife, Washington Depattment of Natural Resources and Washington Department of
Ecology. Comments received in 2006 relate to the Inventory and Characterization
Report. Those received in 2007 relate to the Goals and Policies, Restoration Plan and
Regulations. A decision was made to wait for Ecology's comments (received 3/26/07)
rather than responding to each set of comments and making changes in a piecemeal
fashion.
Also, please note that the comments addressing regulations are based on the initial draft
regulations (not the revised version, which you received with your last packet). Some of
the comments are not relevant to the current version.
Sally Abella (sallv.abella(a),metrokc.gov)
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
\'ING . ~
Review 6 Sept 2006
General comments on the Draft Shoreline I~ventory and Characterization:
Generally, the text is very readable and flows well. The figures were not used as
effectively as they might have been, and there are many places in the text where certain
attributes are referred to as being mapped, but no maps are produced, or where a figure
that exists should have been cited but was not. I have marked many of those spots in the
section-by-sectionsynopsis, which follows the general comments.
It was disappointing that the marine characterization focused almost exclusively on
hydrologic and sedimentary processes, even though all the processes discussed in Stanley
et al were listed at the beginning of the section. Certainly there is a very large amount of
information on sedimentation and hydrology iri the nearshore, but some discussion needs
to be added to the marine processes section about nutrients (nitrogen in particular for
marine systems), toxins, pathogens and large woody debris. This should include sources,
movement and loss for all processes, and if there is no information, then that should be
noted and added to the data gaps section.
Similarly, for lakes hydrology is discussed, but more is needed on sedimentation, toxins,
sources for phosphorus (mentioned in water quality section), pathogens, and large woody
debris (beyond the outflow delivery sentence). '
Although key areas and modifications were discussed, it was hard to see how the Stanley
et al delivery-movement -loss model was followed for any process beyond sediment in
the marine shoreline, even though the introduction states that a modification of the
process was used. Perhaps just how the model was modified needs to be spelled out for
clarification.
It would be extremely helpful to have a summarization of findings for each reach,
possibly in the conclusions at the end of the text. Since the information is scattered
throughout the document by category rather than by reach, it is hard to get a sense of how
it all adds up for each segment. A table that organizes the findings and characterizations
by reach would definitely be beneficial. I am envisioning something like reaches on the
X-axis and attributes on the Y, perhaps one table for the marine and one for the lakes.
That way it is easier to keep score on what processes were examined and what findings
were presented.
Section by section commentary:
(Note: "para" = paragraph in discussion below.)
Section 1.3.2 Shoreline jurisdiction
How did Federal Way determine which lakes were of20 acres or greater? The state has
asked jurisdiction's to review the original WAC list that has never been updated and to
modify the list based on applying OHWM criteria, submitting the new list to Ecology for
review. Did Federal Way define what criteria would be used to determine OHWM and
how to distinguish between adjacent wetlands and lake surface area? What about Mirror
Lake? Was it assessed, and ifso, did it fail to meet criteria? RECEIVED
.}~i
Page 1
SEP~, 8 7.006
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
81 11/ nl/\l~ ,......._
Sally Abella (sallv.abeIla(clJ,metTokc,gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Section 1.3.3
Why is the eastern shoreline of North Lake regulated under the King County SMP when
it has been incorporated into the city? Is it by annexation agreement? If so, how long will
that agreement be in effect? Will all of North Lake shoreline be included in the updated
SMP for Federal Way? Please clarify the reason for this statement and its impact on
policy.
Section 1.4
Please give the criteria for distinguishing the reaches along the coastal shoreline and also
the rationale for not trying to divide the lakes into reaches. If geomorphic criteria were
used, please list what was considered and what was not and why. Other wise, it seems
arbitrary. North Lake perhaps ought to be divided into 2 reaches, based on the two
different SMPs that are currently applied (east and west shoreline), unless the entire
shoreline will be included under the new SMP, which needs to be clarified in the earlier
section.
, 2.1 Data sources
These seem almost exclusively marine, except for groundwater, soils and trout water
type. What resources exist for the lakes? Please discuss this and if available data is
lacking, add it to data gaps.
2.2 Approach
How did Federal Way adapt the Stanley et al model? Please ,describe adaptations and
modifications, and also make it clear whether or notthe document will add~ess all 5
identified processes, for both marine and lacustrine shorelines. If some will not be
addressed in a clear fashion, please explain why not and cite the parts of the document
where the discussion of or references to those processes can be found.
2.3 ' I
Please list which significant ~hanges were used in the "physical and biological resource
composition" for reach delin~ation and how they were applied. In addition, some ofthe
lakes do not have consistent ~evelopment around the shorelines, contrary to the
statement. For example, ~os]t of the w~stern .shof(: of North Lake is open space, while
most of the eastern shore IS single famIly resIdential, thus that would be an easy way to
separate the shoreline into tvJ~ segments.
3.0 Eco-system wide proceJes and Functions '
Please explain the reason forltocusing mainly on hydrology out of all the processes
described in Stanley at al. Is [his really the only process that acts in a system-wide
fashion? The first paragraph~S puzzling because it uses the plural form ,of the word
pro~ess, but then lists. only hk~rology. Please include th~ reaso~ing that excludes
sedIment, L WD, nutnents, to~ins and pathogens from thIS section.
3.1 Watershed context
:..'!.: ;~~..)::'.~ f:"~
Pa~~ 2 !,'
Sally Abella (sally.abella(ciJ,TQ.etTok,LW) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
The WRIA paragraphs act as introduction to WRIA areas, but don't really explain how
data at the WRIA level can be used for Federal Way characterization, especially
important since much of it is not related to city jurisdictional areas. Figure 2 does not do
much more than put Federal Way into a very general WRIA context, most of which has
little or nothing to do with SMPshoreline jurisdiction inside the City. The WRIA9
marine work (and any similar work done in WRIAlO) will be useful, but it's hard to see
why the White or the Green River drainages need to be in Figure 2. The lakes are not
even marked on the Figure 2 map, nor mentioned in the text. The reaches 1 A, I B, and 1 C
are not marked either, and yet the WRIA boundary probably cuts through reach IA.
Please zoom in on the map, exclude areas that are not close to the city or important, get
the WRIA 'boundary marked through the city and add the lakes and marine reaches for
context.
Why are only Star and Dolloff Lakes mentioned in this section? Please mention where
the other lakes drain in the WRIA context, even if only to show that they don't go to ,
major salmonid bearing streams, if that's the point..
You should probably bring in a discussion of the Figure 3 "hydrological boundaries,"
explain how these relate to the hydrological watersheds, and point out the direction of
water flow through those units. I would like to see arrows added to the hydrological units
on Fig 3, showing the direction of surface water flow in order to make it clear. If
anything is known about groundwater flow direction, that would be useful also,
particularly in the later discussion of landslide triggers along the bluffs of Reaches I a,b,c.
3.1.1 Climate
Why is .there a sentence about the effect of mountains on precipitation patchiness? Is
there some effect within the Federal Way Boundary? Also, this would be a good place to
discuss the present projections for climate change in the Pacific Northwest and the city's
expectations for changes along the shorelines due to sea-level rise, changes in
precipita,tion patterns, warmer water temperatures, etc.
3.1.2 Topography
I don't think there is a "Federal Way area watershed" per se, unless you are talking about
a subsurface groundwater unit. Water drains off ofthe upland in many different
directions. Maybe just delete the word watershed there? "Area" alone seems to serve the
purpose.
3.1.3 Geology and soils
It is difficult to go between the text and Figures 4 and 5 without a way to move quickly
between the geologic units in the key and the informal terms used in the text. For
example, is "Lodgment till" the same as Qvi and Qvt? Is it only one of them? Is
Lodgment till the same as "till" without the Lodgment modifier? The peat deposits on top
of the lacustrine sediments and outwash: are those the wetland deposits (Qw) on figure 4?
There is no key term on the map for peat. In Figure 5, is Orcas peat (Or) the only peat
deposit (I could only find it at North Lake on the map), or should the Seattle, Sha1car and
Page 3
--ir
Sally Abella (sallibella(iiJ,rnetrollc.gov)
King County DNRP 206-296-~l382
Federal ~~ay Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
1
Review 6 Sept 2006
Tukwila mucks be included? There must be more peat mapped than just that at North
Lake.
I suggest you identify the geologic unit ~ymbols directly in the text to make reading the
map easier. For example, "Lodgment till (Qvt on Figure 4)..." and "Peat deposits (Qw on
Figure 4, Or,Sk etc on Figure 5)..." would go a long ways toward making this section
understandable.
Aquitard is jargon, please explain the concept another way.
3.1.4 Surface and groundwater
The P AA lakes have not been included in this first paragraph of this section. Only Steel
and North are mentioned. Yet the rest of the document includes the P AA lakes. Any
reason for their exclusion? Also, the Federal Way watershed is again referenced. Please
describe the boundaries of this watershed and explain how it meets the criteria for being
described as a watershed. Is it a groundwater unit, defined separately from the surface
watersheds?
Please define the "upland area" mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 3 and mark its
boundaries if possible on figure 6.
Has a wetland loss calculation been done for the jurisdictional areas? If so, this might be
mentioned in paragraph 5 when stating that development has reduced the number and
area of wetlands. Also, please put in a citation to back this statement.
Star Lake is mentioned in paragraph 6, but was not included in the introduction, along
with the other P AA lakes.
.3.1.5 General coastal processes
Please mark the marine reaches lA, 1B, and 1C on FigUre 7 for clarification of the
coastal processes relationship to the reach designations.
Need citation for sentence on the slow natural recessional rate of bluffs in the area (para
2) .
Where is the "net-shore drift direction" shown on Figure 7? Please clarify text in the
middle,ofpara 3. Please refer to Fig II when you talk about the obstructions present
along the shoreline in the same paragraph.
The last sentence refers to work completed in 2005 for WRIA9, and yet you cite personal
communication. No better reference for this than pers. compl?
3.1.6 Water quality
Page 4
Sally Abella (sallv.abella(a)metrokc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
This beginning paragraph needs to be restructured to make it clear before the very end
that all impaired water bodies are not actually included on the list, due to the voluntary
nature of dat;;l submittal and the impossibility of monitoring every water body. In
addition, the 2004 303d list was approved by the EP A in November 2005 and so it is no
longer a draft list, nor is it preliminary. Please fix.
The lakes listed in the 2004 edition of the 303d list were all included due to an error on
Ecology's partand all have sentences in the on-line description that make this clear.
Because the EPA had approved the list before Ecology acknowledged the error, they
were not able to withdraw the listings, but they should not be there. Two data points were
submitted, not two years of geometric means. I think the listings should probably be
omitted from this table and a short discussion inserted instead to acknowledge that they
appear on the list erroneously, just in case someone sees them on the 303d list, but fails to
read the discussion. All will go to category 2 for "lack of data." This was caught for
some of the lakes in the later discussion in section 5 in this document, but not alL
Keeping them in Table 2 sends a misleading message.
3.2 Biological resources
3.2.1 Vegetation
Please cite a reference for the vegetation description paragraph. Where did you get the
information? Also add a citation for the first statement in para 2 about the relationship
between reduced native vegetation to increased impervious surface. Does the last
sentence about effects of increased impervious really belong in the biological resources
section?
Is it possible to narrow down the vegetation descriptions to the shoreline jurisdictional
areas, or at least compare it somehow in order to make it more relevant to shoreline
characterization?
3.3 major land uses and shoreline uses
I don't think "restocking" shown on an 1897 map (3rd sentence in para 1) means that
humans replanted for future harvest. It usually means that the areas were left alone for
natural re-seeding to take place. This sentence is misleading, using "harvested" and
"restocked" together as if both were actively pursued by logging outfits.
It is difficult to see details in the 1944 phot,o in Figure 8 . Would it be possible to increase
the contrast using Photoshop to bring out the forested tracts a little more clearly?
In the last paragraph, it appears as if the reported land use is for the entire city. What is
the land use for the shoreline jurisdictional areas, using these categories? Can that be
calculated and added to this section to make it more relevant to the task?
Page 5
Sally Abella (sallv.abella(itJ,metrokc.g.QY) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP, 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory '&Characterization
3.4 Key processes related to shoreline functions
How was the Stanley's 5-step approach adapted? I would like some clarification of the
modifications that were made and the sequence that was used for the analysis. Also, I
don't understand the discussion sequence as following the structure of delivery-
movement-loss for each process.
I did not see the processes of delivery-movement-loss for nutrients, toxins, pathogens or
large woody debris approached i:q. a systematic way in this section, although they are
mentioned in paragraph 1. Please explain why they were not treated in an equivalent
fashion to hydrology and sedimentation. If no data is available, please indicate that and
include in the data gap section. Otherwise, please justify the omissions or the light
treatment received.
3.4.1 Processes affecting marine coastal shorelines ,
There seems to be a muddle in this text between coastal bluff toe erosion and soil
saturation levels as to which is the primary trigger or causal agent for landslides. A
number of somewhat contradictory sentences occur throughout the text, and the
relationship needs to be clarified. Of course, both are important in the process, but how
do they relate to each other over time and in sequence in a slope failure? Please clarify
the relationship between the two processes and how they operate together, perhaps with a
summary paragraph.
3.4.1.3 Coastal blufflandslides
In para 6, what does "Surface water volumes increase and become more concentrated"
mean? Do you mean directed or channelized here? Concentrated sounds like it becomes
extremely dense water. How do failed tightlines contribute to channelization or
sheetflow? The last sentence in this paragraph seems like a non-sequitor.
Can you be more specific on the landslide history? Where and when did the landslides
occur? What do "eastern shores" and "western portion of the area" mean in terms of
reaches lA, IB, and 1 C? What are historic landslides vs recent? Is there a maximum age
to the record? What about information on the range of damage caused, size or amount of
sediment inputs to the nearshore, L WD delivery to the shoreline as a consequence?
3.4.1.4 fluvial influences
While the sediment-load ofthe small streams may be neglible in an ecosystem-wide
context, it should be pointed out that along the marine reaches within the jurisdiction,
they may be very important locally.
I am somewhat confused about what is considered in the text as ecosystem-wide
importance vs what is not. For example, in the following section, the text focuses on
shoreline modification only within Federal Way rather than ecosystem-wide
modifications, yet in this section, the bed loads of the small streams are dismissed
because they don't appear to have ecosystem wide impact. This seems like an arbitrary
judgment concerning "ecosystem-wide" and clarification would be welcomed.
Page 6
Sally Abella (sally.:.~bellJ!(ii),metrokLgov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
3.4.1.5 shoreline modifications
Please refer to Fig 11 when reporting the 38.4 percent of the shoreline modified in the
first paragraph, so the mapping and locations of modifications can be seen. The same
practice should be followed throughout this section
Why is fill referred to as "not easily observed" in para I and excluded from the
modifications calculation, while in para 9-10 fill areas are described as apparent when
comparing maps from different eras and are listed? Cannot that data be used? Please
explain why not.
3.4.2 Processes affecting freshwater lakes
Why are toxins and pathogens not included in this section? Why is large woody debris
included here but not in marine systems? Please explain the rationale for exclusions. If
they are included in water quality, please state why they are all dealt with together rather
than separated as Stanley et al does.
Much ofthis section seems to be directly from Stanley and may have limited utility in
describing processes at lake shorelines. It is unclear how much of pages 21-22 relate to
lakes in Federal Way. Please make this connection and describe how the bullets about
streams and wetlands relate to the lake shorelines in Federal Way.
3.4.2.3
Please cite a source for the statement that lakes in Federal Way are important areas for
, uptake and adsorption of nutrients to purify water. This seems like a very general
statement that is not supported by specific evidence for lowered concentrations of
nutrients in the outflows from the lakes. If there are no data, please omit.
3.4.2.5 shoreline modifications'
You could include bullets for construction of septic systems and drain fields, as well as
landscaping and shoreline structures (docks) that encourage Canada geese and ducks to
remain in the area (delivery of nutrients and pathogens through fecal matter).
Increased nutrients do not impact "weed growth" if you mean rooted aquatic plants,
which derive most of their nutrition from the sediments. In fact, increased nutrients can
indirectly impede rooted aquatic plant growth through shading by increased
phytoplankton populations. Green .lake in Seattle is a case in point. Large algae blooms
inhibited milfoil, but when alum treatment reduced phosphorus availability in the water
column and limited algae growth, milfoil became luxuriant and created a big problem
because it was not nutrient-limited and was no longer being shaded out by abundant
algae.
How do these alterations increase water temperature in 20+ acre lakes (last bullet on
p.23) I doubt that overhanging trees have much impact.
Page 7
Sally Abella (sallv.abella(iiJ,metTOkc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.0 Nearshore/coastal planning area inventory
Why does the first paragraph refer to the approximate boundaries of the shoreline
planning area? If there are excursions outside or areas left out, please specify.
4.1.1
Add "modification through development" to the list of numerous influences on the
physical condition of the shorelines.
What determines the width of the beach (para 2), and how does armoring influence this?
Para 3: need citations for statements about the differences in bluff composition in east vs
west sections. Also, put in a citation for the change in particle size with increasing
distance from the drift cell point of origin. '
The discussion of Johannessen et al (2005) data on feeder bluffs and transport zones, etc:
is this the data mapped in Fig 77 If so, please refer to it. If this refers to other data, maybe
you should include the maps. The tables are good summaries, but not reflective of the
distribution across the landscape.
