Res 07-500
RESOLUTION NO. rJ7-Sro
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, W ASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTENT
TO ADOPT UPDATES TO THE FEDERAL WAY SHORELINE
MASTER PROGRAM FOLLOWING REQUIRED
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVIEW AND APPROVAL,
WHICH MA YRESUL T IN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS IF
MUTUALLY AGREEO UPON BY CITY COUNCIL AND
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.
WHEREAS, the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 1994 and amended it in 1998; and
WHEREAS, state law requires cities in King County to update their SMP by January 1,2009; and
WHEREAS, the city obtained an 'Early Adopters' grant from Department of Ecology in the amount of $153,000
to update the SMP and the terms of the grant require that City Council act on an updated SMP by June 30,2007; and
WHEREAS, the updated SMP includes a scientific inventory and characterization report, .goals and policies,
shoreline environmental designations, regulations and administrative procedures, a restoration plan and a cumulative
impacts analysis; and
WHEREAS, the; updated SMP is in the best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way because it
provides for the protection of sensitive shoreline areas while allowing appropriate uses and activities in shoreline
areas and includes a plan to restore degraded areas of the shoreline; and
WHEREAS, the updated SMP will apply to all jurisdictional shorelines within City limits and will apply to all
jurisdictional shorelines within the city's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), upon the effective date of annexation of
the P AA or any portion of the P AA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A), on March 31, 2007 a determination of
Nonsignificance was issued by the city's SEPA Official and the appeal period expired on April 28, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the city has incorporated public input into the update process by preparing a Public Participation
Plan, holding a public open house, forming a Citizens Advisory Committee, holding public Planning Commission
meetings, holding a public hearing before the Planning Commission, developing a SMP update web page, providing
notice of meetings by mail and other means and maintaining an SMP mail list; and
WHEREAS, the city incorporated technical feedback on SMP update by forming a Technical Advisory
Committee to review draft products and provide comments and feedback; and
B
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered the updated SMP at their meetings of February 14,2007,
March 28, 2007 and held a public hearing on April 4, 2007, and forwarded a recommendation to approve, with
minor modifications, the updated SMP; and
WHEREAS, following passage of this resolution the updated SMP will be transmitted to the Department of
Ecology for formal review; and
WHEREAS, following Department of Ecology review the city will work cooperatively with Department of
Ecology to agree on a mutually acceptable version of the SMP and upon agreement of such version City Council
shall pass an ordinance adopting the approved SMP; and
Now THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section l. Public Interest. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way are served by
enacting the updated SMP because the 8MP provides for the protection of sensitive shoreline areas while allowing
appropriate uses and activities in shoreline areas and includes a plan to restore degraded areas of the shoreline.
Additionally, the updated SMP addresses Potential Annexation Areas so that residents in these areas have
predictability with regard to future 8MP requirements and policies.
Section 2. Department of Ecology Review/ApprovaL Following passage of this resolution, the updated SMP
will be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) for formal review and approval.
Following WDOE review the city will work cooperatively with the Department to agree on a mutually acceptable
version of the SMP and upon agreement of such version City Council shall pass an ordinance adopting the approved
SMP.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution.
Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority, and prior to the effective date, of the resolution is
hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way
City Council.
5--\-'h.
dayof ~
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, this
2007.
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ~
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ~
RESOLUTION No: 01 -'5' 00
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
~~-rd?~
Mayor, MICh P, r /'
Washington State Department of Ecology
Grant No. G0600 119
Budget Bill ESSB 6090
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
Prepared for:
City of Federal Way
August 2006, Revised June 2007
"'::;':r1i~~~.~~,," .~,1" :~~: ..
:~r.
"(;"""
!''"::,
'P.''t1','.~.JF'n ,.,
~. I'IV
~-<.' !1f~' . ~ . '1' .~_
~ .:..EZ;~~~"
ESf\ L..
....J
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
CONTENTS.
1.0 INTRODUCTION. ........................ ............... ............................................ ........................... 1
1.1 Background and Purpose............ ..................................... .............................................. 1
1.2 Report Organization...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Regulatory Overview.......................... ................................... ..................................... ...2
1.4 Shoreline Planning Areas.............................................................................................. 4
2.0 METHODS.................... .................... ...:...................................... .... .................................. 6
2.1 Data Sources............................. ...................................... ....................... .......................6
2.2 Approach to Characterizing Ecosystem-Wide Processes and Shoreline Functions .....7
2.3 Approach to Inventory and Characterization of Shorelines at the Reach Scale............ 8
3.0 S HORELI N E FU NCTIONS ... .................. ............. ............................. .......... ....... ............... 9
3.1 Watershed Context..................... ........................... ........................................................9
3.2 Biological Resources............................ ....................................................................... 14
3.3 Major Land Uses and Shoreline Uses. .... ............ ........................................................ 16
3.4 Key Processes Related to Shoreline Functions .......................................................... 16
4.0 NEARSHORE/COASTAL PLANNING AREA INVENTORy.......................................... 26
4.1 Physical Features............. .... ............................................... ............. ...........................26
4.2 Biological Resources.... ...................... ......................................................................... 34
4.3 Land Use Patterns....................... ....... ................................ ... ....................... ...............43
5.0 FRESHWATER LAKES PLANNING AREA INVENTORy............................................. 48
5.1 Physical Features................................ .... ............. ....................................................... 48
5.2 Biological Resources....................... ............................................................................ 55
5.3 Land Use Patterns............................ ...... ...~................................................................. 63
6.0 RESTORATION AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS .............................................................70
6.1 Coastal Areas I Nearshore Environment.....................................................................70
6.2 Freshwater Shoreline Lakes............................................................. ...........................73
7 .0 DATA GAPS....... ............................... .................................. .............. ............................. 77
8.0 Conclusions... ........ ........ ............ ... .... ...... .... ................... ..... ..... ...... ... ........ .... ..... ............ 78
8.1 Coastal Puget Sound....................... ....... ...................................... ..............................78
8.2 Freshwater Lakes...................... .... .......... ...... ..............................................................81
REFE RENC ES .......................................... ................................. ..... ........ ................... ............ .... 85
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A - Map Folio
Appendix B - Marine Shoreline Inventory Report for WRIA 9
Appendix C - Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat
Protection and Restoration
June 2007
page 1
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Area ..................................:............................... 5
Table 2. 303(d) Water Quality Exceedances in Federal Way and its PM................................... 14
Table 3. Shoretypes, Modifications and Landslides, and Toe Erosion ......................................... 27
Table 4. Net Shore-drift Direction, Sediment Size, Beach Width.................................................. 27
Table 5. Ecology Slope Stability Map Designations ..................................................................... 32
Table 6. Shellfish Population Densities in Southern WRIA 9........................................................ 39
Table 7. Forage Fish Species .................................................................. ...... ............................... 41
Table 8. Land Use, Zoning, and Shoreline Environments ............................................................44
Table 9. Shoreline Modifications by Lakes ...................................................................................52
Table 10. Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Federal Way. .......57
Table 11. Existing Land Use ................................... ...... .... ....... ....... ............. ...... ........ .......... .... .....64
Table 12. Land Use, Zoning, and Shoreline Designations ...........................................................66
. Table 13. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of freshwater lake
reaches in Federal Way. ..... ....................................... .....'......................... ~........... 70
Table 14. Summary of Shoreline Functions and Programmatic Restoration................................ 73
Table 15. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of marine shoreline
reaches in Federal Way. ........................................................~.............................80
Table 16. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of freshwater lake
reaches in Federal Way. ...................................................................................... 82
page ii
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose
The purpose of this study is to conduct a baseline inventory and characterization of conditions
relevant to the shoreline resources ofthe City of Federal Way (City), Washington. According to
Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6012, passed by the 2003 Washington State Legislature, cities and
counties are required to amend their local shoreline master programs (SMPs) consistent with the
Shoreline Management Act (SMA), Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58 and its
implementing {guidelines, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26. The City is
updating its SMP with the assistance of a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) (Grant Agreement No. G0600119). A first step in the comprehensive update process
is development of a shoreline inventory and characterization. The inventory and characterization
documents current shoreline conditions and provides a basis for updating the City's SMP goals,
policies, and regulations. This characterization will help the City identify existing conditions,
evaluate existing functions and values of its shoreline resources, and explore opportunities for
conservation and restoration of ecological functions. This study characterizes ecosystem-wide
processes and how these processes relate to shoreline functions. Processes and functions are
evaluated at two different scales: a watershed or landscape scale, and a shoreline reach scale. The
purpose of the watershed or landscape scale characterization is to identify ecosystem processes
that shape shoreline conditions and to determine which processes have been altered or impaired.
The intent of the shoreline reach scale inventory and characterization is to: 1) identify how
existing conditions in or near the shoreline have responded to process alterations; and 2)
determine the effects of the alteration on shoreline ecological functions. These findings will help
provide a framework for updates to the City's shoreline management policies and regulations,
which will occur later this year.
This shoreline inventory and characterization report was prepared by ESA Adolfson (Adolfson)
with technical assistance from Enviro Vision Corporation, Coastal Geologic Services, and
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
1.2 Report Organization
The information in this report is divided into seven main sections. The introduction discusses the
purpose of this report and describes the regulatory context for shoreline planning. The second
section describes the methods, approach, and primary data sources used for this inventory and
characterization. The third section provides an overview of ecosystem-wide processes and how
they affect shoreline ecological functions in the City of Federal Way. The fourth section
discusses physical features and biological conditions in or immediately adjacent to the Puget
Sound shoreline in Federal Way. The fifth section addresses these conditions for the freshwater
lakes in the City and its Potential Annexation Area (P AA). The sixth section describes
opportunities for conservation and restoration of shoreline areas in the City. The seventh section
identifies data gaps and provides recommendations for addressing those gaps. Finally, the last
section (Section 8) provides the overall conclusions and summaries of the shoreline inventory
and characterization report.
June 2007
page 1
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Appendix A of this report is a map folio that includes several figures that identify the City's
approximate shoreline planning area and document various biological, land use, and physical
elements at a variety of scales. Appendix B is the previous marine inventory report for Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRI,A) 9 prepared for Seattle Public Utilities (Anchor 2004).
Appendix C is the prioritization of marine shorelines of WRIA 9 prepared by Anchor (2006).
1.3 Regulatory Overview
1.3.1 Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Guidelines
Washington's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was passed by the State Legislature in 1971
and adopted by the public in a referendum. The SMA was created in response to a growing
concern among residents of the state that serious and permanent damage was being done to
shorelines by unplanned and uncoordinated deveiopment. The goal of the SMA was "to prevent
the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines."
While protecting shoreline resources by regulating development, the SMA is also intended to
provide for appropriate shoreline use by encouraging land uses that enhance and conserve
shoreline functions and values.
The primary responsibility for administering the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW) is assigned to local
governments through the mechanism of local SMPs. The Washington Department of Ecology is
responsible for reviewing and approving local master programs, approving some permit
decisions under the SMA, and developing guidelines for the development and amendment of
local master programs. The state guidelines (WAC 173-26) establish an overarching framework
of goals and policies that are implemented through local master programs, which contain goals,
policies, and use regulations for each city and county. Local SMPs are based on state guidelines
but tailored to the specific conditions and needs of individual communities. Local SMPs are also
meant to be a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be managed over time.
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction
Under the SMA, the shoreline jurisdiction includes areas that are 200 feet landward of the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of waters that have been designated as "shorelines of
statewide significance" or "shorelines of the state." These designations were established in 1972
and are described in WAC 173-18. Generally, "shorelines of statewide significance" include
portions of Puget Sound and other marine waterbodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that
have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the
Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a
surface area of 1,000 acres or more. "Shorelines of the state" are generally described as all
marine shorelines and shorelines of all other streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20
cfsor greater and lakes with a surface area 20 acres or greater.
Under the SMA, the shoreline area to be regulated under the City's SMP must include all
shorelines of statewide significance, shorelines of the state, and their adjacent shore lands,
defined as the upland area within 200 feet of the OHWM, as well as any associated wetlands
(RCW 90.58.030). "Associated wetlands" means those wetlands that are in proximity to and
either influence or are influenced by tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the SMA (WAC
page 2
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
173-22-030 (1)). These are typically identified as wetlands that physically extend into the
shoreline jurisdiction, or wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline jurisdiction
through surface water connection and/or, other factors. The specific language from the RCW
describes the limits of "shorelands" as fellows:
Those lands extending landward Jor two hundred Jeet in all directions as
measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM);
jloodways and contiguous jloodplain areas landward two hundred Jeet from such
jloodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes
and tidal waters that area subject to the provisions oJthis chapter. (RCW
90.58.030(2)(f)).
Local jurisdictions can choose to regulate development under their SMPs for all areas within the
100-year floodplain or a smaller area as defined above (RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)(i)). The SMA
shoreline jurisdiction discussed in this inventory includes both land and water defined as
shorelines, shorelands, and "shorelines of the state."
The Puget Sound, as a marine waterbody, is designated a "shoreline of statewide significance" in
the SMA (RCW 90.58.30(2)(e)(iii)) and given special consideration. As a shoreline of statewide
significance, the Puget Sound must be recognized and protected as a statewide resource.
1.3.3 City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program
The City has two main types of water bodies that are regulated under the SMA and the City's
SMP (Figure 1). The City is bound on the west by the lower Puget Sound marine coastal
shoreline, which is designated a "shoreline of statewide significance." There are also several
freshwater lakes under SMA regulation within the City limits. These include Steel Lake, the
northwestern shore of Lake Killarney, and North Lake.
The City of Federal Way in conjunction with the county and other local municipalities has
identified an area largely to the east of the City and the Interstate 5 corridor for future
annexation. This area is in the King County designated Urban Growth Area (UGA) and is
referred to as the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Lakes subject to SMA regulation
located within the City's P AA include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Five Mile Lake, Lake Geneva,
and the remaining portions of Lake Killarney. The freshwater lakes are all designated as
"shorelines of the state." Lakes or portions thereof in the P AA (as well as the eastern shore of
Lake Killarney) are currently regulated under the King County SMP.
State Master Program Guidelines (WAC 173-26-150 and 176-26-160) give local jurisdictions the
option to plan for shorelines in designated Urban Growth Areas and P AAs. The Ecology grant
for the City of Federal Way requires that the City plan for shorelines of the state, which lie
within the P AA. However, regulated shorelines in the P AA would continue to be regulated
under the provisions of the King County SMP until the City annexes those areas. King County is
required to update its SMP for shorelines throughout unincorporated portions of the County,
including designated UGAs, by the end of2009.
June 2007
page 3
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
There are no rivers or streams in Federal Way regulated under the SMA. However, the
headwaters of Hylebos Creek lie within the City. Downstream portions of Hylebos Creek, where
the East and West branches converge, are regulated shorelines ofthe state within the Cities of
Milton, Fife and Tacoma.
At the time of incorporation inJ990, the City of Federal Way adopted the King County SMP. In
1998 and 1999, the City developed and adopted its own local SMP. Shoreline management
goals and policies are contained in the land use element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
(FWCP, Section 2.8.5). Shoreline development regulations and permitting procedures are
codified in Chapter 18, Article III, of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC S18-161 through S18-
176).
Local SMPs establish a system to classify shoreline areas into specific "environment
designations." The purpose of shoreline environment designations is to provide a uniform basis
for applying policies and use regulations within distinctly different shoreline areas. In a
regulatory context, shoreline environment designations function similarly to zoning overlay
districts. That is, they do not change the underlying zoning or other applicable land use
regulations, but provide an additional layer of policy and regulations that apply to land within the
SMP jurisdiction. The shoreline environment designation or classification system should be
based on the biological and physical character of the shoreline, the existing and planned land use
patterns, and the goals and aspirations f the community for its shorelines. During development
of its current SMP, the City evaluated the natural and built characteristics of its shoreline
jurisdiction and developed four shoreline environment designations: Natural, Conservancy
Residential, Rural, and Urban.
A variety of other regulatory programs, plans, and policies work in concert with the City's SMP
to manage shoreline resources and regulate development near the shoreline. The City's
Comprehensive Plan establishes the general land use pattern and vision of growth the City has
adopted for areas both inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Various sections of the
City's municipal code are relevant to shoreline management, such as zoning and stormwater
management. The City's development standards and use regulations for environmentally critical
areas are particularly relevant to the City's SMP. Designated environmentally critical areas are
found throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction, including streams, wetlands, frequently
flooded areas, aquifer recharge areas, geologic hazard areas, and fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas.
1.4 Shoreline Planning Areas
The approximate extent of shoreline jurisdiction within the City of Federal Way and in its P AA
is shown on Figure 1, and referred to as the "shoreline planning area." In general, this extent
represents:
. 200 feet landward from the mapped waterline edge (to approximate OHWM) of the
Puget Sound coastal shoreline;
. Marine waters and beds of tidal and subtidal lands of Puget Sound within the City
limits;
page 4 June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
. 200 feet landward from the mapped waterline edge of seven freshwater lakes - Steel
Lake, Lake Killarney, North Lake, Five Mile Lake, Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, and
Lake Geneva;
. Water and bed of these same seven freshwater lakes;
. All special flood hazard areas currently mapped by FEMA that are associated with
Puget Sound, streams discharging to Puget Sound, and the freshwater lakes; and
. All mapped wetlands that lie adjacent and contiguous to the areas above.
This approximate extent of shoreline jurisdiction should be considered useful for planning
purposes only since its resolution is based on relatively coarse mapping. Site-specific
delineation of floodplains, wetlands, and/or OHWM could result in modifications to the actual
regulatory extent of shoreline areas.
For purposes of the shoreline inventory and characterization, the shoreline planning area was
divided into reach units. The coastal Puget Sound shoreline was divided into three reaches while
each lake is designated its own reach. The extent and general description of the individual
shoreline reaches that comprise the City's shoreline planning area are summarized in Table 1.
The rationale for delineating reach breaks is described in Section 2, Methods.
Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Area
Shoreline Reach Approximate General Description
Number Length (miles)
Coastal Puget Sound lA 1.67 From the City limits boundary with Des Moines on
- East , Puget Sound, near 151 A venue South, extending west
to Dumas Bay
Coastal Puget Sound IB 1.43 Dumas Bay
- Dumas Bay
Coastal Puget Sound lC 1.74 From Dumas Bay extending west to the City limits
along the KinglPierce County line, including Dash
- West Point State Park
Steel Lake 2 1.69 Inside the City limits, west ofI-5.
Star Lake 3 1.33 Inside the northeast portion of the City's PAA, near
the boundary with City of Kent
Lake Dolioff 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
ofSR 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 southeast
Lake Killarney portion of the City's PAA, east ofI-5 and SR 18.
8 1.87 In the southeast portion of the City's PAA, near
Five Mile Lake Military Road.
Approximately 4.84 miles ofPuget Sound shoreline
Total 16.93 and approximately 12.09 miles of lake shoreline.
June 2007
page 5
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
2.0 METHODS
The following data sources and methodologies were used to complete this inventory and
characterization report.
2.1 Data Sou rces
A number of City of Federal Way, King County, state agency, and federal agency data sources
and technical reports were reviewed to compile this inventory and characterization, including but
not limited to the following:
. City of Fecleral Way Comprehensive Plan (2002);
. City of Federal Way Surface Water Facilities Plan (1994);
. City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory (2002);
. Washington State ShoreZone Inventory (2001);
. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, King County (1979);
. The Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound
Region (1975);
. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species,
Washington Lakes and Rivers Information System Database and Marine Resource
Species information (2006);
. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report - WRlA 9. Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities and
WRIA 9. (Anchor Environmental, 2004 - Appendix B); and
. Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and
Accretion Areas for the Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 & 9.,
Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services for King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks (Johannessen et ai., 2005).
. Final Report, Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRlA 9 for Juvenile Salmonid
Habitat Protection and Restoration. Prepared for WRIA 9 Technical Group. (Anchor
Environmental, 2006 - Appendix C).
. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan (updated 2004).
. North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans (2004).
. King County Volunteer Lake Monitoring Results for the Water Year 2003 - 2004.
. King County Lake Water Quality - A Trend Report on King County Small Lakes (2001).
A number of sources were also reviewed to characterize overall watershed and Puget Sound
nearshore conditions and to assess the ecological function of the Federal Way shorelines in an
June 2007
page 6
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
ecosystem-wide context. Watershed- and Puget Sound-level condition sources reviewed forthis
report include:
. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Report: Including Vashon and
Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9) (200 I);
. Occurrence and Quality of Ground Water in Southwestern King County, Washington (1995);
. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington (1969);
. Soil Survey ofK.ing County Area, Washington (1979);
. Washington Trout Water Type Survey Results, South King County (2004);
. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish and
Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island) (2000); and
. Coastal Bluffs and Sea Cliffs on Puget Sound, Washington (2004).
Historic and current mapping and aerial photographs of the study area were consulted, and staff
biologists, geologists, and planners conducted a reconnaissance field survey of the City's
shoreline jurisdiction at existing public access locations. Sources of information on cultural and
historic resources included the Federal Way Historical Society website and consultation with the
King County Historic Preservation Program and the Washington Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation.
2.2 Approach to Characterizing Ecosystem-Wide Processes and
Shoreline Functions
SMA guidelines require local governments to evaluate ecosystem-wide processes during SMP
updates. Ecosystem-wide processes that create, maintain, or affect the City's shoreline resources
were characterized using.an adapted version ofthe five-step approach to understanding and
analyzing watershed processes described in Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget
Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et aI., 2005). This approach
defines watershed processes as the delivery, movement, and loss of water, sediment, nutrients,
toxins, pathogens, and large woody debris. Detailed information about each of these five
watershed process components is either not available or not fully relevant to the City's marine
and freshwater shorelines. For this report, discussion of ecosystem processes focuses on climate,
topography, geology and soils, surface and groundwater, coastal processes, and water quality.
Process components, as identified by Stanley et aI. 2005, that are not directly called out within
this report, are discussed under other headings (i.e., availabl~ information about toxins,
pathogens, and nutrients is discussed within Section 3.1.6, Water Quality) and/or identified in
Chapter 7 as a data gap.
Processes are qualitatively described using available reports and spatial information related to
topography, geology, soils, land cover, and other themes. This approach is most appropriate at
the watershed scale. Conditions and processes at the watershed scale inform local planning by
providing a broader understanding of pf0cesses that influence shoreline conditions and functions.
June 2007 page 7
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Natural processes, and alterations to those processes, are described at a variety of geographic
scales based on existing reports and readily available mapping information. No new quantitative
analyses were performed to develop the summaries and characterization included in this
document.
. For marine shorelines, processes are described in the context of coastal processes in Puget Sound
generally, and how those processes are affected by conditions in the Federal Way shoreline. For
upland areas, processes and conditions in areas outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, but which
may influence shoreline conditions and functions, are described. Surface water drainage basins
delineated by King County Surface Water Management were used to delineate areas that
contribute flow to regulated waterbodies (i.e., Puget Sound and freshwater lakes) in the City and
its PAA.
2.3 Approach to Inventory and Characterization of Shorelines at the
Reach Scale
The inventory of Puget Sound and lakes at the shoreline reach scale is intended to characterize
conditions in and adjacent to the regulated waterbody. The shoreline planning area roughly
approximates the regulatory limits of the City's SMP, and lakes within the City's PAA, as
described in section 1.4. GIS data were used to quantify certain conditions in this area (e.g.,
spatial extent of zoning or land uses). Aerial photography, review of existing reports, and brief
field reconnaissance were used to qualitatively describe conditions in the shoreline.
Reach boundaries are shown on Figure 1. Puget Sound was inventoried in three reaches,
described above. Reaches were delineated based on significant changes in the physical and
biological resource composition of the Puget Sound shoreline in the City. Reach 1 A, Puget
Sound East, is characterized by variable topography (i.e., bluffs transitioning into lower gradient
topography) and variable densities of development. Reach 1B, Dumas Bay, is distinct as a
marine bay and estuarine delta With several freshwater stream inputs. Reach 1 C, Puget Sound
West, is characterized by variable topography, low-density development, and significant
recreational open space at Dash Point State Park. Each freshwater lake was inventoried as one
reach, due to the size and relatively consistent level of development of the lakes. Although
distinct variations in level of development are seen along the shorelines of each freshwater lakes
(especially between the east and west shorelines of North Lake), the relatively small total size of
each shoreline allowed them to be best inventoried and described within this report as one reach
each.
page 8
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
3.0 SHORELINE FUNCTIONS
The ecosystem-wide processes that form and maintain Federal Way's coastal/nearshore
shorelines and freshwater lakes are focused on hydrology (i.e., the quantity and timing of surface
flow and groundwater flow characteristics). These processes occur at a landscape or watershed
scale and serve to form, maintain, or influence shoreline ecological functions. Examples of
shoreline functions include habitat structure, nutrient filtering, and vegetation (which provides
temperature contro'! and organic inputs).
Changes in land use patterns and development across the landscape, not solely at the water's
edge, may change these processes and alter shoreline functions. Geographic areas that are
important in maintaining these processes are discussed at the watershed scale generally, and
more specifically in the vicinity of F ederal Way and its P AA. This section discusses the
watershed context of Federal Way and its PAA and the key processes affecting shoreline
functions for both the coastal Puget Sound and the freshwater lake shorelines.
3.1 Watershed Context
Water flow drives many ecological processes; therefore a useful characterization study area is
the watershed. Surface and groundwater flow in the watershed is controlled by climate,
topography, vegetation, soils, and geologic conditions. In Washington State, watersheds at a
large scale are organized into Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs). The City of Federal
Way is located within the Duwamish-Gl'een River WRIA 9 and the Puyallup-White River WRIA
10 (Figure 2). An inventory of Federal Way's marine or coastal shoreline was conducted in
January of 2004 as part of a report prepared for Seattle Public Utilities and WRIA 9
(Johannessen et aI., 2005). This 2004/2005 inventory describes the coastal process in action
along Puget Sound within the City. The freshwater shoreline lakes in the City are located at the
headwaters of several drainage basins flowing to the two main watersheds.
The Duwamish-Green River (WRIA 9) watershed encompasses lands within the City and P AA
that drain to coastal areas, Mill Creek and the lower Green River, including Mullen Slough. The
Mill Creek Sub-basin drains the P AA area to the east of the City, including the area around Lake
Dolloff (Reach 4) and Lake Geneva (Reach 5). The sub-basin stretches east and north of the
City, eventually entering the Duwamish-Green Basin to the north of Auburn. The Lower Green
River Basin drains the northwest comer of the City and the P AA to the northwest of the City,
including the area around Star Lake (Reach 3). Water flow from this area of the City and PAA
enters into Mullen Slough prior to draining to the Green River. The Lower Puget Sound Basin,
including the area around Steel Lake (Reach 2) and the nearshore areas of Puget Sound are also
within the WRlA 9 area.
The White River Basin (WRIA 10) drains the southwest areas of the City and the PAA,
including the area around Five Mile Lake (Reach 8). The White River Basin joins with the
Puyallup River Basin before entering.Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. A large portion of
the City and PAA lies within the Hylebos Creek Basin, including North Lake (Reach 6) and
Lake Killarney (Reach 7) to the east. Hylebos Creek flows to the south beyond the City limits of
Federal Way until the creek enters the Ho/lebos Waterway, a working seaport waterway in the
City of Tacoma at Commencement Bay.
June 2007
page 9
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
f
3.1.1 Climate
Federal Way is located in the greater Puget Lowlands of western Washington. This area,
surrounding Puget Sound, has a maritime climate with cool winters, dry summers, and a: distinct
rainy season through fall and spring. The Federal Way area has recorded average January low
temperatures of approximately 350 F and average July high temperatures of approximately 76 OF.
Precipitation in the Puget Lowlands varies considerably because of the effects of mountains.
The Federal Way area receives between 35 and 40 inches ofrain per year on average, with
approximately 75 percent of the precipitation falling between October and March (Woodward et
aI., 1995). Winds are generally from the southwest during the rainy season and from the
northwest during the dry summer months.
3.1.2 Topography
Federal Way is located on a broad northerly-trending upland area (the Des Moines Plain) located
between the Duwamish Valley and Puget Sound. The upland plateau largely lies between 200 to
400 feet above sea level. The area is bounded to the west by steep coastal bluffs and to the south
and east by steep valley walls that lead down to the relatively flat, broad valley floors of the
Puyallup and Duwamish Rivers (Figure 3).
Topography on the surface ofthe plateau is characterized by elongate, north-trending hills with
relatively low relief in the range of 40 to 100 feet. The surface has local closed depressions
occupied by lakes and poorly drained areas occupied by wetlands and peat bogs. Streams
draining the watershed are relatively short and flow directly to Puget Sound or to the adjacent
river valleys. Some of these streams have incised deep ravines into the coastal bluffs and valley
walls.
3.1.3 Geology and Soils
The geology of the Federal Way vicinity is summarized by Waldron (1961) and Booth and
others (2004 and in review). The geology along the marine shoreline is also documented in the
Coastal Zone Atlas of King County (Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology], 1979).
Surficial geologic units are shown in Figure 4; soils classes are shown in Figure 5.
The upland plain at Federal Way is underlain by a sequence of glacial and nonglacial deposits
that overlie Tertiary bedrock. The depth to bedrock in the vicinity of the Federal Way is
approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet (Jones, 1996). The area has been glaciated six or more times
in the past 2 million years. Each glacial advance likely left a sequence of deposits that consisted
of fine-grained lacustrine (lake) deposits, outwash sand and gravel, and till. Many of these
deposits have been partially to completely eroded by subsequent glaciations or erosion during
interglacial periods. The many lakes in the Federal Way area are formed within these glacially
derived deposits.
The most recent incursion of glacial ice into the central portion of the Lowland is called the
Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation, which receded from the area about 13,500 years ago.
That glaciation is responsible for the majority of deposits that make up the surface of the upland
plain. North-trending elongate hills, or drumlins, that form the surface of the upland plain were
shaped by the moving ice sheet.
page 10
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
The steep-walled troughs that define the Duwamish and Puyallup Valley to the east and south of
Federal Way were probably constructed as glacial ice or subglacial streams cut into deposits of
previous glacial advances (Mullineaux, 1974; Booth, 1994). Following recession ofthe ice
sheet, the troughs existed as historic embayments of Puget Sound. The troughs were filled
principally by estuarine deposits, lahars and lahar derived sediment from Mount Rainier, and
alluvium of the White and Green Rivers (Dragovich and others, 1994). Glacial and non-glacial
deposits that predate the Vashon Stade are exposed in the steep walls of the troughs.
Steep coastal bluffs that define the western City limits of Federal Way were probably formed by
coastal erosion following retreat of the ice sheet and regional drop in relative sea level (Shipman,
2004). Wave erosion at the base of the coastal bluffs, along with landsliding and mass wasting,
have caused episodic but continual retreat of the shoreline. Landslide and mass-wasting deposits
are exposed along these cliffs, along with older glacial and non-glacial sediments.
Most soils exposed at the ground surface within the study area are glacial deposits left during the
most recent ice-sheet advance (Waldron, 1961; Booth and others, 2004). Lodgment till
(associated with the Alderwood soil series; AgC, AgB, AgD, AkF, AmB, and AmC) mantles
much ofthe upland area in the vicinity QfFederal Way (Figure 4). The till is a poorly sorted
mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited at the base of a glacier. Till is typically very
dense due to compaction by the overriding ice. Such deposits have very low permeability and
often restrict the downward flow of groundwater.
Recessional outwash and recessional lacustrine deposits overlie the till in places on the upland
plain. These sediments were deposited in topographic lows in the till surface where meltwater
streams drained from the receding glacier, such as along the headwater areas of Mill Creek
(Figure 4). The recessional outwash deposits typically consist of well-sorted sand and gravel.
Recessional lacustrine deposits generally comprise silt and clay. Peat deposits are found on the
surface of the plain on top of poorly drained lacustrine deposits or on top of outwash deposits
that are underlain by till at shallow depths. The peat deposits are commonly associated with
larger wetland areas within the watershed (Figures 4 and 5).
Underlying the till are thick deposits of sand and gravel separated by finer grained layers of clay
and silt or tight, well-graded soils, such as till from previous glaciations. These layers comprise
several aquifers and aquitards within the subsurface and control subsurface water movement to
the shorelines and adjacent valleys.
3.1.4 Surface and Groundwater
There are five major stream systems in Federal Way, including West Hylebos Creek, Cold
Creek, Joe's Creek, Lakota Creek and Redondo Creek (Figure 6). The City's surface water
bodies also include several lakes, only two of which (Steel and North Lakes) are considered
shorelines of the state; these are: Steel, Panther, Easter, Mirror, Lorene, Jeanne, and North. Lakes
in Federal Way's PAA include Star, Dolloff, Geneva, Killarney and Five Mile. In addition, many
unique, rare and useful wetlands and bogs are spread throughout the city, including West
Hylebos Wetlands State Park and Fisher:s bog.t
June 2007
page 11
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Federal Way lies within the South King County Groundwater Management Area. Information
concerning groundwater recharge, monitoring, contamination, and management specific to the
Federal Way area is readily available on the King County Groundwater Management website
(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/wq/groundwater-data.htm). Groundwater and hydrology of the
watershed is described by Luzier (1969) and Woodward et aI. (1995). Additional analysis and
groundwater protection planning are being conducted under King County's Groundwater
Management Program.
The Des Moines Plain (described in Section 3.1.2) surface has several small lakes and numerous
streams that flow short distances from the upland area to the shoreline and adjacent valleys
(depicted for the Federal Way area within Figure 6). Precipitation falling within the watershed is
conveyed directly to lakes and streams by surface runoff or travels in the subsurface as
groundwater flow. Water from precipitation generally soaks into the ground, but during heavy
rainfall the ground quickly becomes saturated, inhibiting further infiltration. Water that is unable
to infiltrate travels down slope across the ground surface as storm water runoff. Surface runoff
may erode soil, which is conveyed to streams and eventually to the shoreline of Puget Sound.
Impermeable surfaces such as pavement, rooftops, or compacted ground increase stormwater
runoff. Conversely, vegetation promotes infiltration by intercepting rainfall, effectively
spreading precipitation events over longer periods of time and reducing peak flows and
associated sediment transport. Vegetation also reduces erosion by holding soil in place and
reducing splash erosion.
Poorly drained areas of the upland plateau are the sites of former or existing wetlands. Wetlands
regulate the flow of water within a watershed by storing water during precipitation events,
slowing the conveyance of water from the upland to the shoreline, and increasing infiltration.
Development has reduced the number and area of wetlands in the upland plateau, causing higher
volumes and peak rates of stormwater runoff.
Water that infiltrates into the ground generally flows downward until impeded by less permeable
soils and then flows laterally to a body of water or to a slope face where it may emerge as springs
or seeps on the hillside. A portion of the groundwater, however, will percolate downward
through lower-permeability soils to underlying more permeable soils or aquifers. Because of the
complex stratigraphy of soils in the Puget Lowland, several aquifers exist within the subsurface.
For the uppermost aquifer beneath the till, groundwater flow is radially outward from a
groundwater high that lies beneath Star Lake (Woodward et aI., 1995). Several deeper aquifers
exist within outwash deposits in older glacial drift. Groundwater highs for the uppermost of
these aquifers are situated to the south of Star Lake and just south of Dumas Bay.
3.1.5 General Coastal Processes
The shores of Federal Way encompass 4.8 linear miles from the intersection of Redondo Beach
Drive South and 15t Avenue in Des Moines southwest to the King-Pierce County line (DNR
2001). The major factors influencing the beaches of Federal Way include the local geology,
fluvial systems, and variable degrees of wave exposure and development. The beaches of Federal
Way are generally of two different characters, eroding bluffs or estuarine shores, with varying
degrees of development and related shore modifications (Figure 7).
June 2007
page 12
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
The coastal zone is a dynamic environment, and human actions can easily alter the natural
system. Therefore, it is important for communities to understand potential impacts of land use.
General coastal processes are well summarized in the Coast of Puget Sound by Downing (1983)
and by Shipman (2004). Steep, gradually receding bluffs back much ofthe shoreline in Federal
Way (Downing, 1983; Shipman, 2004). Over time, the bluffs erode and recede landward,
providing sediment to the shore. Prior to construction of bulkheads and other structures that were
intended to protect property from wave and tidal action, intermittent landslides occurred along
bluff shores, although natural bluff recession rates were generally quite slow in most of Puget
Sound. Sediment that accumulates at the base of the bluff helps to protect the bluff from further
erosion and reduces the recession rate. Sediment from eroded bluffs may enter the intertidal
zone within the nearshore, where it is subject to wave transport and water currents (Figure 7).
Prevailing winds and waves cause littoral drift, which is the movement of loose sediment along
the shore, primarily within the intertidal zone. Sediment that is sufficiently small, typically sand,
is suspended for short durations by wave action and is transported along the shore parallel to the
beach. Gravel is transported by rolling 6saltation) as a result of storm waves, and plays an
important role in beach stability. The direction of drift transport is generally in the direction of
prevailing winds, which may differ in the summer and winter. The predominant, or net-shore
drift direction is the most important consideration for coastal processes (Figure 7). Where
natural net-shore drift is blocked, beach processes are altered. Transported sand and gravel
accumulates on the updrift side of shore obstructions (the-side opposite the net-shore drift
direction) and is depleted on the downdrift side of obstructions by blocking the transport of drift
material. Such obstructions include human-built structures such as bulkheads, breakwaters,
groins, docks, and boat ramps (depicted along the Federal Way marine shoreline in Figure 11).
In areas where the beach is depleted, erosion accelerates. Shoreline armoring using bulkheads
and other hardened structures eliminates the transport of sediment to the beach from natural
upland sources. The elimination of sediment supplied to the shore also results in an increase in
erosion processes along the beach.
Owners of property adjacent to the shore commonly construct rock or concrete bulkheads to
protect the bank or bluff from erosion. Such measures can increase beach depletion as wave
energy is reflected rather than absorbed. The shoreline processes and conditions along the
Federal Way coastline are summarized in the Net-shore Drift of King County (Chrzastowski,
1982), which updated the coastal drift section of the Coastal Zone Atlas of King County
(Ecology, 1979). These processes and conditions have been re-evaluated by Johannessen and
others (personal communications) in work completed in 2005 for WRIA 9.
3.1.6 Water Quality
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State to periodically prepare
a list of all surface waters in the State for which beneficial uses of the water, such as drinking,
recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use, are impaired by pollutants. The Washington
Department of Ecology maintains a 303(d) list of water bodies where tested pollutants exceed
thresholds established by the state surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A). Lakes and
streams that do not appear on the 303(d) list may fall short of that pollutant threshold, but may
not be free of pollutants. In addition, not all streams or all stream reaches are tested as part of
this process. Therefore, absence from the 303( d) list does not necessarily indicate that the
June 2007
page 13
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
waterbody is not impaired. . Washington State's 2004 303(d) list is the most recent to be
submitted to approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EP A). The 1998, 303( d)
list was the previous list approved by the EPA before submittal and approval of the 2004, 303(d)
list.
Table 2 shows the waterbodies within the City and its P AA that were listed in both the 2004 and
1998 approved 303( d) lists, as well as the water quality parameters that exceeded standards for
the class of water tested. Joe's Creek is included on Washington State's 2004, and 1998, 303(d)
lists.
Table 2. 303(d) Water Quality Exceedances in Federal Way and its PAA
Waterbody Name
Exceeded Water
Quality Parameter
Listed Year
1998 2004
Medium
Within
CitylPAA
Puget Sound
Central
Dioxins
Furalls
Total PCBs
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
v' Water
v' Water
v' Water
v' v' Water
v' Water
v'
v'
v'
v'
v'
Joe's Creek
Hylebos Creek
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005
It should be noted that several lakes (Steel, Star, Dolloff, Geneva, Killarney and Five Mile) are
listed erroneously on the 2004, 303(d) list. A reassessment ofthe data in January 2006 revealed
that only two data points were submitted, meaning that they should be category 2 waters (due to
lack of data). Since EP A had approved the list before Ecology noted the error, the listings could
not be withdrawn.
The City of Federal Way monitors the quality of streams within the city limits. Surface Water
Management maintains and operates water quality instruments throughout the city that
continuously detect and record pollutant levels of concern. In addition, biological monitoring is
performed annually in selected streams to help gauge the condition of the aquatic habitat, water
quality, and overall ecosystem productivity. The City monitors streams within the city limits in
order to identify water quality issues citywide and address water quality problems that may
ultimately affect shorelines of the state.
3.2 Biological Resources
Biological components of the watershed are important factors in maintaining ecosystem-wide
processes along with hydrologic and geologic components. The presence of vegetation serves to
intercept rainfall and increase infiltration of surface water runoff. Trees and native plants
provide habitat for fish and wildlife and contribute large woody debris as habitat components in
the shoreline. Wetlands also provide functions in a watershed context to protect the ecosystem-
wide processes that protect shoreline functIOns.
page 14
. June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
3.2.1 Vegetation
Historically, vegetation within the watershed was coniferous forest, deciduous riparian forest and
wetland or other native habitat types (Johnson and O'Neil, 2001). Vegetation existing today
within the watershed is largely a function of the type and degree of residential and commercial
development within the Federal Way area. Little natural vegetation remains within the urbanized
City as it has developed in commercial, industrial, and low- to high-density residential land uses.
Native vegetation is restricted to undeveloped areas, and includes land along existing wetlands
and streams. In addition, the areas preserving the greatest amount of native vegetation are the
steeper slopes between the upland and lowland areas, and open space areas, such as parks.
Native vegetation in undeveloped or less developed areas of the City comprises trees, such as
Douglas fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, big-leaf maple, and red alder. Western red
cedar, once dominant in wetter areas, is less common. Common upland understory plants
include salal, ferns, Indian plum, Oregon. grape, elderberry, oceanspray, salmonberry, and
snowberry. Non-native plant species, such as Himalayan blackberry, cut-leaf blackberry, Scot's
broom and reed canarygrass, are also present within the forested habitats (Johnson and O'Neill,
2001). Vegetation present in developed areas may include native plant species, but ornamentals
or landscaping varieties are more prevalent. A reduction in native vegetation and primarily
forested cover occurs as land is developed in urban uses.
3.2.2 Wetlands
Wetlands are an important component of a healthy watershed, providing functions such as
floodwater storage, storm water detention, water quality improvement, shoreline protection and
habitat for fish and wildlife. In F ederal Way, a wetland inventory was completed in 1999 that
identified a total of232 wetlands, 170 of which were within the City limits and 55 of which were
in the unincorporated P AA (Figure 6). Of all wetlands surveyed, more than half were less than 1
acre in size and more than 80 percent were less than 5 acres in size. Wetlands were rated using
the City's three-tiered rating system that incorporates wildlife and plant species identified,
ecological functions and other wetland characteristics (FWMC 18-28, Sheldon and Associates,
1999). The higher value Category I wetlands make up large portions of the total wetland acreage
both within the City (50 percent) and the PAA (75 percent). Wetland inventoried in the City and
its P AA are largely associated with existing lakes and streams.
Within the City, wetlands were identified most frequently in association with West Hylebos
Creek, Lakota Creek, and Joe's Creek. Within the PAA, wetlands were identified most
frequently in association with Mill Creek and East Hylebos Creek. Several important wetlands
and bogs occur throughout the city, including West Hylebos Wetlands State Park and Fisher's
bog.
Wetlands in the City are regulated through Article XIV. Critical Areas. Wetlands are provided
standard buffers and other protection measures in the critical areas ordinance. Standard buffers
in the ordinance range from 25 feet to 200 feet. Critical areas protections for wetlands are
designed to protect the functions and values of these areas.
June 2007
page 15
City of Federal Way - Shoreline lnventory & Characterization
3.3 Major land Uses and Shoreline Uses
Historically, land use within the Federal Way area was predominantly timber-oriented. The U.S.
Geological Survey created a Land Classification map of the Federal Way area in 1897. Within
0.5 to 1.5 miles of the marine shoreline, forests had been harvested for timber. Further inland
from the marine shoreline, the majority of lands, including those surrounding the freshwater lake
shoreline areas, were classified as "uncut merchantable forests." Throughout the City area the
map shows small, interspersed areas of clearing and human development both along the marine
shoreline and inland areas. (USGS, 1897)
By 1940, the development pattern in Federal Way was predominantly single-family homes
located around lakes and along major roads (Figure 8). Vegetation had grown in some areas near
the Puget Sound shoreline that had been previously harvested for timber. More significant
development in the vicinity has occurred since 1940, with subdivision development throughout
the City and commercial development along and between the SR 99 and Interstate-5 corridors
(Figure 8).
Today, single-family residential development is the dominant land use, occupying approximately
42 percent of the land area in the City of Federal Way. Multi-family development occupies 11
percent of the total land area. Commercial developments (including office, retail, and industrial)
occupy approximately 12 percent ofthe City's land area and are located primarily in the
downtown area, and along major transportation corridors including Pacific Highway South and
Interstate 5. One percent of the land area is made up of religious services. Parks and public
beaches occupy 6 percent of the City's land area. Vacant lands occupy approximately 12 percent
of the City (City of Federal Way, 2002).
3.4 Key Processes Related to Shoreline Functions
Ecosystem-wide processes that create, maintain, or affect the City's shoreline resources were
characterized using an adapted version of the five-step approach to understanding and analyzing
watershed processes developed by Ecology (Stanley et aI., 2005). This approach defines
watershed processes as the delivery, movement, and loss of water, sediment, nutrients, toxins,
pathogens, and large woody debris.
The key processes affecting shorelines in Federal Way and the factors and mechanisms that
control them are discussed in this section.
3.4.1 Processes Affecting Marine Coastal Shorelines
Federal Way beaches represent a commonly occurring beach character found in Puget Sound,
having two distinct foreshore components: a high-tide beach and a low-tide terrace (Johannessen
1993). The high-tide beach consists of a relatively steep beachface with coarse sediment and an
abrupt break in slope at its waterward extent. Sand in a mixed sand and gravel beach is typically
winnowed from the high-tide beach by waves (Chu 1985) and deposited on the low-tide terrace.
Extending seaward from the break in slope, the low-tide terrace typically consists of a gently
sloping accumulation of poorly sorted fine-grained sediment (Komar 1976, Keuler 1979,
Johannessen 1993). Lag deposits derived from bluff recession are also found in the low-tide
June 2007
page 16
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
terrace. These deposits are typically comprised of larger materials, ranging from cobbles to
boulders.
3.4.1.1 Beach Composition and Sediment Sources
Puget Sound beach composition is dependent upon three main influences: 1) wave energy, 2)
sediment sources, and 3) relative position of the beach within a littoral cell. Wave energy is
controlled by fetch; the open water over which winds blow without any interference from land.
Within the Federal Way study area fetch is limited to 28 miles from the north (Adelaide to
Indianola on the Kitsap Peninsula), and 5.5 miles to the northwest (Dash Point State Park to
inner shores of Quartermaster Harbor). Segment exposure was classified by DNR's Shorezone.
inventory as "semi-protected" (DNR 2001). Eastern Federal Way marine shores have greater
fetch than western shores that are protected by Vashon and Maury Islands to the north. The
northern orientation of the shore precludes the region's predominant and prevailing southerly
winds from exerting high wave energy on the shore.
Wind-generated waves gradually erode beaches and the toe of coastal bluffs, usually leading to
landslides (Hampton and others 2004). These coastal bluffs are the primary source of sediment
for most Puget Sound beaches, including the Federal Way study area (Keuler 1988, Downing
1983). Currently, 37 percent of the Federal Way's marine shores are comprised of eroding
coastal bluffs (feeder bluffs; Johannessen et aI., 2005).
Bluff composition and wave energy influence the composition of beach sediment. Waves sort
coarse and fine sediment and large waves can transport cobbles that small waves cannot. This
results in relatively fine-grained beaches where wave energy is lowest, as these waves cannot
transport coarse gravel. Additionally beaches supplied by the erosion of coarse gravel bluffs will
differ in composition from those fed by the erosion of sandy sediment. The exposed strata of the
eroding bluffs in the northeastern portion of the study area are of a different character than those
of the southwestern shores, resulting in spatial variability in beach materials. Northeastern
beaches are typically made up of coarse material, typically comprised of coarse sands with
moderate pebble, due to the poorly sorted, coarse stratum that makes up the bluffs (Qmw; W A
DNR 2001) (Figure 4). The bluffs of the southwestern portion of the study area are composed of
Vashon advance outwash deposits, which are predominantly composed of medium to fine-
grained sand. As a result, beach material in the southwestern portion of the study area is finer
grained and considerably sandier than the northeastern beaches of Federal Way (DNR 2001).
In addition to the previously mentioned influences (wave energy and sediment sources), tidal
range also affects beaches over time. Rosen (1977) demonstrated that the coastal erosion rate
increases with decreasing tidal range. This is due to the focusing of wave energy at a narrow
vertical band with a small tidal range in comparison to the dissipation of wave energy over a
large vertical band with a greater tidal range. The mean tidal range in the study area is roughly
10.5 to 11.9 feet or meso-tidal (2 - to 4 m range). This tidal range is lower than southern Puget
Sound, which means that erosion will be primarily focused within the 10.5 to 11.9 feet of the
beach profile exposed to tidal waters (excluding storm conditions). However, the majority of
coastal erosion in the region occurs when high wind events coincide with high tides and act
directly on the backshore and bluffs (Downing 1983).
June 2007
page 17
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Furthermore, periods of prolonged precipitation, in which coastal bluff soils become saturated,
can provide additional beach sediment sources. It is during these periods, typically during winter,
that the majority of coastallandsliding occurs (Tubbs 1974, Gerstel et al. 1997, Shipman 2004).
This process is described in greater detail in Section 3.4 .1.3.
3.4.1.2 Net Shore-drift
Wind-generated waves typicall:y approach the shore at an angle, creating beach drift and
longshore currents that result in sediment transport through a process called littoral drift. Net
shore-drift refers to the long-term, net result of littoral drift. Net shore-drift cells represent a
sediment transport sector from sediment source to sediment sink (deposition area) along a
portion of coast. Each drift cell acts as a system consisting of three components: 1) a sediment
source and origin of a drift cell (typically an eroding bluff area); 2) a transport zone where
materials are moved alongshore by wave action with minimal sediment input; and 3) an area of
deposition that acts as the drift cell terminus. Deposition of sediment occurs where wave energy
is no longer sufficient to transport the sediment in the drift cell. Drift cells in the Puget Sound
region usually range in length from 5 or more miles to just hundreds of feet.
The F ederal Way study area contains one entire drift cell and two partial drift cells. The general
patterns of net shore-drift will be briefly described with more detailed descriptions of sediment
sources and depositional areas presented in the reach scale inventory. The northeastern portion of
the study area falls within drift cell KI-9-2 (also referred to as KI-lO-l), which exhibits
southwestward drift. The drift cell originates approximately 2.4 miles northeast ofthe City
boundary (approximately 1,050 feet north of Saltwater State Park). The drift cell terminates at a
convergence with cell KI-I0-2 in the southwest comer of Dumas Bay. Cell KI-I0-2 originates
east of a divergent zone at the southwestern headland that marks the western entrance to Dumas
Bay. Divergent zones are the areas between drift cells where the net shore-drift direction
changes. Cell KI-I0-2 measures only 864 feet and exhibits southward drift. The western shore of
the City, west of the divergence zone located west of Dumas Bay, marks the origin of cell KI -10-
3 (also referred to as cell PI-I-I). This cell exhibits southwestward drift and terminates outside
the study area, at the cuspate foreland at Dash Point.
3.4.1.3 Coastal Bluff Landslides
Coastal landslides typically occur during periods of high precipitation on bluffs with a
combination of characteristics making the bluff more vulnerable to slope failure (Tubbs 1974,
Gerstel et al. 1997). These characteristics include the underlying geology of a bluff or bank, its
level of exposure (fetch), and the local hydrology (groundwater and surface water). As a result
the exposed high-gradient bluffs and banks of the eastern and western portion of Federal Way
are more susceptible to coastal landslides, relative to the central study area shore.
Landslides are more likely to occur in areas where there is a history of landslides or where the
lower bluff stratum is comprised of a consolidated impermeable layer (such as dense silt or clay)
that is overlain by an unconsolidated permeable layer (typically sands; Gerstel et al. 1997). As
water seeps through the permeable layer and collects above the impermeable layer, a zone of
weakness or "slip-plane" is created. This stratigraphic sequence is a common setting for mass
page 18
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
wasting (landslides) in central Puget Sound. Recent mapping (Johannessen et aI. 2005)
documented recent landslides across 18 percent of the Federal Way study area.
Undercutting of the toe of the bluff, from wave energy during storm events, is the long-term
"driver" of bluff recession (Shipman 2004, Keuler 1988). Bluffs that are exposed to greater fetch
are subject to higher wave energy during storms, resulting in greater toe erosion and bluff
undercutting, thus more frequent landslides (Shipman 2004). Recent bluff toe erosion was
documented along 28.1 percent of the Federal Way shores (Johannessen et aI., 2005). Bulkheads
reduce wave attack to bluff toes but can accelerate erosion of the beach (see Shore Modifications
section, below).
Storms that coincide with elevated water levels, such as a storm surge or extraordinary high-high
tide, often initiate landslides in the Puget Sound region (Johannessen and Chase 2003). The wave
attack caused by a storm that occurs in conjunction with heightened water level can produce
dramatic toe erosion, which then undermines and destabilizes a larger portion of the bluff that
may not fail (slide) until subsequent wet-weather months.
Two springs were mapped along the eastern bluffs of Federal Way, between Adelaide and the
northeastern limit ofthe study area. It is common to observe groundwater seeping from the bluff
face following prolonged heavy precipitation. Periods of high rainfall intensity and duration
(especially during saturated soil conditions) are another trigger of coastal landslides (Tubbs
1974, Thorsen 1987), such as those observed at New Years 1996-97 (Gerstel et aI. 1997,
Shipman 2001).
Surface water volumes often increase and become more focused within ditches and across
impervious surfaces as a result of development of housing and roads. This is due to decreased
infiltration and interception of water. Concentrated surface water can locally erode bluff crests
while also saturating soils, which exacerbates "natural" slope stability problems along coastal
bluffs and can trigger landslides (Shipman 2004). Runoff flowing down a driveway and rapidly
across a lawn (which can absorb little water when wet) as sheet flow to the bluff face is an
example of this process. Failed tightlines on a bluff face, constructed out of inexpensive and low-
'strength corrugated pipe to re-route surface runoff, can clog or break, initiating coastal landslides
in King County.
Removal of bluff vegetation that results ,in a loss of root density and strength typically increases
the likelihood of future landslides (Schmidt et aI. 2001, Zeimer and Swanson 1977, Bishop and
Stevens 1964). Bluffs with significant modifications to both the natural drainage regime and
vegetation pattern are particularly susceptible to landsliding. Reestablishment and maintenance
of native vegetation cover or installation of a fibrous-rooted vegetation cover along with some
type of drainage control can reduce the likelihood of the bank failures (Gray and Sotir 1996,
Menashe 2001, Roering et aI. 2003).
The slope stability mapping in the Coastal Zone Atlas was recently digitized by the Washington
State Department of Ecology (1979). The mapping was originally performed in the 1970s using
aerial photograph analyses and field reconnaissance. Seven "recent landslides" (occurring in the
preceding decade) were mapped in the Federal Way shoreline planning area, predominantly
located in the western portion of the city, in.reaches 1C and IB. Five historic landslides (prior to
June 2007
page 19
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
1970) were also identified, three of which were located along the eastern shores, in reach 1 A.
The remaining slides were located in the western portion of the study area (reach 1 C).
A combination of factors - including increased wave energy along shorelines, saturated soils
from high precipitation levels, disturbance to the slope toe, and lack of bluff vegetation - can
lead to coastal bluff landslides, especially when associated with storm events or extreme high,
high tides. Landslides can be naturally occurring or accelerated by man-made disturbances to
the coastal bluff.
3.4.1.4 FluviallnfJuences on the Nearshore
Fluvial sources contribute to nearshore character and can act as an agent of change on the marine
landscape. The quantity of fluvial sediment delivered to the nearshore depends up the nature of
the hinterland: its elevation, the types of rocks and soil found there, the density of vegetation,
and the climate (Komar 1976). The greater the volume of sediment, the greater influence on
nearshore processes. In a regional, ecosystem-wide context, the fluvial influence on the Federal
Way nearshore is negligible since none of the streams in Federal Way discharge significant
volumes of sediment to Puget Sound.
3,4. 1.5 Shore Modifications
A substantial portion of the Federal Way shoreline has been modified from its original state.
Shoreline modifications observed within the study area include: riprap and revetments,
bulkheads, fill, boat ramps and their associated footings. Figures II-A, II-B, and l1-C show
approximately 38.4 percent of the linear shoreline has undergone such modifications, excluding
filling which has not been formally inventoried (Johannessen et al. 2005). Modified shoreline
segments vary in the degree that they are modified. Each form of shore modification alters
nearshore ecosystem function or processes in some way.
Riprap, Revetments, and Bulkheads - Shore armoring or modifications that include covering the
beach and/or backshore with riprap, a rockery, revetment or a bulkhead directly impact the
nearshore. The effects of shore armoring on physical and biological processes have been the
subject of much concern in the Puget Sound region (for example, Rice 2006). Macdonald, et al.
(1994) completed a series of studies documenting the impacts to the beach and nearshore system
caused by shore armoring at a number of sites. Additional studies on impacts from shoreline
armoring have shown that in front of a bulkhead the suspended sediment volume and littoral drift
rate all increased substantially compared to an adjacent unarmored shore (Miles 2001).
A bulkhead constructed near the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in a moderate energy.
environment increases the reflectivity of the upper beach to waves substantially, causing
backwash (outgoing water after a wave strikes shore) to be more pronounced. Increased
backwash velocity removes beach sediment from the intertidal beach, thereby lowering the beach
profile (Macdonald et al. 1994). A bulkhead constructed lower on the beach causes more impact.
Construction of a bulkhead at or below OHWM results in coarsening of beach sediment in front
of the bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994, Kraus 1988). Relatively fine-grain size sediment is
mobilized by increased turbulence caused by the bulkhead (Miles 2001), and is preferentially
transported away, leaving only the coarse material on the beach. This process also leads to the
page 20
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
removal of large woody debris (L WD) from the upper beachface. Both of these impacts lead to
changes in habitat along the armored portion of shore.
A number of local hydraulic impacts often occur in response to a bulkhead. These include the
formation of a scour trough (a linear depression) directly in front of the wall, probably as a result
of increased reflectivity of the wave energy from the wall to the upper beach. Another hydraulic
response is the formation of end erosion ("end effects"). This occurs at unprotected shores
adjacent to the end of a bulkhead and is caused by wave refraction at the end of the bulkhead
(Tait and Griggs 1991). "During storm" impacts, where seabed fluidization and scour occur at
enhanced levels, may be pronounced in front of a bulkhead, but this process is not well
understood.
The groundwater regime is often modified by the construction of a seawall along the base of a
bluff (Macdonald et al. 1994). An impermeable bulkhead that extends vertically above OHWM
raises the groundwater table. This can cause increased pore pressure in beach sediment, leading
to mobilization of beach sediment under lower energy waves, relative to unbulkheaded
conditions. This effect is most pronounced at locations with fine-grained beach sediment.
Of all the impacts of shore armoring in the Puget Sound area, sediment impoundment is probably
the most significant negative impact (PSAT 2003, Pilkey 1988). Structures such as bulkheads, if
functioning correctly, "lock up" bluff material that would otherwise be supplied to the shore drift
system. This results in a decrease in the quantity of drift sediment available for maintenance of
down-drift beaches. The negative impact of sediment impoundment is most pronounced when
armoring occurs along a feeder bluff with a high sediment yield such as the bluffs approximately
one-half mile east of Adelaide and in the western portion of the study area, just east of Dash
Point State Park (Johannessen et al 2005, Macdonald et al. 1994). Additionally, the extent of
cumulative impacts from several long runs of bulkheads is a subject of great debate in the coastal
research and management communities.
A comparison of current and historical bluff conditions in King County documented that prior to
modifications 49.5 percent of Federal Way shores were comprised of feeder bluffs (sediment
sources). When compared with current conditions (37 percent), this represents a 25.2 percent loss
of the total historic sediment sources in the Federal Way nearshore (Johannessen et aI., 2005).
As the bluffs in the study area continue to gradually recede, there will likely be an increasing
desire for homeowners to build bulkheads. This would lead to further sediment impoundment
and further reductions in the natural sediment supplied to drift cells and nearshore habitats, and
would therefore constitute a significant negative impact. Without this sediment, the beaches
would become "starved," resulting in a lieduction of the beach width and habitat degradation
(Macdonald et al. 1994, Rice 2006). Beaches would also become more coarse-grained
(Macdonald et al. 1994) as sand was winnowed out leaving a higher percentage of gravel. This
would likely negatively impact forage fish spawning and other habitat values of county beaches
(Rice 2006). This could also lead to an increase in coastal flooding and wave-induced erosion of
existing low-shore armoring structures and homes.
Filling -Fill areas along the shores of Federal Way are not always obvious today; however, they
quickly become apparent when comparing current and historic maps. For this purpose the U.S.
June 2007
page 21
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Coast and Geodetic Surveys' Topographic maps (T-sheets) were compared with USGS 7.5
minute topographic maps.
It appears that filling has taken place at several locations in Federal Way. The most obvious are
at the estuaries in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park. The marsh in western Dumas Bay was
historically considerably larger, but appears to have been reduced in size for residential
development. The estuary in Dash Point State Park also appears to have been filled and
channelized, possibly to reduce flooding and facilitate parking and recreational areas. Backfilling
of bulkheaded shores appears to have occurred near Adelaide, where a historic accretion
shoreform previously occurred, and at the base of bluffs east of Dash Point State Park.
3.4.2 Processes Affecting Freshwater lake Shorelines
Ecosystem-wide processes that affect lake shorelines include specific actions related to
hydrologic processes, sediment delivery, water quality and large woody debris. However,
unlike large river systems where water flow is affected by factors across a greater watershed,
lakes in Federal Way are located in the headwaters of drainage basins and are influenced by a
limited area draining to these waterbodies. Lake processes are more easily altered by nearby
land use modifications since they are directly tied to conditions in a smaller basin area.
Very limited information is available regarding toxins and pathogens within the freshwater lakes
of Federal Way. Where available, this information has been included within the discussion
water quality (Section 3.4.2.3).
3.4.2.1 Hydrology
Water naturally enters a watershed through rain, snow, or movement of groundwater. Water
moves within a watershed by surface water flow in rivers and streams, infiltrates and becomes
groundwater, or is stored in wetlands, lakes, and floodplains. In a natural system, the movement
and storage of water is generally controlled by physical conditions such as climate, topography,
land cover, and the permeabilito/ or infiltration capacity of soils and the underlying surficial
geology (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Lakes in F ederal Way have formed in shallow depressions remaining from glaciation on an
upland plateau. These areas are in the headwaters of the drainage basin and are not affected by
larger-scale ecosystem-wide processes occurring within the rivers in WRIA 9 and 10. The lakes
in Federal Way are important for maintaining stream baseflow for down gradient streams and
flvers.
Important areas for hydrologic processes affecting freshwater lakes in Federal Way include:
. Saturated areas or areas, which with low permeability provide overland or shallow
subsurface flow;
. Lakes, low-gradient floodplains, and depressional wetlands, which provide surface
water storage; and
page 22 June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
. Topographic slope breaks or contact areas between geologic deposits of differing
permeability, which provide groundwater discharge (i.e., return to surface flow)
(Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Hydrologic processes influence the following shoreline functions:
. Quantity and timing of flow affects hydrologic functions such as channel incision and
flood storage;
. Quantity and timing of flow affects in-stream habitat functions such as channel
complexity and habitat availability; and
. Groundwater flow affects hydrologic and hyporheic functions such as baseflow and
temperature, as well as habitat and vegetation functions related to species diversity.
Groundwater flow affects these functions in both riverine and wetland ecosystems.
3.4.2.2 Sediment Delivery
Sediment is naturally delivered to streams and river systems through surface erosion, mass
wasting, and in-channel erosion. The delivery, movement, and storage of sediment is largely
driven by hydrologic factors and generally controlled by physical conditions such as topography
(gradient), land cover (vegetation), soil characteristics (erodibility), and the transport capacity or
velocity of moving water (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Lakes in Federal Way do not naturally deliver sediment to downstream waterbodies, but rather
serve as "sinks" for sediment from urbanized areas. As such these areas are more sensitive to
urban development and inputs of sediment in surface water runoff.
Important areas for sediment delivery and movement in Federal Way include:
. Lakes, depresssional wetlands, floodplains, and depositional channels, which provide
sediment storage (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Sediment processes influence the following shoreline functions:
. Sediment storage can protect downstream habitats from delivery of too much
sediment input, which can adversely affect habitat.
. Increases in sediment delivery to lakes can surpass the lake's capacity to assimilate
sediment and adversely affect habitat and water quality.
3.4.2.3 Water Quality
There are many processes at work that maintain or affect water quality in a watershed. This
report focuses on the movement of phosphorus, toxins, nitrogen, and pathogens. Key processes
include biotic uptake and decomposition, adsorption, and denitrification. The movement of
water and sediment largely drives these processes, and they are generally controlled by physical
characteristics such as biotic cover and composition, soil characteristics, and bacterial activity
(Stanley, et aI., 2005).
June.2007
page 23
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Wetlands associated with the lakes or those that drain to the lakes in Federal Way serve to
protect lake water quality through several mechanisms.
Important areas for water quality related processes in freshwater lakes include:
. Depressional wetlands with organic, mineral, or clay soils, which provide adsorption
of phosphorus, toxins, and pathogens (fecal matter);
. High-permeability geologic deposits, which allow subsurface transport of pathogens
while low-permeability deposits allow movement of pathogens via recharge;
. Depressional wetlands, which can both provide nitrogen (nitrification) and remove
nitrogen (denitrification);
. Riparian areas with a consistent supply of shallow groundwater, which provide
denitrification; and
. Headwater streams, which can provide biotic uptake and decomposition, and/or
adsorption of nitrogen (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Water quality processes influence the following shoreline functions:
. Delivery and storage of nitrogen, phosphorus and toxins, and pathogens affect
functions such as denitrification and nutrient cycling. Habitat functions such as
invertebrate abundance and diversity, and food sources for fish, are also affected; and
. Delivery of nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens affects these functions in both
riverine and wetland aquatic ecosystems.
3.4.2.4 Large Woody Debris
Large woody debris (L WD) consists of logs or trees that have fallen into a river or stream. In a
natural system, L WD provides organic material to aquatic ecosystems and is considered a
principal factor in forming stream structure and fish habitat characteristics. Riparian vegetation
is the key source of L WD. Large woody debris is primarily delivered to rivers, streams, or
wetlands by mass wasting, wind throw, or bank erosion (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
Lakes in Federal Way are largely developed in residential uses and will not likely provide
delivery of L WD as a key function. Lakes may deliver woody debris to stream outlets, but this is
not an important function of the lakes in an urban setting. Delivery ofL WD provides habitat
function within the lakes themselves along the lakeshore supporting both inwater and riparian
habitats.
Important areas for L WD delivery and movement in the lakes of Federal Way include:
. Forested areas adjacent to aquatic resources, which can provide L WD via windthrow;
and
. Low-gradient channels, which provide storage ofL WD and organic material, subject
to the transport capacity of water (Stanley, et aI., 2005).
page 24 June 2007
City of Federal Way- Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
The presence, movement, storage, and decomposition ofL WD influence the following shoreline
functions:
. Delivery of wood and organics affects vegetation and habitat functions such as
lake shore habitat structure and species diversity; and
. Riparian vegetation, especially L WD, provides habitat in the form of nesting,
perching, and roosting as well as thermal protection, nutrients, and sources of food
terrestrial insects) to a variety of wildlife species.
3.4.2.5 Shoreline Modifications
Lakes in Federal Way are most commonly influenced by surrounding development, which
affects ecosystem processes. Some of the most common alterations that impact lakes include:
. Removing native shoreline vegetation;
. Removing mature trees in upland and nearshore areas;
. Construction of septic systems and drain fields
. Septic systems failures
. Armoring the shoreline using bulkheads;
. Increasing impervious surface area in the watershed;
. Increasing stormwater runoff into the lake;
. Altering shorelines in ways that encourage Canada geese and ducks to reside;
. Increasing fertilizer/pesticide runoff; and
. Increasing docks or other in-water structures.
These alterations affect shoreline processes through:
. Loss of habitat, shade, and insects which are important for fish;
. Increased sediment delivery, disturbing fish habitat and carrying pollutants;
. Increased wave action that can increase beach erosion rates;
. Loss of large woody debris for aquatic habitat;
. Decreased water quality from storm water runoff;
. Increased nutrients and pathogens from excessive wildlife;
. Increased rates of invasive aquatic plant growth and algae blooms from increased
nutrients through increased lake filling; and
. Increased water temperature leading to more algae blooms.
June 2007 page 25
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.0 NEARSHORE/COASTAL PLANNING AREA INVENTORY
The purpose of this section of the report is to inventory and characterize conditions within the
boundaries of the City's nearshore/coastal shoreline planning area in greater detail and in the
context of the larger watershed, or landscape scale characterization of ecosystem wide processes.
The intent is to identify how existing conditions in the shoreline planning area influence or
contribute to alterations of processes that maintain aquatic ecosystems. The study area is shown
on Figure I and subsequent figures as the City's shoreline planning area.
4.1 Physical Features
4.1.1 Coastal/Nearshore Processes and Modifications
The physical condition of the Federal Way coastal shores is the dynamic result of numerous
influences including geology, shoreline orientation, bathymetry, fetch, geomorphology, and
modification due to human development. Each segment of shore within the study area falls
within a distinct littoral drift cell, which is composed of a sediment source, transport zone and
depositional area (Figure 7). Sediment sources in the study area are predominantly eroding
bluffs, commonly referred to as "feeder bluffs". Landslides and toe erosion commonly occur
along these shores, where sediment is delivered to the nearshore and transported along shore by
littoral drift. Smaller quantities of sediment are delivered to the nearshore by fluvial sources,
though due to the small size of the streams and relatively low-flow, fluvial sediment sources in
the area have only local effects on the nearshore. Transport zones are shores that are neither
eroding nor accreting. Depositional areas, also referred to as accretion shoreforms, are typically
located near the drift cell's terminus (Jacobsen and Schwartz 1981) and are associated with
valuable habitats such as salt marshes, spits and pocket estuaries.
The width of the beach, and more specifically the backshore, influences bluff erosion rates. Wide
beaches typically have a storm berm in the uppermost beach, or backshore, which functions to
absorb wave energy and protect the base of the bluff from wave attack. Wave attack leads to toe
erosion and bluff undercutting that destabilizes slopes. Where beaches are broad - due to littoral
drift deposition, a recent influx of sediment, or proximity to a groin or other drift obstruction -
bluff erosion and mass wasting may be locally reduced. Conversely, where beaches are narrow
and sediment "starved" - due to either natural or artificial circumstances - the erosion rate of
associated bluffs may accelerate (Shipman 2004).
Beach substrate is influenced by the geology of local sediment sources, wave energy and the
position of the beach within the net shore-drift cell. Bluffs in the eastern study area are composed
of larger sediment than bluffs located in the western area. As a result, beach material is finer at
western beaches, relative to th0se in the eastern portion of the study area. Additionally, sediment
size commonly becomes increasingly fine with increasing distance from the drift cell origin.
(Johannessen et aI., 2005)
Erosion control or shore protection structures are common in the study area. Residential or
industrial bulkheading (also called seawalls) are typically designed ~o limit the erosion of the
backshore area or bluff, but have numerous direct and indirect impacts on nearshore systems.
June 2007
page 26
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Studies of the impacts of shoreline armoring have documented increased suspended sediment
and littoral drift rates along armored shores, relative to unarmored shores (Miles et al. 2001).
Bulkheads constructed lower on the beach (below the OHWM) result in coarsening of beach
sediment in front of the bulkhead (Macdonald et al. 1994). Relatively fine-grained sediment is
mobilized by the increased turbulence caused by the bulkhead (Miles et al. 2001), and is
preferentially transported away, leaving the coarser material on the beach.
Of all the impacts of shore armoring in the Puget Sound area, sediment impoundment is probably
the most significant negative impact (PSAT 20Q3). Bulkheads, and similar structures, essentially
"lock up" bluff material that would otherwise be supplied to the net shore-drift system. This
results in a decrease in the quantity of sediment available for maintenance of down-drift beaches.
The negative impact of sediment impoundment is most pronounced when armoring occurs along
actively eroding bluffs (Johannessen et al. 2005, Griggs 2005). Over the long term, the
construction of bulkheads on an erosional coast leads to the loss of beach area and complexity.
A recent study by Johannessen et al. (2005) mapped feeder bluffs, transport zones, accretion
shoreforms and modifications along the reaches of the Federal Way study area. Landslides and
toe erosion were also mapped throughout the study area. These data are summarized in Table 3.
Mapping by Schwartz et al. (1991) mapped littoral drift direction throughout the study area.
Table 4 displays net shore-drift direction, intertidal beach width, and sediment size.
Table 3. Shoretypes, Modifications and Landslides, and Toe Erosion
Shoreline Feeder Bluff Transport Accretion Modified Landslides Toe
Reach Percent Zone Shoreform Percent Percent Erosion
Percent Percent Percent
Puget Sound 38 12 22 68 6 26
East (1 A)
Dumas Bay 6 8 18 68 1 5
(1 B)
Puget Sound 61 6 7 25 45 50
West (1e)
Source: Johannessen, MacLennan and McBride 2005.
Table 4. Net Shore-drift Direction, Sediment Size, Beach Width
..
Shoreline Reach Net shore-drift direction Sediment size Beach width
Puget Sound East (1A) West Pebble with moderate 25-33 ft
sand
Dumas Bay (1B) Drift cell convergence. Sand with pebble 80-255 ft
Southwest and Northeast
Puget Sound West (1 C) West Sand with minor 75-100 ft
pebble
Source: Schwartz et al. 1991, Johannessen, MacLennan and McBride 2005, and Washington State DNR 2001.
June 2007
page 27
City of Federal Way - Shoreline lnventory & Characterization
The following section characterizes the physical conditions within each of the Federal Way shore
reaches.
Puget Sound East (Reach 1A)
Sediment transport in the Puget Sound East reach is southwestward from the eastern boundary of
the City limits and terminates at the southwestern comer of Dumas Bay. The northern orientation
of the shoreline precludes exposure to predominant southerly wind and wave conditions and
results in larger northerly wind waves driving net littoral sediment transport (net shore-drift;
Schwartz et al. 1991). This shore is exposed to the greatest amount of fetch and/or wave energy
throughout the study area.
This reach is characterized by high banks with varying levels of residential development (west of
Redondo Beach), which lower to low bank south of Poverty Bay Park. Twenty-eight percent of
the Puget Sound East shore is modified. Modified shores diminish in abundance in the
southwestern portion of the reach. Modifications observed in the reach include bulkheads, riprap,
and overwater structures.
Feeder bluffs account for approximately 38 percent ofPuget Sound East shore length
(Johannessen et al. 2005). These sediment sources are predominantly found in the central portion
of the reach, likely due to the less modified state of the shoreline, enabling natural geomorphic
processes to persist. Recent landslides were mapped along 5.9 percent, and recent toe erosion
was active along 25.5 percent of the reach (Figure 7).
Geomorphic processes in this reach have been substantially altered by shoreline modifications. A
recent study by Johannessen et al. (2005) shows that shoreline modifications have reduced the
sediment sources in this shore reach by 23 percent of their historic prevalence.
Accretion shoreforms account for 21.8 percent ofPuget Sound East. Each of these accretionary
landforms is associated with a stream mouth or freshwater source (culverts). However, each has
modifications that precluded the formation of subestuarine conditions. Beach sediment at these
sites is sand with moderate pebble. The remaining shores within this reach are mapped as
transport zones, neither substantially accreting nor eroding.
A typical beach profile in the Puget Sound East marine reach is composed of a mixed conifer and
deciduous riparian buffer atop 80- to 100-foot-high, steep coastal bluffs. These bluffs are
composed of Vashon advance outwash deposits and have a history of sliding. As a result, the
base of the bluff is commonly armored with riprap. Upper beach sediment is predominantly sand
with pebble, but at lower elevations clast size increases to pebble dominant. The beach is narrow,
indicative ofthe erosive nature of these shores. Waterward of the beachface is a sandy low-tide
terrace. (Johannessen et al. 2005)
Dumas Bay (Reach 1 B)
Drift cells KI-9-2 and KI-lO-l converge in the southwest corner of Dumas Bay. The eastern
portion of this marine reach encompasses the last mile (approximately) ofKI-9-2, which
originates just south of Saltwater State Park near the City of Des Moines. The western portion of
page 28
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
the reach includes the entire drift cell KI-lO-l. This 0.3-mile cell exhibits southeastward drift and
terminates at a recurved spit just northwest ofthe prograded beach in Dumas Bay (Figure 7).
The Dumas Bay reach is characterized by low to moderately high bank shores, with dense
residential development, and abundant modifications. Higher bluffs are found in the western
portion of the reach in cell KI-I0-2. The beaches are wider and generally of more accretionary
character relative to the other reaches, due to the drift cell convergence, multiple stream deltas
and the protection afforded by the rounded headland on the west shore of the bay and by Maury
Island to the north. Over two-thirds of the reach is modified with bulkheads or riprap. The
eastern portion of the reach is near contiguously modified with several relict boat ramps and
boathouse footings in the intertidal. Several of the beaches mapped as accretionary were also
modified in the upper beach or backshore.
Feeder bluffs account for only 5.9 percent of this shore reach (Johannessen et al. 2005). These
remaining sediment sources are exclusively found northeast of Joe's Creek (stream delta in the
southeast comer of Dumas Bay), as well as on the southwest side of Lakota and Joe's Creeks.
Toe erosion is mapped along 4.8 percent ofthe reach. Toe erosion is also mapped on the
southwest side of both creeks. Only one landslide is mapped in Dumas Bay, which accounted for
0.6 percent of the reach.
Accretion shoreforms currently account for 18.2 percent of Dumas Bay, several of which are
associated with a stream mouth. Fluvial.,derived sediment contributes to accretionary condition
of the beach. Broad sand flats and extensive backshores with driftwood and dune vegetation
characterize these areas.
A typical beach profile in this reach consists of a 3- to 5-foot-high bank, residential dwelling
with a bulkheaded backshore. An absence of back shore (storm berm and dune) habitats and
marine riparian is a direct result of the density of residential development and a bulkheaded
shore. Beach material is a mix of sand with moderate pebble. A broad sand flat extends below
the high-tide beach. (Johannessen et al. 2005)
Puget Sound West (Reach 1C)
This reach originates at a drift zone divergence between cells KI-1O-2 and KI-I0-3 located at the
headland on the west shore of Dumas Bay. KI-I0-3 exhibits westward drift from the divergence
zone to the drift cell terminus at Dash Point in Pierce County (Figure 7).
Puget Sound West is characterized by 80- to 200-foot-high, slowly receding (apparently through
slumping) high bluffs with abundant large woody debris recruitment. Much of the Puget Sound
West shoreline is encompassed within Dumas Bay City Park and Dash Point State Park. Areas
not within the parks are easily identifiable due to residential development on top or at the base of
the bluffs. Modifications are typically residential bulkheads constructed at the base of bluffs
between the two parks. This is the only contiguously bulkheaded area in the reach and represents
25.3 percent of its length. Another very short shore modification is located at the western end of
the study area.
Feeder bluffs are mapped throughout much of this shore reach, representing 60.9 percent of the
segment (Johannessen et al. 2005). Thirteen recent landslide areas are mapped, most of which
June 2007
page 29
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
are located along the high bluffs of the headland west of Dumas Bay and surrounding Dash Point
State Park. In total, landslides are mapped along 44.6 percent of this reach. Recent toe erosion is
also frequently observed, accoWlting for 49.7 percent of the reach.
Few transport zones are mapped in this reach, accounting for only 6.4 percent of the reach.
Accretion shoreforms are also relatively infrequent. These are exclusively found in the western
portion of the reach, adjacent to the mini-estuary in Dash Point State Park. Most ofthis accretion
shoreform is unmodified; however, the stream channel is heavily riprapped.
Geomorphic processes in this reach have been substantially altered by shoreline modifications. A
recent study by Johannessen et aI. (2005) shows that prior to modifications sediment sources
accounted for 84.6 percent of the reach. This indicates that shoreline modification has resulted in
a 23.7 percent (2,066 feet) loss of the available sediment sources in the reach.
A typical cross section of the Puget Sound West reach includes a mixed conifer and deciduous
forested bluff with slumps and jack strawed trees hanging over the intertidal area. Toe erosion
has scoured beneath some trees, leaving them growing over the intertidal area while still attached
to the toe of the bluff. Drift logs are caught and accumulate in these trees. Beach material is
almost exclusively sand with minor amounts of pebble. The low-tide beach includes a broad sand
flat. (Johannessen et al. 2005)
4.1.2 Geological Hazards and Shoreline Slope Stability
4.1.2.1 Seismic Hazard Areas
Seismic hazard areas are defined in Chapter 18-28 of the Federal Way Municipal Code (FWMC)
as those areas subject to earthquake damage as a result of seismically-induced ground shaking,
slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions commonly
occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density, usually in association with a
shallow groundwater table (Palmer et aI., 2003). No seismic hazard areas are identified within
the shoreline jurisdiction in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (King County, 1990) or
on the county's interactive map site (iMAP) (accessed on 5/16/06 at
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm). However, maps produced by the
Washington Department of Natural Resources indicate areas of low to moderate liquefaction
susceptibility in all shoreline segments (Palmer et aI., 2003).
4.1.2.2 Landslide Hazard Areas
Landslide hazard areas are defined in Chapter 18-28 ofFWMC as those areas potentially subject
to episodic downslope movement of amass of soil or rock. They are defined as: (1) any area
having a combination of slopes greater than 15 percent, permeable soils overlying impermeable
soils, and springs or groundwater seepage, (2) any area showing movement during the last
10,000 years, (3) any potentially unstable area as a result of stream incision or wave erosion, (4)
any area located in a ravine or on an alluvial fan that may be inundated by flooding or debris
flows, (5) any area identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a severe
limitation for building site development, (6) any area mapped as unstable by the Department of
Ecology, or (7) slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent.
page 30
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Landslide hazard area information for the City's shoreline jurisdiction is shown on Figures 9-A
through 9-C. Designated landslide hazard areas include the majority of the shore bluffs in all of
the shoreline segments. As much as 77 percent of the shoreline Reach 1 C is considered to be a
landslide area, while 47 and 38 percent of Reaches 1A and 1B, respectively, are considered to be
landslide hazard areas. The extent of designated landslide hazard areas may not correspond
exactly with the mapped extent of mass wasting deposits, as shown on Figure 4, or with the slope
stability and landslide area designations indicated in the Coastal Zone Atlas.
4.1.2.3 Erosion Hazard Areas
Erosion hazard areas are defined in Chapter 18-28 ofFWMC as those areas having severe to
very severe erosion hazard because of natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or
stream flow. Such areas designated on eity GIS maps and King County GIS maps (accessed on
5/16/06 at http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm) include all coastal bluffs and
steep slopes within the jurisdiction, which includes all shoreline segments. Approximately 65 to
70 percent of the shoreline segments are considered erosion hazard areas. These areas are shown
on Figures 9-A through 9-C.
4. 1.2.4 Steep Slopes
Steep slope hazard areas are defined in Chapter 18-28 ofFWMC as those areas with a slope of
40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or
more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. According to City GIS maps King County GIS
maps (accessed on 5/16/06 at http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm). the
shoreline bluffs in all segments of the jurisdiction qualify as steep slopes, as shown on Figures 9-
A through 9-C.
4.1.2.5 Shoreline Slope Stability
The Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas (Ecology, 1979) characterizes the slope stability
of the entire shoreline along Puget Sound. Although the City does not regulate shoreline
development based on slope stability. characterization, the maps provide an additional
characterization of slope stability and a source of documented landslides. This mapping should
not be considered comprehensive and does not include landslides that have occurred since the
late 1970s.
In the Coastal Zone Atlas, slope stability is defined in terms of six separate categories: stable,
intermediate, unstable, unstable recent landslide, unstable old landslide, and modified. Table 5
describes these slope stability categories.
June 2007
page 31
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 5. Ecology Slope Stability Map Designations
Slope Stability Definition
Designation
Stable Generally rise less than 15 percent in grade, except in areas of low groundwater
concentration or competent bedrock. Include rolling uplands and lowlands
underlain by stable material (i.e., unweathered till and/or peat deposits) with no
significant slope.
Intermediate Generally steeper than 15 percent except in areas where weaker material and/or
abundant material exist. These areas include slopes of sand and gravel, till, or
thin soils over bedrock with no known failures.
Unstable Slopes that are considered unstable due to geology, groundwater, slope, and/or
erosional factors which include areas of landslide and talus too small or obscure
to be mapped.
Unstable Recent Landslide Recent or historically active landslide areas (based on surveys conducted in the
late 1970s).
Unstable Old Landslide Post-glacial but prehistoric landslide areas.
Modified Slopes that are highly modified by human activity and include areas of
significant excavation or filling. Response of the slope to a combination of
human activity and natural processes may be unpredictable.
Slopes classified as unstable are present in all segments of the shoreline jurisdiction according to
the Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas (Ecology, 1979). Slopes within Reach 1 A are
generally designated in the Coastal Zone Atlas as unstable, unstable recent landslide, unstable
old landslide, and intermediate. Along the shoreline of Dumas Bay, Reach 1B, slopes are
designated unstable, unstable old landslide, and intermediate. Shorelines within Reach 1 C are
characterized by unstable old landslide, intermediate, and stable.
4.1.3 Aquifer Recharge Areas
Critical aquifer recharge areas are defined in WAC 365-190-030 as "areas in which water
reaches the zone of saturation by surface infiltration. These areas are hydrogeologically
susceptible to contamination and contamination loading potential including but not limited to
such areas as sole water source aquifer recharge areas, special protection groundwater
management areas, wellhead protection areas, and other areas with a critical recharging effect on
aquifers used for potable water." Chapter 22, Article XIV, Division 9 of the Federal Way City
Code, "Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas," applies to any
development activity or division of land, which requires review under FWCC Chapter 18,
"Environmental Protection." The Lakehaven Utility District has mapped generalized aquifer
recharge areas. There are three major aquifers in the City and its P AA, but only one intersects
any shoreline planning areas. The RedondolMilton Channel Aquifer overlaps portions of reach
lA, IB, and 1C. This area is managed as A Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. The City has
mapped wellhead protection zones within the city limits and the PAA. The majority of the
wellhead protection areas do not coincide with the shoreline reaches, and no wellhead protection
areas coincide with the three marine shoreline reaches.
page 32
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.1.4 Flood Hazard Areas
Flood hazard areas are typically identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) flood insurance rate maps as the 100-year floodplain. All coastal beaches within the
City's jurisdiction are included within the 100-year floodplain (King County, 2002, from FEMA
. FIRM mapping). Coastal floodplain hazard areas are typically associated with storm waves.
4.1.5 Streams
Streams are defined in the FWCC Chapter 22 Article I Section 22-1 and are classified as "Major"
or "Minor" streams. Major streams include any stream or tributary that contains or supports, or
which under normal circumstances contains or supports resident or migratory fish and are
perennial. Minor streams are those typically smaller streams that do no meet the definition of a
"major" stream, may be ephemeral. Streams within the City of Federal Way have been
evaluated and classified in a citywide inventory conducted in 2001 (URS). Streams provide
valuable wildlife corridors, a source of fluv.ial sediments to the marine shoreline (moved along
the shoreline by currents), and support a range offish species. The City of Federal Way is
located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, the Duwamish-Green River and Central
Puget Sound Watershed. .Information on stream conditions was drawn in particular from the
following documents: Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report,
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon Island) (Kerwin
and Nelson, 2000), and A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization - Volume L
Puget Sound Region (Williams et aI., 1975).
Several streams have been identified in F ederal Way that flow directly into Puget Sound and are
part of the Lower Puget Sound basin. The streams discussed below are shown in Figure 6.
Puget Sound East
F our short unnamed streams enter the coastal shoreline in Reach 1 A. These streams have steep
gradients and are associated with landslide and erosion hazard zones. The city stream inventory
. considers these streams as Major streams. These streams are important contributors of fluvial
sediment transport to the marine environment in the City of Federal Way. Major streams in the
City are afforded a standard buffer of 100 feet.
Dumas Bay
Three streams drain to the shoreline within the Dumas Bay area, or Reach IB; these include
Joe's Creek, Lakota Creek and an unnamed tributary to the Sound (Dumas Bay Creek). Joe's
Creek and Lakota Creek are Major streams and Dumas Bay Creek is considered a Minor stream.
Joe's Creek originates in the uplands of Federal Way, flowing through Olympic View Park and
the Twin Lakes Golf Course, then drops into a high-gradient stream channel that falls through a
wooded ravine, eventually flattening immediately prior to entering Puget Sound on the east side
of Dumas Bay. The substrate within the creek consists of pebbles arid cobble-sized particles
with localized sand depositions. Gravel deposits are very local and spawning opportunities are
typically few. These features are typical of flow alterations caused by undetained stormwater
(King County, 2000). Joe's Creek appears on the 2004 Department of Ecology 303(d) list for
June 2007
page 33
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
fecal coliform (data collected in 1988 from monitoring station at SR 509). The source of fecal
coliform in Joe's Creek is unknown.
Lakota Creek flows in a northwesterly direction before entering Puget Sound at Dumas Bay
(Reach IB). The stream passes through the site of the Lakehaven Sewage and Wastewater
Treatment Plant, prior to flowing to the Puget Sound. The lower reach of the stream was
relocated as part of an upgrade to the sewage treatment plant in 1987. The creek generally flows
through residential areas and alongside roads. The riparian habitat in the lower reaches consists
of small deciduous trees with a shrub understory. The lower mile of creek supports dense stands
of conifers within a moderate- to high-gradient ravine. Substrate within Lakota Creek is
generally the same as that in Joe's Creek. It was on the 1998 303(d) list for fecal coliform (King
County, 2000), but is not listed on the 2004 303(d) list.
Puget Sound West
One unnamed creek (referred to in the WRIA as No. 0391) flows through a.steep ravine into
Puget Sound at Dash Point State Park in Reach I C. Clay bluffs border the beach in many places.
Mudslides have become more frequent in the stream with increasing development (KCDNR,
1998). From aerial photography (2002), riparian buffer vegetation appears to be largely intact in
the upper reaches within Dash Point State Park, but less so from the parking lot down to the
creek mouth. The creek banks are armored from the mouth up to the road bridge, 200 feet
upstream (WRIA 9, 2005).
4.2 Biological Resources
Biological resources described in the coastal shorelines encompass wetlands, critical wildlife
habitat and species, marine riparian habitats, marine intertidal habitats, and priority species.
4.2.1 Wetlands
Wetlands near the Puget Sound shoreline typically include tidal marshes and tidally influenced
estuaries. Tidal marshes include salt aild freshwater habitats that experience tidal inundation
(KCDNR, 2001). Several wetlands have been mapped by various sources in the City's coastal
shoreline jurisdiction (Figure 6). According to the 1987 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), the
entire area of the City's shoreline jurisdiction in the City limits is designated as Estuarine
Intertidal Unconsolidated Shore wetland or Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated
Shore wetland (USDI, 1987a and 1987b). In addition, one larger freshwater wetland is mapped
at Dumas Bay as a Palustrine Emergent Scrub/Shrub wetland. The King County Sensitive Areas
Map Folio (King County, 1990) does not identify any wetlands within the City's marine
shoreline jurisdiction.
The City Wetland Inventory (City of Federal Way, 1998) identifies the freshwater wetland at
Dumas Bay as a Class I wetland (FWMC 18-28). However, it does not include the estuarine
wetlands identified in the NWI within the City's marine shoreline jurisdiction. Although
mapped as wetlands at the national level on the NWI maps, the intertidal areas are likely not
sufficiently vegetated to meet the definition of wetland at the state or local level. Additional
marine shoreline jurisdiction wetlands are identified in the City's Wetland Inventory northeast of
page 34
June 2007
pty of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Dumas Bay near the intersection of Southwest 300th Place and 30th A venue Southwest and two
within the conservancy area north of Southwest 295th Street between 9th and 10th A venues
Southwest. All of these wetlands are less than 1 acre in size and are identified as Class III
(FWMC 18-28).
Parks and open spaces including Dash Point State Park, Poverty Bay Park, and Dumas Bay Park
create significant breaks in residential development along the City's marine shoreline. Of the
roughly 25,000 feet of marine shoreline within the City's jurisdiction, approximately 40 percent
is armored. The majority of the unarmored shoreline is within the park and open space
conservation areas, with some of the developed private shoreline also without armoring.
Development and armoring along marine shoreline reaches within the City's jurisdiction have
eliminated historical wetlands and prevent connections between interior wetlands and the
. nearshore area.
4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat and Species
Critical fish and wildlife habitat areas are those areas identified as being of critical importance in
the maintenance and preservation of fish, wildlife and natural vegetation. Critical fish and
wildlife habitat areas are defined in Chapter 18.28 (FWMC) as follows:
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area shall mean the management of land
for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic
distribution so that isolated sub populations are not created. Habitat
conservation areas include but are not limited to such areas as: areas with
which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association; habitats and species of local importance; commercial and
recreational shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt
spawning areas; naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their
submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; waters of the
state; lakes, ponds and streams planted with game fish by a governmental or
tribal entity; state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation
areas; and streams.
Mapped critical fish and wildlife habitats are shown on Figure 10. Critical fish and wildlife
habitats in the City's marine shoreline planning area are characterized throughout the following
sections describing the shoreline and nearshore biological areas.
4.2.3 Marine Riparian Habitats
Riparian areas are transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian
habitats include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of
energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). Marine riparian
vegetation is defined as vegetation overhanging the intertidal zone (KCDNR, 2001). Marine
riparian zones function by protecting water quality; providing wildlife habitat; regulating
microclimate; providing shade, nutrient and sources of food; stabilizing banks; and providing
large woody debris (Anchor Environmental and People for Puget Sound, 2002).
June 2007
page 35
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Marine riparian zones were examined through limited field reconnaissance and review of 2001
oblique aerial photos (Ecology, 2002). Marine riparian vegetation within the City's shoreline
planning area was mapped in the WRIA 9 Marine Shoreline Inventory Report (Anchor, 2004).
Puget Sound East
Riparian vegetation in Reach IA is mixed trees and grasses. Much of Reach IA is armored with
concrete and wooden bulkheads, and riprap seawalls. L WD or drift log accumulations have been
mapped along unarmored portions of Reach 1 A.
Dumas Bay
Riparian vegetation within the Dumas Bay reach, Reach IB, is dominated by grasses, although
trees are found along the high bluffs to the west of Dumas Bay, as well as in the reach between
Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek. The shoreline is armored for approximately 600 feet east of
Dumas Bay Park, as well as east of Lakota Creek to Poverty Bay Park for the protection of
homes along the toe of the bluff. L WD is lacking along most of this shoreline segment, though
drift log accumulations have been mapped along the beach at Dumas Bay Park.
Puget Sound West
Trees dominate the riparian vegetation in Reach I C, particularly along Dash Point State Park and
the high, steep bluffs along this segment. Shoreline armoring is limited to the center of this
reach, along the rural segment. This armored section is generally lacking in L WD and drift logs,
although L WD is available along much of the rest of the shoreline segment.
Shoreline activities that may negatively affect marine riparian areas (Brennan and Culverwel1,
2004) include:
. Fecal and chemical contamination from failing septic systems, lawn chemicals, and
stormwater;
. Loss of vegetation from shoreline armoring, clearing and grading activities, or tree
removal for view corridors; and
. Wildlife habitat infringement due to increased ambient light levels at night, fragmentation
from road crossings, noise from human activity, and domestic pets.
4.2.4 Marine Intertidal Habitats
Marine intertidal habitats include flats, subestuaries, eelgrass beds, and kelp forests. These areas
are considered "special aquatic sites, "which are special habitats in the intertidal zone that
generally do not meet the definition of wetland. Flats generally include gently sloping (less than
50 slope) sandy or muddy intertidal or shallow subtidal areas (KCDNR, 200 I), and are used by
juvenile salmonids, shorebirds, and shellfish, among other species. Flats are generally located at
the mouths of streams where sediment transported downstream is deposited, and in areas of low
wave and current energy where longshore waves and currents deposit sediment (KCDNR, 2001).
All of the flats in WRIA 9 were mapped around Vashon and Maury Island; however, there are
tidal flats in WRIA 9 that were not captured during the WDNR mapping effort. Sand and gravel
page 36
June 2007
-I
I
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
flats are located near the mouth of Unnamed Creek (#0391) that enters Puget Sound through
Dash Point State Park (Reach 1C), and Dumas Bay (Reach IB).
Shoreline activities that may impact tidal flats (KCDNR, 2001) include:
. Unnatural erosion or deposition of sediment;
. Harvesting of shellfish and other marine life;
. Fecal and chemical contamination from on-site septic systems, lawn chemicals, and
stormwater;
. Physical disturbances from shoreline armoring, marina construction, and upland
development practices;
. Shading from overwater structures; and
. Loss of emergent and riparian vegetation.
Subestuaries are those areas of river and stream mouths that experience tidal inundation,
including their deltas and any associated marshes (KCDNR, 2001). Subestuaries form where the
stream or river broadens and fresh and saltwaters mix. Subestuaries function to attenuate
flooding, provide juvenile salmonid feeding and rearing habitat, act as a transition area for
migrating adult salmonids, support eelgFass beds (depending on salinity), and provide refuge,
feeding, and production areas to a wide variety of birds, fish, mammals, and invertebrates
(KCDNR,2001). Subestuaries, especially those rich in organic matter, can support numerous
and diverse marine and estuarine invertebrates such as polychaete worms and amphipods. These
organisms near the base of the food web can be key to overall ecosystem productivity and habitat
value for fish, birds, and mammals. Subestuaries occur in marine shoreline Reaches 1 B and 1 C,
and are associated with the stream mouths of Unnamed Creek (#0391), Joe's Creek, and Lakota
Creek.
Deltas are formed by downstream sediment transport. The growth of deltas and quality of habitat
provided by the subestuaries is influenced by annual rainfall and the rate at which sediment is
transported and deposited at the mouths of streams. High peak flows that occur as a result of.
increased impervious surface within the stream basin likely transport sediment further out into
Puget Sound where depths are greater, resulting in sediment accumulation beyond the stream
mouth.
Shoreline activities that may affect subestuaries include:
. Physical disturbances from shoreline armoring;
. Physical disturbances from dredging and filling;
. Changes in hydrology due to increased impervious surface within stream basins; and
. Nonpoint pollutant runoff from impervious surfaces and residential lawns near the
shoreline.
The importance of eelgrass has been described in various sources, including the Reconnaissance
Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Environment (KCDNR, 2001). Eelgrass beds are found
June 2007
page 37
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
in shallow subtidal areas and provide feeding and rearing habitat for a large number of marine
organisms. Eelgrass beds have been documented within the City's shoreline jurisdiction in all
marine shoreline segments. Continuous eelgrass distribution can be found along the north end of
Dash Point State Park and Palisades Park, as well as from the north end of Dumas Bay to 3rd
Avenue Southwest; eelgrass distribution along the remainder of the City's marine shoreline is
classified as patchy (WDNR, 2001). Shoreline activities that may impact eelgrass (KCDNR,
2001) include:
· Clam harvesting;
· Propeller scour and wash;
· Physical disturbances from shoreline armoring;
· Shading from overwater structures; and
· Physical disturbances from dredging and filling.
The function of kelp has been described in Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the
Nearshore Environment (KCDNR, 2001). Kelp provides habitat for many fish species, including
rockfish and salmonids, potential spawning substrate for herring, and buffers to shoreline from
waves and currents, among other functions. Kelp distribution is largely dependent upon the type
of substrate, generally attaching to rocky substrates. In areas where there is a coarsening of
substrate in the low intertidal and shallow subtidal zones, there is a more likely occurrence of
kelp. A change in kelp distribution may indicate the coarsening of shallow subtidal sediments
(such as that caused by erosion related to a seawall) or an increase in nutrient loading (such as
from sewage effluent). Kelp forests are not currently mapped within the City of Federal Way
shoreline planning area. Kelp was previously reported as occurring within all reaches of WRIA
9, which would include the Federal Way shoreline (KCDNR, 2001). KCDNR also noted data
gaps in general knowledge of kelp and its biology, its role in nearshore ecological processes, lack
of historical or recent studies, and lack of distribution data.