What about the other processes that you did not mention on the ecosystem
scale. . . pathogens, nutrients, toxins, large woody debris. Can something on these
processes be added here? What about sewer outfalls? CSOs? Septic systems? Delivery of
large woody debris by landsliding or currents along the shoreline? Pesticides and
fertilizers coming from lawns adjacent to the beaches?
For the discussions of the 3 reaches on p 26-28, please refer to Fig 7 and mark the
reaches on the figure, so readers can see some illustration of the text.
Please give a citation for the history of bluff failure in para 6 under Puget Sound East.
Can you expand on that sentence to give slope failure dates, sizes, damage caused,
amount of sediment delivered to the intertidal? Can you do the same for the one event in
Dumas Bay listed in para 2 on p. 277 What about for the 13 listed for Puget Sound West?
Are there any patterns of bigger landslides in one reach over another or more damage
caused?
I noticed woody debris recruitment is mentioned under Puget Sound West, but not the
two other reaches. Please clarify if there are no L WD so.urces for them or if movement
out of the other reaches keeps L WD from accumulating.
Can you put the outline of Dash Point State Park on Figure 7, so that the location
mentioned on p. 28, para 2 can be found?
How was the typical cross-section of each of these reaches detemiined? Do you have a
citation to back up the descriptions?
4.1.2 geological hazards and shoreline slope stability
Page 8
Sally Abella (sallv.ab.ella(clY,mettQ.kc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Need citation in para 1 for the second sentence on reporting the underlying cohesionless
soils of low density and shallow groundwater table.
4.1.3 Shouldn't the sentence about wellhead protection areas by North Lake and Lake
Killamey be in the lakes section (5)?
4.1.5
Are the streams mentioned along the marine shoreline ephemeral, or do they flow year-
round?
4.2 biological resources
Please cite Fig 6 and refer to it in this discussion. Put the park boundaries mentioned in
the last para into Fig 6, so the wetlands can be located.
4.2.2
The only data mapped are for fish, crabs, and geoducks. Please explain why other
species, such as birds or marine mammals are not included, and if there are no other
sources of information, include this in data gaps.
If marine riparian zone vegetation from Anchor was used, please reproduce the results as
an attachment, so the reader can see the data.
The other shoreline activities listed on p 34 feed into the processes of nutrients, toxins,
and pathogens that have not been discussed. They should probably be addressed in a
more systematic fashion.
4.2.4 Marine intertidal
Please note if any of the possible shoreline activities listed on the top of p 35 are known
to be impacting the unmapped tidal flats that exist in the Federal Way jurisdiction. Also
perhaps this should be done for the list on the top of p.36 as well, although ifthere is no
kelp within the reach boundaries, why is it even discussed?
4.2.5.1 shellfish
Do you think a 1971 survey still has validity (top ofp37), based on all the modification.
and development that has occurred since then? Perhaps a sentence should be added about
the time elapsed since this information was collected, and what the implications are for
the reliability of the data.
Please add the "data gap" mentioned in par 2, p37 to the data gaps list.
What does WDFW PHS stand for in Table 7? Please spell out in text.
Where are the nearshore modifications listed in the bullets across p39-40 located along
the marine shoreline? Are they all included in Fig II? Please refer to it, if so.
Page 9
Sally Abella (,?allv.abella(iiJ,metTokc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.3.5
Where are the Lakehaven sewer outfalls located? Do they have any potential impacts on
the shorelines? There could be effects on nutrients, pathogens and toxins.
Where are the 7500 current septic systems located? Do they have any potential impact on
shorelines in a similar fashion to the sewer outfalls?
Can you map the septic system areas or the outfall locations?
4.3.8
What does GLO stand for?
Where can the article be found that Was authored by the Historical Society of Federal
Way on prehistoric or historic Native American use within city boundaries?
5.0 Freshwater lakes
Why is sedimentation not covered in the lakes reviews?
Are the flows in both the inlet and outlet streams ephemeral or year-round?
5.1.6
What does percent bulkheading mean? Is this reported as % ofthe shoreline, or as
number of parcels with some degree ofbulkheading? If it's parcels, then the percentages
are less meaningful without knowing how much of the shoreline in a parcel is actually
protected by armoring.
5.2 Littoral habitats, not lacustrine!
Lacustrine just refers to lake habitat generically, like marine for salt water and riverine
for rivers. The word probably meant to be used in the opening sentence, which refers to
shallow water only, is probably "littoral," as opposed to the "pelagic" zone away from
the shoreline. The littoral zone extends out from the shoreline to approximately the depth
where light penetration no loner supports rooted aquatic plants and ecologically
connected species. Please fix.
Steel Lake has a milfoil infestation that has been treated and needs to be included in this
sentence. Fivemile probably should be excluded; I do not know of any milfoil infestation
being reported there. Dolloffhas an infestation of Egeria densa (Brazilian elodea) which
is a truly scary aquatic weed on the KC noxious weed list and is being treated currently
by the King County Noxious Weeds Program. Waterlily eradications have occurred
recently on Geneva and North Lakes. There probably was lily extermination work on
Killarney as well, but you should check their lake association, who has supported much
of the community-based work.
5.2.3
Page 10
Sally Abella (saJly.abeJla(a),metrokc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Please cite the source for the data presented in Table 9 and the discussion of listed species
found near the FW shorelines. Citizen report? Federal or state lists? City staff? SEPA
checklists?
Lake by lake information:
WDFW has published warm water fish assessments for some of these lakes, and the
reports, which are available on-line, should be included here.
Why is lake mean depth reported here? If it is to show the relationship between lakes
with deeper mean depth to salmonid populations, point that out.
Fivemile is listed onp.48 as draining to Trout Lake to the south. Does your
5.2.5 water quality
This section needs quite a bit of work. Trophic status does not refer to the combination of
clarity, nutrient concentrations, and algae levels. It refers specifically to the primary
productivity of the phytoplankton in a lake, usually exemplified through biovolume of the
standing crop. Rather, trophic state indicators are calculated from Secchi transparency,
total phosphorus, and chlorophyll concentrations on the basis of regression equations
developed by Carlson (Limnology and Oceanography, 1977) to predict algae biovolumes.
This was because in general phytoplankton enumeration and biovolume estimation takes
a long time and demands highly trained individuals in order to get reliable data. The
trophic state indicators were seen as a quick and dirty way to predict trophic state, but in
no way are they equivalent.
Lake productivity is not in itself undesirable. If you have no productivity, you have no
base for the food chain and life does not exist in the lake. It is high productivity that is
sometimes considered undesirable it is seen as producing nuisance levels of algae that
could interfere with beneficial uses.
Please delete all references to the numbers of aquatic plants in the assessment of the
terms oligotrophic, meso trophic and eutrophic. That is not part of the original definition
and is not true anyway, as vascular plants get their nutrition from the sediments and the
relationship between trophic state and numbers of rooted aquatic plants is not
straightforward at all.(see Green Lake discussion under 3.4.2.5).
While lake flushing (or a better term, which is mean residence time) can be important ot
assessing the condition of a lake, this discussion is simplistic and misleading, since the
quality of water coming into the lake as much impact as the residence time. In addition,
nothing can be said about the residence times of the lakes in Federal Way without an
assessment of the hydrological budgets of the lakes, which involves collecting reliable
data on both surface and subsurface inflows and outflows throughout the entire year in
order to calculate water-yield to and from the lake, both from surface sources and
groundwater,. It is important also to evaluate the role of direct precipitation to the lake
(which can be great in restricted watersheds), as well as the impact of surface
Page 11
Sally Abella (sally.abelJill?l),metrokc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
evaporation. Any statements about flushing are simply unsupported speculations without
this kind of information and need to deleted from the text. This applies directly. to the
lake by lake discussions that follow.
The 3rd paragraph states that turbidity and suspended sediment as issues and mentions
that sedimentation and the quality of stormwater runoff are involved. YeUhis was not
discussed in the earlier section on physical processes occurring in the lakes: Why not?
Please delete all sentences on pp 59 - 60 that refer to speculations on flushing rate and
the impact that it might have on water quality. These are unsupported and do not belong
in this kind of document. Information which is appropriate to be reported here includes
the trophic state as predicted by the trophic state indicators, the mean depth, water clarity,
alke temperatures in mid-summer, and noxious weed information. This would be a better
place for mean and max depth reporting than in the habitat section, and I noticed some of
that data has been reproduced here, but not for every lake. If the lake has inflows or
outflows, those should noted with an indication as to whether or not they are seasonal in
nature.
Either leave out the erroneous 303d listing of the lakes for fecal coliform by Ecology, or
explain the situation carefully for all the lakes affected.
Ithink it would be a good idea to interview members of the lake community associations
to get a better idea of what the issues are at each lake. There seems to be a fair amount of
information missing in these summaries, which appear to rely heavily on The KC Lake
stewardship Program annual reports available on-line. These are good sources of
information, but can in no way be comprehensive for each lake in the KC program and
should be supplemented by a little more research on each lake. Going to the community,
group can at the very least be informative about the recent history of each lake and what
community concerns have been, which can be of use in knowing where to look for further
information. Examples of missing information are below:
Lake Dolloff is currently being treated for an infestation of Egeria densa (Brazilian
elodea), which is a highly invasive noxious weed. The King County Noxious Weed
Program is conducting the treatment. You can details about this from the program
manager, Stephen Burke, or the noxious aquatic weed specialist, Katie Messick. Their
phone numbers and email addresses can be gotten on-line.
Lake' Geneva is currently infested with Eurasian milfoil, which is being treated through a
community effort. They have also treated for fragrant water lily quite recently and have
been having issues with floating islands of sediment, probably caused by decomposition
of lily rhizomes.
North Lake has recently been treated for water lilies and may have been treated for
yellow flag iris, purple loos~strife and Eurasian milfoil. The grant they received from
Ecology covered the possibility of treating for all four species.
Page 12
Sally Abella (glly.abella(d),mctTokc.gov) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline li1Ventory & Characterization
Lake Killarney has a history of copper sulfate treatment supported by the community to
kill nuisance phytoplankton populations. It was treated as recently as 1998 and there is
significant copper contamination of the sediments. They have also treated repeatedly for
milfoil and may have treated for water lilies as well.
The first sentence concerning Fivemile Lake is an incomplete phrase. Also, clarity in
Fivemile Lake is impacted by the water color, which is yellow due to high DOC, and
therefore the Secchi transparency is a poor predictor of water quality. This should be
pointed out.
It is important to note that although the volunteers collect the water samples and do
temperature and Secchi transparency measurements, they are all specifically trained in
these procedures and the data is QA/QC'd by knowledgeable KC staff who pursue
answers to anomalies. In addition, the water chemistry measurements are carried out by
the King County Environmental Lab, which is a federally accredited lab.
5.3.5
Where are the sewer outfalls connected to the pump stations and treatment plants? While
, the location of pumps and plants are important in the case of inadvertent spills or
overflows, it is also important to know where the treated effluent ends up in the
ecosystem, and if there are no potential impacts, for example on the marine shorelines.
CSos should also be discussed here and located on one of the figures, maybe 11. If there
are no CSOs, then that should be pointed out.
5.3.7
Why are the trout and bass stocking information, as well as other fish species reports,
included in the public access section? This should be discussed with the biological
resources and pointed out as biological modification or manipulation of the environment.
Creel counts or other assessments of the residence time of the stocked fish should also be
included, if the information can be gotten from WDFW. In any case, the fish stocking
information does not belong in this section at all and is lost here in terms of evaluation.
There is no paved public boat ramp at Star Lake. There is street end boat access.
The Lake Geneva boat ramp is not in the park. It is located on the southwest shoreline,
almost directly across the street from the Lake Killarney boat ramp.
6.1.3
How will public/private property issues be addressed when looking at specific restoration
opportunities?
7.0
This section is very small, compared to the number of processes that were ;left out of the
characterization. If processes were not included because ofthe lack of available
, information, those gaps need to be included here. Ifthere were other reasons, then please
include the argument for omission in the appropriate section.
Page 13
Sally Abella (sallv.abella(a)me.rr.okc.gov) 'Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Do you mean littoral rather than lacustrine in the first bullet? I would also suggest that
you mean water budget information rather than merely surface water flow for that first
bullet as well.
8.1 conclusions
I feel like I don't really understand the conditions for each reach in a systematic way and
would like to see a wrap-up for each reach that pulls together the many isolated bits of
information that are presented throughout the text. Perhaps an executive-type summary
for eachreach would be useful here, in order to give a fell for what information is
available for each segment when designations are made or perhaps it could be presented
in tabular form.
Miscellaneous notes on figures:
Figure 1: The boundaries of lA, lB, and Ie are hard to see, Can you make the line
bigger?
Figure 2: Hard to see jurisdictional lines on this map. A large part ofthe map presented
does not really pertain to the Federal Way shorelines and should be omitted in favor of
seeing the Federal Way boundaries in relation to the WRIAs in more detail.
.
Figure 3: Please add bold arrows to show direction of surface water flow in these
drainage areas. Some of them seem to go in opposite directions, such as the one that
contains both Cold and Hylebos Creeks. Where did these boundaries come from? Please
cite the source on the figure, if not in the text! Do the light turquoise lines represent
identified creek beds? Please add the symbol to the key, if so.
Figure 4-5:
The geologic units key is great, but does not equate to the terms used in the text. Better
identification of which units are referenced is needed in the text in order to make this map
useful. The same is true for Figure 5. What does the soil unit PITS mean (it is defined in
the key as Pits... .does this just mean holes in the ground? How does that relate to soil
type?)
Figure 6:
Redondo Wy S is mistyped as Redonod.
The flood plain defined around Dolloff is extremely hard to differentiate from the surface
water and the stippling used for the P AA areas.
Figure 7:
I can'ffind any exceptional feeder bluffs along the shoreline as marked in the key. If they
don't exist, please leave the symbol out. If they do, perhaps a different color would make
them more prominent.
Page 14 '
Sally Abella (salJ'{.abella(iI)metrokc,gQ.Y) Review 6 Sept 2006
King County DNRP 206-296-8382
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Please mark the reach boundaries on the map to show how they relate to the identified
processes.
Fig. 8:
Please mark the P AAs as well as the city boundaries on the aerials. That can be in a
different color. The old photograph is very hard to read for detail. Can the contrast be
increased?
Fig 9 A-C:
Please put the marine reach boundaries on these figures.
Fig 9 D-H:
Pleae put in the key that the light green wash indicates outside current city limits. Also,
the color chosen is very close to the surface water color and makes the lake boundaries
less obvious. Please darken the blue for lake surface water. The dark blue creek lines are
not in the key either.
Figure 10:
Ifthe crab habitat only occurs outside city boundaries along the Tacoma shoreline, why is
it included?
What does "Fish species distribution" include? It seems to be mapped only in the creeks,
so is it anadromous fish only? Please specify.
Fig.12 B:
Does therural designation over the green RS15.0 zoning on the east side of Dumas Bay
also include the yellow area zoned RS7.2 to the north? There is no boundary between
them, or "urban" marked on the map. I suspect you missed a boundary bwteen the two
zones.
Fig 13:
Public boat launches managed by the WDFW should be marked and colored separately
and colored to point them out as public access points to the lakes. These exist on Steel
(marked a part of the park), Dolloff, North (marked as a park, which is it not), Geneva
and Killarney.
Page 15
,~
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources
SEP 2 2 2006
DOUG SUTHERLAND
Commissioner of Public Lands
September 20, 2006
Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner
City of Federal Way
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Subject:
Draft Inventory & Characterization Report
Dear Isaac:
Thank you for providing an opportunity for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
to comment on the recent Draft Inventory & Characterization Report that was completed
by the City of Federal Way in preparation for its Shoreline Master Program Update. The
DNR is interested in working with the City to provide meaningful input to the update
process.
In reviewing the report, our staff has been pleased with the quality of the draft work. The
inventory and characterization work was completed in a logical fashion; it is
comprehensive and addresses many of the DNR's management goals, clearly
demonstrating how our stewardship goals overlap with the City's planning goals.
One additional comment is worth mentioning at this time. In the nearshore area, the
DNR, on behalf of the State of Washington, manages state-owned aquatic land that
includes consumable resources, including wild stock geoduck. All geoduck tracts on the
eastern shore of Puget Sound, from Tacoma to Everett, are currently closed for
commercial harvesting due to water quality concerns. .
In order to better manage and protect these resources, it would be beneficial to include
the geoduck tracts in the shoreline inventory as a natural resource that may be available
for r~creational and commercial harvest when water quality issues are resolved. The
Department. is excited about the opportunity to work with the City in developing and
supporting planning efforts to find solutions to the water quality issues so that these areas
could be re-opened for harvesting in the future.
~.
SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION I 950 FARMAN AVE N I ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-9282
TEL: (360) 825-1631 I FAX: (360) 825-1672 I ITY: (360) 825-6381
Equal Opportunity Employer
...
RECYClED PAPER \,1
City of Federal Way
Isaac Conlen, Associate rlanner
September 20, 2006
Page 2
RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~t~ 2 2 2006
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the update at this early stage. If
you have any further questions; please feel free to contact me at your convenience. I can
be reached at (360) 825-1631 extension 2311 or at rex.thompson@wadnr.gov.
Sincerely,
1'1-.- V .,
, .'/ ,,:,- C-.-" /~ ' .'
i\ o/1/~' '-#/',1'.// (}, 'lcQ..
'-\i .c /" '-/" .(L. /) i .~.
Rex Thompson, District-Mirlager
Shoreline District Aquatics Region
c: Fran McNair, Aquatics Steward
fm/FederalWay091906Report
(i)
King County
Water and Land Resources Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
206-296-6519 206-296-0192 Fax
RECEIVED 8'1'
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARlr"it:.., j
:' :- d ,i 4 2UO 1
February 9, 2007
Isaac Conlen
Federal Way City Hall
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Dear Mr. ~~
Thank you for providing King County with the opportunity to comment on the City of Federa1
Way's Draft Shoreline Goals and Policies, Designations and Restoration Plan. ,Our comments
on your proposal are detailed below; our review focused on the proposed environment
designations and restoration plan for lakes in the Federal Way Potential Annexation Area
(P AA).
As you know, we would like to see consistency between the City and County Shoreline Master
Programs on lake shoreline management in the P AA. In general, your proposed environment
designations in this area seem appropriate given what we know of existing lake conditions and
the results of our recent shoreline characterization analysis (please see Map 5c, Shoreline
Alterations Analysis Results for Southwest King County, at
http://www.metrokc.gov/shorelines/technica1-appendix-contents.aspx). We would like to learn
more about the critical areas standards that would be applied to carry out the draft shoreline
environment management policies.
We will not have completed our analysis of and proposal for PAA shoreline designations and
standards until May of this year, and would like to continue to coordinate with you on shoreline
management in the P AA. We appreciate your including a section in the draft restoration plan
that promotes continued coordination. We will be developing specific restoration priorities for
the lakes in the P AA.
I apologize for the delay in getting these comments to you. Please let me know if you have any
questions. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
m oe
Shoreline Master Program Update Manager
King County Water and Land Resources Division
@.~'202M
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek, Washington 98012. (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066
February 14,2007
City of Federal Way
Business and Economic Development
Attn: Isaac Conlen
33325 8th Ave South
Post Office Box 9718
Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718
SUBJECT: City of Federal Way; Shoreline Master Program Update, Draft Goals and
Policies, and Restoration Plan
Dear Mr. Conlen:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed goals, policies,
and restoration plan for the City of Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
We offer the following comments and suggestions in an effort to help you draft language
,that sufficiently protects valuable fish and wildlife resources in Washington State.
The draft contains many excellent strategies for protecting critical areas within the city.
Some examples are:
../ SMPP8: A policy that says development should be excluded from shoreliries
containing critical areas.
../ SMPPl1.c: A policy that says new residential development or redevelopment
should be located away from the shoreline in order to preclude the need for a
bulkhead or other hard armoring along the beach.
../ Goal SMPG5: This goal encourages soft shore bioengineering solutions in an
effort to limit traditional hard shoreline armoring.
../ SMPP44: This policy states that preference should be given to shared use of piers,
which will help reduce the number of piers and docks along Puget Sound
shorelines and freshwater lakes.
../ SMPP65: This policy states that boating activities should not increase shoreline
erosion and should be discouraged.
RECEIVED,
FEB 1 4 2007
CITY QF FIEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
Mr. Conlen
, February 14,2007
Page 2 of7
DRAFT
./ SMPP70j: Language in this policy encourages early involvement with WDFW
and the Indian Nations to determine if a proposed development will affect critical
areas.
./ SMPP76 & 77: These policies promote working with the WRIA 9 governmental
organizations to explore how local governments can contribute to the preservation
and restoration of ecological processes.
./ SMPP89-9l: These policies encourage incentive programs to make it
economically feasible to protect and restore shorelines, encourage the protection,
enhancement, and restoration of native riparian vegetation, and promote
bioengineering techniques.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) does have some questions and concerns
with the following sections of the SMP, and we offer the following comments and
recommendatio'ns to ensure adequate protection of valuable fish and wildlife resources:
Page 2, Goal SMPG2: WDFW believes this goal will have significant adverse effects on
important fish and wildlife resources. Promoting single-family residential development
along shorelines will likely result in significant impacts to fish and wildlife species,
especially in undeveloped areas. Polluted stormwater runoff from new residential
developments and new roads, shoreline armoring, and removal of native vegetation can
all have major detrimental impacts on shorelines. Unless the City chooses to adopt
conservative buffers (e.g., >150 feet) based on best available science (BAS), WDFW
believes this goal has great potential to lead to significant impacts, particularly on aquatic
species. In addition, because the majority ofPuget Sound shorelines are already in
private ownership, WDFW recommends that the City promote uses of shoreline areas for
the general public to the greatest extent possible.
In addition, the second sentence in this paragraph says that new development or
redevelopment should avoid tothe greatest extent possible, adverse impacts to the
shoreline. One suggestion would be to say that development must be located sufficiently
away from the shoreline to preclude the need for hard armoring structures along the
beach.
Pages 2 & 3, SMPP9b-e: WDFW recommends changing should to "shall."
Page 3, SMPPlla: WUFW recommends rewording this sentence to read that
subdivisions and new development should be designed to adequately protect fish and
wildlife species and habitats instead of using the general term "water" and aesthetic
characteristics.
Page 4, Goal SMPG4: WDFW is very concerned that some of the elements outlined in
,- tqi~- g~al,G9.1lJd have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Utilities such as sanitary
sewers; storril sewers, and petroleum products should be strongly dis~couraged, not
Mr. Conlen
February 14,2007
Page 3 of7
DRAFT
encouraged (as written), in shoreline areas. There has been an increase in the number of
sewer and storm lines located within shoreline areas along Puget Sound, some of them
placed parallel and on the beach. One such example is the Lakehaven Sewer District,
which serves the city of Federal Way. Over a mile of new sewer pipeline was installed
on the beach a few years ago. This was a highly disruptive activity because major
excavation was required and heavy equipment (e.g., frontloaders, backhoes, and
vehicular traffic) was operating on the beach. These types of activities can cause
significant impacts to fish and wildlife, and residential development contribute to these
impacts because of the extensive shoreline armoring in the area. Work had to occur in
lower, more productive areas of the beach because the equipment had to operate around
the bulkheads and rip rap revetments. Because of this, WDFW strongly recommends that
the reference to sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and petroleum products be removed from
this goal.
Page 5, Policy SMPP30: The wording of this policy is somewhat confusing. WDFW
recommends deleting "improvement" at the end of the first sentence and replacing it with
"development. "
Page 6, SMPP45: Again, WDFW recommends that this policy be reworded to provide
more clarity and better protection of fish and wildlife critical areas. As currently written,
it requires that temporary moorage be designed so that upon termination ofthe project,
habitat can be returned to original conditions within a year of proj ect completion.
WDFW recommends deleting the timeline (one year) because we question how this could
be enforced. It could be that the type of vegetation destroyed would take longer than one
year to restore to original conditions. In addition, if the habitat feature takes a full year to
return to original conditions, the City should require and include temporal losses (e.g.,
more dense planting or other enhancements) in the mitigation plan. To better protect fish
and wildlife, WDFW recommends that the wording be revised to say something to the
effect that the design and construction of temporary moorages shall be such to avoid and '
minimize impacts to nearshore areas in marine waters and shorelines along freshwater
areas, and if impacts do occur, that a mitigation and monitoring plan, including temporal
losses, will be required to ensure full recovery.
Page 9, Goal SMPG9: Included in the goal of recreational experiences is the harvesting
of driftwood. WDW recommends that this reference be deleted. Technically, the
collection of driftwood is illegal and is regulated by the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources. WDFW may also have concerns with this for several reasons. First,
when driftwood breaks down, it adds organic detritus to the system, which is beneficial to
small prey organisms that juvenile fish, including salmonids, feed upon. In addition, it
may help provide habitat for forage fish eggs if large driftwood logs are located and have
settled in the upper portions of the beach so that they protect the eggs from high wind and
wave action along exposed beaches with long fetches.
Page 9, Policy SMPP61: WDFW recommends that this policy be deleted because of
possible unintended consequences. WDFW's Artificial Reef Policy states, "Until the
Mr.Conlen
February 14, 2007
Page 4 of7
DRAFT
benefits of artificial reefs in Puget Sound can clearly be demonstrated, artificial reefs
should not be used in the context of the current Artificial Reef Policy to enhance fisheries
for groundfish. Artificial reefs may act as a population and habitat enhancement
technique when used in the context of permanent no-take refuges, but only if their
benefits do not negatively affect other marine organisms. " (Palsson et a!., 1998).
Page 9, Policy SMPP62: WDFW is confused as to what this policy would actually allow.
WDFW requests that you clarify the intent of this policy and why such a statement is
needed.
Page J 0, Policy SMPP67: WDFW recommends that marine areas be added to this
sentence.
Page J J, SMPP74a: WDFW recommends that the word "avoid" be inserted before
mInImIze.
Page 11, SMPP74b: WDFW recommends that more protective language be inserted here.
Because this sentence refer to shoreline activities that can "substantially" degrade natural
, resources, we recommend that such activities only be allowed if 1) significallt public
benefit will be derived from such a project, or 2) ifit is to protect a single-family
resident, mitigation sequencing must be closely adhered to by requiring a detailed critical
area report documenting fish and wildlife habitat at the site.
Page J J, SMPP75b: The City has inserted good language about coordinating restoration
projects with WRIA planning efforts earlier in the document and WDFW recommends
that you add a statement about it in this paragraph as well.
Page J 5, Policy SMPP99: WDFW recommends that the City add language in this policy
about promoting development designs that preclude the need for motor transportation and
instead promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Roads can have major impacts on fish and
wildlife species by:
./ being a source and collection point of contaminants
./ causing partial or complete barriers to animal movement
./ creating conduits for animal movement (thereby increasing the number of road
kill events)
./ creating barriers to surface water percolation (lowering groundwater tables)
./ fragmenting wildlife habitats
./ facilitating the spread of non-native species
More information on roads and the impacts to wildlife can be found at
http://www ,fhwa.dot. gov/environment/wildlifecrossings/. (Johnson et aI, 2001).
Page 15, Policy SMPPI 03: WDFW is uncertain regarding the definition of a "shoreline
roadway corridor."
Mr. Conlen
February 14, 2007
Page 5 of7
DRAFT
There are still a few local jurisdictions that allow driving on Puget Sound beaches, and
sometimes these "roadways" are referred to as shoreline corridors or roadways. Driving
on the beach should not be allowed and can have significant impacts on fish species and
other marine organisms. The tires on vehicles can compact the substrate making it
uninhabitable for fish and other marine organisms. It can also degrade water quality by
vehicles leaking oil and gasoline onto the beach. If the shoreline roadway corridor means
driving on the beach, WDFW strongly recommends that this be deleted.
Page 19, Shoreline Environments, Natural, #3: WDFW recommends that this be deleted
and no single-family residential development be allowed within the Natural environment
designation. There are only two small areas along the entire shoreline of Federal Way
that are designated as a Natural environment. The City should make' every effort to
protect these two small pockets from all development except for very low-intensity
development such as trails or viewing platforms. This is especially important because
according to the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration
Plan, Dum;ls Bay (one of the two shorelines designated as Natural) has been identified as
a pocket estuary with regional importance within the WRIA 9 nearshore habitat.
If there are private undeveloped parcels located within the Natural shoreline designation,
the City should make every effort to acquire these properties and convert them to public
use. Ifthis cannot be accomplished, WDFW recommends that more restrictive
requirements be created such as limiting the size of the home and amount of allowable
impervious surfaces. Guidelines on low impact development (LID) designs can be found
in the Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound.
Finally, WDFW has reviewed the City of Federal Way Draft Restoration Plan and
commends the City for including best available science and best management practices
based upon WRIA recommendations, the Puget Sound Partnership, the Puget Sound
Nearshore Project, Shared Strategy, Cascade Land Conservancy, Puget Sound Action
Team, and local programs promoted by King County. Recommendations outlined by
these entities, and promoted by the City of Federal Way, will provide an excellent
foundation upon which to improve and create new strategies to protect fish and wildlife
habitat, and WDFW appreciates the time you have spent on the restoration component of
the SMP.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife wishes to thank you again for the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed updates to your SMP. We sincerely
hope that you will find these comments constructive in your final deliberations. Please
don't hesitate to contact me at the number listed below with any questions that you have
regarding the comments and recommendations contained in this letter. I would be more
than happy to sit down with you and discuss some of the above-mentioned issues in
greater detaiL
Sincerely,
Mr. Conlen
Febmary 14,2007
Page6of7
DRAFT
gm;ib. ~d
Pamela Erstad, PHS/GMA Biologist
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
16018 Mill Creek Blvd
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
Phone: 425.379.2308
Fax: 425.379.2323
E-mail: erstapke@dfw.wa.gov
Cc: David Brock, WDFW
Jennifer Hayes, WDFW
Steve Penland, WDFW
Russell Link, WDFW
Sandra Lange, DOE
Mr. ConI en
February 14, 2007
Page 7 of7
DRAFT
References
Johnson, David H. and Thomas A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Low Impact Development. Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. January 2005.
Puget Sound Action Team. Washington State University Pierce County Extension.
Palsson, Wayne A., Thomas J. Northrup, and Morris W. Barker. Puget Sound
Groundfish Management Plan. WDFW. 1998.
.
WA. pG:PT: o~ N~~ \2s.S~$
March 9, 2007
Isaac Conlen
Senior Planner
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave South
Federal Way. WA 98063-9718
Re: Comments on proposed changes to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program
Dear Isaac:
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wants to take this opportunity to
congratulate the City of Federal for the planning efforts updating its Shoreline Master Program
(SMP). DNR has some general comments and additions on the proposed SMP changes for the
City of Federal Way. We will address comments specific to the draft regulations, followed by
additional comments.
18-163 Additional definitions.
There is no definition of aquaculture so it is uncertain which activities the regulations
would apply to. Without a definition, this prohibition on aquaculture activities may
include enhancement, restoration, and recreational shellfish opportunities.
18-165( a) Shoreline Stabilization
There is concern over the use of chemically treated wood for use of bulkheads. For
freshwater lakes and rivers, all chemically treated wood should be prohibited. For marine
areas, use of creosote treated wood should be prohibited.
18-165(b) Piers, Docks, Moorage and Floats
Piers, docks and floats should be constructed out of materials that will not adversely
affect water quality. This concern regarding the use oftreated wood in the marine
environment is discussed under Shoreline Stabilization, above.
Residential docks, piers and floats should be limited to the upland adjacent property
owner.
For new docks and piers or replacements, materials that let light penetrate to the water
should be used. This decreases the impact from the structures.
The modifications to the shoreline master plan do not address the use of joint docks. By
having multiple landowners share recreation'al docks, it would reduce the total number
and resulting impacts of individual recreational docks.
Docks and Piers should be perpendicular to the shoreline and placed in a north-south
orientation to minimize the shading impacts.
RECEIVED
FedWay
SMP
03-12-07
1
MAR 0 9 Z007
CITY QF FEDERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
Mooring buoys are not directly addressed under the proposed changes of this section.
Mooring buoys should be a preferred use over pile or float structures, since they have less
of an environmental impact.
Moorage at recreational docks may not be used for commercial or residential purposes.
OTHER COMMENTS
Utilities are not covered as a use or approved in any environmental designation. There
are two sewage treatment outfalls in the SMP covered area, as well as stormwater and
residential drainage outfalls that discharge into the area covered by the City of Federal
Way SMP. Ifutilities are going to be included as an activity, it needs to be defined.
Aquaculture is a water dependent use and should be encouraged. Shellfish aquaculture,
when conducted with no adverse impacts, should be an allowed use. If there are
concerns, it could be allowed under a shoreline conditional use permit. If the sewage
treatment outfall is moved further out, the nearshore area off of The City of Federal Way
could be classified as approved for commercial harvests by the Department of Health.
This could increase the opportunities for the City of Federal Way residents that own their
own tidelands. We would also like you to add in the definition of aquaculture that
aquaculture does not include the harvest of the commercial wildstock geoduck on DNR
managed lands, which is a fishery.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss these issues or potential language changes with
the DNR further. We will be happy to meet with you and your staff.
Sincerely,
Hugo Flores,
SMA GMA Coordinator
FedWay
SMP
03-12-07
2
';~ .
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE'
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard. Mill Creek, Washington 98012. (425) 775-1311 FAX (425) 338-1066
March 19,2007
City of Federal Way
Business and Economic Development
Attn: Isaac Corilen
33325 8th Ave South
Post Office Box 9718
Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718
SUBJECT:
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update, Draft Regulations
Dear Mr. Conlen:
The Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) wishes to thank you again for the
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed draft regulations for the City of
Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We offer the following comments
and suggestions in an effort to help you draft language that sufficiently protects valuable
fish and wildlife resources in Washington State.
The draft contains many excellent strategies for protecting critical areas within the city.
Some examples are:
./ Prohibiting new residential docks and piers on Puget Sound shorelines.
../ Applicants for new freshwater single-family residential docks and piers must first
demonstrate a need for new mooring buoy installations, and, if a new dock is
proposed, proponents must demonstrate that ajoint dock is not feasible.
./ Prohibiting new breakwaters and jetties within shoreline areas.
../ Requiring that new boat ramps and lift stations obtain a conditional use permit.
We do have questions and concerns with some sections of the SMP and offer the
following comments and recommendations to ensure adequate protection of valuable fish
and wildlife resources:
General organization. The city may want to consider reorganizing some sec,tions of the
document. For example, there are two sets of similar regulations for bulkheads contained
under the critical salmonid habitat section and in a new section called shoreline
modifications.
RECE\VED
,. MAR 2 2 2007
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
BUiLDING DEPT.