Shoreline activities that may impact kelp densities (KCDNR, 2001) include:
· Physical disturbances from shoreline armoring, marina construction, and harvesting;
· Shading from overwater structures;
· Beach nourishment; and
· Nutrient loading.
4.2.5 Priority Habitat and Species
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains priority habitat and
species information for Washington State, including the status of species as threatened or
endangered. The City of Federal Way occurs within the WDFW Region 4. Priority habitats
within Region 4 include consolidated marine/estuarine shorelines, cliffs, caves, snags, riparian
areas, old-growth/mature forests, and urban open spaces. The following sections discuss some of
the priority species and species of local importance that occur within the City's shoreline
planning area.
page 38
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.2.5.1 Shellfish.
Geoduck clams (Panopea generosa) are documented in subtidal areas adjacent to shoreline in a
small portion of Reach lA, as well as all of ReacheslB and lC, southwest of Poverty Bay Park
and extending beyond the City limits (Figure 10). The tract was last surveyed in 1971, as
reported in Sizemore and Ulrich (2000). At the time of the 1971 survey, densities within the
tract and other geoduck tracts along the WRlA 9 mainland area were shown to be amongst the
highest in Puget Sound (approximately 4 to 7 per square meter). The tracts, however, were also
reported as "polluted or possibly polluted" (Sizemore and Ulrich, 2000). Since 1971 the
shoreline has continued to be developed which has an effect on the shellfish populations and
their distribution. No doubt pollution will continue to be an issue. Additional surveys are
needed to confirm species abundance and health.
In general, shellfish populations are relatively low in all shoreline reaches. Population data from
a series of shoreline surveys along the southern extent ofWRIA 9 (south ofMee Kwa Mooks
Park of Seattle to Dash Point State Park) were analyzed by KCDNR (2001), and are presented in
Table 6. It should be noted that there is a data gap concerning the collection of population data,
and this relates primarily to the differences in sampling methodology and lack of recent
quantitative population studies within WRlA 9.
Table 6. Shellfish Population Densities in Southern WRIA 9
'.. v
Common Name Scientific Name PopulatiQD density (num ber per
squa're meter)
Butter clam Saxidomus giganteus <10
Native littleneck clam Protothaca staminea 6-17
Manila clam Tapes philippinarum :::10
Geoduck Panopea generosa 1-2
Dungeness crab Cancer magister N/ A; decreases as you move south from
Seattle
Olympic oyster Ostrea /urida 0
Northern abalone Ha/iotis kamtschatkana 0
No portion of the City's shoreline is currently used for commercial shellfish harvest. In July
2004 the Washington State Department of Health closed all ofthe Puget Sound shoreline in King
County, including Dash Point State Park, Dumas Bay Park and Poverty Bay Park, to recreational
shellfish harvesting for all species due to pollution advisory and the presence of biotoxins in
particular shellfish species. The Department of Health conducts an ongoing assessment of
pollution and conditions related to shellfish harvesting. The latest update was in March 2006,
which maintained the closure of mainland King County beaches to recreational shellfish
harvesting (Washington Department of Health, 2006).
June 2007
page 39
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
4.2.5.2 Salmonids
The WDFW SalmonScape database (WDFW, 2006), PHS Data, as well asA Catalog of
Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization - Volume 1, Puget Sound Region (Williams et aI.,
1975), identify the known presence of salmon in local streams. Two creeks in ReachlB have
documented presence of PHS fish, Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek. Joe's Creek contains
documented coho salmon and Chum. Lakota Creek has documented use by coho and chum
salmon.
Nearshore habitat is an important environment for juvenile salmonids, where the shallow water
depth obstructs the presence of larger predator species (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). All shoreline
segments within the City's shoreline jurisdiction are known or expected to contain juvenile
salmonids including bull trout, cutthroat, Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye salmon based
in the knowledge of species life histories (KCDNR, 2001).
Critical Habitat, as defined by the Endangered Species Act, "is the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species.. .on which are found those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations or protection"; and "specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed... that are essential for the conservation of the species." Critical
Habitat has been designated for Pacific salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho,
including the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon. Areas within
Federal Way that are included as Chinook Critical Habitat include West Hylebos Creek, and
estuarine, and nearshore marine areas to a depth of 30 meters relative to Mean Lower Low Water
(MLL W) (Federal Register, 2005a). Critical Habitat has also been designated for bull trout,
which may be present in the nearshore areas of Federal Way: Designated Critical Habitat for
bull trout includes marine waters to a depth of33 feet (10 meters) relative to MLLW (Federal
Register, 2005b).
Nearshore modifications, as detailed in Sections 4.1, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 of this chapter, affect
salmonid habitat (Redman et aI., 2005) in the following ways:
· Loss and/or simplification of deltas and delta wetlands, which provide forage and rearing
habitat for salmonids;
· Alteration of flows through major rivers;
· Modification of shorelines by armoring, overwater structures and loss of riparian
vegetation;
· Contamination of nearshore and marine resources;
· Alteration of biological populations and communities;
· Transformation of land cover and hydrologic function of small marine surface water
discharges via urbanization; and
· Transformation of habitat types and features via colonization by invasive plants.
These nearshore modifications can adversely affect salmonid habitat by reducing forage and
rearing habitat for young fish, changing flow dynamics in rivers and altering in-stream habitat,
page 40
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
reducing water quality, creating blockages for fish passage, and altering the food supply upon
which salmonids depend.
4.2.5.3 Forage Fish
Forage fish include species that as adults breed prolifically and are small enough to be prey for
larger species. They are often non-game fish. The three forage fish species most likely to occur
in the City's shoreline jurisdiction include surf smelt, sand lance, and Pacific herring (Figure 10).
Different species utilize different parts of the intertidal and subtidal zones, with sand lance and
surf smelt spawning primarily in the substrate of the upper intertidal zone, and Pacific herring
spawning primarily on intertidal or subtidal vegetation (Lemberg et aI., 1997). Information on
the five potential forage fish species within the City marine shoreline is summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Forage Fish Species
Documented Preferred
Species Presence Spawning Timing Spawning Spawning Location
Substrate
Pacific None (nearest is Quartermaster Harbor Eelgrass Upper high tide limits to
herring Quartermaster J stock spawn January depths of 40 feet
Harbor on Vashon through mid-April (typically between 0 and -
I.) 10 tidal elevation)
Sand lance Yes, WDFW PHS November 1 to February Fine sand, mixed From + 5 tidal elevation
15 sand and gravel, or to higher high water line
gravel up to 3cm (from bays and inlets to
current-swept beaches)
Eulachon None Late winter/early spring Unknown Freshwater streams.
Longfin None Winter Sand with aquatic Freshwater streams
smelt vegetation
Surf smelt Yes, WDFW PHS South Puget Sound stocks Mix of coarse sand Upper intertidal
are fall-winter spawners and fme gravel (1-
(September to March) 7mm)
Sources: (O'Toole, 1995; KCDNR, 2001; Lemberg et aI., 1997)
Information on documented forage fish spawning activity was available from the Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife Priority Habitat Species (WDFW PHS) data (2004). No Pacific
herring, eulachon, or longfin smelt spawning areas are currently documented in the shoreline
inventory area (WDFW, 2004). However, it is fair to assume that they all utilize the nearshore
areas for feeding and migration. WDFW (2004) and Kerwin and Nelson (2000) document surf
smelt spawning areas in a small stretch of Reach lA, adjacent to Southwest 296th Street between
9th and 12th Avenues Southwest and in a segment of Reach 1 C and from the western edge of
Dash Point State Park to beyond the City's western shoreline boundary. A sand lance spawning
area is mapped from just inside the eastern boundary of the City (Reach 1A) and continuing
northeast across the mouth of Redondo Creek (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000; WDFW, 2004).
June 2007
page 41
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Nearshore modifications affect forage fish habitat in the following ways:
· Development impacts the shoreline, particularly marinas and boat ramps, which bury
spawning habitat, introduce the potential for repeated disturbance, and potentially alter
nearshore hydrology;
· Sewer outfalls introduce pollutants and nutrients to the nearshore;
· Overwater structures shade intertidal vegetation and may alter nearshore hydrology;
· Riprap revetments and bulkheads impound sediment in bluffs such that fine-grained
spawning beach sediment is not replenished (o.ngoing net-shore drift decreases spawning
habitat); and
· Riprap revetments and vertical bulkheads alter nearshore hydrology and may increase
wave energy on intertidal areas.
Sand lance and surf smelt spawn in the upper intertidal zone of protected sand-gravel beaches
throughout the increasingly populated Puget Sound basin, making these species vulnerable to the
cumulative effects of various types of shoreline development. "No net loss" regulations for
protection of known spawning sites of forage fish species are included in the Washington
Administrative Code Hydraulic Code Rules (WAC 220-110), which are applied during
permitting of in-water construction activities.
4.2.5.4 Marine Mammals
Seals, sea lions, whales, and dolphins may all be observed off the shores of Federal Way. Seals
and sea lions use specific shoreline areas, known as haul-outs, to haul-out of the water and rest,
dry out, interact and regulate body their temperature. In addition to resting, harbor seals give
birth to and nurse their pups at certain haul-out locations, and undergo an annual molt of their
pelage or fur. Haul-outs can include beaches, rocky areas, log booms, and floats. Some haul-outs
are used regularly, while others may be used seasonally or occasionally. No seal or sea lion haul-
outs have been documented in Federal Way, although they have been documented on buoys,
floats, and logbooms in Commencement Bay and southeast of Maury Island (Jeffries et aI.,
2000).
Whales and dolphins known to regularly visit central Puget Sound include southern resident
killer whales, common dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall' s porpoise. They do not typically use
the nearshore areas within City of Federal Way shoreline jurisdiction. Critical Habitat has been
proposed for killer whales, including Puget Sound marine waters deeper than 20 feet (6.1 meters)
(Federal Register, 2006).
4.2.5.5 Shorebirds and Upland Birds
Adjacent to the open waters of Puget Sound, the upland terrestrial environment provides habitat
for birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. A variety of shorebirds utilize the nearshore
environment for wintering and breeding. Seventy-five species of birds are associated with marine
nearshore environments in Washington (O'Neil et aI., 2001).
page 42
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and green heron (Butorides striatus) nesting colonies have
been identified in Reach IB (WDFW, 2006). Documented observation dates of these nesting
colonies range from 1980 to 2003 (WDF:W, 2006). Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests
have also been documented in Reaches lA and lC (WDFW, 2004). A seabird colony outside of
the City's jurisdiction, associated with the northeast shore of Commencement Bay and the
Hylebos Waterway, as well as breeding purple martins (Progne subis) south of the City, may
utilize nearshore resources within Federal Way.
4.3 land Use Patterns
The City of Federal Way is located in the southwestern comer of King County. Federal Way is
highly developed and has a well-established pattern of land use. Approximately 4.5 miles of
Puget Sound shoreline bound the City to the west, South 272nd Street to the north, the
King/Pierce County line to the south, and Interstate-5 (1-5) to the east. The Cities of Kent and
Des Moines borders Federal Way on the north, the Cities of Auburn, Algona, and Pacific to the
east, and the Cities of Milton and Tacoma to the south as well as portions of unincorporated
Pierce County. The City's nearshore shoreline jurisdiction is composed ofa variety of natural
and human-modified landscape features that include natural and modified beaches, concrete,
wood and rock bulkheads, and roads. These features are illustrated by the air photo depicting
current conditions on Figures 11-A through II-C.
4.3.1 Existing Land Use
The nearshore shoreline of Federal Way is predominantly developed as single-family residential,
interspersed with parks, open space, and multi-family developments. The City has a diversity of
housing types. The nearshore shoreline areas are comprised of approximately 55 percent single-
family development~ 18 percent parks, 14 percent open space, 10 percent vacant land, and 2
percent multi-family development. Existing land use categories per marine shoreline reach are
shown in Table 8. Existing land use categories are derived from King County Assessor codes,
compiled by parcel. Road right-of-way areas in the reaches are not included.
4.3.2 Comprehensive Plan
According to the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Map (2002), the City's shoreline
jurisdiction is largely comprised of properties designated as low- to medium-density residential
(1 to 4.5 dwelling units per acre). Parks, Open Space and Public FacilitieslUtilities designations
comprise the second largest portion of the shoreline. Small areas designated as commercial,
office and multi-family comprise the remainder.
General goals and policies established in the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2002)
relate to the preservation of existing residential neighborhood character, protection of
environniental resources, and the promotion of economic development. The Comprehensive
Plan seeks to balance these social, environniental, and economic goals through land use and
zoning regulations, critical areas regulations using best available science, and development
regulations. In relation to shorelines, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve or develop
shorelines and adjacent areas in a manner that assures a balance of shoreline uses with minimal
adverse effect on the quality oflife, water, and environnient (City of Federal Way, 2002).
June 2007
page 43
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
The City's existing Shoreline Master Program goals and policies are included as an element in
the land use chapter of the City's current Comprehensive Plan. These goals and policies
encourage water-oriented uses and existing residential uses in balance with protection of the
Puget Sound shoreline's natural resources (City of Federal Way, 2002). This document also
establishes shoreline environment designations as Natural, Conservancy, Rural, or Urban
Environments, depending on the land use and intensity of development. In the coastal shoreline,
the existing shoreline environment designations are shown on Figures l2-A through l2-C.
4.3.3 Zoning Designations
Zoning designations in the City of Federal Way generally follow land use designations as
discussed above under Comprehensive Plan Designation. Within the City's nearshore shoreline
jurisdiction, zoning is exclusively residential single-family (Figures l2-A through l2-C). These
include residential 1 unit! 7,200 square feet (RS 7.2), residential! unit!9,600 square feet (RS
9.6), residential 1 unit! 1 5,000 square feet (RS 15.0), residential 1 unit!35,000 square feet (RS
35.0), and residential 1 unit! 5 acres (SE).
Table 8. Land Use, Zoning, and Shoreline Environments
Shoreline Existing Land Use Zoning Existing
Shoreline
Reach by Percent by Percent Desie:nations
Multi Family I Single Family .34 Urban
Open Space 34 Single Family Low 63 Conservancy
Densitv
IA Park 7 Rural
Right of Way 2
Single Family Residential 63
Vacant 16
Open Space 28 Single Family 26 Conservancy
Park 8 Single Family Low 71 Rural
Density
IB Right of Way 96 Natural
Single Family Residential 56
Utilities I
Vacant 5
Multi Family 6 Single Family Low 99 Conservancy
Densitv
Open Space 2 Rural
IC Park 38
Right of Way I
Single Family Residential 45
Vacant 8
4.3.4 Roads and Bridges
As described above the majority of the City's shoreline is occupied by low- to medium-density
single-family development. Public shoreline access is available at Dash Point State Park, Dumas
Bay Park, Dumas Bay Center, and Poverty Bay Park. Limited shoreline access and uniformity in
page 44
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
shoreline land use (single family) created a land use pattern with relatively few roads in the
City's shoreline. Most of the roads that provide access to the shoreline are located outside the
City's shoreline jurisdiction. The exceptions are a small portion of Southwest 300th Place in
shoreline environmental Reach 1B, and Southwest 292nd Street, 2nd Avenue Southwest, and
Southwest 291st Street, in Reach 1C. All streets in the City's shoreline are local streets.
However, one larger roadway influences the shoreline area by providing access, but is outside of
the City's shoreline. Leading to Dumas Bay Center, Dumas Bay Park, and Dash Point State
Park, is Southwest Dash Point Road, State Route 509 (located in Reach 1B, 1 C). King County
Metro, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit provide transit services in the City of Federal Way.
The only transit route in the Federal Way nearshore shoreline vicinity is Metro's Route 175 that
provides service along Southwest Dash Point Road.
4.3.5 Wastewater and Stormwater Utilities
Lakehaven Utility District (District) provides sanitary sewer service within the City's boundaries
and to unincorporated areas to the east and north of the City (including all P AA regions except a
small area at the northeastern portion of the P AA area). The District operates and maintains 2
wastewater treatment facilities and a collection system consisting of 27 sewage pump stations,
approximately 275 miles of sanitary sewer pipe, and 6,400 manholes. The District's area is
divided into seven basins, the two largest of which (Redondo and Lakota) serve the majority of
the City. Wastewater from the Redondo and Lakota Basins is treated by the District's two
secondary wastewater treatment facilities, one of which is located near the Dumas Bay shoreline
planning area. The five remaining basins are relatively small, serving areas around the perimeter
of the two large basins on the south, north, and east. Wastewater from these basins is conveyed
to other utilities for treatment. The potential impacts to shoreline areas associated with the above
sanitary sewer systems are low. The Redondo treatment facility discharges approximately 1,030
feet offshore and has remained in compl,iance with previous permits.
The City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2002. At the time of update,
an estimated 7,500 on-site disposal systems were still in operation within the Lakehaven Utility
District's corporate boundaries. The plan indicates that the District will integrate the remaining
on-site disposal systems over time as they became unfeasible to maintain and/or require sewer
connection for redevelopment. Recommendations within the plan include the expansion and
upgrade of existing treatment and conveyance facilities, and installation of new conveyance
facilities to provide service to areas in the City and P AA that are currently using on-site septic
systems.
The City of Federal Way operates a stormwater management system. According to the City's
Comprehensive Plan (2002), the City has completed projects to create regional detention and
treatment facilities serving the City over the last decade. Localized stormwater treatment is also
required for new developments. The 1994 Surface Water Facilities Plan (City of Federal Way,
1994) indicates that regional facilities have been designed with a 100-year flood storage
capacity. All other stormwater system elements have been designed to a 25-year flood storage
capacity. Chapter 16 of the Federal Way Municipal Code and the King County Surface Water
Design Manual establishes stormwater standards for new development.
June 2007
page 45
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Undetained and untreated stormwater runoff can deliver pollutants to waterbodies, including
heavy metals and other pollutants associated with automobiles and roadways. Water quality
impairments described in previous sections include the presence of mercury and other metals in
local streams, wetlands, and lakes. Untreated stormwater runoff discharging to surface water
bodies is likely a contributing factor.
4.3.6 Other Utilities
According the City's Comprehensive Plan (2002) and the Lakehaven Utility District's
Comprehensive Water System Plan (1994), the District maintains decentralized water supply
production facilities that serve the majority of the City. The District operates 27 wells with the
water system connected by interties to the water supply of other utility districts. The system
allows the District to buy and sell water according to intra-District supply demands. Water
systems attached to the District through interties include the Highline Water District, Tacoma
Public Utilities, and the City of Milton's water supply system. These surrounding water supply
systems and other neighboring water suppliers provide portions of the City's water supply. The
City's PAA is partially within the District's water supply area and those of neighboring water
suppliers. In addition, 'the City of Tacoma, Fruitland Water District, and several private
landowners own production wells.
A variety of gas, telephone, electric, and related utilities serves the existing residential and
commercial developments within the nearshore shoreline planning areas.
4.3.7 Existing and Potential Public Access Sites
Approximately 31 percent of the City's shoreline is dedicated as parks or open space and is
available for public access and use. Figure 13 shows the locations of all the shoreline public
parks and open space within the City's shoreline. Existing parks, open space, and public
facilities in the City's shoreline planning area include the following:
· Dash Point State Park - This 398-acre state park is located on the westernmost point
of the Federal Way marine shoreline. The park provides access to 3,302 feet ofPuget
Sound marine shoreline. The park also contains two covered picnic shelters, 11 miles
of hiking and biking trails, amphitheater, and 138 camping sites, with a mix of
primitive tent sites and a serviced campground.
· Dumas Bay Park - This 19.3-acre neighborhood park is located along the City's
western Puget Sound shoreline, north of Dash Point State Park, off Dash Point Road.
The park offers 12 parking stalls and unpaved trails, which lead to the beach front.
The park also contains interpretive signs.
· Dumas Bay Centre - Located on the north side of Dumas Bay, opposite Dumas Bay
Park, the Dumas Bay Center features the Knutzen Family Theater, a retreat and
meeting center, as well as a park and Puget Sound beach front.
· Poverty Bay Park - Located north of Dumas Bay Center, this park is a 48-acre site
of undeveloped open space, with approximately 500 feet of beach shoreline.
Opportunities for new access to the shoreline in Federal Way are limited. The City and state
park resources and the public open space offer access to the shoreline and Puget Sound
page 46
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
throughout the City. Most other areas alie developed residentially. The City could explore
developing additional street-end overlooks or beach access points. Undeveloped rights-of-way
total 1.7 acres in the nearshore shoreline environments; these could be potential beach access or
overlooks.
4.3.8 Historical/Cultural Resources
The existing Federal Way Comprehensive Plan provides a general goal to identify, protect, and
restore those areas and facilities within the City that are of historical or archeological
significance (City of Federal Way, 2002). The plan establishes a goal to ensure that historic
properties and archeological sites are protected as "important elements in the overall design of
the City." Policies in the Comprehensive Plan define characteristics that enable the identification
of historic and archeological sites, and direct the City to preserve and protect these sites from
incompatible land uses.
Native American use of water bodies throughout western Washington has been well documented.
Native peoples undoubtedly used tributaries of the Green River, the Hylebos Creek, and Puget
Sound Marine shoreline for fisheries resources. Historic (General Land Office) GLO survey
maps from the 1860s do not identify any Native American village sites or any other Native
American sites within the City's marine shoreline planning area. The Historical Society of
Federal Way includes an article review of Native American use within the vicinity of the City.
The article does not indicate that village sites are known to exist within the vicinity. However,
the article notes the presence of Native American artifacts and, in one instance, human remains
along the marine shoreline (Caster, 2005). Shell middens have been documented within the
City's marine shorelines. The City requires review of archeological and historical resources on a
parcel-by-parcel basis during development review as warranted.
The Historical Society of Federal Way works to restore and preserve structures and artifacts of
historical significance within and around Federal Way. The society owns and maintains two
historical cabins, both of which have been relocated to Historic Cabins Park near 348th Street and
4th Avenue South. The park area is not within the City's Shoreline Planning Area (Historical
Society of Federal Way, 2003).
The Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation maintains a database
of sites listed on Washington's Historic register and the national register. A search of the
database for sites within the City's shoreline planning area revealed no listed sites of historical
significance (DAHP). Additionally, no sites are listed on King County's Local Landmarks List
(King County, 2006).
June 2007
page 47
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
5.0 FRESHWATER LAKES PLANNING AREA INVENTORY
The purpose of this section of the report is to inventory and characterize freshwater lake
conditions within the Shoreline Planning Areas in greater detail and in the context ofthe larger
watershed. The intent is to identify how existing conditions in the freshwater lake shoreline
influence or contribute to alterations of processes that maintain aquatic ecosystems. The study
area is shown on Figure 1 and subsequent figures as the City's shoreline planning area.
5.1 Physical Features
5.1.1 Drainage Basins and Surface Water
Drainage in the Federal Way area is divided into five basins: Lower Puget Sound, Lower Green
River, Mill Creek, Hybelos Creek, and White River Basins. Surface water that does not feed the
freshwater lakes is directed either west to Puget Sound, east into the Duwamish-Green River
Valley, or south to Commencement Bay. Freshwater lakes that are part of the shoreline
jurisdiction are located in all the drainage basins and are discussed below.
Increased sedimentation in urban lakes is a common issue of concern. Particles can carry
pollutants, metals and bacteria into lakes, which can affect productivity, habitat and recreational
values. Federal Way has identified increased sedimentation as an issue of concern and has
several programs in place to reduce its transport. Since there is limited data available on
sediment loading, this issue is not described further.
Steel Lake
Steel Lake (Reach 2) is located in the Lower Puget Sound basin in the western part of Federal
Way. Streams within the basin generally flow north and west into Puget Sound and have incised
ravines into the steep coastal bluffs. Steel Lake is situated on top of low-permeability till, which
suggests that it likely receives most of its water from surface runoff from the adjacent hills rather
than from groundwater seepage. Although there is not any visible inflow, surface water in the
watershed is conveyed to the lake and discharged through 14 storm water outfalls. Outflow
passes through a Category 1 wetland on the western shoreline and then flows through a culvert to
another wetland and then becomes Redondo Creek, flowing through the City of Des Moines to
the Puget Sound.
The City established the Steel Lake Management District (LMD) in 2003 to provide integrated
aquatic vegetation management and community education. The LMD program, in effect for the
past four years, continues ten years of active aquatic weed management in Steel Lake. This
program has seen considerable success in the reduction of aquatic weeds and the maintenance of
beneficial uses (i.e. swimming, fishing, boating).
Star lake
Star Lake (Reach 3) is located in the Lower Green River basin in the Federal Way P AA.
Topography in the basin directs surface water, including the outlet stream of Star Lake, eastward
into the Duwamish-Green River Valley. Star Lake lies on till and recessional outwash deposits
June 2007
page 48
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
that overlie till at a shallow depth. Star Lake is likely a kettle lake formed by the melting of
large blocks of glacial ice buried in the glacial drift of outwash plains. Consequently, small
streams, runoff and groundwater are the primary contributing water sources to the lake. The
outfall is via a pipe and culvert to Bingh,am Creek and then to the Green River.
lake Dolloff and lake Geneva
Lake Dolloff (Reach 4) and Lake Geneva (Reach 5) are located in the Mill Creek basin in the
Federal Way P AA. Surface drainage in. the basin flows eastward into the Duwamish-Green
River Valley through the Mill Creek valiley of Auburn. Mill Creek, which drains the south end
of Lake Dolloff, has incised a deep ravine that is also fed by small tributary streams, which drain
the surrounding hillsides. Lake Dolloff lis formed on recessional outwash deposits. Although
there are no major inflows to the lake, wetland areas, runoff and groundwater are contributing
water sources. An outflow through a w~tland exists at the southern end of Lake Dolloff (Mill
Creek).
Lake Geneva lies on top of till and receives inflow t from a small stream on the southern end of
the lake, adjacent wetland areas, runoff and groundwater. Outflow exits at the northeast corner
of Lake Geneva through a wetland, which forms a small tributary to Mill Creek.
North lake and lake Killarney
North Lake and Lake Killarney (Reaches 6 and 7) are located in the East Hylebos Creek Basin in
the southeast part of Federal Way. Both lakes are tributary to East Hylebos Creek, which flows
southward, combining with the mainstem of the West Hylebos, which flows into
Commencement Bay. Other small strecu:ns in the basin also drain to the south and either join
with East Hylebos Creek or terminate in wetland areas. Both lakes lie on top of till, and
therefore likely receive surface runoff from the surrounding area.
North Lake is located in the East Hylebos Creek basin within the City limits for Federal Way.
Inflow occurs via a small tributary through a wetland on the north shore. Groundwater, runoff
and precipitation are additional water sources. North Lake drains to a pond on the Weyerhaueser
campus then through a pipe to a wetland, which drains to the East Branch of the West Fork East
Hylebos.
The northwestern section of Lake Killar1)ey is located within Federal Way City limits, with the
remainder of the lake within the P AA. There are no stream inflow sources. A wetland along the
northern boundary likely serves as a water source during certain periods of the year, with
groundwater, precipitation and runoff acting as the primary sources of incoming water. Outflow
exits the lake to the southwest through a small, concrete culvert into a tributary. Lake Killarney
drains to the mainstem East Hylebos Cre,ek.
Five Mile lake
Five Mile Lake (Reach 8) is situated in t~e White River drainage basin in the Federal Way PAA.
The lake is fed by wetlands to the north as well as springs, runoff and groundwater. Five Mile
Lake is likely a kettle lake formed by the melting of large blocks of glacial ice buried in the
June 2007
page 49
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
glacial drift of outwash plains left behind as continental glaciers receded. Five Mile lake drains
to Trout Lake to the southeast and then flows to the White River.
5.1.2 Geologic Hazard Areas
5.1.2.1 Seismic Hazard Areas
King County GIS maps (accessed on 5/18/06 at http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/
mapportal/iMAP _main.htm) do not indicate seismic hazards associated with the freshwater lake
areas (Reaches 2 through 8). Areas of low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility are designated
on maps produced by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (Palmer et aI., 2003);
however, map coverage is limited to the western part of Federal Way, and does not include the
freshwater lakes planning area.
90rrelations between soil conditions and liquefaction susceptibility in the western part of Federal
Way permit some inferences regarding the hazard in the unmapped areas of the freshwater lake
planning area. Regions in the western part of Federal Way that are mapped as having low to
moderate liquefaction susceptibility include the areas around Lorene and Jeane Lakes as well as
several smaller lakes which are unnamed on existing maps. Typically, those areas considered to
be susceptible to liquefaction are mapped as recessional outwash or consist stratigraphically of
fine-grained wetland deposits overlying granular recessional outwash deposits. Those areas
underlain by till are generally considered to have very low liquefaction susceptibility. The
shorelines of Star, Dolloff, and Five Mile Lakes (Reaches 3, 4, and 8) are underlain largely by
recessional outwash and/or wetland deposits, and thus most likely have low to moderate
liquefaction susceptibility. The shorelines of Steel and North Lakes and Lakes Geneva and
Killamey (Reaches 2, 6, 5 and 7) are underlain primarily by till, with small areas of wetland and
outwash deposits. Most of the areas within these segments would likely have very low
liquefaction susceptibility. .
5.1.2.2 Erosion Hazard Areas
Erosion hazard areas are not present within the majority ofthe freshwater lakes shoreline
segments (Reaches 2 through 8) according to City GIS maps and King County GIS maps
(Figures 9D through 9H). An exception is the outlet located on the western shoreline of Steel
Lake (Reach 2), which is mapped as an erosion hazard area. That outlet feeds a small stream,
which flows westward to Puget Sound. Approximately 11 percent of the Steel Lake Reach is
designated an erosion hazard area.
The drainage basins for six of the seven freshwater lakes in the shoreline planning area contain
erosion hazard areas: Steel, Star, Dolloff, North Lakes and Lakes Geneva and Killarney. Those
areas with erosion hazards are primarily concentrated in narrow corridors along streams or on
hillsides, and make up a very small proportion of the drainage basin analysis area.
5.1.2.3 Landslide Hazard Areas and Steep Slopes
Landslide hazard areas and steep slopes do not occur within the fresh water lakes shoreline
reaches (Reaches 2 through 8) according to City GIS maps and King County GIS maps (Figures
9D through 9H). However, landslide hazards are in fact present in the far eastern portions of the
page 50
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
shoreline analysis areas for Five Mile Lake, Lake Geneva, and Star Lake. Those areas include
the relatively steep valley walls ofthe Duwamish-Green River Valleys and the ravines of several
small streams, including Mill Creek.
5.1.3 Aquifer Recharge Areas
Critical aquifer recharge areas in Federal Way, as defined above in section 4.1.3, are commonly
associated with regions that are underlain by recessional outwash deposits. Such deposits
generally have high infiltration rates because they tend to be relatively permeable and allow for
rapid movement of water. Altemativel)l, infiltration rates in till are typically low because of
limited pore space arising from a variety of grain sizes and a high degree of compaction.
Critical aquifer recharge areas in the freshwater lakes planning area include the areas around
Star, Dolloff, and Five Mile Lakes (Reaches 3, 4, and 8) according to City GIS maps and King
County GIS maps (accessed on 5/22/06 at http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/
iMAP main.htm).
The City has mapped wellhead protection zones within the city limits and the P AA. The majority
of the wellhead protection areas do not coincide with the shoreline reaches, however are mapped
adjacent to the east side of North Lake and adjacent to the east side of Lake Killarney, extending
to Lake Geneva. These areas are managed as Wellhead Protection Areas (Federal Way City Code
(FWCC), Chapter 22).
5.1.4 Flood Hazard Areas
Frequently flooded areas are defined in Chapter 18-28 of the FWMC as those areas in the
floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year including but
not limited to such areas as streams, lakes, coastal areas and wetlands. According to King .
County GIS maps (Figure 6), the shoreline of Lake Dolloff (Reach 4) is located within a 100-
year floodplain, and thus may be considered a flood hazard area. The remaining areas located
within the freshwater lakes shoreline jurisdiction (Reaches 2,3,5,6, 7, and 8) are not currently
considered to be within 100-year floodplains.
5.1.5 Streams
The upper plateau lies within 5 drainage basins that have been identified in Federal Way: the
Lower Green River, Mill Creek, Hylebos Creek, White River and Lower Puget Sound. Of these,
the Hylebos Creek and White River are within Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10-
Puyallup/White; the other drainage basins, including the portion of the Lower Puget Sound
basin, which covers the Redondo Subarea, are within WRIA 9 - Duwamish/Green. The
freshwater shoreline lakes form the headwaters for several streams including Redondo Creek,
tributaries to Mill Creek, and the East and West Branches of Hylebos Creek
The Hylebos Creek is the largest drainage basin for the upper plateau of Federal Way. The
Hylebos Creek basin is approximately 18,361 acres in size, and contains 25 miles of stream, 11
named lakes, and 250 acres of wetlands (Kerwin, 1999). There are two major tributaries to
Hylebos Creek, the West and East Branches. The headwaters of the West Hylebos Creek are
located in Federal Way near South 320th Street (Pierce County, 2006). . The East Branch
June 2007
page 51
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
originates in King County near North Lake and Lake Killamey in the City's PAA. The two
branches join east of Interstate-5 in the City of Milton. From the confluence of these branches in
Milton, the Hylebos Creek downstream is considered a shoreline of the state. Hylebos Creek
enters the Hylebos Waterway in Tacoma and drains to Puget Sound's Commencement Bay.
The majority ofthe Hylebos basin is urbanized, and covered by commercial development and
single and multifamily residential dwellings. Approximately two-thirds of the basin is located in
the city of Federal Way, which experienced large population growth in the 1980's (Friends of the
Hylebos Wetlands, 2006). As of 1999, the City of Federal Way was 96 percent built out, with
more than half the land area covered with impervious surfaces (Kerwin, 1999). Due to
deforestation, the increase in impervious surfaces, and the loss of adjacent wetlands in the
Hylebos Creek basin, the damaging peak flows in the creek have increased dramatically, as
compared to pre-development conditions. .
There has not been a comprehensive water quality study performed on the Hylebos basin. What
is the source of this information? However, it is generally accepted that non-point and point
source pollution problems affect water quality throughout the basin (Kerwin, 1999).
5.1.6 Shoreline Modifications
Land use and development surrounding the freshwater lakes in Federal Way have resulted in
shoreline modifications including the placement of bulkheads, removal of forested vegetation
and other alterations as described below. Shoreline modifications provided here are based upon
King County's method of assessing shoreline modifications. From aerial photographs, the
number of docks in each of the lakes was tallied. It was then assumed that if a dock was present,
then the shoreline was modified (one to one relationship). The following table (Table 9)
summarizes this information:
Table 9. Shoreline Modifications by Lake
Shoreline Reach Number of Number of % Shoreline
docks properties modified
Steel Lake 60 101 60
Star Lake 52 87 60
Lake Dolloff 0 73 0
Lake Geneva 17 66 26
North Lake 33 75 44
Lake Killarney 37 84 44
Five Mile Lake 25 46 54
Source: based on interpretation of 2002 aerial photographs.
page 52
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
In addition, a one-day, informal, field reconnaissance of the lakes was completed to provide a
generalized description of the shoreline. Detailed information on shoreline modifications for
individual lakes is unavailable.
Steel Lake
The basin around Steel Lake was already significantly developed in 1976 when only 15 percent
of the land in the drainage basin was classified as forested or unproductive (USGS, 1976).
According to King County, in 2002 less than 10 percent was classified as forested or timber
harvest areas (King County, 2002) indicating rapid urbanization.
From the field reconnaissance, it appear~d that most residential parcels on the lake have been
developed. The exceptions are the park,. and wetlands and the few remaining undeveloped lots.
Of the developed parcels, at least 60 percent have modified shorelines.. Extensive shoreline
armoring and overwater structures have significantly reduced the riparian vegetation on Steel
Lake, although abundant riparian vegetation has been observed near the creek inlet at the west
~
side of the lake. Low-growing vegetation and shrubs in the nearshore are lacking, however
numerous mature trees still are present in most of the developed parcels. The wetland to the west
covers approximately 10 percent of the ~horeline and provides good riparian conditions and
habitat.
Star Lake
Land use surrounding Star Lake has changed since 1976 when 46 percent of the land in the
drainage basin was still classified as forested or unproductive (USGS, 1976). According to King
County, in 2002 less than 10 percent was classified as forested or cleared (King County, 2002).
The shoreline of Star Lake is entirely developed with multiple layers or tiers of houses as one
moves up the slope away from the lake.
From the field reconnaissance, it appeared that nearly every available parcel on the lake has been
developed. Of the developed parcels, approximately 60 percent have modified shorelines.
Significant riparian and upland vegetation are lacking. There are relatively few large trees within
25 feet of the shoreline although there we occasionally over hanging willows and other shrubs
near the shore.
Lake Dolloff
Land use surrounding Lake Dolloff has changed since 1976 when 65 percent of the land in the
drainage basin was still classified as forested or unproductive (USGS, 1976). According to King
County, in 2002 only 25 percent of the land in the drainage basin was still classified as forested
or cleared (King County, 2002).
From the field reconnaissance, it appeared that about two-thirds of the available parcels on the
lake have been developed; however most houses have small footprints and are placed further
away from the lakeshore. Very few bulkheads are visible, allowing for intact riparian buffer
zones near the waters edge along most of the shoreline. Multiple layers of vegetation are present,
consisting of over-hanging trees, shrubs, and large evergreens in many cases within 25 feet of the
shoreline. This provides excellent coverage and habitat. Large wetland areas exist in the north
June 2007
page 53
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
and south ends of the lake as well as a small section on the eastern shore. Combined, these
wetlands cover-approximately 30 percent of the lake shore and provide good riparian conditions
and habitat.
lake Geneva
Approximately 28 percent of the land in the drainage basin surrounding Lake Geneva was still
classified as forested or unproductive in 1976 (USGS, 1976). According to King County, in
2002 approximately 8 percent was still classified as forested or cleared (King County, 2002).
From the field reconnaissance, it appeared that a majority of the available parcels on the lake
have been developed. However, the use of bulkheads seemed to be minimal (26%, according to
King County's method). Compared to most urban lakes, nearshore vegetation was relatively
intact throughout most of the lake shoreline and consisted of over hanging trees and shrubs. The
eastern shoreline had an approximately 1,000 foot-long section of steep shoreline containing a
mature stand of trees. A wetland area in the northern section of the lake provides additional
shoreline protection and habitat for a variety of species. This wetland comprises approximately
5 percent of the lakeshore.
North lake
In 1976, approximately 73 percent ofthe land in the drainage basin was still classified as
forested or unproductive (USGS, 1976). According to King County, in 2002 approximately 48
percent was still classified as forested or cleared (King County, 2002).
From the field reconnaissance, only a little over half of the lake appeared to be developed.
Weyerhaeuser owns a 52-acre parcel of land that protects most of the western shoreline. Of the
developed area, bulkheads comprised approximately 44% percent of the shoreline. Some
overhanging trees and shrubs were present along segments of the developed shoreline, but most
mature trees were absent within 25 feet of the lake. The second-growth forest along the western
shoreline does provide a diverse, complex, and near natural riparian zone. In addition, the
smaller wetlands at the inflow/outflow provide additional habitat.
lake Killarney
Approximately 59 percent of the land in the Lake Killarney drainage basin was still classified as
. forested or unproductive in 1976 (USGS, 1976). According to King County, in 2002
approximately 17 percent was still classified as forested or cleared (King County, 2002).
From the field reconnaissance, the use of bulkheads seemed to be minimal especially in the
North arm where nearshore vegetation was predominately intact providing in-water structure.
The eastern shoreline was moderately steep, however development was not tiered; thus many
mature trees were still present. In the southern arm, more of the developed parcels exhibit
featureless shorelines with little habitat. According to King County's method, 44% of the
shoreline is modified. A wetland area in the northern section of the lake comprising
approximately 10 percent of the lake shore provides additional protection and habitat. In addition,
a 1 0.8-acre parcel of land used as a park on the western shoreline contains diverse vegetation and
natural shoreline.
page 54
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Five Mile Lake
Land use has changed since 1976 when 75 percent of the land in the drainage basin was still
classified as forested or unproductive (USGS, 1976). According to King County, in 2002
approximately 42 percent was still classified as forested or cleared (King County, 2002).
From the field reconnaissance, only about half of the available parcels on the lake appear to have
been developed. However, of these, app'roximately 54% percent have bulkheads and the
featureless shoreline habitat that is associated with them. In-water, nearshore vegetation consists
of periodic stands of cattail. There are r~latively few large trees within 25 feet of the shoreline
although there are occasionally over-hanging willows and other shrubs near the shore. An
exception is at Five Mile Park, where a 600-foot section of shoreline contains a stand of mature
trees. The large wetland areas in the nor.th and northeastern sections of the lake that have
protected shorelines provide good ripari~ conditions and habitat. These wetlands comprise
approximately 35 percent of the lake shore. .
5.2 Biological Resources
5.2.1 Shoreline Plant tdabitat
Shoreline plant habitats include the areas where plants grow along the edges of the lakes as well
as the littoral zone where plants grow where they still receive light. The shallow shoreline of
several of the lakes in Federal Way offer excellent habitat for aquatic plants. In addition, several
lakes still contain sections of intact ripar,ian zones and vegetative buffers that also provide habitat
for native plants. However, non-native invasive aquatic plants also take advantage of these
shoreline habitats, which can lead to a loss in biological diversity. The following summary
provides information on non-native invasive aquatic plant infestations in the Federal Way lakes:
Steel Lake - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum); fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata); yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Management
activities include herbicide applications and handpulling.
Star Lake - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Management activities include
herbicide treatments.
Lake Dolloff - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum); fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata); Brazilian elodea (Egeria densq). Management activities have included applying
herbicides to control Eurasian watermilfoil and eradicate Brazilian elodea.
Lake Geneva - fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata); Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum). Water lilies have been broug4t under control through previous treatment efforts.
Current activities are underway for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil through handpulling.
North Lake - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum); fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata); yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).
Management activities include herbicide applications and handpulling for removing all four
speCIes.
June 2007
page 55
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Lake Killamev - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum); fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata); yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Successful
herbicide treatments have resulted in controlling Eurasian watermilfoil and the fragrant water
lilies.
Five Mile Lake - None documented to date.
5.2.2 Wetlands
Lacustrine and palustrine wetlands are identified by the NWI immediately adjacent to and
associated with lakes within the City's shoreline planning area. In addition, the City's Wetland
Inventory (Sheldon and Associates, 1999) identifies and maps wetlands throughout the City,
along with classification pursuant to FWMC 18-28. These inventories are used as primary
sources in the discussion of wetlands within the planning area of seven freshwater lakes included
in the City's shoreline jurisdiction (Figures 6 and II-D through II-H).
Except for Steel Lake (Shoreline Reach 2), most of the freshwater lakes within the City are
considered wetlands by the City's Wetland Inventory. However, in many cases the lakes
constitute deepwater habitats (water depths greater than 6.6 feet) that are not wetland according
to the state definition. The Category I (FWCC 18-28) wetland identification of these lakes
(Shoreline Reaches 3 - 8) includes open water areas and shoreline edges, as well as (with the
exception of Star Lake, Reach 3) portions of the land immediately adjacent to the lakes. At Steel
Lake, a large, Category I wetland was identified beginning at the western-most portion of the
lake and continuing northwest across South 304th Street through the undeveloped area. Three
other small, Category III wetlands were identified along the north (2 wetlands) and south (I
wetland) shores of Steel Lake (Figure II-E).
The NWI maps identified all of the seven freshwater lakes (Reaches 2 - 8) as permanent
lacustrine wetlands, with a pattern of similar ecological system classification at all lakes except
Star Lake. The entire area of Star Lake was classified as a lacustrine open water wetland with no
other wetlands identified in the adjacent areas. Aquatic bed wetlands are mapped at or near each
lake's shoreline.
Palustrine, or freshwater, wetlands were identified by the NWI map as adjacent and associated
with all lake reaches except for Star Lake and Lake Geneva (Reaches 3 and 5). At Steel Lake
(Reach 2), a scrub-shrub and forested wetland stretches from the west end of the lake to the
northwest at the outlet stream. This wetland is considered an "associated wetland" and part of
the shoreline jurisdiction. At Lake Dolloff (Reach 4), a palustrine forested wetland and open
water/aquatic bed are mapped at the northwest end of the lake (Figure II-E). This is considered
"associated wetland" as is wetland areas to the northeast of Lake Dolloff and south of South
303rd Street. A wetland also extends along the outlet stream to the southeast.
At North Lake (Reach 6), a palustrine scrub/shrub and emergent wetland is identified as
extending to the north from the northeast comer of the lake (Figure II-F). At Lake Killarney
(Reach 7), a palustrine emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands are mapped as adjoining to the north
of the lake (Figure II-G). At Five Mile Lake (Reach 8), forested, scrub-shrub, and open water
June 2007
page 56
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
wetlands are identified extending the north from the north end of the lake and spreading out to
the north and east from the northeast comer of the lake (Figure II-H).
5.2.3 Critical Wildlife Habitat and Species
Critical fish and wildlife habitat areas are those areas identified as being of critical importance in
the maintenance and preservation of fis4, wildlife, and natural vegetation. Critical habitat, or
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, means habitat areas with which endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species of plants or wildlife have a primary association (e.g., feeding,
breeding, rearing of young, migrating) (Chapter 18-28 FWCC). Fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas in the fresh waters of Federal Way include streams; ponds under 20 acres;
lakes, ponds and streams planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and State
natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
Several state and federally listed species are known to occur or could potentially occur within the
City's freshwater shoreline planning area, as well as within waters downstream of Federal Way
(Table 10; Figure 10). Federally listed species that have been documented in the City include
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), common loon (Gavia immer), and Puget Sound/Strait of
Georgia coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), a federal species of concern. In general, coho and
other ariadromous salmonids are not found within the freshwater lakes of Federal Way and its
PAA; however, salmonids do inhabit streams down gradient of these lakes. Wildlife usage of
each freshwater lake is detailed below. .
Table 10. Federal and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Federal Way.
Common name Scientific name Status Within Federal Way Downstream from
or P AA? Federal Way?
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Threatened Yes Yes
leucocephalus
Common loon Gavia immer State Sensitive Yes No
Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus State Candidate No Yes
,
Puget Sound! Strait of Oncorhynchus kisutch ,Federal species of Yes Yes
Georgia coho salmon concern
.,
Puget Sound Chinook Oncorhynchus Threatened No Yes
salmon tshawytscha !>-
Puget Sound Oncorhynchus mykiss Proposed threatened No Yes
steelhead
Coastal/Puget Sound Salvelinus confluentus Threatened No Yes
bull trout
Steel Lake
Steel Lake is within the Lower Puget Sound drainage basin, drains to the Puget Sound through
Redondo Creek. The lake supports stocked trout, largemouth bass, and yellow perch (King
County, 2005 and WDFW 2066). Streams within this basin are known to provide habitat for
coho and fall chum salmon (WDFW, 2006).
June 2007
page 57
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Star lake
Star Lake is within the Lower Green River Drainage Basin. The lake supports stocked trout,
bass, and various warm-water species (King County, 2005 and WDFW 2006). The Lower Green
River basin has rearing habitat for fall chinook, fall chum, and summer steelhead; spawning and
rearing habitat for coho; and documented presence of pink and sockeye salmon, bull trout/dolly
varden,.and winter steelhead (WDFW, 2006). A pileated woodpecker nest has been identified
approximately 0.6 miles away, and bald eagle nest has been identified slightly over one mile
from Star Lake (WDFW, 2004).
lake Dolloff and lake Geneva
Lake Dolloff and Lake Geneva are within the Mill Creek drainage basin. Lake Geneva supports
populations of stocked trout and largemouth bass (King County, 2005 and WDFW 2006). An
adult common loon has also been documented at Lake Geneva (WDFW, 2004). Lake Dolloff
also supports populations of stocked trout, largemouth bass, yellow perch and brown bullhead
catfish as well as other fish species (King County, 2002 and WDFW 2006). Mill Creek is known
to provide habitat to fall chinook and winter steelhead, as well as spawning and rearing habitat
for coho salmon (WDFW, 2006). Coho, chum and wintersteelhead have been observed
spawning in Mill Creek (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). Juvenile coho, chum, winter steelhead,
cutthroat and chinook have been captured in the creek.
North lake and lake Killarney
North Lake and Lake Killarney are within the Hylebos Creek drainage Basin. Both lakes support
populations of stocked trout, and largemouth bass (WDFW 2006). Lake Killarney also supports
other fish species including yellow perch, pumpkinseed sunfish, and brown bullhead catfish
(King County, 2005 and WDFW 2006). Salmonids inhabiting East Hylebos Creek, which is fed
by both North Lake and Lake Killarney, include coho salmon, chum salmon, and cutthroat trout
(Taylor Associates, 2002). A bald eagle nest has been identified within one-quarter mile of North
Lake (WDFW, 2004).
Five 'Mile lake
Five Mile Lake is within the White River Drainage Basin. The lake supports populations of
stocked trout (some years) and largemouth bass (King County, 2005 and WDFW 2006). There
is no surface water connection from Five Mile Lake to the White River. The White River
subbasin provides spawning or rearing habitat for fall and spring chinook, pink, fall chum, and
coho salmon in addition to bull trout/dolly varden, winter steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Sockeye
salmon adults are observed almost annually in this subbasin but there is some question to their
ability to be naturally sustaining (Kerwin, 1999; WDFW, 2006).
5.2.4 Instream and Riparian Habitats
Streams and riparian corridors provide valuable wildlife habitat, a source of fluvial sediments to
the marine shoreline, recreational opportunities, and support for a range of fish species. Five
drainage basins have been identified in Federal Way that affect shorelines: Lower Green River,
Mill Creek, White River, Hylebos Creek, and Lower Puget Sound, Of these, the Hylebos Creek
page 58
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
and White River are within Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 - Puyallup/White;
the other drainage basins, including the portion of the Lower Puget Sound basin, which covers
the Redondo Subarea, are within WRIA 9 - Duwamish/Green.
Information on riparian habitat conditions was drawn in particular from the following
documents: Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report, Green/Duwamish
and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and Vashon Island)
(King County, 2000); A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization - Volume 1,
Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975), and Federal Way Potential Annexation Area
Inventory (Federal Way, 2002). The fol~owing characterization is focused on conditions relative
to fish and wildlife habitat.
5.2.4.1 Lower Green River Drainage Basin
Approximately 18 percent of the riparian zone in the Lower Green River sub-watershed supports
native deciduous trees. However, deciduous stands are usually narrow (<100 feet) or comprised
of small, sparse trees mixed with patches of grass, pavement, or bare ground. Almost 50 percent
of the riparian zone is comprised grass o~ shrubs, many of which are non-native. Over 80 percent
of the riparian zone is currently consideFed to provide poor shade, organic matter recruitment,
and sediment filtration because native vegetation communities have largely been converted to
grass or shrubs and because developmen.t often extends to within 75 feet of the channel (King
County, 2000). The lower Green River is on Ecology's 2004, 303(d) list for fecal coliform.
Star Lake, located in the Lower Green River Basin, is surrounded by residential land use.
Significant riparian and upland vegetatiQn is lacking. The riparian zone is largely vegetated with
pasture grass (lawn) and ornamental tree species.
5.2.4.2 Mill Creek Drainage Basin
The Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Aquatic Use Category sets criterion
for the protection of spawning, core rearing, and migration of salmon and trout, and other
associated aquatic life. Mill (HiU) Creek has been categorized as Non-Core Salmon/Trout
aquatic use. The creek is on Ecology's 2904, 303(d) list for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
fecal coliform bacteria.
Dolloff Lake and Lake Geneva are located within the Mill Creek Drainage Basin. Residential
land use surrounds Lake Dolloff. Riparian vegetation appears to be somewhat intact at the north
end of the lake, but at the south end, lawns and ornamental trees and shrubs dominate the
npanan zone.
Lake Geneva also has significant residential land use on its shoreline. However, compared to
most urban lakes, nearshore vegetation was relatively intact throughout most of the lake
shoreline and consisted of over hanging trees and shrubs. Mature trees also occur in areas.
5.2.4.3 White River Drainage Basin
The White/Stuck River is channelized between levees along both banks from its confluence with
the Puyallup upstream to RM 8.5. Water quality in the basin is generally good to excellent, but
June 2007
page 59
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
some parameters have exceeded water quality standards because of sanitary sewage effluent
form the cities of Buckley and Enumclaw. Mud mountain dam at RM 29.6 interrupts
recruitment ofL WD and gravel to the lower reaches ofthe White River. Riparian condition is
affected by land use in the basin, which is predominantly mixed commercial/residential below
RM 8 (Kerwin, 1999). The lower White River is on the 2004, 303( d) list for temperature and
pH.
Five Mile Lake is both located within the White River Drainage Basin. There are patchy areas of
intact riparian vegetation, particularly along the north shore near the Buddhist Center and
Lakeview Christian Conference Center. There are relatively few large trees near the shoreline
although there are occasional willows and other shrubs near the shore. An exception is at Five
Mile Park, where a 600- foot section of shoreline contains a stand of mature trees.
5.2.4.4 Hylebos Creek Drainage Basin
The Hylebos Creek drainage basin is located primarily in southwest King County and includes
the East Hylebos Creek (tributary 0006) and its three major tributaries (0016A, 0016, 0015).
Habitat within the Hylebos Creek subbasin has been severely altered from its historical natural
state. Residential development, erosion and frequent flooding threaten the creek. Portions of this
subbasin have been channelized with an associated loss of riparian habitat (Kerwin, 1999).
In the upper portion of the basin, one tributary drains from Lake Killarney over a relatively flat
upland till surface, south to 28th Avenue South and South 360th, then continuing to just south of
Kits Comer Road to join East Branch of Hylebos. East branch Hylebos Creek flows from North
Lake, then south through the Parkway Subarea ranging between 21 st Place South and 25th Place
South. The tributaries combine south of SR 161 and flow through a long, steep gradient reach
over Vashon advance outwash. The East and West Branches of Hylebos Creek converge within
the broad floodplain of Lower Hylebos Creek near the King-Pierce County line to form the
mainstem (Taylor Associates, 2002). East Hylebos Creek habitat was surveyed in 2001 from
RM 5.3 to RM 6.4. In this reach, habitat was predominantly low-gradient riffle stream habitat.
The mean width of the wetted channel was 10 feet and the mean bankfull width was 30 feet. The
mean maximum depth of all pools was 1.4 feet. The stream had 63 pools per mile, though there
were no large pools (i.e., greater than one meter in depth), and no high-quality pools observed.
L WD recruitment was good, as the native riparian buffer was wide and dense, composed of
medium sized (12-20 inch diameter) hardwoods, with approximately 20 percent of the trees
being mature conifers (Taylor Associates, 2002).
Both the East and West tributaries of the Hylebos Creek are perennial streams. Salmonids
inhabiting each tributary of Hylebos Creek include coho salmon, chum salmon, and cutthroat
trout (there are Chinook in West Branch Hylebos Creek). The stream appears to contain good
salmonid habitat but the indicators in the pathway for watershed conditions are not properly
functioning due to urbanizatioB in the watershed (Taylor Associates, 2002). Lake Killarney has
patches of riparian vegetation surrounding the lake. Most of the western riparian shoreline of
North Lake is currently open space. The east shore of North Lake is entirely residential, and has
essentially no native riparian vegetation. In contrast, open space and the Weyerhauser industrial
and office park dominates the west shore of the lake, with healthy intact riparian vegetation
overhanging the shoreline.
page 60
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
5.2.5 Water Quality
In order to classify the water quality of lakes, an assessment of the biological activity in each
lake is made. This assessment (i.e. trophic state) is determined by a combination of three
indicators namely: 1) clarity (Secchi depth), 2) nutrient levels (total phosphorus) and 3)algae
levels (chlorophyll concentrations). Trophic state results are used to classify lake water quality
into three categories: oligotrophic (refers to lakes oflow productivity), mesotrophic (moderately
productive), and eutrophic (highly productive). Although lake productiVity is essential to life in a
lake, high productivity can be considered undesirable due to the potential for increased algae
growth. Rapid changes in in a lake's trophic state may also provide an indication of effects
resulting from human-induced activities. Volunteers that were trained in water quality testing
procedures obtained information provided here.
Another aspect of water quality relates to turbidity and suspended sediment. The Surface Water
Management (SWM) Division has identified sedimentation and stormwater runoff in the lakes as
an issue of concern. SWM currently ha!) several programs in place to reduce the transport of
sediments and other pollutants to lakes and streams. These programs include street sweeping,
catch basin sediment level monitoring and cleaning, erosion/sedimentation control construction
inspections and stormwater facilty improvements in the form of pollution control structures and
regional detention facilities.
Lake size and depth as well as inflows and outflows all influence how a lake functions. There are
other factors that contribute to the water quality of a lake, including residence time and the
quality of the water entering a lake, however this information is not readily available.
Water quality information can also be obtained from Ecology's 303(d) list of water bodies where
tested pollutants exceed thresholds established by the state surface water quality standards.
However, Steel, Star, Dolloff, Geneva, Killarney and Five Mile Lakes are listed erroneously on
the 2004, 303(d) list. A reassessment of,the data in January 2006 revealed that only two data
points were submitted, meaning that they should be category 2 waters (due to lack of data).
Since EP A had approved the list before Ecology noted the error, the listings could not be
withdrawn. Therefore, data from Ecology's 303(d) list was not included in this assessment.
Steel lake
Steel Lake does not have a visible inflow, but it does have an outflow on the western shoreline.
The lake is 46 acres in size and is situated in a 254-acre watershed. The mean depth of the lake is
13 feet with a maximum depth of 24 feet.
Steel Lake can be classified as mesotrophic, indicating moderate productivity with very good
water quality (King County, 2006). Water clarity is in the mid-upper range of the small lakes
monitored in King County. In 2002 and 2004, the lake was treated for Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum). Other state-listed noxious weeds at Steel Lake include fragrant water
lily (Nymphaea odorata) and yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) andpurple loosestrife (Lythrum
salicaria). The Steel Lake Management District was created in 2003 for the purpose of managing
aquatic vegetation and maintaining beneficial uses of the lake.
June 2007
page 61
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Star Lake
Star Lake does not have a visible inflow, but the outflow discharges to Bingham Creek via a
culvert. The lake is 34 acres in size and is situated in a 376-acre watershed. The mean depth of
the lake is 25 feet with a maximum depth of 50 feet.
According to data collected by volunteers trained by King County, Star Lake can be classified as
oligotrophic, indicating low productivity with excellent water quality (King County, 2006).
Water clarity is in the upper range ofthe small lakes monitored in King County. Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) has been found in Star Lake.
Lake Dolloff
Lake Dolloff does not have a visible inflow, but does have an outflow through Mill Creek in the
south end. The lake is 21 acres in size and is situated in a 518-acre watershed. The mean depth is
10 feet with a maximum depth of 19 feet.
Data collected by volunteers (trained by King County) from 1996-2000 classified Lake Dolloff
as eutrophic, indicating it had high productivity with fair water quality (King County, 2002).
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), and
Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) have been found in the lake. The King County Noxious Weed
Program is conducting ongoing monitoring and treatment at this lake to attempt control of
Brazilian elodea (Burke, 2007). Treatment included installation of aquatic weed fabric around
the boat launch area.in 2004, and intermittent monitoring and hand pulling of the weed since that
time.
Lake Geneva
Lake Geneva does not have a visible inflow, but does have an outflow at the northeast comer.
The lake is 29 acres in size and is situated in an 198 acre watershed. The mean depth is 19 feet
with a maximum depth of 46 feet.
According to data collected by volunteers trained by King County, Lake Geneva can be
classified as being borderline mesotrophic indicating it has low to moderate productivity and
good water quality (King County, 2006). Water clarity is high and is in the upper range for the
small lakes in King County monitored in 2004. Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata) and
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) have been found in Lake Geneva. The
surrounding community has made efforts to control both of these invasive weeds in recent years,
with efforts focused on hand pulling and removal (Burke, 2007). Additionally, floating islands
of sediment have recently become an issue in the lake.
North Lake
North Lake has a small inflow via a tributary on the north shore and an outflow via a tributary in
the southwest comer. The lake is 55 acres in size and is situated in a 425-acre watershed. The
mean depth is 14 feet with a maximum depth of 34 feet.
page 62
June 2007
City of Federal Way- Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
North Lake can be classified as being m~sotrophic, according to data collected by volunteers
trained by King County, indicating moderate productivity and good water quality (King County,
2006). Water clarity is also good. Euras.ian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant
water lily (Nymphaea odorata), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and purple loosestrife
(Lythrum salicaria) have all been found at North Lake.
Lake Killarney
Lake Killarney does not have a visible inflow, but does have an outflow in the southwest corner.
The lake is 31 acres in size and is situated in a 185-acre watershed. The mean depth is 9 feet with
a maximum depth of 15 feet.
Lake Killarney can be classified as being borderline eutrophic, according to data collected by
volunteers trained by King County, indicating moderately-high productivity and good water
quality (King County, 2006). Water clar~ty is low due to the naturally high color resulting from
the wetland along the northern shoreline. Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum),
fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) have been found at the lake. In addition, the community has
supported copper sulfate treatment to kill nuisance phytoplankton populations.
Five Mile Lake
Five Mile Lake is fed by wetlands to the north and has an outflow in the southeast corner. The
lake is 38 acres in size and is situated in a 593-acre watershed. The mean depth is 18 feet with a
maximum depth of 32 feet.
According to data collected by volunteers trained by King County, Five Mile Lake can be
classified as mesotrophic, indicating it is only moderately productive with generally good water
quality (King County, 2006). However, water clarity has been historically low, due to the high
dissolved oxygen content, and is rated as the third lowest of the small lakes monitored in King
County. There are no documented observances of invasive aquatic species in Five Mile Lake.
5.3 land Use Patterns
Land use patterns are described in the context of existing land use, as well as planned or future
land uses that are established by Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning
designations.
5.3.1 Existing land Use
Existing land use is illustrated by the air photo depicting current conditions on Figures II-D
through II-H. Existing land use was quantified using King County Assessor data. Existing or
current use categories for each parcel were regrouped into generalized existing land use
categories that correspond to the future land use categories used in the City's Comprehensive
Plan. Additional categories of existing land use that do not have a corresponding
Comprehensive Plan land use designation are vacant, agriculture, and unknown. Table 11
summarizes the existing land uses for each of the freshwater lake reaches below.
June 2007
page 63
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 11. Existing Land Use (by % Cover)
Shoreline Reach Single Multi Office Religious Right-of- Open Space Vacant Other
Family Family Industrial Services Way Park
Steel Lake 67.3 5.4 4.8 9.7 12.7 0.1
(Reach 2)
Star Lake
(Reach 3) 80 6.5 4.7 2.1 6.7
Lake Dolloff
(Reach 4) 60.2 8.2 29.8 1.8
Lake Geneva
(Reach 5) 58.3 3.6 16.1 20.1 1.9
North Lake
(Reach 6) 34.7 20.9 3.1 14.4 21.2 5.7
KilIarney Lake
(Reach 7) 53.8 21.6 0.1 11.6 12.1 0.8
Five Mile Lake
(Reach 8) 32.06 5.8 11.5 39.09 9.1 2.45
5.3.2 Comprehensive Plan
According to the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Map (2006), the shoreline planning
area for lakes in the City is largely comprised of properties designated as low- to medium-
density residential (I t04 dwelling units per acre). Parks, Open Space, Public FacilitieslUtilities
designations comprise the second largest portion of the shoreline. Small areas designated as
commercial, office and multi-family comprise the remainder. The exception to this is North
Lake, which is about one-half single family and one-half office park uses. The Comprehensive
Plan Map does not include future land use designations for lakes in the P AA.
The City's existing Shoreline Master Program goals and policies are included as an element in
the land use chapter of the City's current Comprehensive Plan. This document also establishes
shoreline environment designations as Urban, Rural, and Conservancy Environments, depending
on the land use and intensity of development. All freshwater lake shoreline planning areas are
designated Urban. Lake Dolloff (Reach 4) has the additional designation of Rural along the
northern and northeastern shorelines. North Lake (Reach 6) has the additional designation of
Conservancy along the northeastern and eastern shorelines. Existing shoreline environment
designations are shown on Figures 12-D through 12-H.
page 64
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
5.3.3 Zoning Designations
Zoning designations in the City of Fedetal Way and the PAA follow the land use designations
established in the City's Comprehensive Plan (Figures 12-D through 12-H) and King county
Comprehensive Plan. King County zon~ng designations apply in the P AA until those areas are
incorporated through annexation at whic,h time~ the pre-annexation zoning classifications
established in the city's Comprehensive Plan will apply. Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva,
and Five Mile Lake are all completely within unincorporated King County; these lakes are,
however, included within the City's PAA. Lake Killarney is on the border between incorporated
Federal Way and the PAA. North Lake and Steel Lake are completely within the City's current
incorporated area. County zoning designations in the pertinent freshwater lakes' shoreline
planning areas are primarily Moderate-Density Single-Family Residential (Urban Residential
Zones R-4 and R-6). More than 90 perc~nt of the Star Lake and Lake Dolloff shoreline planning
areas in the P AA are zoned by King County as Urban Residential R-6. The remaining
freshwater lake shoreline planning areas. within the P AA are zoned by King County as primarily
Urban Residential R-4 (KCC Chpt. 21A.04.080 http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/Code/, KC Imap
viewer http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/iMAPmain.htm# ). Federal Way pre-annexation
zoning classifications in the P AA are very similar to existing county zoning classifications for
the area.
City zoning within the North Lake, Steel Lake, and Lake Killarney shoreline planning areas is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan shoreline environment designations. Lake Killarney and
Steel Lake are both designated as Urban shorelines and North Lake as both Urban and
Conservancy shoreline. Steel Lake is zoned as primarily Single-Family Residential with small
areas of Multi Family Residential and Commercial zoning. Lake Killarney is zoned as roughly
two-thirds Single-Family Residential with the majority ofthe remaining area zoned as Office.
Approximately one-half of the North Lake shoreline planning area is zoned Single-Family
. Residential with Corporate Park (33.90 percent) and Office (6.20 percent) zoning designations
over the majority of the remaining area.
June 2007
page 65
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 12. Land Use, Zoning, and Shoreline Designations
... ..
Shoreline Existing Land Use Zoning Existing
Reach (% Cover) (% Cover) Shoreline
Designation
Multi-Family 5.4 Commercial 2.8 Urban
Open Space 0.0 Multi-Family 5.9
Park 9.7 Single-Family 86.5
Right-of-Way 4.8
Steel Lake Single-Family 67.3
(Reach 2) Vacant 12.7
Commercial 3.7 Single-Family 93.5 Urban
Open Space 2.8
Park 1.9
Right-of-Way 6.5
Star Lake Single-Family 80.8
(Reach 3) Vacant 2.1
Right-of-Way 8.2 Single-Family 90.7 Urban
Lake Dolloff Single-Family 60.2 Rural
(Reach 4) Vacant 29.8
Open Space 2.8 Single-Family 96.5 Urban
Park 13.2
Right-of-Way 3.6
Lake Geneva Single-Family 58.3
(Reach 5) Vacant 20.7
Industrial 5.7 Corporate Park 33.9 Urban
Office 15.2 Office 6.2 Conservancy
Open Space 8.1 Single-Family 51.2
Park 6.3
Right-of-Way 3.1
North Lake Single-Family 34.7
(Reach 6) Vacant 21.2
Office 21.6 Office 21.6 Urban
Open Space 0.4 Multi-Family 11.6
Park 11.2 Single-Family 67.0
Right-of-Way 0.1
Lake Killarney Single-Family 53.8
(Reach 7) Vacant 12.1
Park 26.0 Single-Family 88.5 Urban
Quasi-Public 13.1
Religious Service 5.8
Right-of-Way 11.5
Five Mile Lake Single-Family 32.1
(Reach 8) Vacant 9.1
page 66
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
5.3.4 Roads and Bridges
Roads and transportation infrastructure in the freshwater lake shoreline planning areas reflect the
existing land use patterns described above. The density of roads is relatively low within the
shoreline planning areas at all lakes due to the residential development and open spaces that
surround. In areas where roads do pass into the City's freshwater lake shoreline planning areas,
the majority of roads are functionally classified as 'local streets'. According to the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan, these roads primary function is to "provide direct access to abutting land
uses and serve as feeders to [road] facilities with higher functional classifications" (FWCP Chpt.
3, III -15). Traffic levels on local roads are light relative to what is seen on collector or arterial
roads.
Roads and transportation infrastructure near or adjacent to waterbodies can create adverse
impacts to those natural systems by blocking flow or creating impervious surfaces. Roadways
represent a significant source of impervious surface in urban areas. Auto-related pollutants
including petroleum products, hydrocarQons, and heavy metals accumulate on road surfaces and
are carried to nearby waterbodies during storm events through sheet runoff or stormwater
collection systems.
5.3.5 Wastewater and 'Stormwater Utilities
Lakehaven Utility District (District) provides sanitary sewer service within the City's boundaries
and to unincorporated areas to the east and north of the City (including all P AA regions except a
small area at the northeast most extent of the PAA area). The District's system is described in
Section 4.3.5.
Of the 27 pump stations in the District system, 2 are in close proximity to the City's freshwater
lake shoreline planning areas. Pump St~tion Number 31 is near Star Lake to the south, across
Star Lake Road along 37th Avenue South. Pump Station Number 12 is near Lake Dolloff to the
northeast, near the intersection of 37th A venue South and South 304th Street.
The City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan is described in Section 4.3.5. The plan describes
that residential areas in Federal Way and the surrounding PAA at that time of adoption in 2002
primarily utilized septic tanks and drainfields. Recommendations within the plan include the
expansion and upgrade of existing treatment and conveyance facilities, and installation of new
conveyance facilities to provide service to areas in the City and P AA using on-site septic
systems.
The City of Federal Way operates a Surface Water management Utility. According to the City's
Comprehensive Plan (2002), the City has completed projects to create regional detention and
treatment facilities serving the City over, the last decade. Localized stormwater treatment is also
required for new developments. The 19~4 Surface Water Facilities Plan (City of Federal Way,
1994) indicates that regional facilities have been designed with a 100-year flood storage
capacity. Chapter 21 of the Federal Way Municipal Code establishes stormwater standards for
new development.
June 2007
page 67
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
5.3.6 Other Utilities
According to the City's Comprehensive Plan (2002) and the Lakehaven Utility District's
(District's) Comprehensive Water System Plan (1994), the District maintains decentralized water
supply production facilities that serve the majority 'of the City. The District operates' 27 wells
with the water system connected by interties to the water supply of other utility districts. The
system allows the District to buy and sell water according to intra-District supply demands.
Water systems attached to the District through interties include the Highline Water District,
Tacoma Public Utilities, and the City of Milton's water supply system. Portions of the City's
water supply is provided by these surrounding water supply systems and other neighboring water
suppliers. The City's PAA is partially within the Districts water supply area and those of
neighboring water suppliers. In addition, the City of Tacoma, Fruitland Water District, and
several private landowners own production wells.
A variety of gas, telephone, electric, and related utilities serves the existing residential and
commercial developments within the freshwater lakes' shoreline planning areas.
5.3.7 Existing and Potential Public Access Sites
The City of Federal Way has a diversity of parks, open space, and public facilities, some of
which provide shoreline access. Of the seven freshwater lakes included in this shoreline plan
inventory, only Star Lake and Lake Dolloff are without public access. Existing public access
parks are owned and operated by the City, King County, and Washington State. The City's
Parks Website (2006), King County's Parks Website (2006a), and Washington State's Park
Web site (2006) describes the following parks, open spaces, and public facilities in the City's
freshwater lake shoreline planning area. These areas are shown on Figure 13.
Steel Lake Park
Public access is provided at various locations within the park il1cluding a Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife boat ramp located in the northeast corner of the park. This park
is located on the southern shore of Steel Lake. Included in the 51.7 acre park is beach and lake
access, a boat launch, and swimming and fishing areas. Other park amenities include a
children's play structure, a sand volleyball court,S picnic areas, restrooms, a parking area and a
concessions building. The park continues across South 312th Street to the south, with additional
parking (roughly 100 total stalls), 3 ballfields, and a skate park.
Star Lake and Lake Dolloff
Although there is not a park at either Star Lake or Lake Dolloff, the public has access via a
public boat ramp at Dolloff and via a street end boat access at ~tar..
Lake Geneva Park
Lake Geneva Park, owned and operated by King County, extends to the east from the northeast
shore of Lake Geneva. Included in the 18.64 acre park is beach and lake access, a fishing area,
and a non-motorized boat put-in area. Other park amenities include a children's play structure,
open playfields, 5 picnic areas, }. covered picnic area, restrooms, a parking area and two ball
fields. On the eastern shore of the lake, the public has access via a WDFW boat ramp.
page 68
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
lake Killarney and North lake Public Fishing Areas
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife owns and operates public fishing areas at Lake
Killarney and North Lake. Both. areas include public access to the respective lakes as well as
public restroom facilities. Lake Killarney Public Fishing Area, located at the north end of the
lake, includes a gravel parking area as ~ell as a boat ramp into the lake. North Lake Public
Fishing Area, located at the north end of the lake, includes two paved parking stalls. A trail
maintained by Weyerhaeuser runs along the western shoreline of North Lake.
lake Killarney Park
Lake Killarney Park, owned and operated by the City, extends northwest from Lake Killarney to
..
the comer of South 349th Street and Weyerhaeuser Way South. Included in the 12-acre park is
lake access along walking trails and at picnic facilities. The City describes the park as being a
'Neighborhood / Open Space Park'. A WDFW boat ramp provides water access on the eastern
shore. Fishing and boating are popular activities at Lake Killarney.
Five Mile lake Park
. Five Mile Lake Park, owned and operated by the King County, extends to the northeast from the
lake's eastern shore. Included in the 31.94 acre park is beach and lake access, including
swimming and fishing areas. The swimming area includes a floating swim platform and a
bathhouse facility. The fishing area includes a pier. Other park amenities include a children's
play structure, a sand volleyball court, 2 picnic areas, 3 picnic shelters; 2 barbeque areas with 7
barbeque pits, a lookout tower, local trails, several sports courts, 2 baseball fields, an open play
field, restrooms, 2 parking area and a concessions building.
5.3.8 Historical/Cultural Resources
The existing Federal Way Comprehensive Plan provides a general goal to identify, protect, and
restore those areas and facilities within the City that are of historical or archeological
significance (City of Federal Way, 2002~. The plan establishes a goal to ensure that historic
properties and archeological sites are pmtected as 'important elements in the overall design of
the City. Policies in the Comprehensive Plan defme characteristics that enable the identification
of historic and archeological sites, and direct the City to preserve and protect these sites from
incompatible land uses.
There are no known archeological or historical resources within the freshwater lake shoreline
planning areas. However, native American archaeological resources may exist along the
shoreline of the freshwater lakes in the City and its PAA. The Washington State Department of
Archeology and Historical Preservation ~oes not indicate any areas within and adjacent to
freshwater lake shoreline designation as being included in their database of listed properties
(DAHP). The Historical Society of Federal Way documents the history of a series of dance halls
associated with parks and resorts at several of the lakes within the City and the P AA, however
none of the dance hall structures remain {Historical Society of Federal Way, 2000). The City
requires review of archeological and historical resources on a parcel-by-parcel basis during
development review.
June 2007
page 69
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
6.0 RESTORATION AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS
This section summarizes key findings concerning how functions of coastal and freshwater lake
shorelines have been impaired, both by land use activities and alterations occurring at an
ecosystem-wide scale, and by activities within the City, its PAA, and its shoreline planning area.
This section also identifies opportunities for the protection or enhancement of areas where
shoreline ecological functions are intact, and opportunities for restoration of impaired shoreline
functions, at both a programmatic (i.e., City-wide) and site specific level. Discussion of site-
specific opportunities focus on publicly owned areas with enhancement and restoration potential
as well as privately owned areas of restoration potential that could be targeted through a
landowner - City partnership. Opportunities for enhanced or expanded public access to the
shoreline are also discussed. .
6.1 Coastal Areas I Nearshore Environment
6.1.1 Status of Shoreline Functions
Table 13 provides a summary of shoreline ecological functions for the CoastallNearshore
Environment. Causes of impairment and the relative scale at which impairments are occurring
(e.g., watershed, PAA-wide, shoreline reach scale, or multiple scales) are identified. Finally,
general or programmatic restoration opportunities to address impairments are described.
Following Table 13 is a more detailed discussion of site-specific restoration opportunities.
Table 13. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of
freshwater lake reaches in Federal Way.
Scale of Shoreline Ecological Programmatic
Condition and Causes of Impairment Alterations and Restoration
Impairment Functions Affected Opportunities
Bulkheads on shoreline deflect wave Watershed scale, Hydrologic, Sediment Remove bulkheads or
action and disrupt natural coastal Reach scale transport and replace with soft-shore
processes. Bulkheads disrupt natural deposition armoring wherever
delivery of sediment to the coastal areas, possible.
as well as increase beach scouring and
wave deflection.
Alteration to and development on feeder Watershed scale Sediment Delivery Protect high priority
bluffs reduce the potential of these areas feeder bluffs and
to provide sediment delivery to coastal preserve these areas.
zones, disrupting natural coastal beach Restore feeder bluffs,
accretion. remove bulkheads and
reestablish some
sediment delivery
processes.
Wetlands adjacent to the Puget Sound Watershed and Hydrologic Target local coastal
coast are altered due to development and Reach scale Hyporheic wetland restoration and
land use and can no longer provide Water quality mitigation so they
essential storage, recharge, or water provide storage,
quality functions. detention, and water
quality functions.
Restore and reconnect
page 70
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Scale of Shoreline Ecological Programmatic
Condition and Causes of Impairment Alterations and Functions Affected Restoration
Impairment Opportunities
wetlands adjacent to
Puget Sound coast to
provide salmonid
habitat.
Riparian habitat along the coast has Wat~shed scale Riparian habitat Protect and restore
been impaired through land and Reach scale structure tributaries to the Puget
development. Forest riparian vegetation , Sound which provide
exists but over time has been reduced. habitat and deliver
Large woody debris recruitment is woody debris and
limited. sediment.
Man-made debris and remnant Watershed and Intertidal habitat, Target removal of
structures in the coastal areas disrupt Reath Scale Water quality abandoned man-made
intertidal habitats and salmonid passage. structures and
Water quality in the nearshore dilapidated docks where
environment is impaired due to , possible. Remove
remaining creosote pilings and other creosote pilings and
toxic debris. Sediment transport and debris, which harm
accretion processes disrupted. intertidal habitats.
6.1.2 Programmatic Restoration Opportunities
There are several general protection and restoration measures that can be applied to all of the
coastal/nearshore shorelines in Federal Way (see King County, 2005b). These include the
following:
. Protect and maintain existing riparian vegetation and forested areas;
. Prevent encroachment on functional riparian and wetland habitat;
. Educate property owners on the importance of the nearshore zone;
. Allow L WD to remain in the shoreline to provide structure for refuge;
. Limit additional bulkheads; proJJ:lote development of natural shorelines and habitats;
. Include the use of shoreline setb~cks for new construction and promote shoreline
vegetation buffers;
. Maintain public access to the shoreline;
. Conserve or restore stream mouths; and
. Conserve or restore connections to upland sediment sources (feeder bluffs).
A recent study, conducted by Johannessen et al. (2005), prioritized all drift cells within the
WRIA 8 and 9 marine shores for restoration and conservation. The results of the study indicate
that the WRIA 8 and 9 marine shorelines of the Puget Sound East reach are of moderate to high
conservation and restoration priority. The bluffs ofPuget Sound West were slightly less of a
conservation and restoration priority, as much of the shoreline already falls within public park
boundaries, where development is already prohibited.
The historic character or shoretype (feeder bluff, transport zone, or accretion shore form) of
. modified shores was investigated in Johannessen et al. (2005). Reaches that are currently
June 2007
page 71
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
modified but contained historic sediment sources were compared across the shoreline planning
area. This data. was prioritized based on the level of impact to the drift cell the unit falls within
and the value of that particular shore unit as a sediment source. Individually mapped feeder bluff
units were also compared across the entire study area and prioritized for conservation based on
the variable impacts to geomorphic processes (the amount of remaining feeder bluff in the drift
cell compared to historic conditions) and the value of that unit as a sediment source.
Three bulkheaded bluff segments in Puget Sound East were selected as bluffs of high restoration
priority or bulkhead removal (numbers 20-22 in Johannessen et al. 2005). Three segments were
also identified in Puget Sound West, each located within the bulkheaded shores between Dumas
Bay Park and Dash Point State Park. Several bluffs that are still functioning feeder bluffs were
identified as being of high conservation priority within the Federal Way shoreline. Only one
bluff is of high conservation priority in Puget Sound East, which is located approximately 0.5
miles from the eastern limit ofthe study area. Several bluffs in Puget Sound West were identified
for conservation. These include all mapped feeder bluffs in Dash Point State Park, and most of
the feeder bluffs mapped along the north and northwestern sides of the headland just west of
Dumas Bay Park.
6.1.3 Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities
The following specific restoration opportunities are listed ror each coastal Puget Sound reach, in
order from east to west (Johannessen et aI., 2005; Anchor, 2006). The prioritization of marine
shorelines ofWRIA 9 (Anchor, 2006) has been included in this document as Appendix C.
Discussion of site-specific opportunities focus on publicly owned areas with enhancement and
restoration potential as well as privately owned areas of restoration potential that could be
targeted through a landowner - City partnership. General locations are shown on Figures 14,
14a through 14 c.
Puget Sound East
. Bulkhead removal (points 44, 45 in Johannessen et al. 2005)
. Conserve feeder bluffs in the center of drift cell
. Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at residential properties along the shore
Dumas Bay
. Remove fill and bulkhead
. Remove concrete footings of relict boat ramp
. Remove boulders, concrete from boat house acting as groin
. Remove concrete rubble
. Remove bulkhead and invasive species from Poverty Bay Park
. Remove creosote logs
. Remove Japanese knotweed
. Remove approximately 20 creosote piles
. Conserve and restore tributary mouths at Dumas Bay
. Fully reconnect the marsh at west end of Dumas Bay that is currently restricted by a berm
page 72
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Puget Sound West
. Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay
. Remove creosote dolphin washe~ ashore
. Remove decaying barge and creosote dolphins
. Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead
. Remove tires buried in sediment
. Remove creosote piles
. Remove 50 creosote piles and faped creosote bulkhead
. Remove riprap downstream of bridge in Dash Point State Park and substantially enlarge
creek estuary
. Restore the mouth of Dash Point Creek by removing armor (currently in planning stages
by WRlA 9), add sinuosity, and add riparian vegetation
6.2 Freshwater Shoreline lakes
6.2.1 Status of Shoreline Functions
Table 14 provides a summary of shoreline ecological functions for the freshwater lakes classified
as shorelines in the City of Federal Way. Causes of impairment and the relative scale at which
impairments are occurring (e.g., watershed, PAA-wide, shoreline reach scale, or multiple scales)
are identified. Finally, general or programmatic restoration opportunities to address impairments
are described. Following Table 14 is a rpore detailed discussion of site-specific restoration
opportunities per each lake identified.
Table 14. Summary of Shoreline Functions and Programmatic Restoration
Condition and Causes of Scale of Shoreline Ecological Programmatic
Alterations and Restoration
1m pairment I1llpairment Functions Affected Opportunities
Stream base flows may be impaired. Watershed scale, Hydrologic Protect groundwater
Summer low flows in the Hylebos Reach scale Hyporheic and natural surface
Creek have declined. Potential causes water sources to the
include increased impervious area and , lakes. Restore natural
increased stormwater runoff. Lakes flow patterns where
store surface waters and support stream possible.
base flows.
Wetlands separated from the lakes can Watershed, and Hydrologic Target local wetland
no longer provide essential storage, reach scale Hyporheic restoration and
recharge, or water quality ~ Water quality mitigation so they
improvement functions. provide storage,
detention, and water
, quality functions.
Restore and reconnect
wetlands adjacent to
lakes and Hylebos
Creek.
June 2007
page 73
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Condition and Causes of Scale of Shoreline Ecological Programmatic
Alterations and Restoration
Impai,rment Impairment Functions Affected Opportunities
Bulkheads and other hard shore Watershed, Reach Hydrologic Promote replacement of
armoring disrupt natural connections Riparian Habitats bulkheads with soft
between the lake and riparian habitats. shore alternatives.
Replant riparian
habitats using native
trees and shrubs.
Habitat is impaired along the lake Watershed scale, Instream and riparian Provide/encourage
shores. The lack of lakeshore Reach scale habitat structure native landscaping
vegetation and riparian structure has Water quality along the lakeshores,
limited the habitat diversity, habitat Biological functions including forested
quality, and reduced large woody riparian habitat
debris. wherever possible.
Minimize future
removal of trees.
Surface water runofffrbm impervious Watershed, PAA- Water quality Provide continued
surfaces delivers pollutants and wide, and reach Riparian habitat efforts in surface water
sediment to the lakes, which in turn scale quality improvement.
adversely affects lake water quality. Manage, detain and
treat stormwater
The potential causes of water quality discharging to the lakes.
impairment (Le., contamination by Coordinate with King
fecal coliform) include leaking septic County to develop
systems and animal wastes entering the BMPs with existing
stream (in the City and upstream in the property owners to
watershed). Residential landscaping or reduce runoff and
other sources may be delivering pollutant loading.
increased nitrates, phosphorus and Protect adjacent
pesticides. Stormwater related wetlands that serve to
pollutants (concentrated in urbanized improve water quality
areas including the City) may be the to lakes.
primary cause. Target wetland
restoration and
Erosion and stream scouring caused by mitigation in areas
flash run-off from impervious surfaces. where they would
provide water quality
functions.
Encourage Low Impact
Development and
infiltration.
page 74
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
6.2.2 Programmatic Restoration Opportunities
There are several general protection and restoration measures that can be applied to all of the
shoreline lakes in Federal Way. These include the following:
Protection Opportunities:
. Protect and maintain existing wetlands and riparian vegetation
. Protect existing forested areas in the parks and along the shoreline
. Prevent encroachment on functional riparian and wetland habitat
. Educate property owners on the importance of the nearshore zone and general lakeside
stewardship practices
. Promote development of nearshqre, in-water structure such as downed trees
. Limit shoreline modifications
. Limit additional bulkheads; proIT,lote development of natural shorelines and habitats
. Include the use of shoreline setbacks for new construction and promote shoreline
vegetation buffers
. Maintain public access to the lakes
Restoration Opportunities:
. Restore nearshore structures or develop buffer zones where possible
. Expand buffer zones or improve buffer quality around wetlands where possible
. Direct stormwater runoff away from the lake or into containment ponds
. Highlight locations for effective stormwater retrofitting
6.2.3 Site-Specific Res.toration Opportunities
General locations of site-specific opportunities are shown on Figure 15 and described below.
More detail in site-specific restoration opportunities will be provided for the freshwater lakes in
the Restoration Planning element of the SMP update.
Steel lake
The stewards~ip efforts of the Steel Lake Management District (limited to aquatic plant
management activities) should be supported. This lake also has a higher percentage of armored
shoreline and this practice should be discouraged. Existing bulkheads could be replaced with
bioengineered shore protection. Although the park is large for this size lake, little nearshore
vegetation remains. Sections could be restored and used as educational demonstrations for other
property owners
Star Lake
June 2007
page 75
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Although most of the shoreline is developed, bulkheads are used minimally at Star Lake. This
should be showcased and additional armoring should be discouraged. Property owners could
also be further educated on the advantages of creating 15 to 20- foot wide native vegetation
buffers to protect the water quality at the lake.
lake Dolloff
Since Lake Dolloff still has good riparian vegetation, it is important to maintain and enhance
current practices. Through continued education these buffer zones may continue to be kept in a
functional state. The floodplain boundaries should be used to keep development away from the
shoreline.
lake Geneva
Along the eastern shoreline, special consideration should be given to creating a conservation
zone or strong development regulations. The steeper shoreline lends itself to tiered development,
which would greatly reduce the potential for recruitment of large woody debris. Currently, the
mature trees along this area provide excellent habitat.
North lake
Support Weyerhaeuser's continued maintenance of the large conservation area on the western
shoreline. Continue to support the North Lake Steering Committee to promote lake stewardship
activities.
lake Killarney
Promote the importance of mature trees on properties, since most properties still contain multi-
storied vegetation. The southern shoreline is moderately steep, however development is not yet
tiered and should not be permitted.
Five Mile lake
With bulkheads existing already along at least 50 percent of the shoreline, it is most important to
limit any additional armoring ofthe shoreline. Property owners should also be educated about
the importance of maintaining mature trees in the riparian area.
page 76
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
7.0 DATA GAPS
Data gaps were identified through the p~eparation of this report and through this characterization.
These gaps include:
. Information on the hydrological budgets of the lakes including surface and subsurface
inflows and outflows, precipitatipn, and evaporation;
. Information on sedimentation inputs to the lakes;
. Water quality information for lakes specific for toxins, nutrients and pathogens;
. Inventory of large woody debris contributions to the lakes;
. An assessment of the littoral habitat for lakes; and
. Site-specific information related to bulkheads and lakeshore vegetation, especially on the
lakes within the P AA.
. General knowledge of kelp and its biology, its role in nearshore ecological processes,
historical or recent studies, and distribution data.
June 2007
page 77
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
The City of Federal Way shoreline planning area includes both the coastal area ofPuget Sound
and seven freshwater lakes within the City and its PAA. There are 16.9 miles of shoreline
within the Federal Way planning area of which the Puget Sound coastal shoreline consists of 4.8
miles of shoreline, and freshwater lakes comprise 12.1 miles. Lakes included in the shoreline
planning area are Steel Lake, Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva, North Lake, Lake
Killarney, and Five Mile Lake.
8.1 Coastal Puget Sound
Bluffs, beaches, bays, and the mouths of several freshwater streams characterize the coastal /
nearshore shoreline. Feeder bluffs occur along approximately 37 percent of the coastal
shoreline, with most of these occurring near Dash Point State Park. The net-shore drift direction
is generally west to southwest, except at Dumas Bay where the drift cells converge to direct
sands and beach substrate into the Bay from both the southwest and the northeast (Table 15).
Approximately 40 percent of the City's coastal shoreline has been modified with riprap, concrete
or wooden bulkheads. Structures in the shoreline can limit the amount of sediment transported
from upland areas to the beach, and are known to cause erosion and loss of some habitats such as
sand and fine gravel beaches. Currents naturally move sediments across the beach and
alongshore in continual cycles, but these structures interrupt the natural supply and distribution
of sediments, causing a change in sediment composition within the nearshore area. However,
shoreline in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park are in a more natural condition, and coastal
processes are less altered.
The City's coastal shorelines are used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including
fish, salmonids, birds, mammals, and a wide variety of invertebrates. Of special interest are
areas that provide habitat for federally listed species and species of local importance, including
bull trout (threatened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho salmon, as well as great blue heron
nest sites. Forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (prey for salmonids) spawn on local
beaches.
The major land uses along the Federal Way coastal/nearshore shoreline are single-family
homes, parks, and public facilities. The City's most common shoreline use is single-family
residential, which occupies 55 percent of the coastal shoreline. Parks and public recreational
facilities occupy 18 percent of the coastal shoreline. These uses include Dash Point State Park,
Dumas Bay Park, Dumas Bay Centre, and Poverty Bay Park. These areas provide opportunities
for fishing, hiking and beach recreation.
The Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way is characteristic of urbanizing shoreline elsewhere in
the region. Public access to the shoreline, recreational opportunities, and water-oriented uses
such as boating and fishing are provided in the City. In this regard, the goals of the SMA related
to public use and enjoyment of the State's shorelines are being met in the City.
Opportunities for site-specific habitat enhancement or restoration of shoreline ecological
functions have been identified based upon watershed information. In the coastal Puget Sound
page 78
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
,
areas, restoration focuses on removal o[abandoned creosote pilings, debris and concrete from
the shoreline. Restoration in the coastal shoreline also focuses on bulkhead replacement with
soft-shore armoring and the use of native marine riparian plantings. These site-specific projects
would provide small but valuable efforts toward habitat enhancement and restoration of impaired
ecological functions.
Table 15, below, summarizes the detailed marine reach inventory presented in Chapter 4 of this
report. Discussion of programmatic and site specific restoration opportunities for the City's
marine reaches is presented in Chapter 6 of this report.
June 2007
page 79
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 15. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of marine shoreline reaches in Federal Way.
Puget
Sound East
(IA)
Dumas Bay
(lB)
Puget
Sound West
(IC)
. Sediment transport: southwestward; greatest
amount of wave energy throughout study area.
. 28% of shore is modified.
. Typical beach profile: mixed conifer Ideciduous
riparian buffer atop 80- to 100-foot bluffs, base of bluff
commonly armored wI riprap, beach is narrow, sandy
low-tide terrace waterward of beach face.
. Landslide hazard areas: -47% of reach
. Shoreline slope stability: Predominantly unstable,
wI some history of recent and old landslides.
. Four unnamed, short streams; all wI steep gradients
and association wI landslide and erosion hazard zones.
. Sediment transport: convergence of drift-cells from
SW and NE.
. 67.6% of shore is modified.
. Typical beach profile: residential dwellings behind
3- to 5-foot high banks, frequent bulkhead backshore,
80-255 ft. wide sand with pebble beach.
. Landslide hazard areas: ..:- 38% of reach
. Shoreline slope stability: Intemlediate to unstable,
wI some history of old landslides.
. Three streams, including Joe's Creek, Lakota
Creek, and Dumas Bay Creek. Joe's and Lakota are
more significant streams, flowing from upland areas
~~ou~ r~sidentiaLl!nd park areas. Both 303(d) listed,
recently for Fecal Coliform.
. Sediment transport: divergence between drift-cells
KI-IO-2 and 10-3.
. 25.3% of shore is modified.
. Typical beach profile: mixed conifer Ideciduous
riparian buffer wI slumps and jack strawed trees
overhanging intertidal area, atop 80- to 200-foot high
slowly eroding bluffs, beach is a broad sand flat.
. Landslide hazard areas: - 77%
. Shoreline slope stability: Stable to unstable old
landslides.
. One unnamed stream (WRJA No. 0391); flows
through steep ravine within Dash Point State Park.
. Two City inventoried Class 3 wetlands wlin shoreline planning area, near 91h Ave.
SW; NWI maps intertidal WLs along entire reach (likely not state or locally regulated).
. Low to moderate quality riparian habitat, due to shoreline modifications; mixed
trees & grasses, L WD accumulation in areas wlout modifications.
. Marine intertidal habitat: Intertidal flat and subestuary associated wI stream at
State Park; Mapped continuous and patchy eelgrass beds; Past mapping of Kelp beds,
however no longer exist.
. Use by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including fish, birds, mammals,
and invertebrates. Of special interest: federally listed species and species oflocal
importance, including bull trout (threatened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho
salmon, great blue heron nest sites. Forage fish (surf smelt & sand lance) spawn on
local beaches.
. NWI/City inventoried Class I PEM/PSS wetland wlin shoreline planning area;
Additional City inventoried Class 3 WL in NE portion of reach; NWI maps intertidal
wetands along entire reach (likely not state or locally regulated).
. Riparian habitat dominated by grasses, however some overhanging trees on high-
bluff areas; Significant areas of shoreline modification reduce riparian habitat; L WD
lacking in reach.
. Marine intertidal habitat: Intertidal flats and subestuaries associated wI streams
draining into Dumas Bay; Mapped continuous and patchy eelgrass beds; Past mapping
of Kelp beds, however no longer exist.
. Use by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including fish, birds, mammals,
and invertebrates. Of special interest: federally listed species and species of local
importance, including bull trout (thre!ltened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho
salmon, great blu~ he.!Q1) .f1~t si!~s. forage fish (surf smelt &.sand lance) spawn,on -
local beaches. _..e., ... - -. . '._.. ,. . ~ . .. /
. No City inventoried wetlands w/in shoreline planning area; NWI maps intertidal
wetands along entire reach (likely not state or locally regulated).
. Riparian habitat dominated by mature overhanging trees and LWD accumulation,
especially in high bluff areas and along Dash Point State Park; habitat is only low
quality for short length of shoreline annoring.
. Marine intertidal habitat: Mapped patchy eelgrass beds; Past mapping of Kelp
beds, however no longer exist. .
. Landslide hazard areas: - 47% of reach
. Use by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including fish, birds, mammals,
and invertebrates. Of special interest: federally listed species and species of local
importance, including bull trout (threatened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho
salmon, great blue heron nest sites. Forage tish (surf smelt & sand lance) spawn on
local beaches.
..~~J~lY{~;r~~~,'i:
. Existing land use:
Predominantly (45% to
63%) single family
residential, with low to
moderate densities.
Additional uses include
Parks and Open Space
areas (36 to 40%), as well
as vacant areas, utility and
road right of way, and
multi"family uses,
. Comprehensive Plan'
Supports preservation of
existing single-family
residential neighborhood
character, as well as
protection of natural
resources and promotion of
economic development.
The Comp Plan map
reflects current land use
(predominantly low- to
moderate-density
residential, with park, open
space, utility, and road right
of way designations making
.up.the.remainder of
shoreline area.
. Zoning: Reflects
Comp Plan designations.
. Existing public access
is provided by Dash Point
State Park (I c), Dumas Bay
Park (I b), Dumas Bay
Centre ( t b), and Poverty
Bay Park (lb/la).
Additional public access
opportunities are limited, as
the remainder of the
shoreline is privately
owned.
June 2007
page 80
e:
e
e
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
8.2 Freshwater lakes
The freshwater lakes in the City are located on a broad plateau in the eastern half of the City and in
the P AA. The plateau developed from glacial recessional deposits and tills. As the glaciers melted,
lakes formed in the scour areas. Lakes in the City drain to five main drainage basins including 1) the
Puget Sound, 2) the Lower Green River, 3) Mill Creek, 4) the White River, 5) and Hylebos
Creek/Waterway. Lake shorelines have been modified with bulkheads and other bank protection,
but also have significant areas of natural shoreline conditions. On Steel Lake, Star Lake and Five
Mile Lake, approximately 20 to 50 percent of the shoreline has been modified with bulkheads.
Shoreline modifications are less apparent on the remaining lakes in the City (Table 16).
The City's freshwater lake shorelines are used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species
including fish, birds, and mammals. Many of the lakes are stocked with trout, bass or other game
fish. Anadromous fish (including coho) are not likely present in the freshwater lakes due to
blockages to fish passage. Salmonids within the lakes are limited to stocked cutthroat trout. Bald
eagle and loon also use the lakes with the shoreline planning area.
Land uses along the City's freshwater lakes are primarily single-family residential and public parks.
Single-family residential use occupies between 55 and 80 percent of the shoreline on most lakes,
with the exception of North Lake (35 peFcent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent).
Parks, boat ramps, and public facilities 0CCUPY 9 to 39 percent of the lake shorelines. Public access
to the lakes occurs via parks including Steel Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, Lake Killarney and Five
Mile Lake Park, as well as several boat ramps owned by Washington Department ofFish and
Wildlife.
Development on a watershed scale has affected the shoreline by increasing impervious area in
uplands, resulting in increased peak flow velocities and volumes, impaired water quality, and erosion
in streams. On the lake shorelines, alterations have affected water quality, in lake habitat, and
downstream habitat for salmonids.
In the freshwater iakes, restoration opportunities include enhancement of lake shore riparian areas
with native vegetation, removal or repla~ement of failing bulkheads, and protection of natural
vegetation when present. Programmati~ restoration opportunities include coordination with the
City's surface water management progrc.im, public education and outreach to provide technical
guidance for shoreline homeowners, and. the possibility for community-based restoration on private
property. Opportunities for enhancing public awareness and education could inClude installation of
informational kiosks at public parks and waterfront use areas. The City could also coordinate with
King County, the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 forum, and other regional or Puget
Sound-wide planning efforts to implement identified restoration policies and actions.
Table 16, below, summarizes the detailed freshwater lakes inventory presented in Chapter 4 of this
report. Discussion of programmatic and site specific restoration opportunities for the City's lake
reaches is presented in Chapter 6 of this report.
June 2007
page 81
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 16. Summary of physical features, biological resources, and land use patterns of freshwater lake reaches in Federal
Way.