Mr. Conlen
March 19, 2007
Page 2 of 13
DRAFT
In order to ensure that projects with unavoidable impacts for fish and wildlife are
properly mitigated and monitored, WDFW recommends including a section in the SMP
that would require a shoreline critical areas report to be prepared by a qualified
professional, including, at a minimum, the following information:
./' Site plan and cross-sections of development footprint and critical areas on and
adjacent to the proposed development.
./' A detailed description of the project.
./' A detailed description of existing vegetation on and adjacent to the project area
and its associated buffer.
./' Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered,
threatened, sensitive, or candidate specIes that have a primary association with
habitat on or adjacent to the project area.
./' An assessment of direct and indirect potential impacts to fish and wildlife species,
including potential impacts to water quality.
./' An assessment of potential cumulative impacts the proposal may have on fish and
wildlife critical areas.
./' A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations,
including WDFW habitat management recommendations, that have been
developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to the project area.
./' A detailed discussion of mitigation measures that have been implemented in order
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species, as well as
contingency mitigation measures that will be implemented to offset temporary
and permanent impacts (i.e., monitoring plan with survey requirements,
performance goals, and timelines). The WDFW recommends that mitigation and
monitoring requirements be outlined in detail in an appendix in order to provide
better guidance for project proponents.
, If a critical areas report finds that significant impacts could occur to fish and wildlife,
mitigation and monitoring should be required, including:
. Baseline data
. Estimate of impacts
. Mitigation measures
. Goals and objectives
. Detailed implementation plan
. Adequate replacement ratio
· Performance standards to measure whether goals are being reached
. Maps and drawings of proposal
. As-built drawings
· Operation and maintenance plans (including who will perform)
. Monitoring and evaluation plans (including schedules)
: \.,; >,<=Qn,~ingency plans, including corrective actions that will be taken if mitigation
, ,. ':")developments do not meet goals and objectives '
i '. '\~
(: :-j
;',) - \ : ~ \ L'" I ~
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 3 of 13
DRAFT
· Any agreements on performance bonds or other guarantees that the proponent will
fulfill mitigation, operation and maintenance, monitor.ing, and contingency plan.
WDFW also recommends that if mitigation is not feasible on-site, other off-site locations
be based upon recommendations from WRIA planning effort within the basin or other
local enhancement/restoration evaluations done within the same watershed.
Section 18-163, Additional definitions: In the draft SMP, critical salt and freshwater
habitats are defined only as applied to salmonids. WDFW recommends expanding this
definition to include eelgrass and kelp beds, forage fish (including herring, surf smelt,
and sand lance), endangered, threatened, and sensitive fish and wildlife species and
habitats contained in the WDFW priority habitats and species (PHS) list, commercial and
recreational shellfish beds, species oflocal importance, naturally-occurring ponds and
lakes, and ponds and streams that provide important fish and wildlife habitat. This will
ensure that the SMP provides protection for critical areas contained in shoreline
jurisdiction.
In the section addressing critical salmonid habitats (page 9), WDFW recommends that
more avoidance language be included under the bulkheads section (4). Bulkheads
significantly impact nearshore habitat by interrupting beach processes important for
forage fish spawning, and erode away beach sands and gravels that support marine
vegetation and provide food sources for juvenile salmonids. To ensure that bulkheads are
avoided wherever feasible, WDFW recommends requiring an evaluation to first
determine whether or not soft bank stabilization techniques can be employed before a
new traditional bulkhead is considered. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection
measures should be compatible with on-going shore processes in saltwater and should be
constructed in a manner as to prevent the loss of in-channel habitat in freshwater areas.
Soil bioengineering methods should be the preferred method of bank protection. Use of
bank hardening methods, such as rip rapping, concrete walls, or extensive revetments,
should only be allowed when the applicant demonstrates that soil bioengineering will not
be effective. All stabilization and protection works should include revegetation in their
design and implementation. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) has
several publications (Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound BluffProperty
Owners, publication 98-31, Surface Water and Groundwater on Coastal Bluffs,
publication 95-1 07, and Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation,
publication 93-30) that identify the types of vegetation that can be planted along streams
and shorelines to help stabilize banklines in critical area habitats. In addition, a paper by
Zelo et aI., (Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines) outlines
various methods for employing soft bank protection techniques.
In addition, permit review of shoreline armoring proposals should incorporate cumulative
effects analysis to determine how the project may affect adjacent shoreline areas.
Cumulative effects analysis should be evaluated by utilizing expertise in several different
fields of study (i.e., geomorphologists, biologists, hydrologists). '
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 4 of 13
DRAFT
Finally, WDFW highly recommends adding language outlining the minimum
qualification requirements of the engineer who will be examining the new or existing
bank stabilization structure. The reason for this is that language contained in this section
requires that non-structural measures be used unless the evaluation indicates that only
structural designs are feasible at the site. If the engineer or geologist doing the evaluation
is not familiar with non-structural bank stabilization techniques, chances are that he/she
will recommend a hardened structure instead - especially if that engineers will be held
responsible for any damages that may ensue due to improper installation. WDFW
recommends that additional language be inserted here that states, at a minimum, that the
engineer/geologist must have experiencing evaluating and constructing non-structural
stabilization techniques with demonstrated success for "x" number of years, or, for "x"
number of structures.
WDFW recommends that dredging language contained in this section (8) be more
detailed so as to provide better guidance for project proponents. I've attached some
sample language at the end ofthis letter for better guidance on this issue.
Page 12, Section 18-165(3), Shoreline Modifications: Regarding the statement "Groins
are permitted only as part of a public beach management program," WDFW is unsure to
what public beach management program is the ordinance is referencing. We do
recommend, however, that new residential groins not be allowed in marine or freshwater
environments due to significant impacts to natural processes from these structures.
In the section addressing piers, docks, moorage, and floats (page 13), there are no grating
requirements outlined in the proposed regulations. In addition, the proposed allowable
width of floats and docks is greater than what WDFW recommends. For freshwater
docks, WDFW recommends that the first piling be installed 30 feet waterward of the
ordinary high water mark to avoid impacting nearshore habitats and steel pilings should
be no more than 6 inches in diameter. Better avoidance language should also be included
for mooring buoys (examples of docks, floats, and mooring buoys are included at the end
of this letter). These recommendations are based on.the most up-to-date science on
impacts these structures have on fish and wildlife habitats. More information can be
found at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/ahgwhite.htm
Section 180167, Permitted Use Table: WDFW noticed that residential development in the
Natural Environment designation is a permitted use. As mentioned in the WDFW letter
dated 2/14/07, WDFW strongly recommends that no single-family residential
development be allowed within the Natural environment designation. There are only two
small areas along the entire shoreline of Federal Way that are designated as a Natural
environment and the City should make every effort to protect these two small pockets
from all development except for very low-intensity development such as trails or viewing
platforms., If there are private undeveloped parcels located within the Natural shoreline
designation, the City should make every effort to acquire these properties and convert
them to public use. If this cannot be accomplished, WDFW recommends that more
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 5 of 13
DRAFT
restrictive requirements be created such as limiting the size of the home and amount of
allowable impervious surfaces.
Section 18-168, Shoreline Residential: WDFW recommends that the City incorporate
language into the SMP that requires low impact development (LID) designs. This will
help minimize the harmful effects of stormwater runoff in habitat areas that fish and
wildlife use. The seriousness of this issue is highlighted in a large, multi-year project
conducted by Nat Scholz and others researchers at the Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, NOAA Fisheries. Urban streams were sampled to examine pre-spawn mortality
rates (PSM) for adult coho salmon. Sampling conducted from 2002 through 2005 in
Longfellow Creek in Seattle found that 66% to 89% of adult coho salmon died before
spawning occurred. By comparison, the rate of die-offs in non-urban (e.g., forested)
drainages appears to be low. The precise cause ofPSM is not known. However, at
present, the weight of evidence suggests that the widespread coho die-:offs are a
consequence of non-point source water pollution. Preliminary sampling conducted in
other streams has shown similar trends. Information on LID designs can be found in the
Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (PSAT, January
2005).
In addition, in vegetation conservation areas (which are missing from the definitions
section and should be defined) up to 50% of the vegetation along shorelines can be
removed and up to 20% of significant trees may be removed. These percentages are high
and WDFW recommend that they be reduced. Removing vegetation along buffers
negates the purpose ofthe buffer, namely, to have vegetation for filtering pollutants,
sediment, providing shading in small streams, and providing cover and travel corridors
for wildlife. Significant trees may contain important wildlife species (e.g., eagle
nest/perch trees, trees with cavities) and should be protected to the greatest extent
possible. Ifthe intent ofthe provision is to allow homeowners a view of the water, there
are other alternatives that are less destructive for fish and wildlife habitat. One
alternative is to allow limited "limbing" of the tree without significantly harming wildlife
species and at the same time allow adequate views. In order to properly protect fish and
wildlife, WDFW recommends language be inserted that states tree removal would be
prohibited in vegetation conservation areas unless it is a threat to life or property. In
addition, the need for tree removal should be justified (based upon a report by a qualified
professional arborist). WDFW also has concerns about cumulative impacts that may
result from this language. If each property owner is allowed to remove up to 50% of the
vegetation on a property, this could have much larger ramifications than anticipated on
fish and wildlife habitat, particularly iftwo or more separate development tracts are
adjacentto one another. .
WDFW is confused with some ofthe terminology used in this document. There is no
definition for vegetation conservation areas, although WDFW presumes these will
provide the same functions of buffers by filtering out pollutants and stormwater runoff, as
well as providing wildlife habitat. If vegetation is present, these areas will provide
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 6 of 13
DRAFT
habitat for birds and other wildlife species and help shade marine shorelines that contain
surf smelt and sand lance spawning areas. "Setbacks" are typically referred to as the area
between a building or impervious surface such as a driveway and a buffer area. Setbacks
would not have to be vegetated and are established as a transition area between the
development footprint and the untouched riparian habitat area or buffer. In order to
prevent confusion, WDFW recommends defining the term "vegetation conservation area"
as a protected area adjacent to the marine waterbody or freshwater aquatic system that
contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that mutually influence each
other. The definition should include a description of how the area will be measured.
Finally, the proposed setbacks/vegetation conservation areas in the Shoreline Residential,
Urban Conservancy, and Natural Environment designations development are are
considerably less than those recommended by WDFW in its publication titled
"Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian." This
document IS based on a synthesis of scientific literature, and it represents WDFW's view
of "best available science" regarding an important component in the protection of riparian
areas across Washington State. The City has not provided any scientific analysis or
support that demonstrates the proposed buffers and buffer reductions will adequately
protect the functions and values of riparian areas. The proposed buffers could result in
significant adverse impact of fish and wildlife species, including species that may be
listed as endangered, threatened, or sensitive.
In addition, the City is proposing to allow vegetation conservation area reductions on new
residential development sites based, in part, on how wide the buffer is on adjacent
properties where existing homes are located. The decision to do this is not science-based
and could have significant impacts on fish and wildlife. Instead of allowing buffer
reductions based upon where the adjacent neighbor's house is located relative to the
shoreline, WDFW recommends that the city use a system of buffer averaging and
enhancement through a variance process. A habitat survey would need to be conducted
in order identify and prioritize highly functional fish and wildlife critical habitat within
the project area. Buffers at locations containing highly functioning fish and wildlife
habitat should be protected and should not be reduced in those areas. On the other hand,
areas containing habitat of minimum value might be where reductions could be
permitted. As mitigation, areas where buffers are reduced could be required to be
enhanced with native vegetation to help reduce stormwater runoff. In addition, the City
should require that the homeowner incorporate LID designs as well as other innovative
'designs that will minimize stormwater runoff. Finally, there should be a maximum
threshold for the total allowable footprint on the property (WDFW recommends no more
than 2500 square feet).
Section 18-168(f), ParkingfaGilities: The City should require that all parking facilities
incorporate LID designs to minimize nmoff into critical fish and wildlife habitat areas.
Project proponents would need to prepare a feasibility study report that evaluates various
Mr. Conlen
March 19, 2007
Page 7 of 13
DRAFT
LID designs to determine the extent that stormwater runoff could bereduced at the
proposed development site. Examples of LID designs are listed below:
· Amended soils: adding topsoil, if necessary, mixed with organic matter, in order
to improve retention of stormwater runoff.
· Design new streets with a curvilinear form to allow more flexibility in designing
the water quality improvements.
· Place sidewalks on only one side of the street.
· Create graded swales and plant trees in amended soils to help provide stormwater
retention and restore the evapotranspiration that was present before development.
· Permeable pavement for parking lots, driveways and alleyways.
· Grass parking lots with interlocking plastic grids.
· Rooftop rainwater harvesting
· Collection and reuse of residential stormwater runoff
Incorporating the LID designs into projects can make a significant difference in total
stormwater runoff. For example, a project in Seattle (Street Edge Alternative) resulted in
a reduced total volume of stormwater within its two-block, 2.3-acre area by 97% for two
consecutive years. More information about this project and other examples of the above-
mentioned LID practices can be found in a publication titled Natural Approaches to
Stormwater Management, Low Impact Development in Puget Sound written by the Puget
Sound Action Team in March, 2003.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife wishes to thank you again for the
opportunity to provide comments on the proposed updates to your SMP. We sincerely
hope that you will find these comments constructive in your final deliberations. Please
don't hesitate to contact me at the number listed below with any questions that you have
regarding the comments and recommendations contained in this letter. I would be more
than happy to sit down with you and discuss some ofthe above-mentioned issues in
greater detail.
Sincerely,
~nuib. ~d
Pamela Erstad, PHS/GMA Biologist
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
16018 Mill Creek Blvd
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
Phone: 425.379.2308
Fax: 425.379.2323
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 8 of 13
DRAFT
E-mail: erstapke@dfw.wa.gov
Cc: David Brock, WDFW
, Jennifer Hayes, WDFW
Steve Penland, WDFW
Russell Link, WDFW
Sandra Lange, DOE
Anne Fritzel, CTED
References
Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines. Ian Zelo, Hugh
Shipman, and Jim Brennan May, 2000. Department of Ecology.
http://www .ecy. wa.gov/pubs/00060 12a.pdf
Knutson, K.Lea and Virginia L. Naef. Management Recommendations for Washington's
Priority Habitats, Riparian. WDFW, December 1997.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm
Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. January 2005.
Puget Sound Action Team. Washington State University Pierce County Extension
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_tech_manua105/lid_index.htm
Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management, Low Impact Development in Puget
Sound. Puget Sound Action Team March 2003.
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/LID_studies/LID_approaches.htm
Scholz, N:L. Stormwater and Salmon. Toxics in Puget Sound Forum Program.
Connecting the Marine Environment to Human Health and the Economy. Seattle,
Washington. Oral presentation.
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 9 of 13
DRAFT
Appendix -Sample Language
BULKHEADS (Marine)
1. New bulkheads and revetments should be prohibited under the following
circumstances:
a. If a qualified shoreline hydrologist/geologist determines that the armoring
structure may cause significant erosion or beach starvation
b. If an armoring structure is proposed to be located on shorelines where
valuable geohydraulic or biological processes are sensitive to alteration or
development such as feeder bluffs, marshes, wetlands and accretion
shoreforms such as spits, hooks, bars, or barrier beaches.
2. New bulkheads should only be if significant wave,erosion threatens an existing
development.
3. Shoreline armoring proposals must incorporate cumulative effects analysis to
determine how the project may affect adjacent beaches updrift and downdrift of the
site. Cumulative effects analysis must be evaluated by utilizing expertise in several
different fields of study (i.e.,geomorphologists, marine biologists, hydrologists).
1. Applicants must determine the feasibility of using soft-bank protection techniques prior
to submitting a proposal for construction of a new, traditional bulkhead. A thorough
physical assessment must be conducted by a qualified professional with background
experience evaluating and constructing non-structural stabilization techniques with
demonstrated success for "x" number of years, or, for "x" number of structures.
4. If the licensed engineering geologist determines that soft-bank protection is not
feasible, the use of hard armoring may be allowed provided all impacts to habitat are
fully mitigated and the bulkhead is located at or landward ofthe OHWM.
5. The structure should be designed to conform to the natural contours of the shoreline.
6. If a rock bulkhead is installed, it should be designed so that all spalls are fully
contained behind the bulkhead using durable geotextile fabric or other heavy-duty
materials.
7. Treated wood bulkheads are prohibited.
8. If an existing structure is to be replaced, the existing structure (i.e., rip rap, timber or
concrete bulkhead) should be completely removed prior to installing the replacement
structure.
9. Applications for new bulkheads shall include the following (at a minimum):
a. Type of construction;
b. Elevation of the toe and crest of the bulkhead with respect to water levels;
c. Purpose of bulkhead;
Mr. Coni en
March 19,2007
Pag~ 10 of 13
DRAFT
d. Direction of net longshore drift (when appropriate); and
e. Normal, low and high water elevations (when appropriate).
f. Important habitat features at the site.
10. Stairs or other permitted structures may be built into a bulkhead or revetment, but
shall not extend waterward of the face of the structure.
11. If a new traditional bulkhead or revetment is approved, all project impacts must be
fully mitigated, in advance, prior to the start ofproject activities. Mitigation measures
must incorporate principles of landscape connectivity and extend to activities outside
of the project boundaries.