. ;;'Sh~'t~li~;~
;.: :';Re~t;K:r
Steel Lake
(Reach 2)
Star Lake
(Reach 3)
Lake
D~"off
(Reach 4)
June 2007
e
. Located in Lower Puget Sound basin.
· Under-laying soils: low-permeability till.
. In-flow: surface water conveyed via 14
storm water outflows, Outtlow: to Cat I wetland .
along Western shoreline, eventually outflow
becomes Redondo Crk.
· Lake Management Distric.t: City established 3
yrs ago, successful in reduction of aquatic weeds,
· Low quality riparian habitat due to residential
development and extensive shoreline armoring.
. Located in Lower Green River basin, in PAA.
. Under-laying soils: till & recessional outwash
deposits, is likely a kettle lake.
. In-flow: small streams and groundwater.
Outtlow: via a pipe and culvert to Bingham Crk.
and Green River.
. Mapped as a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area.
· Low qual ity riparian habitat due to residential
development and e>>.-tensive shorel ine armofing.
. Lakes are located in Mill Creek basin, in
PAA.
· Under-laying soils: till and recessional
outwash deposits.
. In-flow: small streams and groundwater.
Outflow:vii{shorelilic.wetlands tO'a sm~1I triblitary
of Mill Creek (Lake Dolloff) and Mill Creek (Lake
Geneva).
. Lk. Dolloff: mapped as a Critical Aquifer
Recharge Area.
. A Ithough the majority of buildable parcels
are developed, residences are further setback from
· NWI identifies wetlands associated with and adjacent to
lake. City inventory identifies a large, Category I WL
extending from western edge oflake; several other small,
Category III WLs identified.
. Lake supports: stocked trout and bass. Downstream of
lake, basin supports coho and fall chum salmon.
. Mesotrophjc lake with very good water quality; invasive
exotic species are significant concern.
. NWI and City identify entire lake area as a permenant
lacustrine wetland (City, Category I).
. Lake supports: stocked trout, bass, and other fish.
Downstream of lake, Lower Green River basin supports fall
Chinook, fall chum, coho, documented presence of sockeye,
pink, bull trout, and winter steelhead.
. Ogliotrophic lake wi very good water quality, however
low flushing rate makes lake vulnerable to pollutants; Category
2 303(d) listing for fecal coliform.
. NWI and City identify entire lake area as a permenant
lacustrine wetland (City, Category I). NWI and City also
identify several small palustrine WLs in the plan,ning area, two
of which are associated wi the lake.
· Lake supports: stocked trout, bass, and other fish.
Downstream oflake;MiII Creek basin supports Chinook,
chum, coho, and documented presence of sockeye, cutthroat,
and winter steel head.
. Eutrophic lake wi fair water quality, low flushing mte
makes lake vulnemble to pollutants; Category 2 303(d) listing
for fecal coliform and phosphorus.
e
. Existing land use: Predominantly (58% to 80%)
single family residential, with low to moderate
densities. Additional uses include vacant areas (2
%to 30%), Parks and Open Space areas (5% to 16%,
except at Lake Dolloff), as well as utility and road
right of way and limited multi-family (Steel Lake
only) uses.
. Comprehensive Plan: Supports preservation of
existing single-family residential neighborhood
character, as well as protection of natural resources
and promotion of economic development The Comp
Plan map reflects current land use (predominantly
low- to moderate-density residential, with park, open
space, utility, and road right of way designations
making up the remainder of shoreline area.
. Zoning: Reflect City and County Comp Plan
designations.
. Existing public access is provided by: Steel
Lake Park (WDFW boat ramp, swimming area,
fishing areas, play structures and courts, picnic
facilities), Lake Geneva Park (King County operated,
boat ramp, fishing areas, play structures and courts,
picnic facilities), boat ramps at both Star Lake and
Lake Dolloff.
; ",",.
page 82
e
e
e
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Table 16 continued
:'?;~~:ilWf.
Lake
Geneva
(Reach 5)
North Lake
(Reach 6) .
Killarney
Lake
(Reach 7)
page 83
e
. Lakes located in Hylebos Crk. basin, in
south-central part of the City (Lk. Killarney
partially in PAA).
. Under-laying soils: till deposits.
. In-flow: small tributary (North Lk.),
associated wetlands, runoff, and limited
groundwater. Outflow: via shoreline wetland to a
small tributary, then to a pond, and eventually the
west fork ofHylebos Crk (North Lk.) and via a
convert culvert and trib. to east fork of Hylebos
Crk. (Killarney Lk.)
. Shoreline annoring is minimal, however- ..'
especially so on the western (North Lk.) and .
northern (Killarney Lk.) shorelines.
. NWI and City identifY entire lake area as a permenant
lacustrine wetland (City, Category I).
. Lake supports: stocked trout, bass, and other fish. Adult
common loon documented near lake. Downstream of lake, Mill
Creek basin supports Chinook, chum, coho, and documented
presence of sockeye, cutthroat, and winter steelhead.
· Mesotrophic lake w/ good water quality, low flushing
rate makes lake vulnerable to pollutants; meets all State water
quality standards.
. NWI and City identifY entire lake area as a permenant
lacustrine wetland (City, Category I). NWI and City also
identifY several small palustrine WLs in the planning.area,
. Lake supports: stocked trout, bass, and other fish, Eagle
nest documented V. mile from North Lake. Downstream of
lake, Hylebos Creek basin supports chum, coho, and cutthroat.
. Mesotrophic lake w/ good water quality, moderate
flushing rate makes lake moderately vulnerable to pollutants;
meets all State water quality standards.
. NWI and City identifY entire lake area as a permenant
lacustrine wetland (City, Category I). NWI and City also
identifY several small palustrine WLs in the planning area,
. Lake supports: stocked trout, bass, and other fish. Eagle
nest documented .\1, milefromNorth,.Lake..Downstream of ,..'
lake, Hylebos Creek basin supports chum, coho, and cutthroat.
. Eutrophic lake w/ good water quality, low flushing rate
makes lake vulnerable to pollutants; Category 2 303( d) listing
for fecal coliform and phosphorus.
. Existing land use: Predominantly (35% to 54%)
single family residential, with low to moderate
densities. Additional uses include office/industrial
(-22%), vacant areas (12% to 21%), parks and open
space areas (12% to 14%), as well as utility and road
rightofway.
. Comprehensive Plan: Supports preservation of
existing single-family residential neighborhood
character, as well as protection of natural resources
and promotion of economic development. The Comp
Plan map reflects current land use (predominantly
low- to moderate-density residential, with
office/industrial, park, open space, utility, and road
right of way designations making up the remainder of
shoreline area.
. Zoning: Reflect City and County Comp Plan
designations,. - ,.
. Existing publ ic access is provided by: Lake
Killamey Park (12 acres, walking trails, picnic
facilities), a trail owned and maintained by
Weyerhaeuser along North Lake, and boat ramps at
both North Lake and Lake Killamey.
.,
June 2007
City of federal Way - Shorelin< InventOry & cnaracterlZOU""
. ERisting land use., predominantl)' (31%)single
famil)' residential, Vlitb 10Vl to moderate denslues.
A.dditional uses include parks and open.space areas
1,9%), ,_ ._ "'/.), .. "'" .. ",,1"'1 "" ,..,
rigbt of Via)'. '
. comprebensive plan: su~po(\S, presef'latlon of
eJlisting single-fami\)' residential nelgbbOrhood
cbaracter, as Vlell as protection of natural resources
"" ..."""on.f _" ,,,d'1""'" "" C_
Plan map reflects current land use .(predom,n~nt\),
10Vl- to moderate-densi\)' res,dentl~1 and park area,
with open space, utili\)', and road nght of way ,
designations making up the remainder of shoreline
area,
. 'Loning: Reflect Ci\)' and Coun\)' Comp plan
designations. ' '
. EJ\.isting -public access is provided b)' fl\le Mile
Lak.e park. (3 I .94 acre \<.i\\g Coun\)' park., sVlln\ml~g
area, fishing areas, play structures and cou(\S, picniC
facilities, Vlalk.ing trails).
Table 16 continued
_+ ,": ,\ ,;,' :',>.",.-:,,:;r..r....,::..;.:
SboreUl1e"'"
, . . ". : .... , 1:." '_~ L,'
'.,,,,e~~b. ,y,
. "'"' "" Cdy ,,,,,,,,,, - ,,10< ~on .. · "'......
""""'" ""I"" IC'~' ~ I). "'"' "" C"'I''''
",,,,,,, ,,,'" ,,,,II ","""'" WU in .. ~"",.. -, "'"
of Vlhich is associated Vlith the lake,
. \,01<< "',..,... ."',.. un'" "" ...... "","_mon
loon _wi "'" "'" "" ",,,,, IU'. ""~ "",,", ,
CII- "'.... _ ""'<"" ",-" "",I" ,,,....-
"'.-.: of "","," on....... "" "''''. ""....
. ".......,,,"".,.... _ ...."'1; C"'O"'i 1
303(d) listing for fecal coliform,
. Located in White River basin. in pM.
. under-laying soils'. till &. recessional outv'lash
deposits, is likely a kettle lake.
. In-flOW: wetlands to nortb, springs, runoff, &.
~""",."". -.., ~.,.... ,.... \,\<, ...""
drains to Wbite River.
. Mapped as a critical Aquifer Recharge Mea.
. Sboreline armoring is common on developed
""""II~ """', """"'" .....-" 15% of
the shOreline.
IH"e Mile
Lake
(Reach S)
..
~
--------
page 84
~
.
-----
~-
e
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
REFERENCES
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. and PeoRle for Puget Sound. 2002. Final Report Northwest Straits
Nearshore Habitat Evaluation. Prepared for Northwest Straits Commission (NWSC). Mount
Vemon, W A.
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. 2004. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report - WRlA 9. Prepared for
Seattle Public Utilities and WRlA 9. Seattle, W A.
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. 2006. Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of Water Resource
Inventory Area 9 for Juvenile Sa1lmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration, Final Report.
Prepared for Water Resource In~entory Area 9 Technical Committee. May 2006.
Booth, D.B. 1994. Glaciofluvial infilling and scour of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during ice-
sheet glaciation: Geology, V. 22, N. 8, p. 695-698.
Booth, D.B., Waldron, H.H., and Troos~, K.G. 2004. Geologic map of the Poverty Bay 7.5-minute
quadrangle, King and Pierce COllllties, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Field Investigation, scale 1 :24,000.
Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in
Marine Ecosystems. Washington Sea Grant Program, Seattle, W A.
Burke, Stephen. 2007. Program Manager, King County Noxious Weed Program. Personal
communication on May 21, 2007.
Caster, Dick. 2005. Native American Presence in the Federal Way Area. Prepared for the Historical
Society of Federal Way. Federa~ Way, WA.
Chatwin, S. c.,et al. 1991, A Guide to Management of Landslide-Prone Terrain in the Pacific
Northwest, Land Management Handbook Number 18, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Victoria,
B.C., Canada.
Chu, Y. H., 1985, Beach erosion and protection: a case study at Lincoln Park, Seattle: Shore and
Beach, n. 53, p26-32.
City of Federal Way. 2002. Comprehensive Plan.
City of Federal Way. 2006. Federal Way Parks Website. Available:
http://www.cityoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?page=25 8
City of Federal Way. 1994. The 1994 Surface Water Facilities Plan.
City of Federal Way. Public Works Department. Surface Water Management Division. Steel Lake
Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan. Updated March 2004.
DAHP (Washington State Department of Archeology and Historical Preservation). WISSARD
Online GIS Map Tool. Accessed: May 18,2006. Available:
http://www.oahp. wa.gov/gis/INDEX. CFM?action=mox42 _iCframeset
Downing, 1., 1983, The Coast ofPuget Sound, Its Processes and Development. Washington Sea
Grant Publication, University of;Washington Press, Seattle. 1983. 126 pp.
page 85
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Dragovich, J.D., Pringle, P.T., and Walsh, T.J. 1994. Extent and geometry ofthe mid-Holocene
Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland - Implications for Holocene sedimentation and
paleogeography. Washington Geology, v. 22, n. 3, p. 3-26.
EnviroVision. 2004. Lake Dolloff Brazilian Elodea Survey and Hand-Pulling. July 2004.
EnviroVision. 1997. Lake Killarney Integrated Aquatic Plant Plan. January 1997.
Federal Register. 2005a. Volume 70, Number 170. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation
of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and
Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Friday, September 2,2005.
Federal Register. 2005b. Volume 70, Number 185. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the .Bull Trout. Monday, September 26, 2005.
Federal Register. 2006. Volume 71, Number 115. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation
of Critical Habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whale. Thursday, June 15,2006.
Federal Way. 2002. Potential Annexation Area Inventory, Final. March 18,2002
Federal Way. 2006. ESA and Habitat Restoration website.
http://www.citvoffederalway.com/Page.aspx?view=509 accessed June 30, 2006
FWMC (Federal Way). 2006. Federal Way Municipal Code. Available:
Gerstel, W. J., M.J. Brunengo, W.S. Lingley Jr., R.L. Logan, H.S. Shipman, and T.J. Walsh, 1997,
Puget Sound Bluffs: The Where, Why, and When of Landslides Following the Holiday
1996/97 Storms. Washington Geology. March 1997. Vol 25, no. 1.
Griggs, G. B., 2005. The impacts of coastal armoring, Shore and Beach, vol. 73, no. 1, p. 13-22.
Gray, D, and R. B. Sotir, 1996, Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A
Practical Guide for Erosion Control, John Wiley and Sons.
Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9)
Steering Committee. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King.
Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. August 2005.
Greenway, D. R., 1987 , Vegetation and Slope Stability, In: Slope Stability, edited by M. F.
Anderson and K. S. Richards, Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hampton, Monty, Griggs, Gary, Edil, Tuncer, Guy, Donald, Kelly, Joseph, Komar, Paul, Mickleson,
David, and Shipman, Hugh, 2004. Processes that Govern the Formation and Evolution of
Coastal Cliffs: Formation, Evolution,a nd Stability of Coastal Cliffs-Status and Trends,
Hampton, Monty A. and Griggs, Gary B. (editors), USGS Professional Paper 1693, p. 7-38.
Island County Marine Resource Committee, 2004. Regional Forage Fish Habitat Assessment; 2001-
2003. Data collected by Dan Pentilla, WDFW, Prepared for Salmon Recover Board, US Fish
and Wildlife, and the Northwest Straits Committee.
Jacobsen, E.E. and M.L. Schwartz, 1981. The use of geomorphic indicators to determine the
direction of net shore-dl'ift, Shore and Beach, vol. 49, p. 38-42.
Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion
Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science
Division, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia W A. pp. 150.
page 86
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Johannessen, lW., AJ. MacLennan and A. McBride, 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current
and Historic Beach Feeding SourceslErosion and Accretion Areas for the Marine Shorelines
of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 & 9., Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services, Prepared
for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, W A.
Johannessen, J. W., 1993, Net Shore-Drift of San Juan County and Parts of Jefferson, Island and
Snohomish Counties, Washington: unpublished M.S. thesis, Western Washington University.
Bellingham, 175 p.
Johnson, David H. and Thomas A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon State Press, Corvallis OR.
Jones, M.A. 1996. Thickness ofuncons0lidated deposits in the Puget Sound Lowland, Washington
and British Columbia: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-
4133, scale 1 :455,000.
Kerwin, J. 1999. Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors Report for.the Puyallup River Basin (Water
Resource Inventory Area 10). Washington Conservation Commission. July 1999.
Kerwin, J. and Nelson, T.S. (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment
Report, GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and Vashon
Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of Natural
Resources. December 2000.
Keuler, R.F., 1988, Map showing coastal erosion, sediment supply, and longshore transport in the
Port Townsend 30- by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington: U.S.
Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1198-E, scale 1: 1 00,000.
Keuler, R.F., 1979, Coastal zone processes and geomorphology of Skagit County, Washington:
unpublished M.S. thesis, Western Washington University., Bellingham, 127 p., 8 maps.
King County. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance Assessment Report,
GreenlDuwamish and Central PMget Sound Watersheds (Water Resource Inventory Area 9
and Vashon Island). December 2000.
King County. 2002. King County Lake Monitoring Report: Volunteer Lake Monitoring Results for
the Water Year 2001. December 2002.
King County. 2005. King County Lake Monitoring Report: Volunteer Lake Monitoring Results for
the Water Year 2002-2003. March 2005.
King County. 2005b. WRIA 9 Strategic Assessment Report - Scientific Foundation for Salmonid
Habitat Conservation. Prepared for: Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Steering
Committee. November 2005.
King County. 2006. King County Lake Monitoring Report: Volunteer Lake Monitoring Results for
Water Year 2004. April 2006
King County. 2006a. King County Parks Website. Available:
http://www .metrokc.gov /parks/parkinfo/index.asp
King County. 2006b. King County GIS Center IMap Viewer. Available:
http://www.metrokc.goy/gis/mapportal/iMAP_main.htm#
King County. 1990. Sensitive Areas Map Folio
June 2007
page 87
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of
the State of the Nearshore Report: Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRlAs 8 and 9).
Seattle, W A.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 1998. King County's Beach Assessment,
Dash Point State Park, Federal Way. Updated 11/02/98. Available at:
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/beaches/dash.htm
King County Department of Natural Resources. 2001. King County Lake Water Quality - A Trend
Report on King County Small Lakes. Water and Land Resources Division. November 2001.
King County. 2004. Lake Stewardship Program. North Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation
Management Plan. October 2004.
King County Lake Monitoring. 2002. Lake Stewardship Program. Volunteer Monitoring Results for
the Water Year 1999 - 2000. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks-
Water and Land Resources Division. March 2002.
King County Lake Monitoring. 2005. Lake Stewardship Program. Volunteer Monitoring Results for
the Water Year 2002 - 2003. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks-
Water and Land Resources Division. March 2005.
King County Lake Monitoring. 2006. Lake Stewardship Program. Volunteer Monitoring Results for
the Water Year 2003 - 2004. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks-
Water and Land Resources Division. March 2006.
Komar, P.D., 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 429
p.
Lemberg, N.A., M.F. O'Toole, D.E. Pentilla, and K.C. Stick. 1997. Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife, 1996 Forage Fish Stock Status Report. Stock Status Report No. 98-1.
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia.
Luzier, J. E. 1969. Geology and ground-water resources of southwest em King County, Washington:
Washington Department of Water Resources Water-Supply Bulletin 28,260 p., 3 plates.
MacDonald, K. D. Simpson, B. Paulsen, J. Cox, and J. Gendron. 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects
on Physical Coastal Processes in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management
Studies Volume 5. Shore lands and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia. Report # 94-78.
Menashe, E. 1993, Vegetation Management: A guide for Puget Sound bank property owners,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, W A.
Menashe, E. 2001, "Bio-structural" Erosion Control: Incorporating Vegetation in Engineering
Designs to protect Puget Sound Shorelines, In: Puget Sound Research 2001, Conference
Proceedings, Puget Sound Action Team. Bellevue, WA, 2001.
Michaud, Joy. A Citizen's Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams.1991.
Miles, J.R., Russel, P.E., and Huntley, D.A., 2001. Field measurements of sediment dynamics in
front of (1- seawall, Journal of Coastal Research, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 195-206.
page 88
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Mullineaux, D.R. 1970. Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond quadrangles, King
County, Washington. U.S. GeolQgical Survey Professional Paper 672, 92 p.
O'Toole, M. 1995. Puget Sound Herring: A Review. In Proceedings ofPuget Sound Research. 1995.
pp. 849-854. Puget Sound WaterQuality Authority, Seattle, WA.
Palmer, P.P., Perkins, W.J., and Grant, P.W. 2003. Liquefaction susceptibility of the greater Tacoma
urban area, Pierce and King comtties, Washington: Washington Department of Water
Resources Geologic Map GM-5l, 11 p., 1 plate.
Puget Sound Action Team, 2003. Puget Sound update, Olympia, WA 127 p.
Redman, S., D. Myers, and D. Averill, eds. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon
Recovery in Puget Sound. Prepared for: Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. June 28, 2005.
Rice, C. A., 2006. Effects of Shoreline ~odification on a Northern Puget Sound Beach:
Microclimate and Embryo Mortality in Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and
Coasts, Vol. 29, No 1, p. 63-71.
Roering, J.J., K. M. Schmidt, J. D. Stock, W. E. Dietrich and D. R. Montgomery 2003, Shallow
landsliding, root reinforcement, c.md the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon Cost
Range, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v. 40 ,p. 237-253.
Rosen, J., 1977, Increasing shoreline erosion rates with decreasing tidal range in the Virginia
Chesapeake Bay: Chesapeake Sc.ience, v. 18, p. 383-386.
Schwartz, Maurice L., et aI, 1991, Net shore-drift in Washington state: Vol. 3, Central Puget Sound,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. WA Dept. of Ecology, Olympia.
Shannon and Wilson. 1998. Wetland and Stream Inventory
Shipman, H. 2004. Coastal Bluffs and Sea Cliffs on Puget Sound, Washington, in, Hampton, M.A.
and Griggs, G.B., eds, Formation, evolution, and stability of coastal cliffs-status and trends:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1693, p. 81-94.
Shipman, H. 2001. Coastal Landsliding on Puget Sound: A review of landslides occurring between
1996 and 1999, Publication #01-06-019, Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program,
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Smith, Dan. City of Federal Way, Public Works Department, Surface Water Management Division.
North Lake Aquatic Weed Management Program, 2005 Final Report.
Taylor Associates. 2002. East Hylebos {Sreek 2001 Monitoring Program, Final Report. Prepared for
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. July 2002.
Thorsen, G. W., 1987, Soil Bluffs + Raip. = Slide hazards, Washington Geologic Newsletter, v. 15.
no. 3. p. 3-11.
Troost, K.G., Booth, D.B., and Borden, R. In review. Geologic map of the Tacoma North 7.5-minute
quadrangle, Washington: U.S. G~ological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigation, scale
1 :24,000.
Tubbs, D.W., 1974.Causes, Mechanisms and Prediction of Landsliding in Seattle. Unpublished
dissertation, University of Washington, November 1975.
June 2007
page 89
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
United States Department ofthe Interior (USDI). 1987a. National Wetlands Inventory, North
Tacoma, Washington 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle.
United States Department of the Interior (USDI). 1987b. National Wetlands Inventory, Poverty
Bay, Washington 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle.
Waldron, H.H. 1961. Geologic map of the Poverty Bay quadrangle, Washington: U.S. Geological
Survey Map GQ-158, scale 1:24,000.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1979. Coastal Zone Atlas ofWashingtoh, King County, v.
6.
Washington State Parks. 2006. Washington State Accessible Outdoor Recreation Guide - North
Puget Sound Region. Available: http://www.parks.wa.gov/ada-rec/detail.asp?region=NPS#12
Washington Department of Ecology. Regional Water Association of South King Co., and Seattle-
King County Dept. of Public Health. Tacoma, W A.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 1999. Documented Spawning areas of the Pacific
Herring (clupea) Surf Smelt (Hypomesus), and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes) in Island
County , Washington, Prepared by Daniel Pentilla. La Conner, W A.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2004. Priority Habitat Species database information.
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006. SalmonScape data. Available at:
http://wdfw . wa.gov /mapping/salmonscape/index.html
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Digital Coastal Atlas. Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program. Available:
http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/website/coastal_atlas/viewer .htm
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2001. Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program. Shoreline Oblique air photos. April 2001.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Shoreline Aerial Photos. Available at:
http://apps.ecy . wa.gov/shorephotos/index.html
Washington State Department of Ecology. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. 2002/2004
Candidate List.
Washington State Department of Health. 2004. Available:
http://ww4.doh.wa.gov/scripts/esrimap.dll?mune=BIOVIEW &Left=587799&Bottom=33 720
O&Right= 133 720 1 &T op= 1360000&Co=Select+a+County &Beach=Select+a+Beach&Step= 1
&click.x=225&click.y= 13 3
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Digital geologic maps of the
1: 1 00,000 quadrangles of Washington. Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Olympia,
W A. Available: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/digl00k.htm
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory, Nearshore Habitat Program, Olympia, W A.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Olympia, W A.
page 90
June 2007
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, J.J. James. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon
Utilization: Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries,
Olympia, Washington.
Woodward, D.G., Packard, F.A., Dion, N.P., and Sumioka, S.S., 1995, Occurrence and quality of
ground water in Southwestern K~ng County, Washington: Water-Resources Investigations
Report 92-4098, prepared in cooperation with State of Washington Department of Ecology,
Regional Water Association of South King Co., and Seattle - King County Dept. of Public
Health, Tacoma.
June 2007
page 91
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
APPENDIX A - MAP FOLIO
June 2007
Appendix A
d ~ t
~~l"
sound
Figure 1
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
Shoreline
Planning Areas
Legend
r'''~] City of Federal Way
t!ZJ Potential Annexation Area
D Shoreline Planning Area
~ Puget Sound East
~ Puget Sound - Dumas Bay
e Puget Sound West
o Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
o Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
6 ~ Miles
N Map Date: May 2006
!A,FE;deral Way
. "",.--.-"-- '''''''''', ..
This map is accompanied by NO warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
et
~~'b
sound
Legend
. . WRIA Boundary
o Shoreline Planning Area
City of Federal Way
11::3 potential Annexation Area
ct) puget Sound East
ct> puget Sound - Dumas Bay
~ puget Sound West
e Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
4) Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
/). ~ Miles
N Map Date: May 2006
~ v\
C1 e t
o
sound
.-'
,"
, j
"
~,
"~
'\~
...~~.
..\~
,\.t..
,.\,&~
''i:~
: ""'-,-
~t/" .....,
.J ", '\::'...
, t
~.
<" ""
n ~, ,~
...J:I~" ..~..~
t..: ! ''''...... '..~
:...! ....~ (',
. I "
.0 "'" ""
.0......, ,
.0.....):: ....-.......l"....
.Q)C-O ".. '....
0", '. ,
.~ ...,....
".0' ..... '..
" "
'I .....'"
. .
L_.j
)
i
.
\
'0 - 50
Shorelines:
D Shoreline
Planning Area
~ puget Sound
~ East
1P.\ Puget Sound -
'I.iI Dumas Bay
~ Puget Sound
W West
o Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
4) Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253) 835-7000
Map Source: NRCS
A Federal Way
Scale:
o 0.5 1 Mil~\
I I I w
N
Map Date: May, 2006
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.cityoffederalway.com
~
e\
00
~~
\ \"''''''-
\ Geo\OQ'l
Genera\ Legend:
oaIIOb/O~/
IOls/orow/ooal
IO?f/a?ff/a?~C
Oa?09/a?09c/
j~ ~D:::~Pog\
O:Ji QO\Ja/a\Jf/a'Jrl/Q\JrS
'e unincOrporate
~ng county OO\Ji/a\Jiela\Jt
law
Q af/ro
ShOre\\nes:
ORegUlated
S\"\oreline
PUget Sounl
e €.ast
Puget SOUl
<D Duroas Sa
PUget SOl
~ V'Jest
o steel La!
e star La'
o La\<.e 0
4) La\<.e(
o Nortr
o La\<.E
o fi\JE
scale: \CiW of
o 0 5 \ ,,\Ie ,3325
~ 1\ pOse
~ ~ feder
MaP oate'. MaY, 2006 t253)
MaP 51
~ federal'
iniS map is accompa~ied '0'/ ~O w
_ _."nnic representation. For morE
_".,nffedera\W~
~ ~v:\ ------
~... .
~ffl""" "",,, ,<C _'ffl, ,,",, ""~",,,
lodifled land lHolocene)
,o..\luviUm lHolocene)
6each deposits {HOlOcene)
"lIuvial Ian depositS ll-lolocene)
_ Landslide detPOsitdse~~~~~locena and Pleistocene)
WI _ ""ass-was age ,..-
)al _P-.IIUviU,m {H~IO'1~~aTd and 600t\\ l~988) lPlelstocene) Ie
,b ,,,,,_ _" , I ,."" ,,. ''''.-"',
pl_ sedimentary d':,pOSltS. PTpe;:.~~~e~ ~13datiOn age lPleistocene)
Iplc _ sedllT\entary uepOShS
:lp09 _ Glacial depOSIts .
QIl09c . coarse-grained depOSits
_ ..,~,,_arained depOSits
--- - -
--------- .---
sottnd
~",B
,~k
'S~'.
\'M~ster Progralll
\50\\5 and
l\"'..a potent\a\ ""et\andS
~16 ...
~ General Legend: Shorelines:
'~\L ~ \1ydric soils Osnore~ine
"to PlannIng Ate'
DNa ClassifIcation PUget Sound
Excessively e East
II orained puget Sounl
soroewnat ~ Oumas Bay
UE<cess;veIY pugel SOUl
Drained e west
{ 1 ModeratelY 0
LJ\Nell Drained Sleel LaKE
Uwell e Star LaKe
orained 0 D I
. LaKe 0
e LaKe G€
o Non\"\ L
o LaKe'r<
o five tV
e\
o
~o
~
.~
/,:<~"_"~ rrf.A' l..~V~~f {.a .1/
. ,,-:;;pr r )~ ~'f
,r. ..I>IB~o .' MC . G:l ~
l ........ Inl> \ 'Mo.~'UI t
...f ". ~25"J. .5.W 312th3. ~
,..' 't:l. ~.~kf . "'"IlI~
. ,,'< ~o ""0 ..l<{;rror;'
-,'<:l .d~., r S~
~~~.,. ,...~ L~ke l
~C, . S~.5W 320th 5t. .,.- _f,ct~Sy:t>>~Sk~k 0sksAl'
'< . ,.' .0. .'~'
..,> ..' >
..... " ~ "~ . <
\ .~. 9 t,... ~ "H"C' ~;,C .Sk ~ .Sk S'" iSk'"
.', . '0' ,- 000' ·
i ., · " ""' .
. .. HrJ..
. "i')C/l ,\
\ ", V,~,
,_..._...____"..gD ~
~>(g..e .....,1\),~91l ,
. " " ~vl:'
....,~ AAl\\f _d
''0;;. . lai:~mB
, ~9B
.", -s::~ ~.. ~ . - \
,\\Key ,.'
6. MC. Mil . p.\de{VIood gravelly sandY loam "....
If . p.\de{VIood and \<.itsap soils "
mB. /lime' ;..rents, ;..lde{VIood malerial
\h _ Bellingham silt loam
Bl . BrisCOI silt loam
CI> . coastal Beaches
~vB. ~vC. ~vll . Everett gravellY sandY loam
\"'C . Everettl;..lde{VIOOd gravellY sandY loam
\nc _ Indianola loamy line sand
Kpll . \<.ilsaP sill loam
No . Norma sandY loam
Il' . Creas peal
Pl1S . pits
___ <"ndv loam
"'1\ (
/lIg1l1 .: \ J>."'~
t<k[
@
s~
MO
P'
s~cam l lie "
~~O ~",~gO'
Agc '-.
"'~O",~
~gO
'~,.g
v
Figure 6
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
fll Streams, Wetlands
and Flood Plains
Des
lVIoi n
C1 e t
\,""0
sound
.~
~-~
Milton
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Legend:
""-'Streams*
Surface Water
1 00 Year
'Floodplain
.wetlands*
DFederal Way
Federal Way
Potential
DAnnexation Area
Dunincorporated
Area
OOther
Incorporated Area
"Wetlands and Streams
were identified in a
1998 City of Federal Way
Survey
Map Source: City of
Federal Way, King County
Scale:
o 0.5 1 Mile~
I I I N
Map Date: May, 2006
Shorelines:
D Shoreline
Planning Area
~ Puget Sound
~ East
1P.\ Puget Sound -
'I.iI Dumas Bay
~ Puget Sound
W West
o Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
o Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253) 835-7000
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.cityoffederalway.com
~
" a
~
SO
e,\
\1\ ~
~
~
0'"
~
. ~\.<>
..\0 ~\~
~ \..0"
'1
, J'"'
~
~ 1}~ \
...
l/l
~
('t
\ '''' \..A- -
\NearShore coastal
processes
. Genera\ Legend:
,...., "toe E.rosion Neas
,....,oritt ce\\ _ Oivergence Zone
"""Oritt ce\\ _lett to rUg\"lt
,....,oritt ce\\ - Rig\"lt to lett
^,,o.,.ccretion S\"\ore~orms
^,feeder 6\utfs
-.....I "transport zones
'" streams"
Opar\<..s
Surface \Nater
II \j\/et\andS"
Ofedera\ \j\/a'1
, OUOiocorporated Area
. ~\OO\\1er IOcorporated Area
~ 'WetlandS and Streams were identi~ied in
1 '\998 City o~ federal Way sul'JeY
Map Source: King county/coastal Geol
scale', \CiW of
o 025 0.5 Mi\e 33325
~ ). pOll<
N fedel
Map oate', Ma,/. 2006 <.253)
I
~ federal'
Tnis map is accompanied '0'1 NO w
__~"ic representation. for morE
. _""rleralWaye
/(
I Figure 8
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Historic and Current
land Use Patterns
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253) 835-7000
l'IIl!l!t.'\OImd
"'~
r~::;:~ If ~,
I ' 1
'~ ,.r W.!:i
~ C'* "
,,:::f...i' !'l:V ~' ~J> ~
\ ~ ~ ,,1 ~'I \\
,f .... ~ ~ I.l
... II' i ,,) I,
\'l I ~ Sll'~. f
r ~., ~ '1
, ~ :t ~II
, ~L" \,: ,~\' jl
I II!
" .~ ~'l
mm....""~'~ '" 'I ,~
. ,-
\,
'?:,
~, --
~
~
.fl ,,~.,
r~:.;,rty
P/lg~':'\ol",d
I,
(I !Jl :l
Ii
'1
,I
1
"
,I
"
\
~
.,.~-
I!;- -. ' ;-
\"'i' IiIt,i"
I r
r: A l.i
I
,,"
m
..J'"
'-'
...;......l.v y'"
2002 Aerial"
Photos
,~ Federal Way
Photo Source:
The 1944 aerial photos were from maps originally prepared by the US Government.
The images were scanned by the State of Washington, and geographically referenced
by the City of Federal Way. The 2002 photos are originally from the USGS.
This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.dtyoffederalway.com
Puget
Sound
<l'~
'!>'l-~~~~
SW 324 Pl
r------r
Figure 9-A
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Geologically
Hazardous
Areas
(1 C) Puget Sound West
Reach
Legend:
D Shoreline Planning Area
""'-'
50' Contour
Landslide
Hazard Area
Steep Slopes
(Over 40% Slope)
Erosion Hazard
Area
Surface Water
~
.
D
Map Source: Cay of Federal Way, King COLnty
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
~
Puget
sound
...
~
I . ~
,~ s
s:; 0
u.,.
cO!\I!~
... ~. l
"'Ge
~g
Geo\Og\Cany
Haz.ardoUs
Areas
\(~ 6) Dumas 6a':l and
-, part of ('\A) PUget
~\ Sound East Reach
'o~
N
Dumas
Bay
Legend:
o snoreline Planning p.,
~ 50' contour
~ Landslide
~ \-'\az.ard p.,rea
II steep Slopes
(over 40% SlOpe)
0- Erosion \-'\azard
p.,re a
Surlace water
.i"
~~
~ b .
ro".! ~ ~
~~ ~~
& ., $'"
q.'" <t'~",
~
".~
Geo\Og\Cauy
HazardouS
Areas
\ part o~ \1 A) PUget Sou
cast Reach
puget
sound
Legend:
o Shoreline Planning p...
~
II
8'
50' contour
Landslide
\-\az.ard p..rea
steep Slopes
(over 40% SlOpe)
E.rosion \-\az.ard
p..rea
Surface water
~
",\^,").MSl
1\
~(1
~,.(,
~U>
~
~ fedE
ms lllap is accOlllpanied \
and is silllPIy a graphIC reI
~
SW305 ST'
:s:
en
~
l, 'A
."
r
./
en
~'
<D
....
en
~
....
....
en
..J
a.
....
....l..1 I (3) Star Lake Reach
S285
IGUINE-.
VERE p~
FEDER~l I
W A V I
Vicinity' r-
Map
Figure 9-0
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Geologically
Hazardous
Areas
Legend:
""'- Streams
"-' 50' Contour
~ Landslide
Hazard Area
Surface Water
. Steep Slopes
(Over 40% Slope)
U Erosion Hazard
Area
,..-...,
L..j City of Federal Way
..-....,
L..j Other Incorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Map Source: C~y of Federal Way, King COl.nty
Scale: Cily of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feel /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
08 ST
en
::.lS
~r 308CT
~
. 3_12...-ST
-r
314
ST
1
ST
lS.316..S
T;ansi~
Center "1l-&
rJl
~
o
N
PL
U I~
Lake
Dolloff
Elem.
rJl
~
N
....
(
...
") ~
~,,~:
S 312 ST
Figure 9-E
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Geologically
Hazardous
Areas
(2) Steel Lake and
'(4) Dolloff Lake Reach
Legend:
~ Streams
.............. 50' Contour
~
Landslide
Hazard Area
Surface Water
Steep Slopes
(Over 40% Slope)
Erosion Hazard
Area
.
o
.----,
L..j City of Federal Way
..---,
L..j Other Incorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Map Source: Grty of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation,
~-J
'"
..
~~
S~:3.2.~J>:
Legend:
"-' streams
~ 50' contour
~ Landslide
~ \-\a2ard p,rea
Surface \{\later
II steeP Slopes
_ C;)...~ to\ler 40% Slope')
~ ~ ,-J ~rosion \-\a2ard
'" Nea
k ~~;~ CitY 01 Federal \
:<:-~". \ ; otner IncorpOf~
:.-..J
unincOfPorate
~ fef(
WS ",ap is aCCoropal1
and is s,,,,ply a grapl"'"
=.:.----
~f(
d
(II
""
....,
....
~ 400
~ I S351}T 11 ~~ ~~ ~I ~ ~
l'
:/ " - - \~~.I .J.;~ 7
~/ (f} (f}
I I I LV) __ I S 352 ~T :1.. ~ ~
~ ~I ~ I S 352,ST,
.~
~
~~ 1:1 c:>
'"
."
() fj
V .::,.0
'"
~
en en
...J
a. ~
~ S 356 ST m
CO')
~I ~\ ~~~\~ iJ Lakel~~) en
~
l:l I~ ~Io CO') I :;
J r I
S 360 S\
Figure 9-G
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Geologically
Hazardous
Areas
(7) Lake Killarney and
(5) Lake Geneva Reach
34
f!:
Legend:
"""" Streams
"""--' 50' Contour
~
Landslide
Hazard Area
Surface Water
Steep Slopes
(Over 40% Slope)
Erosion Hazard
Area
City of Federal Way
Other Incorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
.
D
Map Source: Crty of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City 01 Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,0001eet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
u
I
9$'0.
,. .~
':J:
11-
en
....J
a.
~ I S 356 ST
~en
'Gb
"~, S 356 ST
en
~
Ol
M
Ul
....J
a.
M
N
en
~
Ol
M
en
~
;
S 360 S\
Fire
Station 61
en
~
o
U)
S 364 ST
S 365 ST
S 368 ST
en
~
co
..,.
Ul
~
o
U)
en
~
N
..,.
~
r~~~ .t
'"
. ..,
en I
~ S3
\
,..,
i
L' I
I
Figure 9-H
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
en
~I
~
U)
Geologically
Hazardous
Areas
I (8) Five Mile Lake Reach
Legend:
"-' Streams
'"'-' 50' Contour
~
Landslide
Hazard Area
Surface Water
Steep Slopes
(Over 40% Slope)
Erosion Hazard
Area
.
D
....-.....,
LuJ City of Federal Way
..-....,
L..J Other Incorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Map Source: C~y of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cilyoffederalway.com
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
\ "'\~....-
\f\Sh 8. \Nnd\\fe
\-\ab\tat
I
Genera\ Legend:
suctace V'Jater
..
II parKS
II o?en space
~V'Jet\andSi<
Opr\S pol'1gon
~ 0GeoducK r\.bltat
<\ fiS\"\ s?ecles
"'Distribution
~sroelt Habitat
~sandlance r\abitat
'\Netlands were identifIed
in a ~998 Cit)' oi federal
\f'Ja'l suNe'l-
MaP Source:
state oi \f'Jastlington,
Cit)' oi Federal \f'Ja'l
scale: \CiW of 1
o 0 5 \ "lie 33'25
~ \ pO So
~ ~ feder
Map oate'. MaY. 2006 <.253)
~ federal'
i\'lis maP is acCOmpanied b'l NO w:
__~nic representation- for more
.. _"oneraIWa'l.cor
---
~
9
sotlnd.
e\
d
~t?
~
i\
WffnNDS
Shore\\nes:
Os\"\oreline
Planning p..,rl
PUget Sour
e €.ast
pUget sot!
<D Dumas B.
~ PUget Sc
W V'Jest
o steel LC
e star La
o LaKe (
o LaKe
o Nort'
o LaK'
o fiv
Puget
Sound
Figure 11-A
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Current
Conditions
(1 C) Puget Sound West
Reach
Legend:
"" Shoreline Modifications
""" Streams*
100 Year Floodplains
D Shoreline Planning Area
~ Wetlands*
Photo Date: 2002
.Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation,
Puget
Sound
Dumas
Bay
Figure 11-8
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Current
Conditions
(1 B) Dumas Bay and
Part of (1A) Puget
Sound East Reach
Legend:
",",Shoreline Modifications
"""-' Streams.
1 00 Year Floodplains
D Shoreline Planning Area
o Wetlands.
Photo Date: 2002
.Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: Cily of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1.000 feel /\ 33325 8lhAve S.
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718.
I N Federal Way. WA 98063
I Feel (253) 835-7000
Map Dale: May. 2006 www.cilyoffederaiway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranlies,
and is simply a graphic representation.
!If
Puget
Sound
Figure 11-C
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Current
Conditions
Part of (1A) Puget
Sound East Reach
Legend:
"'" Shoreline Modifications
'"'" Streams*
100 Year Floodplains
D Shoreline Planning Area
o Wetlands*
Photo Date: 2002
.Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
Figure 11-0
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Current
Conditions
I (3) Star Lake Reach
Legend:
""'-' Streams*
100 Year Floodplains
D Shoreline Planning Area
E2J Wetlands*
Photo Date: 2002
Shoreline modification
information is not
available for this area.
.Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feel /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
\ Figure 11-E
\ Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
\
Current
Conditions
(2) Steel Lake and
(4) Lake Dolloff Reach
Legend:
""-" Streams*
100 Year Floodplains
o Shoreline Planning Area
E2) Wetlands*
Photo Date: 2002
Shoreline modification
information is not
available for this area.
'Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic ServicE
Scale: \City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,0001eel i\ 333258thAveS,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
::J N FederalllVay, WA 9805:
L Feet (253) B35-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.c
......~
Figure 11-F
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Current
Conditions
I (6) North Lake Reach
Legend:
"""'" Streams*
100 Year Floodplains
D Shoreline Planning Area
E2] Wetlands*
Photo Date: 2002
Shoreline modification
information is not
available for this area.
.Streams and Wetlands were
identified in a 1998 City of
Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
....
1/;.. ~)..
\9''.<>~..
....ell.., :,
"ell ~^
c.....
o~ r.
~1- I)..
~ ^.
"'0 .....
~~ .,..~
~ ...>
~ ;,
...
.'.
..~
. ..
.,
.'.
.'.
..)
.~
OOD ST
.... -..-. .-..-..- .--.. _.~
!
i
.
!
~WEST -~\O
::r:'?:- ,~~
<l: r--\v-<'
z a:
...
Puget
Sound
\
-lS'tp
Figure 12-A
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Zoning and
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
(1 C) Puget Sound West
Reach
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way:
I "?C1
W BN - Neighborhood Business
. RM2400 - 1 DU/2,400 SF
~ RM3600 - 1 DU/3,600 SF
RS15.0 - 1 DU/15,OOO SF
.. RS35.0 - 1 DU/35,OOO SF
RS5.0 - 1 DU/5,OOO SF
RS7.2 - 1 DUf7,200 SF
U RS9.6 - 1 DU/9,600 SF
. SE - 1 DU/5 Acres
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: Cijy of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
Puget
Sound
Dumas
Bay
I'"
I..-+-
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way:
Q BN - Neighborhood Business
. RM1800 - 1 DU/1,BOO SF
Cd RM3600 - 1 DUI3, 600 SF
RS15.0 - 1 DU/15,000 SF
, RS7.2 - 1 DUn,200 SF
II RS9.6 - 1 DU/9, 600 SF
, SE - 1 DU/5 Acres
- .
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: C~y of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feetL/\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
, Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
Thismap is accompa~ied by no warranties,
and IS Simply a graphic representation.
,
I Figure 12-8
I
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Zoning and
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
(1 B) Dumas Bay and
Part of (1A) Puget Sound
East Reach
~~~r LLI'1~1
~ 11'...",
~ "1.!Uy.y)~li W.292~S J ~ I
?i"fTI-'l~ , ._.
, '~,;i! '",~ t-LU ,!lA, ~
y.~t>.~c'tl I j I ~'SW.293lsI II?I - 3: I {~ ! n ' ~~
.........'"'C()~S~ """mIl r . ~ IT;:;; ""'-cn "r
~"'1 let f- ~~J~ ~l ~'~'tJ;,,'J~t"tl~'~~' ~I
II I~ I~ SW"294'~I.. Lj....... I, I lJ r!,,::::;;~,
, , HJ 1 rt -- J L 11 \ II i 1 , I r1-:p r' r' ~ ,.,--
rilla.v.~~ 1"'" t ~ ~WI-'-'IU,"~.>t r f",j,j ,-.j ",I-'~S1.~,'
u~ i ~ c-- 295 ST-,- 3: I I '",iij-, I ~ '- -
11 I '" CI.! ' (fJ ~~ r~'.' ',. '+ p,:"", "'f ::t
~II' II ~16-i~ I b> / /, III~~-'-I~ """-,bJ2,951f>r!, UI+',rf. "'1': -ll~ , .~ ~~,9S',
~ J..!..I.f ,-sw 296_ST ,III ~ m~ ~ oVE '" -i'." '" i' T r ',j \ . '.
I~I \\Il\\rt>.~ I.... ;'-i-' ',. SW 296 ST ""\\~~ -~ . I 'n T /"J f">i/7. 3:' Ii./I'
I~' - I-f Il T n ~ "~SW.297....s:r..w. 1/ ~ (fJ ~6..f
'~\\'Jt>.~c't _-.!"l"" \' I I TkL ........... ,jOlli ,X-'II . ~I S' FCj\
co~S L r- J f.......I '/h.L ,.. F--;:1 M"T 1'/" ''''''k'''''' ., M
, ~SW29B ST' '\ ~
I / ~~{;.':!.;EWDR '/ Iml SW.29,B~SJ. -'; ! p ~ -.SW2.9_B F!l ' ~..... .297..F.l
.~ ~ M i~~~~~L.~~~i ~:::1 :'"tl~.' , <(!f'i "1
" . (fJ p~ U I'-- J--J -i - 3: ,'1' V<r> (fJ f- ~1 -ljf~, 1=
-' - ---'~ ~I b 'r- 3: - ~ (fJ SW299 ST-"- ~.. I.,; 1 ~~~""'-<)~ ,,.. ."j JI
~ '0 <f> S (fJ, - :> :> ' - i ""\......., ?o i9 -:/- SI299..
1/1 } "< [w T -, ," ~ 3", r - ~ ~ -~ ~ ~w""c J ~::l w !<..J ~%i '" en [I
..-1 !j 300~~ -- -".-. ~ ~ ~2 3: ,_~ I J ~rn ~m,... ~ 'fiij
<:;~~ ~~~~= 0 ~ ~~I,n 11~'~TCN'1TLS~Jwns~~~ ~O~-UU --=~ :,-1 r >- ~;-~ -,~ttit ~f~ ,l,.1,~JtJj
~<;)'} - , - :J..11 ~I ~, <1:'3: <r>, , N~ t ~:JI'
l.-\ <<" f-- ~ /f/ -' SW301,ST . r~: ~ -r- ~~~ ,c ~ 't " ~ :ror;~~ ,,'~~ 1l
1\' == -,(/; _ . V 1 ' :::; isr; ~({"~
~1 n ...:. r-'-, '~i~" >-'~ 't: "
'1 ~ ~ ~ rf-.- .,...--- ~)O'l.:'JZ:T. ~ f-;-- ...J SW -,
';;;j (fJ (fJ ~ (fJ 'P-- ~ I-- ~ '- 3: .,-..- .1;: ---- ~ ~. ' s~ sw ' ' 0;303 ~ ~ ' .
r~({ :~ - -.~ -,-' ~::;:: ;{ >- ;'j - ~ ->-'-,~ ~~ -;:- , ~ ~ ,I,,;g ~ ~ ~ ;;<1",..'011....
~I\l~~ ~ I N J ~ r-1 ,~I -""~ ;-W.304 ST f-:::~ ;t-- I h ~ ~ ~~~\~+r ~ c ~1! ( 1~'t ~~ ~
we 11~ sw 304 STI I - slv r..-:..-l ~ ~SW.304J~L J.IIw' 'mm ~ ffim-r~ ~I S:.1Q~
"'~(~~ - Adelaide - '- , '''' r ~",,, (1I'TTIlTI "" SlC' "' ",- SWliITd crr-' I - -
N..:.D~ ST ~" -~, P-L ~~~ .~~I " I'II\\II~
- ~' ~- I IElem. ~~ ~~ ~):.J, /, W , _
i. N .... - . - I<y . I .... FEDERAL
~~(.:.o:. r-- SW3~6PI;.., Adelal eN306S)' ,.t; ~06Sr. ~_~, 3: '~ ' , ,
~~:<C pL ~ SW306LN Park j?--,~ ~ ~J I >;,! ~ >~
'" "SW 306 ,.. ~ .... 3: 15 L't ~ ' S%3 ;!. ~ a.' ,<( . , . ' Vicinity
N-SW.307.S:r. .... ;;. ;<' ,;, ,r:,,-. (fJ PL " Nc;, , , , 07_ST,- co ~ ~~",' 10 ~ 3: ~ Map ,
= ~ < ,w 3Om""",-,, ~ ~, ""~A,,., , . , . , ~~~C,,^'~ . . ... . I \r.l-'
Puget
Sound
I Figure 12-C
I
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Zoning and
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
Part of (1A) Puget
Sound East Reach
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way:
~ RM3600 - 1 DU~,600 SF
RS15.0 - 1 DU/15, 000 SF
RS7,2 - 1 DUIl,200 SF
. RS9,6 - 1 DUf9,600 SF
SE - 1 DU/5 Acres
- ..
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: City of Federal Way, Kin9 cOlJ'lty
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet /\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 L:,. PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
'--
.It
r-
~~
1- _
KJent
~1711~ Sj~. -~~~I~' ,~j'L'#fV7Tfff1111 -r"'~ y~
H- I -z < ~-?ff.lc:i;"~S~, 4 o".l'>'''"",r , il:;.
~ Glen 0, '1m"" -7i1.~>;}1 " ":3 '0'
-lii (l ~ z'[ ";/itiSYL;Z i
Nelson,<~~~N-TERB\.J~ M<'11ic., ~tem ffi~FT "Jl
~ Park ~l~~Jib School ~,t>_~5$~~~
J ~ l ' ~ e- I ~L~lf~1269= Ll.<..,;~~ S ar Lake r--~~v I I *~IM'J;~~ ':'1-
..r f-M_> ST./ - ~ EI I ~ I' ~.
S 266 P~ f-"? y:. i;:;;=... .1 1"- - en./ em,!," z, --t, rn
, / \,' 7 - S 270...., -;::'.J, 269 3:':> I-' z~ I-
en~T _~ - d /~ <,> 6:,-r 0
( en --l.]- S-2~L70 I ST I >1 IV ~ ~ ST d :L u.! Z /?;~ -'f ~
~ -H ,...;:; --1 ~ <:.. ~ 0 ~ ,",,' ,
g S271 1"\'1 fl, v' T ~. ,.en :::::r; / ,_-IS 270ST ~ ~D:: ~
~ S1 ,"',-' '-tJ - \:~ ./rf1ItS, en f-
~ ~_ :1 J ~""F~ ~I;~_a. e-~~"f' ~ :.:: Wen ~ S'27jn~L~ ::::)- ~ := ~ ~
\1 'li 5;1272' ST. lir-n ~271I<LL; <l: - a. 11. ~ q; 1-"" 0:-
.,..... _M. __..-..-' -.I..,j, ..,1... .._.._.._.~.!.~~. ..~4._.._ ;;; _5 2112 81: ~ ~ ~
"-"-"7")~ \1'1 -::to 11.'1 . TIT ~'~~;\'\'::1 r '~] .~' ,.-'-'
! . . ;r '1.' I H 11t. en . ~~ () 'I' ~ en, "
i. f0i ~t: ~" ~ ~Ig 1 ~\}~~~ L. ,.,,~.> ~.... ~l I '11 ~'f '/" ,~ r~~.
/, /~\S'I~M- ", ~ f! ,,~ .., , . l > "r-~"""
_-I II/I <'?3:S1~ E.. 1:.. 10-'1 ~, T\'(.;~~~" "~I I l ~ r
bJ. lID l;l~ f 1_ 'u..-.... ,- 'lK;.' - . -~;;:,~L:'"
/2/( lC/J-f1CUL Star ~ ~\\&~ ~I~~~~ ~~y
\~ EJr / N,.....~. ~i15~ ,")~S.L75CTI~ftP ~~ ~
,_ ""-:2 '-I _ _ ......... ,. -- ,<0; , ,;. ~' p.~~\
:.= >:',_ L~ -VI J1l,r Lake J~ ," '-- ~,}R;~,J~E-RD.J- ~~
l \ ~-I fe- '- Jrs~.?) ~ ~.!/ ~;, ~~:n~ -.
~}~~h-rrr-rrrl.,' ' ,jllaj,:,~,r !/, Jill h r ~{~~~><~ ~ .' ~:;nl~lrl
~<S~~ ~ .J 1/JL ffiTf .' 7>"1' ~ T"~"-::t!--' 'i' -
\!,_~ ~~ S STAR LA.KE RIj IT'll . ~" -". ~ - - ~ . ,
~; g 6: "'D31 en -...:l " ,~V S12r~ST <<- en ,f-en .
~";~s~';~~i "I' ~. ~[~ '~ao?~\1!,13r<"' ~,... ~ 'I J' T t _::..~ ~ ~ '-1
), PL V'-;.-~, d , ):;' If ~\1alhalla ti, I ~ ~ ,...$ ::1 /;-<~ :::t
''1' ' a . ~ en.... en ~ " - r ' ,
\otz-)_, is 279ST i~~~S2,~~I.. Elem. ~ I !lr1,b'l?J, _ ~,279
, <l',,-,s,::i 1'--1 ~ I~,'" -....., ] <l;,~. 1-1'). , 1
", ~ 279j'~S 2,60$r. ~ .-:r M = ~" ' 's 260 Sli' W~...;:'
\ ,PL III.., , ,,~-t ~_"~ -r" fLtl - ~,T I-- .
\ "en'"t ~\..ly.~ "l ,.....S28.1.SJ..Tj. --.-t ~'f;; ; · -~ , I-'f "Ist.\'l:'- si~ M
. ~. ;;j r r..,... '~J.,.,b -. en ,r'~ - - f
\ ~. I"-~ I~ ~ ~t ~j .' r t r f<- ~ l!:F Mrl "
\ _ ,....., j;. 'i _S 262 'ST_ .....-.." ~ . ,. ~ ".'),0, '.' S 262 si <i
.1 ,......,..." _.' ~ ~-+--.....---- 'r" .
\ ,.,... ~ h: J"ff T 1"
", ,.... ..-.. -=t L _I I J. F'r- U en l;-L,
.. i 7~, 7. Bingaman , .. .,' f. ~ s;F3 Ci ~ '-~ i~_~
~ ',+'</-'~'\ ,- " P dpb-,; "" ~rtt.;~ ~~~.
" '.\, '.' ". _ on as" I I, ,,\t) iirll~ r-:-co"
':-.... ,).,.... +.... . ~~ '" K. ...... ~ ~\,-M,.,;'" ~ + ... v,
\ ~>' :~> +",'V J." r \ ,.' S 28A_S:e...::::J ".' ,Thomas,' " ~
:1' ,'J. .;' \, ,'V ...;' {,.......;: . ' -;: i. i.J.. \ .,' Jefferson y "', A'tl" -, "',.\, ..~ f
," 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- 'I- . 5"265 , '~~ X 1/" , "\ , ,.
'11 ,~ '1-,. ....f;~' 'l7~ 'P.L'~~ ~~..-- r~ 'High'School'~' S~26_5~
I l' .", .. ~~, .;,...., -,- U266,!I"'2!:H(f~.=~ - .' " , "".' m""""llm
: ~~~..~"~.. + _ -, ...:L LST - JI ,.~:"" .~" ,-.. ~ '- '<t- ..... \: .
I ' ;, ,';" -;~ t", "~ '1~c,;ij ,~.. ." ~,. ." ." ,~
: ~'{- * ''I(- t-~~~-"~'- ,- ~ ...
..', <( - ~I ,)..." ~ ..' \.' ..' 1..' .....,
!~ ,,",~...' ~.~ " S267-S'-:'" ,E <-"<" c '<" ,'<" FEDERAL
i r->~ ",.$' '!<-,' , ~ '1In.'1 To I 'I 1~'IIII--T-" .' ." . " ,'." WAY
i "Io;-S,,288i..5I n'HIlI J II I 1lllIH , "" y \' ," -" Vicinity
f?"1 I L I:-JI~~ W ~1~(/1-,..N=:::i.~\U:J kJ?A~-1=1I1,fl ,"""i289~ Map
I Figure 12-0
I
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Zoning and
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
I (3) Star Lake Reach
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way:
GJ BN - Neighborhood Business
. RM1600 -1 DU/1,8oo SF
GI RM2400 - 1 DUI2, 400 SF
~ RM3600 - 1 DUI3, 600 SF
RS5.0 - 1 DU/5,OOO SF
RS7.2 - 1 DUn,2oo SF
D RS9.6 - 1 DU/9, 600 SF
, SE - 1 DU/5 Acres
King County:
o NB - Neighborhood Business
r:;] R-4 - 4 DUsI Acre
R-6 - 6 DUsI Acre
c:J R-12 - 12 DUsI Acre
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: Crty of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,OOOleet j\ 333258thAveS,
o 250 500 0. PO Box 9718,
, N Federal Way, WA 98063
, Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May. 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
',' , .", ""~. . '" '1:l;'l .~.~~.~~ IF" re12-E
111 ' fJl I'" " . ~ '"~\"J'-" ,.' r~ .v~o ~ """:'~ w .. : "" 295 S'" lV I ~'J/j~ ",', (, . Igu
, --. ~II fJl >112~. "',',~.D ~1\lI....'lI'", 9.1'o~,' ;;t~' ~.' SIRG'Allit'., ! =11'''(~t''~L' --1;,' ,Sj,-':-' ~~., ',@a
, ,~~ ~ r-~ 1:':',<$ IS ~" '? . "I~ 'Y. 29~ ' '10:"" ~9'6l&T J.:!:::,,,. " .
I~I "" ms~ u .....',.:"\l'9. "",~. lCANn!B(rR:{6~:.,--i f S 295'PL P L , - J",,':f>(. 'J;:rr, -J'" 'Pcfr I Federal Way Shoreline
I-'- T III . f-.- ~ ,'q'v I~STll.Ue . r'fll~' ." ",,1,-' ,"- ~-:I,:_:fC).~96 1",=-s_a96,gl Master Program
c: , . ~1I:t 5 '''l ~96PL c,,'\.OJ"o,-' ~')-'li~ ~ i 2961~T ",) ",c' ..~ ~I- -, ~,' :~l: ,'~, lIT"
CI) , fJl, f-,- ~11;z a.: ~ ~ fJl ~ ~ 2:: - 1:;96':1> : ,''7 \ ~v~ fJl' '0 291 ,~
I+~; [L~,f= ~",. c;j . ~~ ~ _ - ~ ~ I -31=f' ~.:,' ',,>'0' ~''<=oj t ,,-,PI. ~\ \'3~tr~~tril .
. ~. 1 L9 ~ <I:t v-t~ ""1 ~ - i- : ~ _ I(/') <c l" _ '<:. .04 .~ ~. ~ ~
~ IL 1. ~ ro =- "' , '"
L If-:..l fJl en, t'7 U ,hS:-' S~298'"ST i . , , ;29B ~~ T ""~& 'J:: . J, .
-iS2~~~t~ r~'~~~\ 'YS29~,S:1: '"J. i~~:g, g ~~~ 'c. ..~0f'~;~m,;\ Shoreline
. . / >-iTH ST ~ - ~ ~r./fl ;;:: \. 1/\ ':----. i .~ rlS'299li , ~ ~ ~ ,Camelot ~'t~~ . t
It .". 1 S30.9-ST rrlrr T HdJ]] <D IS306sT ,~ .: ffil-fi' ._~~ S ~ Elem. ~~~Ets~ Envlronmen
~ 1 :;.,T'::J fJl '-U 300 .....~'~fi
301 I. ~;,: a. ,Ir"' : -,: 300 I L PL' ; r~.
~~ L-..-. sl30Lsr' ~ \ ~~ ~~.A Hrt~f ~ f ~~ ~ I ....., ~}~S~~t j;~. ~~~ Des.lgnations
i(: 1'1' I ~Wildwood ~~02ll ~ :S<< 53011ST i):l! ! r- I r---, :-.........~ ~ ' ",'..' "'....',,;;::' '<I" ~/(
Hl'301.f>t. ___ 302:,j' ST:.:! ~Nllr--t(\ 11\~ ~'" rl"K@' ::::r ~ I-+~ S. 301PIg ,~;,_ 5,300 PL
1/1 I I ST UE,lem. /\ 0.10<, 'fZ 1 f ~ ') t;lg""! '?, ," ... '-.'
302 eL --..., -' T1= Sfll'--: S 301 ~..b: 7::EfBr11cg'fi;, ~ ! ~302P.L~~' - . " S'3,'2.S"""","", "J:5a11 (2) Steel Lake and
~ IT, ~rl~ ~ L ~ '= ~'M~ fJl:J~~ q i fJl -< T -~i]c~[~lI:eL: ~~"Iq" ~'::9} :11 (4) Lake Dolloff Reach
> ,).~/' I- >- -', ~ -'f- ~ ~rt'~ N en .:;., "" , "? ~ oicT'
I::tTIilT,A ST ~ <t~ l- ':i ~ F= e;. a.: f- ~ 1$,304 ~ ~~ D : ~ ;;:: ~ .. ,I,/' I TT. , '5'3 sr;:5:.6,.
:>:>~~ - '" __I. '" '" '" ~~~JlJ Il.U - '"
T~j;i "IIII]"lO~
Lr n dill ~.!!..!!.!!.i.I I nllll 1 ,,~.m~~ pr~ 'rUtrl/l I. i . / " "~~ r.. '<'J~m-~ Dolloff""
W~5!P.C ~ J; - \~ ~ ~- - ..... ",~IS'~ x-~~ ''''El m ,<'
i'~ -:: ., ~~~-~ Steel / ~ ~~ "'J- - .~ ' .~~~c,,~~ I~~ ,7/"
~ ~- IlS ~ ~ \. - f---:r=)"- j ~ !II(~ -" 0 ". _' 1(,0 ;~i9~ i ^ ~
-.- ~ I ":l " 1 ./' \.l ..'X/y ...../ ,l.-' I
.,~ fJl~1 Lake ~fL-' ....~.iL') ~ ~~,~ /~o ~';~I~ ~: '<'
" >~ -/F l '~"'>, (11'/ ~~ V \:j~ ~, ~ '<'"
~~ ; 1'~I""IIrr-II!"l'!"P111~fil Jl.L,'" i.J>~.~/'"'-\I~~~:I,"
~ 1 ~ --- , . ,. r-<"'~.1 '"/" ,/, ...- ~~"''-''5_308ST. . .
ill "1 ~~-...: lL 'i~691st -I r<::::::: ~ : ""' Q- ~~ ~ ~, it. ~-:: r- ~~' ~ T T r n
~ ~:} ~ ~ ~ !,,!' ~"..I' /;!O'tl--? ' :::;;--3; ,.:J.' ~ " ,. .~
'" r---;..::: ....... i'- S I . II r;:. oJ> ~ ~ ---J ' ~
1,_ N f---' ~ ~ '310 ST.. >=-A ,m : ; ~' !L-......' '" ~ "5 (":l P: t:~ ~-~ T,i-:::-~
I ~ ~> ~ ~cr ! '_""c' -<" ,"" ,_ ~~, 12. ~~) ~~~ ~II
, . I 'I I '" ~ r ..:..-::;..~ ----' IX) '" '~'<I"'
<D S, I--J fU '" - \-'::> :.:-'\:VA '~~' '" ... !<oM '<1",
, ~'" 311 Sli r-" " 'I- ~ I
" , " -}'" 1--1', ~ i .:--:: ~ c::;;::;: r . /; ~ . ... "'~... A ~~ +i
, ,~&-.. . , -: ~..,):.. '1/. ~ l'
;:hJ il'<t~ ( . h,>--,."" """ "'-" - . -' ~ '
" . . ~ I~ 5.3.12 5I _ fl' , S"2-ST-"'-'-Y hi",," ..' J!
. ;r ~
.;,. ^ r~r~, ~~,. ,I ",cO 1fJ" ~ ' ~ 'i 11 '
?,' .;:, ': ~' :,~.:. Steel Lake en, 1&-,",'::'.'"",:,:, I I.:~ ~,S. '''?('=>-...<:>- "" ~~.~ ~ '". ' ." r-'"",~, I ~ '
,. . " " '~ ' ,<, P k _I"~. ,':; ,". ' ?~ ,-' r ~ .' '\ "" ", I' 'E~'
c---. ar"'-:I 1;'..,.. . \ I. I ~ :';.1 / " I
~. "~, ~ ", ... 0. 0 <(I ,;J'. : . ~. I ...... h- ~~:? . "'-r . .
n " 314 r~ t:l)1 f ..' r- ~ J i-r <:,":> . _ " .
t' ~ [" 5T' ("1,1' '*"'~l i' '. S3141<1:" ~,.' ,f.I . ~ 1--- It
~ ;< ';< r" r;., ~ " '). ~ 'i:: ,J- I' ~:;;;.~ <. .
-. ", I .....' C \1 "/' ~
,.., "" f". (';t, (" 5,..315 ,.LN.... 'Z iI"l,< f c:.: "'-r", ~ r, .. \ " ~ ,3"'
"r ~ \ -' .,..' ., . T -j, " ~
S.316.S:r r" ;, ~LN=~' J!l=;11 f~T;:U~an ~. !.." '''''' l -,,'" <" ~ 4' ." FEDERA
.... T ~,., ,< '", r .' :;, ,.! ..1 ,I ~ ,~,:;~ .~_ -r;:-: WAY
_ · tiJ I 'a. ,H.S. ," . i . 1:< ~ '<-, ,::-" i ,.....;
err '& 11. \0 ~ ... ,..., _'" -- Vicini
'~iFf.o tfJ; ~ ~ g,::~, ~3,17_5~ : ." h . I!iIIIiiiO!:I . ~f. ...... 5~;~'~ n;'''''''''~'''..,~"'-"''''
.~~~l:L. r;, !t ,,"c I[ - . 'TO'. I I - I ~"-ll ~ 0 ~ b,. ..r ~~~Ity~, and is SImply a grapl1lc representation,
~... - .".; ~ =-:;: '~I'!l: Sa'.' ~~ ......
.. po:; .r"" "';I ~ ,., ", II!" ",-' ~ po: ~. --
r- 'Ulll
'1 ~ S_~~jl'fJl
~.lt:6"" .~ ~
K
!Sf.JTOTST
~
!ltl,
.-
S:J:
; I) '}. r.,
I' / .
.;; ~i I('~, r::t 1"), 1~
""
~1' ;J.' , ,. so.,'
_ T N
~ ,..~ -1 r~ It.
r. r. I ".. r p-'
1,'~ ' ...:.1..,.~'d ' Pi
("1...<,.....,.( ;< r ;t/
!
~ "'x ~ r r:-n7
....$J.0-~:.-r ~- .~
rr.e It,; ~ r;> %
~, t1; ~~ 'ill ~
rr.:::f~ 'k. rhO ~
'"
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way: King County:
II BC - community. CB . Community
Business Business
.CC. City 0, Office
Center Core
1-""1 CF - City J""" 1 R-4 -
L..:;;.J Center Frame L.::J 4 DUS/ Acre
.RM1800 -1 "R-6-
DU/1,800 SF <' 6 DUsI Acre
. RM2400 . 1 R-8 -
DU/2,400 SF ... 8 DUsI Acre
r J.' RM3600 -1 rl R-12-
L..J DUI3, 600 SF L1.J 12 DUsI Acre
RS5.0 - 1 m R-18 -
J DU/5,000 SF ~ 18 DUsI Acre
, RS7.2. 1
DU/7,2oo SF
BRS9.6-1
DU/9,600 SF
SE - 1
I DU/5 Acres
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: Crty of Federal Way. King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718.
I N Federal Way. WA 98063
I Feel (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May. 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
U"-_ - .. ..IUS.:320..:.Srra-r
!" ~ti
I" .Iill' Ga r;; 'i:, ~ ~ 'f; ~
1t;~~Ci'J, ~(; 'i~'i:l"
!
i~ reo. 'Do. 'il "tf; ~", Pili iFiJI
;G' th r.a:. t4'! tf:! tt=. I'k 'E: t.l r'4.ti
114 IQ .,. 'V'~" r;, ~ ~ q,
if;: Gl!!,' "S ~3:""~,r::S"'~ '1.., '1';;, ,
!~ .. ,.c;~..l :ide
"tir;;
,&'1;
~"i:t:Ff::
~"'i\l,r;,fi:
P.o r:::!~r:t.,
, ,;,f7,;t"~' WINGED;F~.oT.:Wf.~~ ,3 (l
~ i$~ "f' ..;it~ "sE~lNf>LE~Ii~~~~" 0~'; .~~~ >9""
:- .~ '....' ~' ~.' .".~ ,~' .,~ c,~. .,\~ ,.,,~,
,.. c:(.... .~ '~M ,"", .~ ...... '~<:~tl;'~ .~
:~ Z . " ,J~~/O^I" ." g./JJ'~,,, ,."
~ C/rO~ .~ ~~ .~... .".,'Wy .~t:o'f! -.J~ IJ
~~ ~,z ,~+' ,CH€.R'Ry' ,iJ-" ,}+''''.,sl1J.iJ-'' '"
, 4: ~l--'. " 'H.!LLs PL~' ,,' '~
~ .~ .,~ -~ ...:~"y ,,' ..~ f .;.}+' .- Q
,ct , 'O~'1'MpT, ,"'," .~, ""~,
~w.~ i,l''' iJ-'" ,.;;'w.v ,,.;'O,(\.K-.1 ....,. ,'l1Jlf
~,5 , ' . ' . . .' . .MONT~ " cpr
",. C,. COlONIA{WY" ;l-" .~y CT .}. ,.il.
, "' 'S"3"2'-8 "'... .,~' ,::r:.
li,..1'....,.,..:; ~L. .,t," ,.....~ o~
.... "":"-_.';" ... OJ,, ..... ... .~]-i <:
..,.:... ~ ..~ .~~.~ ..,),f' .,:;f :J
.;~+- t,.j ",,-i '." . "" ~" ,~
~ ,~;:.~ __;~ ~c~~ .:~ r~ ~. 0
J~ ,0
, ".,:2:
~,~l"", ,~ .:~
l a ~
k ~,
.l',,,s 33.1 ~
~ .f .~.' ~
~ , ~
r-' .~.' ~....... ~:l
r ,~<I ,~" .l:7)~
~' -~ ..,;)-~ ,4' ~.' ~~_.
,,,~S_3L3_6_SJ:.
i>~'" .~~ ~.."..;)-~ ~~~ ..;;)"... .~.. ..y" ..;
;l .#~ .~~ .~~ f~ .~~ .~.(!o .;r-~ :~'t
~~ .#~ .~~ *'\.... ~~ ~~~ .~~~ ~.... .~r
~~ .~~... ~~~ .C/ .~~ .#~ .~~ ~f .~
i!t~ .~~....~ ~~ .it;,} 4' .i!t~ .~~~ .;t'~ .
.:-, ~ ~ ~ ...1 ~ .... .......
E. ~ .~ .;; .~~ ~ :# ~T
.(1....,.Y4 .~ .~.~
1;> '.'" .?' '"
#... ~ ~~ .i4~ ,l
...
I
r
.
..,
,
Il.. J
l (
\ \
l_ J
"
irl ," , .:I .. ill'
---S,34.1;.s.J.1
~~ ~~~ ~
. ~
!..,., If r. N
r;.,
r.
~ II
~ ~ ~ Ff),1~~ 9
" ~, 2 D.lJ,.~!1 ~ I'.l ,Ii. :I.,
q;;.. l!i<lI......,
'?;~~;;..~~~ ~
ctJ F't; ,; ,.~ 'Ill 1t,S~~23:Sr.
f) to
ell ~ ~ ~ Ii
'tI! l1> ei
~ iii' Iii """ro., iI!l
,....
~
,1;'
..
..
r;; CiI
~
Figure 12-F
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
~
,
~~1
~ 4
~ "
Zoning Legend:
Federal Way: II RM 1800 - 1
II BC - Community DU/1,800 SF
Business n RM2400 - 1
rrl1 BN - Neighborhood l2'i DU/2,400 SF
W Business r?1 RM3600 - 1
. BP - U DU/3,600 SF
Business Park r""! RS9.6 - 1
.. CC - City L..iJ DU/9,600 SF
Center Core King County:
.CP-1- ONB-
Corporate Park Neighborhood
OP - Business
Office Park r , I R-4 -
.. OP-1 - L..:J 4 DUS/ Acre
Office Park 1 . R-18-
.. OP-2 - 18 DUS/ Acre
Office Park 2
_ OP-3 -
.. Office Park 3
DExisting City and County Shoreline
Environment Designations
Map Source: City of Federal Way, King County
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
t'w.J l), ""-" - il ~,,<O/l' L~i ~ f V [ . ~ ;J U7
" '"w. ~~/ .,,# ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ,- ~'YJL.:
~ .......*-;~o~ f? T< -r=-;;:. S-,3llRll' ~ . i1I'~;~l ,... ~~I"--i
f'- i' "t- f:= ~;.-r , I' 0.'... ," 00
i ,_' i S~ cnf. (f) :.1 9
" 11 ~ " :_~~IL4:~ 3{1~SJ..... Ir~ ~t Itf~ ~ ., ' ~ g
, .' I";:~..", ~~ ~' , ,,,,,.,l..
!' ~ I". : l 7 I:PH caKe -I' T
I 7' = ........",..~ '-"-s 343l4." · 4- ", ~~~
U3V ~I: l-=T"""'; "" rl-1. ,N ~ST~,r:;;.. Geneva
~f !>! ~! ~""'" I' r"'~-'~ ln~" 1 p~ ~ 0-
ct J 'I' i "1 ~S 11c7iU-: -" ark
:> ...:-.._. S.344 s:r:. ~ 34Mj;;, I S.:MA.ST..i-
> 1p;Jjf-.~ ['IT r --' ~ ~ """ r ~,
'OF \~4. ";0, ~ i.l iF-1~~ 'r;' ~\~~~\,,\, ~-J ~ t "~ I~ ,":"
w ~ . s~" ~ d
(/) ~'",J J . ,\~~ \' \ ,';;'<(1 ' '" "" .,. ~I
11_ \ CD'
!'ll 'U a ~ r. ~ : 00 ~ ~ '\. Lake - ,. ~ .... ,"
..co Wi> c-.. 346ST- ~
,r. ~., ~ ~, ~ III :;;; E~ ,.' , "" "~ ^'~ ...
~ ~... ~D:! . n~ '. -I .:.. ~~ ~ >>7.J:..SM81sI.'l 71",,'1'- ~ 534
_. W ~ ,/ ,,-.:- ' , , ,PLI
.,.._.._.._.._., "p ),'"~ . _ s '" s>" _ ",'"'" "'T .,. .- -I. I. , "
".._u__" ..... a J1t:1 [:18 I~ ~l ~ ~~ [I ~.~-:.~"~~ ' ',:"" .~' - T:' Zoning Legend:
/-.tl I3I!:lEl S]!314g.SiT. > · "~ ,~",,,, , ,.~I ,W' '" , "....,,'W.y,
,.." ~..f If.! \ ~ - l ~ ~ '1-': ~: N.' S "os> '1,,':;, s; 1 "J I'"'' . BP, """,,'" p,,'
~ I r:;;!f1ln ~~ ~'~I \ nrg) gBo;-..., '" II ~.., ~ ~-{J -;; - M ~ . ,,' ,2- "'" - OP-1 - Office Park 1
~I~ ::<!II ~ ~<<l f-' -''' ~"" ,.-. - ..,,,'~.. - h -- IIIlI
J 0 ""ci S 3JS ~ ~ t;fJ"::? ----. ';...,.ii:iLii: '<-, ,'. ~m~~ ii: - > n,..... ~"" ~ "." ,,' IIJII OP-2. Office Park 2
i: ~'"- 00 . f-, ,~ . co C1> N S' 10'< 'J ' -ror;;' -
I"' ~~ "_, = -==-., == ~ ",\J' -: M C!) _S 352,S:r-.... 352 S1 "~",, S 352 S II
r:- "'CD ..I-'~I[ .:;;::: ~ _ ..... . '~. - ~ OP-3-0fficePark3
o~ . .,..,....::.1 .... ~ !?'. '" '" '" '<" ,. '"
~ "5"'" == - - " -, ~ -........ ...., ,'!=--.
~'S,]))!j3S}~ €'I +~ E =:!< ~ ._~~-, ",,-h. .. ~h ' t:;~~ -: ,~J!=1" " " <i' f7 RM3600 -1 DU/3,600 SF
h _,fIST,"r _ . _ _ P.L' _ _ " ~,'~' ~ r-- L_ L!J
~ I~'_ ~. _ v.J,;:s ,"" ,-... ,"""'-.~ I, . ' .' -",
~n' ;1~ ~ ' "-,' ~ -fj~' ~'1//:,""" ..- '< "', '" ~.., ~ +,' ft=1~* ,. DC r~'1RS9.6-1DUI9,600SF
~'0 _ w, _ S354LN' ""' r!!'- '\ ~ ..... ..:' IIt;r . '-,,-, S3 . " '. ,,' L-J
. ~ 'J . t \ ", _ - " _~ y ~ 0 · f-- r~ . " -.,c · .. ''"'' "" '" · "'.gCo'O'"
w# l"~~ (f)" J"~ ~t: S355si"~' -.> ",-,...t .....~,!- :: r -...., L"" ~ ::"'i +'Lf ;r, + " F ,. I~ . ~'A~~ 0" NB_NeighborhoodBusiness
'il I"e;;""'..J '* J: ~ ' on. . ,,,,,,> ' r-:-, rJ! .
r- ., ~;;; I:: ~ '" '" ,. ... __ - . <i3 ~' ~ ~ -::r 0:- ;."'1 ,~' 9 ,-. .,' )or-=-; "-
"-' ~ €'I ",.l.. ;;. ..... ~ ... ~ ~"""'I; _~ -"., , ,). 00 :-;:-- I-- I-- ~SJ~ . R.4 - 4 DUsI Acre
_ 4. ' , ,~- 'f 0. ,', -;;: '~ '~" .., .;;.' ~ -:::.-;>-... -{- ~ ~j
S 355 I?L'"" ,.-, CD - -r-- - ~
S.3~SJ:~ ~.I'i~. l "1 '( ,. M _S.356$T. ~ ~ , " ;]! .s::356~S.T.:F ;J:.. .r.:- c;- --' ~ ~ -' R-6 - 6 DUsI Acre
I;;::t. " ,:)'1 .;;:"i; <!l _' -,"':- '" .' . ~ ;;7-: ", "': " ',~~ ~ II R"" ' 48 au,; Aore
~!E" B1',;+~ ::t:; Ef~~~ C:' ~.L,. t..aketand- ,<!~,::; r--"?' :-~.~ ~ +. " "', ", ",. ~ ~~~f!'S' ''1/, ~~. DExis.ting City and County Shoreline
-' '" ':'lII...:' ,~...., <Il N- ,......., ~...r" ,." ,. ,c .,. ~ '.J!:A ~ -~ ~' EnVironment DeSignations
a: "'-, ~ ,,~-...,..-r- . EI M I ~j -
""M~;\"A,' ;:JYI P'-'"T" ClO em' "~ ' ,)0 ," ;.,.'). .,' 1'~ L"
'" ~:l:l;\ ~\ . ,N -..,..........,--"- I I . - ' · ~u ~.
m" ' {'<"":!, .."., ..; f-;'''"\.''';; l} '"""i I ,c ,," , " ~f', ,,~ ~" S 35BST ~ F1 ~ Map Source: Cdy of Federal Way, King County
5 ~". ""'" , "c-, ~, 5<0.. "".,oo~'w.,
. '''_... _, 1 1 - ",,.,.." ,- . . , "'" - ,""".. """" ,w s"
~.,'- ;;,~ S,3?,.9,S"E , ,~~ ~ ~ - :",1 ~,. " ~""I "" ~ 0 250 500 ~ PO Box 9718,
~S 360Sli "'J S 360 ST. I ~ - .... e- R ~ I N Federal Way, WA 98063
. ' "S'''S' ~,n, " " :>- ,,~ "",""00'
~.:.:}.6h~~,(~ S,36.1'ST"" . , r'" "1- I" ' " . Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
7~e. " " 1-'. , " , ,,,,,,,, .. "''''
il;: ~~~ . " . ;;,.f< . ~ ~ -,... ~ F i Sequoya : ," W" ~ ~ Federal Way
II: diE. $ ,. -, ;r'1 ~ - _ . Middle , ' "",.. ' -
___~._nt, .;:::; _, . SChonl) I ) ~ ~ ,".~p,-~,"",~"'-"'.'
. ' and IS simply a graphic representation.
\.-J
~
I Figure 12-G
\
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Zoning and
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
\ (7) Lake Killarney and
(5) Lake Geneva Reach
, III
I
f"I
I Figure 13
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Parks and Open
Space
d e t
?\,l.O
Sou 1'1 d
II
II
I
SW --;56~1
"
'\
~
Unincorporated'"
Pierce County
r .".~
~,r
1,
~,o
'1'"):
''''co
0",,,,,
'':"0'
..
General Legend:
"-' Streams
Surface Water
. Open Space
.. Public Boat Launch*'
. Parks
OFederal Way
Federal Way
Potential
OAnnexation Area
Ounincorporated
Area
OOther
Incorporated Area
'Public Access Point
Operated by Washington
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Scale:
o 0.5 1 Milej
I I I N
Map Date: May, 2006
Shorelines:
~ Puget Sound
~ East
1P.\ puget Sound -
'I.iI Dumas Bay
~ Puget Sound
W West
o Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
o Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
D Shoreline
Planning Area
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253) 835-7000
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.cityoffederalway.com
~ -
"d
So\'\
\ 'M';ster program
\ coasta\ Restorat\on
opportunities
u open Space . park' ~ Wetland.
o Bull<head remo\lal
GRemo.e," and bulkhead """r intertidal
9 Remo.e concrete 100l1n9' of relict boat ramp
I.\,Remo\le boulders, contrete from
..., boat hOUse acting as groin
o Remo\le concrete rubble
ORemo"" bulkhead. in.asi.e .pecie. lrom p
o Remo\le creosote logs
o Remo\Je iapanese I<notweed
o Remo\le apro)(. 20 creosote piles
\1i)Remo"" creosote (dolphin ..a.hed a.hor
GlRemo,," creosote .oldier pile bulkhead
GRemo,," decaying barge. creosote doio'
~ Remo\le tires buried in sediment
~ Remo\le tires buried in sediment
~ Remo\le tires buried in sediment
~Remo\le ~4 cresote piles
~ Remo\le riprap downstream of bridge,
w enhance mini-estuary
",Remo,," apro" 50 creo.ote oiles and
w creosote buIl<head
Map Source: King county/coastal GeolOgic
scale: \City of Fedl
o 0.25 0.5Mile 33325 8th J
\::: r=---l ~ POBa,91
N Federal W
Map Date: MaY, 2006 (253) 835-
~
!~'
~ ,~.."
i q,'l'r
t
J
~ federal We
This map is acCOmpanied by NO warran'
a graphiC representation. For more infon
~. .""""",cilVoffederalWay.cOrn
e\
~~
~
i
.-
()
s\N 32Gu,
-r ~
~
~\ 0 :q
....
III
~
N
:Jl..'lllle.
[.ilk--
,. aCO,\,a
I
\
--
Legend:
""-' Streams.
~Wetlands.
Dopen Space
D Parks
..--.,
L .. j City Limits
Puget
Sound
Figure 14-A
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Restoration
Opportunities
I (1 C) Puget Sound West
Reach
Opportunities Legend:
A Remove aprox. 20 creosote
V piles
Remove creosote
~ (dolphin washed ashore)
~ Remove creosote soldier pile
W bulkhead
I!!\ Remove decaying barge,
W creosote dolphins
I!\ Remove tires buried in
W sediment
I"'P.I Remove tires buried in
\IOl sediment
~ Remove tires buried in
W sediment
~ Remove 14 cresote piles
Remove riprap downstream
(D of bridge, enhance
mini-estuary
Remove aprox. 50 creosote
~ piles and failed creosote
bulkhead
Photo Date: 2002
.Streams and Wetlands were identified
in a 1998 City of Federal Way survey.
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Scale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,000 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal Way, WA 98063
I Feet (253) 835-7000
Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation,
Legend:
'""- Streams*
E2J Wetlands*
D Open Space
D Parks
.--..,
t... j City Limits
Puget
Sound
. ...
II> ..
..II>
Dumas
Bay
Fig ure 14-8
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Restoration
Opportunities
(1 B) Dumas Bay and
Part of (1A) Puget
Sound East Reach
Opportunities Legend:
A Remove fill and bulkhead
V over intertidal
A Remove concrete footings of
V derelict boat ramp
Remove boulders, contrete
o fro~ boat house acting as
groin
o Remove concrete rubble
A Remove bulkhead, invasive
'"' species from park
o Remove creosote logs
o Remove japanese knotweed
A Remove aprox. 20 creosote
V piles
IP.\ Remove creosote (dolphin
W washed ashore)
....,.. Remove creosote soldier
W pile bulkhead
I!:\ Remove decaying barge.
W creosote dolphins
I!\ Remove tires buried in
W sediment
!PI Remove tires buried in
\10) sediment
~ Remove tires buried in
W sediment
Scale: Cily of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1.000 feel /\ 33325 8th Ave S.
o 250 500 W PO Box 9718,
I N Federal WaY. WA 98063
I Feel (253) 835-7000
Map Dale: May, 2006 www.cilyoffederalway.com
A Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranlies,
and is simply a graphic represenlation.
lS"
,ds"
;
puget
sound
opportunitieS Legend:
o Bul\<.nead rerno\Jal
photo Date'. 2002
'streams and wetlandS
in a ~ 99B Ci\)1 of Federa
I
1
J
Federal Way
Potential
Annexation Area
~Z2..
.T" ...., ,r
d Camelot Park
~l
"-
Steel
Lake
,.I:
-
I~
I
I
r
L ~ ~ ~ / Unincorporated
~,. y King County
l...~ive Mile
J~~~~~-,
Five
Mile
Lake
~
--
,
I
......,
L\
South I
County
Ballfi:~:j
I Figure 15
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Lake Restoration
Opportunities
.
'1
Legend
-, Open Space
. Parks
(7'"'1
~ Wetlands
~ Protection Opportunity
~ Restoration Opportunity
~ Other Location-Specific Action
o (Star Lake - General) Limit additional
bulkheads
E) (Star Lake - General) Encourage Buffers
e (Star Lake - General) Showcase properties
with 15-20' wide native vegetation buffers
o (Star Lake - General) Encourage continued
. protection where native vegetation exists
o (Steel Lake)
Protect outlet and natural shoreline
o (Steel Lake) Restoration potential
o (Lake Dolloff) Protection Opportunity
o (Lake Dolloff) Encourage
continued use of vegetation buffers
o (North Lake) Protection Opportunity
~ (North Lake) Possible protection
W' of south end of lake
~ (Lake Killarney) Continuation of
protection activities
~ (Lake Killarney) Encourage protection
of multi-storyied vegetation
~ (Lake Killarney - General) Encourage native
vegetation
~I (Lake Geneva) Protection area due
to native shoreline and steep shoreline
~ (Five Mile Lake) Protection Opportunity
---
Map Source: EnviroVision Corporation
Scale: City of Federal Way
o 0.25 0.5Mile 33325 8th Ave S
~ IJ. PO Box 9718
N Federal Way, WA 98063
Map Date: May, 2006 (253) 835-7000
,
,
I
A Federal Way
,f j
This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.cityoffederalway.com
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
APPENDIX B - MARINE SHORELINE INVENTORY REPORT
WRIA 9
June 2007
Appendix B
FINAL
MARINE SHORELINE INVENTORY REPORT
WRIA 9
Prepared for
Seattle Public Utilities
WRIA 9
Prepared by
Anchor Environmental, L.L.c.
1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98101
Funded by
King Conservation District
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
March 2004
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy.........., ,..... ,.. ,........................... ,........................................... ............................ IV
1 INTRODUCTION.... ,....................... ............ .............................. .................. .......... .............................. 1
1.1 Inventory Area Description............. ,... ,... .................. ....... ..................... ,................................. 1
1.2 Approach............................................... ............. ............ ,. ,. ,... ......................... .......................... 1
2 METHODS......................................................,..........................,............................,.............................3
2.1 Compilation of Existing Information .............,..............................................................,.,......8
2,1.1 Substrate............. ,.........,........................................, ............. .............. ,.... ...............................8
2.1.2 Marsh Habitat ............. ....... ............................... ,............... ............ ,. .................................... 10
2.1.3 Aquaculture/Shellfish Areas. ,.......................... ,...... ........ ............ ......... ......... .................... 10
2.1.4 Energy (Wave Exposure and Fetch) ...........................................,....................................10
2.1.5 Sedimentation (Net Shore Drift) .....................................,..........................................,....,10
2.1.6 Freshwater Inputs............. .............. ,. ,.... ,....... ...... .............. ,...... ............. :........................... 10
2.2 Photo Interpretation.... ....................................... ,............. ........ ............................. ,................ 11
2.2.1 Marine Riparian Vegetation,. ,.........,.................. ..... .......... ................................................ 12
2.2,2 Large Woody Debris ........ ...... ,.... ,... ,........ ,..........................,.. ...... ,...............,................ ...... 13
2.2.3 Shoreline Armoring ... ,.... ..,................................ ....... ............... ...... ............................. ,...... 13
2.2.4 Impervious Surface Coverage ......... .......... .......... .............. .................... ................... ........ 13
2.2.5 Overwater Structure and Marinas .......................................................................,....,......14
2.2.6 Boat Ramps....................... .............................. ......... ....... ...... ....... .... .................... .......... ...... 14
2.2.7 J etties/Breakwaters/Groins......... ......................... ,. .... ............ .............. ,................ ,...... ...... 14
2,2.8 Marine Rails.............................,.. ,..... ,. ... ,................ ....... ............. ,....................................... 14
2.2.9 Field Verification....... .................... ........................ ..... ............ ............................................ 14
3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................,............20
4 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL INVENTORY WORK........................................................... 35
5 . REFERENCES.................... .............. '...... ........... ................ ........... ............. ........................................ 36
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Habitat Attributes and Classification System for Marine Shoreline Inventory ..........4
Table 2-2 Field Verification Results ... ............... ..... .............. ...... ............ ........ ......... .............. ...... ...... 17
Table 3-1 WRIA 9 Habitat Attribute Analysis ............................................................. .................... 20
Table 3-2 Summary of WDNR Cross-Shore Material Information .............................................. 21
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
March 2004
030239-01
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10
Figure 3-11
Figure 3-12
Vicinity Map................................. ,................................................................... ,........... ....2
Example of Impervious Surfaces Classification ........................................................15
Areas of Difficulty in Photo Interpretation .................,................,.............................19
ShoreZone Cross-Shore Substrate ..... ,......... ........ ,...................................................,... 23
ShoreZone Marsh Vegetation..... .....................................,.. .....,..........,.................... ,....24
WDOH Shellfish Data........................................................... ,. .................. ,........ ..,... ..... 25
ShoreZone Wave Exposure and Effective Fetch.....,......................................,........... 26
Net Shore Drift ... ,. ,....... ............. .........,............................................. ,............ ,..... ... ........ 27
Freshwater Inputs (Various Data Sources ).......................,.........................................28
Marine Riparian Vegetation ...... ................. ,............................................. ............ ........29
Large Woody Debris and Drift Logs ...................,.........................................,.........,... 30
Shoreline Armor............. .................. ,.. ............................... ....... ............. .......... .........., ,.. 31
Impervious Surface Coverage............................................ .............. .................... ........32
Boat Ramps, Marine Rails, and Overwater Structures .............................................33
Jetties, Breakwaters, and Groins ....................................... .......... ......... ........................34
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Data Dictionary
Appendix B - Key Sources of Data
Provided: Marine Shoreline Inventory on CD
. Shapefiles:
~ Armoring.shp
~ Energy.shp
~ Freshwater_InpuU~lrc.shp
~ Freshwater_Input_pts.shp
~ Impervious.shp
~ Interpretation_note.shp
~ Jetty-groin-breakwater.shp
~ LWD.shp
~ Marine_rai1.shp
~ Marsh.shp
~ MRV.shp
~ Overwater_structure.shp
~ Ramp.shp
~ Xshr_substrate_intertida1.shp
~ Xshr_substrate_subtida1.shp
ii
March 2004
030239-01
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
Table of Contents
~ Xshr_substrate_supratidal.shp
. Documents:
~ Marine Shoreline Inventory Report (.doc and .pdf),
~ Anchor Metadata - Compiled Data.xls spreadsheet and linked files
. Other:
~ WDOE Net Shore Drift GIS data and text files
~ Marine shoreline inventory.apr an ArcView 3.2 project that includes many of the
layers listed above including drift cell data with hyperlinked text files.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
iii
March 2004
030239-01
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a shoreline habitat inventory conducted for the Water Resources Inventory
Area (WRIA) 9. The inventory area of WRIA 9 includes the marine shoreline of King County,
Vashon and Maury Islands, and the entire shoreline of the City of Federal Way (Figure 1-1).
The project approach was based on mapping attributes of selected shoreline habitat features,
Attributes were selected based on their relevance to nearshore habitat function for juvenile
salmonids and the ability to classify their conditions using existing data sources or existing
photographs. The attributes mapped were included 1) substrate, 2) marsh habitat, 3)
aquaculture/shellfish harvest areas, 4) energy, 5) sedimentation (net shore drift), 6) freshwater
inputs, 7) marine riparian vegetation (MRV), 8) large woody debris (L WD), 9) shoreline
armoring, 10) impervious surfaces, 11) overwater structures (OWS) and marinas, 12) boat
ramps, 13) jetties, breakwaters, and groins, and 14) marine rails. Some attributes were selected
to be mapped based on existing geographic information system (GIS) data sets (attributes 1
through 6) and others were to be based on photo interpretation (attributes 7 through 14).
Existing data for these attributes were compiled and assessed for spatial extent, resolution,
scale, quality of information, and availability of metadata. The data compilation included
gathering state agency reports and aerial photographs of the survey area. Attribute data were
transferred to GIS for analysis and production of data layers.
Photo interpretation was completed using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2002 Orthogonal
Imagery (referred to as orthophotos) and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 2000
aerial oblique photos. These photos were used separately or in combination to interpret
attributes, considering photo quality and that some attributes were better interpreted by one
source than the other. Early in the photo interpretation effort, a field verification survey was
conducted to evaluate the data quality provided by photo interpretation. The field verification
determined that the photo interpretation provided high confidence datasets for most of the
attributes of interest; for those attributes that did not provide high confidence data based on the
field verification, the photo interpretation methods were revised to improve data quality or
clarify the definitions of what can be classified through photo interpretation. Spatial data from
photo interpretation and field efforts were largely consistent with one another with no
indication of major spatial inaccuracies. However, shoreline armoring was determined to be the
attribute that would most significantly benefit from a larger-scale field verification effort.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
iv
March 2004
030239-01
Executive Summary
This report provides the methods, results, and description of the GIS layers created .for the
marine shoreline inventory. A summary analysis of the inventory is provided, including total
number of lineal shoreline miles surveyed and other parameters for selected attributes of
interest. In addition, example figures are provided displaying typical spatial information from
the GIS data layers. The GIS files produced during the data compilation and photo
interpretation, including metadata, are provided on a compact disk (CD) accompanying this
report.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
v
March 2004
030239-01
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
A marine shoreline habitat inventory was conducted for WRIA 9 to map a selected set of
physical, biological, and anthropogenic shoreline conditions. Attributes were selected based on
their relevance to nearshore habitat function for juvenile salmonid~ and the ability to classify
their conditions using existing data sources or existing photos. This report presents the
methods, results, and GIS products for the inventory. In addition, this report provides a
summary ~nalysis of inventoried conditions and features. .
1.1 Inventory Area Description
In this document, the WRIA 9 inventory area includes the marine shoreline of King County,
Vashon and Maury Islands, and the entire shoreline of the City of Federal Way (Figure 1-1).
In Elliott By, the survey area included the north-facing shoreli~e of Harbor Island, but did
not include any of the East and West Waterways or the DuwaFPish River. These areas were
not included because they have been inventoried previously in other projects. The extent of
the inventory includes the supratidal (above mean higher high. water [MHHW]), intertidal
(between mean lower low water [MLL W] and MHHW), and a portion of the subtidal (below
MLL W) zones. Some features of the riparian corridor within 200 feet of the waterline were
also characterized.
1.2 Approach
The project approach was based upon mapping attributes of s~lected shoreline habitat
features relevant to nearshore habitat function for juvenile salmonids. Data were obtained
through a compilation of existing GIS information and througl: photo interpretation. Some
of the compiled datasets were refined to facilitate user access and interpretation. Early in the
photo interpretation effort, a field verification survey was conducted to evaluate the data
~
quality provided by photo interpretation. GIS data layers were produced with detailed
.
information for the habitat attributes of interest
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
1
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
FiliJure 1-1
Vicinity Map
Matine Shoreline Inventory Report
W~A9
2
March 2004
030239-01 .
e
e
e
Legend
'I
~ I l
I- j)
V r~. t~
I C /
,.. . ~.. .-'\. "h l /
, -llll~ ~,
i " J-.~~ ~\~ ~---.,,'--,
\ ,..~, rr1 ~ Ll-~
. ~ ,-
I ~ ~-
,.; .~~\-1 ~~ -~ \~
\, "\ lI-"'-i ~~ ", 7 I V-
I ) \ ~~ \ 1\] ! J ~ ~\
,;') "0 "( '\L 1\ V 1t~
l~ ~~~ ,-(' ~: ~
J .~~\~,~ '\ t7f
,\~~ ~~ C-L
-A ) ~' ':.A.
~ ",,_:~ ~~~D
( u \~ · ..
~ "\)1 J 1..../ \
I J ~
~ ff( f /
~t"\ l~ )~
-r--) ~::r~
I .........,
~~ ~-
· \, ~ ( r "
.' ~ \ \
, :. --{
~~ '.~'~ r-~ K
"~?~\ ~ I I ~_1 j u '
.
\~ ~I-\
r-~,,~ IT
~ 1
- rJ:.-
'.
'--
-
I
r
,,--
Seattle Study Area _ .1 WRIA9 Green - Duwamish
-..-
""'-' WRIA9 Study Area
Both Study Areas
Seattle
King County/ Other Jurisdictions
1 0 4
.. I
Scale in Miles
V:. A~f.~9~
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Methods
2 METHODS
GIS layers were produced by arranging existing GIS and photographic data from several data
sources, in iterative steps, including compiling and refining existiIlg information, interpreting
GIS and photographic data, and field verifying photo interpretatio,n results in certain areas.