SHORELINE STABILIZATION (Freshwater)
1) Shoreline stabilization and flood protection measures shall be compatible with on
going shore processes and shall be constructed in a manner as to prevent the loss
of in-channel habitat. Soil bioengineering methods shall be the preferred method
of bank protection. Use of bank hardening methods, such as rip rapping, concrete
walls, or extensive revetments, shall only be allowed when the applicant
demonstrates that soil bioengineering will not be effective. All stabilization and
protection works shall include revegetation in their design and implementation.
2) Shoreline arrnoring proposals must incorporate cumulative effects analysis to
determine how the project may affect adjacent shoreline areas upstream and
downstream of the site. Cumulative effects analysis must be evaluated by
utilizing expertise in several different fields of study.
DREDGING
1. Regulate and control dredging to minimize damage to existing ecological systems and
natural resources of both the area to be dredged and the area for deposit of dredged
materials.
2. New dredging is prohibited in the following locations:
a. Environmentally sensitive habitats (e.g., mudflats, sandflats, eelgrass,
kelp, stream mouth estuaries, pocket estuaries).
b. In habitats identified as critical to the life cycle of protected fish, shellfish
or wildlife
c. Along net-positive drift sectors and where geohydraulic processes are
active and accretion shoreforms would be damaged, altered, or
irretrievably lost.
d. In shoreline areas with bottom materials that are prone to significant
sloughing and refilling due to currents or tidal activity, thus resulting in
the need for continual maintenance dredging.
3. Dredging of bottom materials for the single purpose of obtaining fill material is
Mr. Conlen
March 19,2007
Page 11 of 13
DRAFT
prohibited.
4. In the case oflarge and potentially damaging, or unproductive projects where it is
assumed that a beneficial use can be gained through in-water disposal projects, there
must be a rigorous, scientific assessment of the proposal to ensure that existing
habitats will not be detrimentally affected in the future as a result ofthe project.
5. New dredging projects that convert intertidal habitat to subtidal habitat in order to
improve navigability, must include a comprehensive large-scaJe assessment that will
identify potential cumulative impacts of site-specific changes to ecosystem dynamics
Infrastructure such as marine terminals, piers, mooring areas, boat launches, and
marinas should be located in or adjacent to water sufficiently deep to allow full use
without dredging.
MARINAS
1. Marinas shall make use of the natural site configuration to the greatest extent
possible.
2. ,Skirting is prohibited around piers, docks, floats and wharfs.
3. Treated wood products are prohibited.
4. Grating must be incorporated into all overwater structures that will shade nearshore
areas.
5. A mitigation plan will be required for all unavoidable impacts to nearshore marine
areas.
6. Marinas shall not be sited in areas containing mudflats, sandflats, pocket estuaries or
other nearshore sediment accretion areas.
7. Marinas shall not be located in areas that would detrimentally alter littoral drift. An
evaluation of nearshore drift cell movement must be conducted during the siting
process.
8. Marina's should be sited in deepwater areas to avoid the need for dredging.
9. When located in other than designated port areas, marinas shall be designed and
constructed so that littoral drift shall not be detrimentally affected.
10. Marinas shall be designed to incorporate uninhibited tidal bypass in such a manner
that will minimize the need for maintenance dredging.
II. Marinas shall be designed in such a manner to allow adequate flushing and water
circulation within the facility in order to avoid water quality degradation.
12. Prior to designing in-water marinas, an alternatives analysis must be conducted in
order to determine if it is feasible to have upland boat storage areas in the vicinity of
Mr. Conlen
March 19, 2007
Page 12 of 13
DRAFT
the project site.
13. Floats, piers, docks, and other structures associated with marinas must be placed in
deep water to avoid prop scour and shading impacts.
14. Designs for large, commercial overwater structures should be such that the majority
ofthe overwater coVerage is located in waters greater than -(minus) 30 feet MLLW.
15. Rub strips are required on all wood fender pilings.
16. Exposed or shrink-wrapped Styrofoam is prohibited on new and replacement float
structures. Floats must be fully contained in a rigid polystyrene tub that is immune to
ultraviolet radiation or abrasion.
17. Grounding of floats is prohibited
Design Recommendations:
In order to minimize reductions in ambient light levels, the following design criteria
should be included:
~ Use narrow grated walkways or gangplanks perpendicular to the shoreline
to connect to piers and floats in order to minimize shading impacts.
~ Maximize structure height above water.
~ Float widths should be minimized to the greatest extent possible and
should not exceed 8 feet for public facilities and 4 feet for residential.
Grating must be incorporated on all floats over 4 feet wide and must have
aminimUlTI of 60% light penetration.
~ ' Orient float, pier, and dock structures in a north south configuration.
~ Minimize the number of piles needed and maximize pile spacing
MARINE MOORING BUOY DESIGN CRITERIA
1. General:
All mooring buoys that will be located in water with a depth ofless than -30 feet (MLLW
= ?OO) shall meet the f9110wing design criteria:
a. The line between the anchor and surface float shall not exceed the water depth
as measured at extreme high tide plus a maximum of 20% additional line for
scope.
b. The buoy system shall include a subsurface float designed to keep the line
between'the anchor and surface buoy from contacting the bottom during low tide
Mr. ConI en
March 19,2007
Page 13 of 13
DRAFT.
cycles. The subsurface float shall be located off the bottom a distance equal to
1/3 the line length as defined above in item a.
2. Eelgrass Habitat:
If a mooring buoy will be located in water with a depth of less than -30 feet (MLL W = 0.00), a
preliminary level marine vegetation survey must be conducted by a qualified diver/biologist to verify
the absence of eelgrass (2. marina). The mooring buoy system shall include an embedment style
anchor in order to avoid potential impacts to eelgrass associated with surface anchor designs.
BOAT LAUNCHES
22. Boat ramps are prohibited on beaches containing documented herring, surf smelt and
sand lance habitat and on beaches containing eelgrass and kelp. Boat launches shall
not be located on beach accretion areas or in shallowly-sloped intertidal areas because
of the large footprint required for the launch pad.
23. Preferred boat ramp designs are as follows (in order of priority)
a. elevated railways that have minimal disturbance to beach substrate
b. open grid designs that have minimal coverage of beach substrate
c. seasonal ramps that can be removed and stored upland
d. solid structures that interlock with one another leaving spaces for natural
beach substrate and can adapt to changes in beach profiles.
24. Ramps shall be placed and maintained near flush with the foreshore slope to
minimize the interruption of geo-hydraulic processes.
25. Boat launching ramps shall be designed so that surface water runoff from adjacent
parking, driveway, or road surfaces does 'not drain directly into the water body
without water quality treatment.
~ ~ 'r::: /' CL.cGy
vEPr; Or +-'- /
March 21, 2007
Isaac Conlen, Shoreline Planner
City of Federal Way
PO Box 9718 -33325 Eighth Ave. S.
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Dear Mr. Conlen:
Re: Draft Federal Way Comprehensive Shoreline Master Program Amendmet
(SMP) .
Thank ypuJor submitting the prelimi aft of the Federal Way Shoreline Master
Program.(S"YlP). Ecology reviews dr ,~, r consistency with Chapter 90-58 RCW -
the Shoreline Management Act of 197~flde
that carry out its policy and requiremenf$;,~rima
Pro ram A roval/Amendment Procedu~$\an
173-27 - Shoreline Permittin and Enforcm Ecologym st also consider comments of
other agencies or interested parties' on thet SMP. ,
After the City receives Ecology's comments on~' draft SMP, we would like to schedule a
meeting with the City and its consultant to discu~hem and plan responses so the draft
SMP can'~~'Med by Ecology, easily understood by all parties, and properly .
imple . by 'he~~x of Federal Way and Ecology.
Ecol lJiI'bas review~~ aft SMP submitted by the City, and has the following
comm,~ questions: . . .
Draft ShorelrA,e L vento Characterization
Shoreline Inv3~CI Characterization Report
1.3 Regulatory O~.(view
1.3.1 Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Guidelines
1. Include citation for the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and State Master Program
Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) since you are discussing them here. Project
reviewers or applicants may need them.
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
RECE\VED
MAR 2 3 2007
CITY OF "'f~ERAL WAY
BUILDING DEPT.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 2
The definition of shoreline jurisdiction on Page 3, inset paragraph, is confusing and
incorrect. It states, "The specific language from the RCW describes the limits of shoreline,
jurisdiction as follows: 'those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions
as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM); floodways
and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all
associated wetlands and river deltas (ReW 90.58.030 (2)(f)'."
That is a partial definition of "shorelands", which is 0, n.,IM-F"."'" part of SMA shoreline jurisdiction.
The complete definition of shorelands is: (RCW 90.5~ge (2)(f) "Shorelands" or "shoreland
areas" means those lands extending landward for tw~~pcIred feet in all directions as measured on
a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water m8i~.'" (gI4WM); flOOdW, ays and contiguous floodplain
areas landward two hundred feet from such flood~y~ and all w nds and river deltas associated
with the streams, lakes and tidal waters that are SU5J~):to the ,s'IOns of this chapter (of the
RCW); the same to be designated as to location by th~~~f~t of ecology".
Page 2, second sentence states, "These deSignation~~~stablished in 1972 and are
described in WAC 173-18. That chapter of the WAC is titled, Shoreline Mana ement Act -
Streams and Rivers constitutinq shorelines of the state... w~ 73-20 is "Lakes
. constitutin shorelines of t tate. The definitions of Shoreline ,Shorelands, and
Shorelines of the State;, tl1~, MA - RCW 90.58.030 (2).
2. Correct the refer · Citatiornlt J
3. Convey the fac t the SMJ.oreline jurisdiction the City will manage through this
SMP includes bott\I~l'td a en ~ir;lcluding or paraphrasing the SMA definition of
. "shorelines", "shorel1i~> "sho e~he state": .
"Shorelines" means all of the wat~ reas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated
shorelands, together with the land',urejerIYing them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance;
(ii) shorelines on segments of stream~~,fitream from a point where the mean annual flow is twenty
cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii)
shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes."
(RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)
"Shorelines of the State" are the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance"
(RCW 90.58:030(2)(c)
4. Federal Way is on Puget Sound, which is designated a "shoreline of statewide
significance" in the SMA (RCW 90.58.30(2)(e)(iii) and given special consideration. This
would be a good place to include or summarize the SMA policy language describing
these shorelines if you haven't done it elsewhere in this SMP:
.1 \. i.!,
, March 15, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 3
RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in
the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department (of Ecology), in adopting
guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local governments, in developing master
programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference uses in the following
order of preference which:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest O\l
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreli
3. Result in long term over shortterm benefit.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the sho eline;
'5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the sh '~\~s;
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelin~;r
7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.1 00 die~;P~ appropriate
or necessary". V
1.3.3 City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program
Page 4, first paragraph, fifth senten~1i-l~aIlY,- environment designations should be
based on biological and physical capab/~,i<<es~~/iJ!!!t,a"tions of the shoreline, existing and
planned development patterns, and a ~~[r1, und' VlsiEn 0, r objectives for its future
development." This doesn't convey the in\e~tio 'A~: Guidelines, WAC 173-26-211
for the shoreline e~viro.nme~! c1~ssifi~atio~~;, nor cfoe~. sound like ~ho~eline
ecosystems or habitat Identified In this Shor~l~ Inventory and Charactenzatlon would
necessarily be protected through more string\~evelopmentstandards. ,
5. Substitute language closer to that of the SM~uidelines, WAC 173-26-211, such as,
"The s".ttlJ.,~vironment designation or classification system should be based on the
bio/q. p.afld2~I;i>f::~ical character of the shoreline, the existing and planned use pattern,
~)" goals ~~tions of the community for its shorelines." .
1.4 ShO~:l~e Planning' s
The ext~ shorelin j"nning area is described incorrectly: .
. 200 feet f~t~ed waterline edge (to approximate OHWM) of the Puget
. . ~g~~~e~~~:~ ~~I~~:d waterline edge of seven freshwater lakes......
This indicates confusion about SMA shoreline jurisdiction and what shoreline areas the City
,will manage through their SMP. Figure 1 depicts a line that appears to represent a 200'
strip along the water, but it is not detailed enough to see if it is landward or waterward of
the OHWM. One would assume it defines a 200' strip of land that is landward of the
OHWM, but the bulleted statement confuses the issue more than clarifies it.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 4
6. Make the bullets consistent with Figure 1 and definitions of "shorelines" or "shorelands"
to determine shoreline jurisdiction for planning.
7. If the extent of the planning area includes 200' from the aSSO~~J'?l d floodplains and
wetlands identified in bullets 3 and 4 include that informatig"
SMA shoreline jurisdiction includes "shorelines. compos~ ~ds, water, and the
land beneath the water, so the City's shoreline jurisdictiorl,probabl'NP udes the water and
beds of the lakes. Whether King County will continue to include Puget; "und waters '
adjacent to Federal Way in their SMA shoreline jurisdiction and adminTh~F; tJeir SMP
regulations should be resolved during this SMP amendment process. Theh~Qeral W.ay's
Puget Sound shoreline jurisdiction should be characterized and mapped so'a~opment
standards compatible with land uses and shoreline resources are included. '
ioh~h~~~:~~=:~;t~~ ~~:: ~:sk~~:~~~ing County SMP, but this is the time
8. Resolve the location of shoreline i1\t, ion"~",,,a, ,r,: botM,.t,h""e,I, a."." kes and Puget Sound, and
correct lhe bulleted language to agre~~~jUrisdiction.
9. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat map (Fi9l.~) and Coastal Restoration Opportunities
map (Figure 14), would be more usef~l. if l~fScale of this map match~d the scale of
other maps such as the Current Conditions (f;")gures 11A-C) and Environmental
Designations maps (Figures 12A-C). V
10. Th" u -BEZr we details regarding locations of restoration opportunities. If
re, " nced matei1~~~ethe Johannessen et al.report (2005) contain essential '
~t<'?) ation the te~~ ~p~ld be included here. Any referenced material that is essential to
impl~p e";,n,,t the SMP Sj.' .~.'.,"\d be included in the SMP as text or attached and cited as an
Appe~~~ '. .
11. King C~artl~A.!jif Natural Resources and Parks (Sally Abella) provided
, detailed commept~~~l'tember 6,2006 on the Draft Shoreline Inventory and
Characterizatio~kh should be addressed so the Shoreline Inventory and '
Characterization is as complete, accurate and useable as possible. This is important
because it will be used for years to determine shoreline designations, identify
restoration opportunities, indicate protective development standards and monitor for
success
March 21, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 5
Draft Restoration Plan
A. SMP restoration plans must (i) Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions,
'and sites with potential for ecological restoration. '
This was done by referencing the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, but
the Shoreline I&C report does not describe the locations of restoration opportunities in
sufficient detail and the map showing the locations of these opportunities (Figure 14) is
too broad a scale to determine the precise locaf "!,~:
12. Again, this requirement appears to rely 0
should be included here.
B. Master program restoration plans must (ii) Esta rail goals and priorities for
restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecologic.",\.,ptions.
13. Section 3.0 - Developing Restoration Goals and POli~~~langUage to be used as
.," "...a starting point for developing proposed goals and polici~ and no prioritization is
included. This section, ".qe completed.
c. M~ster progra~", :8,';" ratio~'\,",..~ must (iii) Identify existing and ongoing projects and
programs that are~~r. ently beinplemented, or are reasonably assured of being
. ::,:~:;:~~r:,,~~~~;a ~ likely in the foreseeable future), which are
14. Existing plans and progr~m~,care identified at the regional level and some city and
county programs are listea~H~ever, more local information could be included here.
For example, Friends of the H~t.~~os Wetlands http://www.hvlebos.orq is a local non-
governmental organization inv~\l;d in restoration projects in Federal Way.
D. Master program restoration plans must (iv) Identify additional projects and programs
needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including
identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and programs.
15.Additional programs are suggested in general terms and some specific projects are
listed. Funding sources are listed in general terms but are not linked to projects or
programs. This section is written as if a consultant was providing options to a client,
which might be the case here. The text includes phrases such as "... Federal Way could
consider... ", "... the program could implement..." that indicate this section is waiting for
the City of Federal Way to state what projects and programs they want and their
strategy for accomplishing them. This section must be completed.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 6
E. Master program restoration plans must (v) Identify timelines qnd benchmarks for
implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals.
16. No timelines or benchmarks are suggested, but they would ~.bly apply to the list of
restoration goal projects and programs required by "D." ab~YThe statement that the
City should document progress towards achieving restodf!?~~~s during the SMP
review required every 7 years is not meaningful unJe~,~'ere ~~rojects and pr.ograms
to assess. The requirements of "D." should be comPleted so i~ €;an be done.
F. Master program restoration plans must (vi) Providefor mechanis~s~;~a~egieS to
ensure that restoratIOn projects and programs will be Implemented acc~~~", plans and
to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in me~ the
overall restoration goals. '
17. There are no mechanisms or str~ttQ~~~o ensure restoration projects and programs will
be implemented included here. T~~~~~~ction on Monitoring and Adaptive '
Management, but it will only be rel~~,nnt,tw tL~Jfi~ntified restoration projects and
programs are implemented. This reqlJ~ ment. s afs~. ,dependent on the restoration goal
projects and plans required by "0".
"--...
Intra-agency Coordination Issue
. The City of Federal Way consulted with ~c\ logy and other state agencies about
odor complaints in the Dumas Bay area. \>' e possible source of the odor discussed
b",y'i.J"",,~li.s..!he accumulation of decomposing seaweed (ulvoid) material in the
',filifitidaJa-re.a o~umas Bay. Several staff at Ecology (Kathy Taylor, Lynn
lfneider, a~t~s) as well as Washington State Dept. of Health and Puget
und Action Tea:m~ave developed a draft fact sheet on beach odors, and will
oodti u,e to work W~lh"i lhe City on this issue.