Habitat attributes to be mapped were selected based on their contribution to nearshore habitat.
function for juvenile salmonids. Selected attributes included:
1. Substrate
2. Marsh habitat
3. Aquaculture/shellfish harvest areas
4. Energy
5. Sedimentation (Le., net shore drift)
6. Freshwater inputs
7. Marine riparian vegetation (MRV)
8. Lar~e woody debris (LWD)
9. Shoreline armoring
10. Impervious surfaces
11. Overwater structures (OWS) and marinas
12. Boat ramps
13. Jetties, breakwaters, and groins
14, Marine rails
Some attributes were mapped based on existing GIS datasets (attri):mtes 1 through 6) and others
were based on photo interpretation (attributes 7 through 14). Exiswng data for these attributes
were compiled and assessed for spatial extent, resolution, scale, q~ality of information, and
availability of metadata. The data compilation included gathering.'USGS 2002 orthophotos,
WDOE 2000 aerial oblique photos, Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
ShoreZone Inventory (ShoreZone) (2001), current Washington Dewartment of Fish and Wildlife
~ .
(WDFW) resource maps, and Washington Department of Health (WDOH) 2002 shellfish closure
..
area information for the survey area. Refinement of this informatiG>n included selecting the
resolution and guidelines for mapping these attributes (Table 2-1)" A data dictionary detailing
all of the rules and definitions associated with the mapping effort is provided in Appendix A.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
3
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
Table 2-1
Habitat Attributes and Classification System for Marine Shoreline Inventory
Convert ShoreZone cross-shore tables II Three separate shapefiles (one for
into a series of line features to make each tidal zone) based on the
substrate information more accessible. I ShoreZone shoreline and provide
Lines created for supratidal (zone A), II information from the ShoreZone
intertidal (zone B), and subtidal (zone . cross-shore (XSHORE) tables.
C) to provide information on the I Each shapefile represents a
dominant, subdominant, and tertiary I different zone.
substrate sizes. Information on I
substrate in zone components (i.e., A1, I
A2, and A3) combined to create one I
substrate classification for the zone. !
----------.---.-----.-
Marsh Habitat
Location
Line feature of compiled WDNR
ShoreZone data on marsh vegetation
distribution. Upland wetlands not
mapped.
, i
Aquaculture/ ! i Compile readHy available information
Shellfish Harvest I I from WDFW (resource maps) and
_Ar.~~~________..__,....___.1 I ~Ott.J!hell!!~!1 clo~Ig_~.iireas _~QQ~>:'
Energy I Expo~ure i Compile information from ShoreZone.
_'.__________...__.__..._......_[i E~~t1V~fetch-Ji.,..---_..--._.-.-..----..--.-...,..-
Sediment Drift Cells Compile existing information from
WDOE and link explanatory notations to
the GIS line features.
_.h._____~"__'M.___.'''___.__,,_ .
Freshwater I Stream Locations ! Compile information from existing
Inputs Outfalls I sources.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
4
e
e
Compiled GIS data set of a line
coverage of ShoreZone segments
containing marsh vegetation.
I Compiled GIS data sets
I
I
, .
I Compiled GIS data sets
A modified version of WDOE's
(continuous coverage) Driftcell.shp
that includes an additional field
containing the explanatory
notations.
Compiled GIS data sets
Marsh TVDes (from ShoreZone)
· native high marsh (TRI) =Triglochin,
Salicomia, Distichylus, and others in
salt-tolerant assemblage
· sedges (SED) = brackish/freshwater
wetland assemblages found at
stream mouths
· dune grasses (GRA) = Leymus
mol/is and other salt-tolerant grasses
· Salicomia (SAL) = lower Salicomia
'!larsl'!.lacki!.'9 oth~~.9E~~!es/h~rbs_.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MaTch 2004 ~
030239-01 ?
-
e
e
-
Methods
Table 2-1
Habitat Attributes and Classification System for Marine Shoreline Inventory
Create GIS line feature to characterize
MRV conditions within 200 feet of the
water line using orthophotos and aerial
oblique photos. Photo interpretation
identifies MRV using classifications
detailed in the far right column. Limited
field verification examined how well the
characteristics were detennined using
the existing photos.
5
Location
Type
Distance
Overhanging
Density
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
lOne continuous shapefile based on
i the ShoreZone shoreline with the
I following attributes [Type] (tree,
I shrub, grass, other), [Distance]
I (adjacent, separated),
I [Overhanging] (yes, no, unknown),
I [Density] (continuous, patchy,
I unknown), [Description] (a
I summary ofthe above), and
! [Comments].
!
i
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
.~
I. Mature Trees
i. Immature Trees and Shrubs
i. Grass/Landscaped
I. None
I D'
I Istance
i
'I'. Adjacent = less than 10 meters from
, MHHW
I
i. Separated = greater than 10 meters
I from MHHW
I
I. Unknown
I
I OverhanQina
I. Yes = overhanging intertidal zone by
I approximately 10 feet or more
I. No = not overhanging intertidal zone
I by approximately 10 feet or more
I. N/A
I Densitv
II. Continuous = the area within 200
feet of shoreline is 75 percent or
I more covered by vegetation
I. Patchy = the area within 200 feet of
I shoreline is less than 75 percent
I covered by vegetation
I. None = the area within 200 feet of
I shoreline has no vegetation
I Text DescriDtion
I. Combine Type, Distance,
'I Overhanging, and Density (e.g.,
, trees, adjacent, not overhanging,
I continuous)
Comment
March 2004 ~ -J),
030239-01 \L..
Methods
Table 2-1
Habitat Attributes and Classification System for Marine Shoreline Inventory
Large Woody
Debris
Shoreline
Armoring
Impervious
Surface within
200 feet
Location
i Location
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
,
I
I
i
i
i
Location
Amount
Create GIS line feature to characterize
LWD accumulations and drift log
accumulation areas using orthophotos
and aerial oblique photos. Limited field
verification examined how well the
characteristics were determined using
the existing photos.
One continuous shapefile based on
the ShoreZone shoreline.
I Use orthophotos and aerial oblique lone continuous shapefile based on
I photos to modify the ShoreZone I the ShoreZone shoreline.
! shoreline GIS line to differentiate
I whether the shoreline is armored or
I unarmored (at 50 linear foot resolution I
in City of Seattle and at 100 linear foot .
'I resolution in remainder of project area). I
Limited field verification examined how I
I well the characteristics were determined I
....USL~9..~~~~~!i.':I9..E.I!~.!~._.._..._.__._.._
Create GIS line feature to characterize One continuous shapefile based on
impervious surface conditions within the ShoreZone shoreline describing
200 feet of the water line using the impervious surface coverage
orthophotos and aerial oblique photos. for 200 feet landward of MHHW.
Photo interpretation identifies Resolution will be 200 linear feet
impervious surface using classifications parallel to MHHW.
detailed in the far right column. Limited
field verification examined how well the
characteristics were determined using
the existing photos.
Marine Shoreline Inventonj Report
WRIA 9
e
6
.
LWD Classifications
· LWD = areas with more than 100
lineal feet of shoreline with downed
trees across the intertidal zone
· Drift Logs = areas greater than 100
lineal feet of shoreline with a
continuous distribution of drift logs
that includes a section with multiple
logs stacked together in the intertidal
zone or backshore
· None = areas without LWD or Drift
. LoS! present
Shoreline Armorina TVDes
· Armored
· Unarmored
ImDervious Classifications
· High = 75 to 100 percent impervious
· Medium = 10 to 75 percent
impervious
· Low = less than 10 percent
impervious
Note: Houses/buildings, paved
roads/paths considered impervious;
yardsllawns and gravel areas considered
ervious.
March 2004 \!:.
030239-01 ,...
-
e
e
e
Methods
Table 2-1
Habitat Attributes and Classification System For Marine Shoreline Inventory
Overwater
Structures
Boat Ramps
Type
Compass
Orientation
Area
Location
Width
Length
Jetties, I Location
Breakwaters, and
Groins
Marine Rails
location
Create GIS polygon feature using
orthophotos and aerial oblique photos
to delineate overwater structures.
Connected overwater structures
delineated together in one polygon.
This GIS feature provides accurate
depiction of the outer extent of the
structures, but will require estimation of
the inside margin of the structure
relative to the top of bank. Compass
orientation or the primary waterward
face of a structure and area (square
feet) calculated and contained in the
GIS attribute table.
Marinas were delineated as the polygon
.~f th~ overw~ter strll.~ure withou!.!>Eats._
Create GIS polygon feature using
orthophotos and aerial oblique photos
to delineate boat ramps. The outer
extent of boat ramps delineated as
-P2~~!~~..~~~ath.~.E~Qtos.:....__...____.
. Using orthophotos and aerial oblique
I photos, create GIS lines delineating
jetties, breakwaters, and groins.
Using orthophotos and aerial oblique
photos, create GIS lines delineating
"etties, breakwaters, and oroins.
A single discrete polygon shapefile
delineating the attribute.
A single discrete polygon shapefile
delineating the attribute.
A single discrete line shapefile
delineating the attribute.
A single discrete line shapefile
delineating the attribute.
Overwater Structure Tvpes
· Piers
· Marinas
· Docks
· Unknown
Compass Orientation
· A number between 0 and 359, with 0
indicating north and 90 indicating
east
N/A
Type
Jetties
· Breakwaters
· Groins
N/A
. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
7
March 2004 \t:,
030239-01 " .'~
Methods
2.1 Compilation of Existing Information
To begin compiling existing information, data were gathered from a variety of sources. The
key sources of data used for the habitat inventory included existing GIS and photographic
data, detailed in Appendix B. Following is a description of the types of information gathered
for each attribute in the data compilation. More detailed information is contained in the data
dictionary provided in Appendix A and complete metadata for these data sets are available
on the accompanying CD.
2.1.1 Substrate
Two ShoreZone shapefiles were used to characterize substrate and cross-shore material
in the survey area: the ShoreZone (sub_line.shp) shapefile, which contains general
substrate information, and the ShoreZone cross-shore (xshrline.shp) shapefile, which
details the materials comprising the cross-shore components of the tidal zones.
Substrate types in the ShoreZone sub_line.shp shapefile are characterized by category in
the column titled SUBNAME. Categories include gravel; sand; rock; gravel and sand;
rock, gravel, and sand; mud and fines; and man-made. With the exception of man-made,
these categories are best described by the simplified Wentworth scale used in ShoreZone
for substrate sizes, as follows:
. Gravels
o Boulqers - larger than 25 em
o Cobble - 6 to 25 em
o Pebble-5 mm to 6 em
o Granule - 2 mm to 5 mm
. Sand - from very coarse to very fine; 0.5 mm to 2 mm
. Fines - from silt to clay; smaller than 0.5 mm
The xshrline.shp shapefile in ShoreZone provided information on the distribution of
materials (substrates) in the supratidal (higher than MHHW), intertidal (between
MHHW and MLL W), and subtidal (below MLL W) zones. This data source provided
supratidal and intertidal material information for the entire project area; however,
subtidal material information is provided for only a limited portion of the shoreline (less
than 10 percent). It is unknown how representative this partial characterization is of
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
8
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
subtidal materials in the entire project area. In each zone, SJ.'loreZone identifies discrete
banq.s, called components, that have different materials thCl~n adjacent areas situated
higl,ler or lower in that zone. The supratidal and intertidal zones have one or more
components identified in each ShoreZone unit, while subtidal zone information is
~
available for only a small subset of the ShoreZone units in the project area.
DOlninant cross-shore materials were characterized for each tidal zone using the
following steps:
1. Determine the widest component widths for each ShoreZone unit within the
tidal zone. For example, consider components 1, 2, 3, etc, in the supratidal zone;
for ShoreZone unit X, if component 1 was 10 feet wide and zone component 2
was 20 feet wide, then component 2 would be the widest. In cases where two
components had the same width, the zone compon~nt situated lower on the
beach was used, This was deemed reasonable becau.se the lower areas would be
,under water more often and therefore be accessible to fish for longer portions of
each tidal cycle.
2. Determine the dominant material type in the widest zone component. For zone
components with multiple material types, select th~ primary type using the
explanation of the MATERIAL code in the ShoreZone Manual guidelines
(available online at http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/textfiles/pdf/
I
szusermanual.pdf). Basically, this step entailed us~g only the substrate
information before a semi-colon in the MATERIAL :field, This step represents an
interpretation of the ShoreZone data and no longer fully represents the
ShoreZone characterization of the material.
3. Sort ShoreZone units by dominant material type an,d calculate the length of
shoreline with each unique material type.
61:. Determine which materials were dominant (i.e., oc(mrred along the greatest
length of shoreline in the project area), secondary (i.e., occurred along the second
~
greatest length shoreline in the project area), and tertiary (i.e., occurred along the
L
third greatest length shoreline in the project area).
5. Calculate percentage 0f total area characterized comprises the dominant,
secondary, and tertiary material types.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
9
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
2.1.2 Marsh Habitat
ShoreZone was used to provide a layer containing the extent of marsh habitats in the
survey area by ShoreZone unit, including high and low marsh communities. The degree
of patchiness of these marshes is included in this layer as noted in ShoreZone (TRI,
GRA, SAL, and SED marsh groups in ShoreZone).
2.1.3 Aquaculture/Shellfish Areas
Information from WDOH was used to create the aquaculture and shellfish area layer.
This layer contains information about commercial harvest areas and regulations.
2.1.4 Energy (Wave Exposure and Fetch)
ShoreZone was used to provide a layer containing wave exposure and effective fetch
information for the survey area. Exposure is noted as the level of protection from waves
and effective fetch is noted as increments of distance in miles.
2.1.5 Sedimentation (Net Shore Drift)
Data from WDOE, specifically Schwartz et aL (1991), were used to create a GIS layer
containing drift cell locations. Important supplemental information describing some of
the conditions of each drift cell is provided as a comment in the GIS and is provided on
the accompanying CD, This information includes net shore drift direction and other
sedimentation characteristics. WDOE emphasizes the importance of referring to and
relying upon the comment information more than the strict drift cell delineations.
2.1.6 Freshwater Inputs
Information from the City of Seattle, King County, Washington Trout and WDOE was
used to create the layer showing freshwater inputs to the survey area. This layer
describes these locations as streams or outfalls and provides supplementary descriptive
information, such as the Combined Sewer Outfall (CSO) and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) status of these inputs.
,.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
10
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
'.
2.2 Photo Interpretation
Attributes mapped by photo interpretation include the following:
~
. Marine riparian vegetation
. Large woody debris
. Shoreline armoring
. Impervious surfaces
. Overwater structures and marinas
. Boat ramps
. Jetties, breakwaters, and groins
. Marine rails
Photo interpretation was completed using two sources: USGS ~002 orthophotos (one foot
resolution) and aerial oblique photos from WDOE. The two tyI;'es of photos differed in their
application to the data interpretation process, as described bel0w. Both types of photos were
often used in the interpretation, although some attributes werE~ better interpreted by one
source than the other. The orthophotos provided an aerial view looking straight down and
were particularly useful for those habitat attributes that requir~d characterizing conditions
within 200 feet of the waterline. In general, the orthophotos were the primary reference for
..
MRV distance, MRV density, jetties, breakwaters, groins, marine rails, marinas, and the
extent of impervious surfaces. The cross-beach perspective prQ.vided by the aerial obliques
was generally more useful for determining the extent of overh~nging MRV and the locations
of armoring structures. Often, due to the attribute of interest and photo quality, both types
of photos were used in the interpretation. A combination was :most often used for
determining MRV type, L WD type and extent, and the locatioIi\sand extent of boat ramps
and OWS.
During photo interpretation, the line shape file used in ShoreZone was used to visually
display various conditions of the habitat attributes of interest. This line is based on the
MHHW line along the survey area, but it was not always iden~ical to the waterline at the
visible break between upland and intertidal areas in the orthop,hotos. The two lines varied
from z~ro to tens of feet difference in location, with a typical difference of approximately 20
feet. Consequently, the shapefile line was not used as the waterline for interpreting those
attributes which considered upland conditions within 200 feet>of the shoreline, namely
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
11
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
marine riparian vegetation and impervious surfaces. In these cases, the visible break
between upland and intertidal areas was used as the waterline for interpreting these
attributes. The ShoreZone line shapefile was modified to remove jetties from the shoreline
configuration. Jetties extend offshore and therefore the shoreline immediately inshore is
already characterized by another portion of the ShoreZone line shapefile. This modification
was necessary to avoid double interpretation of the same shoreline section.
Following is a description of the types of information characterized for each attribute in the
photo interpretation. All attributes were mapped to a resolution of 100 feet with the
exception of shoreline armoring. That is, a discrete section of shoreline was delineated if 100
feet or more of the shoreline length had an attribute expression that was different from
adjacent areas. If it was less than 100 feet, the section remained as part of the larger shoreline
delineation. Shoreline armoring within the City of Seattle portion of the project area was
mapped at a 50 foot resolution. More detailed information on the habitat attribute
definitions and rules is provided in the data dictionary provided in Appendix A. A
description of the field verification efforts is also provided below.
2.2.1 Marine Riparian Vegetation
The MRV layer was created by coding the ShoreZone line into separate sections using
photo interpretation. This layer characterizes MRV within 200 feet of the water, with
respect to vegetation type, distance from shore, overhang, and density (See Table 1). The
vegetation types delineated were mature trees, immature trees/shrubs,
grass/landscaped, and none. Vegetation type was assigned based on the dominant
vegetation in the 200 foot corridor and was not necessarily the vegetation type closest to
the shoreline. Vegetation was characterized as separate from the shoreline if it was
separated by more than 33 feet (10 meters) from the water; otherwise, it was considered
adjacent to the water. Overhanging vegetation was characterized as overhanging by 10
feet or more. Vegetation was described as continuous if the area within 200 feet of the
shoreline was 75 percent or more covered by vegetation; if coverage was less than 75
percent, vegetation was considered patchy.
Ma{ine Shoreline Inventory Report
WR:IA 9
12
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
2.2.2 Large Woody Debris
The L WD layer was created by coding the ShoreZone line into sections in the photo
interpretation process. This layer categorizes wood in the fpllowing two ways: 1) LWD
coverage in areas of more than 100 lineal feet of shoreline ~ith downed trees that
appeared to still be attached at the roots and that lay acros~ the intertidal zone and 2)
drift log areas of greater than 100 lineal feet of shoreline with continuous drift logs and
multiple logs stacked in the intertidal or backshore areas.
2.2.3 Shoreline Armoring
The shoreline armoring layer was created by coding the Sh,oreZone line by photo
interpretation with field verification. The layer characterizes the presence or absence of
bank armoring in a 100 linear foot resolution. Within the Gity of Seattle portion of the
project area, armoring was mapped at a 50 foot resolution.
2.2.4 Impervious Surface Coverage
The impervious surface coverage layer was created by coding the ShoreZone line during
photo interpretation and includes whether the section of shoreline exhibits high,
medium, or low impervious surface coverage in the corrid~r within 200 feet of the
waterline. Low coverage was defined as less than 10 perce\lt coverage; medium was
defined as 10 to 75 percent coverage, and high was defineq as greater than 75 percent
coverage. Because the 'medium' category encompasses a greater range than the other
two categories, more of the shoreline falls into this category than the other two
categories. Impervious surfaces included roofs of houses ahd buildings as well as roads,
~
paths, and other paved areas. Lawns, open grassy areas, gravel roads/paths, and gravel
~
parking areas were not considered impervious.
Coverage percentages were estimated by visually examiniDg sections in the zone within
200 feet of the shoreline. In some instances, the measuring tool in ArcMap was used to
measure the distance on the orthophoto covered by imper~ious surfaces. For example, if
impervious surfaces covered 150 feet (i.e., 75 percent of 200 feet) or more, then that
section and areas similar to it were coded high impervious surface; likewise, if the
distance totaled between 20 and 150 feet (i.e., between 10 a).1d 75 percent of 200 feet),
then the section was coded medium impervious; and if the distance was less than 10
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
..
March 2004
030239~01
13
Methods
percent of 200 feet (20 feet), the section was coded low impervious. An example of each
impervious classification is provided in Figure 2-1.
2.2.5 Overwater Structure and Marinas
The overwater structure layer was created by visually delineating OWS and marinas as
polygons through photo interpretation. This layer includes piers, docks, and marinas
and contains the type, compass orientation, and area for each structure identified.
2.2.6 Boat Ramps
The boat ramps layer was created by visually delineating ramps as polygons through
photo interpretation. This layer contains width, length, and area calculations for each
ramp identified.
2.2.7 Jetties/Breakwaters/Groins
The jetties/breakwaters/groins layer was created by visually delineating these structures
as lines in the photo interpretation process. This layer includes information on the type
of structure identified Getty, breakwater, or groin) and the structure length in feet.
2.2.8 Marine Rails
The marine rails layer was created by visually delineating these structures as lines
during the photo interpretation process. This layer contains information on structure
length in feet.
2.2.9 Field Verification
Field verification was undertaken to gauge the quality and confidence in the efforts of
photo interpretation to characterize shoreline attributes. Early in the photo
interpretation effort, two representative 5-mile sections of shoreline were inventoried in
the field: one along a west-facing stretch of shoreline in the vicinity of Des Moines and
one along an east-facing section of the Maury Island shoreline. The field effort was
conducted by boat under good weather conditions on December 8,2003, using a
differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). Field data were collected systematically
for entire shoreline sections by moving along the shoreline and visually estimating
where there were breaks in the classifications of riparian vegetation, LWD, shoreline
. . '
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WR~A 9
14
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
'.
Figure 2-1
Example of Impervious Surfaces Classification
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
15
March 2004
030239-01
e
e
Legend
200 foot buffer
High Impervious (greater than 75 percent)
Medium Impervious (10 to 75 percent)
Low Impervious (less than 10 percent)
e,. 'f!. ANCHOR
"-----: '..VIlItO......IN1Al. l l.C
Figure 2-1
Example of Impervious Surfaces Classification
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Methods
armoring, and impervious surfaces. More than 50 observations of classification breaks
were recorded along the shoreline at each of the two sites. Each observation consisted of
making a full characterization of the site for all of the habitat attributes, recording DCPS
location, and noting compass bearing. In this way, a field data set of break points in
classifications was created, suitable for comparison to the photo interpretation
classifications.
The field verification results were compared to the preliminary photo interpretation
results by considering how consistent the two methods were in assigning habitat
attribute classifications and in identifying the split between two classifications (Le.,
where armoring stops). Using this comparison, the level of confidence in the photo
interpretation was determined based on the similarity of the results. High confidence
was found in those attributes for which the results of the two methods were identical or
nearly identical. Moderate confidence was found in those attributes for which the results
matched frequently, but shortcoI?ings in the photo interpretation approach were
identified. As intended through the initial selection of attributes to delineate, there were
no attributes that provided only low confidence results through photo interpretation.
The findings for each attribute are provided in Table 2-2.
Overall, field verification efforts determined that the photo interpretation methods could
be implemented successfully and provide high confidence data sets on most of the
attributes of interest. The spatial data collected in the field were largely consistent with
the photo interpretation results, and there was no indication of major spatial
inaccuracies. Therefore, the boundaries and calculated values for the attributes
delineated using these data can be referenced with high confidence. However, the field
verification indicated that many of the habitat attributes characterized using. photo
interpretation could significantly benefit from a larger-scale field verification effort.
For attributes determined to provide only moderate confidence in the results, changes to
the photo interpretation classification system were made in order to try to provide high
confidence results for all parameters. After the recommended changes to photo
interpretation, it was judged that the interpretation of only two parameters, MRV type
and overhanging MRV, would not be able to provide high confidence results. Once field
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
16
March 2004
030239-01
~--1
Methods
Table 2-2
Field Verification Results
, i+ Levelof Similarity ... ..'...C .,.,."..,.,.,.....,.:'
I?hoto Interpretation
Between Initiall?hoto Data Quality After
, Interpretation and r RevIsing Methods to
Habitat Field Verification Include Recommended
Attribute Results1 Comments ~nd Recommendations Changes2
Riparian Moderate Photo interpretation provides a m~re Moderate-High
Vegetation complete look at vegetation throughout
Type the 200 foot wide corridor back fr~m
MHHW. The field verification indicated a
difficulty in determining whether the
vegetation is trees or shrubs during photo
interpretation. ...
Action: Changed categories to: mlture
trees, immature trees/shrubs, "
__grass/landscap~9-!-<?.!tl_~! and no~e.
Riparian Moderate The difference between the interpre~ation High
Vegetation techniques was a consistent trend for a
Density higher density estimate in the field tman in
the photo. This appeared to be due to the
more complete perspective of veget~tion
in the 200 foot wide corridor back trom
MHHW that aerial photos provid~.
Action: No changes to the phot~
interpretation methods were warra~ted.
Overhanging Moderate Photo interpretation is generally Moderate
Riparian successful at identifying areas with
Vegetation . extensive overhanging vegetation;
however, sections with limited overhang
into the intertidal zone are not'
recognizable using photos. I
Action: Changed the definition of
overhanging vegetation to include only
those areas that overhang the intertiaal by
approximately 10 feet or more.'
Riparian High Photo interpretation is very succesSful at High
Vegetation identifying the distance of vegetatio~ froin
Distance from the shoreline. ,
Shoreline Action: No changes to the phot~
interpretation methods were warrahted.
Large Woody Moderate Differences in interpretations appea~d to High
Debris be primarily the result of seasonali~nd
temporal variability between th~
photography and field work. While ir the
field, the drift log category seemed overly
restrictive, as many drift log ...
...
accumulations were seen, but did~not
meet the five logs across criterion.
"
Action: Changed drift log interpretation to
include those areas with logs for ~\'re
than 100 feet, of which at least one
section has multiple logs stackeCt
together. No other changes to the photo
interpretation methods were warra~ted.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
17
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
Table 2-2
Field Verification Results
.+ L,.evel, of Similarity ," ".',".' PhotQ Interpretation
Between Initial Photo Data Quality After
Interpretation and Revising Methods to
Habitat Field Verification Include Recommended
~ttribute Results 1 Comments and Recommendations Changes2
... . High The methods provided nearly identical High
trmonng
" results. There are some limitations to
photo interpretation, especially in areas
\ where armor is situated under vegetation.
. Another limitation of the photo
, interpretation is the presence of gaps
. between some of the aerial oblique
photographs.
Action: No changes to the photo
interpretation methods were warranted.
Impervious High Since this parameter extends to 200 feet High
Surfaces from MHHW, photo interpretation is a
better method than field interpretation
"- because all roads, patios, etc. can be
lr. seen and measured from MHHW.
, Action: No changes to the photo
interpretation methods were warranted.
1 This evaluation was based on the shoreline sections interpreted prior to the field verification. The initial photo
interpretation methods were revised based on the field verification results.
2 rlis evaluation represents the anticipated data quality after implementing the recommendations made following
the field verification.
.
verification recommendations were incorporated into the photo interpretation method,
the entire shoreline of the project area was characterized with the new rules.
Based on photo quality, some attributes were particularly difficult to delineate along
some stretches of shoreline. Best professional judgment was used to interpret the photos
and the areas of difficulty were noted. Figure 2-2 shows the areas of difficulty and the
attributes affected. Shoreline armoring was the most difficult attribute to evaluate due to
shading across the intertidal zone and overhanging vegetation.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
18
March 2004
030239-01
Methods
Figure 2-2
Areas of Difficulty in Photo Interpretation
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
19
March 2004
030239-01
~\
Legend
~--.
. -.
I
.
I
.
\
.
,
.
I
.
I
.
,
.
\
.
I
.
I
.
.'
,
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
,
. .'
I I
.
I /';
.
~ i
; J
((
.
I
. -'
((
,
., .'
-----'
\.
f'...
Features that were difficult to interpret
'""-' Armor
'""-' Armor and LWD
- .-.J Groins
\C A~~~~~
'.
. ,
, .
,. ,
. .
, ,
. ~....
1-
~
,-.
. ~ WRIA9 Green - Duwamish
-.._r
Seattle
0.5 0 2
___ - I
Scale in Miles
King County! Other Jurisdictions
Figure 2-2
Areas of Difficulty in Photo Interpretation
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Results and Analysis
3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Th.is section provides a general analysis of several attributes in the survey area and describes
the example figures that have been provided to illustrate the attributes. Summary information
for selected habitat attributes in the survey area is presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
I
Table 3-1
WRIA 9 Habitat Attribute Analysis
l : .
Percent of Area
Total number of Surveyed Covered
Habitat Attribute miles Area (feef) Count
4ineal Shoreline Miles 1 90.6 -- -- --
~arine Riparian Vegetation
J"rees 53.2 58.7% -- --
,Immature Trees and Shrubs 2.7 3.0% -- --
rGrass/Landscaped 25.7 28.4% -- --
(None 9.0 10.0% -- --
~arsh Habitaf
,tpatchy TRI 1.4 1.5% -- --
~Patchy GRA 5.4 6.0% -- --
tPatchy SAL 1.2 1.3% -- --
tpatchy SED 0.0 0.0% -- --
\Continuous TRI 0.4 0.4% -- --
'Continuous GRA 0.0 0.0% -- --
.
~Continuous SAL 0.5 0.6% -- --
tContinuous SED 0.0 0.0% -- --
'I 92.4%
,None 83.7 -- --
~arge Woody Debris
lLarge Woody Debris 13.3 14.7% -- --
'(Drift Logs 19.4 21.4% -- --
~one 57.9 63.9% -- --
~horeline Armoring 57.0 62.9% -- --
qverwater Structures -- -- 5,334,771 250
B.oat Ramps3 -- 0.3% 95,349 122
'.
Ir,npervious Surface Coverage
"
IHiQh 10.5 11.6% -- --
'.
lMedium 43.8 48.3% -- --
:Low 36.3 40.0% -- --
I, Shoreline length based on ShoreZone szline shapefile used as a basemap for the photo interpretation, excluding
those portions of ShoreZone units that are jetties.
~:See Table 2-1 for descriptions of these marsh types. Percent of surveyed area calculations tO,taled more than 100
percent because some ShoreZone units had more than one type of marsh vegetation.
3 Boat ramp area calculations may underestimate actual area because the submerged end of the ramps were not
always clearly visible.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
20
March 2004
030239-01
Results and Analysis
Table 3-2
Summary of WDNR Cross-Shore Material InfOrmation
'" '. > i '.,
Number ofmUes
characterized Dominant Material Secondary Material Tertiary Material
Habitat (percent of ~roject Type3 (percent of Type3 (percent of Type3 (percent of
Zone 1 area) area characterized) area. characterized)) area, characterized)
Supratidal " Concrete, wood (9.8%)
92.8 (100.0%) Riprap (15.5%) Till (14.0%)
II.
Intertidal 92.8 (100.0%) Sand (36.0%) Veneer of pebble Sand, pebble (9.3%)
overlvina sanCl (10.6%)
Subtidal4 5.7 (6.2%) Riprap (48.2%) Riprap, wood. (18.1 %) Metal (12.7%)
l
1 Habitat zones defined in ShoreZone as: supratidal = above MHHW, intertidal '7 between MLL Wand MHHW, and
subtidal = below MLL W
2 The shoreline length in the. cross-shore tables was not equal to that found in other ShoreZone layers, therefore this
number is not consistent with the shoreline length given in Table 3-l.
3 Dominant, secondary, and tertiary material types based on summary of each upique material category identified
in ShoreZone. For example, the material type "riprap" was distinguished froql all other material types in which
riprap comprised only part of the description (e.g., "riprap, concrete," "riprap;, fill"). As a result, the percentages
do not characterize the full extent of shoreline with riprap comprising at least part of the material combination
present in the habitat zone.
4Characteriz.ation of subtidal zone materials was limited due to water levels anq water visibility. It is unknown
how representative this partial characterization is of subtidal materials in the ~ntire project area.
Example figures are provided for selected habitat attributes of spa~ial information in the
WRIA 9 G1S layers. Explanation of the categories shown in these figures is given in Table 2-l.
. Figure 3-1 depicts categories of cross-shore dominant supr~tidal and intertidal material
based on the ShoreZone.
. Figure 3-2 shows marsh vegetation data from the ShoreZone. These are shoreline
.
segments with dune grass, high marsh, and low marsh pla:pt communities present.
. Figure 3-3 depicts shellfish information from the WDOH, including shellfish, water, and
sediment sampling locations, and commercial harvest areas.
~
. Figure 3-4 displays wave energy and fetch in the survey area from the ShoreZone.
· Figure 3-5 depicts net shore drift in the survey area.
. Figure 3-6 gives an example of the locations of freshwater i:nputs to the survey area as
mapped by the City of Seattle, King County, and WDOE.
· Figure 3-7 displays the categories of MRV mapped in the P[lOto interpretation.
· Figure 3-8 is an example of shoreline segments containing drift logs and L WD mapped
in the photo interpretation.
. Figure 3-9 shows sections of shoreline with and without shpreline armoring mapped in
the photo interpretation.
Marine Shorel(ne Inventory Report
WRIA 9
...
March 2004
030239-01
21
.,
,
Results and Analysis
.~
. Figure 3-10 gives an example of impervious surface area cover as sections of shoreline
mapped in the photo interpretation with high, medium, and low categories of coverage.
. Figure 3-11 depicts the lines digitized as boat ramps, marine rails, and OWS in the photo
interpretation.
. Figure 3-12 displays jetties, breakwaters, and groins mapped in the photo interpretation.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRJA 9
22
March 2004
030239-01
Results and Analysis
..
Figure 3-1
ShoreZone Cross-Shore Substrate
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA9
23
March 2004
030239-01
e
e
e
West Point, City of Seattle
Legend
ShoreZone Material (Dominant Supratidal Landward/ Dominant Intertidal Waterward)
Sand
Sand, Pebble
Sand, Pebble, Cobble
.~
50 0
..
200
I
Scale in Feet
V:. ~~q~q~
Figure 3-1
ShoreZone Cross-Shore Substrate
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Results and Analysis
FiSllure 3-2
ShoreZone Marsh Vegetation
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
W~IA 9
24
March 2004
030239-01
„. � � �
„ � ` w ;` �°,"�.:
' �� `� � �
,� .� `�
1 � 8 �� q � . ,y.
Y {” �� # .j9. � ,
�}�t I�f d @
� � � £� � � �
� :�� ra�`.=,� �? ��"`��.' , ,�,
. �ti� '���i:.
� 9Yri ' � � '�� �.i� � � w � � � � t I� r �
)
.,� " . •° , #� y � `'
. Y . � Y.� � YY �r " { �' }i . i� i • �� �� �
s �f � �� �°'4. .e � ' # � � . ' �` ° ' �i�Er ' ��'��
' � # � ' � � �� � �� �i �� � ��; f�� l�t t i ".i
k 2 i �-� .��� * � Y 't y � � ,
�z . �"�1.:: �� " } �� w ''� *��k',�" '� r � ' �g ` l��4 � � : i
� `r^. ��'���'�5 �$' � . e' r � *'^,� � +'�° � $�+ �� :d .1., r� �'r :� i
.:x'�`y,, � �^" .,�`�,.°' � y � � `�'.� f �' j � "'a� � 'W.•�'' �� � M _
"r }, 9 k
� ' 2 �T & � � siY �',�"� d ' J����'h { � _ — °
' p 4h4 � ��h �ds^�� � � ,��� f^ � 6 �� t .LM�
> '�; " , �„ '� � `� y � `� S £ � �.'v�—��
� , v. '. � ,.�„_ �-•" ,.,_ y �
� ' .. � � p � ''� ,• �`" �� �
�# A*ar.; ^' a" $,t� k, 5i z . - , .. o-�� "f;'
J � "� f . d � � � '� . �� �_
.F '� p ,a ��i�� �"-} �5 . ..,..
kn . � �.��i ..
, ; ��; r 1� . �� �� . � .,�
a t
��� � � � � � . y k ��� .k# ;��' � „ '' e � } �, � v* '.�.
v-
.
$ �'r"' "..M
�
� } � � '�� '�� � � � t � y.. � � h(
�� »# 4 �, 4'y �. �
�,��. � ,.v�,� r ,� �,� F s � .. z +� � A ' � �r �.��5 , . A �'?a � &' � ' ;.
s��b; �` a`• 3 � ,s � ��`v� �� - �` � -
�.� ,� .:�. ` �% k `" �� �� � , � '�,����. } �'�`
� , e � f .•� t � ""'?�. �. � t t�
� �- � � � x , 4 i r'. �' *�_
K ���.x �.�
� k t� . . 5 � t �� �
��
{ � \
{ ��k�fi+s� �� . .
. . ..r ., .� . , . , . . � �� ��$ ?. . . _. .
Legend West Point, Ciry of Seattle
ShoreZone Material (Dominant Supratidal Landward/ Dominant Intertidal Waterward) �
Sand
Sand, Pebble
$ Sand, Pebble, Cobble
� AN�HOR
N,i
so o zoo
Scale in Feet
Figure 3-1
ShoreZone Cross-Shore Substrate
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA 9
Continuous
Patchy
Low Marsh
Patchy
. ~
Tramp Harbor, Quartermaster Harbor, Vashon and Maury Islands
4D
Legend
Dune Grass High Marsh
Patchy
250 0
..
1,000
I
Scale in Feet
\l AN~~C?~
Figure 3-2
ShoreZone Marsh Vegetation
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
..
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-3
WDOH Shellfish Data
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
25
March 2004
030239-01
~. @:;
I
.
\
't
G 1
.
I
.
I
.
, '"
.
\..
.
I
--6"1 ·
6 < I
~ () .
'6 · ~
,
~ ,.
.
6 I
~
I
6 ~ ~
,
6 ~ 6
6 I
~ 6
I
6. 6
,
Legend
@> Shellfish Sampling Locations for Species Shellfish Commercial Harvesting Areas
6 Shellfish Water Quality Sampling Stations ~ Approved
Shellfish Sediment Sampling Stations ~ Prohibited
)
)
r- c;g--
,,', 6'
6;:) 6/
6 \
! 6
~6 \~/
\6~1
/ 6
l~
'&
6
~@>:;
.
'"
&
"
~
~,
'..
,
..
.
I 6
o .
I
. 0
,
. 0
I
.
\
.
I
.
I
~
I
.
\
.
\
6
\C ,~~~t!~~
<6;3....
" ~
'" ri'J.".,#.
.... -.
"" '9 ~
1 "
" ..
s-6
" Gl~,
~G s.:il ~
Gl~'ll Go Go"
G~~%r.~G
"" ~~
'~~@.,~GGG
G r.S
'" ~~ a: €I
; Q {O} ~ :
~ 1# Go,
€>3 ~~(S:i;.Gi
6 'So~0"ai tiP..
.~~ -~
"
o
{
~
6.
o
OJ
'.
~.;.~
;t
N ~ '80
\iiI~e. 0 G~
0.5 0 2
.._ - I
Scale in Miles
Sea ttle
.
I
--
" . .: WRIA9 Green - Duwamish
King Countyl Other Jurisidictions
Figure 3-3
WDOH Shellfish Data
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
L
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-4
ShoreZone Wave Exposure and Effective Fetch
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WiUA 9
26
March 2004
030239-01
\.
J
~\
~/',
Legend
Wave Exposure
~ protected
...-..
semi_protected
.
I
.
\
.
I
.
,
.
I
.
,
.
,
.
I
.
.'
.'
I
.
c
I
.
I
.
I
.
I '
.
,
I
.
I
.
I I
. {
I
.
! (",,:
,.
. '
\ <<-,
.
I ."
. I
, I
.
\
,.
. ,
, .
. '
, .
.
.'
'. .'
....-.."
(--
" _; WR\A9 Green - Duwarnis\"\
_ .. 0.5 0
seatt\e ill
S<
King countyl otner Jurisidictio
f'..
Effect,ve Fetch ~ 4.1 - 6.0 mi.
~ 0.0 _ 2.0 mi. ~ 6.1 - B.O mi.
~ 2.1-4.0mi. ~ B.1_11.4mi.
ShoreZone Wave Exposure an(
Marine Sh
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-5
Net Shore Drift
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
27
March 2004
030239-01
~'
L
I
-.
\
.
I
.
;.
. ,
; .
. \
; .
.
;
.
~
Legend
Drift Cells ~ No Appreciable Drift .::; WRIA9 Green - Duwamish
.............. Divergence Zone ~ Right to Left Seattle
~ Left to Right ~ Unclassified
\l, A~~~9~
King County!
Other Jurisdictions
0.5 0 2
.._ - I
Scale in Miles
Figure 3-5
Net Shore Drift
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
.~
Results and Analysis
Fi~ure 3-6
Freshwater Inputs (Various Data Sources)
Ma'rine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
28
March 2004
030239-01
6 NPDES (King County) L
. NPDES (City of Seattle) .
~ A~~tjC?~
200
I
Figure 3-6
Freshwater Inputs (Various Data Sources)
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
'~
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-7
Marine Riparian Vegetation
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
29
March 2004
030239-01
Legend
Description
"'-' Grass, Separated, Not Overhanging, Patchy
"'-' Trees, Adjacent, Not Overhanging, Patchy
\C A~~~9~
Scale in Feet
~ Trees, Adjacent, Overhanging, Continuous
~ Trees, Adjacent, Overhanging, Patchy
Trees, Separated, Not Overhanging, Patchy
Figure 3-7
Marine Riparian Vegetation
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-8
i.
Large Woody Debris and Drift Logs
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
30
March 2004
030239-01
\.egend
... Logs
On \\ 0 bris
ge Woody e
- Lar
5~
woodY C
Large MarinE
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-9
Shoreline Armor
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
31
March 2004
030239-01
Legend
Armor
North of Marine View Park, City of Normandy Park
/~
~
50 0
..
200
-=:J
Scale in Feel
Unarmored
_ Armored
Figure 3-9
Shoreline Armor
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA!:
~ 1- ANCHOR
Results and Analysis
..
Figure 3-10
Impervious Surface Coverage
Ma;'ine Shoreline Inventory Report
WR/A 9
32
March 2004
030239-01
Imperviousness
High 75-100%
Medium 10-75%
Low 0-10%
Mouth of Mille' C'eek, Nonnand.
,
Legend
100 0
--
400
I
Scale in Feel
\l A~~~9~
Figure 3-10
Impervious Surface Coverage
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-11
Boat Ramps, Marine Rails, and Overwater Structures,
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
33
March 2004
030239-01
I
P"Q
V
Boat Ramp
~ Over Water St
ructure
Marina
25 0
.. 100
B ""', '" F~' '
oat Ramps M .
, anne Rails and 0 Figure 3-11
M verwater St
arine Shor r ructures
e Ine Inventory
WRIA9
\t ~~~OR
.. ,
Results and Analysis
Figure 3-12
~.
Jetties, Breakwaters, and Groins
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
~
34
March 2004
030239-01
Elliott Bay Marina, City of Seattle
Breakwater
Groin
Jetty
4>>
Legend
100 0
..
400
I
Scale in Feet
\l, .~~~~9~
Figure 3-12
Jetties, Breakwaters and Groins
Marine Shoreline Inventory
WRIA9
References
4 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL INVENTORY WORK
As indicated by the field verification effort, ground truthing of the data sets provided in this
report would be very useful for evaluating data quality, particulaJf:ly in areas where photo
quality limited interpretation (see Figure 2-2). In addition, data fOr; several habitat attributes
would be useful for supplementing the data presented in this repo~rt, To collect this data,
additional work is recommended as follows:
1. Sediment Transport Analysis - interpret current and historical photos and perform
site reconnaissance with a coastal geologist to identify and characterize potential
~.
sediment sources and identify drift cell components su~ as feeder bluffs,
contributing bluffs, transport zones, and accretion zones.
2. Substrate -
· Collect detailed substrate information, including miljor breaks in substrate and
dominant/sub dominant percent composition (coulq be identified during
sampling in summer low tide periods).
· Integrate the ShoreZone substrate data and recently' collected Light Detection
and Ranging (LiDAR) bathymetry data to provide a more accurate
~
characterization of substrate in lower intertidal areqS and to define the spatial
extent of the lower, middle, and upper intertidal zones.
3, Marsh Areas - field survey current marsh areas contaiJ1ing marsh vegetation, noting
size and marsh type.
4. Marine Riparian Vegetation - collect information on MRV communities in the field
along the shoreline to characterize seasonal overhang apd potential terrestrial prey
input areas; this could be characterized as coniferous vs. deciduous or by species
groups.
5. Shoreline Armoring - conduct field survey during summer low tides to examine
to
type and/or condition of shoreline armoring; possibly i1.1clude characterizing stream
mouth armoring.
6. Pilings - field inventory the location and number of de:t;.elict pilings and note
whether they are chemically treated.
7. Seeps and freshwater inputs - collect location and size data for seeps and freshwater
inputs with extensive field effort during summer low tide series.
8. Boat Ramps - use LiDAR bathymetry to determine the elevation of the outer extent
of boat ramps.
Marine Shoreline Inventory Report
WRIA 9
35
March 2004
030239-01
References
.,
5 REFERENCES
Schwartz, M.L., et al. 1991. Net Shore-drift in Washington State, Volume 2: South Puget Sound
Region. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, W A, Publication 00-06-31.
U:Qited States Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Orthogonal Imagery, 1.0 foot resolution,
W'ashington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2000. Oblique Aerial Photography.
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. September 2000,
Wkshington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. The Washington State
ShoreZone Inventory. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Nearshore
Habitat Program: Olympia, W A
Mf1rine Shoreline Inventory Report
W~IA 9
36
March 2004
030239-01
.
e
.
City of Federal Way - Shoreline Inventory & Characterization
APPENDIX C - PRIORITIZATION OF MARINE SHORELINES
OF WRIA 9 FOR JUVENILE SALMONID HABITAT
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
June 2007
Appendix C
FINAL REPORT
e
PRIORITIZATION OF MARINE SHORELINES OF
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9
FOR JUVENILE SALMONID HABITAT PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION
Prepared for
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Technical Committee
e
With funding provided by
King Conservation District
Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board
Prepared by
Anchor Environmental, L.L.c.
1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98101
May 2006
.
FINAL REPORT
PRIORITIZATION OF MARINE SHORELINES OF
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 9
FOR JUVENILE SALMONID HABITAT PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION
Prepared for
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Technical Committee
With funding provided by
King Conservation District
Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board
e
Prepared by
Anchor Environmental, L.L.C.
1423 Third Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98101
May 2006
e
.
e
e
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE S~Y........................ ...,....................................,................ ...........,.., ..... ........ ....... ES-1
1 INIROD DCTION .............................................." ........... ........., ............ ...,..,.......... ....... ........, ............., 1
1.1 Project Goal. ................................................,....., ........ .............. ....................... ........... ................. 3
1.2 Project Area. ....................,................ ...... ........... .......................... .......,. ............ .......... ...,... ,......... 4
2 SALMONIDS AND TIIE MARINE NEARSHORE ........................................................................ 5
2.1 Summary of Salmonid Stocks Originating in the Project Area ......,....................................5
2.2 Juvenile Salmonid Ecological Needs ........................."..............................................,..,..........8
3 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODS .........................,.................",.......................................11
3.1 Habitat Features Considered... ...,..... ,..... ...............,................... ........... ..................., .............. 12
3.2 Habitat Function Model................................................................... ....... ...,. ..,......................., 13
3.3 Consideration of Landscape Processes ....................,............................................................16
3.4 Final Steps in Priority Area Determinations ........................................................................17
3.5 Spatial Scales of Priority Area Recommendations .............................................................,17
4 HABITAT FUNCTION MODEL RESULTS ................................................................................... 20
4.1 Current Function............. ,..... .......................................,..................................... .......".............24
4.2 Rehabilitation Potential. ............,..........,..,..,.............. ....,........... ...,... ....................... ...............,24
4.3 Restoration Potential."..................... ............ ................. ,....... ......... ..........., ,.........., ....,...... ......,24
5 PRIORITY AREAS AND SUBAREA RECO:MM:ENDATIONS................................................... 25
5.1 General Project Area Habitat Needs .................................,............................,...................,..25
5.1.1 Conservation............. ................ .....................................................,.,.........,......... ...........,. 25
5.1.2 Restoration.................... ..,............ ...............................................,.................... .....",."...... 26
5 .1.3 Rehabilitation...,........,..............,...... ........,......,..............,..............,.,........... ..... .................. 26
5.1.4 Substitution.................. ........, ........,......... ............... ........ .............................. .....,.......... ..... 27
5.2 Study Area Priority Recommendations ...............................,... ...........................,................. 27
5.3 Subareas...................................."............,..........,... ........... ...................... ........,.... ...................... 32
5.3.1 Magnolia. ..................................... ......,........................,... ........................ ....................,...... 33
5,3,1.1 Habitat Needs and Goals ......... ..................... ................,.............................................33
5,3,1.2 Priority Recommendations.. .......... ........ ........,............"".................. ...........,.............. 33
5.3.2 Elliott Bay .. ................. ............,...........,............,................ ,................. ................. ..............36
5.3,2,1 Habitat Needs and Goals ...,.............."...,.,..............,..........................,........................ 36
5.3.2.2 Priority Recommendations......., ...,.................,... ............ .....,.,............. .............,........, 36
5 .3.3 West Seattle to Burien.......... ........,......... ............ .................................,., .....,......... ...........39
5.3.3.1 Habitat Needs and Goals ........................,......."................,.........................................40
5.3.3.2 Priority Recommendations .....................................,................................, .................. 40
5,3.4 Three Tree Point to Des Moines ....................................................................,................ 43
5.3.4.1 Habitat Needs and Goals ..,......"...........,... ............., ............,....................................... 43
5.3.4.2 Priority Recommendations ....,................................................................ ,................,.. 43
5,3.5 Des Moines to Federal W ay ..............................,..........................,................,................, 46
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
t.l.
May 2006
030239-01
Table of Contents
5.3.5.1 Habitat Needs and Goals ................ .................,............................... ........................... 46
5.3.5.2 Priority Recommendations ......... ......,... ....................... ..... ........ ............,..,..."............. 47
5 .3.6 East Maury Island.. ............................................ ................. ...................... .................,..... 49
5.3.6,1 Habitat Needs and Goals ...................................,........................................................49
5,3.6.2 Priority Recommendations.........,......,............ .........,........ ,........ ................... .............. 49
5.3.7 East Vashon Island." ....................., .....,....................., ................... ..... ........ .......,........ ......52
5.3.7.1 Habitat Needs and Goals .................................,......................................,....,.............. 52
5.3.7.2 Priority Recommendations............. ................. .... ........... ........ .............. ....... ............... 52
5 .3.8 North Vashon Island............... ................ ........... ........... ......... ............. ...........,.... .............55
5.3.8.1 Habitat Needs and Goals .......,......,..,........................................,.................................55
5.3.8.2 Priority Recommendations ................ ...... ................... .......... ............... ......... .............. 56
5.3.9 West Vashon Island ....,............................................,.......................................................58
5.3.9.1 Habitat Needs and Goals .........,.,......,..............................,...,..,................................... 58
5.3.9.2 Priority Recommendations. .....,....... ..........................., ........ ................ .... ................... 58
5.3.1 0 West Quartermaster Harbor ................................................. ................. .......... ,..,. .......... 61
5.3.10.1 Habitat Needs and Goals .'..........................................................,.........,.................. 61
5.3,10.2 Priority Recommendations .... ...... ...........,....,..................... ..............,... ....,... .........., 61
5.3,11 Inner Quartermaster Harbor ............. .,.....,....,................................................................ 64
5,3,11.1 Habitat Needs and Goals ........................................ ......................... .......................64
5.3.11.2 Priority Recommendations ........ ...................... ......................................................, 64
5.3.12 East Quartermaster Harbor ............................ ................. ........ ................. ....................,. 67
5.3.12.1 Habitat Needs and Goals .......................................................,................................67
5.3.12.2 Priority Recommendations .......... ,......................... ...... ........................., ...... ........... 67
6 CONCLUSIONS...... ...... ,............... ........................,........... ............,...,...... ............ ............. ................ 70
7 REFERENCES .............".,................................................................,.... ....................,...".................". 71
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Overall Project Area Recommendations...............,................................................. ES-1
Table 1 SASSI Reports Status of Anadromous Salmonid Stocks Originating in the Project
Area.....,.,..... ........................................,...,.... ....... ..........,.............. ......................... ..........". 8
Table 2 Summary of Ecological Functions Affected by Habitat Features Used in
Nearshore Assessment.. ..... ,......,...,...",...... ...... .......,................ .................... ..,.....,........ 13
Table 3 Data Used in the Evaluation of the Ecological Function of Habitats,....,................ 15
List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Ecological Processes and Salmon Responses ............................. 11
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRLA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
v;
May 2006
030239-01
ii
.
e
.
e
It
e
Table of Contents
List of Maps
Map ES-1
Map 1
Figure 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
MapS
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
Map 9
Map 10
Map 11
Map 12
Map 13
Map 14
Map 15
Map 16
Map 17
Map 18
Study Area and Subarea Recommendations...... .......... ............... ..... ....... ...... .... ..........2
Vicinity Map.............,' ............... .......................... .................. ........,... ....,....... ............."..,2
Conceptual Model of Ecological Processes and Salmon Responses...................... 11
Subareas and Drift Cells. ............... ,.....,..,...,....,.. .........................,...,........... ................. 19
Existing Habitat Function............,. ,..............".... ....... ....,.............. ............. ............ ......21
Rehabilitation Potential...,..... .......... .....................,............... .....,......... ....... ...... ...... ......22
Restoration Potential ......................,.., ....., ,......... .........,..,.... ..... ......... ............. .............. 23
Study Area and Subarea Recommendations..........,.................................................. 28
Magnolia Subarea and Priority Recommendations .................................................35
Elliott Bay Subarea and Priority Recommendations......................,......................... 38
West Seattle to Burien Subarea and Priority Recommendations ........................... 42
Three Tree Point to Des Moines Subarea and Priority Recommendations .......... 45
Des Moines to Federal Way Subarea and Priority Recommendations .................48
East Maury Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations .................................. 51
East Vashon Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations ..............................., 54
North Vashon Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations .............................57
West Vashon Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations ............................... 60
West Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations ................ 63
Inner Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations ................ 66
East Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations ................., 69
List of Appendices
Appendix A Field Data Collection Report
Appendix B Final GIS Data Layers (data CD)
Appendix C Scoring System for Habitat Function Model
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRlA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
.~
May 2006
030239-01
ill
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
e
This report presents the results of a project that identified and prioritized habitat management
areas and actions to promote salmonid survival along the marine shorelines of the
GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed 0N ater Resource Inventory Area 9
[WRIA 9]). This information will help guide regional salmon recovery planning resulting from
the recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and the
proposed listing of steelhead and coho salmon. This project used habitat features to
characterize marine shoreline habitats of WRIA 9 and to select priority habitat action areas
through a science-based prioritization process. The general strategies of conservation,
restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution were used for prioritization, consistent with the
WRIA 9 Steering Committee and the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team's (puget Sound
TRT' s) recommendations for the management of current and potential salmonid habitat in
Puget Sound (WRIA 9 2005; Puget Sound TRT 2003).
The project area encompassed the marine shoreline of WRIA 9. This covered approximately 90
miles of shoreline, including the marine shorelines of the municipalities of Seattle (south of
West Point), Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way, as well as the shorelines of
Vashon and Maury Islands
e
For juvenile salmon that rear and migrate in the marine nearshore after their outmigration from
the region's rivers, the physical and biological features of the habitat can influence their growth
and survival. This link to overall marine survival, coupled with the urgency of salmon recovery
due to the ESA listings, assigns great importance to providing high functioning marine
nearshore habitats to support juvenile salmon. In this project, a Geographic Information System
(GIS)-based habitat function model was developed to characterize the level of function
provided for the ecological needs of juvenile salmon; function was characterized by assigning
scores based on the presence, absence, or condition of specific physical and biological habitat
features that contributed to habitat function. Priority areas were identified in two spatial
extents: first, at the extent of the entire project area; and second, at the extent of each of 12
subareas comprising the project area. Table ES-1 and Map ES-1 provide an overview of the
recommendations in specific areas identified by the model and the prioritization process. The
full report provides further habitat enhancement recommendations.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
ES-l
"~.
\L.,
Mny 2006
030239-01
Executive Summary
e
Table ES-1
Overall Project Area Recommendations
I Conserve the unarmored bluffs and stands of trees in the riparian zones along the northern and
i southern Magnolia bluffs.
I Rehabilitate areas between north and south Magnolia bluffs by removing groins and areas of
____________~!:?trudi~g fin that impede longshore sedim~nt transport. . _
Elliott Bay ! Substitute/Rehabilitate habitat throughout Elliott Bay from the Elliott Bay Marina in the north to the
I Duwamish Head in the west in order to create and improve habitat for juvenile salmon ids. Similar
: types of activities could be conducted along the western shoreline from West Waterway to the
i Duwamish Head in order to provide higher functioning habitat. Along the downtown Seattle Waterfront
i from Myrtle Edwards Park to the East Waterway, substitution activities to create shallow water and
i protected habitat offshore from the seawall would provide improved rearing habitat for juvenile
! salmonids.
I Rehabilitate Schmitz Creek by daylighting the mouth of the creek to allow it to flow across the intertidal
i zone.'
DUwanlis.,'H.acr--
Seahurst Park
i Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport from Alki Point to the south end of Me Kwa Mooks Park by
. removing groins and areas of fill that protrude into the intertidal zone.
I Rehabili~ate marine riparian vegetation from Duwamish Head to the Me Kwa Mooks Park seawall.
I Restore thenorthem and central sections of Seahurst Park by removing armor and allowing landslide
: materials to feed the intertidal zone.
e Three Tree Point
i Conserve unarmored feeder bluff sections north and south of Seahurst Park-including intact, mature
I riparian vegetation and large woody debris (LWD) across the intertidal zone.
I Restore the mouths of MillerlWalker Creeks and McSorley Creek at Saltwater State Park to create
i high functioning pocket estuaries. The mouth of McSorley Creek could be restored by removing armor
i and pulling back the shoreline to provide an open, more naturally meandering channel across the
I intertidal zone. Restoration of the park shoreline north of the creek to reconnect the sediment supply
I and riparian vegetation to the intertidal zone is also a priority.
Federal Way
, Conserve/Restore sediment supply along the extended reach south of Three Tree Point that currently
i has a mix of armored and unarmored feeder bluffs with mature riparian vegetation. Remove patchy
! armoring in a section of well-vegetated and lightly developed shoreline south of Three Tree Point.
I Conserve two extended sections of unarmored feeder bluffs west of Dumas Bay that have mature
i riparian vegetation.
!
i Restore the tributary mouth at Dash Point State Park.
i
I Conserve an extended reach east of Dumas Bay that has unarmored feeder bluffs that have mature
____________,_____3 v~getation. . _ .
Point Heyer - Vashon I Conserve the lagoon at Point Heyer (also known as KYI because of the radio tower on site) and the
!!!.~!!~_______,____,_____ I unarmQ~d fee~!:..Q!!.lffs providi!:!9. sedim~t t~!b~J~,()ll}!.
Northern and Eastern : Conserve intact feeder bluffs and mature riparian vegetation in two reaches along
Shoreline of Maury Island i
__"___,._.____._"_______________-L~e nor~~_~~d ~~~~_~ho!.e.~e._~_?!M~~ty_I~l~<!,~____ .
Mouths of Shlnglemlll and ; Conserve the unarmored mouths of Shinglemill Creek and Judd Creek, the two largest salmon
Judd Creeks - Vashon I producing tributaries on the islands.
Island !
-southWestern Vuh~-. i Conserve unarmored feederbTuff5~ntact riparian vegetation,-and LWD across the intertidal zori-e.---
Island
W8it"Shoreifr1'e of Entrance Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs, intact riparian-vegetStIon~d Lwb across the intertidal zone.
to Quartermaster Harbor
-Eut'Quartermast8rHarbor : Conserve unarmored feederbluffS'and wide-Corridors of intacti-Iparian vegetation in the drift cell north
: of Dockton.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
v;
Mny 2006
030239-01
ES-l
~ 6t':!~JjQ,~
e
LEGEND
Study Area Recommendations
r"'" Conserve
,.. Conserve/Restore
Rehabilitate
~ Substitute
r-' Restore
Subarea Recommendations
~ Conserve
Conserve/Rehabilitate
r- Conserve/Restore
Rehabilitate
,.. Substitute
~ Rehabilitate/ Restore
,,-- Restore
.....
e
Map E5-1
Study Area and Subarea Recommendations
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
e
Introduction
e 1 INTRODUCTION
Recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of salmonid1 stocks in Puget Sound have initiated
significant salmonid recovery planning efforts throughout the area, including those in the
Green/Duwamish .and Central Puget Sound Watershed (Water Resource Inventory Area 9
[WRIA 9]). A key aspect of these planning efforts is to identify and increase the number and
quality of habitats that promote salmonid survival. While salmonid recovery planning aims to
support all phases of salmonid life history, supporting the juvenile phase is crucial because they
are more vulnerable to habitat degradation due to limited mobility. The marine nearshore
(shallow water) areas are the first habitats encountered by juvenile salmonids as they
outmigrate from the region's rivers. They are particularly vulnerable during this early marine
residence as their bodies complete adaptations to saltwater and they encounter new habitat
types and food resources. Some species, especially Chinook salmon and chum salmon (0. keta),
are highly dependent upon shoreline habitats for growth and survival. There is evidence that
juvenile salmon growth during this period determines their overall marine survival trends
(Holtby et al. 1990; Hargreaves 1997; Beamish and Mahnken 1998; Murphy et al. 1998; Tovey
1999).
e
WRIA 9 contains approximately 90 miles of marine shoreline in central Puget Sound that
supports juvenile salmonid rearing and migration (Map 1). Therefore, maintaining and
improving the quality of nearshore habitats has become an important component of salmonid
recovery efforts for this area, beginning with the identification of priority nearshore areas that
offer high potential to benefit juvenile salmonid survival. This report presents the methods and
results of a prioritization that was completed for the project area.
e
1 The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit
(ESU) is currently listed as a Candidate Species/Species of Concern under the ESA. The Puget Sound
Chinook salmon (0. tschawytscha) ESU is currently listed as threatened under the ESA. The Puget Sound
steelhead (0. mykiss) ESU is currently proposed to be listed as threatened under the ESA.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
+..l
Mny2006
030239-01
1
v; 6b!5~lj9Lf$
o Q5 1 2 3 4
1"""'- .
Scale in Miles
LEGEND
""-' Study Area
"-' County Limit
,.......-...,/ City Limit
Cities in WRIA 9
e
Seattle
Burien
Normandy Park
Des Moines
Il(J Federal Way
~Major Salmon
'T' Source
e
e
Map 1
Vicinity Map
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
Introduction
e
e
1.1 Project Goal
The project goal was to use a science-based approach to identify priority areas for
conservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution actions that support juvenile
salmon growth and survival in the marine nearshore of WRIA 9. In one of the development
steps to support this objective, guidance documents from regional salmonid recovery teams
in the Puget Sound area were consulted. The WRIA 9 Steering Committee has prepared a
Salmon Habitat Plan (Plan) that outlines the landscape-level and site-specific actions for the
WRIA (WRIA 9 2005). The Plan is based on the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team's
(Puget Sound TRT's) proposed general habitat management strategies, including protection,
restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution, that are to be used by watershed groups and
others working for regional salmonid recovery (Puget Sound TRT 2003). Following is the
definition of each type of habitat management strategy:
. Conservation: to be applied where habitat is presently functioning at a high level
and supports natural habitat-forming or -sustaining processes. For example,
conserve the natural sediment delivery processes from a feeder bluff to the intertidal
zone by keeping that section of shoreline unarmored.
. Restoration: to be applied where habitat is impaired but natural processes can be
recovered. For example, restore the natural sediment delivery processes from a
feeder bluff to the intertidal zone by removing shoreline armoring that currently
prevents bluff material from eroding and entering the intertidal zone.
Rehabilitation: to be applied where habitat is impaired and restoration of full
function and supporting processes appears infeasible; however, limited
improvements to functions and supporting processes can be achieved through
partial re-establishment of ecosystem processes or functions. For example,
rehabilitate the delivery of sediment from a feeder bluff to the intertidal zone in
areas where armoring cannot/will not be removed, by moving any sediment that
erodes from the bluff over the armoring and into the intertidal zone.
Substitution: to be applied where habitat function is lost through anthropogenic
degradation and restoration and/or rehabilitation are not possible, but creation of
habitat features to replace lost function can be accomplished. For example,
substitute the delivery of sediment from a feeder bluff to the intertidal zone in areas
where armoring cannot/will not be removed, by importing sediment and placing it
in the intertidal zone to "nourish" the beach.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
<;t
Mny 2006
030239-01
3
Introduction
1.2 Project Area
The project area encompassed the marine shoreline of WRIA 9 (see Map 1). This covered
approximately 90 miles of shoreline, including the marine shorelines of the municipalities of
Seattle (south of West Point), Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way. The
marine shorelines of Vashon and Maury Islands are officially part of WRIA 15, but for
planning purposes are treated as part of WRIA 9, and thus were included in the project area.
The marine nearshore includes aquatic and upland features. The aquatic portion extends up
rivers and streams to the upstream limit of tidal influence and out to approximately the 65-
foot-deep bathymetric contour, which is considered the outer margin that may potentially
receive sufficient sunlight to support aquatic vegetation (Shared Strategy 2005). The upland
portion extends to those areas that directly influence conditions in the aquatic region.
The project area generally exhibits a high degree of urban development, and the vast
majority of shoreline reaches have been modified or altered from the original condition (see
Anchor 2004 and the Geographic Information System [GIS] data in Appendix B).
Modifications common within urbanized areas include, among others, removal of
vegetation and placement of rip rap, bulkheads, overwater structure, fill, piling, and
dwellings in and adjacent to the intertidal and riparian zones. Outside urbanized areas and
within WRIA 9, shoreline development is still common, but it is less widespread on the
more remote parts of the project area, chiefly Vashon and Maury Islands. A large number of
shoreline reaches on the Vashon/Maury Island complex remain either lightly modified or
unmodified from original conditions. Marine riparian vegetation there is more intact, and
anthropogenic shoreline modifications are less intrusive overall.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRlA 9
WRlA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
4
e
e
e
Salmonids and the Marine Nearshore
e 2 SALMON IDS AND THE MARINE NEARSHORE
Many salmonids use the marine nearshore habitats of WRIA 9, including those from
watercourses originating both in and outside the project area. Inside the project area, the
GreenlDuwamish River system2, with tributaries including Soos Creek, Crisp (Keta) Creek, and
Newaukum Creek, supports numerous stocks representing six anadromous salmon species.
Outside the project area, the Cedar River watershed and the Puyallup River are the other major
salmon-bearing watercourses draining to Puget Sound3 within approximately 5 miles south and
5 miles north of the project area, respectively. Anadromous salmonids are not limited to these
watercourses, however, as numerous smaller tributaries to Puget Sound have also been
documented to contain anadromous salmonid spawning occurrences.
e
2.1 Summary of Salmonid Stocks Originating in the Project Area
According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Salmon and
Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) reports (WDF et al. 1993; WDFW 1998, 2000, and 2002),
streams originating in the project area produce coho salmon, chum salmon, and Chinook
salmon as well as steelhead, sea-run coastal cutthroat trout (0. clarki clarki), and bull
troutlDolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). Pink salmon (0. gorbusha) have also been
documented in the Green/Duwamish River system in recent years (Kerwin and Nelson 2000;
Nelson et al. 2004), although the SASSI reports do not indicate that pink salmon are present
in the river system.
Chinook salmon are the most abundant anadromous salmonid in the GreenlDuwamish
River system, largely due to supplementation by a large number of hatchery fish (Kerwin
and Nelson 2000). Chinook stocks are comprised mostly of summer/fall run fish produced
in the mainstem Green River below the Tacoma Diversion Dam (River Mile [RM] 61), Soos
Creek (RM 33.6), and Newaukum Creek (RM 40.7) (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). Chinook
runs within the project area are comprised of two stocks: the GreenlDuwamish fall stock
and the Newaukum Creek summer/fall stock. These populations belong to the Puget Sound
ESU that is listed as threatened under the ESA. The GreenjDuwamish stock is the more
productive of the two, ranging in abundance from 2,027 to 10,059 adult fish in the time
e
2 The lower 10 miles of the Green/Duwamish River system is known as the Duwamish River. The rest of
the river, upstream of these 10 miles, is known as the Green River.
3 The Cedar River drains to Puget Sound via Lake Washington and the Ballard Locks
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
Mny 2006
030239-01
5
Salmonids and the Marine Nearshore
period 1986 to 19974 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The Chinook population is heavily
supplemented by hatchery releases from two WDFW facilities and one Muckleshoot Indian
Tribe facility. In 2003, approximately 3.7 million Chinook were released into the Green
River basin, including approximately 3 million fingerlings into Soos Creek, 0.4 million fry
above Howard Hanson Dam (RM 64), and 0.32 million yearlings from Icy Creek (Anchor
and NRC 2005). Other than the Green/Duwamish River system, the SASSI reports
document Chinook salmon presence in only Judd Creek on Vashon Island. Chinook are not
considered to utilize the numerous smaller tributaries in the project area, except the
lowermost reaches that may form pocket estuaries. Such non-natal pocket estuaries (i.e.,
those associated with streams other than those in which the fish originated) are considered
to be highly important juvenile salmon rearing habitats, and recent studies have
documented juvenile salmonid utilization of this type of habitat (Hirschi et al. 2003; Beamer
et al. 2003).
Coho salmon, comprised of Green/Duwamish and Newaukum Creek stocks, are the second
most abundant anadromous salmonid in the GreenfDuwamish River system, ranging in
abundance from 700 to 12,500 adult fish in the period 1967 to 1998 (Kerwin and Nelson
2000). These populations belong to the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho ESU and are a
species of concern under the ESA. Large numbers of hatchery-origin coho are also released
to the Green River or produced in net pens in Elliott Bay. In 2003, approximately 1.5 million
coho were released in the river and bay (Anchor and NRC 2005). Coho salmon utilize small
tributaries more than any of the other anadromous salmonids, and the SASSI reports have
documented coho in numerous tributaries throughout the project area. As described above,
non-natal pocket estuaries formed from the multiple independent tributaries in the project
area are considered to be highly important juvenile salmon rearing habitats, and recent
studies have documented juvenile salmonid utilization of this type of habitat (Hirschi et al.
2003; Beamer et al. 2003).
Winter steelhead in the project area maintain relatively low numbers in the
Green/Duwamish River system-spawning numbers ranged between approximately 1,000
to 2,500 fish from 1977 to 1998 (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). The winter steelhead are
comprised of a native, wild spawning population and an early timing hatchery stock.
4 Naturally spawning fish, including hatchery strays.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRlA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
6
e
e
e
SaImonids and the Marine Nearshore
.
Summer steelhead in the basin are managed for recreational fishing and are almost entirely
hatchery supported (Kerwin and Nelson 2000). All of these steelhead belong to the Puget
Sound steelhead ESU that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently proposed
for listing as threatened under the ESA. Formal listing of this species is pending a public
review process (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 60, P 15666 -15680).
Two stocks of fall chum spawn in the GreenjDuwamish River system (WDFW 2002). The
status of Duwamish/Green fall chum stock is unknown, but past spawner numbers have
been in the hundreds. The Crisp (Keta) Creek fall chum stock was considered healthy in
1992 (WDF et al. 1993), but its status was unknown in 2002 (WDFW 2002). The Crisp Creek
escapement numbers ranged from as low as 71 to 1554 between 1982 and 1991 (Kerwin and
Nelson 2000). Large numbers of hatchery chum subyearlings are released annually to Crisp
Creek. In 2003, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe released 1.2 million subyearling hatchery
chum to Crisp Creek (Anchor and NRC 2005).
e
Anadromous coastal cutthroat trout inhabit the lower and middle mainstem of the
GreenjDuwamish River system and its major tributaries, including Springbrook, Hill, Soos,
and Newaukum Creeks (WDFW 2000). The stock status is unknown, but population
numbers are believed to be low. No hatchery supplementation of coastal cutthroat trout
occurs in the project area.
Very few reports of bull trout have been documented in the Green River (WRIA 9 and KC
2004). In recent years, there have been reports of a handful of adult bull trout being
captured by sport fisherman near RM 33.8 and several sightings of bull trout near the mouth
of Newaukum Creek (WRIA 9 and KC 2004; Goetz and Jeanes 2004). No studies have been
conducted of bull trout habitat use or potential spawning. Small numbers of bull trout have
been documented in the Duwamish River estuary, but it is unclear what their river of origin
was.
Pink salmon are not listed in any of the SASSI reports, as they have been previously
characterized as extinct from the watershed. However, in recent years, pink salmon have
been observed in the mainstem Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000; Nelson et al. 2004).
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
v;
May 2006
030239-01
7
Salmonids and the Marine Nearshore
The SASSI reports status of anadromous salmonid stocks originating in the project area,
including stocks that are ESA-listed, is summarized in Table 1.
.
Table 1
SASSI Reports Status of Anadromous Salmonld Stocks Originating in the Project Area 1
i
I
Green/Duwamish !
Newaukum Creek I
-----1
Deep South Sound :
Tributaries
__ Co~.Q....____ Green RiverlSoos Creek I Mixed
Co~.2 Newaukum Creek ~ Mixed
Coho East Ki~ap4 I Mixed
,___~~.II chu~_L___Q!lwamisl:!lg!een I Mixed
Fall Chum I Crisp j!Seta) Creek I Non-native
Coastal Cutthroat I Green/Duwamish I Native
---S~m~~r St~lheaCll-G;ee~DUwam_i~h ! Non-native
_EarlL Winter St~elhead I ___ Green/Dy!"am_l~~"___f-- Non-n~!ive
_~ntE!!:_~~lh~~___ Green/Duwamish I Native
Pink5 I Green/Duwamish I Native
_~_~:!!!JroutlQolly Varden I
Fall Chinook I
Summer/Fall Chinook
Coho
Wild
Composite
Wild
Composite
Unknown
Healthy
Healthy
Healthy
COIT).e9~ite Healtt!Y_
Composite ,. Healthy
CO!!!p.....Qsite H~alth
COIT1Posite_J~_~_nk~Q.~._
Cultured t-- Unknown
Wild I Unkl}own_
Composite I Deeressed
C~ltured__I Healt~__
Wild t- Healthy
Wild I Unknown
Notes:
1 WDF et al. 1993; WDFW 1998, 2000, and 2002
2 Native = An indigenous stock of fish that have not been substantially impacted by genetic interactions with non-
native stocks, or by other factors, and is still present in all or part of its original range.
Mixed = A stock whose individuals originated from co-mingled native and non-native parents, and/or by mating
between native and non-native fish, or a previously native stock that has undergone substantial genetic
alteration.
Non-native = A stock that has become established outside of its original range.
3 Composite = A stock sustained by both wild and artificial production.
Cultured = A stock that depends on spawning, incubation, hatching, or rearing in a hatchery or other artificial
production facility.
4 Coho found in Shinglemill Creek and other creeks on Vashon and Maury Islands are part of the East Kitsap stock.
S Pink salmon are not listed in the SASSI reports. They were previously characterized as extinct from the watershed,
but in recent years have been observed in the mainstem Green River (Kerwin and Nelson 2000; Nelson et al. 2004).
e
2.2 Juvenile Salmonld Ecological Needs
The transition that juvenile salmonids make from freshwater areas into the estuarine
nearshore is a criticallifestage for all anadromous salmonids (Simenstad 1983; Aitkin 1998;
Williams et al. 2001). During this time, juvenile salmonids complete their physiological
adaptation to saltwater and encounter new habitat types, different potential prey resources,
and different potential predators. The extent to which the different species and runs utilize
the marine nearshore is variable. Fall Chinook and chum tend to utilize nearshore habitats
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
8
t.l
May 2006
030239-01
Salmonids and the Marine Nearshore
e
for more extended rearing periods (on the order of weeks to months) than other salmonid
species (Simenstad et al. 1982; Healey 1982).
During their residence in the marine nearshore, the survival of juvenile salmonids reflects
the cumulative ability of the habitat to support four main ecological functions (Simenstad
1983; Williams and Thom 2001; Shared Strategy 2005):
. Foraging and growth
. Avoidance of predators
. Physiological transition
. Migration to the ocean
tit
Each of these ecological f:unctions are highly interrelated, and are summarized in Shared
Strategy 2005, which outlines regional nearshore and marine aspects of salmon recovery in
Puget Sound. For example, the growth of juvenile salmonids depends upon the energy
demands and foregone foraging opportunities that result from predator avoidance actions.
The importance of juvenile salmonid access to high quality marine nearshore habitat that
supports each of these ecological functions is becoming increasingly apparent in
investigations of salmon survival in the marine environment. There is mounting evidence
that the early marine residence is a critical period and that juvenile salmon growth during
this period determines their overall marine survival trends (Holt by et al. 1990; Hargreaves
1997; Beamish and Mahnken 1998; Murphy et al. 1998; Tovey 1999; Duffy 2003).
Juvenile salmon, particularly fall Chinook and chum, depend upon shallow water habitats
to avoid predators and grow rapidly (Shared Strategy 2005; Kerwin and Nelson 2000). In
general, juvenile Chinook and chum occupy progressively deeper habitats as they increase
in size (Shared Strategy 2005). Thus, the smallest juvenile salmon will be primarily
associated with the shallowest habitat. For smaller fish, very shallow water offers a refuge
from predation, as larger piscivores cannot access those areas. During a rising tide, the
shallow water along the waterline can provide a source of upper intertidal and terrestrial
prey items that are inundated by the rising water and supplied to the water column and
surface as prey. In addition, these habitats provide protection from high energy wave
action. Recent work has documented the widespread utilization of non-natal estuaries
(pocket estuaries) by juvenile salmonids (Hirschi et al. 2003; Beamer et al. 2003).
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
9
Salmonids and the Marine Nearshore
Recent research has documented that juvenile salmon in the nearshore depend heavily on
prey from a detritus-based food web in these shallow-water habitats. Brennan et al. (2004)
found that a significant portion of juvenile salmon diets were highly influenced by prey
from terrestrial sources (especially in the summer and early fall), as well marine benthos
and marine zooplankton. Juvenile salmon feed opportunistically on these various prey,
depending on habitat, season, and fish size (Shared Strategy 2005).
.
In addition, juvenile salmon, especially Chinook and chum, undergo most of their
transformation from a saltwater- to freshwater-adapted animal while they are migrating
through the nearshore (Shared Strategy 2005). The nearshore provides tributary and river
mouths with deltas that contain a salinity gradient, which eases this transition.
These fish also depend on shallow nearshore waters as a migratory pathway on their
journey to the ocean. Because multiple species and multiple life histories of salmonids use
this pathway, diversity in these habitats and connections between high quality habitats are
important in order to provide the various conditions that migrating fish can use (Simenstad
and Cordell 2000).
e
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRlA 9 Technical Committee
~
Mny 2006
030239-01
10
Project Approach and Methods
. 3 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODS
The degree to which marine nearshore habitats provide the main ecological functions needed by
juvenile salmonids depends upon ecosystem processes and natural controls on these processes,
as well as human stressors (Shared Strategy 2005). This is illustrated in the simple conceptual
model shown in Figure 1. Human stressors include shoreline alterations, land use, and fishery
and hatchery management. Given the relationship between human stressors, habitat, and
(ultimately) salmon viability, minimizing the impacts of shoreline alterations is a critical aspect
of salmon recovery efforts.
Ecosystem Processes
e
~'''.
,,>,-,::::<;;
) ",..""., "7--'0"""
~tt
,.,,,,:,,
I Natural Process Controls
Human-Habitat Interactions:
K."",
Stressors and Management
combine to create
and maintain
,~.,::.,.~...........,.......,....,.......
~
Habitat
-biotic
-physical
-chemical
Salmon Response
-individuals
-populations
-Evolutionarily Significant Units
e
Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Ecological Processes and Salmon Responses
(modified from Shared Strategy 2005)
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
11
\l:.
May 2006
030239-01
Project Approach and Methods
In this project, we focused on the physical and biological habitat conditions in the nearshore .
and the role of shoreline alterations in determining those conditions. Relying upon the scientific
literature on salmonid ecology in the marine nearshore, including habitat utilization and
feeding habits, we developed an evaluation approach for characterizing habitat function of
discrete shoreline reaches and interpreting landscape and drift cell scale processes.
To conduct a shoreline reach evaluation, a feature-based habitat function model was developed.
This model relied on GIS mapping tools to organize habitat information for all shoreline
segments and apply the habitat model scoring system. The following sections describe how this
model was developed and was combined with landscape considerations and some measure of
project feasibility to determine priority areas and recommendations.
3.1 Habitat Features Considered
The first step in evaluating habitat function and determining priority areas was to identify
relevant habitat features for characterizing habitat function for salmon. The shoreline
features used in this evaluation were selected for their contribution to providing or affecting
one or more of the essential ecological functions for juvenile salmonids. The following
habitat features were included in the habitat function model:
. Shore type, including consideration of shoreline armoring (e.g., presence/absence
and toe elevation relative to Ordinary High Water [OHW])
. Obstructions to longshore sediment transport
. Aquatic vegetation
. Forage fish spawning
. Beach width
e
.
Shoreline armor in intertidal zone
Overwater structures
Riparian vegetation, including large woody debris (L WD)
Marshes
Stream mouths
.
.
.
Table 2 illustrates the main ecological functions for juvenile salmonids that are provided for,
influenced by, or indicated by each of these features.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l.
May 2006
030239-01
12
Project Approach and Methods
.
Table 2
Summary of Ecological Functions Affected by Habitat Features Used In Nearshore Assessment
Shore type ./ ./
----..----
_~bstructions to_!ongshore sediment tran~port
Aq,u~!~ vegetation ./ ./
J=.?..!:.~~e fis~ spawning ./
Beach width ./ ./
Shoreline armor in intertidal zone ./
Overwater structures ./
Rip~rian vegetation, including LWD ./
Marshes ./
Stream mouths ./
3.2 Habitat Function Model
./
./
./
./
./
./
e
The second step toward priority area determinations was to compile and organize data on
the habitat features described above. To do this, data were organiZed using GIS to include
data specifically collected for this project (Appendix B, Anchor 2004), as well as existing
data from Johannessen et al. (2005), King County, Washington Department of Ecology, and
Washington Department of Natural Resources. Data sources were selected for their ability
to provide coverage of the entire study area and to describe the structure and process of the
nearshore habitat in terms of the ecological function that habitat provides to juvenile
salmon. These data were analyzed using a habitat function model, in terms of the following
three components of the nearshore:
1. Sediment supply - the availability of sediment from naturally occurring processes
such as coastal erosion and stream transport, and the integrity of the process in
transporting that sediment along the shore to nourish and create broad, shallow
water beaches and to support aquatic vegetation
2. Migration corridor - the quality and continuity of the shallow subtidal and intertidal
corridor used by juvenile salmon to migrate along the shore, including the ability of
the corridor to provide refuge from high energy conditions and predators
3. Riparian corridor - the quality of the riparian corridor as it influences the availability
of terrestrial or freshwater prey resources and organic matter from the vegetative
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l;
May 2006
030239-01
13
Project Approach and Methods
canopy, and as it provides shade (cover from predators and protection for spawning .
forage fish)
Separate model scoring systems were developed to characterize current habitat function,
potential habitat function through implementation of rehabilitation activities, and potential
habitat function through implementation of restoration activities. Substitution
opportunities were identified through consideration of current habitat function and
potential restored habitat function, as well as the apparent feasibility of restoration given an
area's infrastructure constraints. In keeping with the Puget Sound TRT definitions (Puget
Sound TRT 2003), restoration was considered to include the removal of barriers (e.g.,
bulkheads) to sediment delivery to the intertidal zone. Rehabilitation was considered to
include such actions as removing barriers to sediment transport (e.g., groins and boat
ramps), removing overwater structures (docks), and making some improvements to the
condition of riparian vegetation and stream mouths. Substitution included such actions as
creating shallow water habitat by adding fill material or excavating tidal embayments, as
well as placing sediment in the intertidal zone to nourish the beach.
The model scoring systems were developed by the project team with collaboration of
scientists from multiple entities in WRIA 9. The scoring systems quantify the relative
contribution (positive or negative) of each data input to the overall ecological function of the
shoreline. Scores were assigned relative to one another based on current biological research
and were adjusted based on the shoretype assigned in an evaluation of sediment supply for
the project area Gohannessen et al. 2005). Appendix C describes each model scoring system
and the scientific justification for each habitat parameter used in the model. Table 3 lists
habitat feature descriptors used to characterize each nearshore component and the data
sources for these features.
e
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
14
'~
May 2006
030239-01
Project Approach and Methods
e
Table 3
Data Used in the Evaluation of the Ecological Function. of Habitats
Sediment
Supply
Shore type (including
consideration of shoreline Sediment process shore
i armoring [e.g., bulkheads, i type
l-.!oc~_~~...!..,~.5i seawall~JL+-___
Obstructions to longshore I Presence of groins, boat
sediment trans ort ! ram s, and marine rails
Presence of eelgrass,
macroalgae, or kelp
Aquatic vegetation
Migration
Corridor
I
i
i
I Forage fish spawning
i ! spawning
1--------------1-----'-'
1-~_______~~~~.h..~i9!1l_______1--1~l?rtidal beach slope
! Shoreline a;;;~~ in intertidal I Shoreline armor toe depth
Documented forage fish
e
Presence of piers, docks, or
houses over the water
Condition of riparian I
, R" tat' I vegetation, including I
i Ipanan vege Ion I vegetation type, location, !
L--...--,.-.,-----.---___-----f______.___~!2(L~~_~D~!!Y______.J
: . Ma h I Presence of supratidal salt I
I rs es I marsh !
r-----------'-----..--l---'--------------------.--
i I Location and condition (e.g., I
! I piped, armored, unarmored) I
, , ,
i Stream mouths I of stream mouths and use of I
I stream for spawning by !
I anadromous salmon ids
Overwater structures
Riparian
Corridor
Johannessen et al. (2005)
with additional armor
information from Anchor
l~Q.~)
Anchor (Appendix A)
ShoreZone (WDNR 2001)
Priority Habitats and
Species Data (provided by
King County, 2003, from
WPF'{\L?Q.~____
ShoreZone (WONR 20011_
Anchor (Appendix A)
Anchor (2004)
Anchor (2004)
Anchor (Appendix A)
Nelson et al. (2004),
Johannessen et al. (2005),
Washington Trout (2001),
Anchor (Appendix A)
To determine current, rehabilitated, and restored habitat function, data were input to the
model and snapped to the topology of the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) line of the
shoreline modified from the Washington State ShoreZone Inventory (WDNR 2001).
Discrete shoreline segments were created by inserting a line break at the point that any
feature or attribute of the data changed. Each shoreline segment was given a discrete score
for current, rehabilitated, and restored habitat function. The resulting output was a single
polyline shapefile with segments of varying lengths, each of which represented a
homogeneous condition in relation to all the data describing that segment's habitat function
and contained information on current, rehabilitated, and restored habitat function. The
scores for the each of the model scoring systems are described in detail in Appendix C.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
15
May 2006
030239-01
t.l;
Project Approach and Methods
In interpreting the current function model, areas of greatest conservation value were those
with the highest current function scores. Areas of greatest potential habitat function
improvement through rehabilitation were those areas with the highest rehabilitation
potential score. Similarly, areas with the greatest potential habitat function improvement
through restoration were those areas with the highest restoration potential score.
Substitution opportunities were identified in areas with low current function, where
restoration could markedly improvement habitat function, but where restoration appeared
to be infeasible due to the magnitude of modifications that have occurred to limit natural
processes. In this way, substitution opportunities were identified for Elliott Bay (specifically
the Elliott Bay Marina along the northern shoreline of Elliott Bay to the Duwamish Head
along the western Elliott Bay shoreline), where restoration of natural feeder bluff or fluvial
sediment supply processes appear infeasible.
In a similar fashion as that used to determine the current function, scoring systems were
developed to characterize the potential habitat function gained through restoration and
rehabilitation. Substitution opportunities were identified based on the rehabilitation model
results.
3.3 Consideration of Landscape Processes
The third step in determining priority habitat recommendations was to consider the scores
from the model output in combination with several landscape-scale factors, including
proximity to the mouth of major salmon sources (rivers and south Puget Sound), drift cell
length, position within a drift cell, and connectivity to neighboring habitats. The proximity
of habitat actions to major salmon-bearing rivers is important because the mouths and natal
estuaries of the three closest major river systems that support salmon populations (see Map
1) are all heavily modified and function-impaired. Including this consideration was
important because it informed the likelihood of shoreline use by juvenile salmonids and the
expectations of fish size at the time of first encountering a stretch of shoreline.
Length of a drift cell and position within a drift cell were important considerations in
selecting priority areas because this information is indicative of the length of shoreline that
may be influenced by sediment supply and transport conditions at specific locations within
the drift cell.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l,
May 2006
030239-01
16
e
e
e
Project Approach and Methods
e
Connectivity to neighboring habitats was considered in order to take into account the
amount of quality habitat in the vicinity of a shoreline segment. This included considering
habitat diversity, especially in areas without plentiful habitat, because fish needs for refuge,
prey, and migration corridors can differ with such variables as fish growth stage, energy
regime in the nearshore (storms), and predator abundance.
e
3.4 Final Steps in Priority Area Determinations
Lastly, the development of priority areas included a consideration of the measure of
feasibility and timing. Feasibility was used to identify large areas where substitution
appeared more likely than restoration. Otherwise, feasibility was not a major factor in the
identification of priority areas, but was used to refine and distill recommendations from a
list of possible actions. Often, where restoration would entail the removal of large numbers
of residences or infrastructure, and rehabilitation could be achieved without such costly
measures, rehabilitation was recommended instead. However, deference was not always
given to existing structure and infrastructure, as these factors may change given a
foreseeable shift in shoreline needs and conditions that will occur over the long-term (e.g.,
feeder bluff subsidence, shoreline erosion, and sea-level rise). In addition, feasibility was
considered in a lesser regard for conservation actions than for restoration or rehabilitation
actions; conservation areas were created as intentionally large areas that may contain
smaller scale areas with lower habitat function within them.
The timing of potential implementation of recommended habitat actions was considered in
order to provide room for immediate application as well as future work. In addition,
recommended projects may be interrelated in time. For example, the removal of nearshore
sediment supply obstructions near the start of a drift cell will contribute to beach-building
material near the end of the drift cell as longshore sediment supply sources are brought
back to function. Moreover, following removal of all sediment obstructions in a drift cell, it
would be expected that areas near the start of the drift cell would begin to show signs of
accumulating sediment first, and then effects would move down the drift cell.
e
3.5 Spatial Scales of Priority Area Recommendations
Priority area recommendations were made on two scales: the general project area scale, and
within each of 12 subareas within the general project area (Map 2). The overall project area
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
17
Project Approach and Methods
priorities are those considered to be the most significant projects in terms of order of
implementation and magnitude of long-term benefit, but subarea priority recommendations
are also significant actions to support salmon recovery. In subareas, key and unique habitat
types that occur at a smaller scale, such as small estuaries and tidal marshes, were more
often identified as recommendations to provide ecological function. It is important to note
that numerous additional potential opportunities exist in the subareas, but have not been
included because of the current perceived infeasibility of implementation or the limited
effect of the action relative to other potential projects of a larger size. For example, the
recent assessment of sediment supply conditions in the project area Gohannessen et al. 2005)
included the identification of numerous smaller projects entailing actions such as removal of
piling and small failing bulkheads that would contribute to improve the nearshore, but are
generally of smaller individual size/impact than opportunities identified in this report.
Cumulatively, the projects identified by Johannessen et al. (2005) would certainly improve
habitat a great deal.
Special consideration was given to Elliott Bay due to its context in the urban downtown of
Seattle. At both scales, within Elliott Bay, sediment transport processes were not identified
by Johannessen et al. (2005), nor included in this analysis. Recommendations for this area
were based largely on opportunistic actions that arise as facilities and infrastructure are
modified, maintained, or improved.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
<:.l
Mny 2006
030239-01
18
e
e
e
e
e
e
\l6~S;Jjl9l~
a 0.5 1
1"""""-
Scale in Miles
.
LEGEND
Reach
"-' Magnolia
"'-' Elliott Bay
~ West Seattle to Burien
.~ Burien to Des Moines
Des Moines to Federal Way
~ East Maury
East Vashon
~ North Vashon
""'-' West Vashon
~ West Quartermaster
~ Inner Quartermaster
~ East Quartermaster
~ Net Shore Drift
Adapted from
Johannessen (2005)
Map 2
Subareas and Drift Cells
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
Habitat Function Model Results
4 HABITAT FUNCTION MODEL RESULTS
The habitat function model was run using the methods described in Chapter 3, and model
scores were produced that characterize current function, restoration potential, and
rehabilitation potential. To evaluate these scores in the context of the project area, shoreline
segments were assigned a percentile rank. A percentile rank is the proportion of scores in a
distribution that a specific score is greater than or equal to. For instance, if a shoreline reach
received a score of 95 out of a possible 100 and this score was greater than or equal to the scores
of 88 percent of the reaches in the project area, then its percentile rank would be 88. Maps 3, 4,
and 5 show miles of shoreline by percentile rank grouped in the following manner: 0 to 40
percent, 40 to 60 percent, 60 to 80 percent, 80 to 90 percent, and 90 to 100 percent.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRlA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
xl;
May 2006
030239-01
20
e
e
e
e
e
e
\l; 6~~JjQL~
o 0.5 1 2
1"""""'1 ,
Scale in Mil..
.
LEGEND
Current Function
Percentile of Shoreline Length
~ 90% -100% High Function
~~ 80% - 90%
60% - 80%
.~ 40% - 60%
'"'^-r- 0% - 40% Low Function
Map 3
Existing Habitat Function
Habitat Model Results
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
v; 6b!S;Jj9L~
.
o 0.5 1 2
1""""""1 ,
Scale in MUes
LEGEND
Rehabilitation Potential
Percentile of Shoreline Length _
~ 90% - 100% High Potential
~~ 80% - 90%
60% - 80%
.~ 40% - 60%
....rv-- 0% - 40% Low Potential
e
e
Map 4
Rehabilitation Potential
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
e
e
e
~ t\~S;J:tQL~
o 0.5 1 2
1""""""1 ,
Scale in Miles
.
LEGEND
Restoration Potential
Percentile of Shoreline Length
~ 90% - 100% High Potential
80% - 90%
60% - 80%
.~ 40% - 60%
...rv-- 0% - 40% Low Potential
Map 5
Restoration Potential
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
Habitat Function Model Results
4.1 Current Function
Model scores for current function mapped in this way indicated that the majority of highly
functioning habitats and some of the longest continuous stretches of highly functioning
habitat in the project area are on Vashon and Maury Islands (see Map 3). On Vashon Island,
current function scored highest on the northeast shore, along the lower peninsula of the
island, and along the north-central west shore of the island. On Maury Island, there was a
concentration of high function reaches north of the point at Dockton.
e
Along the mainland shoreline, the highest functioning reaches were concentrated in the
south, near Burien, Normandy Park, and surrounding Dumas Bay. The longest stretch of
shoreline with low function was from just north of Lincoln Park to Magnolia, including
Elliott Bay.
4.2 Rehabilitation Potential
Model scores for rehabilitation potential on the mainland were highest in the following
areas: northeast Elliott Bay area, around Duwamish Head and Alki Point, near Seola Beach,
near MillerfWalker Creeks in Normandy Park, at the Des Moines Marina, and at Poverty
Bay (see Map 4). On Vashon and Maury Islands, the highest rehabilitation scores were on
smaller sections interspersed throughout Quartermaster Harbor and along the southeast
shore of Maury Island.
e
4.3 Restoration Potential
Scores for restoration potential on the mainland were highest near Magnolia, Duwamish
Head, and scattered along the general stretch of shoreline between Burien and Des Moines
(see Map 5). On Vashon Island, restoration potential scored highest near Tramp Harbor and
from the southeast point north into Quartermaster Harbor. On Maury Island, high scores
were located west of the south point and north of Raab's Lagoon. Restoration scores were
moderate in Elliott Bay, although this was due largely to the fact that the scoring system did
not include restoration of sediment delivery and transport because of the magnitude of
alterations that have occurred in the bay. Elliott Bay offers high potential for substitution
activities.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
24
~-l
May 2006
030239-01
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e 5 PRIORITY AREAS AND SUBAREA RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes habitat conditions in the project area and discusses priority areas
identified. Habitat descriptions are relatively brief because although the project collated habitat
information within the entire project area, the primary purpose of collecting and refining this
data was to support the effort to run the model. Also, an earlier report (Anchor 2004)
summarized habitat conditions from photo interpretation and data compilation efforts. Thus,
an exhaustive listing of project area conditions will not be included here; however, these data
are available electronically in Appendix B in GIS format. Following the description of habitat
needs in this chapter are the priority recommendations for habitat actions for the overall project
area and within each of the subareas.
Note that some priority areas include entire drift cells or even multiple drift cells. Therefore,
within an area identified as a priority for one habitat action there may be several additional
opportunities for other habitat actions that are not identified at that scale. For example, a
stretch of shoreline identified for conservation may contain sections where rehabilitation may
be appropriate. Reflecting this, several of the priority areas contain a mix of prescriptions with
e the goal to provide an area of continuous, highly functioning habitat.
5.1 General Project Area Habitat Needs
5.1.1 Conservation
The WRIA 9 marine nearshore is heavily altered; however, there are areas that remain
entirely or relatively intact. Conservation of these areas is of highest importance to
prevent fur~er degradation of nearshore habitat. Relatively intact stream mouths are
often situated among more modified areas (e.g., Judd Creek on Vashon Island) and are
the type of small-scale conservation opportunities that provide important functions and
that can be greatly enhanced by also conducting restoration in adjacent shoreline areas.
Stretches of largely unarmored shorelines with feeder bluffs in long drift cells are
examples of larger conservation opportunities, particularly those contributing to an
intact accretion shoreform, such as the lagoon at Point Heyer. In many of these
extended areas that are priorities for conservation, a variety of restoration and
rehabilitation opportunities may further improve habitat function.
e
FINAL Prioritization ofMnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
25
t.l
May 2006
030239-01
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.1.2 Restoration
The majority of the project area shoreline lacks high quality feeding and refuge
opportunities for juvenile salmon; therefore, one of the overall habitat needs and goals
for the project area is to restore the processes and habitat features that provide these
opportunities. In particular, restoring sediment delivery to the intertidal zone by
removing armor that disconnects feeder bluffs (sediment sources) from the intertidal
zone is important. Feeder bluff contribution of sediment is a natural process that
benefits habitat quality in extended reaches of drift cells. This extended effect of feeder
bluffs on entire drift cells makes their connectivity to the intertidal zone a critical
component of a sustainable, high functioning beach to support juvenile salmonids.
-
Restoration of habitats that provide shallow, low energy conditions would offer much
needed favorable feeding and refuge opportunitiel:! for juvenile salmonids. In the
project area, numerous stream mouths are armored or piped; therefore, they do not form
typical deltas or pocket estuaries that provide productive feeding and rearing habitat for
juvenile salmonids. It is important to note that the priority restoration opportunities
identified for the entire project area and subareas were identified based on their
potential to improve conditions over a large area or provide an especially large
functional benefit to habitat quality. However, opportunistic restoration actions. that
restore nearshore processes, yet were not identified as priorities in this report, should
still be implemented because the general project area conditions indicate a great need for
any and all restoration.
e
5.1.3 Rehabilitation
Given the broad extent of shoreline alterations in the project area, identifiable
rehabilitation action opportunities occur throughout much of the project area.
Rehabilitation actions could provide limited but meaningful improvements to habitat
function along many of the residential and dense urban portions of the project area. In
some of the most heavily urbanized areas, rehabilitation of riparian vegetation, stream
mouths, and longshore sediment transport could provide particularly meaningful
improvements to severely impaired areas.
-
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
26
~
May 2006
030239-01
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.1.4 Substitution
Elliott Bay is highly modified through industrial and dense urban alterations that appear
to make large-scale restoration infeasible. Given the bay's close proximity to the
Green/Ouwamish River and Cedar RiverfLake Washington outlet, the bay is a key area
to pursue implementation of habitat substitution actions in order to create shallow water
and protected rearing opportunities for juvenile salmonids.
5.2 Study Area Priority Recommendations
With the above habitat needs in mind and using the processes described above, priority
areas for the entire project area were identified (Map 6). These priority areas contain the
most important potential actions to undertake in the entire project area. Given the shoreline
conditions in the project area, the priority areas will provide the largest scale improvement
or protection of habitat function, with particular attention to unique habitat types (e.g.,
pocket estuaries and lagoons).
e
Conservation of the relatively few intact reaches was a particular emphasis in the
identification of priority areas, because preventing further degradation is of highest
importance. Also, conservation of intact function is more certain than efforts to restore or
rehabilitate nearshore function. As described by the Puget Sound TRT (2003), conservation
provides the greatest certainty in achieving viable salmonid population parameters. The
study area priority recommendations also emphasized conservation because these
recommendations tend to be at a larger scale than restoration or rehabilitation opportunities.
Given the condition of the project area, restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution actions
are needed. Due to the size and certainty of restoration and rehabilitation actions, these
types of projects were more often identified as priorities in the subarea recommendations
rather than the study area recommendations. Map 6 includes an overlay of all subarea
priority area recommendations. As described in the following subarea sections, these
recommendations included more restoration and rehabilitation priorities than were
identified as project area recommendations. The subarea recommendations also include
small or site specific projects. Recommendations at smaller scales may differ from those at
larger scales. This is due to the fact that different opportunities exist at different scales.
Conservation of a large area may be complimented by rehabilitation of stream mouths or
other site specific activities.
e
FINAL Prioritization ofMnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
27
\l
Mny 2006
030239-01
Map 6 Overlay
Subarea Recomendatlons
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
e
Study Area Recommendations
LEGEND
Substitute/ Rehabilitate
e
e
~ 6~fJj9L~
.
o
4
Map 6
Study Area Recomendations
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
-- -
--- -
Miles
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
The priority study area recommendations are listed below moving from north to south on
the mainland and counterclockwise around Vashon and Maury Islands (starting at the
southern tip of Maury Island).
. Magnolia Bluffs
Conserve the unarmored bluffs and stands of trees in the riparian zones along the
northern and southern Magnolia bluffs. This is a particularly important area
because of its close proximity to the GreenlDuwamish River and the Cedar
RiverfLake Washington outlet. These are two major salmon sources that produce
outmigrating Chinook salmon. The continued long-term erosion of the bluffs
along Magnolia Boulevard may be threatened by the very close proximity of the
road to the top of the bluff. This is a key area that policymakers should be
strongly encouraged to allow the natural erosion processes to continue, and
therefore plan for the eventual removal of the road.
Rehabilitate areas between north and south Magnolia bluffs by removing groins
and areas of protruding fill that impede longshore sediment transport.
. Elliott Bay
Substitute habitat throughout Elliott Bay from the Elliott Bay Marina in the north
to the Duwamish Head in the west in order to create and improve habitat for
juvenile salmonids. Opportunities for substitution (as well as rehabilitation) in
this area should be explored and encouraged because the feasibility of
potentially restoring processes in this area is very limited. There is great
ecological value in providing improved feeding and rearing habitat for juvenile
salmon through substitution and rehabilitation due to the area's proximity to
two major salmon-producing river systems and the importance of early marine
rearing in the overall marine survival of salmon. The eastern shoreline from
Myrtle Edwards Park north to the Elliott Bay Marina provides substitution
opportunities to pull the shoreline back to create embayments, and opportunities
to add material to create shallow water habitat, and rehabilitation opportunities
to plant riparian vegetation. Similar types of activities could be conducted along
the western shoreline from West Waterway to the Duwamish Head in order to
provide higher functioning habitat. Along the downtown Seattle Waterfront
from Myrtle Edwards Park to the East Waterway, substitution activities to create
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
'-l
May 2006
030239-01
29
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
shallow water and protected habitat offshore from the seawall would provide
improved rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Duwamish Head
Rehabilitate Schmitz Creek by daylighting the mouth of the creek to allow it to
flow across the intertidal zone. This would provide some pocket estuary habitat
in close proximity to Elliott Bay and along an extended reach with no other
unpiped stream mouths.
Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport from Alki Point to the south end of Me
Kwa Mooks Park by removing groins and areas of fill that protrude into the
intertidal zone. This area is dense residential, which has disconnected available
sediment sources from the nearshore. Rehabilitation of longshore sediment
transport will improve habitat conditions in the drift cell.
Rehabilitate marine riparian vegetation from Duwamish Head to the Me Kwa
Mooks Park seawall. Ideally, a continuous area of trees could be planted to
provide increased shading and terrestrial inputs to the aquatic food web. If
maintaining views is an insurmountable concern, then riparian vegetation
species and locations can be selected that limit any potential effects on views, yet
still provide some functional benefits.
. Seahurst Park
e
Restore the northern and central sections of Seahurst Park by removing armor
and allowing landslide materials to feed the intertidal zone. This will extend a
largely intact reach of feeder bluffs that are well connected to the intertidal zone.
This reach includes the already restored southern section of the park, which
successfully reconnects sediment sources and riparian vegetation, while also
maintaining full function as a public park.
Conserve unarmored feeder bluff sections north and south of Seahurst Park that
includes intact, mature riparian vegetation and large woody debris (LWD) acros~
the intertidal zone. This reach and the southern portion of Seahurst Park are the
primary remaining sediment sources for the longest drift cell in the project area.
. Three Tree Point
Restore the mouths of Miller/W alker Creeks and McSorley Creek at Saltwater
State Park to create high functioning pocket estuaries. The lower portions of
Miller and Walker Creeks could be reconfigured to provide more natural (less
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRlA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
'v;
Mny 2006
030239-01
30
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
channelized) rearing habitats and riparian tree/marsh vegetation. The mouth of
McSorley Creek could be restored by removing armor and pulling back the
shoreline to provide an open, more naturally meandering channel across the
intertidal zone. Restoration of the park shoreline north of the creek to reconnect
the sediment supply and riparian vegetation to the intertidal zone is also a
priority.
Conserve/Restore sediment supply along the extended reach south of
Miller/W alker Creeks that currently has a mix of armored and unarmored feeder
bluffs with mature riparian vegetation. Conserving and restoring sediment
supply in this reach would benefit habitat conditions at all downdrift areas,
including Three Tree Point. This restoration and conservation could also reduce
the perceived "need" for groins by removing patchy armoring in a section of
well-vegetated and lightly developed shoreline south of Three Tree Point.
. Federal Way
Conserve an extended reach east of Dumas Bay that has unarmored feeder bluffs
that have mature vegetation. This reach is centrally located in its drift cell, but is
the first extended reach of sediment source that is well connected with the
intertidal zone. Therefore, it is a particularly important sediment supply area for
the downdrift areas, including Dumas Bay.
Conserve two extended sections of unarmored feeder bluffs west of Dumas Bay
that have mature riparian vegetation. These sections are separated by a reach
with houses at the base of bluffs. The long-term existence of houses in this reach
may be threatened through landslides or sea level rise. Nearshore habitat
function would be enhanced by future activities that reconnect the sediment
supplies to the intertidal zone.
Restore the tributary mouth at Dash Point State Park. The lower reaches of the
creek (upstream and downstream of the road) could be restored by removing
armor, adding sinuosity, and adding riparian vegetation.
· Eastem and Northern Shoreline of Maury Island
Conserve intact feeder bluffs and mature riparian vegetation in two reaches along
the northern shoreline of Maury Island and the eastern shoreline of Maury
Island. These areas are part of two drift cells that converge to form Point
Robinson.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
v;
Mny 2006
030239-01
31
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
. Point Heyer - Va!lhon Island
Conserve the lagoon at Point Heyer (also known as KVI because of the radio
tower on site) and the unarmored feeder bluffs providing sediment to the point.
This drift cell is among the most intact drift cells in the project area.
Conservation of unarmored shorelines with mature riparian vegetation would
maintain high functioning habitat in the drift cell and maintain the sediment
supply to the point. The marsh and lagoon at the point provide important
habitat that is otherwise somewhat limited in the project area because of the
extensive shoreline modification that has occurred.
e
. Mouths of Shinglemill and Judd Creeks - Vashon Island
Conserve unarmored mouths at Shinglemill Creek and Judd Creek, the two
largest salmon producing tributaries on the islands. These creek mouths have
extensive riparian vegetation and provide desirable pocket estuary habitat.
. Southwestem Vashon Island
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs, intact riparian vegetation, and L WD across the
intertidal zone. This is the longest almost continuously unarmored shoreline in
the project area. This reach provides sediment to the updrift end (start) of an
extended drift cell.
. West Shoreline of Entrance to Quartermaster Harbor
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs, intact riparian vegetation, and L WD across the
intertidal zone. This is an extended reach of good habitat that has added
importance because herring are documented as spawning along the shoreline.
. East Quartermaster Harbor
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and wide corridors of intact riparian
vegetation in the drift cell north of Dockton. This drift cell extends to Raab's
Lagoon, provides an extended reach of high quality habitat, and has added
importance because herring are documented as spawning along the shoreline.
5.3 Subareas
e
As discussed above, the project area was divided into 12 subareas that roughly correspond
to drift cell units and major geographic regions within the project area (see Map 2). This
section describes the habitat needs and goals of each subarea and lists priority
recommendations for each (see Map 6 overlay of subarea recommendations).
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
+..l
May 2006
030239-01
32
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.1 Magnolia
The Magnolia subarea is comprised of one single drift cell, characterized by tall feeder
bluffs, some in exceptional condition, in the southern portion of the accretion shoreform
at West Point (see Map 2). The central third of the subarea is modified by residential
bulkheads that prevent delivery of sediment to the nearshore. In places, there are
houses built at the base of the bluff. The road atop the bluff (Magnolia Boulevard) is set
close to the edge of the bluff in the central/eastern portion of the subarea. A wide
sandflat extends along the entire subarea, and the intertidal zone supports patchy
eelgrass and other macroalgae. There are a few groins and small overwater structures in
the subarea, and the armoring tends to be below OHW. Also, there are occasional boat
ramps built on fill that is slumping into the water. Large amounts of resident LWD and
transient driftwood are present near West Point, where the point forms the northern
boundary of the project area. There are no WDFW documented salmon streams in this
subarea (WDFW 2002).
5.3.1.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
The habitat needs and goals for this subarea include maintaining and conserving the
connectivity of the sediment supply to the shore and removing obstructions to
sediment transport, particularly in the areas of fill material that currently protrude
into the intertidal zone. The long-term stability of Magnolia Boulevard is clearly in
question, as the feeder bluff below the road is active and eroding. The bluff will
continue to erode and "feed the beach" by providing sediment to the intertidal zone
as long as there is no anthropogenic impediment to sediment delivery, such as a
bulkhead or riprap.
5.3.1.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 7):
· Conserve the unarmored bluffs and stands of trees in the riparian zones along
the northern and southern Magnolia bluffs. This is a priority identified for
the entire project area, described in more detail in Section 5.2.
· Rehabilitate sediment transport by removing groins and areas of protruding
fill in the residential area south of West Point. This is a priority identified for
the entire project area, described in more detail in Section 5.2.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
t.l
May 2006
030239-01
33
e
e
e
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
. Rehabilitate the riparian vegetation at Magnolia. Plant trees and riparian
vegetation along a wide corridor at the top of the bluff, particularly in the
area surrounding the armory near West Point. This will provide some
stabilization of the top of the bluff, as well as additional terrestrial inputs to
the aquatic food web and a long-term source of LWD.
. Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at West Point. Plant trees and riparian
vegetation along the trails and near the tip of West Point. This will provide
terrestrial inputs of organic matter and potential prey resources to the aquatic
food web.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
v;
May 2006
030239-01
34
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at West Point
The planting of trees and other vegetation along
the trails and point would contribute terrestrial
organic matter and potential prey resources to
the aquatic food web.
Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport
Numerous groins interrupt the longshore movement
of sediment along the shoreline. Several areas of fill
material and bulkheads extend far into the intertidal
zone, thereby further restricting longshore sediment
movement. Removing groins and areas of protruding
fill wiD improve sediment movement Any opportunities
to restore sediment supply connectivity to the
nearshore by removing bulkheads or other means
would significantly benefit habitat
Conserve the unarmoreIJ bluffS
The active feeder bluffs and riparian vegetation
in this reach should be conserved. The
rehabilitation of riparian vegetation by planting
trees along the top of the bluff would increase
slope stability, contribute terrestrial insects to
the food supply, and provide a long term source
oflWD.
Conserve the unarmored bluffs.
A section of steep unarmored bluffs should be conserved
to maintain the supply of sediment to the intertidal zone.
The continued long,tenn erosion of the bluffs may be
threatened by the close proximity of Magnolia Boulevard
to the top of the bluff. This is a particularly important area
because of its close proximity to two major salmon rivers
and it is one of the few intact feeder bluffs in Seattle.
V; 6~fJjQL~
D 500 1,000 2.000
8caa.InF...
Map 7
Magnolia Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.3.2 Elliott Bay
The Elliott Bay subarea is an area of no appreciable sediment drift (see Map 2) and is a
heavy industrial area with no unarmored sections and extensive overwater structures.
Concurrent with this development and its use as a major seaport and downtown area,
there is an obvious lack of shallow water habitat and riparian vegetation. Within the
area, sediments have been documented as chemically contaminated, as the subarea is
adjacent to and within the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund Site. Despite its
urbanized state, this subarea represents the first marine nearshore area encountered by
salmon exiting the Duwamish River en route to sea. There are no natural or un-piped
stream mouths entering this subarea.
5.3.2.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
e
Urgent needs for this area include natural habitats that are typically considered
favorable for salmonid feeding, such as low energy, prey-rich rearing areas. Goals
include providing access to some form of shallow water habitat along a natural
beach gradient with riparian vegetative cover. This could be provided by creating
shallow water and protected habitat in order to increase feeding opportunities and
growth potential for juvenile salmonids. Recent salmonid bioenergetics research has
shown that larger sized juveniles survive at a much higher rate partly because they
are able to outsize predator jaws (Sogard 1997; Duffy 2003). Industrial and seaport
needs in this area can present constraints to the active pursuit of this goal, but given
the proximity to the Duwamish River and the number of juveniles using this
subarea, opportunistic chances that may arise to restore feeding habitat should be
seized.
e
5.3.2.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 8):
. Substitute/Rehabilitate habitat where possible throughout the subarea from the
Elliott Bay Marina to the Duwamish Head in order to provide higher
functioning habitat. This is a priority identified for the entire project area,
described in more detail in Section 5.2.
Rehabilitate Longfellow Creek by shifting its alignment to the north in order
to flow into the southwest corner of Elliott Bay. Daylighting the mouth of the
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l.
May 2006
030239-01
36
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
creek to flow across the intertidal zone would provide pocket estuary habitat
just west of the mouth of the Duwamish River and along an extended reach
with no other unpiped stream mouths.
· Rehabilitate the mouth of Fairmount Creek on the west side of Elliott Bay. The
lower reaches of the creek pass through a small canyon on the hillside and
then under the road (Harbor Avenue SW). Rehabilitation could be
accomplished by daylighting the mouth of the creek onto the beach at
Seacrest Park.
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
..z
Mny 2006
030239-01
37
e
e
e
e
e
e
Rehabilitate shoreline along northeastern Elliott Bay
This stretch provides opportunities to pull the shoreline back
to create embayments, add materials to create shallow water
habitat, and plant riparian vegetation.
Elliott Bay
This subarea encompasses the heavily industrialized downtown Seattle waterfront.
Habitat improvements in this subarea are important because of its close proximity to
two major salmon sources and the importance of rapid growth during the early
marine rearing of juvenile salmon. Although the potential to restore processes is
very limited, rehabilitation can be accomplished opportunistically by taking
advantaae of actions as thev become available lexamole: Olvmolc Sculoture Park..
Olympic Sculpture Park (In progress)
At the Olympic Sculpture Park project, construction
is underway to substitute and rehabilitate habitat
conditions along the shoreline. This substitution
includes creating a small intertidal embayment and a
low intertidal habitat bench to improve the rearing
and migration conditions for juvenile salmon.
~'
~
,
.i
~
~
:3
,
Rehabilitate shoreline along western Elliott Bay
This stretch provides opportunities to pull the
shoreline back to create embayments, add
materials to create shallow water
habitat, and plant riparian vegetation.
Opportunistic rehabilitation In Industrial and port areas
Rehabilitate habitat along the northern seawall
and port terminals where opportunities arise. The
replacement of the northem portion of the Alaskan
Way seawatl that is currenUy under development
may provide a unique opportunity to integrate
habitat elements into the new design.
V; 6,~S;tll9L~
'.000 2,000
',llOO
MapS
Elliott Bay Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
~RFMI
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.3 West Seattle to Burien
The West Seattle to Burien subarea includes one continuous drift cell that is the largest
cell in WRIA 9 (see Map 2). The shoreline of this subarea is largely residential with
accompanying extensive residential armoring. In most cases, the road nearest to the
shoreline is immediately adjacent to the shore or is approximately one parcel-width
landward of the shoreline (in the case of the area along the northern half of the subarea).
In the southern third of the subarea, there are houses at the top and close to the edge of
active feeder bluffs. Looking long-term, policy-level decisions will need to consider how
and whether to administrate the rebuilding of these homes at the inevitable point in time
when the bluff subsides.
As expected with high intensity residential development, most of the marine riparian
vegetation has been highly modified. The marine riparian vegetation that is present is
mature and extensive within a 200 foot distance from the shoreline at Lincoln Park,
which composes the southern third of the subarea. However, this vegetation is
separated from the shoreline by a walking path and picnic areas in most places.
The WDFW (2002) SASSI report identifies one stream (Fauntleroy Creek) with
documented salmon utilization in the freshwater portion. However, several creeks in
the southern portion of this subarea may be periodically utilized by salmon and the
creek mouths of all tributaries, particularly those that are not in pipes, may be utilized
by juvenile salmon migrating and rearing in the nearshore. These include Fauntleroy
Creek, which approaches the shore from the south and outlets to the north side of the
ferry dock. Approximately .25 mile north of Seahurst Park is Salmon Creek, which the
WDFW (2002) SASSI report characterizes as having the potential for salmon utilization.
Currently, the mouth of Salmon Creek has a fence across its mouth which prevents adult
salmon passage into the stream.
Forage fish spawning has been documented in some areas of this subarea that contain
sediment sources and/or fine-grained materials. Spawning has primarily been noted in
the southern third of this subarea and parts of Alki Beach and the Fauntleroy area.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
39
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.3.3.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Maintaining a reliable sediment supply and restoring sediment sources in this long
drift cell are key habitat needs for this subarea. Because of its location in the project
area, the southern portions of this subarea have the potential to provide sediment
material to much of the sediment-starved northern parts of the drift cell. The recent
Seahurst Park nearshore restoration provides a demonstration of the potential to
restore habitat from a heavily armored, sediment-starved condition to an area with
the potential to accrete sediment. In the Seahurst Park project, material that slides
onto the park trail is moved across to the beach area. There may be additional areas
in the park that present opportunities for sediment accretion.
- In addition to sediment supply, marine riparian vegetation, marshes, and creek
mouths in this subarea are present or historical but show some need of improvement
in order to provide critical prey resources for migrating salmon.
e
Brennan et al. (2004) found that the Lincoln Park beach is a high use area for juvenile
Chinook, coho, and chum salmon. Also, there are a set of smaller parks south of the
Alki Point Lighthouse (Cormorant Cove, Schmitz Memorial Overlook, and Lowman
Beach Park) that may provide key habitat for feeding and refuge during
outmigration because these parks represent some of the only non-privately-owned,
unarmored or unaltered habitat from Alki Point south to Three Tree Point.
Opportunities to conserve and improve these parks as migratory stops for juvenile
salmonids should be seriously considered. Other efforts have identified
opportunities that fall in line with these needs, including estuary restoration ideas
for Owl Creek at West Point, which was identified as a potential project in the WRIA
8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (WRIA 8 2005).
5.3.3.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 9):
. Conserve/Rehabilitate Cormorant Cove Park. Habitat in this area could be
rehabilitated by adding more native vegetation at the park.
. Conserve the street-end park at SW Carroll Street and Beach Drive SW.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
Mny 2006
030239-01
40
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
.
Conserve eroding feeder bluffs north and south of Seahurst Park that are
unarmored; discourage further bluff armoring.
Conserve the existing marine riparian zone north of Lincoln Park and in
Fauntleroy Cove.
Rehabilitate the northern end of Lincoln Park and in Fauntleroy Cove, to
include removal of the bulkhead and/or beach nourishment to create a
sloping beach with opportunity for terrestrial prey and detritus inputs.
Seahurst Park's recent nearshore restoration could be an example of how this
kind of work could be implemented in a park setting.
Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport and marine riparian vegetation
from Duwamish Head to the Me Kwa Mooks Park seawall. Remove groins
and areas of fill that protrude into the intertidal zone. Where possible,
vegetate in ways that would not obstruct views but would provide terrestrial
inputs to this area; or, if views are not determined to be important, full
vegetation could be added to increase terrestrial inputs.
Restore sediment supply in an armored area in the northern/central section of
Seahurst Park by removing armor to create an extended reach of unarmored
shoreline in the drift cell; remove armoring from the base of bluffs with no
houses nearby.
Substitute (create) a marsh and spit complex near the Alki Point Lighthouse;
this could be a location for a pocket beach or open area to increase juvenile
salmon feeding opportunities and refuge.
Rehabilitate the Lowman Beach Park shoreline by vegetating in light of its
potential function for migrating salmonids; if necessary, do this in ways that
would not obstruct views but would provide terrestrial inputs to this area.
Rehabilitate the mouth of Schmitz Creek. Because the lower reaches of the
creek pass through a flat urban development that might be subject to
flooding if the entire length were daylighted, rehabilitation could be
accomplished by daylighting the mouth of the creek onto the beach.
Restore the mouth of Salmon Creek, located approximately one quarter mile
north of Seahurst Park by removing the fence at the outlet of the stream.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
41
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
e
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation and sediment transport
around West Seattle
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at parks and available areas.
Riparian vegetation could be improved by planting tree and
plant species in locations that balance the habitat benefits
with the desire for views in this densely populated residential
area. Removal of groins and areas of fin that protrude into
the interlidal zone between Duwamish Head and Me Kwa
Mooks Park would improve longshore sediment transport.
Conserve and rehabilitate two park Shorelines
Conserve park shorelines with backshores and
mature riparian vegetation adjacent to the intertidal
zone. Remove bulkheads and create small
embayment for fish rearing in low energy environment.
Conserve small street-end parks (e.g_, Cormorant
Cove Park).
V; 6~S;Jj9L~
e
e
West Seattle to Burien
This subarea is comprised of the longest
drift cell in the project area. The shoreline
of this subarea is largely residential with
accompanying extensive single family
bulkheads.
aDllitate mouth o'
/" Schmitz Creek
Daylight mouth of Schmitz Creek
to flow in open channel through
intertidal zone.
Conserve feeder bluffs
Conserve eroding feeder bluffs that contribute sediment
to the intertidal zone in this drift cell that spans from
Seahurst Park in Burien to the Duwamish Head. The
highlighted priority is an extended reach of unarmored
shoreline, but all unarmored areas, particularly those
potentially providing sediment, have high value for
conservation.
o 1,500 3,000 8..000
Conserve or restore feeder bluffs near updrift
end of drift cell
Conserve intact sections of feeder bluff and riparian
vegetation to north and south of Saahurst Park. Restore
sediment supply and riparian vegetation connectivity to
intertidal zone in northem and central sections of
Seahurst Park. RecenUy completed restoration in southem
section of park successfully achieved these goals, including
allowing slide material to reach the intertidal zone.
Map 9
West Seattle to Burien Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Areas
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
ScIItinFH.
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.4 Three Tree Point to Des Moines
e
The Three Tree Point to Des Moines subarea is composed of two drift cells that extend
northward toward Three Tree Point (see Map 2). The subarea shoreline is largely
residential and displays long sections of feeder bluffs with some areas of extensive
riparian vegetation along a wide corridor. In the northern portion of the subarea, there
are several houses at the base of bluffs. In the middle and southern portion, houses are
atop the bluff, some with riprap armoring at the base of the bluff.
The WDFW (2002) SASSI report identifies three streams with documented salmon
utilization in the freshwater portion, one stream with presumed salmon utilization, and
one stream with potential salmon utilization. However, other creeks in this subarea may
be periodically utilized by salmon and the creek mouths of all tributaries, particularly
those that are not in pipes, may be utilized by juvenile salmon migrating and rearing in
the nearshore. Miller Creek is the largest documented salmon tributary in the subarea
and it joins Walker Creek in a wetland complex at the lowermost reaches of the creeks.
The creeks located to the north and south of the Des Moines Marina, Des Moine Creek
and Massey Creek, are characterized by WDFW (2002) as a documented salmon stream
and a presumed salmon stream, respectively. The lower reaches of both of these creeks
are channelized, armored, and lacking adjacent riparian vegetation.. McSorley Creek,
which flows through Saltwater State Park in the southern portion of the subarea, is
described by WDFW (2002) as a potential salmon stream.
e
5.3.4.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Habitat needs in this area include maintaining and restoring sediment supply to the
shoreline via the feeder bluffs and improving longshore sediment transport by
removing groins and areas of protruding fill. In addition, goals include taking
advantage of the terrestrial inputs and refuge potential that the tributary mouths
could provide. Lastly, existing marine riparian vegetation along many of the bluffs
needs to be maintained, given the residential nature of the subarea and the tendency
for bluff-side homeowners to remove it.
5.3.4.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 10):
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRlA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
43
~
Mny 2006
030239-01
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
e
. Restore the mouths of Miller/Walker Creeks and the creek at Saltwater State
Park (McSorley Creek) to create high functioning pocket estuaries. This is a
priority action for the entire project area, described in Section 5.2.
. Restore tributary mouths to the north and south of the Des Moines Marina
(Des Moines Creek and Massey Creek, respectively) by removing armoring
and re-establishing some sinuosity and a pocket estuary with a marsh in the
lower portion of the creeks. Des Moines Creek, to the north of the marina,
could be restored by altering the creek through the park. Restoration of the
lower portions of Massey Creek to the south of the marina may require
acquisition or a conservation easement for adjacent properties.
. Conserve/Restore sediment supply along the extended reach south of
Miller/W alker Creeks that currently has a mix of armored and unarmored
feeder bluffs with mature riparian vegetation. This is a priority action for the
entire project area, described in Section 5.2.
. Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport in the approximately 0.5 mile reach
south of Miller and Walker Creeks. This reach has numerous groins that
interrupt longshore sediment transport.
. Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs along a centrally located reach in the drift
cell. Restoration of sediment supply connectivity to the north and south of the
reach would improve habitat conditions. These conservation and restoration
areas are near the updrift end (start) of the drift cell and would therefore
provide benefits throughout the extended downdrift areas.
Restore the connectivity of a large marsh to the intertidal zone in the central
portion of Normandy Park, approximately one mile north of the Des Moines
Marina. This will require removing a driveway that crosses the backshore.
. Restore the shore of Saltwater State Park to reconnect the hillside sediment
source and riparian vegetation to the intertidal zone. This restoration,
coupled with the stream mouth restoration in the park that is described
above, could greatly improve habitat function. Restoration techniques such
as those implemented at the southern section of Seahurst Park in Burien,
including allowing slide material to reach the intertidal zone, could be
applied in this park.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
,,1<.
\L,,,
May 2006
030239-01
44
Three Tree Point to
Des Moines
This subarea is composed of
two drift cells that converge to
form Three Tree Point.
These drift cells have extensive
feeder bluffs with some areas
of intact riparian vegetation.
Several mid-size tributary
mouths occur in this subarea.
Conserve and restore sediment supply connectivity
This is a rather extended reach of vegetated feeder
bluffs with some unarmored areas and some
armored areas. Restoring and conserving sediment
supply connectivily in this reach would benefit
habitat conditions at all downdrift reaches, including
Three Tree Point. This restoration and conservation
could also reduce the perceived need for groins
just south of Miller and Walker Creeks.
Restore mouth and lower reaches of Miller and
Walker Creeks
These creeks have the potential to provide an expanded
high functioning pocket estuary. The lower portion of
both creeks could be reconfigured to provide more
natural (less channelized) rearing habitat, riparian trees,
and marsh vegetation.
Restore mouth of Des Moines Creek
This creek mouth provides a good
opportunily to remove armoring and
re-establish some sinuousity in the
lower stretch of the creek. This
restoration would provide important
pocket estuary habitat.
\C 6t!S;JjQ,~
e
Restore habitat at Salt Water State Park
Restoration of McSorley Creek by removing armor and
fill would provide a high functioning pocket estuary.
Restoration of the northem portions of the park to
reconnect potential sediment supplies and riparian
vegetation would also gready benefit habitat, especially
since this is at the updrift end (start) of a drift cell.
J.5OO 3,000
Map 10
Three Tree Point to Des Moines Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
\l\lRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
.....
SealliklF.et
e
.
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.3.5 Des Moines to Federal Way
The Des Moines to Federal Way subarea is likely the area of highest function as habitat
along the mainland portions of WRIA 9. It is comprised of three drift cells, one of which
extends southward from Des Moines to Dumas Bay, a small one extending south and
east from the west edge of Dumas Bay into Dumas Bay, and one extending south and
west toward Tacoma (see Map 2). There are several small tributaries where salmon
spawning has been documented. Tributary mouths here are generally armored and
piped, and exist in residential settings. The northern portion of the subarea has a feeder
bluff with mature riparian vegetation with houses atop the bluff. Further south, the
houses are at the base of the bluff and an armored road is along the shoreline. There is
extensive continuous armoring in this area; the road and seawall continue through to
Redondo Beach. As the shoreline turns to a more east-west alignment, there are two
areas of feeder bluffs with no houses at the base of the bluff; these two areas are
separated by a section of continuous shoreline armoring with some houses and little
riparian vegetation. West of Dumas Bay, there is a largely unarmored feeder bluff with
mature trees and a few houses at the base of the bluff.
e
Several small creeks enter Puget Sound in this subarea. The WDFW (2002) SASSI report
identifies three streams with documented salmon utilization in the freshwater portion
and two streams with presumed salmon utilization. However, other creeks in this
subarea may be periodically utilized by salmon and the creek mouths of all tributaries,
particularly those that are not in pipes, may be utilized by juvenile salmon migrating
and rearing in the nearshore. Three creeks flow into Dumas Bay at the south portion of
the subarea. The two larger streams that enter the eastern and southern portion of
Dumas Bay have documented salmon utilization (WDFW 2002). The furthest west creek
entering Dumas Bay has an extensive marsh associated with it and generally high
quality riparian vegetation, but it is surrounded by residences. The creek flowing into
Dash Point State Park in the western margin of the subarea is the other documented
salmon stream (WDFW 2002).
5.3.5.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
.
Habitat goals for this subarea include maintaining and conserving its sediment
supply and conserving and restoring the tributary mouths and marshes present in
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l:,
Mny 2006
030239-01
46
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
Dumas Bay. These are important habitat needs because of the location of Dumas
Bay within the context of relatively intact marine riparian vegetation west of the bay
and the bay's potential to provide needed marsh habitat for feeding and refuge.
5.3.5.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 11):
· Conserve two extended sections of unarmored feeder bluffs west of Dumas
Bay that have mature riparian vegetation and L WD across the intertidal zone.
These sections are separated by a reach with houses at the base of bluffs. The
long-term existence of houses in this reach may be threatened through
landslides or sea level rise. Nearshore habitat function would be enhanced
by future activities that reconnect the sediment supplies to the intertidal
zone, and/or by not allowing structures to be rebuilt.
· Restore the tributary mouth at Dash Point State Park. The lower reaches of
the creek (upstream and downstream of the road) could be restored to
remove armor, add sinuosity, and add riparian vegetation.
· Conserve an extended reach east of Dumas Bay that has unalmored feeder
bluffs that have mature vegetation. This reach is centrally located in its drift
cell, but is the first extended reach of sediment source that is well connected
with the intertidal zone. Therefore, it is a particularly important sediment
supply area for the downdrift areas, including Dumas Bay.
· Restore exceptional feeder bluff areas north of Redondo Beach. Several
residences and an access road disconnect the feeder bluffs from the intertidal
zone. This reach is located near the updrift end (start) of a drift cell that
continues south and west to Dumas Bay. A long-term solution to
reconnecting the sediment source and allowing landslide material to reach
the intertidal zone will improve habitat conditions throughout an extended
drift cell.
· Conserve and restore tributary mouths in Dumas Bay. Fully reconnect a marsh
at the west end of Dumas Bay that is currently restricted by a berm.
· Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at residential properties east of Dumas Bay
that may allow adding vegetation close to shore.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
Mny 2006
030239-01
47
e
e
e
e
e
e
Des Moines to Federal Way
This subarea provides some of the longest extended reaches of good functioning
habitat along the mainland portions of WRIA 9. It contains several unarmored feeder
bluffs, several small tributaries, and three larger creeks that flow into Dumas Bay.
Conserve unannored shoreline west of Dumas Bay
Conserve two extended sections of unarmored feeder
bluffs west of Dumas Bay that have mature riparian
vegetation and large woody debris across the
intertidal zone.
Restore excetonal feeder bluffs
Several residences and a road disconnect the
feeder bluff from the intertidal zone. A long term
solution to reconnect the sediment source will
improve habitat conditions throughout the drift cell.
Restore mouth of Dash Point Creek
The lower reaches of the creek (upstream and
downstream of the road) could be restored
by removing armor, adding sinuosity, and
adding riparian vegetation.
Conserve feeder bluffs east of Dumas Bay
This is an extended reach with unarmored feeder bluffs
that have mature vegetation. The reach is centrally
located in its drift cell, but is the first extended reach
of sediment sources that are well connected with the
intertidal zone. Therefore it is a particularly important
sediment supply area for the downdrift areas, including
Dumas Bay.
v; 6~~Jj,QL~
-~....
Map 11
Des Moines to Federal Way Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
o 1.000 2.000 4,000
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.6 East Maury Island
The East Maury Island subarea is comprised of two drift cells that converge at Point
Robinson from the south and north shorelines of Maury Island (see Map 2). In the
southern portion of the subarea, there are steep bluffs and the shoreline is generally
armored where there are residences atop the bluffs. The central portion of the south
shoreline near Sandy Shores contains unarmored steep bluffs with immature trees, and
the northern portion of the south shoreline near Gold Beach contains a dense cluster of
houses, typically with an armored shoreline and almost no riparian vegetation. There is
also an active feeder bluff in this area that has little armoring and immature vegetation.
There are four apparent derelict piers in the intertidal zone of the central portion of the
south shoreline, including the pier at Sandy Shores.
e
North of Point Robinson, there are long stretches of unarmored shoreline with mature
vegetation and houses along the top of the bluff. Similar to other locations in the project
area, the potential long-term stability of these houses is in question, and policy-level
decisions will need to be made regarding their rebuilding in the context of the nearby
eroding bluffs. This area also contains one stretch of shoreline with residential
. armoring, wide areas of shallow water, and a series of short groins. Dockton Road
flanks the westernmost portion of the north shoreline near Portage anda seawall is
present that supports the road. There are no WDFW documented salmon streams in this
subarea (WDFW 2002).
e
5.3.6.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
The strength of this subarea lies in its intact riparian habitats and areas of feeder
bluffs along the shoreline. Thus, habitat goals for this subarea include extending this
habitat as far as possible by restoring sediment delivery and rehabilitating sediment
transport processes in areas where the processes have been altered.
5.3.6.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 12):
Conserve intact feeder bluffs and mature riparian vegetation in two reaches
along the northern and eastern shorelines of Maury Island. These areas are
49
\l
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
part of two drift cells that converge to form Point Robinson. This is a priority
action for the entire project area, described in Section 5.2.
Rehabilitate the riparian zone and longshore transport along the northern
shoreline of Maury Island between Luana Beach and Fern Heath. This area is
loc~ted between two conservation reaches. Planting of riparian vegetation
can provide additional terrestrial inputs to the aquatic food web. Removal of
several small groins would improve nearshore habitat.
. Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport along the eastern shoreline of
Maury Island by removing large groin.
. Restore armored shoreline just north of Piner Point by removing residential
bulkhead.
. Rehabilitate armored shoreline just east of the connection between Maury and
Vashon Islands by removing armor below OHW along the shore.
. Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at Glacier MIDe. Planting native trees will
accelerate the recolonization of vegetation and promote restoration of mature
trees. Currently, much of the vegetation is non-native vegetation that has
colonized the area.
. Rehabilitate riparian vegetation along the southern portion of the subarea at
residential properties that may allow adding vegetation close to shore.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
50
Conserve feeder bluffs and mature riparian vegetation
The northem and eastern shorelines of MaUl)' Island
are part of two drift cells that converge to form Point
Robinson. These are extended feeder bluff reaches
that provide good rearing habitat.
East Maury Island
This subarea is comprised of two drift cells that converge to form Point
Robinson. This subarea has extended sections of Intact feeder bluffs
and riparian vegetation.
Rehabilitate riparian zone and longshore transport
This rehabilitation area from Luana Beach to Fern
Heath is located between two conservation reaches.
Planting of riparian vegetation would provide
additional terrestrial inputs to the aquatic food
web. Removal of several small groins would
improve nearshore habitat.
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation
Planting of native trees will accelerate the
recolonization of vegetation and promote
restoration of mature trees. Currently, much
of the vegetation is non,native vegetation
that colonized the area.
Remove large groin
Removal of this large groin will improve
longshore sediment transport along this
long drift cell.
v; 6~SJjQL~
SG.lilInF..t
Map 12
East Maury Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
o 1,000 2.000 4,000
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.3.7 East Vashon Island
The East Vashon Island subarea contains three drift cells that span almost the entire east
shoreline of the island, two of which converge on Point Beals, and one of which extends
from Ellisport south past Point Heyer to Portage (see Map 2). The northernmost section
of the subarea has alternating stretches of unarmored areas with native vegetation and
areas of single rows of residences that are armored and have little vegetation. The drift
cells converging on Point Beals exhibit large areas of unarmored shoreline with intact
riparian vegetation, despite the numerous houses. The drift cell to the north of Point
Heyer, which feeds sediment to the point, is comprised of extensive feeder bluffs that
are unarmored and have intact native riparian vegetation. The houses present in the
area of Point Heyer are in a single row along the shore, each with a bulkhead. Also, the
Point Heyer area contains a large and relatively intact lagoon and marsh complex with a
large radio tower (KVI tower) on the point. The access road to the KVI tower extends
over the lagoon entrance. There are no WDFW documented salmon streams in this
subarea (WDFW 2002).
e
5.3.7.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Because this subarea contains two points, Point Heyer and Point Beals, that depend
on sediment transport, maintaining longshore sediment supply is crucial to
maintaining these habitat features, particularly the lagoon at Point Heyer and the
important low-energy refuge habitat it provides. Thus, key habitat needs in this
subarea are to conserve sediment sources and to recover lost riparian function along
the shore between these features.
5.3.7.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 13):
. Conserve the lagoon at Point Heyer (also known as KVI because of the radio
tower on the site) and the unarmored feeder bluffs providing sediment to the
point. This is a priority identified for the entire project area, described in
more detail in Section 5.2.
. Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and intact marine riparian vegetation at the
northern end of the subarea.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRLA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
52
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
. Restore sediment supply near north end of subarea by removing shoreline
bulkheads that are not directly associated with residences.
. Rehabilitate longshore transport by removing existing groins throughout the
subarea, and removing shoreline bulkheads not directly associated with
residences.
. Rehabilitate riparian vegetation between and among residences along the
shore throughout the subarea.
. Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport in Tramp Harbor by removing fill
areas associated with the fishing pier.
. Rehabilitate the mouth of Ellisport Creek. The existing box culvert appears
undersized. Expanding the culvert size under the road would improve the
accessibility and tidal flushing of the lower portions of the creek.
Restore sediment supply and riparian connectivity along the reach from the
outlet of the Point Heyer Marsh to Ellis Creek. This potential long-term
action could only be possible if the existing road is moved off the shoreline.
This could greatly enhance habitat function by removing shoreline armor and
providing additional terrestrial inputs to the aquatic food web.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
53
e
e
e
e
e
e
East Vashon Island
Because of this subarea's prominent
points and lagoons. conserving
longshore sediment supply is crucial to
maintaining these areas and the
low-energy refuge habitat they support.
Key recommendations for this subarea
also include conserving the unarmored
areas, feeder bluffs, and intact native
vegetation, and rehabilitating areas of
armored resIdences with little vegetation.
Restore sediment supply and longshore transport
Remove shoreline bulkheads that are not directly
associated with residences as well as existing groins
along shoreline.
Conserve the lagoon at Point Heyer
The lagoon at Point Heyer provides good rearing habitat
and nutrient sources. The drift cell to the north is among
the most intact drift cells in the project area. Conservation
of these unarmored shore.nes with mature riparian
vegetation would maintain high functioning habitat in the
drift cell and the sediment supply to the point. The marsh
and lagoon at the point provide important habitat that is
somewhat limited in the project area because of the
extensive shoreline modification that has OCCUlTed.
Rehabilitate longshore sediment transport in
Tramp Harbor
Remove areas of fill adjacent to fishing pier east of Tramp
Harbor to improve longshore sediment transport and
improve intertidal habitat.
kaII " F...
Map 13
East Vashon Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
V; 6b!~JjQL~
o 1.000 2.000 4,000
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.8 North Vashon Island
e
The North Vashon Island subarea contains five small drift cells wrapping around the
northern tip of the island and continuing south down the western island shore (see Map
2). Much of its shoreline perimeter is configured with houses at the base of bluffs with
armoring in front, and houses atop the bluff as well. Typically, there is some vegetation
below the blufftop houses and above the houses at the base of bluffs, but in general, the
subarea is nearly entirely armored with houses and bulkheads along the north face of
the island extending south to the Vashon Ferry Terminal. Also, there is a long row of
effective residential groins along the northern stretch of shore from Fern Cove to Point
Vashon.
Despite its armored state, the subarea also exhibits an unusually wide riparian corridor
compared to other parts of the project area. This is a unique attribute of this area, and it
is desirable to preserve this corridor to maintain the integrity of the canopy and the
source for L WD to the shore.
This subarea contains the second largest watershed on the islands, Shinglemill Creek
WDFW has documented that the creek supports anadromous salmonids (yVDFW 2002).
The creek's outlet is unarmored and there is a large marsh adjacent to the creek. South
of the creek, much of the shoreline is armored but there is much mature riparian
vegetation. Several other smaller tributaries occur in this subarea. The subarea also
contains several points and shoreline protrusions, some with large marshes and low
energy refuge areas, as is the case with Peter Point.
e
5.3.8.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Because of its proximity to Shinglemill Creek and other salmon streams, the North
Vashon Island subarea is important for its low energy and shaded habitats.
Maintaining these habitats for feeding and migrating juveniles is a key need in this
area, especially near the creek mouths and points with marsh vegetation. Also,
given the residential buildout of the shoreline and the number of bulkheads here, the
value of protecting and increasing the amount of unarmored habitat is significant.
e
FINAL Prioritization ofMnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
55
v;
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.8.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 14):
. Consen,Je shoreline west of the Vashon Ferry Terminal that is not armored and
that lacks residences.
· Conserve Shinglemill Creek's unarmored mouth and extensive riparian
vegetation.
. Conserve Peter Point and the other points and protrusions along the shore
that provide protection from high energy current conditions from the north
and south of the subarea.
. Conserve the wide corridor of riparian vegetation present along the subarea's
shoreline, particularly in areas with L WD present where it can be a source.
. Restore northward longshore sediment transport and maintain sediment
supply to Point Vashon by removing residential groins between Fern Cove
and Point Vashon.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
MP.y 2006
030239-01
56
North Vashon Island
This subarea includes Shinglemill Creek, one of the largest salmon-producing
tributaries on the islands. This subarea includes several points and coves that
provide low energy and shaded habitats. Maintaining creek mouths and points
with marsh vegetation is crucial here, as well as protecting and increasing
the amount of unarmored habitat.
_ "i~;
Conserve stream mouths and low-energy habitats
ConseNe Shingle Mill Creek's unannored mouth
-as well as other small creek mouths in the subarea.
ConseNe wide corridors of marine vegetation where
existing.
Conserve unannored shorelines and riparian zones
Protect the shoreline west of the Vashon Ferry
terminal that lacks residences in an area which
is heavily modified.
Conserve points and other low energy areas
ConseNe Peter Point and the points and coves
(e.g. Fem Cove) along the shore which provide
protection from high energy current conditions
from the north and south of the subarea.
Restore northwaRllongshore sediment transport
Restore and maintain sediment supply to Point Vashon
by removing residential groins between Fern Cove and
Point Vashon.
v; 6~~ttQ,~
1.000 2.oao
'.-
Map 14
North Vashon Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
8eaIIlnfeel
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
e
5.3.9 West Vashon Island
The subarea covering western Vashon Island includes a series of mostly large drift cells
that converge on the Sandford Point and Tahlequah areas; a northern drift cell extends
from just north of Lisabuela to just north of Sunset Beach (see Map 2). This subarea is
characterized by long stretches of unarmored feeder bluffs with extensive marine
riparian vegetation, with concentrations of houses along the shoreline that have
armoring and little vegetation. Along the subarea, in various places, there are several
small stream mouths that are unarmored and well-vegetated. Christenson Creek, which
flows into Puget Sound just south of Lisabuela in the central portion of the subarea, is
one of only three documented salmon streams on the islands (WDFW 2002). However,
other creeks in this subarea may be periodically utilized by salmon and the creek
mouths of all tributaries, particularly those that are not in pipes, may be utilized by
juvenile salmon migrating and rearing in the nearshore. In the southwest side of the
subarea, there is a long stretch of relatively unaltered habitat that may be the longest
stretch like this in the project area, but nearing the Tahlequah Ferry Terminal, armoring
is nearly continuous along the south shoreline of the island.
e
5.3.9.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Habitat quality is relatively high within a subarea with long drift cells. Thus, key
needs for this area are to conserve the unarmored and vegetated quality of the
shoreline, both for sediment transport and for migratory corridors. Additionally,
goals are to protect the existing tributary mouths for salmon use and feeding
opportunities.
5.3.9.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 15).
. Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs, intact riparian vegetation, and L WD across
the intertidal zone in the southern portion of the subarea. This is the longest
almost continuously unarmored shoreline in the project area. This reach
provides sediment to the updrift end (start) of an extended drift cell. This is a
priority for the entire project area and is identified in Section 5.2.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
58
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
· Conserve/Rehabilitate the unarmored feeder bluffs, intact marine riparian
vegetation, and L WD in the area south of Lisabuela at Christensen Cove, and
in the north end of the subarea.
Conserve existing unarmored tributary mouths and associated marshes.
These small tributaries provide high functioning habitat and contribute
organic matter and nutrients to the aquatic food web.
· Restore the outlet of Camp Sealth Creek by daylight4lg the lower reaches
and/or the tributary mouth.
Restore the mouth of Tahlequah Creek by reconfiguring or daylighting the
outlet from a residential bulkhead.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
'\l
May 2006
030239-01
59
e
e
-
e
e
e
West Vashon Island
This subarea contains two long drift
cells and several shorter ones.
There are many small tributary
mouths in the subarea. Sediment
transport and riparian zones should
be conserved and rehabilitated to
maintain quality migratory corridors.
Conserve unarmored bluffs, LWD,
and marine vegetation
Protect areas with high quality sediment transport
potential and migratory corridor conditions.
Conserve and rehabilitate riparian zone near Llsabuela
The creek channel and riparian vegetation are
generally intact at the creek mouth near Lisabeula.
Conservation of these features would maintain
current habitat function. Rehabilitation of the
riparian vegetation to the north of the creek would
improve habitat conditions.
Subarea Reco......ndat:loM;
00..._
Restore Tahlequah Creek mouth
Reconfigure or daylight the outlet from a residential
bulkhead.
--
#II .....
Model Reeultt: ClUJent Func:tlon
CUmAl: FUAGtiDa
............... ft-4ft
#v 40""-110%
.........
<p;:r~~pll .....~
..... so.. - 100'J'
Conserve small creek mouths
Several small creeks with small marshes and
intact riparian vegetation provide good habitat.
These areas also contribute organic matter and
nutrients to the aquatic food web.
~ 6~~JjQL~
-.-
Map 15
West Vashon Island Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
o 1,500 3,000 I,IlOO
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.10 West Quartennaster Harbor
e
The West Quartermaster Harbor subarea is composed of one long drift cell extending
from Neill Point to Camp Burton inside west Quartermaster Harbor (see Map 2). This
area has extensive feeder bluffs with few houses and mature riparian vegetation,
although the houses present do have armored shorelines. To the north, this area
transitions to a long section of shoreline with houses one to two rows deep along the
shoreline; in this area, riparian vegetation is present, but it is separated from the shore
by the houses. There are several roads along the shoreline in various sections as the
shore turns to an east/west direction, with more residential development.
Approaching Magnolia Beach from the south, there is a long, shallow, flat shoreline with
some small freshwater sources, but the main creek in the subarea is Fisher Creek, which
contains a marsh at Magnolia Beach that extends through the front yard of the houses.
This stream drains into a wide delta with dendritic intertidal channels. There is a very
large, intact marsh at Camp Burton that includes L WD accumulations.
Pacific herring have been documented as spawning along the entire shoreline of this
subarea and the southernmost portion is adjacent to an identified herring holding area
(WDFW 2003). There are no WDFW documented salmon streams in this subarea
(WDFW 2002).
e
5.3.10.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
The strength of habitat in this area is in its long, wide, flat, well-vegetated riparian
areas with small tributary mouths, and large lagoons. One key need with regard to
this habitat is to improve the mouth of Fisher Creek to expand the marsh habitat to
take full advantage of the refuge and feeding opportunities there. With its
importance for herring holding and spawning, the subarea's extensive flat beaches
should not be overlooked. Thus, sediment supply to this area should be conserved,
protected, and restored, and riparian vegetative cover should remain at a premium
here.
5.3.10.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 16):
61
.t.l;
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
· Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs, intact riparian vegetation, and L WD across
the intertidal zone along the southern third of the subarea. This is an
extended reach of good habitat that has added importance because herring
are documented as spawning along the shoreline. This is a priority for the
entire project area and is identified in Section 5.2.
· Conserve the marshes in the subarea, including Fisher Creek at Magnolia
Beach and Camp Burton.
· Restore sediment supply in the middle section of the subarea by removing
residential bulkheads in accretionary areas, such as adjacent to Fisher Creek.
· Restore the mouth of Fisher Creek, expand marsh habitat and remove
armoring, and provide marine riparian vegetation.
· Rehabilitate riparian vegeta,tion in residential areas where possible.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
62
~
Mny 2006
030239-01
West Quartermaster Harbor
This subarea has long, wide, flat, well-vegetated riparian areas with small tributary
mouths, and large lagoons. These areas and the extensive flat beaches also
present should be protected and restored for salmonid migratory corridors and
for the herring which have been documented to spawn here.
Conserve and restore creek mouth
Protect and improve habitat at Fisher Creek,
including expanding marsh, removing
armoring at residences along accretionary
delta; and improving marine riparian vegetation.
Conserve lagoon and marsh at Camp Burton
This marsh provides high functioning rearing habitat
for juvenile salmonids. These areas and the wide
corridor of riparian vegetation should be conserved
to maintain existing habitat function.
~
~
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation in residential areas
where possible
Rehabilitate riparian vegetation at available areas.
Riparian vegetation could be improved by planting
tree and plant species in locations that balance
the habitat benefits with the desire for views in
this and other residential areas.
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs
This area has extensive feeder bluffs with few houses
and has mature riparian vegetation. Vllhere possible,
remove unnecessary armor in sections of this reach.
This is an extended reach of good habitat that has
added importance because herring are documented
as spawning along the shoreline.
\l6~~Jj9L~
1,000 uoo
<,000
Map 16
West Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
INRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
SeaII In Fe.t
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
.
5.3.11 Inner Quartennaster Harbor
The subarea at inner Quartermaster Harbor includes several drift cells extending into
and out of the harbor (see Map 2). It is the most highly developed area on Vashon
Island; this area includes the marina inside the harbor. The harbor has areas of
fragmented habitat function overall, depending on individual residential choices for
planting or removing riparian vegetation and installing docks. Generally, the entire
shore of this subarea is armored.
.
The Judd Creek watershed is the largest watershed on the islands and flows into
Quartermaster Harbor in this subarea. It is a documented salmon stream and is the only
stream in the project area other than the GreenlDuwamish River with documented
Chinook utilization (WDFW 2002). The mouth of Judd Creek is armored and there is
little riparian vegetation along the creek delta. Other creeks in the subarea may be
periodically utilized by salmon if accessible and the creek mouths of all tributaries,
particularly those that are not in pipes, may be utilized by juvenile salmon migrating
and rearing in the nearshore. The subarea contains Raab's Lagoon, which exhibits a
small creek and an armored berm that partially disconnects the lagoon from the bay.
5.3.11.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
Habitat needs in this subarea include conserving and restoring the tributary mouths
and lagoon, which have been subject to development along the borders. Restoring
riparian vegetation where possible in this entire area is important to maintain and
sustain the herring spawning here. In addition, low-energy habitats offered by the
tributary mouths and lagoon could be greatly improved to offer highly functioning
juvenile salmonid feeding habitat.
5.3.11.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 17):
· Conserve the mouth of Judd Creek, one of the largest salmon producing
creeks on the islands. Rehabilitate the armoring and riparian vegetation
conditions just outside the mouth of the creek.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
64
~>.l
May 2006
030239-01
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
. Conserve/Restore the Tsugwalla Creek adjacent riparian zone. This creek e
currently has a wood bulkhead and bridge across it. Removing the structure
and conserving riparian vegetation will improve habitat function.
Conserve/Restore the mudflat and marsh complex south of the marina.
Mudflats are important sites for primary production that forms the base of
the aquatic food web. Conservation will help maintain these processes.
Restoration of the mudflat at the stream would remove fill to expand the
mudflat and marsh. The mudflat habitat at the marina would be improved
by reconfiguring the boat lift area to reduce the amount of overwater
structure.
. Restore creek at Raab's Lagoon by removing armor at the mouth of the lagoon
and adding riparian vegetation, particularly at the northwest perimeter.
e
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
65
\C
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
Inner Quartermaster Harbor
This subarea contains several tributary mouths and a lagoon which have been
developed along the borders. Restoring riparian vegetation where possible in
this entire area is important to maintain and sustain the documented herring
spawning here.
Conserve and rehabilitate creek mouth
Conserve unarmored shoreline and intact riparian
vegetation at the mouth of Judd Creek. This is one
of the two largest salmon,producing tributaries on
the islands. The creek mouth has extensive riparian
vegetation and provides desirable pocket estuary
habitat. Removal of armoring and addition of riparian
vegetation just outside the mouth of the creek would
improve habitat function.
e
Restore creek and
conserve riparian zone
Restore creek with wood
bulkhead bridge across by
removing structure. Conserve
existing riparian vegetation.
Restore Raab's Lagoon
Remove armor at mouth of
lagoon and improve riparian
vegetation, particularly at
the northwest perimeter.
Conserve and rastore mudllat and marsh
Mudflats support the primary production fonning the
base of the aquatic food web. Conservation of the
mudflat wil help maintain these functions. Removing
fin along the shoreline to expand the marsh to the east
of the marina would improve habhal. The mudflat habitat
at Ihe marina would be improved by reconfiguring Ihe
boat ill area to reduce Ihe amount of overwater structure.
t..l6,~~J:tQLf$
'000
Map 17
Inner Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
INRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
""10
2_
",lnf..,
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
5.3.12 East Quartermaster Harbor
The East Quartermaster Harbor subarea has two drift cells that both extend northward
toward Quartermaster Harbor from Piner Point (see Map 2). The southern portion of
the East Quartermaster Harbor subarea has a wide flat with extensive, unarmored
feeder bluffs. Further north, there is a single row of houses lining the shore with
armoring in front of each. The subarea also contains significant shoreline structures,
including a small marina at Dockton Park with a fish processing house connected to the
pier, and a former cannery with derelict overwater structure, derelict piling, and
shoreline rubble.
e
This area is an important herring spawning area, and like the rest of Quartermaster
Harbor, it is adjacent to an identified herring holding area that has been documented in
the area approximately between Neill Point on Vashon Island and Piner Point on Maury
Island out into Puget Sound (yVDFW 2003). There are no WDFW documented salmon
streams in this subarea (yVDFW 2002).
5.3.12.1 Habitat Needs and Goals
.
In this subarea, sediment supply is of foremost importance to conserve the extensive
and important herring spawning areas in and around Quartermaster Harbor. Feeder
bluffs need to be conserved and longshore transport south of the point at Dockton
should be restored to maintain sediment supply to the harbor. Remnant overwater
structures should be removed to maintain the migratory corridor and allow for
rehabilitation of riparian vegetation.
5.3.12.2 Priority Recommendations
Habitat recommendations in this subarea include the following (Map 18):
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and wide corridors of intact riparian
vegetation in the drift cell north of Dockton. This drift cell extends to Raab's
Lagoon, provides an extended reach of high quality habitat, and has added
importance because herring are documented as spawning along the
shoreline. This is a priority for the entire project area and is identified in
Section 5.2.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
67
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Priority Areas and Subarea Recommendations
. Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and wide corridors of intact riparian
vegetation around Piner Point at the southern end of the drift cell.
. Conserve the creek mouth immediately south of Raab's Lagoon (Mileta
Creek). The riparian vegetation and creek alignment is largely intact and
. functioning naturally. Rehabilitation of riparian vegetation to the north side
would provide additional terrestrial inputs to the aquatic food web.
. Conserve the spit at the point at Dockton and rehabilitate adjacent riparian
vegetation.
. Restore sediment longshore transport by removing unnecessary residential
armoring and groins south of the point at Dockton. These areas provide the
sediment that forms the spit at the point at Dockton that is recommended for
conservation.
. Rehabilitate the Dockton shoreline by removing overwater structure, piling,
and wood rubble on the beach. Improve riparian habitat nearby and west of
the point to the Dockton boat ramp.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
May 2006
030239-01
68
East Quartermaster Harbor
Extensive herring spawning and holding areas have been documented in and
near this subarea. Groins, unnecessary armor, and remnant overwater
structures should be removed to maintain the sediment supply and improve the
migratory corridor.
Rehabilitate shoreline near Dockton
Many materials along the Dockton shoreline should
be removed to improve habitat conditions. These
materials indude deteriorating overwater
structures, pilings, and beached wooden
lIoats. Longshore sediment transport could be
improved by removing or reconfiguring armoring .
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and vegetation
This drift cell indudes unannored feeder bluffs and wide
corridors of intact riparian vegetation. The drift cell
extends to Raab's Lagoon, provides an extended
reach of high quality habitat, and has added importance
because herring are documented as spawning along
the shoreline.
Conserve Spit near Dockton and rehabilitate
adjacent riparian vegetation
This small spit provides shallow rearing habitat for'
juvenile salmonids. The function could be
improved by adding riparian vegetation to shade the
area and provide terrestrial inputs to the aquatic
food web.
Conserve feeder bluffs near Piner Point
Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs and wide corridors
of intact riparian vegetation around Piner Point at
southern end of drift cell.
't.l6b!~!j9L~
.- ..-
.-
Map 18
East Quartermaster Harbor Subarea and Priority Recommendations
Identification of Priority Habitats
WRIA9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
&;:as.mF8ea
.
.
e
e
e
e
Conclusions
6 CONCLUSIONS
The habitat function model provided a useful tool for discovering an assortment of actions with
the potential to make the largest improvements in habitat function for juvenile salmonids in the
project area. However, even at the subarea scale, only a portion of the opportunities to improve
habitat function could be included. The priority recommendations presented in this report
represent the best opportunities given the decision system selected for the project, and are
representative of several other opportunities that may be available, but offer somewhat smaller
potential benefits.
These recommendations have value because they represent an interpretation of current habitat
function in the project area, as well as the restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution potential.
The recommendations reflect the mosaic of shoreline uses represented in the project area,
ranging from particular actions that may be taken in a specific location, to the consideration of
actions that may occur over a long stretch of shoreline. Because of multiple shoreline uses,
some recommendations were more opportunistic than others, owing to ownership and urban
constraints that occur there, while the implementation of others may be part of strategic actions
targetin~ specific habitat goals. In either case, the opportunities identified in this report have a
solid justification for restoring habitat function for salmonids migrating through the WRIA 9
marine nearshore.
FINAL Prioritization ofMnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
70
References
7 REFERENCES
e
Aitkin, J. K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats to anadromous salmonids of the Pacific
Northwest: a literature review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington.
Anchor Environmental, L.L.c. (Anchor). 2004. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report, WRIA 9.
Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, WRIA 9. March 2004.
Anchor and Natural Resources Consultants (NRC). 2005. Evaluation and Assessment of
Hatchery and Wild Salmon Interactions in WRIA 9. Prepared for WRIA 9 Steering
Committee. November 2005.
Beamer, E., A. McBride, R. Henderson, and K Wolf. 2003. The importance of non-natal pocket
estuaries in Skagit Bay to wild chinook salmon: an emerging priority for restoration.
Skagit System Cooperative Research Department, La Conner, W A 98257-0368.
Beamish, R. J., and C. Mahnken. 1998. Natural regulation of the abundance of coho and other
species of Pacific salmon according to a critical size and critical period hypothesis.
NP AFC Doc. No. 319. 26p.
e
Brennan, J.5., K.F. Higgins, J.R. Cordell, and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile Salmon
Composition, Timing, Distribution, and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central
Puget Sound, 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Seattle, WA. 164 pp.
Duffy, E.J. 2003. Early marine distribution and trophic interactions of juvenile salmon in Puget
Sound. M.S. Thesis, August 2003. University of Washington School of Aquatic and
Fishery Sciences.
Goetz, F.A. and E. Jeanes. 2004. Bull Trout in the Nearshore - Preliminary Draft. Prepared by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. June 2004.
Hargreaves, B.N. 1997. Early ocean survival of salmon off British Columbia and impacts of the
1983 and 1991-95 El Nino events. In Estuarine and ocean survival of Northeastern Pacific
71
~
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
Mny 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
References
salmon: Proceedings of the workshop, Edited by Emmett, RL., and M.H. Schiewe.
NMFS-NWFSC-29.
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in estuaries: the life support system. Pages 315-341
in Kennedy, V. S. editor. Estuarine comparison, Academic Press, New York, New York.
Hirschi, R, T. Doty, A. Keller, and T. Labbe. 2003. Juvenile salmonid use of tidal creek and
independent marsh environments in north Hood Canal: summary of first year findings.
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources.
Holtby, L.B., B.C. Anderson, and RK. Kadowaki. 1990. Importance of smolt size and early
ocean growth to interannual variability in marine survival of coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47(11): 2181-2194.
Johannessen, J., A. MacLennan, and A. McBride. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current
and Historic Beach Feeding SourcesfErosion and Accretion Areas for the Marine
Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 and 9. Prepared for The WRIA 9
Steering Committee and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services Inc., Bellingham, W A. December 2005.
Kerwin, J. and T.S. Nelson (Eds.). 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report, GreenfDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9
and Vashon Island). Washington Conservation Commission and the King County
Department of Natural Resources. December 2000.
Murphy, M.L., H.W. Jaenicke, and E.V. Jr. Farley. 1998. The importance of early marine growth
to interannual variability in production of southeastern Alaska pink salmon. NP AFC
Tech. Rep. pp. 18-19.
Nelson, T., G. Ruggerone, H. Kim, R Schaefer, and M. Boles. 2004. Draft - Juvenile Chinook
migration, growth and habitat use in the Lower Green River, Duwamish River and
Nearshore of Elliott Bay, 2001-2003. Prepared by King County Department of Natural
Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division.
FINAL Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines ofWRIA 9rWRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
Mny 2006
030239-01
72
References
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Puget Sound TRT). 2003. Integrated Recovery
Planning for Listed Salmon: Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound.
e
Shared Strategy. 2005. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget
Sound. Compiled and edited by Scott Redmond, Doug Myers, and Dan A verill- Puget
Sound Action Team. From contributions by the editors and Kurt Fresh and Bill Graeber,
NOAA Fisheries. Delivered to Shared Strategy for Puget Sound for inclusion in their
regional salmon recovery plan. June 28, 2005.
Simenstad, CA 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific Northwest coast: A
community profile. FWS/OBS-83/05. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, W A
Simenstad, C A, K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: An unappreciated function. In: V.S.
Kennedy [ed] Estuarine Comparisons. pp.343-365. Academic Press, Toronto.
Simenstad, CA, and J.R. Cordell. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring
anadromous salmon habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering
15:283-302.
e
Sogard, S.M. 1997. Size-selective mortality in the juvenile stage of teleost fishes: A review.
Bulletin of Marine Science. 60(3): 1129-1157.
Tovey, CP. 1999. The relationship between marine survival rates of Robertson Creek chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and their first marine year lengths and growth rates.
M.S. thesis, U. British Columbia. 114 pp.
Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) et al. 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and
Steelhead Stock Inventory, appendix one Puget Sound stocks. Prepared by Washington
Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington
Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia, Washington.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
~
May 2006
030239-01
73
References
. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1998. 1998 Washington Salmonid Stock
Inventory, Appendix Bull Trout and Dolly Varden. Prepared by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A.
WDFW. 2000. 2000 Washington Salmonid Stock Inventory, Appendix Coastal Cutthroat Trout.
Prepared by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, W A.
WDFW. 2002. Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Prepared by
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, W ashington. Available at
SalmonScape at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/ .
WDFW. 2003. Priority Habitats and Species Report. WDFW Office, Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. The Washington State
ShoreZone Inventory. Washington Department of Natural Resources Nearshore Habitat
Program. Available at http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/data/. Olympia, WA.
e
. Washington Trout. 2001. Water Type and Stream Mouth Assessment. Vashon Island. June/July
2001. Information available at:
http://www.washingtontrout.orgNashonNashon2001NashonTitle.shtml .
Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8). 2005. Final Lake Washington Cedar/Sammamish
Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. July 2005.
Water Resource Inventory Area 9 and King County (WRIA 9 and KC). 2004. Draft WRIA 9
Strategic Assessment Report - Scientific Foundation for Salmonid Habitat Conservation.
Prepared for Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Steering Committee. June 2004.
WRIA 9. 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making our Watershed Fit for a King. Green/Duwamish
and Central Puget Sound Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Area 9. August 2005.
e
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
\l
Mny 2006
030239-01
74
References
Williams, G.D. and R.M. Thom. 2001. White Paper: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline
Modification Issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation.
Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, J.E. Starkes, and 14 authors. 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of
the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including
Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). J.S. Brennan, Editor. Report prepared for
King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
FINAL Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
WRIA 9 Technical Committee
'>-l
May 2006
030239-01
75
e
e
e
e
e
e
APPENDIX A
FIELD DATA COLLECTION REPORT
Table of Contents
1 FIELD DATA COLLECTION ................................. ...... ........................ ..................................... ........ 1 e
1.1 Data Collection Area...... ...... ............................... ......... ......................... ................................ ..... 1
1.2 Methods .............. ......... ......... ................ .................. ................................. ........ .......... .......... ........ 1
1.2.1 Boat Survey . ................. ........ .......... ................... .......... ............. ............................. ..............1
1.2.2 Decision Rules .............. ............ ................................................................ ..................... .....3
1.2.2.1 Armoring and Change in Armoring Elevation.......................................................... 3
1.2.2.2 Groins... .......................................... ............ ........................ .,... ....... ............... ................... 8
1.2.2.3 Marshes. ....... ...................................... ........................................... ..... ........ ..... ............... 11
1.3 Results and Use of Data ..........................................................................................................12
2 REFERENCES .... ............................ ........... ............. .............. ............................ .................... .............. 16
List of Tables
Table A-I Data Dictionary Used for Field Data Collection
List of Maps
Map A-I Shoreline Armor
Map A-2 Marshes and Stream Mouths
Map A-3 Groins, Marine Rails, Ramps
e
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-i
~
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
e 1 FIELD DATA COLLECTION
An identification and prioritization of areas for conservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of
juvenile salmonid habitat was performed for the City of Seattle (City) and Water Resource
Inventory Area 9 (WRIA 9) (see main report, titled Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of Water
Resource Inventory Area 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration). The
prioritization was completed using a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based habitat
model. To support this work, a field data collection effort was employed for certain habitat
attributes that could not be mapped to sufficient resolution by a previous effort in aerial photo
interpretation (Anchor 2004). This appendix presents methods for this effort; resulting data
were used in the habitat function model and the prioritization of habitats as described in the
main report.
1.1 Data Collection Area
e
The area for field data collection encompassed the entire project area, including the marine
shoreline of Seattle and WRIA 9 (see Map 1, main report). This comprised approximately 90
miles of shoreline, including the entire marine shorelines of the municipalities of Seattle
(south of Discovery Point), Burien, Normandy Park, Des Moines, and Federal Way; and the
marine shorelines of Vashon and Maury Islands.
1.2 Methods
In this field effort, new data were collected and existing data were refined. New data were
collected for habitat features that were either unknown (e.g., groins and marshes) or for
which there was insufficient detail following the photo interpretation. "Point" data (single
points) were collected for groins and marshes, and "line" data (continuous feature) were
collected for shoreline armoring (toe of armoring above, at, or below Ordinary High Water
[OHW]).
e
1.2.1 Boat SUIVey
Field data collection was completed by proceeding by small boat along the shoreline of
the project area, typically in 3 to 4 feet water depth, and collecting location data at points
(for groins and marshes) or at line breaks (for shoreline armoring). A laptop loaded
with with GIS data layers was used aboard the boat to confirm boat location as well as to
groundtruth existing habitat data with observed habitat features. Collected data were
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-I
,.~
'V-.,
Mny 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
noted in a logbook and input to a project-specific data dictionary in a differential Global
Positioning System (DGPS) datalogger (Table A-I).
e
Table A-1
Data DIctionary Used for Field Data Collection
Stream Mouth
Marsh Point
Shoreline Armor
Photo Point
Data Correction
e
For shoreline armoring, line breaks were recorded for armoring that spanned 50 or more
(estimated) continuous feet of shoreline. For example, if the toe of a stretch of armoring
was below OHW and adjacent to this there was a different section of armoring with a
toe above OHW, a GPS break point was recorded at the point that the above-OHW
armoring began. A GPS point was recorded when the boat was approximately
perpendicular to the shoreline at the 'new' section of armoring (distance and bearing
offsets recorded).
In addition to collecting new information, the field survey ground-truthed data for
habitat features that were previously characterized in the photo interpretation. On the
boat, the GIS data layers were compared with field conditions and errors in
characterization were corrected. For example, if an object was previously characterized
in the photo interpretation as a boat ramp, but during the field survey, it was recognized
Appendix A of Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-2
,,'j!.
"'-~
May 2006
030239-01
e
Field Data Collection
e
as a small dock, a GPS location was recorded and the correction was noted. Notes and
GPS locations were also recorded for stream mouths that were observed in the field but
not present on existing GIS stream data layers. Also, certain areas that were identified
as "difficult to interpret" in the previous photo interpretation were visited and
characterized.
During the field survey, certain shoreline features were observed that did not fit the data
collection categories; these were noted as Unidentified Feature Objects (UFOs). While
these features did not fit the shoreline categories being specifically noted in the field
survey, the field team included these for completeness of shoreline information in the
project area. These constituted unusual configurations of shoreline features such as
shoreline armoring, ()verwater cover, beach structures, marine rails, and boat lifts. In
these cases, a GPS location was recorded and a photo was taken of the area. Locations
and photos of the UFOs can be viewed further in the GIS layers (Appendix B of the main
report).
e
1.2.2 Decision Rules
In most cases, characteristics of habitat features were immediately obvious to the field
crew (i.e., armoring above OHW was visually obvious as armoring above OHW), but
some features required interpretation. For example, some stretches of the shoreline
exhibited rock piles that could be called armoring, and some shorelines exhibited very
short stretches of armoring that did not justify a separate line break. The following
sections, pictures, and captions describe the rules used for these habitat features and
cases.
e
1.2.2.1 Arrnoring and Change in Arrnoring Elevation
Armoring was not mapped as such if it covered less than 50 linear feet of the
shoreline (e.g., Photo 1). In instances of uncertainty whether armoring spanned at
least 50 feet, the break location was always collected (as opposed to not collecting a
break location). Changes in armoring elevation were not mapped if armoring
covered less than 50 linear feet of the shoreline (e.g., Photos 2 and 3). In instances of
uncertainty whether the change in armoring elevation spanned at least 50 feet, the
break location was always collected (as opposed to not collecting a break location).
Appendix A of Prioritization of Mnrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-3
-~
Mny 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
Rock armoring was not mapped as such if it was visually uncertain whether the rock
was placed rock (and not part of a failing upland wall or naturally occurring boulder
pile) (e.g., Photo 4). Piles of wood scraps or derelict wood building remnants were
not mapped as armor (e.g., Photo 5), and piles with no bulkhead behind them were
not mapped as armor (e.g., Photo 6).
Photo 1
Mainland, South of Des Moines Marina. Unarmored section
(approximately 10 feet) too short to map.
e
e
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-4
-\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Field Data Collection
Photo 2
Mainland near Normandy Beach Park. Break In "armorlng below
OHW" to lIarmorlng above OHW'I was mapped because stretch of
shoreline with change in armorlng elevation Is approximately at
least 60 linear shoreline feet In length.
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-5
\l
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
e
Photo 3
South end of Vashon Island, near. Point Daleo. Shoreline section
behind ladder and sailboat not mapped as "armorlng above OHW"
because section too short to .note (less than 50 linear shoreline feet).
e
Photo 4
Mainland, South of Dash Point. Unclear whether placed rock.
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-6
tl
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
e
Photo 5
West side of Maury Island, Northeast of Dockton. Debris on
shore not mapped as armor.
e
Photo 6
West side of Vashon Island, near Sandford Point. Plies with no
bulkhead behind them not mapped as armor.
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-7
\l
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
1.2.2.2 Groins
e
During the field survey, groins were defined broadly so as to capture the function
and intent of groin-like structures in the project area. Groins were mapped as
follows: cross-shore structures appearing to be groins that were impeding or not
impeding sediment on one side; or cross-shore structures not intended to be groins
that were impeding sediment on one side. For the purpose of the habitat model,
groins were grouped into categories of "effective" if impeding sediment or "not
effective" if not impeding sediment (e.g.: Photos 7 through 9) based on field
conditions. Concrete stairs in general showed little to no evidence of sediment
impediment and thus for the purposes of the model were not mapped as groins (e.g.,
Photo 10).
e
Photo 7
Vashon Island, North end of Quartermaster Harbor. The buttress-like
features shown were characterized as "not effective" groins.
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-8
-~
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Field Data Collection
Photo 8
East side Vashon Island, North of Point Beals. The failed rock groins
shown were characterized as "not effective" groins.
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-9
v;
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
e
Photo 9
Vashon Island, west side of Quartermaster Harbor. The big rock pile
shown was characterized as a "not effective" groin.
e
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-lO
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Field Data Collection
Photo 10
West side of Maury Island, near Manzanita. Concrete stairs in Intertidal
not mapped as groins.
1.2.2.3 Marshes
Some areas in the field survey contained shoreline vegetation that appeared to be
marsh on aerial photos, but upon closer inspection were comprised of turfgrass
growing close to shore. These areas were not mapped, absent marsh vegetation (e.g.,
Photo 11).
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
field Data Collection Report A-ll
\l
May 2006
030239-01
Field Data Collection
e
Photo 11
Mainland, South of Dash Point Turfgrass area not mapped as marsh.
1.3 Results and Use of Data
e
Results from the field data collection were collated for the purpose of use in the habitat
function model developed for the project. Layers were created or updated for the following
habitat features:
Marshes
Groins
. Shoreline armoring (elevation)
Docks
Ramps
.
Marine rails
New maps produced using information from the field verification show the location of
armoring and its relative elevation to OHW; the location of stream mouths and marshes;
and the location of shoreline structures such as ramps, groins, and marine rails (Maps A-I,
A-2, and A-3). More data from the field effort described in this appendix can be viewed in
Arc GIS format in Appendix B of the main report.
e
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-12
\G
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
\l6~S;Jj9L~
o 0.5 1 2
,..... - .
Scale in Miles
LEGEND
Shoreline Armor
Armor Above OHW
Armor At OHW
"-" Armor Below OHW
Map A-1
Shoreline Armor
Field Data Collection Report
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
tl6b!S;Jj9L~
.
LEGEND
Stream Mouths
.
Not Salmon Bearing
e
. Salmon Bearing
Marsh Vegetation
e
e
Map A2
Marshes and Stream Mouths
Field Data Collection Report
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
e
e
-
~ 6~~JjL9J~
.
o 0.5 1 2
1"""""1... ,
Scale in Miles
LEGEND
.
Ramps
Ineffective Groin
. Effective Groin
. Marine Rails
Map A-3
Groins, Marine Rails, Ramps
Field Data Collection Report
WRIA 9 Nearshore Habitat Assessment
Field Data Collection
2 REFERENCES
Anchor Environmental, L.L.c. (Anchor). 2004. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report, WRIA 9.
Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, WRIA 9. March 2004.
Appendix A of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Field Data Collection Report A-16
.. 'fl.
~':'
May 2006
030239-01
-
e
-
e
e
e
APPENDIX B
FINAL GIS DATA LAYERS (DATA CD)
APPENDIX C
SCORING SYSTEM FOR HABITAT FUNCTION MODEL
e
e
e
e
e
e
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION.......................................... ......... .............................. .................. .................. ........... 1
2 MODEL FRAMEWORK.............................. ......... ........................ ............ ...... ................... ................. 2
3 HABITAT FUNCTION MODEL SCORING SYSTEM ................................................................... 5
4 RATIONALE FOR THE SCORING SySTEM.................................................................................. 9
4.1 Sediment Supply Shoretype ................ ........ .................. ................. ........ .................................. 9
4.2 Obstructions to Longshore Sediment Transport ...................................................................9
4.3 Aquatic Vegetation........... ............... ....... .............................. .................................... ......... ...... 10
4.4 Forage Fish Spawning............................ ........................ ...... ............. ......................... ......... ....1 0
4.5 Beach Width...... .......... ....... .................... ....................... ...... ...................... .................... ...... ...... 11
4.6 Armor Elevation..... ...... ......................... ................................................................................... 11
4.7 Overwater Structures..... ......................... ......................... ............................. ....................... .... 11
4.8 Riparian Vegetation.................................................... ........ ...................... .............................. .12
4.9 Marshes..................... .............................................................. ..... ........ ........... ........................... 12
5 REFERENCES .. ................................................ .................................................................................. 13
List of Tables
Table C-l Data Used in the Evaluation of the Ecological Function of Habitats
Table C-2 Scoring System of Habitat Function Model
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-i
\l
May 2006
030239-01
Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents the scoring system of a habitat function model used to characterize
marine nearshore shoreline reaches in Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (the GreenfDuwamish
Watershed; WRIA 9). The habitat function model was one tool used to identify priority areas
for conservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and substitution of habitat for juvenile salmonids
(see main report, titled Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Area 9 for
Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration).
The scoring system was developed by the project team with collaboration of scientists from
multiple entities in WRIA 9 to quantify the relative contribution (beneficial or adverse) of each
habitat feature to the overall ecological function of the shoreline for juvenile salmonids. Scores
were assigned relative to one another based on scientific literature pertaining to nearshore
processes and biological research.
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-!
tl.
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Model Framework
e 2 MODEL FRAMEWORK
The habitat function model assigns scores for a suite of habitat parameters that contribute to or
provide habitat function for juvenile salmonids in the marine nearshore. The basic model
scoring formula assigns scores based on current conditions. Shoreline segments with the
highest scores for current condition can be interpreted as those with the highest conservation
value.
e
Additional scoring formulas were developed for rehabilitation and restoration. Substitution
opportunities were identified through consideration of current habitat function and potential
restored habitat function, as well as the apparent feasibility of restoration given an area's
infrastructure constraints. The rehabilitation scoring formula modifies the current condition
formula by assuming that all potential rehabilitation actions of the habitat parameters used in
the model have been conducted. In keeping with the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team
definitions (puget Sound TRT 2003), rehabilitation actions are those that will improve habitat
function, but may have limited or no impact on the underlying processes. An example of a
rehabilitation action is the addition of riparian vegetation. Using the Puget Sound TRT
definitions, substitution actions are those that create habitat features to replace lost function.
Substitution can be applied where habitat function is lost through anthropogenic degradation
and restoration or rehabilitation are not possible. An example of a substitution action is the
placement of sediment in the intertidal zone to "nourish" the beach where no other potential
sediment source could be restored or rehabilitated.
Similarly, the restoration scoring formula assumes that all potential restoration actions of the
habitat parameters used in the model have been conducted. An example of a restoration action
is the removal of barriers to re-establish sediment connectivity between bluffs and the intertidal
zone.
e
Each scoring formula uses multiple habitat features to characterize habitat function in three
components of the nearshore:
. Sediment supply - the availability of sediment from naturally occurring processes such
as coastal erosion and stream transport, and the integrity of the process in transporting
that sediment along the shore to nourish and create broad, shallow water beaches and to
support aquatic vegetation
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-2
\l
May 2006
030239-01
Model Framework
· Migration corridor - the quality and continuity of the shallow subtidal and intertidal
corridor used by juvenile salmon to migrate along the shore, including the ability of the
corridor to provide refuge from high energy conditions and predators
· Riparian corridor - the quality of the riparian corridor as it influences the availability of
terrestrial or freshwater prey resources and organic matter from the vegetative canopy,
and as it provides shade (cover from predators and protection for spawning forage fish)
The habitat features used in this evaluation were selected for their contribution to providing or
affecting one or more of the essential ecological functions for juvenile salmonids (see main
report). Table C-l identifies the habitat features and descriptors used to characterize the three
nearshore components. Data sources were selected for their ability to provide coverage of the
entire study area and to describe the structure and process of the nearshore habitat in terms of
the ecological function that habitat provides to juvenile salmon.
Data were input into the model and snapped to the topology of the Mean Higher High Water
line of the shoreline modified from the ShoreZone Inventory of Washington (WDNR 2001).
Discrete shoreline segments were created by inserting a line break at the point that any feature
or attribute of the data changed. Each shoreline segment was given a discrete score for current
habitat function. The resulting output was a single polyline shapefile with segments of varying
lengths and current function scores, each of which represented a homogeneous condition in
relation to all the data describing that segment's habitat function.
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-3
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
e
e
e
Model Framework
Sediment
Supply
Migration
Corridor
Riparian
Corridor
Table C-1
Data Used In the Evaluation of the Ecological Function of Habitats
Sediment process shore
type
Johannessen et al. (2005)
with additional armor
information from Anchor
2004
Anchor (Appendix A, main
re ort
Presence of groins, boat
ram s, and marine rails
I Aquatic vegetation I Presence of eelgrass, ShoreZone (WDNR 2001)
1___ +_ maq<?~g~~.Qr k~!2.- i
I I i Priority Habitats and
i Documented forage fish I Species Data (provided by
i Forage fish spawning I spawning I King County, 2003, from
I . ; ~ WDFW 2003)
1..._____Eleach ~i~'2....____1__lntertid~!J?~!9!1~!~LI--~-~ore~oneJYY.QNR 29.QJL
i Shoreline armor in intertidal 'II Sh I' t d th Anchor (Appendix A, main
I zone ore me armor oe ep report}
1---- overw~er struc~:-----iPresence of piers,d~ckS, ;1 Anchor (2004)
, res I houses over the water I
I Condition of riparian
I " , vegetation, including I
I' Riparian vegetation i tat' ty I t' Anchor (2004)
I vege Ion pe, oca lon, I
: ______+__~d conti~-'-'-TI
, Marshes I Presence of supratidal salt Anchor (Appendix A, main
L " marsh I report)
I I Location and condition (e.g.,! King County (2004),
I piped, armored, unarmored) I Johannessen et al. (2005),
I of stream mouths and use of II Washington Trout (2001),
I stream for spawning by Anchor (Appendix A, main
anadromous salmonids I re ort
Stream mouths
tl
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-4
May 2006
030239-01
Habitat Function Model Scoring System
3 HABITAT FUNCTION MODEL SCORING SYSTEM
e
Table C-2 presents the scoring system used to characterize current conditions, rehabilitated
conditions, and restored conditions. The rehabilitation scoring formula assumes that the
following improvements can be made:
. Obstructions to longshore transport (groins, boatramps, .and marine rails) are removed1
. Shoreline armoring elevation is improved such that armoring currently below ordinary
high water (OHW) is moved to OHW and armoring at OHW is moved above OHW
. Overwater structures (docks, piers, and houses) are removed
. Riparian vegetation is improved to provide patchy trees adjacent to the intertidal zone,
if current conditions provide less function
. Stream mouth conditions are improved such that currently piped stream mouths are
daylighted to become armored and currently armored stream mouths become
unarmored
The restoration scoring formula assumes that the following improvements can be made:
. Sediment supply connectivity is restored through removal of shoreline armor and
historic shoretypes are re-established
. Obstructions to longshore transport (groins, boatramps, and marine rails) are removed
. Overwater structures (docks~ piers, and houses) are removed
. Riparian vegetation is improved to provide continuous trees adjacent to and
overhanging the intertidal zone with large woody debris (L WD) across the intertidal
zone in all areas
. All stream mouth modifications (pipes and armoring) are removed
. Marsh conditions are improved from patchy to continuous
e
Rehabilitation potential was calculated for each segment as the difference between the
rehabilitation score and the current function score. Similarly, restoration potential was
calculated for each segment as the difference between the restoration score and the current
function score.
1 In general, marine rails in the nearshore can be designed to minimize impacts to longshore sediment
transport and reflected wave energy (and can more easily be designed to do so than boat ramps).
However, in a rehabilitation scenario, the recommendation includes removing marine rails because of
their presence as a physical structure in the nearshore and their general potential to impede sediment.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-5
.\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Habitat Function Model Scoring System
Table C-2
Scoring System of Habitat Function Model
.. N~~"h9
. C~"'P~"~
~J~~T~~,:~~~~;;~!!>or!:~~;;~~~~~;;;~~~~~ Joh;';~;~;;n et ---
I al. (2005) at (2005)
I FBE = 35 FBE = 35
I ffi=~ ffi=~
AS=15 AS=15
; TA=5 TA=5
I NAD=O NAD=O
II MOD = 0 MOD = 0
and if Anchor (2004) armoring.shp and if Anchor (2004) armoring.shp
I indicates armor is present then MOD indicates armor is present then MOD
II mm..m ..m mm~~l:)r~~ppli~c1m mm m m .m .....mmmmm~~l:)~~ppli~c1
Obstructions within 0.6 miles downdrift
I oer Anchor (2004) and Anchor
(Aooendix A. main reoort)
I Number of effective groins + (0.5 *
I number of ineffective groins, boat ramps,
I marine rails)
I none = 0.0
1 to 5 = 0.1
5 or more = 0.2
Sediment
Supply
Contributing
Habitat
Features
Assumes all groins, boat ramps, and
marine rails have been removed, so
score = 0.0
Historic Shoretvoe oer Johannessen et
al. (2005)
FBE = 35
FB = 30
AS = 15
TA=5
PFB = 5
NFB = 5
NAD=O
Assumes all groins, boat ramps, and
marine rails have been removed, so
score = 0.0
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model
C-6
\l.
May 2006
030239-01
Habitat Function Model Scoring System
rm
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
Migration
Corridor
Contributing
Habitat
Features
I.Aq~:~~t~~:~i~ii:m:!~:~:~:~~:tl:l~!lc..~~!~th~..(~~(A~~~~r_~_I~"~~!~r1~Q,,!~a~!~~t!~c:!~~~~J)l_.:._mm
I sinale value of the followina per WDNR Score IS ~Ighest single value of the Score IS ~Iahest smale value of the
I (2001): followlna per~DR (2_001): followma per~DR (2_001):
I Eelgrass continuous = 15 Eelgrass continuous - 15 Eelgrass continuous - 15
, Eelgrass patchy = 10 Eelgrass patchy = 10 Eelgrass patchy = 10
Macroalgae (CHB, GCA, MAC, NER, Macroalgae (CHB, GC~, MAC, _NER, Macroalgae (CHB, GC~, MAC, _NER,
RED, SAR, SBR) continuous = 10 RED, SAR, SBR) contlnu~us -10 RED, SAR, SBR) contlnu~us -10
Macroalgae patchy = 5 Macroalga~ patch~ - 5 Macroalga~ patch~ - 5
Ulva continuous = 5 Ulva continuous - 5 Ulva continuous - 5
['''._'_______~I,,~pat~hy.:=_L__________.______._u.~a ~~hY =_~._.__ __________~~~~~tchy_=.:.:
Foraae fish per WDFW (2003) Foraae fish per WDFW (2003) Foraae fish per WDFW (2003)
-.-.--~~~~;;~:~~;;~~~_~~_~___. ._____!!~~~;;;~;~~~~;~~t~;.~~___ ----~~~~~~~:~~~~;~~~;_;L_,__
I Beach slope per WDNR (2001) . Beach slope per WDNR (2001) Beach slope per WDNR (2001)
I Slope less than 50 (BC_Class 24, 26, 28, Slope less than 50 (BC_Class 24, 26, 28, Slope less than 50 (BC_Class 24, 26, 28,
or29)=10 or 29) = 10 or 29) = 10
I Slope more than 50 (BC_Class 22, 25, Slope more than 50 (BC_Class 22, 25, Slope more than 50 (BC_Class 22, 25,
I 27,or30)=9 27, or 30) =9 27,or30)=9
r__~~_f'!_!!l~~~Bc_g!~~~~~~r_~~L~ __~an ma~!!g_gass 32 0!~~L=:1___ _._M~_n:!~<<!~_(!!g..Q~~_32 o!:~~L=:_,~_'_.m
I Current armor elevation per Anchor
i Current armor elevation per Anchor (Appendix A. main report)
I (Appendix A. main report) No armor or elevation above OHW = 0.0
No armor or elevation above OHW = 0.0 Assumes armor currently at OHW is
I At OHW = 0.1 moved above OHW, so score = 0.0
Below OHW = 0.3 Assumes armor currently below OHW is
1m ,', '" '..mm, m.m--.-.'_m.__...._.._m..m_.rl!Q,,~.!2~tQtlYY.'~1:l~9~E~::::Q:1..m.
I Current overwater structures per Anchor
I (2004)
None present = 0.0
i Present with total width < 20 ft = 0.2
Present with total width ~ 20 ft = 0.4
Current armor elevation per Anchor
(Aooendix A. main report)
Assumes all armor is removed, so score
= 0.0
Assulfles all overwater structures are
removed, so score = 0.0
Assumes all overwater structures are
removed, so score = 0.0
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model
e
C-7
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
e
e
Habitat Function Model Scoring System
Riparian
I
i-------
!
I
i
!
!
i
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
Formula
Contributing
Habitat
Features
j~iP~~I~~~~9~~!I~~c':N.!!l~~!(~_!r~al~~*(~i~~~~~a.;;~~~::~C?:;~~~~~~(2004)
I '" sum of the followina
i Rloarlan veoetatlon oer Anchor (2004) Assumes areas with current riparian
I sum of the followino vegetation other than trees are improved
I Type: ~r~es ;:: ~, sh~ubs ;:: ~, grass;:: 0 to having patchy trees adjacent to the
I Proximity to Intertidal: adjacent ;::1, intertidal, so score;:: 5
I separated ;:: 0 Areas with current riparian vegetation of
Overh~nging i~tertidal: yes;:: 2, no ;:: 0 continuous trees adjacent to intertidal
DenSity: continuous;:: 2, patchy;:: 1 would still receive a score;:: 6
! LWD: yes;:: 2, no ;:: 0 Overhanging intertidal: yes;:: 2, no ;:: 0
I LWD: yes;:: 2, no =.9____ .
I-~~'~-~::-:er AnCh~r-(~~:::~i~:.-~:-i:---:~:~::-::r:n~~:r-(:~~:ndix A. main
I . reoort) . reoort)
I Continuous marsh at AS ;:: 10 Continuous marsh at AS ;:: 10
I Continuous marsh not at AS ;:: 5 Continuous marsh not at AS ;:: 5
. Patchy marsh at AS ;:: 5 Patchy marsh at AS ;:: 5
Patchy marsh not at AS ;:: 2 Patchy marsh not at AS ;:: 2
No marsh;:: 0 No marsh;:: 0
Stream mouths oer Anchor (Aooendix A.
main reoort)
Salmon stream within 100 feet;:: 10
f N<?!1-5l!lm(m ~!rea!TI. '!Vi!hin_~? feet;:: 2
Stream mouth condition cer Kina Countv
(2004). Johannessen et at (2005).
Washinoton Trout (2001), Anchor
(Aooendix A. this volume)
Unarmored;:: 0.0
Armored;:: 0.3
Piped;:: 0.9
FBE = feeder bluff exceptional PFB = potential feeder bluff
FB = feeder bluff NFB = not feeder bluff
AS = accretion shoreform CHB = chocolate browns
T A = transition area GCA = Gracilaria
NAD = no appreciable drift MAC = Macrocystis
MOD = modified NER = Nereocystis (kelp)
Appendix C of Prioritization of Milrine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model
Rioarian veoetation oer Anchor (2004)
sum of the followino
Assumes all areas are improved to
provide continuous trees adjacent to and
overhanging the intertidal zone and
having LWD, so score;:: 10
Marshes oer Anchor (Aooendix A. main
reoort)
Assumes all marshes become
continuous, so current condition
Continuous marsh at accretion
shoreform (AS) ;:: 10
Continuous marsh not at AS ;:: 5
Patchy marsh at AS ;:: 10
Patchy marsh not at AS ;:: 5
N<:lr'rll:i~h::;:9..
Stream mouths oer Anchor (Aooendix A.
main reoort)
Salmon stream within 100 feet;:: 10
.._NC?I'l~l!lr'rIQI'l~!r.~l!r'rI_~!hil'l~?.f.t:~t::: .~_
Stream mouths oer Anchor (Aooendix A.
main reoort)
Salmon stream within 100 feet;:: 10
Non-salmon stream within 25 feet;:: 2
,>>..~_.~', ,. ",~'_'_"'.,., '.,.._~..,...n_.. ,., ._~.".~,_~~....._.....~..._., ....._.__.._p__..._~_~_.__...~.,.".,,~_.....
Stream mouth condition oer Kina County
(2004). Johannessen et at (2005).
Washinoton Trout (2001). Anchor
(Aooendix A. this volume)
Assumes currently armored stream
mouths are improved to be unarmored,
so score ;:: 0.0
Assumes currently piped streams are
improved to be only armored, so score ;::
0.3
RED = Gigartina-Odontlllllia-Prionitis-Polysiphonia and others
SAR = Sargassum
SBR = soft browns
C-8
Assumes all stream mouths are
improved to be unarmored, so score ;::
0.0
t.l.
May 2006
030239-01
Rationale for the Scoring System
4 RATIONALE FOR THE SCORING SYSTEM
e
This section describes the information used to determine which habitat features to use in the
model and the justification for the scoring system. It is important to note that habitat feature
selection also required the availability of a consistent dataset for the entire project area.
4.1 Sediment Supply Shoretype
The introduction, movement, and deposition of sediment to the marine nearshore of Puget
Sound is a major habitat-forming and habitat sustaining process (Shared Strategy 2005). A
key source of sediment to the intertidal zone is through the natural erosion of bluffs.
Through the movement of sediment along a beach in sectors called drift cells, a sediment
source area (feeder bluff) can provide sediment that feeds the beach over many miles.
Shoreline armoring, such as bulkheads, disconnects potential sediment sources from the
intertidal zone and through the interruption of the sediment supply can impact beach
function over many miles (depending on the size of the drift cell).
The scoring system was developed to emphasize the importance of feeder bluffs as sediment
sources and add even greater importance to areas identified by Johannessen et al. (2005) as e
exceptional feeder bluffs. Accretion shoreforms that are the landform created by the
sediment deposition at the downdrift end of a drift cell were given a moderate score. Large,
intact accretion shoreforms can provide lagoons and pocket estuaries that provide high
quality habitat for juvenile salmon rearing (Hirschi et al. 2003; Beamer et al. 2003). Modified
shorelines disconnect shorelines or provide altered transport or depositional conditions, so
no score was assigned.
4.2 Obstructions to Longshore Sediment Transport
Shoreline alterations that obstruct the movement of sediment along the beach can impact the
supply of sediment to downdrift areas (Ecology 2006). Alterations, such as groins, are
intentionally built to restrict sediment movement. The interruption of sediment transport is
an indirect effect of shoreline alterations such as boat ramps and groins, and to a lesser
degree, marine rails.
The range of impact that groins may have is estimated at 0.6 mile (1 kilometer); that is, a
groin within 0.6 miles downdrift of a sediment supply was considered to reduce the
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-9
~
May 2006
030239-01
Rationale for the Scoring System
e
sediment supply's contribution to nearshore habitat function. This distance was estimated
using best professional judgment as to a reasonable length of shoreline that may be affected
by the presence of a groin located "up drift" in the drift cell.
4.3 Aquatic Vegetation
The importance of eelgrass in the marine nearshore is well documented (e.g., Simenstad et
al. 1982; Thom 1985; Williams et al. 2001). Eelgrass productivity exceeds that of most other
aquatic vegetation, and the organic carbon produced by eelgrass is particularly important in
driving the nearshore food web (Williams et al. 2001). Eelgrass also provides vertical
structure that can provide predator refuge for juvenile salmonids.
e
Other types of aquatic vegetation, such as macroalgae and kelp, can provide similar
functions. Kelp and macroalgae support productive prey communities for juvenile
salmonids by providing material for grazing by epibenthic prey communities (Northcote et
al. 1979; Healey 1982; Brennan et al. 2004). Intertidal vegetation also provides vertical
structure that can provide predator refuge for juvenile salmonids. Juvenile chum have been
observed using vegetation as a refuge from predators (Tompkins and Leving 1991).
The many types of kelp and macro algae found in the project area were grouped together
because there was not sufficient information to differentiate between the values of the
vegetation types for juvenile salmonids. Ulva was excluded from this group of kelp and
macroalgae and not scored in the model because it was ubiquitous in the project area and
would therefore decrease the contribution of the aquatic vegetation parameter to habitat
function. The potential negative effects of an overabundance of Ulva, such as changes to
benthic macroinvertebrate communities and prevention of larval settlement (Frankenstein
2000), also were considered in excluding it from the scoring system.
e
4.4 Forage Fish Spawning
The importance of forage fish in the diets of juvenile salmonids is well documented (e.g.,
Bargmann 1998; Healey 1980). However, much of the forage fish spawning survey data in
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) database is approximately 30
years old and may no longer be applicable. The questionable quality of the existing
database was the basis for assigning a lower score to the presence of forage fish spawning
compared to other parameters in the model.
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-lD
tl
May 2006
030239-01
Rationale for the Scoring System
4.6 Beach Width
e
Beach width and beach slope affect the area of the highly productive intertidal and shallow
subtidal elevations that provide food and shelter for juvenile salmon. Areas with less than
50 slope were assigned a slightly higher score than areas with greater than 50 slope to
account for the larger amount of shallow water habitat available in the lower gradient
beaches. Man-made areas are those with no natural substrate in the intertidal zone, and
were typically dredged areas providing steep intertidal slopes and little intertidal habitat.
4.6 Armor Elevation
Shoreline structures that encroach upon the intertidal zone can impede forage fish access to
the upper intertidal beach elevations where they spawn, thus limiting food resource
availability for juvenile salmonids. In addition, shoreline armoring restricts juvenile
salmonid access to gently sloping upper intertidal beach habitats that larger predators
cannot access. These shoreline structures force juvenile salmonids to move along shorelines
in deeper areas than they ideally would, and where they may be more vulnerable to
predation (Thom et al.1994; Pentec 1997). Even in areas where the shoreline armoring does
not encroach across the entire upper intertidal zone, the structures tend to reflect wave
energy, which causes scour of smaller substrate sizes utilized by forage fish and exacerbates
the interruption to sediment transport caused by the structures (Williams and Thom 2001).
e
4.7 Overwater Structures
Overwater structures, such as docks, can have negative behavioral effects on juvenile
salmonids that interrupt their migration and movements along the shoreline (Salo et al.
1980; Pentec 1997; Simenstad et al. 1999; Thom et al. 2006). Overwater structures can also
reduce prey availability through the negative impacts on vegetation caused by the lack of
light (Penttila and Doty 1990; Fresh et al. 1995; Olson et al. 1996; Haas et al. 2002). The
location and width of overwater structures was determined by snapping the polygon shape
of each structure to the shoreline. Portions of the shoreline that were intersected by the
snapped polygon were considered to have overwater structure, the length of the
intersection was considered to be the width of the overwater structure.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-ll
\l
May 2006
030239-01
e
e
e
Rationale for the Scoring System.