~ ...
3.2.2 Wetland~!Page 17
18. The discu~..a,b",o, ..u,rw,...~.,.tiands along streams does not say whether they are regulated.
How do they li~m ,~)! ?ity's plan for providing protection and functions for lakes and
other shorelines o~,tne state in Federal Way's SMA jurisdiction? For example, do they
help mediate transport of pollutants and/or sediments to the lakes? This section must
be completed.
4.1.5 PLiget Sound East, Page 31
19. Four short unnamed streams enter the coastal shoreline in Reach 1A. These streams
have steep gradients and are associated with landslide and erosion hazard zones.
March 21 , 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 7
Are they covered in the local CAO? Because of their association with these hazards,
they are likely to be important sediment contributors to the marine shoreline on a
local scale. The document previously states that the fluvial sediment transport is
negligible for the whole Puget Sound. Since Federal Way's jturisdiction is much
smaller than the whole Puget Sound, they should not be di~issed. (Refer to King
County (Sally Abella) comments on Page 6, Section 3. '(
ce? How does it affect
20. Joe Creek is on the 303D List for fecal coliform. Wha,
the stream functions and the marine shoreline?
Shoreline Environment Designations
WAC 173-26-211 (2)(a) State Master Proqram approval/amendment proceau "es and
master proqram quidelines contains basic requirements for classifying shor~ine
environment designations based on the existing use pattern, biological and physical
character of the shoreline, and t~~;/ Is and aspirations of the community expressed
through comprehensive plans an~!\~Jtte" ia in WAC 173-26-211 (5). The
Recommended classification Syst~);o"" "".S",i..X", b"asic shoreline environments: High
Intensity, ~hore~ine Resid~nti~l, U ~,',a"",.,n"" Co ','~h~ <~~"c",:y" ",."R" ural Conservancy, Natural,
and AquatiC, which are defined In W <F 17 'Q'~tg)~ocal governments should
assign these to their shoreline areasth ;t;f~ criteriafQ(each. The environment
designations should assure that existing~y logical functions are protected with the
proposed pattern and intensity of develop ',8 1. The shoreline environment designations
should also be consistent with policies for r , ring degraded shorelines in the
Shoreline Restoration Plan.
The City chose shoreline designations of Urban Conservancy, Shoreline residential,
and Natural to match their current and planned uses, as well as protect their shoreline
resources. These appear to' be appropriate for the shoreline areas designated for
each. Although additional research and analysis is needed for the Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization; it is not likely to require revision of the environment designations.
Management Policies for shoreline environment designations
21. The City chose to include those in WAC 173-26-211 for each designation, but might
omit those that do not apply to their shorelines, which is appropriate.
Existing Management Policies to Keep (from current SMP)
"LUP83 Emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas"
This policy applied to the former "Urban" Federal Way SMP (FW SMP) shoreline
designation and is proposed for the new "Shoreline residential" designation.
March 21 , 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 8
It appears to conflict with the proposed FW SMP Management Policy A for "Shoreline
residential" to establish standards and regulations for density, setbacks, lot coverage,
buffers, vegetation conservation, and other dimensional and functional restrictions to
assure "no net loss" of ecological functions. It might also conflict with other local codes and
plans that apply to residential areas, like zoning codes. It would probably apply best to
"High Intensity" environment, which the City did not use.
22. While it is important to direct development to appropriate areas, further qualifications
are needed if this policy is applied to the "Shorelin Residential" environment.
Part 2 Revised Table of Permitted Uses for n oreline Environment Designations
(Page 8 of 9/27/06 version) , .
The "P" used in the legend stands for "Allowed as e~~ pt fr2~rmitting or permitted with
Substantial Development Permit". The legend incl~a:s,.,~,' '. urmi~~:~ses and additional qualifiers,
resulting in a confusing table that would need more expla 'a"ti;~' to ensure that shoreline permits
would be consistent with the SMA and its provisions, partic l~J,.WAC 173-26 - the Shoreline
Master Proqram Guidelines and WAC 173-27 - Shoreline Perm.itlf and Enforcement Some uses
included in this table as possibly exempt from shoreline permit re"'iji~{Tlents need development
standards to reduce their impacts on shorelines. These include shat~ne Stabilization/"Protection"
projects; Piers, Moorage, 'it1!~MQ)ts' Office and Commercial development; Recreational
~~;~~mm:~~;it~~~~~~ti ~:~~; Accessory Structures; Transportation/Parking facilities;
Most of these are li~ . s.,possibl ~ or needing only an SOP in either Shoreline Residential
or Urban Conservancy S~I'~lin~it:Q~~~'4'~ Residential Development, Recreati~nal
Development, and Access0~ie(Ures belng~p.Q~!ll)bly exempt or needing only an SDP In the
Natural Environment, which a~,not comply with1he SMP Guidelines - WAC 173-26-211 (5)(a)(ii)
(C) Single family residential deve.J...~T:!!.ent may be allowed as a conditional use within the "Natural"
shoreline environment if the densltY,anCZintensity of such us~ is limited as necessary to protect
ecological functions and be consisten~h the purpose of this environment designation.
The information and organization of the table is too broad and does not appear to support the
purpose of the shoreline environments or be consistent with the SMA, SMP Guidelines - WAC 173-
26 or WAC 173-27- Shoreline Permitting. For uses or development to be exempt from the
requirements of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit within SMA shoreline jurisdiction, they
must comply with RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(i-xii), WAC 173-27-040, and the Federal Way SMP.
23. This table should be revised reflecting uses that support the shoreline designations; and
standards and regulations for those, uses consistent with WAC 173-26-211 and WAC 173-27 -
Shoreline permitting and enforcement.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 9
CHAPTER # SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Purpose
24.lf this is the only place that the Shoreline Management Act and purR~~ and contents of
Shoreline Master Programs are mentioned, insert a definition Wi!R..~~", )'9re information before the
first sentence, such as "The State Shoreline Management Act.(01A) - RCW90.58 directs local
governments to develop and administer local Shoreline Mas~';f.,; ms (SMPs) for regulation
of uses on shorelines of the state, and Chapter 173-26 W~,.,tt'e S , uidelines - provide
standards and criteria for those regulations. The local SM~ a comp ~)Qsive use plan for
local shoreline areas that includes desired goals and policies that are con..s~tent with the State
SMA; maps, diagrams, and charts; other descriptive material; uses and dev~""m"e,m n, t
regulations." ~
Shoreline Use Element
Shoreline Master Program Goals (5 J~,~.
SMPG1 Shoreline areas shall permit a~'~~
City's zoning and Comprehens v.,/ Plan"
locations for all allowed uses a "e1f evel'
natural features of the shoreline 11).,s
adverse effects on shoreline ecolo'f nctions.
25. This goal should be revised to include the inm~lon to establish standards to protect the
shoreline from impacts of the variety of develT2m~nt types that will be allowed so no net loss of
the shoreline ecological functions occur. It shOlli~f~Rclude the term "SMP shoreline designations"
to reflect the importance the SMA jurisdiction an~iJtie new SMP, as well as City Zoning and
Comp 8 ;~~iQ(lations. They are the core of your shoreline management effort that will
hOP, e .~~, .et loss" of ecological functions identified in your Shoreline Inventory and
c... erizaliO:. ~
Shore ~aster progr~ ~IICles (SMPP) .
SMPP2 Sh'e~!,.Q:"e, ,land and \~,~er uses should sa.tisfY the economic, social, and physical
needs~qf,,\he regio il~population, but should not exceed the physical carrying
capacity, Q~he s' ';1 line areas. .
26. This policy sh~ v[ed to indicate that necessary and desired uses of the shorelines can
be balanced with e~~ther and still protect the shorelines and their ecological functions. Using
the term "carrying capacity" implies that all desired uses will be allowed until they stretch the
limit of what the shoreline ecosystem can endure, which is probably not what the City intends.
This is where your Shoreiine designation, purpose for the designation, uses that support
the purpose, and development standards forthose uses really mean something.
evelopment types in accordance with the
ations. Designs, densities, and
ould consider physical and
he greatest extent possible,
March 15, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 10
SMPG2 - Residential use of shoreline areas should be continued and encouraged, allowing
a variety of housing types. New development or redevelopment of residential uses should
avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions.
27. This goal should be revised to make a connection with the shorelin '~entory findings,
subsequent shoreline designation, allowed uses, and developmef'~€Julations to prevent
adverse effects to the shoreline ecology. As stated, there is no ".\arlink between how
continued and encouraged residential development will a~v, .@'" U~!D~ adverse effects to the
shoreline. In the Natural Shoreline Environment, the SMP>~ eli~~~ AC173-26-
211 (5)(a)(iii)(C) only allows single family residential develo ment as a~€.. ditional Use, so it
would not be encouraged. . '
SMPP9 a. Residential devel~pm, ent in desig~ated c~i~ical areas or thei~ ass~"'~""~,edd buffers
should be regulated as required under the City'S critical areas regulations. ' ".>
28. If the critical area is within SMA shoreline jurisdiction the SMP standards also app ,and they
prevail if they are more consistent with the SMA or the WAC seCtions that implement it,
including WAC 173-27, Shoreline P~l"r:Bitting and Enforcement. For instance, the SMP
regulations for shoreline variance P'~"~,ii's..~<-till",, aa,p"p.".,I,y for proposed reductions of setbacks from
the ordinary high water mark or othe: :rfi)dif4~~~ to required dimensions.
b. Residential development oQ"pl\iers en O've-twater should not be permitted
29. This should be rewordeQ.gs "Reside'nt~ d.9'pQil~,..on piers or over water is
, pro~ibite~" so there,i.~ ':' ., ',~OOiMu.,s, ,ion a~,'" ' ,tole sn . r . e permit exemption for single
family resldence~ co ~'jent wifr"..\ SMP GUidelines. .
~:::"~~:t:~~~~~~ sh ,.,~~~~.~:h~ot displace or encroach upon water-
30. This goal should a~.~~~termine allowable uses for the different
shoreline deSignation~Q'~"r,n""ti.nued opera,tlon of existing uses is assured. Preservation
of the shoreline for water ,l~~endent uses is consistent with the SMA and SMP
Guidelines, as is predictabi~ontinued residential use where it is designated.
SMPP11 Residential densities should be consistent with zoning and should consider
physical capabilities of the shoreline areas and public services requirements when
considering new plats or rezoning applications. and effects such densities have on
the environment.
31. This goal should be revised to reflect how the shoreline ecosystems, processes, and
functions identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization will be considered
when determining residential densities, zoning, development patterns, etc. The
sentence that was stricken was the only part of the goal that indicated density might
affect the shoreline. The meaning of "physical capabilities" of the shoreline is not clear
as it is used here.
SMPP11 a Subdivisions and new development should be designed to adequately
protect the water and shoreline aesthetic characteristics
March 21, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 11
32. This should reflect the intention to protect shoreline resources identified in the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization through appropriate development regulations.
SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan to allow for
commercial development shall permit a variety of commercial and office park
development types. New development or expansion of existing commercial and
office uses should avoid, to the greatest extend possible, adverse effects on
shoreline ecological functions.
33. Revise this goal to reflect the SMP's shorelini, 'lgnation where commercial
development will be allowed, which may b.,. ',' .,r~ consistent with the SMA than the
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. The St~'Guideline '\./pAC 173-26-241 (3)(d) state
that local Master Programs should prohibit riofl~9ter Flied commercial uses on the
shoreline (SMA shoreline jurisdiction) unless thE9~ ." ,".,'"...... ertain criteria, including
restricted navigability at the site, they are part of ~i~d-useproject with water-
dependent and public benefit functions, and/or provio'~'!r!.blic access and ecological
restoration. In addition (3)(d) states, "Master programs~~,Jl(" a a:ssure that commercial
development will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecolo"fJ,~ functions 'or have
significant impact to, 001, 'f1~7i"'8h.,o" Ii, eline uses, resources, or values provided for in the SMA
policy (RGW 90.58,,~a)jst:li1'as navigation, recreation, and public access."
Policies SMPP14~>. . garding.~ mercial development and aspects of development
on shorelines and,CJ.}tl~tic res" '~'-.
34.These should be re~~d ,gt7f;le€tiJ@qMlte~nts of WAC 173-26-241 (3)(d); state and
local requirements for"': anage~nt-.practices to protect water quality from
stor.mwater run.off; and a~.IR.P~ent regulation~ to protect shoreline resources and
avoid adverse Impacts to s~~es and aquatic resources. '
SMPPG4 Regional and sUbregioh~ utility facilities, including communications,
(radio, TV, and telephone), energy distribution(petroleum products, natural
gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers should be
allowed in shoreline areas. Design, location, construction, and maintenance
of utility facilities should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse
effects to shoreline ecological functions. .
35. While it is often necessary for these to be located within shoreline jurisdiction, this policy
appears to encourage them without indicating the need for regulations to protect the
shorelines. This policy should indicate that when these utilities must be located within
shoreline jurisdiction, they must follow all local, state, and federal laws that apply to
them - and the Federal Way SMP should have development regulations that will apply
to utilities for each shoreline designation.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 12
SMPP26 New utility facilities should be located so as to neither require extensive
shoreline protection nor to restrict water flow, circulation, or navigation.
36. This policy is not clear and should be reworded, perhaps as, "New utility facilities shall
not be located within shoreline jurisdiction unless there is no alt rnative; or in
geologically unstable areas where shoreline armoring would eeded to protect them;
or where they would restrict water flow, circulation or navi .
SMPP29 New freestanding personal wireless service..r:~~ It:s' ~', ,..,',' e discouraged from
. locating within the shoreline environment. V, '
37. How are they discouraged and in which shoreline environments? 'f~,.City should
develop a policy on this use since demand is high. They might be ac~~~ablle in some
shoreline areas but not others. ' ~ '
SMPP 40 Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or resid ncyof
aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review of
proposed shoreline protection act~t~
38. This language should be Change~~~tention. which appears to be to
consider shoreline ecosystem comp@J'l~nts whf'!Il re'ltiewing shoreline stabilization
projects because the project might in~~ere '.' atl.tF~oreline processes.
Connecting the Shoreline Inventory anat:~}.fi;l. cteriza1ib~?o the permit review process is
essential to achieve "no net loss of ecold~I.~1 functions" like the organisms described in
SMPP 40 above. Change the term "shore~iinfiit protection activities" to "shoreline
stabilization" if hardening, armoring, or erd~ control methods are really meant here.
SMPP 41 l1~~~e protection activities should be discouraged in areas where they
would. ' ffe~~J?luffS' processes important for maintaining beaches.
39. . f this Goal 'S~~ction has been appropriately changed from shoreline "protection"
t ~~o.',..r.,e"line "stabiliza~~R'" and ~o ~hould this reference to shorelin.e, protection b~.
chaFl,g~d to reflect the\SMP GUidelines, WAC 173-26-231 (3) ProvIsions for speCIfic
shoreli~'~',O",.dificationS~,(a\"ShOreline stabilization". Using the term "shoreline
protectioAZI., misleadin~ .npw because the shorelines themselves are the focus of
protection und~he :!)~J:}(, Chapter 90.58 RCW and SMP Guidelines, Chapter 173-26
WAC. Wher~Iil~. s~~~es that term it is c1earthe residence is being protected, not the
shoreline, as in~~ 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii) regarding development exempt from shoreline
permit requirements, "Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single
family residences".
SMPG6 Piers and moorages should be allowed when associated with residential,
recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and construction of any
pier or moorage should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on
shoreline ecological functions.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 13
SMPP43 . Conflicts between piers and recreational uses;
40. Change this language from "Piers should be discouraqed where conflicts with
recreational boaters and other recreational water activities would be created by pier
construction" to "Piers will be rohibited or ermitted as a con .. nal use where
conflicts with recreational boaters would occur......." beca".F9.' sounds like a potential
safety issue. " / .
SMPP44 The random proliferation of single purpos ' s :~ be discouraged.
Preference should be given to shared use of piers in all shoreH~'Meas
41. The term "single purpose pier" is not clear. This should be revised t~)~'"",I,.e.c"t the
requirement of the SMP Guidelirles regarding residential piers and do~k;L" WAC
173-26-231 (3)(b) "Where new piers and docks are allowed, master progr~tS should
contairi provisions to require new residential development of two or more Clw~lIings to
provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow
individual docks for each residence."
SMPG7 Increase public access to shoreline areas provided that private rights,
public safety, and the natural shoreline character are not adversely affected.
42. Include language fro is u'M" ' RCW 90.58.020 or SMP Guidelines to convey the fact
th~ public alread",,:',Y, , .,:yan Infe~E1t in the shorelines of the state even though much is
pnvately. owned~r
WAC173-26-221 (4 )~~IiC ac !'Wl\Les the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and
enJoy th.e water's e~ge, te"t~:V~ he-w~~ 0 . ~ s~ate, a~d to view the water a~d the shoreline
from adjacent locations Publ~ a.~",cessprOVISlonS-(wthIS section) apply to all shorelmes of the state
, unless stated otherwise." Als0,
WAC 173-26-221 (4 )(b )(irprom~'1<~hance the public interest with regard to rights to access
waters held in public trust by the stat~~lle protecting private property rights and public safety,"
(b)(ii) "Protect the rights of navigation and space necessary for water dependent uses," (b)(iii) to the
greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people
generally, protect the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of shorelines
of the state, including views of the water.