4.8 Riparian Vegetation
Riparian vegetation provides the most direct link between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
(Spence et al. 1996; Levings and Jameson 2001). Riparian vegetation, especially overhanging
portions, is an important source for terrestrial input of organic matter and nutrients (Spence
et al. 1996; Maser and Sedell1994; Williams et al. 2001; Brennan et al. 2004; Brennan and
Culverwell2004).
Overhanging riparian vegetation can limit the vulnerability of juvenile salmonids to bird
predators by providing shallow areas where flying birds cannot see them. Shallow water
areas with cover also provide refuge habitat from larger fish predators.
4.9 Marshes
Juvenile salmonids have been documented to extensively use marsh areas (Simenstad et al.
1982; Healey 1980 and 1982; Levy and Northcote 1981). Marsh habitats are high functioning
areas that support primary productivity, the detrital food web, and juvenile salmonid prey
production (Levings et al. 1991; Williams et al. 2001).
Juvenile salmonids can utilize marsh habitats as refuge from predators. The smaller fish can
move among the marsh vegetation better than their larger potential predators. Simenstad et
al. (1999) noted that juvenile salmon in the nearshore prefer to migrate along the edges of
refugia.
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-l2
.\l,
May 2006
030239-01
References
5 REFERENCES
e
Anchor Environmental, L.L.c. (Anchor). 2004. Marine Shoreline Inventory Report, WRIA 9.
Prepared for Seattle Public Utilities, WRIA 9. March 2004.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. 65pp.
Beamer, E., A. McBride, R. Henderson, and K Wolf. 2003. The importance of non-natal pocket
estuaries in Skagit Bay to wild chinook salmon: an emerging priority for restoration.
Skagit System Cooperative Research Department, La Conner, W A 98257-0368.
Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions
in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle, W A.
Brennan, J.S., KF. Higgins, J.R. Cordell, and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile Salmon
Composition, Timing, Distribution, and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central
Puget Sound, 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks,
Seattle, WA. 164 pp.
e
Frankenstein, G. 2000. Blooms of Ulvoids in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound
Water Quality Action Team. November 2000.
Fresh, KL., B. Williams, and D. Penttila. 1995. Overwater structures and impacts on eelgrass
(Zostera marina) in Puget Sound, Washington. Pages 537-577 in Puget Sound Research
'95 Proceedings. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, Washington.
Haas, M.E., c.A. Simenstad, J.R. Cordell, D.A. Beauchamp, and B.S. Miller. 2002. Effects of Large
Overwater Structures on Epibenthic Juvenile Salmon Prey Assemblages in Puget Sound,
Washington. Technical Report T1803-30, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences,
University of Washington. Prepared for Washington State department of Transportation
(WSDOT).
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-l3
\l
May 2006
030239-01
References
e Healey, M.C. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Fish. Bull. 77(3): 653-668.
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in estuaries: the life support system. Pages 315-341
in Kennedy, V. S. editor. Estuarine comparison, Academic Press, New York, New York.
Hirschi, R., T. Doty, A. Keller, and T. Labbe. 2003. Juvenile salmonid use of tidal creek and
independent marsh environments in north Hood Canal: summary of first year findings.
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources.
Johannessen, J., A. MacLennan, and A. McBride. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current
and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion and Accretion areas for the Marine
Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 and 9. Prepared for The WRIA 9
Steering Committee and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks.
Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services Inc., Bellingham, W A. December 2005.
e
King County. 2004. King County GIS Data, CD#3, Standard Data, Shapefile Format, Issued
March 2004.
Levings. C.D., K. Conlin and B. Raymond. 1991. Intertidal habitats used by juvenile Pacific
salmon rearing in the north arm of the Fraser River estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin,
Volume 22, No 1 pp 20-26.
Levings, C. and G. Jamieson. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in
coastal ecosystems, Pacific region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research
Document 2001/109. 41pp.
Levy, T. A. and T.G. Northcote. 1981. The distribution and abundance of juvenile salmon in
marsh habitats of the Fraser River Estuary. University of British Columbia, Westwater
Research Center, Technical Report 25, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Maser, C. and J.R. Sedell. 1994. From the forest to the sea, the ecology of wood in streams,
river, estuaries, and oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-l4
\l
May 2006
030239-01
References
Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston and K. Tsumura 1979. Feeding relationships and food web
structure of Lower Framer River fishes. Technical Report No. 16. Vancouver: Westwater
Research Centre, University of British Columbia
e
Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, Identification, and Management
of Diffuse Pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY.
Olson, AM., S. D. Visconty, and C. M. Sweeny. 1996. A new approach to modeling the shade
cast by overwater structures. Abstract for the Pacific Estuarine Research Society 19th
Annual Meeting. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, W A
Pentec. 1997. Movement of juvenile salmon through industrialized areas of Everett Harbor.
Prepared for the Port of Everett, Washington. Prepared by Pentec Environmental,
Edmonds, W A.
Penttila D. and D. Doty. 1990. Results of 1989 eelgrass shading studies in Puget Sound.
Progress Report. Marine Fish Habitat Investigation Division, Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
-
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Puget Sound TRT). 2003. Integrated Recovery
Planning for Listed Salon: Technical Guidance for Watershed Groups in Puget Sound.
Salo, E.O., N.J. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, c.r Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A Simenstad. 1980. The
effects of construction of naval facilitied on the outmigration of juvenile salmonids from
Hood Canal, Washington. Final Rep., Fish. Res. Inst., University of Washington, Seattle,
WA FRI-UW-8006. 159 pp.
Shared Strategy. 2005. Redman, S., D. Myers, and D. Averill. Regional Nearshore and Marine
Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound. Delivered to Shared Strategy for Puget
Sound for inclusion in their regional salmon recovery plan. June 28, 2005.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines ofWRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-15
.\l
May 2006
030239-01
References
e Simenstad, C A., B. S. Miller, CF. Nyblade, K. Thornburgh, and L.J. Bledsoe. 1999. Impacts of
ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines, phase I,
synthesis of state knowledge. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation
Commission, Research Project T99903, Task A2, Olympia.
Simenstad, C A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: An unappreciated function. In: V.S.
Kennedy red] Estuarine Comparisons. pp.343-365. Academic Press, Toronto.
Spence, B. C, G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach
to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services
Corp., Corvallis, OR.
Thom, R. M. 1985. An oceanographic analysis of odorous beach conditions in Fauntleroy Cove,
West Seattle. Report submitted to the City of Seattle.
e
Thom, R. M., D. K. Shreffler, and K. B. Macdonald. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on coastal
ecology and biological resources in Puget Sound. Coastal Erosion Management Studies,
Volume 7. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Thom, R.M., GoO. Williams, and seven authors. 2006. Impacts of Ferry Terminals and Ferry
Operations on Juvenile Salmon Migrating Along Puget Sound Shorelines. Prepared for
the Washington State Department of Transportation. Prepared by Battelle Memorial
Institute Pacific Northwest Division (pNWD-3647). March 2006.
Tompkins, A. and CD. Leving. 1991. Interspecific interactions affecting the survival of chum
salmon fry. P. 29-36. In: Proceedings 1991 Pink and Chum Workshop, Parksville, B.C.
February 27-March 1, 1991. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Pacific Salmon
Commission, Vancouver, B.C.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2003. Priority Habitats and Species
Report. WDFW Office, Olympia, Washington.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-l6
.\l
May 2006
030239-01
References
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Nearshore Habitat Program.
The Washington State ShoreZone Inventory. CD-ROM. Olympia, WA. Available at
http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/data/ .
e
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2006. Shoreline Inventory Analysis on the
Shoreline Management Act website.
http://www .ecy.wa. ~ov/programs/sea/sma/st guide/SMP linven analysis/analysis/eco f
unctions/rnarine/types/all m shore types.html. Washington Department of Ecology.
Washington Trout. 2001. Water Type and Stream Mouth Assessment. Vashon Island. JuneIJuly
2001. Information available at:
http://www.washingtontrout.orgNashonNashon2001NashonTitle.shtml .
Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, J.E. Starkes, and 14 authors. 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of
the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including
Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). J.S. Brennan, Editor. Report prepared for
King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington. e
Williams, G.D. and R.M. Thom. 2001. White Paper: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline
Modification Issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation.
e
Appendix C of Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9
Scoring System for Habitat Function Model C-l7
\l
May 2006
030239-01
SECTION 3
CHAPTER #. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Purpose
Residential land use of s
share of the developed
ed shoreline is a mix of
smaller lots presently
. The
are enforced through fueArtic1e III, Shoreline
er applicable chapters of the FWCC.
_ " This element addresses the distribution, location, and
use of shorelines and adjacent areas for housing, re~I~atiQ.l},
transportat n, office, public buildings andbuildings. utilities, education, and tHffiH:al
resources; 2) the use of the ';...at& for aquaculture and recreation; and 3) the use ef-tb€
"'iuter, shoreltn-e,and uplands for other categories ofland and waterother uses, The
~hQrelhl~.~j.t.:LEG.Q~I..a..LW <1:):'.. ar'?_.!:D..9xe wi d~1.y!:!~.Q.d fQ.f re.g~lentigJJ2!:).m.Q~~~J:.bl:mJS)I any
other use. Much of the undeveloped shoreline is privately owned. uses and activities
not specified in this l'nast-er program,subdivided into small lots. and zoned to permit
residential development.
Goal
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 1
6/13/20075.fl1/2007
Federal Way shall consider the goals, objectives, and policies of
master program in all land use management aotions decisions regarding
the use development of adjacent uplands or the '.vater urea~;, adjacent uplands and
associated wetlands or streams \vithin its jurisdiction where such use or development
JJ:illYWill have an adverse effect on designated shorelines.
Policies
l:.-YG9SMPGl
LUP49Sl\-lPPl Shoreline la
appropriate uses should be desi
cularly suited-for specific and
ch uses.
LUP50SMPP2 Shor
and physical needs of
d satisfy the economic, social,
not exceed the physical
lotions in the shoreline areas.
line uses should be clustered or
llowed to develop haphazardly.
Shoreline ecological
om uses or activities that will have an adverse effect
on-residential uses or activities that are not shoreline dependent
a d to locate or relocate away from the shoreline.
I~UP79SMPP8 Re:,idential d.Qevelopments should be r~Rl!I~.1ed ~ccQIgi.D,.gly
inexcluded from shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which
would adversely impact sensitive designated critical areas as identified in Chapter
2218, Divi::;ion 6 of the FWCC.
a.Residential dAll development should be prohibited within the lOO-year floodplain, except
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 2
6!l3/2007.~!+4.,Q.Q0+
single-family residential and water-dependent or water-related uses.
b. Residential dAl.Lgevelopment should be prohibited in ~hQ!.~linte..areas of severe or very
severe landslide hazard.
c. Re~~idential dAll development should be regulated in s
percent or greater.
'ne areas with slopes of 40
d. Shoreline areas containing other potential haza
subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groun
regulated as necessa to avoid unsafe develo
or restricted for development.
logical conditions, unstable
age problems) should be
banee of sensitive areaslimited
The burden of proof that development
is the responsibility of the develope
e, safe, and ecologically sound
Goal
LUP80
on the 1
obstruct
develo
function
evelopments should~'yQi!;t.9r have minimal impact
t of the shoreline and minimize visual and physical
cts to the shoreline environment from residential
ated to assure no net loss of shoreline ecolo ical
b.
tial development on piers or over water shEmlEi-not-be..pef"mittedis prohibited.
c. Landfill for residential development .whieh-that reduces water surface or floodplain
capacity should not be permitted.
d. In residential developments the water's edge should be kept free of buildings and fences.
e. Every reasonable effort should be made to insureDevelopment standards should require
the retention of natural shoreline vegetation and other natural features of the landscape to the
greatest extent possible during site development and construction.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 3
6/13120075.'}'1/2007
LUP8lSMPPIO Residential use of shorelines should not displace or encroach
uponm::~i!.Hbat h?:.Y.:~._~Ki~ti1.lg.9IJ'lI~g~~jgt.:t~1.s:.~t as s.p':P12Qf.!:jngwater-dependent
shoreline uses.
b.
ned with regard for the
es requirements,.-i:tfld
LUP82SMPPlJ Residential densities should be dete
physical capabilities of the shoreline areas and, public
effects such densities have on the en';ironment.~
a. Subdivisions and new development should be
and :;horeline aesthetic characteristics of the wa
dequately protect the water
e environment.
b. New residential development should 0
provision for sewage disposal and drainage
bodies would not be adversely affecte y p
ose shoreline areas where the
standard that adjoining water
n.
c. Residential development along
mark far enough to make unnecess
construction groins or jetti r su
ack from the ordinary high water
s as filling, bulk heading,
te.
d. Residential devel
and not substantially
the water.
the appearance of the shoreline
lie r or-aae access to
c.
ons in shorelin~..1lI~.i!~ should provide
within the development in accordance with
t of this master program.
of recreational projects such as summer homes,
ilar facilities should satisfactorily demonstrate:
e site to accommodate the proposed development without
shoreline environment and water resource~.
ovisions for all necessary utilities, including refuse disposal, and the
Goal
SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated bv the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP to
qllQf1~1C)r QQlJ.lJ!l.?.[fkrJ dl?y.!!.191Z1J..!f:.lJ..u:hqIW!.?!J..rLa Vf!I..tfJY.J.?IPQ!..l.!!I.J..Q'"S:ial and office
park development tvpes. New development or expansion of existing commercial and
office uses should avoid, to the greatest e.xtent possible, adverse efj(xts on shoreline
ecological fimctions.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Awroved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 4
6/13/20075/1112007
Policies
LUP111SMPP14 Consideration should be made of the e fect a structure will have
on scenic value.,...mlg~y-h.~nJ~_??il>J~ shg1!lgj!l~l]J.g~._Q12 o. J.ie~..fuLmIQJic ..!;t~9..~~B._ to
shoreline areas.
I~UPl12SMPP15 Commercial and office struc
not shoreline dependent or water-oriented sho
and desi ed to avoid adverse im acts t
ncillary facilities that are
ck from the water's edge
ical fLmctions.
LUP113SMPP16 The use of porous
design alternatives should be encou g
and percolate into the soil. Use 0 d
the runoff rate from parking lots
LUPl14S1\IPP17 Co
within shoreline areas
conditions without
local best mana e
shoreline environ
evelopment that is not shoreline water-
tive vegetation for erosion control.
es should be rohibited.
Goal
LUP116SMPP20 Utilities that fea&-te.QQ..ulqJlllQ~f.9.I growth should not be
extended into or along shorelines without prior approval of such extension by
appropriate land use authority.
LlJP117SMPP21 Utilities located in shoreline environments inappropriate for
development should not make service available to those areas.
LlJP118SMPP22 In developed shorelines not served by utilities, utility construction
should be encouraged to locate where it can be shown that water quality will be
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 5
6/13/20075.'11/2007
maintained or improved.
LUPl19SMPP23 Federal Way should be consulted prior to, or at the time of,
application for construction of regional utility facilities to be located in or along
shorelines.
L UP120SMPP24 Utili~ corridors crossing shore .
encouraged to consolidate and concentrate or sha
should be
-way where:
a. Public access (including view) or view
b. Concentration or sharing would not
installed, operated, or maintained sa ely.
of the utility systems to be
c. Water quality would be as g
rate corridors were present.
LUP121SMPP25 Pub!"
encouraged where righ
City and where ub
.'
ed so as to neithefot-te
ter flow, circulation, or
d rights-of-way should be seleoted
minimize conflicts with present and
e located.
facilities and rights-of-way should be located
ental visual impact1i from the water and adjacent
w freestanding personal wireless service facilities are
from locating within the shoreline environment.
Goal
Limit shoreline stabilization - which includes an J action taken to
reduce verse impacts caused bv current, flood, wake. or wave action--
includinf? the use or bank stabilization. rip rap. and bulkheading. to that which
is necessary to protect existing imvrovements.
Policies
SMPP30 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearlv demonstrated
that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements.
LlJP126SMPP31 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 6
6/13/20075.'14/2007
only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering or
soft-shore annoring would n6t be able to protect existing development.
LlJPl2+SMPP32 Planning of shoreline protection stabilization should encompass
sizable stretches oflake or marine shorelines. This plann" should consider off-site
erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur a uIt of shoreline protection
structures or activities.
1.UP128SMPP33 Shoreline protection stabi "
should not be used as a meansthe reason of'
land.
arine and lake shorelines
ew or newly developable
LIJP129SMPP34 Shoreline
of ground and surface waters into
ctures should allow passage
LUP130SMPP35 Shoreline
and storage capacity of
ould not reduce the volume
ands or flood plains.
LUP131SMPP36
bioengineered aIte
should be favored
bulkheads
lization is needed,
ion control vegetation plans
es such as concrete
stabilization activities that may necessitate
tion on the same or other affected properties where
for protection should not be ~.llowe..Q be discouraged.
velopment ~balI~ be designed and located so as not
stabilization.
Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or
atic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in
osed shoreline stabilization activities.
P41 Shoreline proteetion/stabilization activities should be discouraged
in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for
maintaining beaches.
Goal
SMPG6 Docks and moorages shouldall be allowed when associated with
residential, recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 7
6/13/20075.:11/2007
COfJ:structio/1 o(anv dock. pier or moorage should avoid, tOlh~g1'eatest extent
possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological fimctio1lS.
Policies
values are high.
referred where there is
aired, and where minimal
sources can be assured.
LUP149SMPP42 Open pile t*eF-construction shoul
significant littoral drift, where scenic values will no
alteration to the shoreline and minimal damage t
I,UP151SMPP43 Piers, floats a
permitted as a conditional use w
recreational water activities wou
eonstrl:1etion.
PI.Qhibited_.9.I
tional boaters and other
hazardsd by pier dook
LUP152SMPP44
.tY.9_QJ mor~ dweJIi
facilities when fea
residential development of
:UJ..f?~or community dock
ks for each residence.The
ould be permitted for vessels used in the
and construction of such moorages
oject~ the-aquatic habitat-l:tte can be
one year at no cost to the environment or the
ctures that are abandoned or structurally unsafe
7 Piers, dDocks, buoys, and other moorages should only be
ter consideration of:
a. The effect such structures have on wildlife and aquatic life, water quality, scenic' and
ae;;thetic yalues, unique and fragile areas, submerged lands, and shoreline vegetation.
1L- The effect such structures have on navigation, water..c.tFc.t1fatiofr,-recreational and
commercial boating, sediment movement and littoral drift, and shoreline access, and s~e..:g.if.
and aesthetic values.
c. The effect such structures have on water circulation, sediment movement, and littoral
fh:in.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC A~roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 8
6/13/20075.'14/2007
LUP157SMPP48 Moorage buoys should be preferred over moorage piles floating
and pile constlUcted ~on all tidal waters.
LUP158 Floating struotures and open pile struotures are preferred over landfills or
Public Access and Recreation Ele
An element for This clement addresses the pr
public access and recreational opportunitie
development, and various means of less-
Goal
ent 0 shoreline areas
ned lands and im roved
and the natural shoreline
, fiBuld be designed and developed to provide
ccess should be maintained and regulated.
a.
be policed and improved consistent with intensity of use.
on~ to restrict access as to nature, time, number of people, and area may be
ublic pedestrian easements and other public access areas where there are
ds, fragile aquatic life habitats, or potential hazard~ for pedestrian safety.
c-;--..-Fa€t 'ties-iR-f*tbli&&hereliAtHl€€e&&al't'a&slli}ukl-.be-pHlpef~y-maintaiHed-aBd-epe:fa.te4
LUP59SMPP51
enjoyment.
Design of access should provide for the public health, safety, and
a. Appropriate signs should be used to designate publicly owned shorelines.
b. -\\4thiH-the-&h(}r-e+in~:RvtFOHfl-lent,'predestrian and non-motorized physical and visual
access t.QJh~1iJlQT_~li!1~_should be encouraged.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
. Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC AIJk>roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 9
6/13/20075.'14/2007
c. Public access to and along the water's edge should be !llade available in publicly owned
shorelines that are tolerant of human activity in a manner that protects shoreline ecological
functions.
a. Ac uisition and develo ment of shoreline
acquisition aRd development program should
acquired afld developed by establishedconsis
overall parks and open space master plan.
b. _Where appropriate, utility and
made available for public access an
element policies. [f:RQM L.QJ:.6
y on the shoreline should be
horeline use and circulation
provided in new shoreline developments.
to encourage private property owners to
uld be consideredprovided in future land use
projects along lakes, streams, ponds, and
features are appropriate for public use. Shorelines of the
g should be considered for pedestrian easements:
orical, geological, and/or biological circumstances featw.es and
y mg legally used, or historically having been legally used, by the public
e for access.
c funds have been expended on or related to the water body shoreline
LUP62PP54 Shorelines ef-in the City should be available to all people for
passive use, visual access, -and enjoyment.
a. The City should preserve and provide publicly accessible v:Viewpoints, lookouts, and
vistas of shorelines ofthe City should be publicly accessible.
b. New developments should minimize visual and physical obstruction of the water from
she-relffie-adiacent roads and uplaHd-ev.,"oofS-pub]ic properties.
IJ UP63
General policies.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC A~roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 10
6/13120075.'] 1/2007
a. Where appropriate, utility and transportation rights of way on the shoreline should be
made available J()r public acces~; and use.[MOVED TO SMPP521
b. Publicly ov,ned-street-eftds that abut the shoreline should be retained and/or reclaimed for
public access.[MOVf.;D TO SMPP52]
c. Shoreline re€rea-fto
trails, bicycle pathway., .
SMPP55]
-sheuld be connected by
. (INTEGRA TED INTO
d.
"
aquatic life.
e. Access de';elopl
shorelines of the City.
SMPP55 Physical and/or vis
points from bluffs, stre lIe
to place pathways co
or erosion protecti
ould use steep slopes, view
1 interest where it is possible
ut requiring extensive flood
Goal
eline dependent and water oriented
venient, and adequate for the regional
city of the land and water resources.
LUP70
duplicat
ning special shoreline recreation qualities not easily
or public use and enjoyment.
provided for the public to understand natural shoreline processes
source features.
g and interpretation should be encouraged at or near governmental shoreline
when consistent with security and public safety.
LUP71 P57 Shoreline recreational use and development should enhance
enVIron ental quality with minimal adverse effect eH:--tlre-1Q.natural resources.
a. Stretches of relatively inaccessible and unspoiled shoreline should be available and
designated as low intensity or passive recreational use areas with minimal development.
Service facilities such as footpaths, periphery parking, and adequate sanitary facilities should
only be allowed J.9..f.?.!~~Lwhere appropriate, considerill.gJ;~.Q.!h..p.\1QH;:;.5flt~JY...fl!!d preservation of
shoreline ecological functions.
b. Beaches and other predominantly undeveloped shorelines currently utilized for
recreational purposesa-keady popular should be available and designated as mediwn intensity
recreational use areas to be free from expansive development; intensity of use should respect
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC A~roved + Response to Ecology Comments Page II 6/13/20075.:1412007
and protect the natural qualities of the area.
c. Small or linear portions of the shoreline suitable for recreational purposes should be
available and designated as transitional use areas that allow for variable intensities of use,
which may include vista points, pedestrian walkways, water en points, and access from the
water; utilizing stream floodplains, street ends, steep slopes, horeline areas adjacent to
waterfront roads.
d. At suitable locations, shorelines should be made
intensive use areas that provide for a wide variety
e. Overall design and development in shor
sensitiveJo the physical site characteristics
use in the area concerned.
areas should be responsive
be consistent with the level of
f. Recreation areas and ancilla
adequate surveillance and mainten
the shoreline should have
~
velopment should be kept inland away
appropriate in high intensive shoreline use areas.
n of adequate public shoreline recreation lands
plan '.vith a clear public intent that is consistent with
lic access to the eit '8 shorelines.
ildings that enhance the character of the shoreline should be
recreation areas wherever possible.
A balanced variety of recreational opportunities should be
eople of different ages, health, family status, and financial ability.
a,---App . ate-spe€iaJ.i.1.'ie-d-reer-eation facHilies-sfloltld-ee.-pt'(Wide4..fu.r-the-tlevektPffiel'ltally
disabled, or others who might need them.
:e~. Shoreline recreation areas should provide opportunities for different use
intensities ranging from low (solitude) to high (many people).
e12. Opportunities for shoreline recreational experiences should include developing access
that accommodates a range of differences in people's physical mobility, capabilities, and skill
levels.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page l2
6/13/20075.'14/2007
d. Shoreline recreational experiences ~;houJd include a wide range of different areas
frmn remote/outdoor cmde\'eloped areus to highly dewIoped indoor'! outdoor area~~.
es;. Recreational development should meet the demands of population growth
consistent with the carrying capacity of the land and wat esources.
"lize, the shoreline
inerals, and driftwood;
oreline pathways; and
ainting, or the viewing of
fldf,'Lq}J.rLother public access
fe, adverse e eels on
'r state and local re lations.
text for the Recreation
Policies
LUP167SMPP61
w~nev~.LIL.Os~i:b Ie.
or aquatic l' 1
ons of shoreline parks, erand.
efs where natural conditions
"ardous conditions or emer encies
ne areas by boaters should be
ating activities that increase shore erosion should be
66 Effective interpretation should be provided to raise the quality of
ences and provide an understanding of aquatic and shoreline fue
Conservation and Restoration Element
..\n element which deals ,;vith the presel";ation This element promotes and encourages the
conservation of natural shoreline resources and shoreline ecological functions, considering,
but not limited to, such characteristics as scenic vistas, park-ways and open space,-vHa:l
estuurine areas for fish and wildlife protection habitat, beaches, feeder bluffs. estuaries, and
other valuable natural or aesthetic features, Additionally, this element promotes and
encourages restoration of shoreline {unctions and ecolof.!lcal processes that have been
impaired as a result of past development activities.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 13 6/13120075/11/2007
Goal [ALL NEW SECTIONl
Policies
e uirements for desi ated
rulations unless more
lo 'cal functions.
SMPGIO Preserve and rotect the ecolo
critical areas located in the shoreline,
Goal
tivity in or ad'acent to shoreline areas should
.-,....!!;~Jo avoid ~gpifiG~..!JJ adv~r..~e impacts to
J se of State and Local Best Mana emcnt Practices
teet to avoid si nificant adverse im acts to water
,.\'aHd.use-slIDukl..be-re5tfiete4~}F.pH}htb-jt8d-wheH-~"5sary-ffiF.theif-pr~tiefr.
lr.-......\Vl%"Il-aPl*ovfiate,.,I,edffitl-W-ay..&hould-a€-quire-th05e..shel'ehHe-il-Fea-s--whieh.are...uniqu8-ef
',aluable. Subsequent use of such areas should be governed by their ecological carrying
6aJ*i€tty.;
LUP65SMPP71 All renev.:able natural resources should be managed so that use or
consumption does not exceed the natural rates of replenishment.P.Iptec.tiQJ1Jm.4
conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through
implementation of setback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for
development activity.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page l4 6/13/20075/14/2007
a-;---.._:n"lfough:-poJ.i€ies-..a+ld..aetion5;J~efle'ral-Wa-y-.&hookl-e-ooourage-tae-maRagem€HHtn6.
conservation of fish. shellfish,'.vildlife, and other renewable resources.
LUP66SMPP72 Resource conservation should be an' egral part of shoreline
planning.
esigned, and sited to
ronment and ecological
LUP67SMPP73
functions of
valuable resources.
qualities and ecological
ecognized and preserved as
a.
rved~--ef-feStefed;
b.
ing grounds, should be protected,
ould be managed to enhance the environment with
and over-water activitiesy and development should be planned,
perated to minimize adverse effects on the natural processes of the
ould maintain or enhance the quality of air, soil, natural vegetation, and water
-
will-mimmii'i-e--OOverse-pIlysi-ea--l.-er-ehetHieul-effe€4s--on-wlHef-.qt1a!ity.,-;<e.getat:ien;-fish,-slwUfisa,
or wildlife.
6.Q. Use or activity which substantially degrades the natural resources or ecological functions
of the shoreline should not be allowed without mitigation as required bv SMP regulations and
_ FW.M.(;:.. Ch,ill?!~LL~~_:pn Y-!..r.on.g~J.!1.,~1.p.[.o tec!iQ1.!.
LUP69SMPP78~ Salmon und steelheud Critical salt\....ater andfre:;hwater salmonid
habitats (critical h?bitat~;) support valuable recreational and commercial fisheries7
These habituts..~nd. should be protected because offqr their importance to the aquatic
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page l5 6/13/20075,'11/2007
ecosystem and the!:!!:>_ well as state and local economyecononlles.
hJ!. Non-water-dependent eF-rr.D.~tnon-water-related uses, activities, structures, and landfills
should not be located in anadromous fisht'F-y..habi-tatscritical salmonid habitats.
stffiGturt's,-and.lamifiJ.l.s-4euld-
critical salmonid -habitats,
possible. Significant
cement habitat near the
ot feasible, rehabilitatiQ!.1._Qf
tat-n-lay-be required.
the affected local
fe, and @Y..affected Indian
dh. Where uses, activities, structures, and landfills must loc
impacts on these areas should be lessened to the maxim
unavoidable impacts should be mitigated by creating i
project where feasible. Where in-kind replacement
out-of-kind or off-site degraded habitat should. ~
Mitigation proposals should be developed in c
gffi'-t'fflffieatCitv, the State Department ofFis
Nations.
in salmon-afld-steelh~>-oo
'lg-i~H:eplaGeHlt'flt-flab.ita.t
'"
'. als shouJ.d-be-de-veleped-in
critical salmonid -habitats bet
ffect these--said habitats should be located
t negative impacts-ea to said habitat~.
rotection techni ue for
bridges should be used tor all water crossin<>s over areas
itatOpen pile bridges are preferred for crossing "vater areas
s shall-should be minimized in upland developments to reduce
peaks. Structures and uses creating significant impervious surfaces shall
ormwater detention systems to reduce stormwater runoff peaks.
harge of silt and sediments into waterways shall be minimized during in-water
construction.
hi. Adopt-A-Stream programs and similar efforts to rehabilitate salmon and steelheadcritical
spa't\-1'lffig-'sffeaIHSsalmonid habitats should beare encouraged.
Ifi. Fishery enhancement projects are-should be encouraged where they will not significantly
interfere with other beneficial uses.
Ii. Project proponents should contact the Habitat Management Division of the Department of
1':ishefit's,-tJ.l€-14ahitat-l)ivisiofl-of-the-J)epart:~Hent-of-\.v.iJ.dhfe..State Department ofFish and
Wil<Jl!f~1!n.Qef affected Indian Nations early in the development process to detennine if the
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 16
6/ l3i2007 5.' 14/2007
proposal will occur in or adjacent to a salmon and steelheadcritical salmonid habitat.
mk. When reviewing permits for uses, activities, and structures proposedi.!l,gy-~...gr adjacent
NfoF marinesah water~'-ar-eas, streams, wetlands, ponds connected to streams,,'l:lnd or any other
shorelineJ!I~l!.,.s adjacent to these areas;~l1Y staff should conta he Habitat Management
Division of the Depat1meflt-of.F.i-&h-eFk.>s,-the..f-labitatDiY-i&i DepaTtment.of
\VildlifeSta_.t~.12.~P-!!r1ment ofFislL<.msl...wi.lgJjJ~Jo determi proposal will occur in or
affect any adjacent salmon or steelheadcritical habitat~. ld also contact affected
Indian Nations.
Goal (NEW SECTIONl
Policies
tv Watcrshed Resource
overnmental and non-
~l1ts gi..Il cQ.!luibute to the
shoreline functions.
9 forum to restore shoreline habitats
ered and threatened s ecies as well as
store and enhance shoreline habitats and. rocesses
SlVIPP80 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize restoration
opportunities identified in Shoreline hlVcntorv and Characterization Rcport and SMP
R~.~tQmt\.Q!l_PJ!!n,
SMPP81 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and
nonnative species to avoid adverse impacts to hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of
slope failures or accelerated erosion.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC A~roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 17
6iI3120075il1/2007
SJ\'lPP82 Develop a program to implement restoratioD..proiects, including fundin.g
strategies.
SMPP83 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration
ertv in
GoallNEW SECTION]
Policies
all ' Of otherwise attractive
'al restoration into
anan
On 7 alternative desi m
ical midance to shoreline
Oliunities with other educational ofaanizations and a enCles
ro am of shoreline education for all a eso
1S can enhance the
SMPP90 Develop strategies to fund identified educational and interpretive projects.
Historic and Cultural Resources Element rNEW
SECTION1
This element addresses identification and preservation of historic and cultural
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 18
6/13120075'14/2007
resources that ar~)ocate<lilL9L~~sociated with Federal Way's shorelines. Such
resources mav include historic structures or buildings, historic use or activities in the
shoreline, and ~rchacolog.i~at~~.Qurces,
Goal
SMPG16 [denti'; rotect Jreserve. and restore'
historical. and cultural sites located in or assoc'
f(H scientific and educational purposes,
Policies
SMPP91 Mana ~e cultural and
city-wide policies for treatment
.. shoreline consistent with
om rehensive Plan.
xtent of existing and proposed-majef
r public facilities; and coordinating those
Goal
LUC13
that are
must a
shall be
in shore
ystems in shoreline areas should be limited to those
would serve shoreline dependent uses or those that
eas iurisdiction. The physical and social environment
:...S.iglJll.!!.'J!:.!l:1 adverse e.ffect~ of f..irculatJ..Q!!..~):.TI?J1!S requir..ed
93 New surface transportation development should be designed to
provide best possible service with the least possible infringement upon--the
shoreline areas~flfflefl:t,
a. New transportation facilities and improvements to existing facilities that
substantially increase levels of air, noise, odor, visual, or water pollution should be
discouraged, unless benefits of the facility outweigh costs.
b. Transportation corridors should be designed to harmonize with the topography
and other natural characteristics of the shoreline through which they traverse.
I c. SUffuce New surface transportation facilities in shoreline areas should be set back
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 19 6/13/20075.'14/2007
from the ordinary high water mark far enough to make unnecessary such protective
measures as rip-rap or other bank stabilization, landfill, bulkheads, groins, jetties, or
substantial site regrade.
LUP758.MPP94 Circulation sys
so as not to unnecessarily or unre
the benefits people derive from t
routes and modes of tnwel.
tlands, or other critical
xcept where any adverse
FROM LUP78
LNew transportation facilities crossing lakes, streams,
areas should be encouraged to locate in existing corrid
impact can be minimized by selecting an alternate c
Q..ENER~L r_QLICJE~L:J:bKL~
~Shoreline circulation systems should be
(FROM LUP771
changes in technology.
d and attractively designed
ysical environment or reduce
a. Motorized vehicul
shall~ be proh'
ral shoreline areas
b. Transportation
planned and
e developments should be
e proposed.
. es should minimize total impervious
11 being oriented ing generally
phic conditions will allow.lliXISTIN,Q
systems should be designed to enhance aesthetic
hQ[~lill~-yi~~ ~!!~L~c;cess poi1J.1~"!!P...!t~TI~..9u1]!g!.D.g
ns )ortation. disruptive to public shoreline access and other
(o"Onffi.tiOiredf.li'-laOOse~d-to-nlinim~e-v-is-Hal-afld-noise-"f'eUl:ltioth
technology. [INTEGRA TED INTO SMPP9J"1
n. Federal Way should promote and encourage modes of transportation that consume the
leaSHl-ln(H>>ltof.enefgy""-while-pf-&viding""the--"~t-efHt7ieHey-wj.t:J:H:lw-least-pos-s-ih-le-pellutiotr.
UJP78
General policies.
a. Nev.' transportation developments in ~;horeline areas should provide turnout area~; for
scenic stops and off road rest-areas '''''here the topography, view, and natural features ......an-ant.
[INTEGRATED INTO SMPP931
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 20
6/13/20075.'11/2007
b. Shoreline roadway corridors with unique or historic significance, or of great aesthetic
quality, ~;hould be retained and maintained for those characterdics. nNTEGRA TED INTO
SMPP9Tl
t From existin G&P
ore effectively implement the goals, objectives, and policies of this
master gram and the SMA, the shorelines of the state within Federal Way have
been categorized into three separate environment designations. The purpose of these
designations is to differentiate between areas whose geographical features, ecological
functions, and existing development pattern imply differing objectives regarding their
management, use, and future development.
SMPP96 New transportation developments i
turnout areas for scenic stops and off road res
natural features warrant>... consistent with
element policies. FROM LUpn GENE
SMPP97 Shoreline roadway co
great aesthetic quality, should be
TROM LUP78. GENERAL PO
historic significance, or of
for those characteristics.
be built where access to public
y linear transportation corridors. New
cess to public shorelines where access is .
n and utility facilities should be encouraged to
ay and to consolidate crossings of water bodies
dverse impact to the shoreline.
nments JALL EXISTING TEXT FROM
or WAC
Each environment represents a particular emphasis in the type of uses and the extent
of development that should occur within it. The system is designed to encourage uses
in each environment which enhance the character of the environment while at the
same time requiring reasonable standards and restrictions on development so that the
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 21
6/13120075/14/2007
character of the environment is not destroyed,
The determination as to which designation should be given to any specific shoreline
area has been based on, and is reflective of, the existing development pattern; the
biophysical capabilities and limitations of the land; and t goals and aspirations of
the local citizenry.
Each environment designation oategory includes:
clarifies the meaning and intent of the designa .
classifying a specific shoreline area with th
general detailed management policies de '
development consistent with the charact
ose statement which
eria to be used as a basis for
t designation; and, (3)
management decisions and
ment.
to accommodate residential
t with this chapterwith SMP
rovide appropriate public
," ,
,
, s P AA if they-are- areas are predominantly
ent or are planned and platted for residential
e the primary use. Development and redevelopment
e giyen t-o developmentfocused within already
1 evelo ed and im lemented for density or minimum frontage
lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation
'tical area protection, and water quality. These standards shall ensure
opment does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or
ade other shoreline values, taking into account the environmental
limitati s and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services
available, and other comprehensive planning considerations.
3, Multifamily and multi:lot residential and recreational developments should shall
provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities.
4. All residential development shall occur in a manner consistent with the policies
listed under SMPG2 of the shoreline use clement.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Art>roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 22
6/13/20075.'14/2007
Urban Conservancy [FROM WAC]
Purpose:
The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to
ecological functions of open space, flood plain and other
exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing
rotect and restore
sitive lands where they
ty of compatible uses.
Criteria:
.A~ssign an "The ~Urban e~onservancy.!! e
shoreline areas appropriate and planned for
maintaining or restoring of the ecological
suitable for water-dependent hi h-intensi
esignation is assi~ed to
that is compatible with
area, that are not generally
deyelopment" The ~Jrbal1 Co
the following characteristics ap
They have are open spa
intensively developed;
They have potential
They retain import
(B)- They have the
restoration.
partially developed; or
atible with ecological
3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever
feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated.
4.'Nater oriented uses should be given priority over non'Hater oriented uses. For
shoreline areas adjaoent to commei"cially navigable waters, water dependent uses
should be given highest priority.
S:1. To enhance the waterfront and insure maximum public use, commercial or office
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 23
6/13/20075.'] 1/2007
facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with
public safety, security, and protection of shoreline ecological functions.
6.2.. Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted b means of sign control
regulations, architectural design standards, landscaping r irements, and other such
means.
Criteria:
A "natural" enviro
the following char
therefore c y
process d
repres
educati
uses wit
safety.
ose shoreline areas that are
r minimally degraded
s require that only very low
. cal functions and ecosystem-
ation, looal government the
ion of degraded shorelines
Natural [FROM WAC]
Purpose:
The purpose of the "natural" environmen
relatively free of human influence or tha
shoreline functions intolerant ofhu
intensity uses be allowed in order
wide processes. Consistent with
City of Federal Way should inc1
within this environment.
to shoreline areas if any of
cologically intact and
irreplac le function or ecosystem-wide
tivity; (B) The shoreline is considered to
are of particular scientific and
able to support new development or
cological functions or risk to human
ly degrade the ecological functions or natural
shl!lLnot be allowed.
should shall not be allowed in the "natural" environment:
u
e
riented recreation; and
ity corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of "natural"
orelines.
3. Single-family residential development may be allowed as a conditional use within
the "natural" environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited as
necessary to protect ecological functions and be consistent with the purpose of the
environment.
4. Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low-intensity water- .
oriented recreational access uses may be allowed provided that no significant
ecological impact on the area will result.
5. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 24 6/13120075.'1 -1/2007
capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed.
Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its
intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline
modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new parcel
must be able to support its intended development withou gnificant ecological
impacts to the shoreline ecological functions.
J!
accommodate urban expan:;ion.
Th~ ~. ,......"""~
~..~-
b
lation:;, architectural desi~'11 standards, landscaping requirement;, and other
5uell means.
LUP89 Development should not sign;,ficantly degrade the quality of the environment,
including "yater quality and air qaality, nor create conditions that would
accentuate erosion, drainage problems, or othe'f adverse impacts on adjacent
environments.
nment [DELETED FROM EXISTING G&P]
The filtal enyironment is intended for shoreline areas characterized by agricultural uses,
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 25
2/13120075/14/2007
low density residential (where most urban ~;eryice~; are not available), and areas which
provide buffer zones and open space between predominantly urban areas. Undeveloped
shorelines not planned for urban expansion or ',',hich do not have a high priority for
designation in an alternative em"ironment, and recreational uses compatible with
. , .
-,
ity,
acti....ities.
LUP93 Diyerse recreational activities that are compatible with the conservancy
environment :mould be encouraged.
LEP94 Deyelopment that would be a hazard to public health and ~;afety, or ',vould
materially interfere '.vith the natlHlll processes, should not be allov/ed.
L lTP95 The flood hazard overzone regulations shall apply to development within fleed
~
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Conunents
Page 26
6/13/20075.'1 ~/2007
LCP96 Structural flood control devices should be strongly discouraged in the
conservancy em'irommmt.
IXP97 In areus with poorly draining soils, deyeloprnent should not be allO'.ved unless
connected to u sev:er line.
, reus should be strictly regulated
Editor's Note
rShore1ine Use Activities is a section that exists in the current Goals and Policies Chapter
9.f..tb.~_ShQ[~lill~Jr1ast.t;:IJ:~1~n:__I~li s secti on, giYjg~djmQ...th~Jl<:acijl]g~.li~!ed below, w~.~
originally created due to previous Ecology guidance, \vhich encouraged that the use
headings (or 'activities') be grouped, with policies developed specific to each group. In
updating the SMP. we felt as though these policies were either 1) redundant with policies
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 27
6/13/20075.'14/2007
J~ted under the elements above. or.f) applicable to one of the elements from above.
Therefore, this section was strickt:n fi'om this document. Under each heading listed
below, bracketed text indicates in which element above the following policies were
in.t.~2;[~~QJ
to the fecundity ofthe population, and survi','e as the food and nature allow.
2. Artificial stocking or raising of stock in feedlot~; or pens using selecth'c
breeding and controlled feeding programs for increasing production and
rearing a uniform product.
Pen culture require~; eonfinement and the presence of fixed structures that compete for
space. Pens, rafts, and hatcheries require certain environmental conditions to assure the
s'..lrvi'.'al of their contained population:;. Some of these conditions are small \vave forces,
good 110'1(, good \vater quality, temperature limits, good anchoring ground and
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 28 6/13/20075fl 1/2007
acces~;ibi1it)', and, possibly, good natural food and nutrient supply.
The oonfinement of 11sh or c:hellfjsh in ooncentration imposes an extreme biological load
in a small area. Den;;e population~; degrade water quality and deposit hea'/)' fecal
. . .
"
aquaoultural activity w'ithin the ~;hordine are:
LUPII0 Shoreline areas having extremely high natural potential fOr aquaoulture should
be pre~;erved for that purpose.
Commereial DeYelepmentflntegrated, as a goal and associated policies, into the Shoreline
1l~,~J1Ien~~1lJ1
Commercial development pertains generally to the use Of construction of faoilities for
transaction and sale of goods and servioes as opposed to industrial development (treatment
together v;ith pOliS) which pertains to the design and fabrication of products.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Awroved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 29
6/13120075,'11/2007
The principal impact factors upon the :~horeline from commercial development are
pollutants (e.g., erooion, sedimentary, chemical, and microbial) and aenthetic destruction.
Erosive pollutants fl.-om commercial development are g0Ilerated from surface runoff and
both surface and sub surface subsidence. Chemical pollution is derived from fuel spillage.
. .
habitation and recreational activities.,
(BECOMES SMPP14]
. rBECOMES SMPP181
into the Shoreline Use Element
~ _ 0
of failure. Their impacts on the environment are also
generally great-er becauGe of their scale and safety requirements.
The types of utilities covered are communication:; (radio, TV, and telephone), energy
distribution (petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and
st{)IT11 sewers.
LVP1l6 Utilities that lead to grm;..ih should not be extended into or along shorelines
without prior approval of such extension by appropriate land use authority.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC AWroved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 30 6/13/20075.'14/2007
[BECOMES SMPP201
LFPl17 Utilities located in :;horeline environments inuppropriate f()r de'lelopment
:;hould not make service available to tho~;e area~;.BECOMES SMPP21 .
'e7 rBECOMES
. [BECOMES SMPP281
~125 New freestanding personal "virelcss ser',ice facilities are discol:H'aged from
locating '."ithin the shoreline environment..LBEQQMHS..SMPJ'221
nntegrated, as a goal and associated policies, into the Shoreline Use
EI . rDent 1
Shoreline protection is action taken to reduce adverse impucts caused by current, t1ood,
wake, or v,ave action. This action include~; all structural and non structural means to reduce
these impacts due to t1ooding, erosion, and accretion. Specific structural and nonstructural
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Conunents
Page 3l
6/13120075.'11/2007
mean:; included in thi:; use activity are bulkheads, rip rap, bank stabilization, and other
means of :::horehne protection.
>
material has been eroded.
damage.
.lBJ.<;~;QMES. SMrrl7J
previow; need for protection should be di:;couruged. [BECOMES SMPP38I
LFP134 New development should be encouraged to locate :;0 us not to require shoreline
protection.lBECOMES SMPP391
LUP135 Areas of significance in the spa\vning, nesting, reuring, or residency of aquatic
and teJTcstrial biota should be given special consideration in reviewing of
shoreline protection actions. [BECOMES SMPP40]
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 32
6/13120075.' 1412007
ITP136 Shoreline protectio~s should be disoouraged in areas where they \vould
block beaoh pnrent materiaL..I1lE.CQME.S...S.J\lP.P.ill
IXP137 Multiple uses of shoreline protection stmotures or nonstmctural,solutions
should be encouraged.
the shoreline.
of rights of way nnd to consolidate crossings of water bodies'.vhen doing so can
minimize ad'/erse impact to the shoreline.
1,UP143 Transportation faoilities should u';oid shoreline areas lrnovro to oontain
development hazards (e.g. slide and slump areas, poor foundation :;oils,
marshes, etc.).
LCP114 'rransportation facilities should minimize shoreline rights of way by orienting
generally perpendicular to the shoreline ....here topogmphio oonditions \vill
.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Ap~roved + Response to Ecology Corrnnents
Page 33
6/13120075/1 ti2007
allew-:-JINTEGRA TED INTO SM.pP~41
I...rP145 Shoreline road\vays should have a high priority for arterial beautification fund~;.
recreational water activities 'Nould be created by pier construction.mJ~;_c.QJ4ES
SMPP43]
LFP152 The random proliferation of single purpose piers should be discouraged.
Preference ~;hould be given to shared use ofpier~; in all shoreline areas.
fBECOMES SMPP441
LUP153 Temporary moorages should be permitted fOr vessels used in the construction of
shoreline facilities. The design and constmction of such moorages shan be such
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Ap~roved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 34
.
6/13(20015,'14/2007
that upon termination of the project the aquatic life can be returned to their
fffigffial condition 'tvithin one year at-tH.t-eost to the en';ironment or the public.
l1ll~COMES SMPP4~
LUP154 S
[IIE.~:'QMES_..sMrP'4ql
" ,
fuF.t:l:Hfl the muster progrdm.
LUP156
-'
..,
The management of recreational land is determined by balancing the recreational carrying
oapacity (or impaot of the environment on people) and the ecological carrying capacity (the
impact of people on the environment). Measures to aocomplish this are by desibq}ation of
areas for use intensity, interpretation, and regulation. These different recreational use areas
coincide with the four t-'l1vironmentsCnatural, conservancy, rural, and urban. ,[bere are
multiple benefits derived from the park program, for example: recreational lands oontribute
Gub~;tantiu]])' to open ~;paoe by conservation ofland, preserving historic sjtes, offering
aesthetic relief ufld "Vuriety, contributing to a healthful environment, and shaping and
preser'.-ing the L'effiffitlnity form. In addition to the provisions of recreational opportll'ffities,
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 35
6/13/20075.' 14/2007
Federal Vlay coordinates '."ith other go';ernmental agencie:;, commercial, and volunteer
groups to provide these opportunitie:; for the public. 'fhe polietes-are directed to'.Yurd
pro'.iding shoreline dependent and '.vater oriented recreational opportunities. They arc also
directed at prot-ecting health and safety by separating incompatible activities and channeling
them into their mo:;t appropriate envlmnments.
concerned.
. IINTEGRATED AS NEW SMPP61l
LlJP168 Public recreational shoreline area:; should t>erve as emergency havens of refuge
for boaters. (INTEGRATED AS NEW SMPP621
LCP169 Physical and/or visual access to the water should use steep slopes, yiev.' points
fmm bluffs, stream ',-alleys, and features of special interest ',',-here it is possible
to plaoe path'.vays consistent 'o'.'ith p',lblio safety ,,vithout requiring extensive
Hood or ero:~ion protection.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments
Page 36
6/13/2007 5/14/2007
LCP170 The a€tfl:ti-s-ition of public easenlents to the shoreline through priyute or quasi
public shorelines should be encouraged.
I,UPl71
as
, .
"
LUP175 Residential developments should be pennitted only where there are adequate
provisions for utilitiet;, circulation, access, :;ite layout, and building design.
LEPl76 Subdivisiont; should be designed at a level of demit)', site coverage, and
occupancy compatible with the phYt;ical-~ilities of the shoreline and '.'1ater
bOOy;
LliP177 Residential development plans sul:mTitted...fur-.approyul should contain provisions
for protection of E-,'Toundv.'uter supplie~;, erosion control, landscaping, and
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Approved + Response to Ecology Comments Page 37 6/13/20075.'14/2007
maintenance of the shoreline integrity.
LrPl78 Residential subdivisions ~;hould be designed :;0 a:; to protect '.vater quality,
:;horeline aeGthetic characteristics, 'li~;ta:;, and normal public use of the 'Nater.
DRAFT Goals and Policies
Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan
PC Ap~roved + Response to Ecology Cormnents
Page 38
6/13120075,'14/2007
SECTION 4
e t
~~'b
SOU n d
~ 288t~
FpdBral Way
potential
A/me ,atlOn rli-ea
Lr- -
UJ idee., vv(drec.
'1" CUunty
\' ---
ShoreHne
Master Program
Proposed
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
=
.P
Aubl
sw Ca~
"'" 1- '("'Dr
Legend
City of Federal Way
potential Annexation Area
proposed Shoreline
Environment Designations:
_ Natural
CJ Shoreline Residential
o Urban Conservancy
DasO PC1ln\
State PWl"-
h St
>w-:rZQ\ ._~
'Y~~ {/
,'"
W
I/l
~
sw 320th St
() ~,-- 0
<(
tii
c:;
~
1
\- \sw 356th S
WI
%,
.~
0/
~
~-
G ~ Miles
N - Map Date: May, 2007
~ Federal w,
This map is accompanied by NO warranl
and is simply a graphic representation.
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Bf!.!iRonse to Ecoloay comments - Mav 15. 2007
4AArticle III.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
Sections:
Division 1. Generally
18-161 Purpose and authority.
18-162 Jurisdiction.
18-163 Additional definitions.
Division 2. Shoreline Regulation
18-164 General development standards.
18-165 Shoreline modifications.
18-166 Environment desiQnations.
18-167 Permitted use table.
18-168 Shoreline residential e
18-169 Urban conservanc en
18-170 Natural environment.
Division 3. Administrative Procedures
18-171 Shoreline manaQement permit and enforcement procedures.
adoption by reference.
18-172 Permit processinQ and public notice.
18-173 Procedure for review.
18-174 Shoreline exemption.
18-175 Application requirements.
18-176 Shoreline substantial development permit.
18-177 Shoreline variance.
18-178 Conditional uses.
18-179 Final approval of shoreline permits.
18-180 Combined hearinQ authority.
18-181 Appeals.
18-182 Permit Revisions.
18-183 Replacement. alteration or reconstruction of nonconforminQ use or
development.
18-184 Shoreline environment redesiQnations.
18 16-1 Environmental designations.
18 165 Urban environment.
18 166 Rural onvironment.
18 167 Conser'lancy residential environment.
18 168 Natural environment.
18 169 Application and public notice.
Page 1 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Eco/oav comments - Mav 15. 2007
18 170 Procedure for rG'IievJ.
18 171 Shoreline v3riance.
18 172 Conditional uses.
18 173 Fin31 3pprov31 of shoreline permits.
18 171 Combined hearing authority.
18 175 Alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development.
18 176 Shoreline environment redesign3tion.
Division 1. Generally
18-161 Purpose and authority.
The city adopts these regulations under the authority of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended, and the
Shoreline Management Guidelines, Chapter 173--14-26 WAC. (Ord. No.
90-38,91(24.10),2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-323,93,12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-
355,93,11-16-991:.
18-162 Jurisdiction.
(a) The provisions of this article development
proposed within the areas defi s In RCW
90.58.030(2)(d), and "shorelin e significance" in RCW
90.58.030(2)(e) and "shorela 90.58.0302 . see 18-163
Definitions. The approximate I tion 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 eX3ct specific location of the shoreline
iurisdiction on the subiect property when a permit is filed. The city shall be
responsible for verifyinq shoreline iurisdiction. Washington Department of
Ecology may be contacted to delineate the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) on a subiect property as per its authority and responsibilities
outlined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f).
(b) No development shall be undertaken by any person on the
shorelines of the state without obtaining a shoreline permit from the
department of community development. or an authorized statement of
exemption per; provided, th3t 3 permit Sh311 not be required for
development exempted from the dofinition of substanti31 development in
WAC 173-27-040 and for developments exempted by RCW 90.58.140(9)
and (10). (Ord. No. 90-38, 9 1(24.30.10,24.30.20),2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-
323,93, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, 93, 11-16-99)
18-163 Additional definitions.
Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the definitions contained in
this chapter, Chapter 22 FWCC, Chapter 90.58 RCW, aM Chapter 173-26
WAC. and Chapter 173-27 WAC shall apply.
Page 2 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloqy comments - Mav 15. 2007
Act: means the Washinqton State Shoreline Manaqement Act of 1971,
Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended.
Access: limitod public access means:
(1) Actu:J1 physical :Jccess from I::.md to tho ordinary high water mark or
to the 'Netland directly abutting the ordinary high ".'ater mark, such access
being limited to specific groups of people or to certain regularly prescribed
times; or
(2) Visual access avail:Jble to the general public to the shoreline and
adjacent '.\later body, such access being specifically provided for in the
development of the site.
Access: pub.'ic access me::.ms actu:J1 unobstructed :Jccoss :Jv:Jil:Jble to
the gener:J1 public from land to the ordinary high wator mark or to the
wetland directly abutting the ordin:Jry high '.v:Jtor mark.
Amendment means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or
reenactment to the Federal Way SMP.
Averaqe grade level means the averaqe of the natural or existing
topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which
will be directly under the proposed building or structure. In the case of
structures to be built over the water, averaqe grade level shall be the
elevation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Calculation of the
averaqe grade level shall be made by averaginq the qround elevations at
the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed buildinq or structure.
Backshore means a berm, together with associated marshes or
meadows, on marine shores landward of the ordinary high water mark
which is normallY above high tide level and has been gradually built up by
accretion.
Bank means a steep rise or slope at the edqe of a body of water or
water course.
Beach nourishment means the artificial replenishinq of a beach by
delivery of materials dredqed or excavated elsewhere.
Berm means a ledqe or shoulder consistinq of mounded earth or rock.
Beach faoding me:Jns landfill deposited on l:Jnd, or in the w:Jter, to be
distributed by natural '.vater processes for the purpose of supplementing
beach material.
Page 3 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloqy comments - May 15, 2007
Berm means ona or several linear mounds of sand and gr3vel
generally par311eling the shore at, or land'Nard of, the ordinary high '.vater
mark \vhich are normally stable because of material size or vegetation.
Breakwater means an off-shore structure, either floating or not, which
mayor may not be connected to the shore, such structure being
designated to absorb and/or reflect back into the water body the energy of
the waves.
Bulkhead means a solid or open pile of rock, concrete, steel, timber,
other materials, or a combination of these materials erected generally
parallel to and near the ordinary high '."later mark for the purpose of
protecting adjacent shorel3nds and uplands from ".'aves or currents.a wall,
seawall, embankment or other structure erected at or near the OHWM and
rouqhly parallel to the shoreline that retains or prevents slidinq or erosion
of land or protects land from wave or current action.
Bluff means a steep slope which abuts and rises from Puget Sound.
Bluffs contain slopes predominantly in excess of 40 percent, although
portions may be less than 40 percent. The toe of the bluff is the beach of
Pu et Sound. The to of a bluff is t icall a disti line where the slo e
abru tl levels out. Where there is no distin In slo e the slo e is
either the line of ve etation se aratin th ted slo e from the
ve etated u lands lateau or w tated the oint where
the bluff slo e diminishes to Ie
,
geologically partially developed, and not dependably dry backshore above
high tide.
Class 11/ beach means a beach or shore having no dry backshore
available at high tide.
Conditional use means a use, development. or substantial
development which is classified as a shoreline conditional use or is not
classified within the SMP.
Critical salmonid habitats mean habitats that are used by Pacific
salmonid species that miqrate between fresh water and salt water durinq
their life cycle. These habitats include:
1. Gravel bottomed streams used for spawninq;
2. Streams, lakes, and wetlands used for rearinq, feedinq, and cover
and refuge from predators and hiqh waters;
3. Streams and salt water bodies used as migration corridors; aRG
4. Shallow areas of salt water bodies used for rearinq, feedinq, as well
as cover and refuqe from predators and currents, includinq, but not limited
to, forage fish habitats such as sandy beaches and eelgrass beds; and
. 5. Pocket estuaries includinq streams mouths and deltas where
freshwater mixes with salt water and provides rearing habitat for
iuvenile salmon ids.
All saltwater shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats.
Page 4 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article IIJ. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
Development means a use consisting of the construction or exterior
alteration of structures; dredQinq; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any
sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of pilin~; placing of
obstructions; or any proiect of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlvinQ
lands subiect to the SMA (RCW 90.58) at any state of water level.
Dock means all platform structures in or floatinq upon water bodies
and connected to land to provide mooraQe or landinq for waterborne
pleasure craft and/or water-dependent recreation uses.
Dredginq means the removal of earth from the bottom of a stream,
marine water bodvf}a.y, lake or other water body for the purposes of
deepeninq and/or maintaininq a naviqational channel or to obtain use of
the bottom materials for landfill..
Drift cell (Also referred to as "drift sector," or "littoral cell") means a
particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without
siqnificant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift
and also accretion shore forms created b such
Ecolo ical functions means the work ert
h sical chemical and biolo ical roces s
contribute to the maintenance of th
that constitute the shoreline's
Ecos stem-wide rocesse
h sical and eolo ic rocess
specific chemical processes t hape landforms within a specific
shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the
associated ecological functions.
Environment, or master program environment, or s~horeline
en'v'ironment means the categories of shorelines of the state established
by the city of Federal V\l:JY shoreline management master progr:Jm to
differentiate between areas 'Nhose fe:Jtures imply differing objectives
regarding their use and future development.
Exemptions means those development activities set forth in WAC 173-
27- 040 Chapter XX of the Federal Way SMP which are not required to
obtain a Substantial Development Permit but which must obtain an
authorized statement of exemption and which must otherwise complv with
applicable provisions of the Act and the City's local shoreline master
proqram-S-MP.
Fair market value means the open market bid price for conductinq the
work, usinq the equipment and facilities. and purchase of the Qoods,
services and materials necessary to accomplish the development. This
would normally equate to the cost of hirinQ a contractor to undertake the
development from start to finish, includinq the cost of labor. materials.
equipment and facilitv usage, transportation and contractor overhead and
profit. The fair market value of the development shall include the fair
market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or
materials.
Page 5 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloay comments - May 15. 2007
Feasible means that an action, such as a development proiect.
mitigation. or preservation requirement, meets all of the following
conditions:
(a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and
methods that have been used in the past in similar
circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar
circumstances that such approaches are currently available and
likely to achieve the intended results;
(b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achievinq its
intended purpose; and
(c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's
primary intended legal use.
In determininq an action's feasibility. the reviewing aqency may weiqh
the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the
short- and long-term time frames.
Fill means the addition of soil. sand, rock, qravel, sediment, earth
retainin structure or other material to an area w ard of the OHWM
in wetlands or on shorelands in a manner th the elevation or cre
ates dry land.
Float means a structure or devi
is moored, anchored, or othe
and which is not connected to
ot breakwater and which
he waters of Federal Way,
Floodplain means one hun ;.year flood plain and means that land
area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled
or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon
flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the
obiectives of the Act.
Geoloqicallv hazardous areas means areas which because of their
susceptibility to erosion, land-sliding, seismic or other geoloqical
events are not suited to siting commercial. residential or industrial
development consistent with public health or safety concerns.
Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas:
(1) Erosion hazard areas are those areas havinq a severe to very severe
erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash,
frost action or stream flow.
(2) landslide hazard areas are those areas potentially subject to episodic
. downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock includinq, but not
limited to, the following areas:
a. Any area with a combination of:
1. Slopes greater than 15 percent;
2. Permeable sediment. predominatelv sand and qravel, overlyinq
relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, typically silt and clay;
and
3. Springs or groundwater seepage.
Page 6 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article /II. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15, 2007
b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from
10,000 years ago to the present. or which is underlain by mass
wastage debris of that epoch.
c. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank
erosion or undercuttinq by wave action.
d. Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or
potentially subiect to inundation by debris flows or flooding.
e. Those areas identified by the United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service as havinq a severe limitation for building
site development.
f. Those areas mapped as class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides),
and URS (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology.
q. Slopes havinq qradientsqreater than 80 percent subiect to rockfall
during seismic shaking.
(3) Seismic hazard areas are those areas subiect to severe risk of
earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced qround
shakinq, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface
faultin . These conditions occur in areas u lain b cohesion less
soils of low densit usuall in associaf a shallow
qroundwater table.
Stee slo e hazard areas are t
reater and with a verti
10 feet or more for eve
delineated b establishi
averaqinq the inclinatio
Geotechnical repart ar qeatechnical analvsis means a scientific study
or evaluation conducted by a Qualified expert that includes a description of
the qround and surface hydroloqy and qeoloqy, the affected land form and
its susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other qeologic hazards or
processes, conclusions and recommendations regardinq the effect of the
proposed development on geoloqic conditions, the adequacy of the site to
be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative
approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitiqate
potential site-specific and cumulative qeoloqical and hydroloqical impacts
of the proposed development, includinq the potential adverse impacts to
adiacent and down-current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform
to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by Qualified
professional enqineers or geoloqists who have professional expertise
about the reqional and local shoreline qeoloqy and processes.
Gradinq means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock,
gravel. sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the
natural contour of the land.
Groin means a barrier type structure extending from the backshore into
the water across the beach. The purpose of a groin is to interrupt
sediment movement along the shore.
Page 7 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article 1/1. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Eco/Dav comments - Mav 15, 2007
HeiGht means that distance measured from averaqe qrade level to the
highest point of a structure: Provided. that television antennas. chimneys.
and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculatinq heiqht. except
where such appurtenances obstruct the view of the shoreline of a
substantial number of residences on areas adjoininq such shorelines. or
the applicable master program specifically requires that such
appurtenances be included: Provided further. that temporary construction
equipment is excluded in this calculation.
Jetty means an artificial barrier used to change the natural littoral drift
to protect inlet entrances from clogging by excess sediment.
Landslide means an episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or
rock that includes but is not limited to rockfalls. slumps. mudflows. and
earthflows.
Land surface modification means the clearinq or removal of trees.
shrubs. qroundcover and other veqetation and all qradinq. excavation and
filling activities.
Littoral drift means the natural movement
lake shorelines by W3.'1e bre3.kerwave-ac
prevailing winds.
Ma 'or stream means an butaries to an stream
which contains or su orts 0 circumstances contains or
su orts resident or mi rato here exists a natural ermanent
blockaqe on the stream cours hich precludes the upstream movement
of anadromous salmonid fish. then that portion of the stream which is
downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a
major stream.
ment along marine or
in response to
Marine means pertaininq to tidally influenced waters. includinq Puqet
Sound and the bays. estuaries and inlets associated therewith.
Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of
"major stream."
Native Shoreline VeGetation means trees. shrubs and other plant
species that are indiqenous to a specific area or reqion. Plants native to
western Washinqton are referenced in Flora of the Pacific Northwest
(Hitchcock and Cronquist). Ornamentallandscapinq and invasive species
shall not be considered native shoreline veqetation.
Natural or existinG topography means the topography of the lot. parcel,
or tract of real property immediately prior to any site preparation or
qradinq. includinq excavatinq or fillinq.
Nearshore means either nearshore environment or nearshore habitat
and refer qenerally to an area along the Puqet Sound shoreline that
extends from the top of bluffs or upland area immediately adjacent to the
Page 8 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article /II. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
beach to the point where sunliqht penetrates marine waters to a depth
where aquatic plant life is supported.
Nonconforming use or development means a shoreline use or
development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the
effective date of the Act or the applicable SMP. or amendments thereto.
but which does not conform to present requlations or standards of the
SMP.
Non-water-oriented uses means those uses that are not water-
dependent, water-related, or water-enioyment, and which have little or no
relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the
SMA. Examples include professional offices, automobile sales or repair
shops, mini-storage facilities, multifamily residential development,
department stores, and gas stations.
Pier means any platform structure or floatinq structure upon water
bodies that is connected to land and provides public access, fishinq or
mooraqe for watercraft enqaqed in commerce or public transportation.
Primary Structure means the structure associated with the principal
use of the property. If more than one structure is associated with the
principal use of the property, the one with the hi9hest value shall be
considered the primary structure.
Public Access means the public's ability to qet to and use the State's
public waters, the water/land interface and associated public shoreline
area.
Public Utilitv means the facilities of a private business orqanization
such as a public service corporation. or a qovernmental aqency
performinq some public service and subiect to special qovernmental
regulations, the services which are paid for directly by the recipients
thereof. Such services shall include but are not limited to: water supply.
electric power, telephone. cablevision, natural qas and transportation for
Page 9 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article /II. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecolo~1V comments - May 15, 2007
persons and freight. The term also includes broadcast towers. antennas
and related facilities operated on a commercial basis.
Restoration means in the context of "ecoloQical restoration." the
reestablishment or upgradinQ of impaired ecoloQical shoreline processes
or functions. This may be accomplished throuQh measures includinQ. but
not limited to, reveQetation. removal of intrusive shoreline structures and
removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a
requirement for returninQ the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European
settlement conditions.
Riorao means a layer. facinQ or protective mound of angular stones
randomly placed to prevent erosion. scour or sloughinQ of a structure or
embankment; also. the stone so used.
Shorelands. also referred to as "shoreland areas," means those lands
extendinQ landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on
a horizontal plane from the ordinary hiQh water mark; floodways and
contiQuous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such
floodwa S' and all wetlands and river deltas asso' d with the streams
lakes and tidal waters which are sub'ect to t 'ons of this cha ter'
the same to be desi nated as to location rtment of Ecolo
Shoreline administrator me
Director of t
or his or her desi nee and is r
Way SMP.
Shoreline environment designation means the cateaories of shorelines
of the state established by the city of Federal Way shoreline manaQement
master proaram to differentiate between areas whose features imply
differinQ objectives reQardinQ their use and future development.
Shoreline iurisdiction means all "shorelines of the state" and
"shorelands" as defined in the Federal Way SMP and RCW 90.58.030.
Shoreline Master Proqram rSMP) means the comprehensive use plan
for a described area. and the use regulations tOQether with maps.
diaQrams. charts, or other descriptive material and text. a statement of
desired aoals. and standards developed in accordance with the policies
enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
Shoreline modifications means those actions that modify the physical
confiQuration or Qualities of the shoreline area. usually throuQh the
construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater. pier. weir.
dredQed basin. fill. bulkhead. or other shoreline structure. They can
include other actions. such as clearing ,and grading-,-Gf application of
chemicals.
Shoreline variance means to arant relief from the specific bulk.
dimensional or performance standards in the local SMP, but not a means
to vary a "use" of a shoreline.
Shoreline stabilization means actions taken to address erosion
impacts to property. dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by
Page lO of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - Mav 15. 2007
natural shoreline processes such as currents, floods. tides, wind or wave
action.
Shorelines means all of the water areas of the state, includinQ
reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands
underlyinQ them; except (i) shorelines of statewide siqnificance; Oi)
shorelines on seqments of streams upstream of a point where the mean
annual flow is twenty cubic feet ber second or less and the wetlands
associated with such upstream seQments; and (Hi) shorelines on lakes
less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small
lakes.
Shorelines of Statewide Siqnificance means those areas of PUQet
Sound in the City of Federal Way lyinQ seaward from the line of extreme
low tide.
Shorelines of the state means the total of all "shorelines" and
"shorelines of statewide siqnificance" within the City of Federal Way.
e arawn between the points on
g the greatest projection (including
_waterward on the two adjacent
properties. If one of the adjacent properties is unimproved the line shall
be drawn to the point of the standard shoreline setback at the side
property line of the unimproved lot.
Substantial Accessory Structure means non primary structures equal
to or larQer than 400 square feet and in good repair.
Water-dependent means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist
in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the
intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water dependent uses may
include ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals,
barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas,
aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer outfalls.
Water enjoyment means a recreational use, or other use facilitating
public access to the sAGFeHne as a primary characteristic of the use; or a
use that provides for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the
shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general characteristic of
the use and which through the location, design and operation assures the
public's ability to enjoy tA-e-~al and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline. In order to qualify as a water enjoyment use, the use must be
open to the genoral public and tho shoreline oriented space within the
project must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters
shoreline enjoyment. PrimaFy-water enjeyment uses may include, but are
not limited to, parks, f}fef&and othef-improvcments facilitating public
access to shorelines of the state; and general wator enjoyment uses may
include, but are not limited to, restaurants, museums, aquariums,
Stringline setback means
the primary structures
Page II of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments;. Mav 15. 2007
scientific/ecological reserves, resorts and mixed use commercial;
provided, that such uses conform to the above water enjoyment
Sf*GffiGaOOA-S and the pffiV-i.s.k:ms-of the master program.
V'/ator oriented means any combination of water dependent, water
related, and/or water enjoyment uses and servos as an all encompassing
definition for priority uses under tho SMA.
Water-related means a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically
dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic vitality is
dependent upon a waterfront location because:
(1) Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the
arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of
water; or
(2) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water-
dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its
customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient.
Examples include professional services serving primarily water-dependent
activities and storage of water-transported foods. (Ord. No. 98-323, S 3,
12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, S 3, 11-16-99)
rated b surface water
icient to su ort and that
a revalence of ve etation
soil conditions. Wetlands enerall
include swam s marshes s and similar areas. Wetlands do not
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland
sites. includinQ. but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-
lined swales, canals. detention facilities. wastewater treatment facilities,
farm ponds. and landscape amenities. or those wetlands created after July
1. 1990. that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of
a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitiQate the conversion of
wetlands.
Page l2 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - Mav 15, 2007
Division 2. Shoreline Regulation
18-164 rNEW SECTIONl General development standards.
The following qeneral development standards apply to all uses and
activities in all shoreline environments:
(a) Impact mitiaation.
(1) To the extent Washinqton's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA).
chapter 43.21 C RCW, is applicable. the analysis of environmental impacts from
proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the
rules implementinq SEPA (FWCC XX and WAC 197-11). Mitiqation for adverse
impacts to shoreline functions will be triqqered during the SEPA review. shoreline
land use permit process or exemption approval process.
(2) Where required, mitiqation measures shall be applied in the followinq
sequence of steps listed in order of priority.
a. Avoidin the im act alto ether b t certain action or arts of an
action;
b. Minimizin im acts b r
its im lementation b u
ste s to avoid or reduc
c. Rectifyinq the impact by repairinq, rehabilitating. or restoring the affected
environment
d. Reducinq or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations:
e. Compensatinq for the impact by replacinq, enhancing, or providinq
substitute resources or environments: and
f. Monitorinq the impact and the compensation projects and taking
appropriate corrective measures.
f3-)(3) In determininq appropriate mitiqation measures applicable to shoreline
development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where hiqher
priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable.
(4) Required mitiqation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that
proposed uses or development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecoloqical
functions.
(5) Mitigation actions shall not have a siqnificant adverse impact on other
shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Shoreline Manaqement Act.
f61(6) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitiqation
priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be qiven to measures
that replace the impacted functions directly and are located in the immediate
vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitiqation may be
authorized if said mitiqation occurs within the watershed and addresses limitinq
factors or identified critical needs for shoreline conservation based on watershed
Page l3 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecology comments - Mav 15. 2007
or comprehensive manaQement plans. Authorization of compensatory mitiQation
measures may require appropriate safeQuards, terms or conditions as necessary
to ensure no net loss of ecoloQical functions.
{Ql-VeQetation conservation. ExistinQ native shoreline veQetation
shall be preserved per development standards established for each
shoreline environment designation.
(c) Water Qualitv I stormwater. All activities and development within
the shoreline iurisdiction shall incorporate water pollution control
measures and best manaqement practices (BMPs) for stormwater
manaQement. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to
water Quality from construction activities as well as the need for
permanent stormwater manaQement facilities in compliance with the
requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations.
d Critical areas. Activities and develo me
within shoreline jurisdiction are re uired to c
develo ment standards outlined in A e x
A endix B - Flood Dama e Redu
1 Geolo ic Hazard Area
in the shoreline 'urisdiction inc
stee slo es and erosion ha
within the shoreline jurisdicti , all activities on the site shall be in compliance
with the requirements and restrictions of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Appendix A .
(2) Streams and Wetlands. If a stream or wetland is located within the
shoreline iurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline iurisdiction shall be in
compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of
Appendix A.
(3) Flood Damaqe Reduction. If an area of special flood hazard is located on
or adiacent to a development site within shoreline iurisdiction, all activities on the
site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restriction of Appendix B.
(4) Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas. If a
critical aquifer recharQe area or wellhead protection area {as defined in F'NCC
Chapter 22) is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the
shoreline iurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and
restrictions of FVVCC Chapter 22, Article XIV, Division 9: Critical AreasSections
1, 2, 3, and 7 of Appendix A.
(e) Critical salmonid habitats. All saltwater shorelines in Federal Way are
critical salmonid habitats. Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats
found within the shoreline iurisdiction are required to comply with the followinQ
development standards in addition to those contained in other sections of this
chapter:
jkl) Salmon and steel head Critical Saltwater and Freshwater Habitats
(Critical Habitats).
Page l4 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloqy comments - Mav 15. 2007
(1) Structures which prevent the migration of salmon and steelhead are
prohibited in the portions of the '.vater bodies used by fish. Fish bypass facilities
shall allow the upstream migration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall
prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed.
(2)L:mdfills shall not intrude intosalmon and steelhead habitats, except as
provided in subsection (k)(3) of ~his section.
J3)Lmdfills may intrude into critical salt water areas _used by salmon and
steelhoad for migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge only \vhere the
proponent obtains a conditional use permit (CUP) and demonstrates all of the
f-oIlO\"/ing conditions are met:
a. The landfill is for water dependent or water related use;
bg. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
cQ. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;
d~. The proiect facility is in the public interest; and
eQ. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in kind replacement habitat near the project.
\^/here in kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded
habitat may be required as a substitute.
nabitat.
structure cannot be removed because of
environmental, safety, or geological concerns, the least environmentally
impacting alternative shall be used. Any. replacement bulkhead or shoreline
protection structure shall be as close to the existing structure as
possibleconstructed no further watef\Nard of the existing bulkhead.
(~e) _Bulkheads, break'Naters, jetties, groins and other sShoreline
modificationprotection structures may intrude into salmon and steel head
habitatscritical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of
the following conditions are met:
a. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;
c. The facility is in the public interest; and
~G. If the project will create ~unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the project.
Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded
habitat may be required as a substitute.
d . -The proiect satisfies all provisions of section 18-165 Shoreline
modifications.
(7) Docks, piers, pilings and floats may be located in water areas used by
salmon and steelhoad for migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge,
provided the facilities use open piling construction. Approach fills shall be located
landward of the ordinary high water-mark. _Docks, piers, pilings and floats shall
not be located in other salmon and steolheadcritical habitats. The project shall be
designed to minimize its impacts on the environment.
Page l5 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article 1/1. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcolOGY comments - Mav 15. 2007
migr3tion corridors. This regulation only applies to in w3ter 3quaculturo uses, not
upland aquaculture uses,
(9-1-5) The removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation within or adjacent to
s3lmon 3ne-steelheadcritical salmonid habitats shall be minimized. Trees which
shade side channels, streams, fivef.sestuaries, ponds and wetlands used by
salmon and steel head associated with critical salmonid habitats shall be
maintained consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Areas of disturbed earth
shall be revegetated.
(104-9) Unless removal is needed to prevent hazards to life and property or
to enhance fisfl.-critical salmonid habitat~, large woody debris below the ordinary
high water mark shall be left in the waterway to provide salmon and steel head
habitat.
(18) Outfalls 'Nithin or upstream of salmon or stoelhead spawning 3roas
shall be designed 3nd constructed to minimize disturbance of s31mon and
steelhead spawning beds. (Ord. No. 98-323, 9 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, 9 3,
11-16-99 )
(f) ArchaeoloQical and historic resources.
1 If an archeolo ical artifacts are unco
shoreline work must sto and the
De artment of Archeolo and Hi ri
2 Permits issued in ar
archeolo ical artifacts
ins ection and evalu
disturbance and for m
inspection and evalua n of the site will be the responsibility. of the
applicant. Siqnificant archeoloqical data or artifacts shall be recovered
before work beqins or resumes on a proiect.
(q) Public access.
(1) In review of all shoreline permits or developments of more than four (4)
residential lots or dwellinq units, or subdivision of land into more than 4
lots, or commercial development, consideration of public access shall be
required when:
a. The development would qenerate demand for one or more forms of
public shoreline access; and/or
b. The development would eliminate, restrict, or otherwise impair
existinq leqal access opportunities or riqhts.
(2) Requirements or conditions for public access shall be consistent with
all relevant constitutional and other leqallimitations on requlation of
private property.
(3) Public access requirements shall not be required in areas where the
City has prepared a comprehensive shoreline public access plan per WAC
176-26-221 (4 )(c) or when the applicant demonstrates that one or more of
the following provisions apply:
a. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that cannot
be prevented bv any practical means;
Page 17 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article /II. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - Mav 15, 2007
b. Inherent security reauirements of the use cannot be satisfied
throuqh the application of alternative desiqn features or other solutions;
c. The cost of providina the access. easement. alternative amenity. or
mitiqatinq the impacts of public access is unreasonablv
disproportionate to the totallonq term cost of the proposed
development;
d. Siqnificant environmental impacts would result from the public
access that cannot be mitiqated; and/or
e. Siqnificant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access
provisions and the proposed use and/or adiacent uses would occur
and cannot be mitiaated.
(4) Public access shall consist of a dedication of land, easements or a
phvsical improvement in the form of a walkwav. trail. bikeway. corridor.
viewpoint. park. or other area servinq as a means of view and/or phvsical
approach to shorelines of the state and may include interpretive centers
and displavs.
5 Public access locations shall be cl
18-165 rNEW SECTIONl Shoreline modifications
(a) Shoreline protection stabilization. Shoreline stabilization
protection may be permitted in the shoreline residential and urban
conservancy environment,2, provided:
(1) Shoreline stabilization. including bBulkheads shall not be
considered an outright permitted use on the city's Puget Sound shoreline,2.
In order for &i*0Posed bulkhead shoreline stabilization to be permitted the
City on the Pugat Sound shoreline, or f{)r a laka shore bulkhead to qualify
f{)r the RCVV 90.58.030 (3)(e)(iii) exemption from the shorelino permit
requirements, the city of Federal 'Afay shall revielt: the proposed bulkhead
design as it relates to local physical conditions and the city of Federal VVay
shoreline master program and must find that:
a. Erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent
threat to a legally established primary structureresidence, one or more
substantial accessory structures, or public improvements. The applicant
shall provide a geotechnical report. prepared bv a aualified professional,
that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and
b. NThe proposed bulkhoad is more consistent with the intent of the
city of Federal \^lay shoreline master program in protecting the site and
adjoining shorelinos than other nonstructural alternatives such as slope
Page 18 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - May 15, 2007
drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and
beach nourishment, and that such alternatives shall be prioritized over
structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective
alternative shall be utilized; and arc not-teGJ::H:Hcally feasible or \vill not
adequately protect a legally established primary structureresidence.1 or
substantial accessory structure or public improvement;
c. In the case of bulkheads and riprap. +!he proposed shoreline
stabilizationbulkhead is located landward of the ordinary high water mark;
and
d. The maximum height of the proposeEl-bulkhead is no more than
one foot abovo the elevation of extreme high water on tidal waters, or four
feet in height, measured from qrade on the waterward side of the
bulkhead, on lakes. The proposed shoreline stabilization protection is the
minimum size necessary to protect existinq improvements; and
e. The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment
transport are minimized to the qreatest extent possible; and
f. Shoreline stabilization shall not have a verse im act on the
ro ert of others and shall be desi ned so create the need for
shoreline protection elsewhere; and
. Shoreline stabilization s
surface and/or subsurface d
constructed usin an a rove
assa e of surface and r
material; and
h. Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and
i. Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline
stabilization proposal within freshwater lake shorelines; and
j. Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine
shorelines; and
k. Re-vegetation with native plants is required as part of the
shoreline stabilization proiect.
(2) When a bulkhead is permitted subject to subsection (1) above, the
followinq standards shall apply:
A shoreline protection project replacing an existing bulkhoad shall be
placed along the same alignment as the shoreline protection it is
replacing, subject to thefollo'Nin~
a. The maximum heiqht of the proposed bulkhead is no more than
one foot above the elevation of extreme hiqh water mean hiqher high
water on tidal waters, or one foot in heiqht above the elevation of ordinary
high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the waterward side of
the bulkhead; and
~ When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that the ordinary high
water mark has been established by the presence and action of water
landward of the existing bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead must be
located at or landward of theas near as possible to the actu31 ordinary
high water mark.
Page 19 of 59
Gitv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requ/ations
Response to Ec%qV comments - Mav 15. 2007
b. When an existing bulkhead is being repaired by the construction
of a vertical wall fronting the existing wall, it shall be constructed no further
vJaten.vard of the existing bulkhead than is necess~lI"y for construction of
nelN footings.
c. Repair of an existinq bulkhead is permitted provided that the
repaired bulkhead is not relocated further waterward or increased in
height.
d. If an existing bulkhead is destroyed it may be replaced as it
existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is
made within one year of destruction.
c. Beach nourishment and bio engineered erosion control projects
may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural
elements are consistent with the above requirements, and when the
project has been approved by the Department of Fish and \Nildlife.
If an existing bulkhead deteriorates to the point it must be replaced,
its replacement shall be considered a nov: bulkhead subiect to the
provisions of subsection (1) above.
f')assage of internal
material.
b. Shoreline protection shall not be used to create ne'N lands,
except that groins may used to create or maintain a public class I beach if
they comply with all other conditions of this sect~
c. Groins nre permitted only as part of a public beach management
program. Jettios and break'.Naters are not permitted.
(b) Piers, Docks, Moorage Buoys, and Floats.
(el) PRosidential piers, docks, floats,. buoys or moorage, or launching
facilities; conditionsstandards. Any pier, dock, moorage, buoy or, float.,ef
launching facility authorized by subsections XXX of the Environmental
Designations section (d) through (f) of this section shall be subject to the
following conditions:
fBa. Residential piers and docks are prohibited on the Puget Sound
shoreline.
f2.jb. Piers shall only be permittedallowed for water-dependent uses and
public access.
~No dwelling unit may be constructed on a pier or dock.
~d. Excavated moorage slips shall not be permitted accessory to single
family residences, multifamily development, or as common use facilities
accessory to subdivisions and short subdivisions. are prohibited as accessories
to residential development.
Page 20 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecologv comments - Mav 15. 2007
{4jed. No covered pier, covered moorage, covered float, or other covered
structure is permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
~fe. No pier, moorage, float, or overv.'ater structure or device shal.J-be
ffi€:ated closer than 15 foet from the side property line extended, except that such
structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property
owners when mutually agreed to by the property owners in a contract recorded
with King County, a copy of which must accompany an application for a building
permit or a shoreline permit;Piers, docks, moorages, buoys or floats shall meet
the side and rear yard setbacks of the underlyinq zoning classification, except in
the case of shared facilities, in which case no side yard setback is required.
~such joint use piers may-be-'f}eFffift.ted up to twice the surface area allowed by
this title.
(6jgt All piers, m'oorages, buoys. floats, or other such structures shall
notfloat at all times on the surface ef the \V3ter, or shall be of open pile
construction, provided no portion of the structure shall,~ during the course of the
normal fluctuations of the elevation of the water body, protrude more than five
feet above the surface of the water.
h The total surface area of docks and floa
thereof for an shoreline develo ment s
sin Ie use facilities 600 s uare feet for i
facilities shared between four or
associated with fef ublic
VVildlife.
i. Any pier. dock. float. buoy or mooraqe must be constructed out of
materials that will not adversely affect water Quality. Use of chemically treated
wood is prohibited in freshwater lake shorelines. Use of creosote treated wood is
prohibited in marine shorelines.
j. Any new pier or dock must be constructed from materials (i.e., qrating)
that allow liqht penetration through the structure.
k. Any new pier or dock must be located qenerally perpendicular to the
shoreline, and oriented to minimize shadinQ impacts to the maximum deqree
feasible.
I. Moorinq buoys are preferred over pile or float structures. Proposals for
new pile or float structures must first demonstrate that use of mooring buoys is
not feasible.
m. Mooraqe at public docks is limited to recreational purposes. Public
docks may not be used for commercial or residential moorage.
ff1!2} Residential piers, docks, floats, buoys or moorage, or launching
facilities; accessory to residential development. DPiers, docks, moorages, buoys
or, floats, or launching facilities may be permitted accessory to a single-family
residence, multifamily development, or as common use facilities associated with
a subdivision, or short subdivision, in accordance with this chapter and the
following limitations:
(1) piers for the sole use of the property owner shall not be permitted
outright on city of Federal VVay shorelines.
Page 21 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article JJJ. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft Regulations
Response to EcoloQV comments - May 15. 2007
(2) A pier may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need
for moorage and has demonstrated that the following alternatives have been
investigated and are not available or feasible:
a. Commorcial or marina moorage.
S. Floating moorage buoys.
C. Joint use moorage ~pier.
LNo more than one dockf}ief for each existing residential lotoo is
permitted. On lots with less than 50 foet of 'Naterfront, only joint use piers
shall be permitted except when both lots abutting tho subject lot have
legally established piers then the lot with less than 50 feet of waterfront
may be permitted an individual pier.
~b. New Mmultiple-family developments, residence piers and piers
associated with a subdivisions or short. subdivisions shall be permitted one
shared dock. as a common use facility shall not exceed the following:
a1. No more than one pier for each 100 feet of shoreline associated '/lith
the multifamily dovolopment, subdivision, or short subdivisioR is pormitted.
B1~. The total number of moorage spaces shall be limited to one
moorage space for every twe dwelling units u ur. For each two dwellin
units after four one additional moora e ermined.in the multifomily
n of any portion of anydockt*ef
er depth is 13 feet below the ordinary
first.=-, provided:
. .
, ,
(4jc. Dock dimensions
AL The maximum
shall be 36 feet, or the point
high water mark, whichever is
. ..
development or subdivision, this intrusion may be increased four feet for each
additional moorage space over six moorage spaces to a maximum of 76 feet.
bL The maximum width of each dock f}ief shall be ~six feet, or up
to eiQht feet wide on ioint use docks where additional mitiQation is provided.
cNo float shall have more than 100 square feet of surface area.
dThe total surface area of piers, moorages, floats, and/or launching
facilities, or any combination thereof, associatod with a single family residence
shall not exceod 500 square feet.
_e~No pier, including finger pier, moorage, float, or over water structure
or dovice, shall be \vider than 25 percent of the lot with '.vhich it is associated.
~9..:-Moorage piles. Moorage piles not constructed in conjunction with a
pier are limited by the following conditions:
aLAII piles shall be placed so as to not constitute a hazard to
navigation.
bLNo pile shall be placed more than 80 feet waterward of the ordinary
high water mark.
6~AII moorage piles shall be placed in a water depth not to exceed 13
feet below the ordinary high water mark.
d4~No more than onetwe moorage piles per residence iSaFe permitted.
(6)Launching ramps and lift stations require a shoreline conditional use
permit and are limited by the following conditions:
a No portion of a launching ramp or lift station shall be placed more th::m
60 foet waterward of the ordinary high '.^later mark.
Page 22 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
b /\.11 portions of a launching ramp or lift station shall be placed at a
depth not to exceed eight feet below the ordinary high water mark.
c Launching rails or ramps shall be anchore€i-te the ground through the
use of tie type construction. Asphalt, concrete, or other ramps which solidly cover
the water body bottom are prohibited.
d No more than one launching rail per single family residence is
permitted, and no more than two common use launching rampsfor each 100 feet
of shoreline associated with a multifamily development, short subdivision, or
subdivision.
Ae. Floats are limited under the following conditions:
a.1. One float per single-family residence and no more than one
common use float for each new, multifamily development, short subdivision, or
subdivision is permitted.
b2. No portion of a float shall be placed more than 36 feet waterward of
the ordinary high water mark.
63. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water. .
El4. No float shall have more than 100 square feet of surface area.
5. Floats shall use ratin on at least 3 rcent of its surface to allow
light penetration.
o Launching ramps~
nal use permit and are
i9..Launching Ramps Rails a
rails and lift stations require a
limited by the following conditi
{1}. No portion of a launc mp, rail or lift station shall be placed more
than 60 feet waterward of the inary high water mark.
{2}. All portions of a launching ramp, rail or lift station shall be placed at a
depth not to exceed eight feet below the ordinary high water mark.
{3}. Launching rails or ramps shall be anchored to the ground through the use
of tie-type construction. Asphalt, concrete, or other ramps which solidly cover the
water body bottom are prohibited.
{4}. No more than one launching ramp or rail per single family residence
shoreline development is permitted.:., and no more than two common use
launching ramps for each 100 feet of shoreline associated with a multifamily
development, short subdivision, or subdivision.
(5) -Launching ramps, rails or lift stations shall not be permitted for shoreline
developments that have an existinq pier, dock, float or other functional mooraqe.
Piers, docks. floats or other forms of mooraqe shall not be permitted for shoreline
developments that have existing launchinq ramps, rails or lift stations.
Cd) Breakwaters and Jetties and Groins.
(1) Floatinq breakwaters and ietties are -Aet permitted in the shoreline
Residential and Urban Conservancy environments. with a Conditional
Use Permit when the followinq conditions apply:
a. Floatinq breakwaters may be allowed if necessary to protect a
public boat launch, when no other alternative with less impact to the
environment is feasible.
b. Non-floatinq breakwaters are prohibited.
Page 23 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article 1/1. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
(2) t2+-Jetties are prohibited within all shoreline environments in the
City.
(3) Groins are prohibited in all shoreline environments in the City.
(e) DredQinQ and FillinQ.
(1) DredQing:
a. Dredqinq activities in shoreline residential or urban conservancy
environments require a Conditional Use Permit. Dredging is not permitted in the
Natural environment.
b. Dredqinq activities are allowed only where necessary to protect public
safety or for shoreline restoration activities.
c. Dredqing is allowed only where an alternative aliqnment that would not
require dredqinq is not feasible.
d. Dredginq of bottom m3terials for the sinqle purpose of obt3ininq fill
m3teri31 is prohibited.
fd. Where allowed. dredqinq operations must be scheduled so as to not
dama e shoreline ecolo ical functions or rocess
e. Unavoidable im acts of dred in s
chapter.
(2) Filling:
a. Fill activities wate
association with allowed e
waterward of the OHWM as iated with non-water dependent uses shall be
prohibited. Minor qrade and fill land'Nard of the OHvVM associated '/lith normal
construction of 3110'Ned shoreline uses may bo exempted from requirements for a
Conditional Use Permit. at the director's discretion.
b. Fill waterward of OHWM needed to support the following water
dependent uses may be allowed through a Conditional Use Permit in the
Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy environments:
1. Public access;
2. Expansion, alteration, or repair of transportation facilities currently
located with in the shoreline;
3. Mitiqation actions;
4. Environmental, ecoloqical. or watershed restoration projects;
5. Beach nourishment or enhancement projects; and
6. Soft shore bank stabilization projects.
c. Permitted fill activities must comply with the followinq standards:
1. Demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible;
2. Demonstration that fill shall be deposited so as to minimize disruption
of normal surface and qround water passaqe;
3. Demonstration that fill materials shall be of such Quality that it will not
adversely affect water Quality;
4. Demonstration that fill shall allow surface water penetration into the
ground water supply, where such conditions existed prior to the fill; and
5. Demonstration that fill timinq will minimize damaqe to water Quality
and aquatic life.
Page 24 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecologv comments - Mav 15. 2007
d. Fill, except for beach nourishment, shall be prohibited in areas of hiqh
shoreline erosion potential.
e. Fill located waterward of the ordinary high water mark , except for
boachnourishment shall be allmved only after full consideration is qiven to total
water surface reduction, impediment to 't/ater flow and circulation, reduction of
'.vater Qualitv and destruction of habitat. that results in a net loss of shoreline
function is prohibited.
18464-166 Environmental designations.
(a) Purpose and establishment of desi~mations.
ill The purpose of these designations is to differentiate between areas whose
geographical, hydrological, topographical, or other features imply differing
objectives regarding the use and future development of the shorelines of the city.
Each environment designation represents a particular emphasis in the type of
uses and the extent of development that should occur within it. The
environmental designation system is designed to encourage uses in each
environment that enhance or are compatible ith the character of the
environment, while at the same time re' reasonable standards and
restrictions on development so that th r of the environment is not
adversely impacted.
(b.f.) Names of environme
of this title, environmental de
follows:
fBa. horeline Residential.
~b. Conservancy residential environmentUrban Conservancy.
{J1c. Rural environmentNatural.
(4) Urban environment.
(B~) Limits of environment designations. Each environment designation shall
consist of:
fBa. The entire water body from its centerline or pointwithin City
iurisdiction, including all water below the surface, the land below the water body,
the space above the water body, and the shorelands associated with the water
body. On the City's marine shoreline, environment desiqnations shall extend
waterward from the OHWM to the line of extreme low tide.
~b. The shoreline areas within 200 feet of the OHWM, and additional
upland areas where associated severe biophysical constraints such aswetlands
and floodplains, steep slopes, slide hazard areas, and'Netlands extend beyond
200 feet from the OHWM. do not cover the entire associated shoreland.
Proposod development in the remaining area may be permitted consistent 'Nith
the character of the surrounding land use, the physical capabilities of the
shorelands, and applicable city land use plans and policies.
(41) Establishment of designations.
fBa. The written descriptions of the boundaries of the shoreline
environment designations as adopted by ordinance in the possession of the
department shall constitute the official legal descriptions of the boundaries of
those environment designations.
~b. The official maps prepared by the city pursuant to Chapters 173 16
aM 173-26 WAC in the possession of the department shall constitute the official
n order to accomplish the purpose
e been established to be knm"m as
Page 25 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
descriptions of the limits of all shorelands in the city of Federal Way as defined
by RCW 90.58.030 and FWCC 18-163.
~c. The department may, from time to time as new or improved
information becomes available, modify the official maps described in subsection
@}(d1~b. of this section consistent with state guidelines to more accurately
represent, clarify, or interpret the true limits of the shorelines defined herein.
(e~) Location of boundaries.
fBa. Boundaries indicated as following streets, highways, roads, and
bridges shall be deemed to follow the centerline of such facilities unless
otherwise specified.
f2jb. Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines and transmission
lines shall be deemed to follow the centerline of such rights-of-way or easements
unless otherwise specified.
~c. Where different environmental designations have been given to a
tributary and the main stream at the point of confluence, the environmental
designation given to the main stream shall extend for a distance of 200 feet up
the tributary.
{41g. In case of uncertainty as to a wetlan
director of community development service
pursuant to the criteria of WAC 173-2
provisions of this chapter. (Ord.
11-16-99 )
environment boundary, the
determine its exact location
d RCW 90.58.030, and the
-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, 9 3,
Page 26 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
18-167 NEW SECTION Permitted Use Table
Office and Commercial
Development
Recreational Development
Residential Development
Accessory Structures
Utilities5
Transportation I ParkinQ
Facilities6
Aauaculture
P = Allowed as exempt from permittinQ or permitted with Substantial Development Permit
C = May be allowed with Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
X = Prohibited
1. Includes bulkheads, bio-enqineered erosion control proiects, and other shoreline stabilization
activities.
2. Residential piers are prohibited on Puqet Sound shorelines. but public piers are allowed as a
CUP. Docks. mooraqe and floats are allowed uses.
3. Would be permitted with Substantial Development Permit in parks and public access areas;
would be permitted with Shoreline Conditional Use permit elsewhere in Urban Conservancy
Environment.
4. Dredqinq and all fill waterward of the OHWM requires a Conditional Use Permit
5. Solid waste transfer stations and cellular towers are prohibited in all shoreline environments.
6. Parkinq as a primary use is prohibited in all environments, but allowed if serving an allowed
shoreline use
Page 27 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloay comments - May 15. 2007
18465168 Urban environment Shoreline Residential.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to
accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are
consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public
access and recreational uses.
The purpose of designating the urban environment is to ensure optimum utilization
of the shorelines of the state within urbanized areas by permitting intensive use
and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains the shorelines of
the state for a multiplicity of urban uses. The urban environment is designed to
reflect a policy of increasing utilization and efficiency of urban areas, to promote a
more intense level of use through redevelopment of areas now underutilized, and
to oncourage multiple use of the shorolines of the city if the major use is water
dependent or water related, while at the same time safeguarding the quality of the
environment.
(b) Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the urban shoreline residential
environment are rovided in the Cit 's shoreline m er ro ram FWCC Cha ter
xx. shall be:
~
'#here surrounding land use is urban and urban services are available.
(51) Shorelines of the city to be designated urban Shoreline Residential
environment shall not have extensive biophysical limitations to development such
as floodplains, steep slopes, slide hazard areas, and wetlands.
(c) General requirements.
(1) Development waterward of the ordinary high water mark is prohibited
except water dependent recreational uses, permitted shoreline modifications and
public utilities.
(2) No structure shall exceed a height of 35 feet above average grade level.
This requirement may be modified if the view of any neighboring residences will
not be obstructed, if permitted outright by the applicable provisions of the
underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is water-related or water-
dependent.
(3) All development shall be required to provide adequate surface water
retention, erosion control, and sedimentation facilities during the construction
period.
(4) Setbacks. Development shall maintain the first 50 feet of property abutting
shoreline landward from the ordinary hiqh water mark as a required minimum
setback and veqetation conservation area, subiect to provisions referenced in
subsection (e). a natural environment as required open space.