SMPP49 Development of public access should respect and protect the enjoyment of
private rights' on shoreline property.
43. The meaning of this policy is not clear. Does it mean that members of the public or
private property owners should be able to enjoy their private (individual) rights when
they are on shorelines of the state, or public or private shorelines?
March 21, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 14
SMPG9 Recreational experiences that depend on, or utilize, the shoreline, including
harvesting activities of fish, shellfish, fowl, minerals, and driftwood, various forms of
boating, swimming, and shoreline pathways; and watching or recording activities;
such as photography, painting, or viewing of water dependent activities, shall be
encouraged within parks and other public access areas, given that they avoid to the
greatest extent possible adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions.
44. "Harvesting activities" for fish, shellfish, fowl, minerals, and driftwood can have adverse
impacts on the shoreline ecosystems in which they' exist, which is why some are
managed through permits, like fishing and hunti!1~riftwood cali be an important part
of beaches' aquatic ecosystems for stabilizatio~pa habitat, so its removal should be
restricted either by education so people W~",j,~.,',m,,/.jI{,,'h hleir drift,W"OOd collecting, posting the
Washington Dept. of Natural Resources r'~,.""n"""s f,or"r,~,c~!, cting driftwood,
Policies SMPP61-66 Policies to carry out Goal'SIVJ;R@~ve
45. These policies should be linked to achieving IIno~~~$ of ecological functions" by
considering resources and ecological functions identi~~.,tnh".,.e Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization for each shoreline area and environmen,q~ignation, and the
detrimental effects som roposed recreational activities cOl:1ltJ have on them.
~i~f[~~~~~I~~~il~~i~~~E1[~~~~~~~~:~fj~;~~
Natural EnVironment.~~~lan.
SMPP68 Develop standarc:l's~l?uffers, and mitigation requirements for designated
critical areas in the shoreli~~'q~istent with citywide regulations unless more
protective. measures ~r~ requir~tp prot~ct shoreline ecological ~unctions.
46. Regarding SMP PoliCies 67 and 68 - While CAO and SMP regulations need to be
consistent with each other and the plans they implement (comprehensive plan and
shoreline master program) the local CAO/Comp Plan regulations for critical areas within
SMA shoreline jurisdiction will now become part of the SMP shoreline requlations and
be implemented as part of the SMP by both the City and Dept. of Ecology. They will be
revised, when necessary, through the SMP amendment process described in the SMP
Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC). Since the City is completing their comprehensive
SMP amendment, this is the time and process by which to integrate the CAO
regulations into the SMP.
47.ln addition to being consistent with the CAO and Comp Plan, the new regulations must
be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and its provisions for permitting and
enforcement - Chapter 173-27 WAC, and the SMP Guidelines - WAC 173-26.
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 15
The shoreline regulations must establish standards and regulations for allowed uses in
shoreline segments that support the purpose for the shoreline's environment designation. .
The criteria the City used to determine the shoreline environment esignations included
analysis of findings from Shoreline Inventory and Characterizati is provided
information on ecological functions, processes and shoreline t that must be
considered when development is proposed. The complete .j~opment shall result in no
net loss of those resources from the shoreline in which t " ' et~~~ent will occur. The
~~:n~~~li~~~to contain mitigation measures that will beaj>plied t~ate for some .
SMPP69 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shorel~\as should
be designed, constructed, and operated as to not cause si~mificant adve,l!~e impacts
to ground or surface water quality. ' v
48. Revise to say "and operated to avoid siqnificant adverse impacts to ground or surface
water quality". This is an approp.mit:~lace to affirm that the City will use Ecology's
, Storm water Manual's Best ManctQ~~'".",. ',~.~r'l,i, ra"",c., t,ice" s fo r all development to protect water
quality from runoff. Existing measu'r~, for"I~~l2act development (LID) might be
required in areas where shoreline e6~..y'stem~~1:I.nctioning well or where they are
barely functioning. Less runoff from d~ 10 ns~~or either situation, as is
established vegetation along the shore11i een d~elopment and the water. That
underscores the need for a detailed Ve ~t~il ion Conservation section with Goals,
Polices, standards and development regu ' ns.
SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and an-renewable natural resources and
assure cQ,I1l~!~~'ij,(:>n of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and
future~ra(iOfl~ the public interest. '
49.1:, 'ppears to fre~ffi~ Goal that should include policy language regarding "Shoreline
'i fl 'ation conserv,,)~on", required by the SM.P. Guidelines, WAC17~~26-221 (5)-
WA.€ 3-26-221 Gen < master ro ram rovlslons state, "The proVIsions of thiS
sectio ~~II be applie IthEir generally to all shoreline areas or to shoreline areas that
meet th~li,eead crit, jOf the provision without regard to environment designation.
SMPPolicies ~~., .. ended to carry out SMPGoaI11, and they would benefit from
language requiring pr~lrvation of existing vegetation during development to protect the
shorelines. In addition, SMPGoals 12, 13, 14, and 15 and the policies to implement them,
SMPPolicies 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91,92, address protecting
shoreline ecosystems from impacts of development; restoring and enhancing shoreline
habitat, functions, and processes; addressing impaired shorelines; and voluntarily restoring
shorelines on private property. '
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 16
50.AII of these Goals and policies indicate the need or refer to the issue of vegetation
conservation, but stop short of establishinq requirements to actually do it. This should
be done.
SMPP69 All new development and activity in or adjacent to ~eline areas should
~: :r~~~~e:; :~~:~~~:~/qn~a~~~rated as to not cau,s ~""e"", ~r.:r,'I,.'c",ant adverse impacts
SMPP71 All renewable natural resources should be ~~~~,~~hat use or
~':;:~~P::;o~~~: ~~~::~:~~~h:h:a~:;;~:a~~".",i"o"".,,~~~ ~:~~;:Lc\v,n" e. planning.
a. All future shoreline developme"n""", ,..... ~d be Plann:;d~~,n", ed, and
sited to minimize adverse imp~ ~pon the natural shOre~~f1.
, environment and ecological ~~~.ons. ..,'.
SMPP73 Scenic and aesthetic qualities and e~.,;.. ic ctions of shore:ne should
be recognized and preserved as valuable res_our~~;./~
a. When appropriate natural flora and f~~fl;... should be preserved.
b. In shoreline areas, the natural topograp~-J1. ould not be substantially
altered., ~
c. Shoreline structures should be sited and des'g. ed to minimize view
obstructio" tI.,',.,,'~~"',u u!blic properties and shoul be visually compatible
with the,~reli,~i.~aracter. ,
d. :~d~.i;, d. d aqult';~ jabitats, including spawning grounds, should be
SMPP74 Resourc~ )~).ould b c!,Ar;l,CM)ed to enhance the environment with minimal
adverse effect. ' ,". '''~
a. Shoreline, .rl.~..~ er and ove"""Y-ster activities and development should
be planned, cQl)~tructed, and operated to minimize adverse effects on
the natural proc~~~s of the shoreline, and should maintain or enhance
the quality of air sq,i1~natural vegetation, and water on the shoreline.
Use or activity which substantianYdegrades the natural resources or ecological
functions of the shoreline should not be allowed without
b. mitigation as required under the Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC)
Chapter 18, Environmental Protection.
SMPP75 Critical saltwater and freshwater habitats (critical habitats) support valuable
recreational and commercial fisheries and should be protected for their importance
to the aquatic ecosystem as well as state and local economies.
Where uses, activities, structures and landfills must locate in critical habitats,
impacts to these areas should be lessened to the maximum extent possible.
Significant unavoidable impacts should be mitigated by creating in-kind replacement
habitat near the project where feasible. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not
feasible, rehabilitation of
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 17
b. out-of-kind or offsite degraded habitat should be required. Mitigation
proposals should be developed in consultation with the City, State
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any affected Indian Nations.
c. Development that is outside critical habitats that has the potential to
significantly affect said habitats should be located and designed as to
not create significant negative impacts to said habitats.
d. Wherever feasible, bioengineering should be used as the bank
protection technique for all streams considered to have critical habitat.
e. through k. - regarding effects of deve pment on shoreline resources.
SMPGoals 11,12,13,14, and 15 address pro 9 shoreline ecosystems from
impacts of development; restoring and en~:\,""'"",.. ' g shoreline habitats, functions, and
processes; assessing shoreline impairmen}~V~ degra n; and promoting
voluntary shoreline restoration projects on p ~~t.e p y.
SMPPolicies 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79)~8,);) ;:i,.,., ,83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91,92,
implement the above Goals.
51. These Goals and Poli.cies must be linked to the Sho ~"'...' ,Inventory and
Characterization and shoreline regulations so the SMP\;~~!..be implemented to result in
'no n.et lo~s of shor~line ecological functions. The lin~s fr~ncept t~ action seem
lackmg with no partlcu#[~~.~erence to the SMA polley "to protect agamst adverse
effects to the. publi~~lt~~land and its vege.tation and wil~lif~, and the water~ of the
state and their a9'~~1C life". Ttil~~\ may be essential to accomplishing these shoreline
management.f and thos~the Re. s,toration Plan.
Shoreline Environ~ 1-c;J. ;,oU.cies document)
Purpose
52. The terrT:l"Purpose" here Is C, IJfusing since the "Purpose statement" is an SMP
Guidelines requirement for ~~~s.horeline environment designation. Remove it and
begin this section with this or simi~r text:
Shoreline Environments
"Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development
settings along shoreline segments. Effective shoreline management requires that the Federal Way
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) assign different sets of environmental protection measures,
allowable uses, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments. The method for
local governments to account for different shoreline conditions is to assign an environment
designation to each distinct shoreline section in its jurisdiction. The environment designation
assignments provide the framework to implement shoreline goals, policies and regulatory measures
specific to the environment designation." (WAC 173-26-191 Master Program Contents (1)(d)
Shoreline environment designations)
March 21 , 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 18
This will hopefully convey the concept and remind future users of the Federal Way SMP
how the shoreline environment designation process is used to carry out the Goals and
Policies of the SMP/comprehensive plan. I
Page 16, "Purpose" last paragraph, "Each environment desi~tion category
includes (1) a purpose statement which clarifies the mea ..u~.., nd intent of the
designation; (2) criter,ia to be used as a basis for classi "~~,"" specific shoreline area
with that environmental designation; and (3) Detaile .,. .: . ' anagement policies
designed to guide management decisions and ass is :\I- interp~tt,.i i"o,o.n of environment
designation regulations consistent with the character of the envi~I!)"n:i' ent". '
53. Some changes are s~ggested to t~e ~~ove statement because "cafu9;Q.t>.'.',appears to be
another layer of requirements (which It IS not) and the management pOl~~s,must be
"detailed" instead of "general" according to WAC 173-26-211(4 )(a) "->
Page 16 Draft Goals and Policies - Shoreline Environments '
54. This section quotes parts of the ~~'~",~uidelines, WAC 173-26-211 language that local
governme~ts must u~e to deSign~~~n~-eQ.ulat~ the vari~us .shoreline environm~~ts.
, However, It does not Include the Cl,.1i,{s"~,,,' 0 ~nQ~"c"es"""..f,or criteria, management poliCies or
development regulations that will be~pl,ied" t t'9i" Q~ftif:lJ!a",rr s sEegments of the Federal Way,
Shorelines. How and where are thes~/i,n.ked40 ttfe~oats..and Policies in the draft SMP?
Page 16, Shoreline Residential
Purpose, last paragraph, first sentence,".... ctures that are consistent with this
chapter."
55. Substitute "consistent with the SMP Guidelin~ - WAC 173-26-211 (5)(f); the SMP'
, GUid.eeJi :~~,.. "r~..,.aa,,!Pter 173-26 WAC to clarify what "chapter" you are referring to.
~~ to refer to a chapter of the Federal Way SMP.
cri~erbatim lan~e from the SMP Guidelines, WAC 173-26-211 (5)(f)(iii) for
Shorelill~ ~esidential ~~V\onment Designation criteria.
56. The~~fite, r"ia should 1:)' ,l"iTsted and used to determine what kind of shoreline areas will
be deSigfl,ate~s "ShoriY1e Residential". Even if they are used exactly the way they are
written, th~lll s, h"O,.,U"",. akeownership of them by removing the third person directions
and listing th~6'e covered. .
Page 17 Management Policies
2. "Standards should be developed and implemented for setbacks or buffers, lot
coverage limitations, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area
protection and water quality. These standards should be employed in residential
designs so that new development would not degrade shoreline ecological functions
or aesthetic values, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity
March 21,2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 19
of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other
comprehensive planning considerations."
57. The manaqement policies for each shoreline designation are the last step before
development reaulations are established, but the above language does not convey a
strong enough intention to do that. I suggest substitute language more closely reflecting
the intent of the SMP Guidelines, WA.C 173-26-211 (5)(f)(ii); .., Standards shall should
be developed and implemented for setbacks or buffers, lot coverage limitations,
shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, cr" }ical area protection and water quality
to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological fun , taking into account the
environmental limitations and sensitivity of th ,. ,eline area, the level of infrastructure
and services available, and other compreh e planning considerations."
58. Some substitutions to make the statement ~0~ on with the SMP Guidelines
are: "These standards shall should be emPloy~d.f:J r ential designs so tRat-new
. development will would not degrade shoreline e,~nclions or aesthetic values".
4. All residential development should occur in a manne'~Q~sistent with the policies
listed under Goal SMPG2 of the shoreline use element. V
59. Goal SMPG2 and its " have already been noted as needing more details
, regarding where re i'a~~elopment should be continued and encouraged, and
what regulations a be neecL d to achieve "no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions" fro~~opment.l ). .
60.Make sure the ~h~);.e~~~a",~the,comprehensive 'plan Land Use
Element are not remo f m the SMPza~eause they are essential for a complete SMP
(RCW 90.58.030(3)(b).
Page 17 - Shoreline Residenti '\
61. The SMP Guidelines - WAC 173",/6-211 (4) includes the General Environment
Designation provisions: (i) Purpose (ii) Classification criteria (iii) Manaqement policies,
and (iv) Environment-specific requlations
The Shoreline regulations to carry out each Shoreline Environment's Purposes and
Management policies are not included here to address these:
(A) Types of shoreline uses permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited;
(B) Building or structure height and bulk limits, setbacks, maximum density or
minimum frontage requirements, and site development standards;
(C) Other topics not covered in general use regulations that are necessary to
assure implementation of the purpose of the environment designation."
How will uses and regulations for the Shoreline Environments be linked to the "Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization" so impacts from proposed development can be assessed?
March 21. 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 19
, ,
4.1 ARTICLE III SHORELINE MANA,GEMENT - DRAFT REGULA TIONS
Page 2 of 46 18-163 Additional definitions
52.Add Chapter 173-27 WAC to list of laws and codes because it defines terms used to
carry out SMA (RCW90.58) objectives for shoreline permitting and enforcement.
53. Include a few additional words from WAC 173-27-030(1) for "Act" - the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended.
This clarifies that the SMA continues to apply eV~~hen amended.
54. Add "r" in stream - ~ritical saltwater and f!:es"",..',.,',..",.,..",.',erhta,.,b,.,,i,tats. (5.) Pocket estuaries '
including stream mouths.... "
55. Include definitions of shoreline ma, nageme. nt-,~ GJ,iff,iiCC l~ ',' from the SMA (RCW
90.58.030 or WAC 173-27-030, "Definitions" s€6~~i the Federal Way SMP so
present and future city staff will understand what ro~ ,overnments and Ecology must
use to implement the SMP. I listed some here. but tti~~ay be others.
Averaqe qrade level means the average of the natural or exIstJ.. 'toPOgraPhY of the portion
of the lot, parcel. or tract2frF"~hRroperty which will be directly under the proposed building
or s.tructure; In the ca".~"s"" ~e~rtl~":",e,,,s to be built over the water, average grade level shall
be the elevation of t@,..rtJinarylii9t:.,...,watermark(OHWM).Calculationof the average grade
level shall be ma~,." a.,.,veraging iit",ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior walls
of the proposed bUlldJI'l~ or stru \ '. '
(Include this definitionY{f!!J ..".,. ..~ 1~~8:f).';3J so Ecology and the City are consistent
when reviewing or enforce~ ~. . ~horeline pel(lJifs and as-built co~ditions. Even if t~e City
has "averaqe qrade level" eJef!.rutjons and measurement methods In other codes, thIs one
applies within SMAshorelinefwf~tiOn).. .
Fair market value of development i~e open market bid-price for conducting the work, .
using the equipment and facilities. and purchase of the goods, services, and materials
necessary to accomplish the development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring
a contractor to undertake the development from start to finish, including the cost of labor.
materials. equipment and facility use, transportation and contractor overhead and profit.
The fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor. equipment or materials.
(This definition is the value applied to developmentto determine whether it needs an SOP
or is exempt from those permit requirements).
March 22, 20.0.7
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 20.
Heiqht in the shoreline is measured from "average grade level" to the highest point of a
structure, and television antennas,chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used
in calculating height, except where they obstruct the view of the shoreline of a substantial
number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines, or the a"""R,.,..,p. licable SMP requires
that such appurtenances be included. Temporary construction eQtfi~ ent is excluded in
this calculation.
Natural or existinq topoqraphv means the topography ofJ,.", ,gi~~I, or tract of real
property immediately prior to any site preparation or graa1tt , inclu i~C,,' avating or filling;
Development means a use consisting of the construction or exterior altef:~Qn of structures;
dr~~ging; d.r~lIing; du~ping; filling; r.emoval of any ~and, gravel, or minera~)",~~kheading;
dnvlng of pIling; plaCing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temp~ary nature
which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands
subject to the SMA (RCW 90..58) at any state of water level.
Department of Ecoloqy and the partnership e '!!E!lplished by the SMA (RCW 90..58.0.50.)
between local governments and the state (DeJi~~$!~ Ecology) to manage the state's
shorelines should be included somewhere ne~r';pe beginning of the SMP or in the
definitionJ~~"", ased RCW 90..58.0.50. here as suggested language:
. ."'~
liThe established"a c .~.erative program of shoreline management between local government
and ... s,,~tate ,with local ~'~e),,',.',.n,ments having the primary responsibility to initiate planning for their
Shorell~. aster Program ('N.' ,., :..\.) and administer its regulations consistent with SMA policy (RCW
90.58.020}~:d its provisions.!2~imarily Chapters 173-26 and 27 WAC. The Dept. of Ecology has a
supportive r01~ tG. provide, loc: :J"g\overnments with planning and technical assistance; review and
approve SMP~a~" in.sure., G,.,lfflilPliance with the SMA and related WAC sections when the SMP is
implemented ~~d"'~/
Hearinqs Board meal'l~e shoreline hearings board established by the SMA.
Substantial Development means an
value exceeds five thousand dollars (
interferes with the normal public use of
threshold must b~ adjusted for inflation b
five years."
Geographical terms from the SMA- RCW 90..58.0.30. (2) may be important to include for
consistency with the SMA and related WAC sections when the SMP is implemented by the
City and Ecology. Some may already be in the Federal Way SMP:
Extreme low tide means the lowest line on th~ land reached by a receding tide. (used to
determine SMA shoreline jurisdiction on Puget Sound).
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 21
Floodway (paraphrased)- that part of a river valley lying streamward from the outer limits of
a water course where flood waters are carried during regular flood events, as determined .
by soil and vegetation conditions. It does not include land expected to be protected by flood
control measures maintained directly or under contract by federal or state governments.
Wetlands (paraphrased) - areas inundated orsaturated by surface or ground water often
and long enough to predominantly support vegetation adapted to live in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas, but not
artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetlajl;Q sites like irrigation and drainage
ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, stormwater de ~C>h ponds, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, landscape features, or wet ' unintentionally created after
7/1/1990 from construction of a road, street or ay. Wetlands may include artificial
wetlands created at non-wetland sites to miti oss of na ~~, wetlands.
Shoreline Variance - is a means to grant relief from~> .,,~"...".'" cif ic bulk, dimensional or
performance standards in the local SMP, but not a me~to vary a "use" of a shoreline.
66. The City should include definitions from the SMP GUidef.itlt~,., WAC 173-26-020,
Definitions, to enhance understanding of concepts used wi hr e SMP for shoreline
management to ins.ur~~~f1et los~" of ec?logical functio~s .om shoreline development.
So~~. terms aritsc ~jffc-or;.tE~'6:fnlCal while others descnbe Im~ort~nt conce?ts and
activities that be,...'~more I rtant because of new SMP GUidelines requIrements.
Drift cell. drift secto. 0,:Uttoral c., "'""R-,C3rticular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift
may occur without Signl~~,." ~~~iCh contains any natural s,ources of such
drift and also accretion f'~~ated by sl1&b~drift. .
Ecoloqical functions or shoreline functions - work performed or role played by the physical,
chemical, and biological procesS'e~t~t contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and
terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. See WAC 173-
26-200(2)(c)
Ecosystem-wide processes - the suite of ,naturally occurring physical and geologic
processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that
shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of
habitat and the associated ecological functions. '
Fill - the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth-retaining structure, or other
material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner
that raises the elevation or creates dry land.
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 22
Flood Plain - synonymous with the one~hundred year flood plain - that land area
susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. The limit of this arec;l shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a
reasonable method which meets the objectives of the act.
Geotechnical report or qeotechnical analysis - a scientific study or evaluation conducted by
a qualified expert that includes a desc~iption of the ground and surface hydrology and
geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other
geologic hazards or proGesses, conclusions and rec~endations regarding the effect of
the proposed development on geologic conditions,,~(jequacy of the site to be
developed, the impacts of the proposed develop , alternative approaches to the
propos~d development, .and. measures to miti f,:,'.',',.~,:,,',",' otential S""it,e, -, specific a~d cumulative
geological and hydrological Impacts of the pr '€)$ed deveICJl1'1~nt. These Include the
potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-I,,')'fi8nt 9~Qerties. Geotechnical reports
shall conform to accepted technical standards and,Ystfb~repared by qualified
professional engineers or geologists who have profes ~~xpertise about the regional
and local shoreline geology and processes. . ~ ~
Priority habitat - a habitat type with unique or significant value~one or more species. An
area classified and mapp" d~Qriority habitat must have one or more of the following
attributes: ~\
. Comparative I~ fish or\wildlife density .
· Comparati :~9h fis20rAwi 81ife species diversity
. Fish spawnin~\habitat "
· Important wildlif~~bj < . ....
· I ,an!!lM..Qr wllQH~,: ,seasonalrange7
&tan! '"" eo.wild~~"~,o"",v"".""e""..,,ment corridor
.'>, aring and fora ~ h~,~~
~... <~ortant marine mal A€!.', -out
· Re~'i9 habitat
· ,Limlt~~~yailability
· High ~<liIil~J;8bility , bitat alteration
· Unique ~~),.e, ,(species
· Shellfish beef
, '
Provisions - means policies, regulations, standards, guideline criteria, or environmental
designations
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 23
Priority species - Species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to
ensure their persistence at genetically viable population (replacement) levels. They need to
meet criteria as
. Native fish or wildlife species that are State-listed (legally d~ignated as
endangered, threatened or sensitive) or proposed (Possi~)ting as endangered,
. ~~~:~~;~~'aO;g~:~~~ii~~~;. which include species or",."" 9, f,f,?~,."ff"" sa", nimals susceptible to
significant population declines, within a specific a(~Jf St~'wide, by virtue of their
inclination to congregate. Examples include heron'eOlon.ieS~~~~~'\~ird concentrations
and marine mammal congregations. ' ,.. '
. Species of recreational, commercial, arid/or tribal importance
. Federally listed on the Endangered Species List as proposed, threa oen"d, or
endangered. "0
Restore, restoration, or ecoloqicaLrestoration - means the re-establishment or
upgrading of impaired ecologica~rOcesses or functions. Measures may include
revegetation, removal of intrusive,FibFe!!~structures, toxic materials, or treatment of
toxic materials. It does not require refurnmf:J~~ oreline to aboriginal or pre-European
settlement standards. \\
Shoreline jurisdiction - all shorelines oi\~ ~ elands (RGW90.58.030)
Shoreline modifications - generally actions\ti'{3t modify the physical configuration or
qualities of the shoreline, such as dikes, bre~~aters, piers, weirs, dredged basins, fill,
bulkheads or other structures. It can include 'Blearing, grading, or chemical applications.
Siq'1;IC' nt Veqetatl,'n removal- means the removal or alteration of trees, shrubs,
~l€>f groundcover~~learing, topping, grading, cutting, burning, chemical means, or
ot'~~'r0c;lc"t"ivitY that c,ili~,~"",., significant impacts to ecological functions provided by such
vegetClU~Jn. Does not in~ll.lde removal of invasive or noxious weeds or tree pruning.
SUbS~ . .~e rade bans to cause significant negative ecological impact.
Water quality -~J,/ physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction,
including water q\!.gu'ltity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related,
and biological characteristics. Water "quantity" for purposes of the SMP Guidelines
(WAC 173-26) does not mean the withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface
water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250-340: .
Page 2 of 46 Division 1. Generally
67.18-162 Jurisdiction. (a.) Add..."and 'shorelands' in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)." after (2)(e).
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
, Page 24
68. This sentence should be revised because it seems like the term "shoreline means
"ordinary high water mark" (OHWM) at least the second time it is used-or maybe both.
, "The approximate location of these shorelines shall be designated on maps maintained
by the department of community development; however, the property owner or applicant
shall be responsible for determining the exact location of the shoreline when a permit is
filed. "
If the permit applicant has the responsibility to find the OHWM for his/her property,
Ecology should be contacted to delineate that lan<U~ater interface in the shoreline
because it is Ecology's authority and responsibi ~~t, do so under the SMA - RCW
90.58.030(2)(f). ..
69. Page 8 of 46, 4th line, activities is miss
18-164 General Development Standards
Page 9 of 46
(b) Vegetation conservation
70. This should link the need and/or goal to preserve vegetatlo I shoreline jurisdiction with
an established set of ',@~nal, qualitative, and/or quantitative standards that apply
to any or all of the 'n~~ronments. The language of this development standard
sounds more lik > oal" ~h~j":~yegulation, and might be more appropriate for
SMPGoal11 i~, als and PoH~.es". Here it should describe standards and regulations
for establishing aQ~""/ aintai ~ion in shoreline jurisdiction. It should convey
information about l~ W~"h"'\"aJ-veg:et~~!Q~JJjhe shoreline and the importance of leaving
an undisturbed swath~exjsting ve~tatio,~ whether native or not - along the
shoreline. Existing, undfSI:J)~ed vegetation is beneficial to shoreline habitat and
functions because it slows Il<;iter and filters sediment in runoff from construction or land
use activities. It also provides~ge and other habitat components for both terrestrial
and aquatic organisms. Determ 1'1"8 vegetation conservation measures generally and/or
specifically for shoreline designations according to WAC 173~26-221 (5).
(c) Water quality/stormwater
71. A reference to FWCC Chapter 21 for Surface and Stormwater Management does not
provide enough information to assure Ecology that proposed shoreline development will
not result in a net loss of shoreline functions - unless it is attached to the SMP as an
Appendix for easy reference. Runoff from construction activities and established
development contributes to degradation of shoreline ecology generally, so it will be an
important factor to assess and address through the permit review process.
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 25
(c ) Critical areas ["c" is repeated here].
The SMP Checklist (2/13/2007) notes that Critical Areas Ordinance regulations for
critical areas within SMA shoreline jurisdiction will be integrated into the SMPfor
the final submittal.
72. Hopefully that integration is underway because Ecology must see how the SMP is
organized and how easy it is to implement. That is important because every applicant
and every segment of the shoreline should have ,.. b~benefit of complete and consistent
information. This integration will comply with S <~~/RCW 90.58.030 Findin - Intent -
2003 ~ 321 (3) The legislature intends that c" ",fA, .~'" 'areas within the jurisdiction of the
shorelme management act (SMA) shall be .9." rned by the SMA, and that cnt/cal areas
outside the jurisdiction of the SMA shall be ~tf,rs:.ned b_Growth Management Act
(GMA). The legislature further intends that t~~f113l1it /'1 formation currently required
by the SMA to be applied to the protection of cntt:zCl,: as within shorelines of the state
shall not be limited or changed by provisions of th~l'(i~
73. City codes or regulations referenced in the 8MP that a~~ all areas of the City.
including shoreline jurisdiction, can be included or attache~~s Appendices and noted
as being informational only. These might include design standards for subdivisions,
parking, trails, or outdoor lighting, etc. They do not need to go through the SMP
amendment process to be changed, although circumstances might arise where
proposed changes conflict with the SMA or the Federal Way SMP. In such cases,
resolution would need to be made consistent with requirements for compatibility
between lans and regulations.
PAGE critiCa~~as
74. ~.,<t.,ection has int~~)a,ted very important critical area information and draft regulations,
inBt4f1:i"",g., those for crm.~".",,~,,1 salmonid habitat. Others, including Geoloqically Hazardous
area:s.~ .,sociated Stre'8rrls and Wetlands (part of shoreline jurisdiction because they are
associat~~.",i i1~,h ~ d~Si", ,.""ed shoreline);. and .Fre.quentIY floode? or ~Iood ~azard areas
only hav~tl;)~\ cltatlo'ls ~9 current locations In city documents In thiS section, but
Ecology as~~~:? tl],~I"IJ6rmation and regulations for them will be included in a format
similar to "Critlcal1fmmbnid habitat".
We assume thatlSv~at the SMP Checklist notation from the City means where it says
"Language from the city's critical areas code will be added to the SMP regulations per
Ecology recommendation."
On March 19,2007, the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (Pam Erstad) provided the
City and Ecology with comments on the draft SMP Regulations, which Ecology supports.
All parties participating in comprehensively updating the state's SMPs wonder how to get
from "Here" to "There" - allowing uses described in the SMA while protecting and/or
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 26
restoring the state's shoreline ecological functions. Information and education to enhance
understanding of shoreline ecology and processes; potential impacts from land use
activities; and measures to help avoid or reduce negative impacts to shorelines (both land
and water portions) are increasingly important to achieve the prim goal of "no net loss of
shoreline ecological functio'ns".
75. Page 1 of 13 - WDFW letter. First comment recomm~nl!J ,',' r organization of some
part~ o~ the. SMP, which was not~d by the City in the~~~h.~~~list and by Ec?logy
earlier In th,lS comment letter. This should be done a8'l1le cntlca\.~e~s regulations and
"provisions" for each shoreline environment are integrated into th~.
76. Page 2 - WDFW letter - Recommendation to require a "shoreline criti~as report"
prepared by a qualified ,professional that would cover eight (8) items and'be,t/;le
responsibility of the applicant. Perhaps this could be included as a require~nt for a
shoreline permit orshoreline permit exemption the way a geotechnical report is
required for a project in a "Geol ~JJy hazardous area".
This requirement, for which the ap nt~ ,'" ,l~~ responsible, would have to be
satisfied before shoreline permits or mit clc~ttli~ti@ns would be issued for projects
with potential impacts to shorelines. . prq~'S'cQ.1.I~€}9tablish an important link
between the Shoreline Inventory & Ch ,~. ation ~cl4.ifuplementing the SMP to avoid
loss of shoreline ecological functions.
77. Page 2 - WDFW letter - The 2nd part of th,i~ment is to require a (thirteen-point)
mitigation and monitoring program if the initi~report indicates likely significant impacts
from"'-0,,~\ed development to fish and/or wildlife, their habitat, or shoreline
ecOlaTlufTet~~r processes. As follow-up to a "pro-active" assessment of'. '
,,~, lal impacts k~~evelopment, this would establish a method and process for
~0~an"Od""'O",wner:Ss'~p."".""".\..,.."o",,,,JJ,',ect proponents responsible for protecting the shoreline they
us~ I \
78. Ecology sUR~rts the>YfW suggestions regarding bulkheads and priorities for non-
structural ~h.~e, U,'"""innEe.",S,IUzation methods when and whe,rever possible. There should
also be empha$i~1 a on the need/requirement to locate structures as far landward
from the OHWM~~)1ecessary to preclude the need for immediate or future shoreline
armoring to proted residences. .
79. Page 3 ~ WDFW letter - Ecology suggested adding more scientific, technical, and
environmental terms to reflect objectives of the SMP Guidelines, and support adding
those recommended by WDFW since they promote better understanding of the
shoreline resource we all manage together. '
March 22, 2007
Ecology comments on draft SMP
Page 27
80. WDFW Letter - Ecology agrees that residential use in the Natural Shoreline
Environment should be avoided and the land acquired for public use if possible.
81. WDFW letter - Ecology also supports the suggestion, to include low impact development
designs and more conservative standards for tree removal and clearing in the SMP to
avoid significant negative impacts to shoreline ecosystems.
82. WDFW letter provides important information to consider when determining standards
and development regulations for the three chosen shoreline environments regarding
Shoreline stabilization, Marinas, Buoys, Dredging, and Boat launches. This information
would be helpful to include in the SMP for project~sessment, permitting, conditioning
of permits, and monitoring.
Page 12 of 46 18-165 [NEW SECTIOr-.n Sh~i" e modifications
(a) Shoreline protection'. " '
83. The term shoreline "protection" is inconsistentij~.. "., P Guidelines fY'JAC 173.-26-
231) definitions of shoreline modification method~n.EliS confusing because of the
current publicized need to "protect" and restore Puget~~.und and other state shorelines.
Shoreline modification methods may provide "protection" ~~tructures, but the SMP
Guidelines section focuses on "protection" of shoreline p)b~Jses and functions when
they are faced with bUkl")~~,~ rip rap, and other hard armonng methods of shoreline
stabilization that in Jie- 'h~shoreline processes.
Article III Draft R~t ations 18- 4 Urban Conservancy shoreline environment
84. Page 34 of 46 (e~)"oreline.:..~allowed Uses (a) Residential Development
1. Setbacks-50 ft. from~., i"7M,{)f~~r;~ the top of bluffs, whichever IS greater."
These do not seem adeq, r the shoreH~depicted, and 25 ft. from the top of a Puget
Sound bluff seems too small~q~ safe. On steep slopes, the OHWM can be close to the
top of the bluff. It also does not\!ke~"", i,.ree any vegetated buffer between development and the
shoreline, which should be reqUir~
These conclude Ecology's comments for now, although the Cumulative
Impacts Analysis will be reviewed in conjunction with the final shoreline
environment provisions, particularly uses and development regulations. The
public access and shoreline permitting provisions have not been fully
reviewed. Comments are still expected from a few staff who have not
completed their review. Additional comments can be expected to be similar to
these provided, and it is possible some comments provided in this draft may
be removed.
Ecology looks forward to meeting with the City and Consultant to address the
comments and move the process along.