(5). Veqetation Conservation Area. The required setback area shall be considered a
veqetation conservation area. Within the Veqetation Conservation Area, no more than 50
percent of the area with native shoreline vegetation shall be cleared, and a minimum of
60 percent of existing native trees shall be retained. Trees determined by the city to be
Page 28 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
hazardous or diseased may be removed. Additionally, the Director may allow removal of
veqetation exceedinq that described above where an applicant aqrees to replacement
plantinqs that are demonstrated to provide greater benefit to shoreline ecoloqical
processes than would be provided by strict application of this section.
(5) Parking facilities, except parking facilities associated with detached single
family development, shall conform to the folio'Ning minimum conditions:
a. Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be
located landward from the principal building being served, except when the parking
facility is 'A'ithin or beneath the structure and adequately screened, or in cases
when an alternate leeation 'J.'ould have less environmental impact on the shoreline.
1. b. Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrancos and exits, must
be maintained as a planting area 'Nith a minimum v.'idth of five feet.
c. Parking as a primary use shall be prohibited.
d. Parking in shoreline jurisdiction shall directly serve a permitted shoreline
t:lSe-;
parking
(6) , Collection
facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required where stormwater
runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollution of recipient
waters of adjacent properties.
(7) The regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of
sections, regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, aAII
development in the Shoreline Residential area must comply with aU-applicable
regulations identified within the rGeneral Development Standardsl. rShoreline
Modificationsl. and all other applicable sections of this chapter.
(d) Shoreline Modifications
(1) Allowed modifications to the shoreline within Shoreline Residential desiqnated
areas include the followinq:
a. Shoreline Stabilization and Shoreline Protoction. Allowed within Shoreline
Residential desiqnated areas under the requirements imposed by rNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (a).
b. Piers. Allowed within Shoreline Residential desiqnated areas with a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit under the requirements imposed by rNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (b).
c. Docks, Mooraqe, buoys, and Floats. Allowed within Shoreline Residential
desiqnated areas under the requirements imposed by rNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (b).
Page 29 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15, 2007
c. LaunchinQ Ramps, Rails and Lift Stations. Allowed within Shoreline Residential
desiQnated areas with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit under the requirements
imposed by [NEW SECTION Shoreline Modifications] division (c).
d. Breakwaters. Allowed within the Shoreline Residential areas with a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit under the requirements imposed by fNEW SECTION Shoreline
Modificationsl division (d).
ae. DredginQ and Filling. Allowed within Shoreline Residential designated areas
with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit under the requirements imposed by fNEW
SECTION Shoreline Modificationsl division (e).
(2) Prohibited modifications to the shoreline within Shoreline Residential desiQnated
areas include the following:
a. a. Breakwaters and Jetties and groins.
(e) Shoreline Uses.
(1) Allowed uses within Shoreline Residential desiqnated areas include the followinq:
mark.
h water
lal develo ment shall maintain a minimum shoreline
setback of 50 feet from the Ordina Hi h Water Mark
(OHWM) as a veqetation conservation area, 'Nhichever is , except in the followinq cases:
aa. If the property is undeveloped and reasonable use of the propertv
cannot occur 'A'ithout further encroachment of tho setback due to physical constraints of
the lot, then the director of community development services can reduce the setback to
the minimum necessary in order to build a sinqle familv home, but in no case less than 30
feet from the ordinary high 'Nater mark.
bb. If the property is developed with a sinqle family home bevond the
strinqline setback or within 50 feet of the ordinal"',' hiqh water mark if there are no adiacent
residences, thon the residence can onlv be added to if the addition will not make tho
structure anv more nonconforminq as to its setback and the heiQht of the addition within
the setback area is not increased, or the applicant may request a shoreline variance and
conditional use permit.
B6 aa. If sinqle-family residential development is proposed on a lot where
properties on at least one adiacent to both sides of the lot are developed in sinqle-family
residences located less than 50 feet from the OHWM, then the proposed residential
development may be located the same distance from the OHWM as the adiacent
residences (using strinqline method) eF-but shall in no case be closer than 30 feet from
the OHWM. -;
dd. If the residential development is proposed on shorelines that include
one or more sensitive areas, as defined in Chapter 22 F\^/CC, such development shall
maintain setbacks in accordance with the requlations and procedures set forth in Chapter
22 FVVCC, Article XIV.
Page 30 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
ii. Multifamilv residential development shall maintain a minimum setback
behind the strinqline setback, or of 75 feet from the OHWM as a veqetation conservation
area, 'Nhichever is qreater, except in the following cases:
aa. If the property is undeveloped and reasonable use of the property
cannot occur without further encroachment of the setback due to physical constraints of
the lot, then the setback can be reduced to the minimum necessary in order to build a
single family home, but in no case less than 30 foet of the ordinary high '/Jater mark.
bbaa-;- If multi-familv residential development is proposed on a lot where
properties on at least one adiacent to both sides side of the lot are developed in multi-
family residential uses located less than 75 feet from the OHWM, then the proposed
residential development may be located the same distance from the OHWM as the
adiacent residential uses 6eS (usinq strinqline method) but shall be no closer than 50 feet
from the OHWM. If the propertv is developed with a sinqle or multifamily structure beyond
the strinqline setback or 'Nithin 75 feet of the ordinary hiqh water mark if there are no
adiacent single or multifamily structures, then the structure can onl'l be added to if the
addition ':Jill not make the structure ~:mv more nonconforming as to its setback and the
heiqht of the addition within the structure is not increased or the applicant mav request a
shoreline variance and conditional use permit.
F'NCC. Article XIV.
b. -Accesso Structu ential accesso structures ma be laced within
the re uired shoreline setback rovided:
1. No accessory structure. except sVJimming pools, shall cover more than 150
square feet.
22. No accessory structure shall obstruct the view of the neiqhborinq properties.
No more than 300 feet of accessory structures shall be allowed.
3. No accessory structure shall exceed eiqht feet in heiqht.
4. Existing native shoreline vegetation within the shoreline setback is conserved
to the maximum extent possible as per qeneral requirements (c)(4) and (5).
c. Recreational Development. Recreational development may be permitted in the
Shoreline Residential environment subiect to the qeneral requirements of this chapter,
provided:
1. The recreational development is permitted in the underlvinq zone.
2. Swimming areas shall be separated from boat launch areas.
3. The development of underwater sites for sport divinq shall not:
i. Take place at depths of qreater than 80 feet.
ii. Constitute a naviqational hazard.
iii. Be located in areas 'Nhere the normal waterborne traffic would constitute
a hazard to those people who may use such a site.
3. The construction of swimminq facilities. piers, mooraqes, floats. and launchinq
facilities below the ordinary hiqh water mark shall be qoverned bv the qeneral
requirements of this chapter.-;-
4. Public boat launchinq facilities maybe developed, provided:
i. The parkinq and traffic qenerated bv such a facilitv can be safelv and
convenientlv handled bv the streets and areas servinq the proposed facilitv.
Page 3l 01'59
City of Federal Way SM? - Article /II. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloay comments - May 15. 2007
ii. The facility will not be located on a class I beach area or cause net loss in
shoreline function.
5. Upland facilities constructed in conjunction with a recreational development
shall be set back and/or sited to avoid contamination adverse impacts to the functions of
the shorelines of the city.
6. Public pedestrian and bicycle pathways shall be permitted adiacent to water
bodies. Such trails and pathways must be made of pervious materials, if feasible.
7. Public contact with unique and fraQile areas shall be permitted where it is
possible without destroyinq the natural character of the area.
8. Water viewinq, nature study, recordinq, and viewinq shall be accommodated
by space, platforms, benches, or shelter consistent with public safety and security.
resources.
ii. Minimize scarrinq of the landscape.
iii. Minimize siltation and erosion.
iv. Protect trees, shrubs,. qrasses, natural features, and, topsoil. from
drainaqe.
v. Avoid disruption of critical aquatic and wildlife staqes.
5. Rehabilitation of areas disturbed by the construction and/or maintenance of
utility facilities shall:
i. Be accomplished as rapidly as possible to minimize soil erosion and to
maintain plant and wildlife habitats.
ii. Utilize plantings compatible with the native trees and shrubs. vogetation.
56. Solid waste transfer stations are prohibited within shoreline iurisdiction.
7. Cellular or wireless towers are prohibited within shoreline iurisdiction.
e. Transportation and Parking facilities. Transportation and parking, except
parkinQ facilities associated with detached sinqle-family development, shall conform to
the following minimum requirements:
Page 32 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Arlicle III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - May 15, 2007
1. Transportation corridors shall be designed to provide the best service with
the least possible impact on shoreline ecological function. Impacts to functions shall be
mitigated.
2. New road construction shall be the minimum necessary to serve a permitted
shoreline use.
3. New public transportation facilities shall provide turnout areas for scenic stops
where feasible.
4. Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be located
landward from the principal buildinq beinq served, except when the parkinq facility is
within or beneath the structure and adequately screened, or in cases when an alternate
location would have less environmental impact on the shoreline.
5. New surface transportation facilities not related to and necessary for the support
of shoreline activities shall be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction if possible, or set
back from the ordinary hiqh water mark far enouqh to make protective measures such as
riprap or other bank stabilization, landfill. or substantial site regrade unnecessary.
6. Maintenance, repair, replacement, or other roadway improvements (includinq
but not limited to wideninq to serve existinq or projected volumes, installation of curb and
utter sidewalks illumination si nals to existin ace trans ortation facilities shall be
allowed within Shoreline Residential desi n as. 1m rovements that create a need
for rotective measures such as ri ra k stabilization landfill or substantial
site re rade shall not be ermitte ative exists and im acts to shoreline
ecolo ical functions are miti
7. An new develo
than 6 total arkin stalls m
County Surface Water Manua r "hiqh use" sites and "resource stream protection" (See
Sections 1.3.4 Special requirement oil control, 6.1.5 Hiqh use menu, and Resource
stream protection of King County's Surface Water Desiqn Manual).
8. OAn\' outdoor parkinq area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be
maintained as a plantinq area with a minimum width of five feet.
I. One live tree with a minimum heiqht of four feet shall be required for each
30 linear feet of planting area.
iLOne live shrub of one-qallon container size, or larqer, for each 60 linear
inches of plantinq area shall be required.
iiL Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be
required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parkinq areas or
when larqe parkinq areas are proposed.
9. Parkinq as a primary use in shoreline jurisdiction shall be prohibited.
10. Parkinq in the shoreline jurisdiction shall directly serve a permitted shoreline
use.
11. Transportation and parking facilities for subdivision, multi-family residential,
and commercial uses shall incorporate low impact development (LID) desiqns to minimize
stormwater runoff, subiect to discretion of the Director of Public Works.
(2) Prohibited uses to the shoreline within Shoreline Residential desiqnated areas
include:
a. a:-Office and Commercial Development.
b. Aquaculture.
Page 33 of 59
~~
SMP _ Article iii. s~oreline Mana e",.nl- Draft Re ulallOH'
ell 01 Federal wa Res onse to EcoiD co",,,,ents - Ma 15 2007
deV
~\f\.
~34..Qf.~
\
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15, 2007
to its setback and the height of the addition within the structure is not increased or
the applicant may request a shoreline variance and conditional use permit.
3. If the residential develG~ent is Pffif*)Sed on shorelines tAat-inGlill:ie
one or more sensitive areas, as defined in Chapter ~ FVVCC, such development
shall maintain setbacks in accordance 'l.'ith regulations and procedures set forth in
Chapter ~ F\^JCC, Article XIV.
'1. Residential accessory structures may be placed 'Nithin the required
shoreline setback, provided:
i. No accessory structure, except swimming pools, shall cover more
than 150 square feet.
ii. No accessory structure shall obstruct the ':iew of the neighboring
properties.
iii. No accessory structure shall exceed eight feet in height.
(e) Residential piers, moorage, or launching facilities; conditions. /'.ny pier,
moorage, float, or launching facility authorized by subsections (d) through (f) of this
section shall bo subject to the following conditions:
(1) Residential piers are prohibited on the Puget Sound shoreline.
. . .
,
structures may abut property lines for the common use of adjacent property
mvners when mutually agreed to by the property ovmers in a contract recorded
'Nith King County, a copy of which must accompany an application for a building
permit or a shoreline permit; such joint use piers may be permitted up to twice the
surface area allowed by this title.
(6) /\11 piers, moorages, floats, or other such structures shall float at all times on
the surface of the water, or shall be of open pile construction, provided no portion
of the structure shall, during the course of the normal fluctuations of the elevation
of the water body, protrude more than five feet above the surface of the water.
(f) Residential piers, moorage, or launching facilities; accessory to residential
development. Piers, moorages, floats, or launching facilities may be permitted
accessory to a single family residence, multifamily development, or as common
use facilities associated 'Nith a subdivision, in accordance with this chapter and the
. following limitations:
(1) Private, single residence piers for the sole use of the property owner shall
not be permitted outright on city of Federal \^lay shorelines.
(2) A pier may be allowed when the applicant has demonstrated a need for
moorage and has demonstrated that the following alternatives' have been
investigated and are not available or feasible:
a. Commercial or marina moorage.
b. Floating moorage buoys.
c. Joint use moorage pier.
No more than one pier for each residence is permitted. On lots '.!.'ith less than
50 feet of waterfront, only joint use piers shall be permitted except when both lots
Page 35 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article JJJ. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15, 2007
abutting the subject lot havo legally established piers then the lot with loss than 50
feet of waterfront may be permitted an individual pier.
~ultiple family resideA-Ge-f)iers and piers associated with a subdivision as a
common use facility shall not exceed the following:
a. No more than one pier for each 100 feet of shoreline associated with the
multifamily development, subdivision, or short subdivision is permitted.
b. The total number of moorage spaces shall be limited to one moorage
space for overy two dwelling units in the multifamily development, subdivision, or
short subdivision. .
('1) Pier and moorage size.
a. The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of any pier shall be 36
feet, or the point v.'here the v.'ater depth is 13 feet below the ordinary high water
mark, whichever is reached first, provided:
1. If a pier is a common use pier associated with a multiple family
development or subdivision, this intrusion may be increased four feet for each
additional moorage space over six moorage spaces to a maximum of 76 feet.
b. The maximum 'Nidth of each pier shall be eight feet.
R i~JI piles shall be placed so as to not constitute a hazard to navigation.
b. No pile shall be placed more than 80 feet waterv/ard of the ordinary high
water mark.
c. All moorage piles shall be placed in a 'It'aterdepth not to exceed 13 feet
below the ordinary high water mark.
d. No more than two moorage piles per residence are permitted.
(6) Launching ramps and lift stations require a shoreline conditional use permit
and are limited by the following conditions:
a. No portion of a launching ramp or lift station shall be placed more than 60
feet waterward of the ordinary high 'Nater mark.
b. All portions of a launching ramp or lift station shall be placed at a depth
not to exceed eight feet below the ordinary high water mark.
c. Launching rails or ramps shall be anchored to the ground through the use
of tie type construction. Asphalt, concrete, or other ramps which solidly cover the
wator body bottom are prohibited.
d. No more than one launching rail per single family residence is permitted,
and no more than tv.'o common use launching ramps for each 100 feet of shoreline
associated with a multifamily development, short subdivision, or subdivision.
(7) Floats are limited under the follmving conditions:
a. One float por single family residence, multifamily development, short
subdivision, or subdivision is permitted.
b. No portion of a float shall be placed more than 36 feet 'Naterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
c. Retrieval lines shall not float at or near the surface of the water.
Page 36 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloav comments - Mav 15. 2007
d. No fl03t shall h3ve more th3n 100 squ3re feet of surf3ce 3re3.
jg) Utilities. Utility f3cilities m3Y be permitted in the urban environment subject
to the requirements of this chapter, provided:
(1) Utility 3nd tmnsmission f3cilities Sh311:
a. Avoid disturb3nce of unique ::md fr3gile areas.
b. Avoid disturbance of wildlife spawning, nesting, and rearing 3re3S.
c. Overhead utility facilities shall not be permitted in public parks,
monuments, scenic, recre3tion, or historic 3re3S.
(2) Utility distribution and transmission facilities shall be designed so 3S to:
a. Minimize visual impact.
b. Harmoni2:e "lith or enhance the surroundings.
c. Not crc3te a need for shoreline protection.
d. Utilize to the gre3test oxtent possible natural screening.
(3) The construction and m3intenance of utility facilities Sh311 be done in such a
way so as to:
3. M3ximize the preserv3tion of n3tur31 be3uty 3nd the conserv3tion of
resources.
b. Minimize scarring of the 13ndscape.
c. Minimize silt3tion 3nd erosion.
utility f3cilities sh311:
drainage.
maintain plant and wildlife habitats.
b. Utilize pl3ntings comp3tible with the n3tive veget3tion.
(5) Solid waste transfer st3tions shall not be permitted within the shorelines of
the state.
(h) Office and commercial development. Office development may be allowed in
the urb3n environment subject to the requirements of this ch3pter, provided:
(1) The office or commerci31 use or 3ctivity is permitted in the underlying zoning
classification.
(2) Office and commercial development shall maintain a setback behind the
stringline setb3ck, or 75 foet from the ordin3ry high w3ter m3rk,. whichever is
gre3ter, except in the following cases:
a. If the property is developed 'Nith 3 structure within 75 feet of the ordinary
high '.vater m3rk, then the structure can only be 3dded to if the addition vlill not
m3ke the structure 3ny more nonconforming 3S to its setb3ck.
b. If a development is proposed on shorelines that include one or more
sensitive are3S, as defined in Ch3pter ~ F'NCC, such dovelopment shall maintain
setbacks in accordance with regulations and procedures set forth in Chapter ~
F\^!CC, Article XIV.
(3) Piers, moorages, floats, 3nd 13unching facilities will not be permitted in
conjunction with office or commerci31 development; unless they are developed 3S
part of on site public 3ccess to the shoreline.
ji) Shoreline protectkm. Shoreline protection m3Y be permitted in the urbaR
environment, provided:
Page 37 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article !!J. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reoulations
Response to Eco/ogv comments - Mav 15, 2007
(1) Bulkheads shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the Puget
Sound shoreline. In order for a proposed bulkhead to be permitted on the Puget
Sound shoreline, or for a lake shore bulkhead to qualify for the Rev\! 90.58.030
(3)(e)(iii) exemption from the shoreline permit requirements, the city of Federal
'Nay shall revie'A' the proposed bulkhead design as it relates to local physical
conditions and the city of Federal "'lay shoreline master program and must find
tHaF.
a. Erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent threat to a
legally established residence, one or more substantial accessory structures, or
public improvements;
b. The proposed bulkhead is more consistent 'lJith the intent of the city of
Federal \^/ay shoreline master program in protecting the site ~:md adjoining
shorelines than other nonstructural alternatives such as slope drainage systems,
vegetative grO'.vth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment, and that
such alternatives are not technically feasible or will not adequately protect a legally
established residence or substantial accessory structure;
c. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the ordinary high '/Jater
mark; and
following:
has boen established by the presence and action of 'I'later landward of the existing
bulkhead, then the roplacement bulkhead must be located at or as near as
possible to the actual ordinary high water mark.
b. VVhen an existing bulkhead is being repaired by the construction of a
vertical wall fronting the existing 'Nail, it shall be constructed no further \~/aterward
of the oxisting bulkhead than is necessary for construction of new footings.
c. Beach nourishment and bio engineered erosion control projects may be
considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are
60nsistent 'Nith the above requirements, and when the project has been approved
by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(3) Shoreline protection shall not have adverse impact on the property of others
and shall be designed so as not to create a neod for shoreline protection
elsewhere.
a. Shoreline protection shall not significantly interfere 'Nith normal surface
and/or subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an
approved filter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and
groundwater without internal erosion of fine material.
b. Shoroline protection shall not be used to create new lands, except that
groins may used to create or maintain a public class I beach if they comply with all
other conditions of this section.
c. Groins are permitted only as part of a public beach management
program. Jetties and breakwaters are not permitted.
-0) Recreation. Recreational development may be permitted in the urban
environment subject to the general requirements of this chaptor, provided:
Page 38 of 59
Citv of Federal Wav SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - Mav 15. 2007
(1) The recreational development is permitted in the underlying zone.
(2) Swimming areas shall be separated from boat launch areas.
(3) The development of-t..Jf1fie.f:water-s+tes for SpOfkiMA-g shall not:
a. Take place at depths of greater than 80 feet.
b. Constitute a navigational hazard.
c. Be located in areas where the normal waterborne traffic would constitute
a hazard to those people who may use such a site.
(4) The construction of swimming facilitios, piors, moorages, floats, ~:md
launching facilities below the ordinary high wator mark shall be governed by the
regulations of subsections (e) and (f) of this section.
(5) Public boat launching facilities may be developed, provided:
a. The traffic generated by-such a facility can be safely and conveniently
handled by the streets serving the proposed facility.
b. The facility will not be located on a class I beach.
(6) Upland facilities constructed in conjunction with a recreational development
shall be set back and/or sited to avoid contamination of tho shorelinos of the city.
(7) Public pedestrian and bicycle path\Nays shall be permitted adjacent to 'Nater
bodies.
prohibited in the portions of the water bodies used by fish. Fish bypass facilities
shall allow the upstream migration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent
fry and juveniles migrating dO'l.:nstream from being trapped or harmed.
(2) Landfills shall not intrude into salmon and steelhead habitats, except. as
provided in subsection (k)(3) of this section.
(3) Landfills may intrude into salt water areas used by salmon and stoelhead for
migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge only whero the proponent obtains
a conditional use permit (CUP) and demonstrates all of the following conditions are
meF.
a. The landfill is for water dependent or water related use;
b. i\n alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
c. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;
d. The facility is in the public interest; and
e. If tho project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in kind replacement habitat near the project.
\A/here in kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded
habitat may be required as a substitute.
(4) Unless the applicant demonstrates that bioengineering techniques 'NiII not
be successful, bulkheads and other shoreline protection structures are prohibited
in salmon and steelhead habitat.
(5) VVhere bulkheads and othef--sHoreline protection structures are allowed, the
too of the bulkhead or structure --shall be located landward of the ordinary high
water mark oxcept as provided in subsection (k)(6) of this section. \^/here an
existing bulkhead or structure cannot be removed because of environmental,
Page 39 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
safety, or geological concerns, the least environmentally impacting alternative shall
be used. ,6,ny replacement bulkhead or shoreline protection structure shall be as
close to the existing structure as possible.
(6) Bulkheads, breakwators, jetties, groins and other shoreline protection
structuros may intrudo into salmon and steelhead habitats only where the
proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met:
a. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
b. The project is designed to minimize its impacts on tho environment;
c. The facility is in the public interest; and
d. If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in kind replacement habitat near the project.
Where in kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded
habitat may be required as a substitute.
(7) Docks, piers, pilings and floats may be located in water areas used by
salmon and steelhead for migration corridors, rearing, feeding and refuge,
provided the facilities uso open piling construction. Approach fills shall be located
I3nd\\'ard of the ordinary high water mark. Docks, piers, pilings and floats shall not
. . a .
permitted, the applicant must sho'lI the higher priority structures are not feasible.
The project shall be dosigned to minimize its impacts on the environment.
(9) Bridges and in 'Nater utility corridors may be located in salmon and
steel head habitat provided the proponent shO'.'Vs that all of the following conditions
are met:
a. An ::llternative ::llignment is not feasible;
b. The project is located ::lnd designed to minimize its impacts on the
environment;
c. Any alternative impacts are mitigated; and
d. Any landfill is loc::lted landward of the ordinary high water mark. Open
piling ::lnd piers required to construct the bridge may be placed watorv:ard of the
ordinary high 'Nater mark, if no alternative method is feasible.
Notwithstanding subsection (k)(1) of this section, 'flhen installing in '.vater
utilities, the installer may place native material on the bed and banks of the 'lIater
body or wetland to re establish the preconstruction elevation and contour of the
bed. The project shall be designed to minimize its impacts on the environment.
(10) Dredging '.vhich \,\'i11 damage shallow '.vater habitat used by salmon and
steelho::ld for migr::ltion corridors, re::lring, feeding ::lnd refuge sh::lll not be ::lllowed
unless the proponent demonstrates all of the follO'.ving conditions are met:
a. The dredging is for a water dependent or water related use;
b. An alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
c. The project is designed to minimize its imp::lcts on the environment;
d. The facility is in the public interest; and
,
Page 40 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft Reaulations
Response to Ecoloay comments - May 15. 2007
e. If the project 'Nill cre3te significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the
impacts are mitigated by creating in kind replacement habitat near the pro:iect.
\^/here in kind re~-mjtigation is net-feasible, rehabilitating degraeee
habitat may be requiFed as a substitute.
(11) Dredging and the removal of bed materials below the .."{ater line is
prohibited 'Nithin salmon and steelhead spawning areas.
(12) In water dredge spoil disposal sites shall not be located in salmon and
steelhe3d habitats.
(13) Landfilling, dredging, channelization and other activities 'Nhich negatively
impact habitat values are prohibited in wetlands, ponds, and side channels which
provide refuge or other habitat for salmon or steelhead.
(14) 'Nithin s31mon and steelhead h3bitats, permanent channel ch3nges 3nd
realignments are prohibited.
(15) /\quaculture uses shall not be established in salmon and steelhead habitat,
except for areas that are only used for migration corridors. This regulation only
3pplies to in '.'later 3quaculture uses, not upland aquaculture uses.
(16) The removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation 'Nithin or
spawning beds. (Ord. No. 98 323, S 3, 12 1 98; Ord. No. 99 355, S 3, 11 16 99)
I
Page 4l of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGY comments - May 15. 2007
18466169 Rural Urban Conservancy environment.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect
and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain and other sensitive
lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowinq a variety of
compatible uses.The purpose of designating the rural environment is to restrict
intensive development, function as a buffer between urban areas, and maintain
open spaces and opportunities for recreation uses \f.'ithin the eoological carrying
capaoity of the land and water resource. NC'N developments in a rural environment
should reflect the character of the surrounding area by limiting intensity, providing
permanent open space, and maintaining adequate building setbaoks from the
'.vater to prevent shoreline resouroes from being destroyed for other rural types of
t:tSe&
(b) Desianation criteria. Desiqnation criteria for the Urban Conservancy
environment are provided in the City's shoreline master proqram, FWCC Chapter
xx shall be:
(c) General requirements. The general requirements fordevelopment '.vithin a
rural environment shall be the same as those for the urban environment, FVVCC
18165(c).
(1) Development waterward of the ordinary hiqh water mark is prohibited
except water dependent recreational uses, permitted shoreline modifications and
public utilities.
(2) No structure shall exceed a heiqht of 35 feet above averaqe qrade level.
This requirement may be modified if the view of any neiqhborinq residences will
not be obstructed, if permitted outriqht by the applicable provisions of the
underlyinq zoninq, and if the proposed development is water-related or water-
dependent.
(3) All development shall be required to provide adequate surface water
retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period.
(4) Development shall maintain the first 50 f-oot of property abuttinq a natural
environment as required open space. Setbacks. Development shall maintain the
first 50 feet of property landward from the ordinary hiqh water mark as a required
setback and veqetation conservation area, or development shall maintain a 25 foot
setback from the top of bluffs in the shoreline iurisdiction, whichever is the greater
setback. Setback shall be subiect to provisions referenced in subsection (e) and
{g}.
5). Veqetation Conservation Area. The required setback area shall be considered a
Vegetation conservation area. Within the Vegetation Conservation Area, no more than
30 percent of the area with native shoreline vegetation shall be cleared, and a minimum
Page 42 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaaement - Draft ReGulations
Response to Ecologv comments - Mav 15, 2007
of 70 percent of existinq native trees shall be retained. Trees determined by the city to be
hazardous or diseased may be removed. Additionally, the Director may allow removal of
veqetation exceedinq that described above where an applicant aqrees to replacement
plantings'that are demonstrated to provide qreater benefit to shoreline ecological
processes than would be provided by strict application of this section.
(d) Shoreline Modifications.
(1) Allowed modifications to the shoreline within Urban Conservancy designated areas
include the followinq:
a-a. Shoreline Stabilization and Shoreline Protection. Allowed within Urban
Conservancy designated areas under the requirements imposed by fNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (a).
b. Piers. Allowed within Shoreline Residential desiqnated areas with a Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit under the requirements imposed by fNEW SECTION Shoreline
Modificationsl division (b).
c. Docks, Mooraqe, buoys, and Floats. Allowed within Urban Conservancy
desiqnated areas under the requirements imposed by fNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (b).
d. launchin Ram s Rails and Lift
desi nated areas with a Shoreline C
im osed b NEW SECTION Sh
following condition:
1. Permitted with S elo ment Permit in arks and ublic access
areas within the Urban Conse nvironment.
e. Breakwaters. Allo d within the Urban Conservancy desiqnated areas with a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit under the requirements impose~ by fNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (d).
f. Dredqinq and Fillinq. Allowed within Urban Conservancy desiqnated areas with a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit under the requirements imposed by fNEW SECTION
Shoreline Modificationsl division (e).
(2) Prohibited modifications to the shoreline within Urban Conservancy desiqnated
areas include the following:
a. Breakwaters and Jetties and qroins.
(e) Shoreline Uses.
(1) Allowed uses within Urban Conservancy desiqnated areas include the followinq:
a. Residential Development. Allowed within Urban Conservancy desiqnated
areas under the requirements imposed within fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential,
division (e), (1), with the followinq additional restrictions:
1. Setbacks. Residential development shall maintain a minimum setback of 50
feet from the ordinary high water mark, or 25 feet from the top of bluffs, whichever is
qreater as a veqetative conservation area. Exceptions to minimum setback requirements
included in. fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential. division (e), (1), (a)(3), for both
sinqle-family and multi-family development, shall apply. but in no case shall the setback
be less than 25 feet from top of bluffs.
b. Accessory Structures. Allowed within Urban Conservancy desiqnated areas
under the requirements imposed within fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential, division
(e), (1), b.
Page 43 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reoulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15, 2007
c. Recreational Development. Allowed within Urban Conservancy designated
areas under the requirements imposed within fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential,
division (e), (1), c.
d. Utilities. Allowed within Urban Conservancy designated areas under the
requirements and restrictions imposed within fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential,
division (e), (1), d.
e. Transportation I ParkinQ Facilities. Allowed within Urban Conservancy
desiqnated areas under the requirements imposed within rNEW SECTIONl Shoreline
Residential, division (e), (1), e.
q. Office and Commercial Development. Office and commercial development
may be allowed- with Conditional Use approval in the Urban Conservancy environment
subject to the requirements of this chapter, provided:
1. The office or commercial use or activity is permitted in the underlyinq zoninq
classification.
2. Office and commercial development shall maintain a setback behind the
strinqline setback, or of 75 feet from the ordinary hiqh water mark, or 25 feet from the top
of bluffs whichever is reater. . . minimum setback ma be reduced
usin the strin line method when a licabl no case shall the minimum setback
be bat- less than 50 feet from OHWM from the to of bluffs whichever is
reater.
ii. If a development is proposed on shorelines that include one or more
sensitive areas, as defined in Chapter 22 F'.^!CC, such development shall maintain
setbacks in accordance with requlations and procedures set forth in Chapter 22 F\^ICC,
Article XIV.
3. Piers, docks, moorages, buoys, floats, and launchinq facilities will not be
permitted in conjunction with office or commercial development; unless they are
developed as part of on-site public access to the shoreline.
4. Additional water Quality standard must be met as per Shoreline Residential,
section 18-167(t)(2).-;:
(2) Prohibited uses within Urban Conservancy desiqnated areas include:
a. Aquaculture.
(d) Residential development. Single family residential development may be
permitted in the rural environment subject to the general requirements of the
residential provisions of FWCC 18 165(d) of the urban environment.
(e) Residential piors, moorage, or launching facilities. Piers, moorages, floats,
or launching facilities may be permitted accessory to a single family residence in
accordance with F'NCC 18 165(e) and (f) of the urban environment.
(f) Subdivisions. The lot standards enumerated in this section apply to any lot
that has buildable area within tho shorelines of tho city. Buildable area means that
Page 44 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reoulations
Response to Ecoloqv comments - Mav 15, 2007
area of the lot, exclusive of any required open space, yards, or setbacks upon
which a structure may be constructed.
(1) The minimum required area of a lot in the rural environment shall be five
acres; provided, hO\~'ever:
a. The minimum lot area may be reduced to 15,000 square foet 'Nhen:
1. i~,lIlots are part of an approved subdivision or short subdivision.
2. All lots are served by public water.
3. 1\11 lots are servod by an approved soy/age disposal system.
'1. All lots are served by paved streots.
5. All lots have a minimum width of 100 feet.
(2) Any lot located wholly 0f partially \Nithin the shorelines of the city shall be
subject to the substandard lot provisions of Chapter ~ FWCC, Article IV.
(3) Submergod land 'Nithin tho boundaries of any waterfront parcel sholl not be
used to compute lot area, lot dimensions, yards, open space, or other similar
required conditions of land subdivision or development.
(g) Utilities. Utility facilitios may be permitted in the rural onvironment subject to
the utilities requirements of the urban environment and the general requirements of
FVVCC 18 165(c).
. .
the urban environment.
protected under F\^lCC 18.165(k)(1) through (k)(18). (Ord. No. 98 323, S 3,12 1
08; Ord. No. 99 355, ~ 3, 11 16 99)
Page 45 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reoulations
Response to Ecoloov comments - Mav 15. 2007
18461170 Consorvancy rosidentialNatural environment.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the "natural" environment is to protect those
shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or
minimally deqraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems
require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the
ecoloqical functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of
the desiqnation, the City shall plan for restoration of degraded shorelines within
this environment. Conservancy residential areas are intended to maintain their
existing character. This designation is designed to protect, conserve, and manage
existing natural features and resources. The preferred uses are those
nonconsumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area.
(b) Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the Natural environment are
provided in the City's shoreline master proqram. FWCC Chapter xx. Designation
criteria for the conservancy Natural environment shall be:
(1) Shoreline areas, regardloss of the underlying which have
poor drainage.
(3) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses '....ithout
siqnificant adverse impacts to ecoloqical functions or risk to human
safety.Shorelino areas which are free from extensive development.
('1) Shoreline aroas of high sconic value.
('1) A shoreline area that provides food. water, or cover and protection for anv
rare, endanqered, or diminishinqthreatened species. [TEXT MOVED FROM
NATURAL BELO'..^/l
(5) A seasonal haven for concentrations of native animals, fish, or fowl, such as
a miqration route, breedinq site, or spawninq site. rTEXT MOVED FROM
NATURAL BELO'Nl
(6) Shoreline areas '/lith established histories of scientific research.
(7) Those shoreline areas havinq an outstandinq or unique sconic foature in
their natural state. [TEXT MOVED FROM NATURAL BELO'J'.'l
(8) In addition to the above criteria, the followinq should be considered when
desiqnatinq natural environments: rTEXT MOVED FROM NATURAL BELOV'.'l
a. Areas where human influence and development are minimal.
b. Areas capable of easilv beinq restored to a natural conditions.
c. Salt'.vater wetlands.
d. Class I beaches.
(c) General requirements.
(1) Development waterward of the ordinary hiqh water mark is prohibited
except water dependent recreational uses and public utilities.
(2) No structure shall exceed a height of 35 feet above averaqe grade level.
This requirement may be modified if the view of any neiqhborinq residences will
Page 46 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reaulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15, 2007
not be obstructed, if permitted outriqht by the applicable provisions of the
underlyinq zonihq, and if the proposed development is water-related or water-
dependent.
(3) All development shall be required to provide adequate surface water
retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period.
('1) Development shall maintain the first 100 feet of property abuttinq a natural
environment as required open space.
(4) Setbacks. Development shall maintain the first 100 feet of property
landward from the ordinary hiqh water mark as a required setback and veqetation
conservation area, or development shall maintain 50 feet from the top of bluffs in
the shoreline iurisdiction, whichever is the qreater setback. Setback shall be
subiect to provisions referenced in Section xx,
(d) Shoreline Modifications. The followinq shoreline modifications are
prohibited within Natural designated shoreline areas:
(1) Shoreline Stabilization and Protection;
(2) Piers, Docks, Mooraqes, buoys, and Floats;
(3) launching Ramp, Rails,- Lift Stations;
(4) Breakwaters Jetties, and groins; and
(5) Dredqinq and Filling.
(e) Shoreline Uses.
(1) Allowed uses within Natural designated areas include:
a. Residential Development. Single-family residential development may be
permitted in the Natural environment with a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit subiect to
the followinq:
1. Single-family or multiple family residential development is permitted in the
underlyinq zone classification.
2. Sinqle-family rResidential development is prohibited waterward of the ordinary
high water mark.
3. Setbacks.
i. Sinqle-family residential development shall maintain a minimum setback behind
the strinqline setback, orof 100 feet from the ordinary hiqh water mark as a veqetation
conservation area, or 50 feet from the top of a bluff, whichever is greater as a vegetation
conservation area.whichever is lessgreater, except in the followinq cases:
b. Recreational Development. Allowed within Natural desiqnated areas under the
requirements imposed within fNEW SECTIONl Shoreline Residential, division (e), (1), a.
Page 47 of 59
Chapter ~ F'NCC, Article XI, and the residential provisions of FWCC 18 165(d) of
the urban environment; provided single family residential development shall
maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high 'Nater mark, except
tHaF.
(1) If the development is proposed on shorelines including one or more
sensitive areas, as defined in Chapter ~ F'NCC, Article XIV, such development
shall be done in accordance with that article.
(2) Any pier, moorage, float, or launching facility permitted accessory to single
family development, or a common use facility accessory to a subdivision or short
subdivision, shall be subject to the pier, moorage, float, and launching facility
provisions of F'NCC 18 165(f) of the urban environment; provided no such
authorized structure shall be located within 200 feet of any other structure.
(e) Subdivisions. The lot standards enumerated in this section apply to any lot
that has buildable area 'Nithin the shorelines of the city. Buildable area means that
area of tho lot exclusive of any required open space, yards, or setbacks upon
which a structure may be constructed.
(1) The minimum required area of a lot in the conservancy environment shall be
five acres, provided, however:
a. The minimum lot area may be reduced to 35,000 square feet 'Nhen:
1. 1\11 lots are part of an approved subdivision or short subdivision.
2. All lots are served by public water.
J..:-Alllots are servod by an approved se'Nage disposal system.
4. All lots are served by paved streets.
5. ,1l,lIlots have a minimum width of 100 feet.
Page 48 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft Reoulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15, 2007
(2) Any lot located wholly or partially within the shorelines of the city shall be
subject to the substandard lot provisions of Chapter Zl F'NCC, Article IV.
(3) Submerged land within the boundaries of any waterfront parcel shall not be
used to compute lot area, lot dimensiGR-&;--yards, open space, or other similar
required conditions of land subdivision or development.
(f) Utilities. Utility facilities may be permitted in the conservancy environment
subject to the utilities requirements of the urban environment and the general
requirements of this chapter.
(g) Shoreline protection. Shoreline protection may be permitted in the
conservancy residential environment subject to the shoreline protection provisions
of F'NCC 18 165(i) of the urban environment.
(h) Recreation. Recreational development may be permitted in the conservancy
residential onvironment subject to tho general requirements of this chapter and the
recreation provisions of F'NCC 18 1650) of the urban environment.
(i) Salmon and steelhead habitat. Salmon and steel head habitat shall be
protectod under FWCC 18 165(k)(1) through (k)(18). (Ord. No. 98 323, 3 3, 12 1
98; Ord. No. 99 355, 3 3, 11 16 99)
~
(1)A shoreline area that provides food, water, or cover and protection for any
rare, endangered, or diminishing species.
(2) A seasonal haven forconcentrations of native animals, fish, or fowl, such as
a migration routo, breeding site, or spawning site.
(3) Shoreline areas considered to best represent the basic ecosystem and
geologic types which are of particular scientific interest.
(4) Shoroline aroas 'lJhich best represent undisturbod natural areas.
(5) Shoreline areas with established histories of scientific research.
(6) Those shoreline areas having an outstanding or unique scenic feature in
their natural state.
(7) In addition to the above criteria, the following should be considered when
designating natural environments:
a. Areas where human influence and development are minimal.
b. Areas capable of easily being restored to a natural conditions.
c. Saltwater wetlands.
d. Class I beaches.
(c) Residential development. Single family residential development may be
permitted in the natural environment subject to the general requirements of
Chapter Zl FWCC, Article XI, and tho single family provisions, FVVCC 18 165(d) of
tho urban environment; provided, single family residential development shall
maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from the ordinary high '!wlater mark, except
tJ:laF.
Page 49 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article /II. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloqv comments - Mav 15, 2007
(1) If development is proposed on shorelines including one or more sensitive
areas, as defined in Chapter ~ F'NCC, I\rticle XIV, such development shall be
done in accordance with regulations and procedures set forth in that article.
(d) Residential piers, moorage, or launching facilities. Piers, moorages, floats,
or launching are prohibitod in a natural environment.
(e) Subdivisions.
(1) The minimum required area in the natural environment shall be five acres.
(2) The minimum required lot 'Nidth in tho natural environment shall be 330 feet.
(3) Any lot located '/.'holly or partially within the shorelines of the city shall be
considered a legal building site; provided, that such lot shall be subject to the
substandard lot provisions of Chapter ~ F'IVCC, Article IV.
(4) Submerged land within the boundaries of any waterfront parcol shall not be
usod to compute lot area, lot dimensions, yards, open space, or other roquired
conditions of land subdivision or development.
(f) Shoreline protection. Shoreline protection is prohibited in the natural
environment.
(g) Recreation. Recreational development may be permitted in the natural
., ...
,
or other similar over water pedestrian structures facilitating access to observation
points or viewing areas may be permitted.
(h) Salmon and steelhead habitat. Salmon and steelhead habitat shall be
protected under F\^/CC 18 165(k)(1) through (k)(18). (Ord. No. 98323, S 3,12 1
98; Ord. No. 99 355, S 3, 11 16 99)
Page 50 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15. 2007
Division 3. Administrative Procedures
18469171 Application and public noticeShoreline ManaQement Permit and
Enforcement Procedures, Adoption bV Reference.
The city of Federal Way hereby adopts by reference the followinq sections or
subsections of Chapter 173-27, as amended, of the Washinqton Administrative
Code ("WAC") entitled Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement
Procedures.
WAC:
(1 ) 173-27 -020 Pu rpose
(2) 173-27-040-Developments exempt from substantial development permit
requirement
(3) 173-27 -130 Filinq with department
(4) 173-27 -270 Order to cease and desist
(5) 173-27 -280 civil penalty
(6) 173-27 -290 Appeal of civil penalty
(7) 173-27 -300 Criminal penalty
18-1-69-172 Permit sub-proc c tice.
An application for a substa nt permit shall be made to the
department of community dev on forms prescribed by the department.
Upon submittal of a complete ication, and required fees, the department shall
instruct the applicant to publish notices of the application at least once a week on
the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation within the city. The applicant shall also provide additional public notice
as prescribed in process 111\/, FWCC 22-431 et seq. (Ord. No. 90-38, S 1(24.40),2-
27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, S 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-
355, S 3,11-16-99)
18-17~() Procedure for review.
The substantial development permit shall be reviewed under the provisions of
process III, FWCC 22-386 et seq., and the WAC 173-27 procedures adopted by
reference in FWCC 18-17169. Tthe director of community development services
shall be the final approval authority for the permit. (Ord. No. 90-38, S 1 (24.50), 2-
27-90; Ord. No. 97-291, S 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3,12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-
355, S 3,11-16-99)
18-174 Shoreline Exemption.
(a) The purpose of a shoreline exemption is to provide an approval process for
uses and activities which do not triqqer the need for a substantial development
permit, but require compliance with the shoreline guidelines and the qoals, policies
and other provisions of the City's SMP.
(b) To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity or development must
meet the requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040.
Page 51 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloGV comments - Mav 15, 2007
.u:u An applicant may submit a request for n authorizod statement of exemption
to the director of community development services for review and approval. The
city shall review the request and provide a summary of the analysis demonstratinq
consistency of the project with the Federal Way SMP and the SMA. The city shall
prepare a statement of exemption, provided the proposal meets exemption criteria.
If any part of the development is not eliqible for exemption, then a Substantial
Development Permit is required for the entire proposed development.
(d) The director may attach conditions to the approval of exempted
developments and l or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the proiect with
the SMA and the Federal Way SMP, per WAC 173-27-040(e). For example, in the
case of development subiect to a buildinq permit, but exempt from the shoreline
permit process, the Buildinq Official or other permit authorizinq official, throuqh
consultation with the director, may attach shoreline management terms and
conditions to Buildinq Permits and other permit approvals pursuant to RCW
90.58.140.
18-175 A Iication Re
a Com lete a Iication. A c ete a lication for a substantial develo ment
conditional use, or variance permit shall contain, as a minimum, the following
information:
(1) The name, address and phone number of the applicant. The applicant
should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not
the representative of the owner or primary proponent.
(2) The name, address and phone number of the applicant's representative if
other than the applicant.
(3) The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than
the applicant.
(4) location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property
address, parcel number and identification of the section, township and range to the
nearest Quarter, Quarter section or latitude and lonqitude to the nearest minute. All
applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide
a longitude and latitude location.
(5) Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the
proposal is associated with. This should be the water body from which jurisdiction
of the act over the proiect is derived.
(6) A general description of the proposed proiect that includes the proposed use
or uses and the activities necessary to accomplish the project.
Page 52 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to Ecoloov comments - Mav 15, 2007
(7) A qeneral description of the property as it now exists including its physical
characteristics and improvements and structures.
(8) A qeneral description of the vicinity of the proposed proiect including
identification of the adiacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of
development and physical characteristics.
(9) A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawinqs, drawn
to an appropriate scale to depict clearly all required information, photoqraphs and
text which shall include:
(a) The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is
proposed.
(c) Existinq and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals
sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the
extent of proposed chanqe to the land that is necessary for the development.
Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be
indicated as such and contours approximated for that area.
(d) A delineation of all wetland areas that will be altered or used as a part of the
development.
(e) A general indication of the character of vegetation found on the site.
(f) The dimensions and locations of all existinq and proposed structures and
improvements including but not limited to; buildings, paved or graveled areas,
roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and
stormwater management facilities.
(g) Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the proiect.
(h) Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as
mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed proiect shall be included and
contain information consistent with the requirements of this section.
(i) Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site
whether temporary or permanent.
Page 53 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft Reoulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15. 2007
(j) Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material.
(k) A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed
development or use to roads, utilities, existinq developments and uses on adiacent
properties.
(I) Where applicable, a depiction ofthe impacts to views from existing
residential uses and public areas.
(m) On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where
development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and
circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location
of adiacent structures and uses.
(n) Summary of how the proposal meets relevant decisional criteria.
ment and critical areas and
(b) A detailed description of proposed development.
(c) Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or
endanqered, threatened, or sensitive species that have documented or observed
habitat on or adiacent to the proiect area.
(d) An assessment of potential impacts the proposal may have on fish and
wildlife species, critical areas, and critical salmonid habitats.
(e) A discussion of any federal, state or local manaqement
recommendations includinq Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat
manaqement recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats
located on or adiacent to proiect area.
(f) A discussion of mitigation measures that have been implemented to
. avoid and minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species and habitats,
critical areas, and critical salmonid habitat. The mitiqation must also include a
mitigation plan showinq the area of mitigation and detailed mitigation measures,
such as habitat features and planting of native veqetation.
(q) A discussion of monitoring, maintenance and continQency measures to
accompany the mitiqation plan.
18-176 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
Page 54 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft ReGulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15. 2007
(a)The purpose of a substantial development permit is to provide an approval process
for any development with a total cost or fair market value exceeding five thousand dollars
[$5,000) or any development which materially-interferes with the normal public use of the
water or shorelines of the state, except those exempted developments set forth in the
precedinq section, consistent with WAC 173-27-040.
(b) When a substantial development permit is requested, the permit shall be reviewed
under the provisions of process Ill, FWCC 22-386 et seQ., and the director of community
development shall be the final approval authority for the City of Federal Way.
(c) A Substantial Development Permit shall be qranted by the director only when the
development proposed is consistent with the followinq:
(1) Goals, obiectives, policies and use requlations of the Federal Way SMP;
(2) Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and City Code; and
(3) The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA (RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26
and WAC 173-27).
ermits as necessa to
1847-1-177 Shoreline varian
(a) The purpose of a shore variance is to grant relief to specific bulk,
dimensional or performance standards set forth in the shoreline master program,
and wherethere is an extraordinary or unique circumstance relating to the property
such that the strict implementation of the shoreline master program would impose
unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies of the Shoreline
Management Act.
(b) When a variance is requested, the substantial development permit~
required, and the variance shall be reviewed under the provisions of process IV,
FWCC 22-431 et seq., and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval
authority for the City of Federal Way. The Department of Ecoloqy shall be the final
approval authority under WAC 173-27-200.
(c) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only
when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply:
(1) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards set forth in the master program precludes or significantly interferes with
a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program;
(2) That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property,
and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural
features, location of existing improvemonts and the application of the master
program, and not for example, from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions;
(3) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or
the shoreline environment;
(4) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege
not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief;
(5) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Page 55 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Requlations
Response to Ecoloqv comments - Mav 15, 2007
(6) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for
development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within
wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs or swamps; and
(7) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in
an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect
would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse
effects on the shoreline.
(d) Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically
prohibited in an environment, or to vary uses permitted within an environmental
designation. (Ord. No. 90-38, 91(24.60.10-24.60.40), 2-27-90; Ord. No. 97-291,
93,4-1-97; Ord. No. 98-323, 93,12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, 9 3,11-16-99)
18-4+2-178 Conditional uses.
(a) The purpose of the G~onditional use permits is to provide greater flexibility
in varying the application of the use regulations of the shoreline master program in
a manner which will be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.28 RCW,
particularly where denial of the application would t rt the policies of the
Shoreline Management Act.
(b) When a conditional use is request ,
required, and the conditional use s
IV, FWCC 22-431 et seq., and
authority for the Cit of Feder
a roval authorit under WAC
(c) Conditional uses have que and special characteristics which require a
special degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or
permitted uses in the same environment, and to assure that the use is in the public
interest. In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions may be
attached to the permit by the hearing examiner to prevent undesirable effects or
mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use.
(d) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent
with the following criteria:
(1) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the
policies of the master program;
(2) The use will not interfere with normal public use of surface waterspublic
shorelines;
(3) The use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects on the shoreline or
surrounding properties or uses, and is compatible with other permitted uses in the
area;
(4) The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
(5) Consideration has been given to cumulative impact of additional request~
for like actions in the area.
(e) Other uses not set forth in the shoreline master program may be authorized
through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that other uses
are consistent with the purpose of the shoreline environmental desiqnation and
compatible with existinq shoreline improvements or that extraordinary
circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically
prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (Ord. No. 90-38,9
s stantial development permit.Jf
nder the provisions of process
miner shall be the final approval
e artment of Ecolo shall be the final
Page 56 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaoement - Draft Reaulations
Response to EcoloqV comments - Mav 15, 2007
1(24.70.10-24.70.50),2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3,12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, S
3,11-16-99; Ord. No. 00-375, S 2,10-3-00)
184-13-179 Final approval of shoreline permits.
(a) The director of community development shall notify the following agencies
or persons within five days of the final approval of a shoreline permit and any
variances or conditional uses granted:
(1) The applicant;
(2) The State Department of Ecology;
(4~) Any person who has submitted written comments on the application;
(~) Any person who has requested notification in writing prior to final approval
of the permit.
(b) No work may commence on a site requiring a shoreline permit until 21 days
following the date of filing of the shoreline permit by the State Department of
Ecology, and written notification has been received from the Department of
Ecology that the appeal period has been initiated. (Ord. No. 90-38, S 1 (24.80.1 0,
24.80.20),2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3, 12-1-98' d. No. 99-355, S 3, 11-16-99)
e shorelines may require a
ters of this Code, the hearings may
, - 7-90; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3, 12-1-98;
18474-180 Combined hearing authorit
I n those cases when developm
public hearing under the auth .
be combined. (Ord. No. 90-38
Ord. No. 99-355, S 3,11-16-9
Page 57 of 59
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline ManaGement - Draft Reoulations
Response to Ecoloov comments - Mav 15, 2007
18-181 Appeals.
All appeals of any final permit decision are governed by the procedures established in
RCW 90.58.180, RCW 90.58.140(6), and WAC 481-03, the rules and procedures of the
Shorelines Hearing Board. All appeals of any final permit decision must be made to the
Shorelines Hearinq Board within twenty-one (21) days after the City's final decision
concerninq the substantial development permit or formal approval to revisions of the
permit.
18-182 Permit Revisions.
(a) A permit revision is required whenever an applicant proposes substantive changes
to the design, terms or conditions of a proiect from that which was approved in the permit.
When a revision of a shoreline permit is sought, the applicant shall submit detailed plans
and text describinq the proposed chanqes in the permit and demonstratinq com~liance
with the minimum standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100.
(b) If the proposed changes are determined by the director to be within the scope and
intent of the original permit, and are consistent with the SMA (RCW 90.58), the
Guidelines in WAC 173-26, and this SMP, the revision shall be approved.
18475-183 Replacement. alteration or
or development.
(a) Applications for substa
nonconforming use or develo
(1) The modifications will
(2) The modifications w
nonconforming.
(b) An existing use or development, not conforming to existing regulations,
which is destroyed may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction provided
application for required permits is made within one year of destruction.,
deteriorated, or damaged more than 75 percent of its fair market value may be
reconstructed only consistent with regulations set forth in this article. (Ord. No. 90-
38, S 1(24.100),2-27-90; Ord. No. 98-323, S 3,12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, S 3,11-
16-99 )
(c) An existinq mechanical improvement, not conforminq to existinq requlations,
which breaks and cannot be repaired may be replaced, provided the replacement
is no more nonconforminq and application for required permits is made within one
year of failure.
tion of nonconforming use
t or building permits to modify a
approved only if:
e use or development less nonconforming; or
not make the use or development more
18476-184 Shoreline environment redesignation.
Shoreline environments designated by the master program may be
redesignated by the city council upon finding that such redesignation will be
consistent with:
(1) The policies of Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
(2) The goals, objectives and policies of the master program.
(3) The designation criteria of the shoreline environment designation requested.
(Ord. No. 98-323, S 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 99-355, S 3, 11-16-99)
Page 58 of 59
18-185 Amendments to this chapter.
City of Federal Way SMP - Article III. Shoreline Manaqement - Draft Reoulations
Response to Ecologv comments - Mav 15, 2007
Amendments to this chapter shall be pursuant to state review and approval as per
WAC 176-26-110 and WAC 176-26-120.
Page 59 of 59
Appendix A
CRITICAL AREAS
Sections:
1. Generally
A. Purpose.
B. Applicable provisions.
C. Jurisdiction.
D. Other authority and jurisdiction.
E. Liability.
2. Administration
A. Administration.
B. Maps adopted.
C. Basis for determination.
D. Bonds.
E. Dedication.
F. Exemptions.
3. General Site Design Requirements
A. Responsibility of applicant.
B. Vehicle circulation areas.
C. Time limitation.
D. Other requirements.
4. Geologically Hazardous Areas Development
A. Limitations.
5. Streams
A. Setbacks.
B. Relocation.
C. Bulkheads.
D. Culverts.
E. Removal of streams from culverts.
F. Rehabilitation.
G. Intrusion into setbacks.
H. Additional requirements for land surface modification.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 2 of 25
6. Regulated Wetlands
A. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland.
B.Wetland categories and standard buffers.
C. Structures, improvements and land surface modifications within
regulated wetlands.
D. Structures, improvements and land surface modification within
regulated wetland buffers.
7. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection
Areas
A. Limitations.
B. Classification of wellhead capture zones
C. General requirements.
D. Prohibited activities in Wellhead Capture Zone 1.
E. Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous
materials.
F. Performance standards.
1. Use of pesticides; herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer
recharge areas and wellhead protection areas.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 3 of 25
1. Generally
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this appendix is to protect the environment,
human life and prope,rty from harm and degradation within the
shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Federal Way. This is to be
achieved by precluding or limiting development in areas where
development poses serious or special hazards; by preserving and
protecting the quality of surface water; and by preserving important
ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, lakes and
wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this appendix
include protection of water quality, groundwater recharge, shoreline
stabilization, stream flow maintenance, stability of slope areas,
wildlife and fisheries habitat maintenance, protection of human life
and property and maintenance of natural stormwater storage
systems.
B. Applicable provisions.
The provisions of this appendix apply throughout designated
shoreline areas under the Shoreline Master Plan and must be
complied with regardless of any other conflicting provisions of
FWCC Chapters 18 and 22.
C. Jurisdiction.
This appendix applies to the subject property if it:
(1) Contains or is within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous
area; .
(2) Contains or is within 100 feet of a wellhead;
(3) Contains or is within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark
of a major stream;
(4) Contains or is within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark
of a minor stream;
(5) Contains or is within 200 feet of the edge of any regulated
wetland, including regulated wetlands associated with any major
stream, minor stream, or regulated lake; or
(76) Is located within a critical recharge area or a wellhead
protection area (one-, five-, or 1 O-year wellhead capture zone).
D. Other authority and jurisdiction.
Nothing in this appendix in any way limits, or may be construed
to limit, the authority of the city under any other applicable law, nor
in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 4 of 25
with all other applicable local, state and federal laws and
regulations.
E. Liability.
(a) Prior to issuance of any building permit or other permit by the
building official, the applicant may be required to enter into an
agreement with the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney,
releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any damage or
liability resulting from any development activity on the subject
property which is related to the physical condition of the steep
slope, stream, or regulated wetland. This agreement shall be
recorded in the county, at the applicant's expense, and shall run
with the property.
(b) The city may also require the applicant to obtain insurance
coverage for damage to city or private property and/or city liability
related to any such development activity.
2. Administration
A. Administration.
Except as otherwise established in this appendix, this appendix
will be implemented and enforced as part of the city's review of any
development activity on the subject property. If the development
activity requires approval through process I, II or III, the provisions
of this appendix will be implemented as part of these processes. If
the development activity does not require approval through process
I, II or III, the provisions of this appendix will be implemented
through site plan review under FWCC 22-361 et seq.
B. Maps adopted.
The city hereby adopts the June 19, 1999, city of Federal Way
final wetland inventory report, to show the locations of certain
regulated wetlands in the designated shoreline areas of the
Shoreline Master Plan. The city hereby adopts the lakehaven
Utility District wellhead one-, five-, and 10-year capture zone maps,
as now existing or amended.
c. Basis for determination.
The determinations regarding whether the subject property is
regulated under this appendix, as well as the extent and nature of
the regulations that will apply to the subject property, will be
determined based on environmental information and mapping
possessed by the city as well as other information and mapping
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 5 of 25
provided by or through the applicant. The city may require the
applicant, at the applicant's expense, to provide any information,
mapping, studies, materials, inspections or reviews that are
reasonably necessary to implement this appendix and to require
that such information, studies, mapping, materials, inspections and
reviews be provided or performed by a qualified professional
acceptable to the city. Other provisions of this appendix detail other
information and inspections that may be required in some
instances.
D. Bonds.
The city may require a bond under FWCC 22-146 et seq. to
ensure compliance with any aspect of this appendix.
E. Dedication.
The city may require the applicant to dedicate development rights
or an open space easement to the city to ensure protection of steep
slopes, wells, streams, and regulated wetlands and other areas
within the jurisdiction of this appendix.
F. Exemptions from critical area standards.
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this
appendix:
(1) Emergencies that, in the opinion of the shoreline
administrator, threaten the public health, safety and welfare, where
impacts to critical areas and their buffers are mitigated to the extent
feasible following the emergency actions;
(2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following
facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the
public works director, provided that impacts to critical areas and
their buffers are mitigated to the extent feasible:
a. Existing drainage ditches provided, however, that this
exception shall not apply to any ditches used by salmonids other
than to permit free migration of salmon ids to their spawning
grounds;
b. Surface water facilities, provided that such activities shall
not involve conversion of any regulated wetland not currently being
used for such activity;
c. Existing public facilities and utility structures' or rights-of-
way.
The maintenance plan may be designed to address individual
facilities or facility components, area-wide facilities or city-wide
systems. The maintenance plan shall identify the nature of the
potential maintenance or repair activities, specifications for work
which may occur within potential sensitive areas, specifications for
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 6 of 25
restoring and/or mitigating impacts, specifications for timing of
maintenance or repair activities, and process for contacting or
notifying the city of pending maintenance or repair activities to
ensure compliance with the approved plan. The public works
director may require that an appropriate bond or security be
maintained with the city to ensure restoration of disturbed areas.
3. General Site Design Requirements
A. Responsibility of applicant.
The applicant shall locate all improvements on subject property
to minimize adverse impacts to geologically hazardous areas,
wells, streams, regulated wetlands, and critical aquifer recharge
and wellhead protection areas.
B. Vehicle circulation areas.
The applicant shall locate all parking and vehicle circulation
areas as far as possible from any geologically hazardous area,
wellhead, stream, and regulated wetland~
C. Time limitation.
The city may limit development activities which involve any land
surface modification to specific months of the year and to a
maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to minimize
adverse impacts.
D. Other requirements.
The city may require other construction techniques, conditions
and restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse
impacts on geologically hazardous areas, wells, critical aquifer
recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, streams, , or
regulated wetlands.
4. Geologically Hazardous Areas Development
A. Limitations.
(a) This section regulates development activities and land
surface modifications on or within 25 feet of a geologically
hazardous area.
(b) Development activities, land surface modifications or the
installation and maintenance of landscaping I normally associated
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 7 of 25
with residential, commercial or park use may not occur on or within
50 feet of a geologically hazardous area unless no reasonable
alternative exists and then only if the development activity or land
surface modification will not lead to or create any increased slide,
seismic or erosion hazard.
(c) Before approving any development activity or land surface
modification under this section, the city may require the applicant to
submit the following information:
(1 ) A soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer
licensed in the state which describes how the proposed
development will impact each of the following on the subject
property and nearby properties:
a. Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing.
b. Seismic hazards.
c. Groundwater.
d. Seeps, springs and other surface waters.
e. Existing vegetation.
(2) Recommended foundation design and optimal location for
roadway improvements.
(3) Recommended methods for mitigating identified impacts and
a description of how these mitigating measures may impact
adjacent properties.
(4) Any other information the city determines is reasonably
necessary to evaluate the proposal.
(d) If the city approves any development activity or land surface
modification under this section, it may, among other appropriate
conditions, impose the following conditions of approval:
(1) That the recommendations of the soils report be followed.
(2) That the applicant must pay for the services of a qualified
professional engineer selected and retained by the city to review
the soils report and other relevant information.
(3) That a qualified professional engineer be present on-site
during all land surface modification activities.
(4) That trees, shrubs and groundcover be retained except
where necessary for approved development activities on the
subject property.
(5) That additional vegetation be planted in disturbed areas.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 8 of 25
5. Streams
A. Stream setbacks.
(a) No land surface modification or improvements may take place
or be located in a stream or within the following stream setback
areas except as allowed within this appendix:
(1) The stream setback area for a major stream includes all
areas within 100 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of
a major stream.
(2) The stream setback area for a minor stream includes all
areas within 50 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of a
minor stream.
(b) The stream setback areas established by this section do not
apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert,
unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of
development of the subject property.
B. Relocation.
(a) Relocation of a stream on the subject property is permitted
subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this section.
(b) A proposal to relocate a stream will be reviewed and decided
upon using process IV in FWCC 22-431 et seq.
(c) As part of any request under this section, the applicant must
submit a stream relocation plan, prepared by a qualified
professional approved by the city that shows the following:
(1) The creation of a natural meander pattern.
(2) The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet
horizontally to one foot vertically, and the installation of erosion
control features for stream side slopes.
(3) The creation of a narrow subchannel, where feasible,
against the south or west bank.
(4) The utilization of natural materials, wherever possible.
(5) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams,
including primarily native riparian vegetation.
(6) The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever
appropriate.
(7) The re-establishment of the fish population, wherever
feasible.
(8) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with
fish habitat areas, wherever feasible.
(9) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel.
(10) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all
project phases.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 9 of 25
(d) The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water
quality, habitat and stormwater retention capability of the streams
will be significantly improved by the relocation. Convenience to the
applicant in order to facilitate general site design may not be
considered.
(e) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified
professional approved by the city shall inspect the new channel
following its completion and issue a written report to the shoreline
administrator stating that the channel complies with the
requirements of this section.
(f) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be
increased or decreased as the stream enters or leaves the subject
property.
C. Culverts.
(a) Culverts are permitted in streams within the shoreline
jurisdiction of the City only if approved under this section.
(b) The city will review and decide upon applications under this
chapter using process III in FWCC 22-386 et seq.
(c) The city will allow a stream to be put in a culvert only if:
(1) No significant habitat area will be destroyed; and
(2) No other feasible site design alternative exists, which allows
the stream to remain in an open condition. Convenience to the
applicant in order to facilitate general' site design will not be
considered.
(d) The culvert must be designed and installed to allow passage
of fish inhabiting or using the stream. The culvert must be large
enough to accommodate a 1 OO-year storm.
(e) The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the
subject property free of debris and sediment so as to allow free
passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city shall require a
bond under FWCC 22-146 et seq. to ensure maintenance of the
culvert approved under this section.
D. Removal of streams from culverts.
If development of the subject property requires approval through
process I, II or III of FWCC Chapter 19, the city may require the
stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural
channel configuration as part of the city's approval of development
of the subject property.
E. Rehabilitation.
The shoreline administrator may permit or require the applicant to
rehabilitate or maintain a stream by requiring the removal of
detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and invasive, non-
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 10 of 25
native vegetation. Approval of stream rehabilitation shall be based
on a review of a plan containing, at a minimum, an analysis of
existing conditions, identification of the source, if possible, of the
degradation of the stream or riparian zone, proposed corrective
actions, including installation of native species within the riparian
corridor, performance standards, monitoring schedule, planting
plans, erosion and sedimentation control plans, and grading plans
as necessary. The shoreline administrator shall require an applicant
to retain the services of a qualified professional in preparing the
restoration plan. These actions may be permitted or required at any
time that a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream
banks, degradation of existing naturally vegetated buffers, or in
stream habitat exists. Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and
associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of approved
stream rehabilitation projects.
F. Intrusion into stream setbacks.
(a) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public
improvements. The shoreline administrator may permit the
placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public
improvements in a setback from a stream if he or she determines
that the line or improvement must traverse the setback area
because no feasible alternative location exists based on an
analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location
and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must constitute the
minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the
public facility or utility. "Public utility and other public improvements"
shall not include improvements whose primary purpose is to benefit
a private development, including without limitation interior roads or
privately owned detention facilities installed within or during the
construction of a residential subdivision, binding site plan, or other
commercial development.
(b) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as
footbridges crossing the stream, walkways and benches may be
located within the setback area if approved through process III of
FWCC Chapter 19, based on the following criteria:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife
habitat within the stream or setback area;
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities;
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion
hazards;
(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property nor
to the city as a whole; and
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 11 of 25
(6) It is necessary to correct anyone of the adverse conditions
specified in subsections (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this subsection.
(c) Other intrusions. Other than as specified in subsections (a)
and (b) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate
an improvement or engage in land surface modification within
stream setback areas only through process IV of FWCC Chapter
19, based on the following criteria:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife
habitat within the stream or setback area;
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities;
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion
hazards;
(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in
the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including
the loss of significant open space; and
(6) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject
property.
G. Additional requirements for land surface modification.
If any land surface modification is permitted within the stream or
stream setback area, the applicant shall comply with the following
additional requirements:
(1) All fill material used must be nondissolving and
nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or
inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the
existing habitat.
(2) The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject
property only if part of an approved development on the subject
property.
(3) The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land
surface modification with native vegetation normally associated with
the stream or setback area.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 12 of25
6. Regulated Wetlands
A. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland.
(a) Generally. This section contains procedures and criteria for
determining whether an area is defined as a regulated wetland
under FWCC Chapter 19.
(b) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on
or within 200 feet of the subject property, the shoreline
administrator shall require the applicant to submit a wetland report,
prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that
includes the information set forth in su bsections (b)( 1) through
(b)(7) and (c) of this section. The shoreline administrator shall use
the information required by subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) to
determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, shall use the
information required by subsecti9ns (b)(3) through (b)(7) and (c) to
determine the category and the precise boundaries of that
regulated wetland.
(1) An evaluation of whether the area in question is a regulated
wetland based upon the definition of wetland and the size
thresholds, outlined in Section B of this appendix.
(2) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study.
(3) A description of the wetland and plant communities found
therein, a map delineating the edge of the wetland and location of
plant communities, and a detailed description of the method used to
identify the wetland edge.
(4) The wetland classification, according to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and. Deep Water
Habitats in the U.S."
(5) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both
scientific and common names, and a description of their relative
abundance.
(6) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or
other observation.
(7) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential
functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors:
surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control;
groundwater exchange; open space and recreation; and
educational and cultural opportunities.
(c) Drainage facilities. Surface water ponds, drainage ditches,
and other such facilities which were designed to impound or convey
water for an engineered purpose are not considered regulated
wetlands under this appendix provided they meet all of the following
criteria:
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 13 of 25
(1) The drainage facility must have been intentionally human
created. This is to differentiate from those wetland sites that are
accidental consequences of development actions, such as road
construction or culvert placement. Such sites may be considered
regulated wetlands by the director upon a review, under subsection
(b )(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the
site.
(2) The drainage facility must have been originally constructed
on uplands (nonwetland areas). If the drainage facility is located
within a straightened, channelized, or otherwise disturbed natural
watercourse, it may be considered a regulated wetland by the
director upon a review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of
the ecological functions and values of the site.
(3) The facility must be actively operated as a surface water
drainage facility. Abandoned drainage facilities may be considered
regulated wetlands by the director upon a review, under subsection
(b )(7) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the
site.
(4) Wetland conditions have not expanded beyond the originally
constructed drainage facility boundary. In such a case the
expanded area may be considered a regulated wetland by the
director upon review, under subsection (b)(7) of this section, of the
ecological functions and values of the site.
(5) The drainage facility was not designed or constructed as a
requirement to mitigate previous wetland impacts.
(6) The director finds that limited ecological functions and values
do not warrant application of the city's wetland regulations.
B. Wetland categories and standard buffers.
(a) Wetlands are classified into the following categories:
(1) Category I wetlands meet one of the following criteria:
a. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat
recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened
or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or
b. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent
occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local
significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat
bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange
areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or
c. Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open
water.
(2) Category" wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in
area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category I wetlands, and
meet one of the following criteria:
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 14 of 25
a. Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water
bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish
population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or
b. Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or
c. Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety
and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class
dominated by non-native invasive species.
(3) Category 11/ wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in
area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category I or II
wetlands.
(b) Standard buffer widths for regulated wetlands are established
as follows:
(1 ) Category I wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of
200 feet.
(2) Category II wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of
1 00 feet.
(3) Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of
50 feet for wetlands that are greater than 10,000 square feet in
area, and shall have a standard buffer width of 25 feet for wetlands
that are between 2,500 to 10,000 square feet in area.
c. Structures, improvements and land surface modifications
within regulated wetlands.
(a) Generally. No land surface modification may take place and
no structure or improvement may be located in a regulated wetland
except as provided in this section.
(b) Public park. The city may allow pedestrian access through a
regulated wetland in conjunction with a public park. The access, if
approved, must be designed to the maximum extent feasible to
protect the wetland from any adverse effects or impacts of the
access and to limit the access to the defined access area.
(c) Rehabilitation. The shoreline administrator may permit or
require an applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated
wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and
inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegetation be
planted. These actions may be required at any time that a condition
detrimental to water quality or habitat exists.
(d) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and
(c) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an
improvement or engage in land surface modification within a
regulated wetland using process IV of FWCC Chapter 19. The
specific location and extent of the intrusion into the regulated
wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment.
Approval of a request for improvements or land surface
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 15 of 25
modification within a regulated wetland through process IV of
FWCC Chapter 19 shall be based on the following criteria:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality.
(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's
or buffer's wildlife habitat.
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities.
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion
hazards.
(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in
the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including
the loss of open space.
(6) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value.
(7) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety
or welfare.
(8) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise
and supervisory capability to carry out the project.
(9) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to
making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals.
(e) Required information. As part of any request under this
section, the applicant shall submit a report, prepared by a qualified
professional approved by the city that includes the following
information:
(1) Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan shall include the following
elements:
a. Environmental goals and objectives.
b. Performance standards.
c. Detailed construction plans.
d. Timing.
e. Monitoring program for a minimum of five years.
f. Contingency plan.
g. Subject to the applicant's election of timing alternatives
provided in subsection (e)(4) of this section, a performance and
maintenance bond in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of
implementing the mitigation plan or the contingency plan,
whichever is greater.
(2) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to
restoration, creation or enhancement, within the same basin, of in-
kind wetland type which results in no net loss of wetland area,
function or value. Where feasible, mitigation measures shall be
designed to improve the functions and values of the impacted
wetland.
(3) Minimum acreage mitigation ratio. The following are ratios
for providing restoration, creation or enhancement of impacted
wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the acreage of
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 16 of 25
wetland reqUlnng restoration, creation or replacement and the
second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted.
Wetland Category Creation and Enhancement
Restoration
Category I 6:1 12:1
(all types)
.
Category II:
Forested 3:1 6:1
Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1
Emergent 2:1 4:1
Category I":
Forested 2:1 4:1
Scrub/Shrub 1.5:1 3:1
Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1
The director may permit or require the above replacement ratios
to be increased or decreased based on the following criteria:
a. Probable success of the proposed mitigation.
b. Projected losses in function or value.
c. Findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with
expertise which demonstrate that no net loss of wetland function or
value is attained under an alternative ratio.
d. In no case shall the minimum acreage replacement ratio
be less than 1.25:1.
(4) Timing. All required wetland mitigation improvements,
including monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the
shoreline administrator prior to beginning activities that will disturb
regulated wetlands, or the applicant shall provide the performance
and maintenance bond specified in subsection (e)(1)(g) of this
section. In either event, the applicant may not take any action that
disturbs a regulated wetland or its buffer until the director has
reviewed and approved the mitigation plan. All wetland- or buffer-
disturbing activities, and all mitigation, shall be timed to reduce
impacts to existing plants and animals.
(5) Inspections. The applicant shall pay for services of a
qualified professional selected and retained by the city to review the
wetland mitigation report and other relevant information, conduct
periodic inspections, issue a written report to the shoreline
administrator stating that the project complies with requirements of
the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the
status of the monitoring program.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 17 of 25
D. Structures, improvements and land surface modification
within regulated wetland buffers.
(a) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no land surface
modification may take place and no structure or improvement may
be located within a regulated wetland buffer.
(b) Wetland buffer averaging. Wetland buffers may be averaged
only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be
reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently
impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the
existing or expected habitat functions. Through process III of
FWCC Chapter 19, the applicant must demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the shoreline administrator that the proposed buffer
averaging will meet all of the following criteria:
(1) Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a
wetland or stream;
(2) Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality
of wildlife habitat within the wetland or the buffer;
(3) Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions
nor create erosion hazards; and
(4) Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or
private properties, including the loss of open space.
At no point shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50
percent of the required standard buffer width, unless the buffer, in
existing conditions, has already been permanently eliminated by
previous, legally permitted actions. The total area contained within
the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for
standard buffer dimensions.
(c) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public
improvements. The shoreline administrator may permit the
placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public
improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines
that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no
feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of
technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent
of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum
necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public
facility or utility.
(d) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as
footbridges, walkways and benches may be located within the
buffer from a regulated wetland if approved through process III of
FWCC Chapter 19, based on the following criteria:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's
or buffer's wildlife habitat;
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 18 of 25
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities;
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion
hazards; and
(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in
the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole.
(e) Wetland buffer reduction. Through process III of FWCC
Chapter 19, the shoreline administrator may reduce the standard
wetland buffer width by up to 50 percent, but in no case to less than
25 feet, on a case-by-case basis, if the project includes a buffer
enhancement plan which utilizes appropriate native vegetation and
clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and
provide additional protection of wetland functions and values, and
where one of the following conditions can be demonstrated:
(1) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer
exists in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking
lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer
function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the
intrusions are existing.
(2) Except for Category I wetlands, existing conditions are such
that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent
development activities, as evidenced by such things as persistent
human alterations or the dominance of non-native invasive species.
(3) A project on an existing single-family lot platted prior to the
incorporation of the city, where imposition of the standard buffer
would preclude reasonable use of the lot.
The director shall have the authority to determine if buffer
averaging is warranted on the subject property and, if so, may
require additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of
the sensitive area.
(f) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (b) and (c)
of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an
improvement or engage in land surface modification within the
buffer from a regulated wetland through process IV of FWCC
Chapter 19, based on the following criteria:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality;
(2) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's
or buffer's wildlife habitat;
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention
capabilities;
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion
hazards; and
(5) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in
the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including
the loss of open space.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 19 of 25
Any modification under this subsection shall not reduce the
standard buffer by more than 50 percent, and in no case shall the
remaining buffer be less than 25 feet. The city may require, as a
condition to any modification granted under this subsection,
preparation and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement
plan to protect wetland and buffer functions and values.
(g) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left
exposed after land surface modification with native vegetation
normally associated with the buffer.
(h) Wetland buffer increases. The director shall require increased
environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a case-by-case
basis when the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary
to protect environmentally sensitive area functions, values or
hazards based on site-specific conditions. This determination shall
be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional
buffer width is reasonably related to protection of environmentally
sensitive area functions and values, or protection of public health,
safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit
conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of
the following factors are met:
(1) There is habitat for species listed as threatened or
endangered by state or federal agencies present within the
sensitive area and/or its buffer, and additional buffer is necessary to
maintain viable functional habitat;
(2) There are conditions or features adjacent to the buffer, such
as steep slopes or erosion hazard areas, which over time may pose
an additional threat to the viability of the buffer and/or the sensitive
area. In such circumstances the city may choose to impose those
buffers, if any, associated with the condition or feature posing the
threat in addition to, or to a maximum, beyond the buffer required
for the subject sensitive area.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 20 of 25
7. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection
Areas
A. Limitations.
This division regulates any development activity, or division of
land which requires review under Chapter .li! FWCC,
Environmental Protection, and which is located within designated
wellhead capture zones. Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2, and 3 are
designated as critical aquifer recharge areas under the provisions
of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and are
established based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to
the city's public water source wells. This division shall not apply to
projects that have received a letter of completeness prior to the
effective date of the amendments.
B. Classification of wellhead capture zones.
The lakehaven Utility District (lUD) has designated three
wellhead capture zones based on proximity to and travel time of
groundwater to the city's public water source wells.
(1) Wellhead Capture Zone 1 represents the land area
overlaying the one-year time-of-travel zone of any public water
source well owned by lUD.
(2) Wellhead Capture Zone 2 represents the land area
overlaying the five-year time-of-travel zone of any public water
source well owned by lUD, excluding the land area contained in
Wellhead Capture Zone 1.
(3) Wellhead Capture Zone 3 represents the land area
overlaying the 10-year time-of-travel zone of any public water
source well owned by lUD, excluding the land area contained in
Wellhead Capture Zones 1 or 2. B. General requirements.
(a) Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge
area and wellhead protection area if the applicant can show that the
proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer.
(b) The city shall impose development conditions to prevent
degradation of the critical aquifer recharge and wellhead protection
areas. All conditions to permits shall be based on known, available,
and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment
(AKART).
(c) The proposed activity must comply with the water source
protection requirements and recommendations of the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Ecology,
State Department of Health, and the King County health
department.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 21 of 25
(d) The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in
accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual
(KCSWDM), the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM, and the
King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual (BMP manual).
C. Prohibited activities in Wellhead Capture Zone 1.
(a) land uses or activities for development that pose a significant
hazard to the city's groundwater resources resulting from storing,
handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of
hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall be
prohibited in Wellhead Capture Zone 1, except as specified in
FWCC 22-340. These land uses and activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) On-site community sewage disposal systems as defined in
Chapter 248-272 WAC;
(2) Hazardous liquid pipelines as defined in Chapter 81.88
RCW;
(3) Solid waste landfills;
(4) Solid waste transfer stations;
(5) Liquid petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage;
(6) The storage or distribution of gasoline treated with the
additive MTBE;
(7) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(except those defined under permit by rule for industrial wastewater
treatment processes per WAC 173-303-802(5)(c));
(8) Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to organic
and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals,
cleaning compounds, paints and lacquers, and agricultural
chemicals;
(9) Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent
perchloroethylene;
(10) Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture,
produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten
materials;
(11) Wood treatment facilities, including wood preserving and
wood products preserving;
(12) Mobile fleet fueling operations;
(13) Mining (metal, sand, and gravel); and
(14) Other land uses and activities that the city determines
would pose a significant groundwater hazard to the city's
groundwater supply.
(b) The uses listed in FWCC 22-1379(1) represent the state of
present knowledge and most common description of said uses. As
other polluting uses are discovered, or other terms of description
become necessary, they will be added to the list of uses prohibited
within this zone.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 22 of 25
c. Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous
materials.
(a) Any development activity or division of land which requires
review under Chapter 18 FWCC, Environmental Protection, located
in critical aquifer recharge areas (Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2,
and 3) shall submit a hazardous materials inventory statement with
a development permit application. Ongoing operation and
maintenance activities of public wells by public water providers are
exempt from these requirements.
(b) The development review committee will review the hazardous
materials inventory statement along with the land use application,
to determine whether hazardous materials meeting the definition of
FWCC 22;.1 will be used, stored, transported or disposed of in
connection with the proposed activity. The development review
committee shall make the following determination:
(1) No hazardous materials are involved.
(2) Hazardous materials are involved; however, existing laws or
regulations adequately mitigate any potential impact, and
documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance.
(3) Hazardous materials are involved and the proposal has the
potential to significantly impact critical aquifer recharge areas and
wellhead capture zones; however, sufficient information is not
available to evaluate the potential impact of contamination. The city
may require a hydrogeologic critical area assessment report to be
prepared by a qualified groundwater scientist in order to determine
the potential impacts of contamination on the aquifer. The report
shall include the following site- and proposal-related information, at
a minimum:
a. Information regarding geologic and hydrogeologic
characteristics of the site, including the surface location of the
wellhead capture zone in which it is located and the type of
infiltration of the site.
b. Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient.
c. location of other critical areas, including surface waters,
within 200 feet of the site.
d. Best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest
management (IPM) proposed to be used, including:
1. Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects
on nearby wells and surface water features; .
2. Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on
potential releases to groundwater; and
3. Predictive evaluation of changes in the
infiltration/recharge rate.
(c) A spill containment and response plan may be required to
identify equipment and/or structures that could fail, and shall
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 23 of 25
include provisions for inspection as required by the applicable state
regulations.
(d) A groundwater monitoring plan may be required to monitor
quality and quantity of groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or
site soils. The city may require the owner of a facility to install one
or more groundwater monitoring wells to accommodate the
required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used to determine the
need for site monitoring shall include, but not be limited to, the
proximity of the facility to production or monitoring wells, the type
and quantity of hazardous materials on-site, and whether or not the
hazardous materials are stored in underground vessels.
(e) The city may 'employ an outside consultant at the applicant's
expense for third-party review of the hydrogeologic critical area
assessment report, the spill containment and response plan, and
the groundwater monitoring plan.
D. Performance standards.
(a) Any new or existing use applying for a development permit, or
subdivision approval which requires review under Chapter 18
FWCC, Environmental Protection, within Wellhead Capture Zone 1,
which involves storing, handling, treating, using, producing,
recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious
substances meeting the definition of FWCC 22-1 shall comply with
the following standards:
(1) Secondary containment.
a. The owner or operator of any facility or activity shall
provide secondary containment for hazardous materials or other
deleterious substances in quantities specified in the International
Fire Code.
b. Hazardous materials stored in tanks that are subject to
regulation by the Washington State Department of Ecology under
Chapter 173-360 WAC (Underground Storage Tank Regulations)
are exempt from the secondary containment requirements of this
section; provided, that documentation is provided to demonstrate
compliance with those regulations.
(2) Design and construction of new stormwater infiltration
systems must address site-specific risks of releases posed by all
hazardous materials on-site. These risks may be mitigated by
physical design means, or equivalent best management practices,
in accordance with an approved hazardous materials management
plan. Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration
systems shall also be in accordance with the KCSWDM, as
amended by the city of Federal Way, and shall be certified for
compliance with the requirements of this section by a professional
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 24 of 25
engineer or engineering geologist registered in the state of
Washington.
(3) The following standards shall apply to construction activities
occurring where construction vehicles will be refueled on-site,
and/or hazardous materials meeting the definition of FWCC 22-1
will be stored, dispensed, used, or handled on the construction site.
As part of the city's project permitting process, the city may require
any or all of the following items:
a. Detailed monitoring and construction standards;
b. Designation of a person on-site during operating hours
who is responsible for supervising the use, storage, and handling of
hazardous materials, and who has appropriate knowledge and
training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of a fire or
spill;
c. Hazardous material storage, dispensing, refueling areas,
and use and handling areas shall be provided with secondary
containment adequate to contain the maximum release from the
largest volume container of hazardous materials stored at the
construction site;
d. Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous
materials left on-site when the site is unsupervised are inaccessible
to the public. locked storage sheds, locked fencing, locked fuel
tanks on construction vehicles, or other techniques may be used to
preclude access;
e. Practices and procedures to ensure that construction
vehicles and stationary equipment that are found to be leaking fuel,
hydraulic fluid, and/or other hazardous materials will be removed
immediately, or repaired on-site immediately. The vehicle or
equipment may be repaired in place, provided the leakage is
completely contained;
f. Practices and procedures to ensure that storage and
dispensing of flammable and combustible liquids from tanks,
containers, and tank trucks into the fuel and fluid reservoirs of
construction vehicles or stationary equipment on the construction
site are in accordance with the International Fire Code; and
g. Practices and procedures, and/or on-site materials
adequate to ensure the immediate containment and cleanup of any
release of hazardous substances stored at the construction site.
On-site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills, whereas
cleanup of larger spills may require a subcontract with a qualified
cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be contained,
cleaned up, and reported according to state requirements.
(b) Any development activity, or division of land which requires
review under Chapter 18 FWCC, Environmental Protection, within
all wellhead capture zones (1, 2, and 3), which involve storing,
Federal Way SMP
Appendix A
Critical Areas Ordinance
Page 25 of 25
handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of
hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances, meeting the
definition of FWCC 22-1 shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Fleet and automotive service station fueling, equipment
maintenance, and vehicle washing areas shall have a containment
system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and
preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other automotive
fluids into the soil, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate
emergency response equipment shall be kept on-site during the
transfer, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal
of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances.
(2) Secondary containment or equivalent best management
practices, as approved by the director of community development
services, shall be required at loading and unloading areas that
store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous
materials, or other deleterious substances, meeting the definition of
FWCC 22-1.
(3) Fill material shall not contain concentration of contaminants
that exceed cleanup standards for soil as specified in the Model
Toxics Control Act (MTCA). An imported fill source statement is
required for all projects where more than 100 cubic yards of fill will
be imported to a site. The city may require analytical results to
demonstrate that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards.
The imported fill source statement shall include:
a. Source location of imported fill;
b. Previous land uses of the source location; and
c. Whether or not fill to be imported is native soil.
(4) All development or redevelopment shall implement best
management practices (BMPs) for water quality and quantity, as
approved by the director of community development services. Such
practices include biofiltration swales and use of oil-water
separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed,
cluster development, and limited impervious surfaces.
E. Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical
aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas.
Proposed developments with maintained landscaped areas
greater than 10,000 square feet in area which require review under
Chapter 18 FWCC, Environmental Protection, shall prepare an
operations and management manual using best management
practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) for
fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The BMPs shall
include recommendations on the quantity, timing, and type of
fertilizers applied to lawns and gardens to protect groundwater
quality.
Appendix B
FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
Sections:
1. Generally
A. Purpose.
B. Adoption of state and federal statutes and regulations.
C. Methods of reducing flood losses.
D. Definitions.
2. Provisions
A. General provisions.
B. Permits.
C. Use of other base flood data (in A and V zones).
D. Information to be obtained and maintained.
E. Alteration of watercourses.
F. Conditions for variances.
G. Provisions for flood hazard reduction.
H. Subdivision proposals.
I. Review of building permits.
J. Specific standards.
K. AE and A 1-30 zones with base flood elevations but no f1oodways.
L. Floodways.
M. Critical facility.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 2 of 13
1. Generally
A. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this appendix to promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in
specific areas by provisions designed:
(1) To protect human life and health;
(2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects;
(3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding
and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
(4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions;
(5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas
mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; streets; and bridges located in areas
of special flood hazard;
(6) To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and
development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight
areas;
(7) To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of
special flood hazard;
(8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard
assume responsibility for their actions.
B. Adoption of state and federal statutes and regulations.
The following state statutes and administrative regulations as currently existing
and hereafter amended are hereby adopted by this reference as if set forth in full:
(1) Chapter 86.16 RCW, Floodplain Management.
(2) 44 CFR 59.22(a).
(3) 44 CFR 60.3(c)(1 )(d)(2).
(4) 44 CFR 60.3(b)(1).
(5) 44 CFR 59.22(b)(1).
(6) 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2).
c. Methods of reducing flood losses.
In order to accomplish its purposes, this appendix includes methods and
provisions for:
(1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and
property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases
in erosion or in flood heights or velocities;
(2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve
such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
(3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and
natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters;
(4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may
increase flood damage; and
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 3 of 13
(5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally
divert floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas.
D. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this appendix, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this appendix, except where the context
clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically defined below, terms or
phrases used in this appendix shall be interpreted so as to give them the
meaning they have in common usage and to give this appendix its most .
reasonable application.
Appeal means a request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of
this appendix or a request for a variance.
Area of shallow flooding means designated as AO or AH zone on the flood
insurance rate map (FIRM). AO zones have base flood depths that range from
one to three feet above the natural ground; a clearly defined channel does not
exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; and velocity flow
may be evident. AO is characterized as sheet flow; AH indicates ponding, and is
shown with standard base flood elevations.
Area of special flood hazard means the land in the flood plain within a
community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given
year. Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V.
Base flood means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the "100-year flood"). Designated
on flood insurance rate maps by the letters A or V.
Basement means any area of the building having its floor sub-grade (below
ground level) on all sides.
Breakaway wall means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the
building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under
specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of
the building or supporting foundation system.
Coastal high hazard area means an area of special flood hazard extending
from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast
and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic
sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V.
Critical facility means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might
be too great. Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing
homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and
installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous
waste.
Development means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real
estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging,
filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment
or materials located within the area of special flood hazard.
Director means the director of the city of Federal Way community development
department or his or her designee.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 4 of 13
Elevated building means, for insurance purposes, a non basement building that
has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear
walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns.
Elevation certificate means the official form (FEMA Form 81-31) used to track
development, provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with
community floodplain management ordinances, and determine the proper
insurance premium rate with Section B completed by Federal Way.
Existing manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home
park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on
which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the
installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or
the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the
adopted floodplain management regulations.
Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision means the
preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots
on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of
utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads).
Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or
complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters; and/or
(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any
source.
Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means the official map on which the Federal
Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards
and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
Flood insurance study (FIS) means the official report provided by the Federal
Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the flood boundary-f1oodway
map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood.
Floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent
land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.
Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including
basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking
of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is
not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built
so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design
requirements of this appendix found at FWCC 21-113(1 )(b) (Le., provided there
are adequate flood ventilation openings).
Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more sections,
which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a
permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term
"manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle."
Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous
parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 5 of 13
New construction means structures for which the "start of construction"
commenced on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
appendix:
New manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home
park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on
which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum the
installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or
the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of
adopted floodplain management regulations.
Recreational vehicle means a vehicle:
(1) Built on a single chassis;
(2) Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal
projection;
(3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck;
and
(4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary
living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
Start of construction includes substantial improvement, and means the date
the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the
permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation.
Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing,
grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways;
nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or
the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the
property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as
dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement,
the "actual start" of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling,
floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects
the external dimensions of the building.
Structure means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage
tank that is principally above ground.
Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure
whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would
equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the
damage occurred.
Substantial improvement means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of
a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value
of the structure either:
(1) Before the improvement or repair is started; or
(2) If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the
damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 6 of 13
considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other
structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects
the external dimensions of the structure.
The term can exclude:
(3) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct pre-cited existing
violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which
have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which
are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
(4) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places.
Variance means a grant of relief from the requirements of this appendix that
permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this
appendix.
Water dependent means a structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist
in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic
nature of its operations.
2. Provisions
A. General provisions.
(a) Application of appendix. This appendix shall apply to all areas of special
flood hazards within the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood
hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and
engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for Federal Way" dated
May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance
rate map (FIRM), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference
and declared to be a part of this appendix. The flood insurance study and the
FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available information for flood
hazard area identification as outlined in FWCC 21-106 shall be the basis for
regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under FWCC
21-106.
(b) Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be
constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with
the terms of this appendix and other applicable regulations. Violations of the
provisions of this appendix by failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with
conditions) shall be enforced by the director pursuant to Chapter 1 FWCC, Article
III, Civil Enforcement of Code. Civil enforcement is in addition to, and does not
limit, any other forms of enforcement available, to the city including, but not
limited to, criminal sanctions or other remedies as specified herein or in Chapter
1 FWCC, Articles II and III, nuisance and injunction actions, or other civil or
equitable actions to abate, discontinue, correct or discourage unlawful acts in
violation of this chapter.
(c) Summary abatement. In addition to the remedies specified by Chapter 1
FWCC, Article III, Civil Enforcement of Code, whenever any violation of this
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 7 of 13
appendix causes or creates a condition, the continued existence of which
constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threat to the public
health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and
without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the
reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as
reasonably possible after abatement. The costs of such summary abatement
shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set forth
in Chapter 1 FWCC, Article III, Civil Enforcement of Code.
(d) Abrogation and greater restrictions. This appendix is not intended to repeal,
abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions.
However, where this appendix and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or
deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent
restrictions shall prevail.
(e) Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this appendix, all
provisions shall be:
(1) Considered as minimum requirements;
(2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
(3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state
statutes.
(f) Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required
by this appendix is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based
on scientific and engineering considerations. larger floods can and will occur on
rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes.
This appendix does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards
or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages.
This appendix shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or
employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood
damages that resulUrom reliance on this appendix or any administrative decision
lawfully made hereunder.
B. Permits.
(a) Development permit required. A development permit shall be obtained
before construction or development begins within any area of special flood
hazard established in FWCC 21-104(a). The permit shall be for all structures
including manufactured homes, as set forth in FWCC 21-103, and for all
development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in FWCC 21-103.
(b) Application for development permit. Application for a development permit
shall be made and will include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to
scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in
question, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage
facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information
is required:
(1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including
basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FEMA
Form 81-31) with Section B completed by the city of Federal Way building official;
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 8 of 13
(2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been
flood proofed ;
(3) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofin9 criteria
in FWCC 21-113(2);
(4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or
relocated as a result of proposed development.
(c) Designation of the administrator. The director or designee is hereby
appointed to administer and implement this appendix by granting or denying
development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. The director
shall :
(1) Review all development applications to determine that the requirements of
this appendix have been satisfied;
(2) Review all development applications to determine that all necessary
permits have been obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental
agencies from which prior approval is required; and
(3) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed
development is located in the f1oodway. If located in the f1oodway, assure that the
encroachment provisions of FWCC 21-115(1) are met.
C. Use of other base flood data (in A and V zones).
When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in
accordance with FWCC 21-104(a), the director shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a
federal, state or other source, in order to administer FWCC 21-113, Specific
standards, and FWCC 21-115, Floodways.
D. Information to be obtained and maintained.
(a) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or
required as in FWCC 21-106, the applicant shall obtain and record the actual (as-
built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including
basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the
structure contains a basement and provide such information to the director or
designee on a current FEMA elevation certificate (FEMA Form 81-31). Section B
will be completed by the city.
(b) For all new or substantially improved flood proofed nonresidential structures
where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as
required in FWCC 21-106, the applicant shall obtain and record the elevation (in
relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was flood proofed and provide
such information to the city. The city shall maintain the flood proofing certifications
required in FWCC 21-105(b)(3);
(c) The city shall maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the
provisions of this appendix.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 9 of 13
E. Alteration of watercourses.
The city shall notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior
to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such
notification to the Federal Insurance Administration and shall require that
maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said
watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished.
F. Conditions for flood variances.
(a) Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation
standard may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to
be erected on a small or irregularly shaped lot contiguous to and surrounded by
lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. As the lot size
increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases.
(b) Variances shall not be issued within a designated f100dway if any increase
in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
(c) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the
minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
(d) Variances shall only be issued upon:
(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause;
(2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in
exceptional hardship to the applicant; and
(3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased
flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,
create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with
other existing laws or ordinances.
(e) Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are
based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of
property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its
inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small
lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from
flood elevations should be quite rare.
(f) Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited
circumstances to allow a lesser degree of f1oodproofing than watertight or dry
f1oodproofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage
potential, complies with all other variance criteria except subsection (a) of this
section and otherwise complies with FWCC 21-110(1) and (3), and 21-111.
(g) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice
that the permitted structure will be built with its lowest floor below the base flood
elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the
increased risk.
G. Provisions for flood hazard reduction.
In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required:
(1) Anchoring.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 10 of 13
a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure;
b. All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices
that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited
to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors.
(2) Construction materials and methods.
a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed
using methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
c. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment
and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located
so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components
during conditions of flooding. locating such equipment below the base flood
elevation may cause annual flood insurance premiums to be increased.
(3) Utilities.
a. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems;
b. Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway;
c. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges
from the systems into flood waters;
d. Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding.
H. Subdivision proposals.
(a) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage;
(b) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as
sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or
eliminate flood damage;
(c) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
exposure to flood damage;
(d) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available
from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals
and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or five acres
(whichever is less).
I. Review of building permits. .
Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from
another authoritative source (FWCC 21-106), applications for building permits
shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe
from flooding as determined by the director. The test of reasonableness is a local
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 11 of 13
judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of
past flooding, etc., where available.
J. Specific standards.
The following provisions are required in all areas of special flood hazards
where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in FWCC 21-
104(a) or 21-106.
(1) Residential construction.
a. New construction and substantial improvement of any residential
structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot 0r
more above the base flood elevation (BFE).
b. Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding
are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood
forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs
for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
1. A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than
one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall
be provided.
2. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above
grade.
3. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings
or devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
Foundation vent standards required by the IBC/IRC outside the floodplain do
not meet this standard and are often inadvertently permitted. Insurance rates
reflect an "all or nothing" standard. Partially ventilated crawlspaces may be
subject to an additional loading fee of 20 to 25 percent attached to the annual
insurance premium.
(2) Nonresidential construction. New construction and substantial
improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall
either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more
above the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary
facilities, shall:
a. Be flood proofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood
level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the
passage of water;
b. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy;
c. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the
design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards
of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development
and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such
certifications shall be provided to the official as set forth in FWCC 21-105(b);
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 12 of 13
d. Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not flood proofed , must meet
the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in subsection
(1 )(b) of this section.
Applicants who are flood proofing nonresidential buildings should beware that
flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the
flood proofed level (e.g., a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be
rated as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce
insurance premiums significantly.
(3) Manufactured homes. All manufactured homes in the floodplain to be
placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent
foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one
foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral
movement.
(4) Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required
to either:
a. Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; or
b. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking
system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or
c. Meet the requirements of subsection (3) of this section and the
elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes.
K. AE and A1-30 zones with base flood elevations but no floodways.
In areas with base flood elevations (but a regulatory f100dway has not been
designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other
development (including fill) shall be permitted within zones A 1-30 and AE on the
community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the
proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated
development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more
than one foot at any point within the community.
L. Floodways.
located within areas of special flood hazard established in FWCC 21-104(a)
are areas designated as floodways. Chapter 86.16 RCW will need to be
consulted in addition to this code. The more restrictive provisions shall apply.
Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of
floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following
provisions apply:
(1) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements,
and other development shall be prohibited unless certification by a registered
professional engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice
that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels
during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
Federal Way SMP
Appendix B
Flood Damage Prevention
Page 13 of 13
(2) Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within
designated f1oodways, except for (a) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to
a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (b) repairs,
reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed
50 percent of the market value of the structure either (1) before the repair, or
reconstruction is started, or (2) if the structure has been damaged, and is being
restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure
to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official
and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to
structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent.
(3) If subsection (1) of this section is satisfied, all new construction and
substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction
provisions of FWCC 21-110, Provisions for flood hazard reduction.
M. Critical facility.
Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located
outside the limits of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) (100-year floodplain).
Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no
feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA
shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the
500-year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should
also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing
measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by
or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the
base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent
possible.
SECTION 6
Federal Way
Shoreline Master Program
Update
DRAFT Restoration Plan
SMA Grant No. G0600119
December 2006
Revised May 2007
Prepared For:
City of Federal Way
Federal Way, WA
PREPARED By:
ESA Adolfson
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Ste 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
206.789.9658
IUI
a.II1II
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Table of Contents
1.0 INTR 0 D U CTI ON ......... ............... ...... ........... ....... .................. .... ......... ............................... .......... ......... 2
REGULATORY BACKGROUND........... .........................................................................................................3
DEFINING RESTORATION........................................................................................................................... 3
KEY ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION PLANNING IN THE SMP UPDATE PROCESS.........................................4
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE FUN CTI 0 NS ...........................................................:...................5
WATERSHED CONTEXT ............ ............ ..................................................................................................... 5
PHYSICAL & BIOLOGICAL......................................................................................................... ................ 5
HABITAT AND SPECIES....................................................................................................... ............. .......... 7
LAND USE AND PUBLIC ACCESS............................................................................................... ................7
RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES. ................................................................................................ ........... ..... 8
3.0 D EVELO PING RESTO RA TI ON GOALS AND POLICIES ...........................................................9
FEDERAL WAY SMP UPDATE - RESTORATION GOALS AND POLICIES ........ .........................................:9
4.0 EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS......................................... .......................................11
REGIONAL PROGRAMS....... ................................ ............................. .............. .................... ..... .11
Puget Sound Partnership ................................................................. .............................................11
Puget Sound Action Team: 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservat' Plan....................................... 12
Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PSNP)............................... ..................................................13
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: Draft Puget Sound Sal ..................................................13
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Forum: Salmo ..................................................14
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9: Priori' tio es of WRIA9 for Juvenile
Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration.. ..................................................14
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 Fo ..................................................15
Cascade Land Conservancy ............................. ..................................................15
COUNTY AND CITY PROGRAMS........ .............................................15
King County Shoreline Master Pr ..................................................15
King County Lake Stewardshi ..................................................15
City of Federal Way Swface ..................................................16
ADDITIONAL OR NEEDED PR ..............................................17
5.0 IMPLEMENT A T ...................................................................17
IDENTIFY RESTO ES ............................................................17
PROGRAMMATIC ........................................................ ......... ..18
City of Federal ...........................................................................18
WRIA 9 Habitat ..................................................................................19
SITE-SPECIFIC R TIO .................................................................... ......... .20
Puget Sound M, .................................................................................................20
Freshwater Lak .......................................................................... ........................ 24
FUNDING AND P S ........................................................................ ......... ..... ..24
Puget Sound Ac ........................................................................................................... 25
Puget Sound Wi estoration Grant Program ..................................................................25
Salmon Recove 'SRFB).......................................................................................................... 25
King County Co Dl ict.................................................................................................................... 25
NOAA Commun Restoration Program ................................................................................................26
Federal Way Su ter Management CIP..................................................................................................26
Other Possible g Sources ................... ............................................ ........... ........ ...................................... 26
TIMELINES AND CHMARKS ............................................................................................................. ..27
MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT............................................................................... ........ .27
6.0 CON CL U SI ON S ........... ................ ......... ...... ..... ...... ....................... ............. ...... ....... ..... ......... ......... ..... 28
REFERENCE S ........ ....... ......... ................ ...... .......... ....... ................ ............ ..... ....... ............. ...................... 29
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update ~ DRAFT Restoration Plan
1.0 Introduction
Incorporated in 1990, the City of Federal Way is the sixth largest city in the State of Washington.
The City is located 25 miles south of downtown Seattle and eight miles north of downtown
Tacoma. The City of Federal Way is located in the southwestern comer of King County, and
occupies approximately 22.5 square miles of area, including Puget Sound waterfront to the west
(Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The City is bordered to the north by the City of Des Moines, to the
east by King County, and to the south by the City of Fife and Pierce County.
The City (and its Potential Annexation Area to the east) includes nearly 17 miles of marine and
freshwater lake shorelines subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA or the Act) as
"shorelines of the state." The SMA (RCW 90.58) is charged with balancing how shorelines
should be developed, protected, and restored. The Act has three broad olicies or mandates; it
strives to: 1) encourage water-dependent uses, 2) protect shoreline I resources, and 3)
promote public access. In addition, restoration planning is an im omponent ofthe
environmental protection policy of the Act.
the SMA and the City's
lude the lower Puget Sound
e significance." Several
s. These are Steel Lake,
horeline Planning Areas).
The City has two main types of water bodies that are r
SMP: marine coastal, and freshwater lakes. The Cit
marine coastal shoreline, which is designated a "sho
freshwater lakes also fall under SMA regulaf wit
North Lake and the northwestern shore ofL ill
Further, the City of Federal Way ha
Interstate 5 corridor for future a
Area (PAA). The city's SMP
annexes to the city. Lakes su
Lake, Lake Dolloff, L
The freshwater lake
the P AA are curre
Federal Way regul
east ofthe City and the
the Potential Annexation
ective in the area until it
the City's PAA include Star
e remai g portions of Lake Killamey.
the state." Lakes or portions thereof in
MP. There are no rivers or streams in
This report suppo
Shoreline Master
comply with the S
Administrative Co
guidelines specify
"real and meaning
how the policies i
places where such
characterization 0
are required to co
SMP and other re
element to the City of Federal Way's
d ted in 1999. The SMP is being updated to
0.58), and the state's SMP guidelines (Washington
II), which went into effect in 2003. The SMP
ts must include within their shoreline master program, a
address restoration of shorelines. The guidelines also specify
ote "restoration" of impaired shoreline ecological functions, in
s are found to have been impaired based on the inventory and
ne ecological functions and ecosystem processes. Local governments
te to restoration by planning for and supporting restoration through the
atory and non-regulatory programs.
This report provides a framework to: 1) understand how restoration of ecological function can be
accomplished; and 2) suggest pathways to use the SMP process to accomplish the restoration of
2
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
impaired shoreline functions associated with the Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way and
seven freshwater lakes in the City and/or its P AA.
Regulatory Background
The restoration plan is an important component of the SMP process under the new guidelines.
As such, local governments must develop provisions" . . . to achieve overall improvements in
shoreline ecological functions over time when compared to the status upon adoption of the
master program."
It is important to note that the restoration planning component of the SMP is voluntary, not
regulatory. Restoration planning is focused on incentives, available funding sources, volunteer
programs, and other programs that can contribute to a no net loss strategy.
Through numerous references to and emphas
restoration, and preservation of "fragi/e" sh
health, " "the land and its vegetation a wi/
life," "ecology," and "environment," ct
environment an essential statewide
goals of the act (WAC 173-
to shoreline ecological
acts resulting from
en, and continues to be,
To date, restoration, rehabilitation, enhancement or other improve
functions have either been voluntary or in the form of mitigatio
development. Conservation or preservation of existing con
the primary regulatory approach to protecting ecosystem
ance, protection,
esources, " "public
and their aquatic
of the shoreline
h the other policy
Current guidelines for updati
pathway to include the impro
master program. The
environmental impa
a planning and policy
of the overall shoreline
pproach (i.e., mitigation for
. For counti
functions,
restoratio
with impaired ecological
nd policies that provide for
tions (WAC 173-26-186(8)(c)).
The guidelines to
e master programs further state:
The goal 0
when impl
resources
201 (c)).
Defining Res
rograms which include planning elements that,
o prove the overall condition of habitat and
line area of each city and county (WAC 173-26-
There are numerous definitions for "restoration" in scientific and regulatory publications.
Specific elements ofthese definitions often differ, but the core element of repairing damage to an
existing, degraded ecosystem remains consistent. In the SMP context, the WAC defines
"restoration" or "ecological restoration" as:
3
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
" ... the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or
functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to,
revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic
materials. Restoration does not imply a requirementfor returning the shoreline area to
aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions " (WAC 173-26-020(27)).
Using the WAC definition of restoration in regards to state shorelines, it is clear the effort should
be focused on specific shoreline areas where natural ecological functions have been impaired or
degraded. The emphasis in the WAC is to achieve overall improvement in existing shoreline
processes or functions, if these functions are impaired. Therefore, the goal is not to restore
historically natural conditions, but rather to improve on existing, degraded conditions. In this
context, restoration can be broadly implemented through a combination of programmatic
measures (such as surface water management; water quality improvement; public education) and
site-specific projects (such as beach nourishment projects or riparian tings). It is important
to note that the guidelines do not state that local programs should d require individual
permittees to restore past damages to an ecosystem as a conditi rmit for new
development (Ecology, 2004). The restoration planning ele d therefore focuses on
the City as a whole rather than parcel by parcel, or permi
· Through development 0
areas, impaired ecolo .
. Establish overal
ecological fu
. Identify ex
which are
programs (
. Identify ad
implement
projects an
. Identify ti
and achiev
Update Process
Key Elements of Restoration Planning
The guidelines provide a framework for shor
jurisdictions shoreline master program. Thi
following key elements:
g as part of a local
26-201 (2)(f)) includes the
rization, identify degraded
or ecological restoration;
ed areas and impaired
s that are currently being implemented
on goals (such as capital improvement
s (WRIA habitat/recovery plans);
needed to achieve local restoration goals, and
dentifying prospective funding sources for those
· Provide fo
be implem
proj ects an
c arks for implementing restoration projects and programs
tion goals;
is s or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will
cording to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the
grams in meeting the overall restoration goals (e.g., monitoring).
The following sections ofthis report discuss these subjects as they relate to the City of Federal
Way Shoreline Master Program.
4
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
2.0 Assessment of Shoreline Functions
Shoreline restoration planning begins with the identification of "degraded areas" or areas with
"impaired ecological functions." The City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
(Adolf son, 2006) examined nearshore and ecosystem-wide processes that maintain shoreline
ecological functions; identified impaired ecological functions; and identified programmatic and
site-specific opportunities for restoration and/or enhancement. Key findings of the inventory and
characterization are summarized below.
Watershed Context
The City of Federal Way is located within two watersheds or Water Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIAs) - the Duwamish-Green River WRIA No.9 and the Puyallup- ite River WRIA 10
(Figure 3, Regional Context). The marine coastal areas ofPuget So ithin the city as well as
Steel Lake and Star Lake and Lake Dolloff in the city's PAA are ed as part ofWRIA 9.
Lands within the City that drain to the Puget Sound to the we ill Creek and the lower
Green River to the east lie within the WRIA 9 watershed. the northern portions of
the City and Potential Annexation Area (P AA).
The majority ofthe Federal Way area lies within
or to Hylebos Creek. North Lake, Lake Genev L
southwest. The White River drains to the P p
Commencement Bay. The Hylebos flows t ou
Waterway at Commencement Bay.
s to either the White River
Five Mile Lake drain to the
ring Puget Sound at
d enters the Hylebos
Shoreline Planning areas or re
characterization as shown in
determined based upon land :6
current land uses. In 1,
to those within the
Bluffs, beaches, b
coastal / nearshor
modified with ripr
amount of sedime
and loss of some
sediments across t
natural supply and
the nearshore area
more natural cond
shoreline depend
populations.
1 shwater streams characterize the City's
40 percent of the City's coastal shoreline has been
lkheads. Structures in the shoreline can limit the
and areas to the beach, and are known to cause erosion
s and fine gravel beaches. Currents naturally move
ongshore in continual cycles, but these structures interrupt the
o of sediments, causing a change in sediment composition within
ver, coastal shoreline in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park are in a
nd coastal processes are less altered. Fish and wildlife that utilize the
ese nearshore processes to maintain their habitats and ultimately their
5
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Areas
From the city limits boundary with Des
Coastal 1.67 Moines on Puget Sound, near 1 sl Avenue
Puget Green South, extending west to Dumas Bay
River lA
Sound - 9
East
Coastal 1.43
Puget IB
Sound - 9
Dumas Ba
Coastal 1.74 xtending west to the city
Puget lC with Pierce County,
Sound - 9 sh Point State Park
West
limits, west ofI-5.
Steel Lake 9 2
st portion of the city's
Star Lake 9 3 ndary with City of Kent
Lake 9
Dolloff
Lake
Geneva
North
Lake
Lake Partially in the city limits, partially in the
Killarney southeast portion of the city's PAA, east ofI-
5 and SR 18.
Five Mile In the southeast portion of the city's PAA,
Lake near Military Road.
16.93 A total of 4.84 miles ofPuget Sound
Total shoreline and approximately 12.09 miles of
lake shoreline.
6
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
The freshwater lakes in the City are located on a broad plateau in the eastern half of the City and
in the P AA. The plateau developed from glacial recessional deposits and tills. As the glaciers
melted, lakes formed in the scour areas. Lakes in the City drain to five main drainage basins
including I) the Puget Sound, 2) the Green River, 3) Mill Creek, 4) the White River, 5) and the
Hylebos. Lake shorelines have been modified with bulkheads and other bank protection, but also
have significant areas of natural shoreline conditions. On Steel Lake, Star Lake and Five Mile
Lake, approximately 20 to 50 percent of the shoreline has been modified with bulkheads.
Shoreline modifications are less frequently occurring on the remaining lakes.
Habitat and Species
The City's coastal and freshwater shorelines are used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial
species including salmonids and other fish, birds, mammals, and a wide variety of invertebrates.
Of special interest are areas that provide habitat for federally listed sp, es and species of local
importance (primarily nearshore areas), including bull trout (threa , Chinook salmon
(threatened), coho salmon, as well as great blue heron nest site fish such as surf smelt
and sand lance (prey for salmonids) spawn on local beaches eds are also present
along the City's coastal/nearshore areas, specifically ne State Park and in the
northern end of Dumas Bay and northward. Dumas has been identified as a
pocket estuary with regional importance within the e habitat.
The major land us
homes, parks, and
residential, which
facilities occupy I
Dumas Bay Park,
for fishing, hiking
vide salmonid habitat or
general habitat for
of Federal Way and the
is important for
oe's Creek, Mill Creek,
The freshwater shoreline lakes within the Ci
habitat for federally listed species. Howeve
waterfowl, trout, and other aquatic species i
lakeshore residents. Also, good w ual'
downstream salmonid habitat i su
Lakota Creek, and the Green
shore shoreline are single-family
mon shoreline use is single-family
oreline. Parks and public recreational
These uses include Dash Point State Park,
verty Bay Park. These areas provide opportunities
Land uses along t a akes are primarily single-family residential and public
parks. Single-fam se occupies between 55 and 80 percent of the shoreline on
most lakes, with t 0 fNorth Lake (35 percent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent).
Parks, boat ramps, lic facilities occupy 9 to 39 percent of the lake shorelines. Public
access to the lakes via parks including Steel Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, Lake
Killamey Park an e Mile Lake Park, as well as several boat ramps owned by Washington
Department ofFis and Wildlife. Parks and open space areas within Federal Way are shown on
Figure 4 (Parks and Open Space).
7
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Restoration Opportunities
Programmatic restoration opportunities include restoration of public properties, coordination
with the City's Surface Water Management Division, public education and outreach programs to
provide technical guidance for shoreline homeowners, and the possibility for incentive-based or
community-based restoration on private property. Opportunities for enhancing public awareness
and education will include installation of informational kiosks at public parks and waterfront use
areas. The City will also continue to coordinate with King County, the Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 forum, and other regional or Puget Sound-wide planning efforts to
implement identified restoration policies and actions.
Opportunities for site-specific habitat enhancement or restoration of shoreline ecological
functions (primarily in the marine shoreline) have been identified in the shoreline inventory and
characterization report based upon watershed information and field s es conducted by the
WRIA groups. In the coastal Puget Sound areas, restoration focu removal of abandoned
creosote pilings, debris and concrete from the shoreline. Resto he coastal shoreline also
focuses on bulkhead replacement with soft-shore armoring f native marine riparian
plantings. These site-specific projects will provide small efforts toward habitat
enhancement and restoration of impaired ecological
lcally studied. WRIA
n of nearshore marine
tified through the shoreline
ore riparian areas with
rove and maintain water
these lakes is important to
ent ofthe lakes by
. In the freshwater lakes, restoration opportunitie
information for these lakes is lacking due to .
habitats. However, restoration opportunitie
inventory and characterization. These inclu
native vegetation, removal or repla nt
quality in the lakes, and remov
downstream native salmonid
lakeshore residents and by th
8
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
3.0 Developing Restoration Goals and Policies
The guidelines provide that local shoreline master programs shall include "goals, policies and
actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions." Under the guidelines,
restoration planning has a purpose distinct from development regulations and mitigation
standards. "The guidelines expressly focus restoration requirements on the use of master
program policies, as opposed to development regulations" (Ecology 2004). "Master program
provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions
over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program" (WAC 173-26-
201 (2)(f)).
Federal Way SMP Update - Restoration Goals and Policies
Goall. D
to resolve
shoreline
ection 2.8.5 ofthe
and Use Designations
. The existing SMP
reline habitat and
rvation Element of the SMP
ement, or restoration of
itat.
The existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP) goals and policies ar
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). This is a subsection
section (Section 2.8) ofthe Land Use Chapter ofthe Compre
does not contain specific goals and policies related to resto
ecological functions. However, some policy statements .
and in Chapter 9, Natural Environment, address pres
shoreline features such as natural vegetation and fis
SMP goals and policies should be consisten
Plan. The following potential goals, objecti
been integrated with amendments to the Co
Restoration." The language draft ow
policies for restoration. It is g oc
regional plans and programs; nit
shorelines; and 3) volun 0 b
4) public education 0 i
structure and org
the City's Comprehensive
o shoreline restoration have
named "Conservation and
ng proposed goals and
: 1) coordination with
rivate property along the
n oppo ies on private property and
ed to be generally consistent with the
Ian elements.
Shoreline Restor
shoreline function
development activ
s and encourages restoration of
e been impaired as a result of past
with other jurisdictions, tribes and interested parties
ting shoreline ecological functions while also protecting
1. 0 work with the State, King County, Watershed Resource Inventory
IA) 9, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to
exp re how local governments can contribute to the preservation of ecological
processes and shoreline functions.
9
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
2. Continue to work with the WRIA 9 to restore shoreline habitats and shoreline
functions that support listed endangered and threatened species, as well as other
anadromous fisheries.
Goal 2. Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats, functions and
processes on private and publicly owned lands.
Policies:
1. Prioritize restoration and enhancement first based upon the greatest net ecological
benefit, as compared to the project cost.
2. Focus restoration and conservation activities on public parks and open space lands
for public enjoyment.
3. Work with owners of other publicly owned land such
to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, .
ashington State Parks
ing funding strategies.
4. Work with the public and other interested partie
opportunities identified in Shoreline Invento
5. Promote shoreline vegetation restoratio
nonnative species, to enhance marine
6. Promote shoreline vegetation re
accelerated erosion.
7. Develop a program to imple
strategies.
8. Monitor and ada
tize restoration
cterization Report.
rol of invasive weeds and
hwater lake shore habitats.
hazard of slope failures or
including funding
are identified by the
1.
ss potential shoreline degradation and
ity.
2.
impairments to shoreline functions through
riate.
3.
s with broad ecological benefit will be given greater weight or
ts with localized benefits.
e voluntary restoration projects in degraded shoreline environments.
Polici
1. Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise attractive for
development proposals to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into
development projects.
10
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
2. Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation
through incentives and non-regulatory programs.
3. Promote bioengineering and/or soft engineering alternative design approaches to
shoreline stabilization aIld provide technical guidance to shoreline landowners.
4. Establish public education materials to provide shoreline landowners technical
assistance about the benefits of native vegetation plantings.
5. Identify and pursue funding sources for shoreline restoration actions on private
lands.
GoalS. Provide ample opportunity for the public to learn about the ecological aspects
and community values of the City's shorelines.
Policies:
1. Explore opportunities with other educational or
develop an on-going program of shoreline ed
2. Identify areas where kiosks and interpre
experience of users of the shoreline.
3. Develop strategies to fund these roje
s and agencies to
11 ages.
4.0 Existing Plans
A number of regional and Pu
water resource manage
and programs provi
At the end ofthis
These plans and p
The goals, policie
consistent with thi
regIOn.
en developed to address
abitat re ery. These existing plans
in some cases, funding mechanisms.
ny additional programs is offered.
1 (county and city) plans and programs.
tion plan should coordinate and be
ion and restoration work in the Puget Sound
Regional Pro
The following reg
shorelines and sal
are in place with the overall goal to restore Puget Sound marine
Pu et Sound P
In December 2005 overnor Gregoire formed the Puget Sound Partnership to focus attention on
the overall needs and health ofPuget Sound and to promote public education and interagency
coordination for clean up of the Sound. The vision of the new Partnership is:
11
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
To ensure that the Puget Soundforever will be a thriving natural system, with clean
marine and freshwaters, healthy and abundant native species, natural shorelines and
places for public enjoyment, and a vibrant economy thatprospers in productive harmony
with a healthy Sound.
At the direction of the Governor, the Puget Sound Partnership drafted recommendations for
preserving and restoring Puget Sound and its species and habitats. A summary ofthose
recommendations was released on October 13, 2006, along with a full report to the state
legislature, congress and Governor. The recommendations include a 2020 Action Agenda with
overarching goals and outcomes for a healthy Sound. The Partnership proposing eight priorities
needed to conserve and restore Puget Sound; these are:
1. Protect existing habitat and prevent further losses.
2. Restore the amount and quality of habitat, and reduce fragm ntation.
3. Significantly reduce toxics entering Puget Sound fresh arine waters.
4. Significantly reduce pollution from human and ani in fresh and marine
waters.
5. Improve water quality and habitat by managi
6. Provide water for people, fish and wildlifi
7. Protect ecosystem biodiversity and recov
8. Build and sustain our capacity fo
This renewed focus on the health of the Pu
wide funding for restoration ofPuget Soun
.
t in an increase in state-
Pu et Sound Action Team"
Plan
rvation & Recove
The Puget Sound Act'
Washington State'
Sound Action Te
Action Team pa
tribal, federal and
and restoration of
es, coor nates and implements
d. The legislature created the Puget
partnership for Puget Sound. The
agencies and representatives from
nsibilities and authorities for conservation
Every two years t
provides a total of
areas:
ops a plan to guide their work. The 2005-2007 plan
ough state agency budgets to address eight priority
.
g toxic contamination and prevent future contamination;
from stormwater runoff;
· Reduce t
· Prevent nutrient and pathogen pollution caused by human and animal wastes;
· Hood Canal: a geographic priority for 2005-2007;
· Protect shorelines and other critical areas that provide important ecological functions;
12
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update ~ DRAFT Restoration Plan
. Restore degraded nearshore and freshwater habitats; and
. Conserve and recover orca, salmon, forage fish, and groundfish (PSAT, 2005).
Each of these priorities is applicable to Federal Way with the exception of Hood Canal.
PUQet Sound Nearshore Proiect (PSNP)
The Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP) (also referred to as the Puget Sound Nearshore
Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)) is a large-scale, multi-agency initjative to address
habitat restoration needs in the Puget Sound basin. Nearshore Project goals are to identify
significant ecosystem problems, evaluate potential solutions, and restore and preserve critical
nearshore habitat. PSRP represents a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), state and federal government organizations, Indian tribes, industries and environmental
organizations.
. Providing marshes, mudflats, and beach
. Removing, moving and modifying
gates, etc.);
. Using alternative measures
. Restoring estuaries and
2000; PSNP, 2002).
y Corps of Engineers
ore habitat and the
ns that would be central in
A General Investigation Reconnaissance Study conducted by
in 2000 (USACOE, 2000) identified a direct link between h
physical condition of the shoreline. The study identified
restoring nearshore processes to a more natural state:
and gravel materials;
ads, rip rap, dikes, tide
and flooding; and
s and kelp beds (USACOE,
PSNERP also provid
restoration princip
Shared Strate
ound Salmon Recove Plan
Shared Strategy .fl
stakeholders and r
initiated as a resul
Sound region. Sh
to build a practica
watersheds of Pug
e is a collaborative effort between local
nd restore salmon runs across Puget Sound that was
ct (ESA) listings of salmonid species in the Puget
ocal citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers
very plan endorsed by the people living and working in the
Shared Strategy h ped a draft salmon recovery plan (Shared Strategy, 2005) that
provides a bluepri almon recovery strategies throughout Puget Sound and incorporates, by
reference, local w ed plans for salmon recovery. Amongst other strategies described in the
draft plan, Shared trategy describes their 'Top 10 Actions Needed for Salmon Recovery', many
of which have additional beneficial impacts for humans.
13
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan
The city is a participating local agency in WRIA 9 watershed planning. After several years of
planning and scientific study, WRIA 9 recently completed the Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9,
2005). The plan is both broad in scope and specific in recommendations for protection,
enhancement, and restoration of habitat along the Green River and Puget Sound coastal
shorelines. The plan identifies needs and includes recommended policies, programs, and
projects for both the entire watershed and the sub watersheds (Middle and Lower Green River)
within the City of Federal Way. Identified needs for the nearshore and lower watershed which
are relevant to the City include:
· Encourage nearshore property owners to continue the replacement of creosote pilings
and structures with non-creosote alternatives as well as the removal of obsolete /
abandoned facilities that contain significant amounts of creos d wood; and
· Actively feed beaches, where appropriate, with sediment there is a lack of
sediment due to interrupted supply from bulkheads or s of shoreline armoring
(WRIA 9, 2005).
As part of the
habitat protection
and Central Puget
The study used ha
habitat action area
rehabilitation, and
Restoration action
nearshore area, an
· Prevention of future and reduction of curren
· Promotion oflow-impact development thro
· Restoration of fish passage on tribu
· A focus on reducing non-point poll
· Maintenance of minimal s
Green-Duwamish River;
tream salmonid habitats.
Marine Shorelines of
storation
Based upon this
shoreline include:
undertaken to identify and prioritize
e shorelines of the Green / Duwamish
of Federal Way (Anchor, May 2006).
ne shoreline habitats and select priority
prioritization process. Priority conservation,
identified for WRIA 9 using a GIS model approach.
scales: first, at the extent ofthe entire WRIA
t of each of 12 subareas within the study area.
overall habitat needs and goals for the Federal Way marine
onserving the shoreline sediment supply through protection of feeder
· conserving and restoring tributary mouths and marshes present in Dumas Bay.
14
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
These were identified as important habitat needs within the WRIA 9 nearshore environment due
to the location of Dumas Bay and the bay's potential to provide marsh and pocket estuary habitat
for feeding and refuge of salmonids.
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan
Federal Way lakes also drain to the White River and the Hylebos, within WRIA 10. A Salmon
Habitat Plan has not yet been developed for WRIA 10; however a framework for plan
completion has been developed. Pierce County is acting as the lead agency for WRIA 10, with
King County and other basin jurisdictions, including the City of Auburn, providing support. The
framework for plan completion can be found in the Pierce County chapter of the Tri-County 4{ d)
Rule submittal. Upon completion, the WRIA 10 Salmon Habitat Plan will provide broad and
specific goals and recommendations for protection, enhancement, and storation of habitat
throughout the basin. An existing document, The Salmon Habitat P tion and Restoration
Strategy (Pierce County, 2005), provides initial assessment and s initial
recommendations and actions for WRIA 10.
King County is up
The County is cu
address the lake s
developing its rest
should coordinate
the P AA, as well
Cascade Land Conservancy
The Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) seeks to con
the Central Puget Sound region, including ar hro
natural areas include lands along streams, ri oth
areas. The CLC conservation strategies ha ud
donation, conservation easements, own
completed 139 projects that hav e
Although no CLC protected I t1
landscapes may provide cons p
ral natural spaces within
Pierce Counties. Priority
scade foothills, and estuary
through purchase and
1989, the CLC has
% in King County).
ederal Way, the shoreline
The following cou
restoration and/or
which provide guidance for lakeshore
e.
er Program concurrent with the cities in the County.
Its shoreline inventory and characterization, which will
the Federal Way's PAA. In 2007, King County will be
shorelines within unincorporated county lands. The City
lth 'ng County for restoration opportunities identified for lakes in
gional collaboration in restoration with WRIAs 9 and 10.
King County Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, has conducted
volunteer lake monitoring for all of the larger lakes in King County since the 1980s. The
monitoring was continuous on many of these lakes during the period from the mid 1990's to
15
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
2004. Lakes within the City of Federal Way were part of this program until 2004, when the City.
took over water quality monitoring. Monitoring data included watershed mapping, bathymetric
mapping, mapping of aquatic vegetative communities, and water quality data.
The City should coordinate efforts with King County for shoreline restoration opportunities on
lakes currently within the City's PAA. Lake characteristics and health are summarized in the
King County Lake Monitoring Report for Year 2004
(http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/).
City of Federal Way Surface Water ManaQement Division
The City's Surface Water Management Program is guided by the Surface Water Facilities Plan
(1994) and the City's Comprehensive Plan (2002). The Surface Water Management Division
(SWM) is responsible for the comprehensive management of the City' urface water systems.
This involves protecting developed and undeveloped properties fro oding, runoff and water
quality problems, while continuing to accommodate new develo he SWM Division also
promotes the preservation of natural drainage systems, protec . ery resources and
wildlife habitat. The City's Surface Water Capital Improv identifies, funds, and
implements site-specific projects intended to provide alleviation, improve and
enhance riparian habitat, replace culverts to improv nd improve water quality
from stormwater runoff. The Surface Water Manag program is currently
focused on stream resources, with limited e sis lakes and marine
shorelines.
An example of stream restoration 0
Restoration. This project, comp
creek from SW 320th Street d
Center. The project was desi
stream channel. Fish p. e
woody debris was i
shrubs and trees.
of Lakota Creek, J
stream restoration
stream flow, and e
is the Lakota Creek
and west branch of the
t Plant near Dumas Bay
d restore the natural
wning els were placed, and large
vasive plants were replaced with native
restoration projects on the East Branch
hile not specifically in the shoreline,
rotect and restore water quality, natural
contribute to the health ofPuget Sound.
t ealth and protection ofHylebos Creek and its associated
s Wetlands. This group is a local non-government organization
r d active in both stream and wetland restoration projects within
nformation on this organization may be found at
16
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Additional or Needed Programs
An additional or expanded City program is needed to coordinate shoreline restoration
opportunities within Federal Way. While restoration along the Puget Sound coastal shoreline has
been identified by the WRIA 9 work, restoration opportunities within the freshwater lakes has
not been formally identified by regional or watershed programs. Current programs on the lakes
are focused on water quality, aquatic weed removal, and public education. Further, the City's
Stormwater CIP program does not specifically address restoration within marine coastal areas of
Puget Sound, but focuses on freshwater restoration, specifically streams and salmonid habitat. A
new citywide program or an expanded CIP program is needed, which focuses on restoration in
both the coastal marine shorelines and freshwater lake shorelines.
I) Restoration
master pro
the shoreli
2) Restoratio
have been
more detailed site-specific
timing ofprojects.
relines in Federal Way
tation section is intended to
ith guidance for SMP
5.0 Implementation
The implementation portion of restoration planning typic
information than is available at this time, especiallyw'
However, potential projects and priorities have been
based upon the WRIA studies and other information.
provide information about the implementatio pro
development (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi)).
Identify Restoration and
The following SMA concepts
restoration opportunities:
verarching goal that local shoreline
ndition of habitat and resources within
s where shoreline ecological functions
opment activities.
In Federal Way, b
restoration or enh
(e.g., WRIA 9Sal
Inventory and Ch
prioritizes the pre
undertaking both
restoration.
Conservation of s elines is also included in this restoration plan. Conservation refers to
preserving existing shoreline areas that currently provide valuable functions. An important part
of any good habitat protection plan is protecting priority ecological processes and habitats that
have not been degraded or impaired. Conservation opportunities in the City's shoreline are
-specific opportunities for shoreline
nities have been identified by regional plans
d related studies) and the City's Shoreline
dolfson, 2006). This section of the Restoration Plan
en led opportunities and outlines City commitment to
atic and project-specific measures to accomplish shoreline
17
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
primarily provided through WRIA 9 studies and are intermixed with restoration opportunities for
marine shorelines. Conservation of shorelines will also be addressed in the City's shoreline
regulations.
Programmatic Restoration
. City of Federal Way Restoration ProQram
To organize and implement protection and restoration measures, Federal Way will establish a
City Restoration Program, which targets and directs aquatic habitat protection and restoration
opportunities within the jurisdiction. Thisprogram will implement stream and wetland
restoration, which is currently occurring through the Surface Water Management Utility, as well
as restoration for freshwater lakes and Puget Sound coastal shoreline areas. The program will
either be integrated into the existing Surface Water Management Utili or be established as a
stand-alone program. This program will be charged with integrati cooperation with the
WRIA 9 and 10 committees, and King County, to identify fund' unities and collaborate
on watershed projects. The new or expanded program will b e for:
Coordination with and leveraging of re
s and organizations;
1)
2)
3)
4)
Identification of restoration opportuni
freshwater lakes;
Prioritization and selection 0
5) Implementatio
6) of restoration projects.
In addition to, and
Inventory and Ch
form of public ed
pportunities the City's Shoreline
led programmatic opportunities in the
ctions and values:
a)
reness at the Federal Way shoreline parks and
eifront. Informational kiosks may be erected at
cess locations in the City. The kiosks will serve to
o Importance ofthe nearshore area and coastal processes,
tio, on what people can do to help preserve or improve what
'bing existing wildlife viewing opportunities, A good example
lOsk can be found at Dash Point State Park.
b) assistance and public outreach for riparian planting enhancement or
tation. This program will be developed in concert with the "toolbox"
pr am described above as part of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. The
program will develop specific technical assistance for appropriate plantings in
marine riparian zones, lakeshores and along freshwater streams that discharge to
Puget Sound in the City of Federal Way.
18
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
c) Distribution of public education material. Residential property owners will
receive printed material emphasizing stewardship, natural processes and native
plantings, such as a blueprint for a lake-friendly landscape and a Puget Sound
shoreline stewardship guidebook.
WRIA 9 Habitat Plannina
The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan recommends development of several programs relevant to the
City of Federal Way shoreline master program update. The programs will be developed by King
County in coordination with local jurisdictions and could be implemented at the local level by
the County or by the City of Federal Way. The city will continue to support and participate in
the development of these programs, which will be administered by the "ty's new or expanded
shoreline restoration program. The program under consideration ar .
1. Promote Habitat Restoration on Private Property by
Nearshore Habitat Project Designs. This progra
on private property by creating a "toolbox" of
restoration actions. Types of actions could i
armoring and/or derelict structures, and reha
program would provide technical ass' ce
incentives to encourage voluntary r tio
2. Create a Soft Armoring Technical
would promote voluntary em
(concrete/riprap/woode ad
appropriate and feasi
property's unique ch
provided in A ti
2000). Th
type of pr
or incenti
processes
feeder blu
Blueprint of
ote voluntary restoration
design and shoreline
f unneeded shoreline
"ne riparian vegetation. The
d would seek to develop
ate property.
re Program. This program
horeline armoring
. ng techniques where
ite to site depending on the
ase stud d example designs are
for Pu et Sound Shorelines (Ecology,
would most directly benefit from this
d Puget Sound West. Public education
ld help restore natural shoreline
Itats and formerly important reaches of
c., in Adolfson, 2005), as well as other sites.
itoring Program. This program would offer an
th biologists and participate in data gathering to better
spawning areas.
ram to Remove Relict Structures from Intertidal areas. This
o sed on reclaiming intertidal habitat located beneath relict
old pier footings and failed erosion control structures. Opportunities to
ctures are found throughout the Federal Way shores, and are most
uget Sound East.
3.
4. Create an
program
structures
remove s
abundant i
19
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Site-Specific Restoration and Conservation
The City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolf son, 2006) evaluated and described
how shoreline ecological functions have been impaired in the City of Federal Way and identified
site-specific opportunities for shoreline restoration, enhancement, and conservation.
PUQet Sound Marine Shorelines
Site-specific restoration opportunities for the coastal shorelines have been identified through
WRIA 9 planning efforts (Anchor, 2006; Coastal Geologic Services, Inc., 2005). These
restoration opportunities focus on Dumas Bay due to its overall importance to salmonid habitat
within the nearshore environment. These high priority nearshore restoration projects are
identified by WRIA 9 in the Federal Way area ofthe Puget Sound and . lustrated on Figure 5:
1. Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay.
unarmored feeder bluffs with mature marine riparian v
Dumas Bay. The sections are separated by a reach .
Nearshore habitat would be enhanced and maint .
supplies to the intertidal zone in this area.
ended sections of
ere identified west of
t the base of bluffs.
erving the sediment
2. Restore the tributary mouth at Dash
reaches ofthis creek could be restor
meanders, and restoring riparian ve
tributary mouth and lower
oring, adding channel
shoreline zone.
3. Conserve unarmored fee
bluff exists east of Dum
area would preserve t
including Dumas Bay.
extended reach of feeder
tation and the feeder bluff
ce for down drift areas,
4.
as Bay. Restoration of tributary mouth
itat and associated wetlands.
s. Restore ri
npanan ve
degraded n
operties east of Dumas Bay. Marine
fDumas Bay where native vegetation is
Coastal Geologic
during the WRIA
specific shoreline
listed as priority r
opportunities are
lower priority restoration projects in Federal Way
nt. These are described below for neighborhoods and
erties organized sequentially from east to west. While not
peets in the WRIA habitat assessment, these restoration
within the City should additional funding be procured.
However, it shoul oted that the following projects have not been assessed or ranked based
upon ecological befit to the City's shorelines. Further, feasibility studies may be required for
some ofthe projects to ensure that no critical design flaws are identified in the proposal.
20
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
· Dumas Bay RestorationlEnhancement Opportunities. Several restoration and/or
enhancement opportunities are found within the shores of Dumas Bay. Opportunities
range from recovering and restoring upper beach habitat, upland planting/marine riparian
restoration and invasive species eradication, to the removal of toxic material from the
sub-tidal to upper beach. A boulder rockery lines the City of Federal Way (Dumas Bay
Center) shoreline for approximately 860 feet between 2 creek mouths. The rockery is
currently over the upper intertidal zone and is failing in a number of places. The buildings
at Dumas Bay Center have a very large setback and the removal of all or portions of the
rockery would allow for upper beach and backshore restoration, and reestablishment of
the sediment supply from the bluffs. Portions of the bluff toe could be partially protected
from erosion by installation of soft shore protection, if the bluff toe were first graded
further landward to make space for this. However, it may be more cost effective to allow
the toe to erode naturally.
Currently much of the banks are covered with Polygonum c atum (Japanese
knotweed), which should be eradicated. Another smaller Polygonum cuspidatum
is located along the western shore of Dumas Bay and be eradicated as soon as
possible. Over 30 relict creosoted pilings and a nu oted drift logs are found
within the Bay. The toxic creosote could be re ches. These restoration
opportunities are well suited as a demonstrati 0 its location within a
public park enabling citizens to participate in d restoration such as
invasive species eradication and/or re tin s and signs describing the
restored geomorphic and ecological ide an opportunity to
engage and educate community me
· Buena Bulkhead Remov, n. Three opportunities for
bulkhead removal are ast shore segment. These
armored shore segme s, precluding sediment
from "feeding" be asure 4 ~36 and 101 feet long. The
drift cell that 'bits eastward, then northward net
shore-drift. on sediment from these bluffs to
maintain n rates. This drift cell has incurred the
greatest re in Federal Way and was identified as a
moderate! e entire WRIA 9 nearshore (Coastal
Geologic S
Removal 0 the base of these bluffs would restore the function
ofthe bluf nt source; however, bluff erosion rates may need to be
moderated ni homes residing in the upland. Following removal of
shoreline a ore protection should be used to mitigate and slow "deferred"
erosion. PI a e riparian buffer, comprised of native shrubs and trees, will also
reduce ero s as well as eventually providing large woody debris to the nearshore.
· Federal laide Bulkhead Removal. This opportunity entails removing an
unnecessa ulkhead from the backshore of an accretionary beach. The bulkhead
measures approximately 475 feet long and runs adjacent to shore, with the nearest home
set back considerably from the shore. The structure is largely aesthetic and provides no
function as erosion control. Removing the structure and restoring the upper beach and a
21
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
more natural shore profile would enhance nearshore habitats. Beach nourishment could
replace lost upper beach sediment and allow for the creation of a protective storm berm.
Dune and marine riparian plants should be planted to further enhance beach habitat, by
providing shade to the upper beach, a source of large woody debris and pollution
abatement.
· Poverty Bay/Lakota Bulkhead Removal. This accretionary (depositional) beach has
suffered considerable impact resulting from paving the upper beach for what is assumed
to be recreational or aesthetic purposes. The pavement extends across approximately 55
feet of shoreline and is roughly 16 feet in width. This paved area could be deconstructed
to improve shoreline functions. Following removal ofthe backshore pavement the upper
beach could be nourished and dune and marine riparian vegetation could be planted to
further restore nearshore processes.
· Remove Relict Structures in Intertidal Lakota - Northeast D as Bay (3 locations).
These opportunities entail removing several relict concrete es from the intertidal
beach that currently preclude access to the underlying h 0 ofthese structures
appear to also obstruct littoral transport of sediment, ause erosion of down-
drift beaches as well as degrading nearshore habi eastern-most opportunity
entails removing the relict concreted footings These footings extend from
the bulkheaded upper beach to the lower-mo central enhancement
opportunity includes removal of a large on at was likely used as a boat
ramp. This solid concrete, angular st e a 'mpeding littoral transport.
This structure also reduces alongsho e ing juvenile salmonids,
which are likely to be forced into de at e thought to be more
vulnerable to predation) to ar e nally, large boulders (4-5
feet in diameter) line th si e could be removed. Further
west there is another d 0 of the structure cover
valuable intertidal for it at ramp could be
deconstructed a associated concrete debris.
· Remove R ntertidal in Puget Sound West. This
enhancem ier pile bulkhead that is no longer
providing i 1, and a decaying barge that is
interruptin ringes on upper intertidal habitats, is
composed un s upland sediment. Coastal Geologic Services
(2005) ide high restoration priority due to its value as a
nearshore e is of considerable length and width, and is
positioned e. As a result, it both infringes on a substantial area of
intertidal nts net shore-drift along a large portion of the beach profile.
Additional e merous (15-20) car tires that are buried in intertidal sediment
from this pproximately 100 yards to the southwest. Removing these structures
would enh ngshore and cross-shore connectivity, restore feeder bluff function,
and reclai ently impacted habitats.
· Purchase and Relocate Homes at Base of Historic Feeder Bluffs. The bluffs that are
proposed for restoration are located approximately 0.6 and 0.9 miles northeast ofthe
creek mouth at Dash Point State Park or 300 feet southwest and 1100 feet northeast of the
end of 53rd Avenue SW. The bluffs are referred to as Restoration Bluffs No.1 and 2.
22
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Prior to the construction of shore modifications and homes along the base of these bluffs,
they were exceptional (historic) feeder bluffs - meaning they regularly contributed large
quantities of sediment to the nearshore (Coastal Geologic Services 2005). Shoreline
armoring and bulkheads have considerably slowed erosion rates along these bluffs, which
has likely reduced the sediment supply in this shore reach. Coastal Geologic Services
(2005) identified this area as being a high restoration priority across the entire WRIA 8
and 9 nearshore (over 121 miles of shoreline).
The shore modifications typically extend 20 or more feet from the base of the bluff;
preventing bluff sediment input into the intertidal as well as infringing on upper beach
habitat. As sea levels rise and waves scour the beach waterward of bulkheads, those
beaches will become increasingly narrow and "starved" of littoral sediment. This
eventually leads to the loss of nearshore habitats in a phenomenon referred to as "the
coastal squeeze." Relocating any hazardously positioned homes d restoring the
nearshore sediment source would restore down-drift shores educe life safety risks.
Additionally a number of creosoted logs likely associate failed bulkhead could be
removed from the upper beach.
Here it should be noted, that actions such as this
owner consent and a dedicated source offund'
. Dash Point State Park Bluff and Estuarine
removal of riprap from the lower reac
sinuosity and dune/riparian vegetati
shore protection and enhanced ripari
widened and logs could be u to c
near the bridge. These ac .
geomorphic and ecolo
quality and quantity:6
restoration actio to
bulkhead loc t
site for bir
restore nat
so addition
. toration (2004-2006). Habitat improvements include removal of fish
ons and stream restoration (e.g., creation of spawning pools; placement
ge woody debris and boulders; and bank stabilization).
. West Hylebos Restoration (2004). Habitat improvements, including the installation of
large woody debris and native plants to stabilize and restore the stream channel.
portunities include the
k and restoring channel
laced with limited soft
channel should be
the channel could migrate
plantings could enhance the
ould increase habitat
aquatic species. A second
piles an creosoted soldier pile
k. The piles also provide an opportune
onids. Simple pile removal would help
es. Several of these are creosoted piles,
ieved.
As mentioned abo
identifies and fun
underway. While
implementation w
Sound. As such, t
projects include:
nagement Capital Improvement Program
am restoration projects which are completed or
ted within the marine shoreline, their
flow regimes in key streams that discharge to Puget
g in the context of shoreline restoration planning. Key
23
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
· Joe's Creek (2006-2007). Involves widening the stream channel to alleviate flooding
and to restore fish habitat (via addition of spawning gravel, creation of eddy pools,
riparian enhancement for shade, etc.).
· Spring Valley Restoration and Bridge Replacement (2007). The Spring Valley
Restoration Project is ajoint effort between City of Federal Way and Washington
Department of Transportation, which will return approximately 1,400 feet of degraded
creek channel and pasture-land back to its natural state. The creek will be realigned to
follow a more natural, meandering path, with shade cover from native trees and shrubs.
Creating wetland areas and placing logs will provide additional habitat. A major
element of this project will be the construction of a new bridge on S. 373rd St. to
eliminate flooding across the road and improve fish and wildlife passage.
· Restoration of native lake
quality and habitat;
e not been identified on
r, lakes within Federal
comprehensive study such
r lakes to determine
ep in identifying and
Freshwater Lake Shorelines
Site-specific restoration opportunities on the City's freshwater
the ground due to limited access to private lakeshore prope
Way and its P AA have not been specifically evaluated
as the WRIA 9 or 10 efforts. Baseline studies on the
specific restoration needs and opportunities would b
implementing lakeshore restoration.
In general, restoration activities on the lake
trees) to protect water
.
.
.
Funding and
Funding opportun'
administered by st
obtain funding wil
agencies. Targeti
fish spawning enh
restoration plans/
organizations mos
io ojects include both grants and legislative funds
or potential projects in Federal Way, the greatest likelihood to
rategic partnering with King County and state and federal
g requests to sediment supply for nearshore habitats such as forage
nt or pocket estuary enhancement would fit well into the science and
ofthe organizations listed below. A few ofthese programs and
elevant to Federal Way are described below.
24
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
PUQet Sound Action Team
The state legislature has appropriated a total of approximately $182 million for state agencies
and university education programs for implementing the 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservation
and Recovery Plan (PSAT, 2005). Funding is allocated by both priority area (e.g., habitat
restoration (13 percent), stormwater (29 percent)) and state agency (e.g., Ecology, WDFW, WSU
Extension, etc.). The habitat restoration funds would be the best fit for opportunities in Federal
Way.
PUQet Sound Watershed Protection & Restoration Grant Proaram
The Environmental Protection Agency through the Washington Department of Ecology is
offering watershed grants to applicants within the 14 Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Planning
Areas. These grants are in collaboration with the Shared Strategy for E get Sound, Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife, and Puget Sound Action Team. governments, tribes,
watershed entities and non-profit groups are eligible for these gI: e focus of the grants is
to identify opportunities and barriers for the protection and re water quality, water
quantity, habitat protection and habitat restoration within und Basin.
With the listing of salmonid species under the
created the Salmon Recovery Funding Boar
and five state agency directors, the Board p
habitat and assist related activities. I ork
finance over 500 projects. The S
first five funding cycles for s
GreenlDuwamish and Central
funding sources such a
Salmon Recovery FundinQ Board (SRFB)
ct in 1999, the Legislature
ppointed by the Governor
teet or restore salmon
hed groups and has helped
ded $7.1 million during the
d assessment projects in the
ese grants build on other
aterways 2000.
The King Conserv
founded in 1949.
by the Washingto
demonstration pro
providing or point
allocates approxi
habitat protection
technical assessm
the activities ofth
forums in King C
projects and progr
Assessment, such
ry natural resources assistance agency
rized by the State of Washington and guided
is on. The District promotes conservation through
roviding technical assistance, and, in some cases,
may be available for projects. The WRIA 9 Forum
i g Conservation District funds annually to support
projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential
comes from a countywide $5 per parcel assessment that funds
nervation District as well as projects through other watershed
eginning in 2005, the highest priority for WRIA 9 KCD funding is
at are informed by the watershed Habitat Plan and the Strategic
the pocket estuary restoration projects.
25
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
NOAA Community-Based Restoration ProQram
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service houses the Community-Based Restoration Program
(CRP), begun in 1996. The Program promotes local efforts to conduct meaningful, on-the-
ground restoration of marine, estuarine and riparian habitat. The Program provides seed money
and technical expertise to address important fishery habitat concerns. Projects are developed by
individual and civic organizations. NOAA solicits proposals for locally-driven habitat
restoration projects and works closely with communities to aid their development and
implementation. Successful projects result from significant local support, including citizens'
hands-on involvement to implement the restoration projects. Following development of a
restoration project, the "host" community subsequently monitors and maintains the site. This
model promotes stewardship and a heightened appreciation for the environment.
Federal Way Surface Water ManaQement CIP
1. Coastal Protection Account
2. Aquatic Lands Enhance
3. City Fish Passage B
Department ofTransp
4. Five-Star Res
5. Habitat Co
6. Matching
7. Non-point
Agency,
8. Pacific Gr
9. Puget Sou
10. Puget So
11. Regional
Wildlife
12. Section 20
13. Transporta
Transporta n
14. Washington State Ecosystems Conservation Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
15. Wetland Protection, Restoration, and Stewardship Discretionary Funding -
Environmental Protection Agency
am funds projects
or multi-jurisdiction
e Surface Water
uld consider adding a Puget
g sources would include
The Federal Way Surface Water Management Capital Improve
through a combination of CIP funds and grants and/or fundi
projects such as development of comprehensive basin pI
Management Program is focused on freshwater resour
Sound nearshore restoration component to its capital
grants and partnership opportunities.
Other Possible FundinQ Sources
atural Resources
n Grant Program - W A
rotection Agency
rvice Coastal Program
) - Ducks Unlimited
rogram - Environmental Protection
00
- National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
Wildlife Service
to n Program - Washington State Department of Ecology
ement Groups - Washington State Department ofFish and
ic Ecosystem Restoration Program - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
quity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) - Washington Department of
26
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
Timelines and Benchmarks
In the context ofthe SMP update, restoration planning is a long-term effort. As stated earlier, the
SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs "include planning elements
that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within
the shoreline area" (WAC 173-26-201(c)). As a long-range policy plan, it is difficult to
establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the
effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Establishing timelines is further complicated by
the fact that shoreline restoration is almost entirely dependant on grant funding, which is
unpredictable at best. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future
amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bi116012 amended the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in
the state. Once Federal Way amends its SMP (on or before December 1, 2009), the City is
required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every seve ars (RCW
90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the City should docum gress toward achieving
shoreline restoration goals. The review could include:
. Adaptivel
and securing grant funds)
those goals; and
. Re-evaluating adopted restoration goals, objecti
. Summarizing both planning efforts (includin
and on-the-ground actions undertaken in the
. Revising the SMP restoration plann'
objectives.
Another mechanism that may serv
establishment of a shoreline res
capital improvement program
would be evaluated and updat
and would be funded
improvements, co
restoration goals.
arks would be
egrated with the City's
, a shoreline restoration CIP
Monitoring a
The SMP guidelin
review the effecti
(WAC 173-26-20
Palmer et aI, 2005
approach to meeti
state that local programs should". . . appropriately
rograms in meeting the overall restoration goals"
restoration framework described previously (based on
e roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the
also It includes the following objectives:
restoration projects;
toration conditions; and
. Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities.
These core objectives have been expanded upon by regional entities focused on restoration such
as the WRIA 9 Forum and the Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). Strategic principles and
27
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
concepts intended to guide ecosystem recovery are expressed in guidance publications (PSNP,
2004) and the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2006). Relevant principles and concepts
are very briefly summarized below:
· Restoration Principles. Restoration planning should be strategic and restoration design
should be based on carefully developed goals and objectives. Follow-through, or
monitoring, should be employed, including development of performance criteria and use
of adaptive management in project development.
· Monitoring Principles. Three types of monitoring are defined: 1) implementation
monitoring to track which potential programs and projects are carried out; 2)
effectiveness monitoring to determine if habitat objectives ofthe program or project have
been achieved on the ground; and 3) validation monitoring to confirm whether proposed
restoration actions are achieving the overall goals and objective for restoration citywide.
Monitoring should be driven by specific questions, goals, an . ectives and should be
used as the basis for determining if restoration goals are t. Monitoring should be
long-term and interdisciplinary. Another component ng is information
management; data should be well documented and others.
Several watershed
forums and other
framework and pri
Federal Way. The
support WRIA pr
the identified rest
the goals and obje
focus on pursuing
the coastal shoreli
Less information i
state. Restoration
program with the
project feasibility.
· Adaptive Management Principles. Adaptiv
research and monitoring to allow projects to
risk regarding its consequences. Adapt' e m
regional or watershed scale, but can ed
about ecosystems and how they res
s a process that uses
inherent uncertainty and
t accomplished at a
to increase knowledge
derway through the WRIA 9 and 10
e existing programs provide a regional
g and implementation in the City of
n these efforts and should continue to
ed level restoration goals. Implementation of
at the WRIA level and in the City, would advance
reline functions in the City. Initial efforts will likely
pportunities, especially for restoration projects within
e he City's lakes, which are also considered shorelines of the
de al Way's lake shorelines will be included in a citywide restoration
being an initial study to evaluate restoration opportunities and assess
28
Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update - DRAFT Restoration Plan
References
Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson). 2005. City of Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization. Prepared for the City of Federal Way. Seattle, Washington.
City of Federal Way. 2005. 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan - Surface Water
Management. Federal Way, Washington.
Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach
Feeding Sources / Erosion and Accretion Areas for WRIAs 8 and 9, Appendix D:
Restoration Potentials. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and
Parks. Bellingham, Washington.
Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005. 2005-2007 P
Plan. Olympia, Washington.
Inventory Area 9
lan - Making Our
ttle, Washington.
Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Reso
Steering Committee (WRIA 9). August 2005. Salmon Ha
Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Fo
Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2002.
Fact sheet available online: www. u
und Nearshore Project.
Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2
available online: www. u e ndn
nd Concepts. Fact sheet
tion and Restoration of the
4-02 available online:
Restoration Principles. Technical
dnearshore.or
United States
Investigati
Washingto
2000. Section 905(b) Analysis: General
t Sound Nearshore, Washington. Seattle,
Washington Depa
Shoreline
Washingto
g ology). 2004. Restoration Planning and the 2003
idelines. Ecology Publication No. 04-06-022. Olympia,
29
SE 240TH tiT
V'l
:>-
<C
Figure 1
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
I Vicinity Map
~I C
M
.....
WASHINGTON STATE
t,.,.. (~~~~=~) ~~rY' t
",,~"17 '"-~-"~ '\ . j .
i,'\~OHOMI~HE~~r jtLX..v!"!'....
\-., \"(" ; . . ..-- ,.,
.,ITTlTAS i' ..." r '
~yr 1~= l~-~}[)
~.J_"'/-..):-'^'-'v"'../..........
^ 0 1 2 Miles
wi I
N Map Date: December 2006
A FT~Oderal Way
This map is accompanied by NO warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
f~
I Figure 2
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
Shoreline
Planning Areas
Legend
City of Federal Way
Potential Annexation Area
D Shoreline Planning Area
~ Puget Sound East
~ Puget Sound - Dumas Bay
CD Puget Sound West
f) Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
e Lake Geneva
e North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
6. ~ Miles
N Map Date: May 2006
This map is accompanied by NO warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
Figure 3
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
Regional
Context
Legend
c:lWRIA9&10
City of Federal Way
Other Incorporated Area
Map Source: City of Federal Way, King Count
Map Date: May, 2006
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S,
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
L\o
N I
2.5
I
5 Miles
\
This map is accompanied by NO warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
e
e
!"
(J e t
?~t?
Sou n d
e
Figure 4
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Parks and Open
Space
General Legend:
"-' Streams*
OFederal Way
Federal Way
Potential
DAnnexation Area
O Unincorporated
Area
OOther
Incorporated Area
Surface Water
. Parks
. Open Space
Map Source:
City of Federal Way,
King County
Scale:
o 0.5 1 Mile6
I I I N
Map Date: May, 2006
Shorelines:
D Shoreline
Planning Area
~ Puget Sound
~ East
~ Puget Sound -
~ Dumas Bay
~ Puget Sound
W West
f) Steel Lake
e Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
o Lake Geneva
e North Lake
o Lake Killarney
o Five Mile Lake
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave S
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063
(253) 835-7000
A Federal Way
t'
_1. . . . . ."'3ilt9~. . .
r
~ I I *
This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply
a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on
the web: www.cityoffederalway.com
e
.
PugetSound
.
Figure 5
f
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Restoration
Opportu n ities
Puget Sound
Shoreline
Legend:
"-' Streams'
[~.~j City Limits
. '. .' County Boundary
o Shoreline Planning Area
"'- Restoratioin Bluffs
~Conservation Bluffs
Map Source: City of Federal Way,
King County, Coastal Geologic Services
Seale: City of Federal Way
1 inch equals 1,650 feet 1\ 33325 8th Ave S,
o 500 1,000 W PO Box 9718,
~ N Federal Way, WA98063
=- Feel (253) 835-7000
Map Date: 1212006 \r'NNv',cityoffederalway.com
~ Federal Way
This map is accompanied by no warranties,
and is simply a graphic representation.
SECTION 7
Act
Amendment
Aquaculture
Average grade
level
Backshore
Bank
Beach
nourishment
Berm
Chapter XX - SMP Definitions
Act means chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended.
Amendment means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to the
Federal Way SMP.
Aquaculture is the farming or culturing of food fish, shellfis
animals in streams, inlets and other natural or artificial w
the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising an
animals and the maintenance and construction of n
growing areas. Cultivation methods include but
other similar apparatuses.
or other aquatic plants and
dies. Activities include
ting of aquatic plants and
uipment, buildings, and
to fish pens, fish traps or
Average grade level means the average of the natural or existin aphy of the
portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be dir nder the
proposed building or structure. In the case of structures to be built ove ater,
average grade level shall be the elevation of the ordinary high water mar WM).
Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the ground elevations
at the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure.
Backshore means a be
shores landward of the or
and has been gradually bui
with associated marshes or meadows, on marine
ter mark which is normally above high tide level
f water or water course.
Bank means a steep rise or sl
Beach nourishment means the a
dredged or excavated elsewhere.
replenishing of a beach by delivery of materials
Berm means a ledge or shoulder con
g of mounded earth or rock.
kwater means an off-shore structure, either floating or not, which mayor may not be
d to the shore, such structure being designed to absorb and/or reflect back into
ody the energy of the waves.
s a wall, seawall, embankment or other structure erected at or near the
ghly parallel to the shoreline that retains or prevents sliding or erosion of
and from wave or current action.
Bluff teep slope, which abuts and rises from Puget Sound. Bluffs contain
inantly in excess of 40 percent, although portions may be less than 40
e toe of the bluff is the beach of Puget Sound. The top of a bluff is typically
a disti t line where the slope abruptly levels out. Where there is no distinct break in
slope, the slope is either the line of vegetation separating the unvegetated slope from the
vegetated uplands plateau or, when the bluff is vegetated, the point where the bluff slope
diminishes to less than 15 percent.
Conditional use Conditional use means a use, development, or substantial development which is
classified as a shoreline conditional use or is not classified within the SMP.
Critical
salmonid
habitats
Development
Development
regulations
Dock
Dredging
Drift cell. drift
sector. or littoral
cell
Ecological
functions or
shoreline
functions
Ecosystem-wide
processes
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 2 of 11
Critical salmonid habitats means habitats that are used by Pacific salmonid species that
migrate between fresh water and salt water during their life cycle. These habitats
include:
1. Gravel bottomed streams used for spawning;
2. Streams, lakes, and wetlands used for rearing, feeding, and cover and refuge
from predators and high waters;
3. Streams and salt water bodies used as migration corridors;
4. Shallow areas of salt water bodies used for rearing, feeding, as well as cover and
refuge from predators and currents, including, but not limited to, forage fish habitats such
as sandy beaches and eelgrass beds; and
5. Pocket estuaries including stream mouths and deltas where fresh water mixes
with salt water and provides rearing habitat fi . uvenile salmonids.
yare critical salmonid habitats.
Development means a use consisti
structures; dredging; drilling; dump
bulkheading; driving of piling; placing
temporary nature which interferes with t
overlying lands subject to the SMA (RCW
or exterior alteration of
f any sand, gravel, or minerals;
, or any project of a permanent or
blic use of the surface of the waters
any state of water level.
Development regulations means the controls plac evelopment or land uses by a
county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ces, critical areas ordinances,
all portions 0 shoreline master program other than go and policies approved or
adopted r 90.58 RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision
ordina site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto.
structures in or floating upon water bodies and connected to
r landing for waterborne pleasure craft and/or water-dependent
Drift cell (also referre as "drift sector" or "littoral cell") means a particular reach of
marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which
contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such
drift.
Ecological functions or shoreline functions means work performed or the role played by
the physical, chemical, and biological processes that 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 means 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.
Exempt
(Exemptions)
Extreme low
tide
Fair market
value
Feasible
Fill
Float
Flood plain
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 3 of 11
Exempt developments are those set forth in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030
(3)(e), 90.58.140(9),90.58.147,90.58.355, and 90.58.515 which are not required to
obtain a substantial development permit but which must otherwise comply with
applicable provisions of the Act and the local master program.
Extreme low tide means the lowest line on the land reached by a receding tide.
Fair market value of a development is the open market bi
using the equipment and facilities, and purchase of the
necessary to accomplish the development. This wo
hiring a contractor to undertake the developmen
of labor, materials, equipment and facility usag
and profit. The fair market value ofthe development shall inc
of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materi
for conducting the work,
, services and materials
lly equate to the cost of
finish, including the cost
nd contractor overhead
e fair market value
Feasible means, for the purpose of this chapter, that an action, such as
project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the followi
(a) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been
used in the past in simi . mstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar
circumstances that such are currently available and likely to achieve the
intended results;
(b) The action provides
(c) The action does not p
legal use.
ood of achieving its intended purpose; and
. ving the project's primary intended
In cases where these guideline
burden of proving infeasibility is 0
ire certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
applicant.
In determining an action's infeasib , the reviewing agency may weigh the action's
've public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time
e addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or
to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a
es the elevation or creates dry land.
cture or device which is not a breakwater and which is moored,
erwise secured in the waters of Federal Way, and which is not connected
e.
Floo ain is synonymous with one hundred-year flood plain and means that land area
susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or
a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Act.
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 4 of 11
Geologically
hazardous areas
Geologically hazardous areas means areas which because of their susceptibility to
erosion, land-sliding, seismic or other geological events are not suited to siting
commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety
concerns. Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas:
(1) Erosion hazard areas are those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard
due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow.
1. Slopes greater than 15 percent;
episodic downslope
to, the following areas:
(2) Landslide hazard areas are those areas potentially sub'
movement of a mass of soil or rock including, but not .
a. Any area with a combination of:
2. Permeable sediment, predominately sand and gravel, over
impermeable sediment or bedrock, typically silt and clay; and
3. Springs or groundwater seepage.
b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years
ago to the present, or w 'underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch.
f. Those areas mapped as class V (uns Ie), VOS (unstable old slides), and URS
ble recent slides) by the Department of Ecology.
It of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion
c. Any area potentially u
or undercutting by wave a
d. Any area located in a ravin
subject to inundation by debris
an, presently or potentially
e. Those areas identified by the V
Conservation Service as having a se
States Department of Agriculture Soil
limitation for building site development.
aving gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic
rd areas are those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a
lly induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil
urface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by
ils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table.
(4) ope hazard areas are those areas with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with
a vert! I relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of
horizontal distance. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured
by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief.
Geotechnical
report or
geotechnical
analysis
Grading
Groin
Hearings Board
Height
~
Land surface
modification
Landslide
Littoral drift
Lot
Marine
Master program
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 5 of 11
Geotechnical report or geotechnical analysis means a scientific study or evaluation
conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface
hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting,
erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations
regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy
of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative
approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site-specific
and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development,
including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down-current properties.
Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared
by qualified professional engineers or geologists who have professional expertise about
the regional and local shoreline geology and processes.
Grading means the movement or redistrib
or other material on a site in a manner t
f the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment,
s the natural contour of the land.
Groin means a barrier type struc
the beach. The purpose of a groin is
Hearings Board means the shoreline hea
Height is measured from average grade level ighest point of a structure: Provided,
that television antennas, chimneys, and similar a ances shall not be used in
calculating height, except where such appurtenance ct the view of the shoreline of
a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining s shorelines, or the applicable
ifically requires that such appurtenances be included: Provided
construction equipment is excluded in this calculation
barrier used to change the natural littoral drift to protect inlet
by excess sediment.
earing or removal of trees, shrubs, groundcover
excavation and filling activities.
isodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock that includes
aIls, slumps, mudflows, and earthflows.
Littoral drift means the natural movement of sediment along marine or lake shorelines by
wave action in response to prevailing winds.
Lot means a parcel of land having fixed boundaries described by reference to a recorded
plat, by reference to metes and bounds, or by reference to section, township and range.
Marine means pertaining to tidally influenced waters, including Puget Sound and the
bays, estuaries and inlets associated therewith.
Master program means the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use
regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a
statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies
enunciated in RCW 90.58.020.
Maior stream
Minor stream
Native shoreline
vegetation
Natural or
existing
topography
Nearshore
Nonconforming
use or
development
Non-water-
oriented uses
Ordinary High
Water Mark
(OHWM)
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 6 of 11
Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or
supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, residentor migratory fish.
If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the
upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which
is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream.
Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of "major stream."
Native shoreline vegetation means trees, shrubs and other
indigenous to a specific area or region. Plants native t
referenced in Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitch
landscaping and invasive species shall not be co
species that are
rn Washington are
ronquist). Ornamental
e shoreline vegetation.
Natural or existing topography means the topogra y of the
property immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, i
filling.
Nearshore means either nearshore environment or nearshore habitat an generally
to an area along the Puget Sound shoreline that extends from the top ofblu s or upland
area immediately adjacent to the beach to the point where sunlight penetrates marine
waters to a depth where tic plant life is supported.
Nonconforming use or
lawfully constructed or es
SMP, or amendments theret
standards ofthe SMP.
eans a shoreline use or development which was
the effective date of the Act or the applicable
conform to present regulations or
Non-water-oriented uses means
water-enjoyment and which have
considered priority uses under the
automobile sales or repair shops, min
development, department stores, and
ses that are not water-dependent, water-related or
or no relationship to the shoreline and are not
. Examples include professional offices,
rage facilities, multifamily residential
stations.
aintenance includes interior and exterior repairs and incidental alterations.
intenance and repair may include, but is not limited to, painting, roof repair
nt, plumbing, wiring and electrical systems, mechanical equipment
d weatherization. Incidental alterations may include construction of
s or partitions.
ater Mark (OHWM) means the mark on all lakes, streams and tidal
be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the
action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in all
ears as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting
uplan , in respect to vegetation, as that condition existed on June 1, 1971, as it may
naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits
issued by a local government or the Department of Ecology. In any area where the
ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining
saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark
adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water.
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 7 of 11
Permit
Permit means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision
authorized under chapter 90.58 RCW.
Pier
Pier means any platform structure or floating structure upon water bodies that is
connected to land and provides public access, fishing or moorage for watercraft engaged
in commerce or public transportation.
Primary structure means the structure associated with the
If more than one structure is associated with the princi
with the highest value shall be considered the prima
.pal use of the property.
f the property, the one
e.
Primary
structure
Public utility
Public utility means the facilities of a private b
service corporation, or a governmental agency p orming s
subject to special governmental regulations, the services which
the recipients thereof. Such services shall include but are not limit
electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas and transportation
freight. The term also includes broadcast towers, antennas and related
on a commercial basis.
tion such as a public
blic service and
id for directly by
. water supply,
sons and
s operated
Priority Habitat Priority habitat means a
species. An area classi
following attributes:
itat type with unique or significant value to one or more
apped as priority habitat must have one or more of the
· Comparatively high fis
· Comparatively high fish
. Fish spawning habitat;
· Important wildlife habitat;
· Important fish or wildlife sea
· Important fish or wildlife mov
· Rearing and foraging habitat;
· Important marine mammal haul-o
· Refugia habitat;
· Limited availability;
. High vulnerability to habitat alteration;
· Unique or dependent species; or
· Shellfish bed.
A priority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant
species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife (such as oak woodlands or
eelgrass meadows). A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage
(such as, old growth and mature forests). Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a
specific habitat element (such as a consolidated marine/estuarine shoreline, talus slopes,
caves, snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority
and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife.
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 8 of 11
Priority Species Priority species means species requiring protective measures and/or management
guidelines to ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority
species are those that meet any of the criteria listed below.
(a) Criterion 1. State-listed or state proposed species. State-listed species are those native
fish and wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014),
threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State proposed species
are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed by the department of fish and
wildlife (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive
according to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297.
(b) Criterion 2. Vulnerable aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species
or groups of animals susceptible to significa opu1ation declines, within a specific area
or statewide, by virtue of their inclination egate. Examples include heron
colonies, seabird concentrations, and amma1 congregations.
Public
large in t
affected inc
general welfare
or tribal importance. Native and
na1 or commercial importance
subsistence purposes that are
(c) Criterion 3. Species of recreati
nonnative fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and recognized species used for tribal c
vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation.
(d) Criterion 4. Species listed under the federal
proposed, threatened, or endangered.
Provisions
e criteria, or environmental
Public access
public's ability to get to and use the State's public waters, the
associated public shoreline area.
Public interest
red by the citizens of the state or community at
f govern me interest by which their rights or liabilities are
but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or
ing from a use or development;
Restore,
restoration, or
ecological
restoration
ontext of "ecological restoration," the reestablishment or
upgrading of impaired 010gica1 shoreline processes or functions. This may be
accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of
intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration
does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-
European settlement conditions.
Riprap
Riprap means a layer, facing or protective mound of angular stones randomly placed to
prevent erosion, scour or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so
used.
Shore lands
Shoreline
administrator
Shoreline
environment
designation
Shoreline
jurisdiction
Shoreline Master
Program (SMP)
Shoreline
modifications
Shorelines of
Statewide
Significance
Shorelines of the
State
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 9 of 11
Shorelands, also referred to as "shoreland areas," means those lands extending landward
for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary
high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet
from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams,
lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be
designated as to location by the Department of Ecology.
Shoreline administrator means the Director of the Departm
Development or his or her designee and is responsible fI
SMP.
of Community
istering the Federal Way
Shoreline environment designation means the ca
established by the city of Federal Way shorelin
differentiate between areas whose features imply
and future development.
orelines of the state
ster program to
s regarding their use
Shoreline jurisdiction means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorel
the Federal Way SMP and RCW 90.58.030.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) means the comprehensive use plan for a described
area, and the use regulat' together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive
material and text, a stat esired goals, and standards developed in accordance
with the policies enuncia .58.020.
Shoreline modifications m
qualities of the shoreline area
such as a dike, breakwater, pie
structure. They can include oth
chemicals.
modify the physical configuration or
truction of a physical element
edged ba Ill, bulkhead, or other shoreline
s, such as clearing, grading, or application of
Shoreline stabilization means actions n to address erosion impacts to property,
dwellings, businesses, or structures ca ed by natural shoreline processes such as
ts, floods, tides, wind or wave action.
ariance is a means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or
tandards in the local SMP, but not a means to vary a "use" of a shoreline.
s all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their
ands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of
cance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where
I flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated
tream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size
ds associated with such small lakes.
Shorelines of Statewide Significance means those areas ofPuget Sound in the City of
Federal Way lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide.
Shorelines of the state means the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide
significance" within the City of Federal Way.
SMA
SMP
Soft-shore bank
stabilization
Stringline
setback
Structure
Substantial
Accessory
Structure
Substantial
Development
Substantially
degrade
Vegetation
Conservation
Area
Vessel
Water quality
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 10 of 11
SMA means the Shoreline Management Act.
SMP means the Shoreline Master Program.
Soft-shore bank stabilization means the use of bioengineering or biotechnical bank
stabilization measures where vegetation, logs, rock and beach nourishment are used to
address erosion control and slope stability.
Stringline setback means a straight line drawn between th
structures having the greatest projection waterward on
one of the adjacent properties is unimproved the lin
standard shoreline setback at the side property lin
ts on the primary
adjacent properties. If
drawn to the point of the
proved lot.
Structure means a permanent or temporary edifi r buildi
artificially built or composed of parts joined together in some
installed on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, e
y piece of work
manner, whether
or vessels.
Substantial accessory structure means non-primary structures equal to
square feet and in good repair.
er than 400
any development of which the total cost or fair market
or any development which materially interferes with
lines of the state. The dollar threshold must be
anagement every five years, beginning
. ce index during that time period.
endar y at year's annual average consumer
or urban wage earners and clerical workers, all
and statistics, United States department of labor.
t calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit
ication in the Washington State Register at
eshold is to take effect.
A protected area adja 0 marine waters or freshwater lakes within the shoreline
jurisdiction that contain elements of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats that mutually
influence each other. Vegetation in this area is to be generally conserved to protect
ecological functions of the shoreline.
Vessel includes ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft which are designed and
used for navigation and do not interfere with the normal public use of the water.
Water quality means the physical characteristics of water within shoreline jurisdiction,
including water quantity, hydrological, physical, chemical, aesthetic, recreation-related,
and biological characteristics. Where used in this chapter, the term ''water quantity"
refers only to development and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water
quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and storm water handling practices. Water
quantity, for purposes of this chapter, does not mean the withdrawal of ground water or
diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340.
Water-
dependent use
Water-
eniovrnent use
Water-oriented
use
Water-related
use
Wetlands
City of Federal Way SMP
Definitions
Page 11 of 11
Water-dependent use means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in a location that
is not adjacent to the water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic
nature of its operations.
Water-enjoyment use means a recreational use or other use that facilitates public access
to the shoreline as a primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for
recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the shoreline for a substantial number of
people as a general characteristic of the use and which through location, design, and
operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities ofthe
shoreline. In order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must be open to the
general public and the shoreline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the
specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment.
Water-oriented use means a use that is wat
enjoyment, or a combination of such u
endent, water-related, or water-
Water-related use means a use or p
a waterfront location but whose ec
location because:
(a) The use has a functional requirement for
shipment of materials by water or the need for
ront location such as the arrival or
uantities of water; or
(b) The use provides a necessary service supportive
proximity of use to its customers makes its services
convenie
water-dependent uses and the
s expensive and/or more
a
at are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
ve etation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not
. al wet a nally created from non wetland sites, including,
igation and dramage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those
ly 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the
et, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands
nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.
sup
Wetla
include t
but not limi
facilities, wast
wetlands created
construction of a roa
intentionally created fr
APPENDIX A
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
206.789.9658 phone
206.789.9684 fax
www.adolfson.co
memorandum
date January 15, 2006
to Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner
from Teresa Vanderburg and Kent Hale
subject Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update -
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
. Current circu
· Reasonably fo
. Beneficial effe
laws."1
Iy foreseeable future
ivities over time under the
al jurisdictions are required to
ure development in the
eeable future development,
ified and must be discussed.
The purpose of this memo is to assess the cumulative impacts
development in the shoreline that would result from develoR
proposed City of Federal Way SMP. Under the shorelin
evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonabl
shorelines of the state (WAC 17 -26-186(8)(d)). Cu ent
and beneficial effects of other established regul pr
For the City of Federal Way, shorelines of the
City limits and 12.1 miles of freshwater sh
annexation area (PM). The state's ve
that, when implemented over tim os
net loss of ecological functions fr
and described in the City of de
August 1, 2006. The pro F
their potential to impa
to determine if impact
activities and develop
Puget Sound shoreline in the
y limits and the City's potential
ulative impacts is to insure
d regulations will achieve no
line conditions are identified
cterization Report (Draft) dated
rocedu s to evaluate individual actions for
se basis. The purpose of this evaluation is
likely to result from the aggregate of
over time.
The guidelines state t
functions and/or uses,
adverse cumulative i
development opportu
of ogical functions and protection of other shoreline
ntaln policies, programs, and regulations that address
he burden of addressing cumulative impacts among
cumulative impacts should consider:
he shorelines and relevant natural processes;
re development and use of the shoreline; and
y established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal
1 WAC 173-26-186(8)(d)
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
This cumulative impacts assessment uses these three considerations as a framework for evaluating the
potential long-term impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes that may result from
development or activities under the proposed SMP over time.
Current Shoreline Condition
As part of the City's SMP update process, a shoreline inventory and map
spring and summer of 2006. The Shoreline Inventory and Characteriza .
and evaluates the ecological functions and processes in the City's s
included all shoreline areas within the City of Federal Way, as w
Annexation Area (PM), east of the city limits.
The City has two main types of water bodies that are re
shorelines of Puget Sound and freshwater lakes over 2
coastal shoreline is designated a "shoreline of stat wid
SMA regulation within the city are Steel Lake, La
Further, the City of Federal Way has identified ea I
Interstate 5 corridorfor future annexation. Thi is
(PM). Lakes subject to SMA regulatio at in
Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake and t ini 'on
all designated as "shorelines of t ak rt
under the King County SMP. Th riv tr
definition of shorelines of t tat
Iio was prepared in the
identifies existing conditions
jurisdiction. The inventory
found in the Potential
City's SMP: marine coastal
he Puget Sound marine
he freshwater lakes under
estern shore of Lake Killarney.
t of the City and east of the
Potential Annexation Area
elude Star Lake, Lake Dolloff,
y. The freshwater lakes are
e PM are currently regulated
ay or its PM that meet the
The City of Federal W
PM. Of this total, an
coastline. The remai
inventory and charact
ne area, including those areas within the
ated along the Puget Sound marine
long freshwater lakes. Key findings of the
Watershed Context
The City of Federal
- the Duwamish-Gree
areas of Puget Sound
PM are addressed a
and to Mill Creek and
the northern portions
watersheds or Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs)
a the Puyallup-White River WRIA 10. The marine coastal
s well as Steel Lake and Star Lake and Lake Dolloff in the city's
9. Lands within the City that drain to the Puget Sound to the west,
r Green River to the east lie within the WRIA 9 watershed. This includes
ity and the PM.
The majority of the Fe ral Way area lies within WRIA 10 and drains to either the White River or to
Hylebos Creek. North Lake, Lake Geneva, Lake Killarney and Five Mile Lake are located within this
watershed. These lands drain to the south. The White River flows to the Puyallup River before entering
Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. The Hylebos flows to the south into Tacoma and enters the
Hylebos Waterway at Commencement Bay.
Physical and Biological
Bluffs, beaches, bays, and the mouths of several freshwater streams characterize the City's coastal!
nearshore shoreline. Approximately 40 percent of the City's coastal shoreline has been modified with
riprap, concrete or wooden bulkheads. Structures in the shoreline can limit the amount of sediment
Page 2 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
transported from upland areas to the beach, and are known to cause erosion and loss of some habitats
such as sand and fine gravel beaches. Currents naturally move sediments across the beach and
alongshore in continual cycles, but these structures interrupt the natural supply and distribution of
sediments, causing a change in sediment composition within the nearshore area. However, coastal
shoreline in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park are in a more natural condition, and coastal
processes are less altered. Fish and wildlif~ that utilize the shoreline depend on these nearshore
processes to maintain their habitats and ultimately their populations. Important feeder bluffs have been
identified both north and south of Dumas Bay.
rn half of the City and in the
the glaciers melted, lakes
ins including 1) the Puget
ylebos. Lake shorelines have
ignificant areas of natural
oximately 20 to 50 percent of
s are less frequently occurring
ighly altered in comparison to
The freshwater lakes in the City are located on a broad plateau in the
PM. The plateau developed from glacial recessional deposits an
formed in the scour areas. Lakes in the City drain to five main
Sound, 2) the Green River, 3) Mill Creek, 4) the White River
been modified with bulkheads and other bank protection,
shoreline conditions. On Steel Lake, Star Lake and Five
the shoreline has been modified with bulkheads. Shore
on the remaining lakes. In general, shorelines wi the
those within the PM.
Habitat and Species Use
The City's coastal and freshwater
including salmonids and other fis
interest are areas that provi a
(primarily nearshore are u
salmon, as well as gr
salmon ids) spawn on
areas, specifically ne
Dumas Bay in particul
WRIA 9 nearshore ha
uatic and terrestrial species
f invertebrates. Of special
ecies of local importance
,Chinoo salmon (threatened), coho
such as surf smelt and sand lance (prey for
present along the City's coastal/nearshore
rthern end of Dumas Bay and northward.
stuary with regional importance within the
The freshwater shorel
salmon ids or habitat f
waterfowl, trout, and
residents. Also, good
habitat in streams sue
nd its PM do not provide habitat for anadromous
s. However, these lakes do provide general habitat for
e Important to the character of Federal Way and the lakeshore
the freshwater lakes is important for downstream salmonid
reek, Joe's Creek, Mill Creek, Lakota Creek, and the Green River.
Land Use and Publi
The major land uses g the Federal Way coastal/ nearshore shoreline are single-family homes,
parks, and public facilities. The City's most common shoreline use is single-family residential, which
occupies 55 percent of the coastal shoreline. Parks and public recreational facilities occupy 18 percent
of the shoreline. These uses include Dash Point State Park, Dumas Bay Park, Dumas Bay Centre,
and Poverty Bay Park. Parks provide opportunities for beach access, fishing, hiking and recreation.
Land uses along the City's freshwater lakes are primarily single-family residential and public parks.
Single-family residential use occupies between 55 and 80 percent of the shoreline on most lakes, with
the exception of North Lake (35 percent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent). Parks, boat ramps, and
public facilities occupy 9 to 39 percent of the lake shorelines. Public aCcess to the lakes occurs via
Page 3 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
parks including Steel Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, Lake Killarney Park and Five Mile Lake Park, as
well as several boat ramps owned by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use
The City Of Federal Way has an established land use pattern in the shoreline jurisdiction that predates
the current regulatory regime. The pattern generally includes public wat
residential development within the City's shorelines. Since 1999, at t
were adopted, the City has received an average of 2 building per .
construction within the shoreline. A total of 11 building permits
since 1999. In addition, there are only two residential piers 0
no public marina within the City.
nt parks and single-family
existing SMP regulations
ar for residential
in the shoreline jurisdiction
Sound coastal shoreline and
Currently, the Puget Sound shoreline within the City is I
parcels along the City's Puget Sound shoreline, ~
these are located in areas of residential zoning.
parcels are found along the freshwater lake sh
the City's PM. However, critical areas and th
parcels within the freshwater lake sh s (
be developable except through the e v
of the undeveloped parcel along ne
encumbered by critical areas. Cri in
buffers, and steep slopes 4
City of Federal Way, th I
along both the Puget
patterns that are cons
established by the Cit
. Of the total number of
s remain (Table 1) and most of
eater number of undeveloped
North Lake and lakes within
proportions of the undeveloped
the PM. These lots may not
mple, approximately 70 percent
Dolloff are completely
nds, streams, their required
areas h e not yet been annexed to the
within 2007 or 2008. All developed land
the City and the PM, contains use
g and vision of future land use as
signations.
Table 1. Total parce
shoreline areas of F
and completely encumbered parcels within the
ed Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs).
Number of
Undeveloped
Parcels (%of
total)
Undeveloped
Parcels (%)
considered
developable
Undeveloped
Parcels (%)
encumbered
by Critical
Areas
Page 4 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Based on the nature of the shoreline within the City limits, the lack of extensive vacant developable
land and consistency among land use regulations and long-range plans, reasonable foreseeable
development will likely include redevelopment of property as well as new development, particularly near
the lakes in the PM. Redevelopment and development will not likely result in significant changes in
types of land use (e.g. single-family to multi-family, commercial, or industrial uses).
Within the PM, there is moderate potential for new development along the shorelines of freshwater
lakes. Between 12 and 30 percent of the total lots along these lakes is co sidered developable within
the shoreline jurisdiction. Due to existing land use patterns, King Count ning, and proposed
designation for shoreline areas within the City's Comprehensive Plan evelopment will likely be
single-family residential along the lakes in the PM. Once annexe nallakefront residential
development is anticipated.
King County SMP. In 1998
management goals and
rehensive Plan (FWCP,
ures are codified in Chapter
8-176). The City's SMP
e a uniform basis for applying
horeline environment
he underlying zoning
velopment standards or
iction. nerally, environment
nt patterns, biological and physical
y's vision or objectives for its future
Changes to Shoreline Environment Designations
At the time of incorporation in 1990, the City of Federal
and 1999, the City developed and adopted its ow
policies are contained in the land use element
Section 2.8.5). Shoreline development regulati
18, Article III, of the Federal Way City Code (F
established a system of "shoreline en . e
policies and use regulations within di
designations function like zoning Th
regulations for density, setbacks, e
regulations for portions of rt e
designations are base nn
capabilities and Iimita
development.
The existing (1999) S
Rural, and 4) Natural.
annexation of North L
Urban Environment b
County's SMP provisi
inconsistencies. Mos
with similar residentia
recently annexed are
Park and Dash Point
Natural).
nt designations -1) Urban, 2) Conservancy, 3)
, he City's shoreline has expanded through the
Killarney. These areas were originally designated as
nd are currently being managed by the City using the
It nexations, the City's SMP was left with several
r r sidential neighborhoods are designated differently (Le. lakes
d differently under the City's SMP versus King County's SMP for
C s shoreline parks are similarly designated differently (Poverty Bay
rks are designated Conservancy and Dumas Bay Park is designated
The proposed SMP a resses inconsistencies in the 1999 SMP by providing a new system of
environment designations, in compliance with State guidelines (WAC 173-26-211). The new system
applies designation criteria and management policies consistently across areas with similar current and
planned land uses and resource characteristics. The new shoreline designations also pre-plan for
future annexation areas so that future inconsistencies in shoreline development are avoided.
Elimination of these inconsistencies will help the City reduce net loss of ecological function in the
shoreline over time.
The proposed SMP environment designations includes a "Shoreline Residential" environment for areas
of the City that are characterized by single or multi-family residences or planned as such; an "Urban
Conservancy" environment that includes waterfront park areas and residential areas, and an "Natural"
Page 5 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
environment which is designated for the purpose of protecting those shoreline areas that are relatively
free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions sensitive to
human use. The proposed SMP did not include an "Aquatic" shoreline environment, since all shoreline
uses in the City are paired with an upland use and therefore another shoreline environment. The
proposed environment designations are consistent with both the existing land use pattern and the
Comprehensive Plan future land use designations.
Changes to Development Standards and Use Regulations
The proposed SMP offers several changes to the development regul
conservation and prohibit activities that would cause adverse impa
processes. These changes include limiting shoreline modificati
revetments along much of the City's shoreline. These shoreI'
the natural net-shore drift direction and the availability an
Further, the conservation of shoreline vegetation has be
regulations for the City to further stabilize shorelands an
related to development of specific uses in the sh line
ecological functions and processes, while conti to
allow sensitive development. The proposed ch a
that encourage shoreline
reline functions and
bulkheads and riprap
ions have significantly altered
ion of beach sediment.
in the new shoreline
t functions. Other changes
d to protect shoreline
encourage public access, and
Table 2 below:
Table 2. Proposed Changes to S
DEVELOPMENT I
USE
Breakwaters
ohibited in all
environments.
Permitted on freshwater
shorelines, except for in
Natural Environment.
Prohibited in all
environments.
mitted (P) in Shoreline
esidential and Urban
Conservancy, but prohibited in
Natural. Requires applicant to
demonstrate that softshore
armoring techniques do not provide
adequate upland protection.
Bulkheads not permitted unless
necessary to protect primary
structures.
Prohibited (X) in all environments.
Bulkheads and
shoreline stabilizatio
Piers and Docks
Permitted on freshwater shorelines,
except for in Natural Environment.
Prohibited (X) in all environments.
Jetties and Groins
Office and
Commercial
Develo ment
Permitted in all
environments.
Permitted in Urban Conservancy
environment. Prohibited in all other
environments.
Page 6 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
DEVELOPMENT I
USE
Recreational
Develo ment
Residential
Development
1999 SMP
REQUIREMENTS
Permitted in all
environments.
Permitted in all
environments.
2007 SMP UPDATE
REQUIREMENTS
Permitted in all environments.
Utilities
Permitted in all
environments.
Permitted in all environments,
except Conditional Use in Natural
Environment.
Permitted in all
except Condi .
Environme
Permitt
exc
E
P
e
E
Accessory Structures
Permitted in all
environments.
Transportation/Parking Permitted in all
Facilities environments.
These proposed changes to development stan
protective than the existing SMP. Red pm
redevelopment of more intense wa nd
environments. As redevelopmen 0
policies and development standa sh
stabilization designs. In s ca t
shore" design would no r
changes will likely ha
redeveloped.
are, in general, more
II environments, but
d to the Urban Conservancy
arly for shoreline stabilization),
e "soft-shore" erosion control or
Id be re Ired to demonstrate why a "soft-
ting development. Over time these
cological processes as properties are
Changes to the Tre
Much of the develop
adoption of the Washi
in the City's shoreline
"non-conforming" use
policies and regulatio
g es and Structures
oreline predates incorporation of the City and or
ent Act in 1971. Several properties and developments
ent zoning or SMP regulations. The 1999 SMP addresses
n t shoreline jurisdiction. However, the proposed SMP includes
ned to increase protection of shoreline resources over time.
Under the proposed ctures or uses that were legally established, but which now do not
conform to the City's ode or are non-conforming with regard to the use regulations in the
proposed SMP may ce as long as they do not increase or expand in their non-conformity. The
policies and regulatio related to non-conforming structures and non-conforming uses in the shoreline
are also consistent with the City's zoning code regulations.
Restoration Planning
Consistent with state guidelines (173-26-186), the proposed SMP includes a new section of goals and
policies addressing shoreline restoration within Federal Way. The goals and policies for restoration
have also been modified to acknowledge that the City's intent is to meet the "no net loss" standard, and
result in an overall improvement to the condition of the habitat and resources within the shoreline
jurisdiction of the City.
Page 7 of1 0
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The draft Restoration Plan dated December 2006 addresses the shoreline restoration element of the
SMP. The proposed SMP identifies restoration opportunities that include programmatic opportunities
(e.g. surface water management; water quality improvement; public education), site-specific
opportunities (e.g. protection of feeder bluffs, restoration of stream mouth deltas and pocket estuaries),
regional plans and policies for Puget Sound restoration, and potential funding and partnership
opportunities. The SMP's restoration planning is focused on areas where shoreline functions have
been degraded by past development activities. These areas with impaired functions were identified in
the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. The implementation 0 these restoration
opportunities will have the effect of improving shoreline ecological functi within the City over time.
The City's SMP is meant to be consistent with and work
federal programs and planning documents to pr th
and protect the health and safety of City reside he
following:
Beneficial Effects of Any Established Regul
Local, State, and Federal Laws
grams under Other
ith several City, State and
alues of shoreline resources
lude, but are not limited to, the
I Way C rehensive Plan (2002) relate to
ter, prot ion of environmental resources,
ensive Plan seeks to balance these social,
ning regulations, critical areas regulations
In relation to shorelines, the
nes and adjacent areas in a manner that
se effect on the quality of life, water, and
The City's existing Sh
use chapter of the Cit
oriented uses and exi
natural resources (Cit
designations as Natu
intensity of developm
use vision expressed
and policies will be in
goals and policies are included as an element in the land
sive Plan. These goals and policies encourage water-
u s in balance with protection of the Puget Sound shoreline's
y,2002). This document also establishes shoreline environment
rv ncy, Rural, or Urban Environments, depending on the land use and
proposed SMP environmental designations are consistent with the land
omprehensive Plans. Following adoption, the City's proposed SMP goals
rated as a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Federal Way Citv Code Chaoter 22: Zonina - Title 22 of the City's Municipal Code establishes zoning
designations. Zoning implements the Comprehensive Plan's vision for future land use. Zoning
designations near the Puget Sound shoreline include Single Family Residential, and Multifamily
Residential. Zoning designations near the freshwater lake shorelines include Single Family Residential
and Corporate Park. Shoreline zoning is consistent with the designations in the proposed SMP.
Federal Wav Citv Code, Chaoter 22, Article XIV. Critical Areas - Chapter 22 of the FWCC establishes
development standards, buffers and permitted uses in designated critical areas. Critical areas include
geologic hazardous areas, streams, regulated lakes, regulated wetlands, regulated wellheads and
critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. Standards in this chapter are designed
PageS of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
to protect these areas from adverse impacts. The City updated it Critical Areas code in 1999.
Designated critical areas are found throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction, particularly streams,
flood hazard areas, and geologic hazard areas. Consistent with state guidelines, development
standards for critical areas that are physically located in the shoreline jurisdiction have been
incorporated into the proposed SMP by reference.
City of Federal Way Surface Water Manaaement Division
The City's Surface Water Management Utility is guided by the Surface Water Facilities Plan (1994) and
the City's Comprehensive Plan (2002). The Surface Water Manageme ivision (SWM) is responsible
for the comprehensive management of the City's surface water syste is involves protecting
developed and undeveloped properties from flooding, runoff and ity problems, while
continuing to accommodate new development. The SWM Divis' otes the preservation of
natural drainage systems, protection of fishery resources an itat. The City's Surface Water
Capital Improvement Program identifies, funds, and impl cific projects intended to
provide flood control or alleviation, improve and enhanc , replace culverts to improve
fish passage, and improve water quality from stormwat rface Water Management
restoration program is currently focused on strea eso d emphasis on restoration of
lakes and marine shorelines.
State and Federal
A number of state an
shoreline jurisdiction.
federal permits when
the federal Endanger
the floodplain or flood
throughout the City, b
state and federal regu
e Mana ement Districts
rams for Steel and North
trict fees, while the North Lake
th Steel Lake and North Lake
ation and outreach in an effort
ISlon w s with Lake Management
I invasive aquatic vegetation and maintain
riodic treatment of invasive aquatic weeds
. Two advisory groups are actively
ake Advisory Committee, and 2) the North
ke shorelines should be coordinated with the
Ds or North and Steel Lakes in particular.
es ay have jurisdiction over land or natural elements in the City's
ent proposals most commonly trigger requirements for state or
ct etlands or streams; potentially affect fish and wildlife listed under
s Act (ESA); result in over five acres of clearing and grading; or affect
s with local requirements, state and federal regulations may apply
gulated resources are common within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The
tions affecting shoreline-related resources include, but are not limited to:
Endanaered Species Act
The federal ESA addresses the protection and recovery of federally listed species. The ESA is jointly
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOM) Fisheries (formerly
referred to as the National Marine Fisheries Service), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
Page 9 of 10
City of Federal Way SMP
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The federal CWA requires states to set standards for the protection of water quality for various
parameters, and it regulates excavation and dredging in waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Certain
activities affecting wetlands in the City's shoreline jurisdiction or work in the adjacent rivers may require
a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology under
Section 404 and Section 401 of the CWA, respectively.
Hvdraulic Proiect Approval (HPA)
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regulates act"
or change the natural flow of the beds or banks of waters of the state
Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction requiring construction below t
Sound or streams in the city could require an HPA from WDFW
surface that could substantially increase stormwater runoff t
approval.
Conclusion
s that use, divert, obstruct,
ay affect fish habitat.
ry high water mark of Puget
reating new impervious
e state may also require
National Pollutant Dischali e Elimination S stem
Ecology regulates activities that result in wastew
facilities or municipal wastewater treatment pia
discharges from industrial facilities, constructio
systems that serve populations of 100,0 or
ce water from industrial
also required for stormwater
es, and municipal stormwater
The Federal Way shor
There are few opport
hand, there is a great
particularly for the lak
will primarily be the re
be a mix of new devel
may require a shoreli
lots on these lakes. T
proposed SMP is con
planned for in the Cit
Based on this consist
occur in the future. H
the PAA.
ast, is largely developed in residential uses.
coastal shoreline jurisdiction. On the other
ng the freshwater lake shorelines,
e within the Puget Sound coastal shoreline
hereas development along the lakes will likely
nt. horeline development along the lakes in the PAA
the presence of critical areas within the undeveloped
nvironment designations and use regulations in the
shed land use pattern, as well as the land use vision
v Ian, zoning, and other long-range planning documents.
y that substantial changes in the type of shoreline land uses will
ased residential density is anticipated for the lake shorelines within
The proposed SMP p es a new system of shoreline environment designations that establishes
more uniform manag ent of the City's shoreline. The updated development standards and regulation
of shoreline modifications provides more protection for shoreline processes. The updated standards
and regulations are more restrictive of activities that would result in adverse impacts to the shoreline
environment. The restoration planning effort outlined in the proposed SMP provides the City with
opportunities to improve or restore ecological functions that have been impaired as a result of past
development activities. In addition, the proposed SMP is meant to compliment several City, state and
federal efforts to protect shoreline functions and values.
Based on assessment of these factors, the cumulative actions taken over time in accordance with the
proposed SMP are not likely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions from existing
baseline conditions.
Page 10 of 10
.
,
.
SEPA Environmental
Checklist
City of Federal Way
Shoreline Master Program
(SMP) Update - City File No.
March 2007
.
Prepared For:
City of Federal Way
PREPARED By:
ESA Adolfson
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Ste 200
Seattle, Washington 98107
206.789.9658
.
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ I
A. BACK GRO UND ............................................................................................................................1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS .............................................................................................. 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
. 13.
14.
15.
16.
Earth.. .......... ... ... ..... ........ ..... ...... ...... ..... ........ ........ .... ........ ................ ............. ......... ... ... ...... ................... 4
Air..........................................................................................................................................................6
Water ... ....... ... ....... ......... ... ... ....... .......... ............. ........ ........ ...... ................ ....... .............. .... ....... ....... ....... 7
Plants.. ......... ............. ....................... ......................... ........ ........... .... .... .......... .... ........ ...... ....... ... .......... 10
Animals ......... ......... ...... ......... ... ..................... ............... ........................... ...... ............ ........... ....... ......... 10
Energy and Natural Resources............................................................................................................ 13
Environmental Health ......................... ............. ......... ....... ............ .......... ................................ ............. 14
Land and Shoreline Use ......................................................................................................................14
Housing............. ........ .......... ........ ..... ............. ..... ............. ............. .... ....... .... .... ......... .......... ........... ...... 17
Aesthetics...... ................... ............ ...... ............. ...... ... ....... ................. ....... .... ................... ....... ......... .... 17
Light and Glare. ..... ........ ......... ...... ..................... .......... ........... ...................... ............ ...... ..... ....... ....... 18
Recreation.................................................................................................................... ...................... 18
Historic and Cultural Preservation.. ........... .... ......... .......... ................... ......................... .... ................ 20
Transportation................... ........... ........... ........ ....................... .................. .... ......................... ............ 21
Public Services. ............ ....... ...................... .......... .... .... ............... .................................... ....... ..... .... .... 23
Utilities....................................................................................................................... ........................ 23
c. SIGNA TURE ................................................................................................................................23
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS................................................24
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. City of Federal Way - Regional Context and Vicinity Map........................................................30
Figure 2. City of Federal Way SMP - Shoreline Jurisdiction.....................................................................31
Figure 3. City of Federal Way SMP - Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations .............................31
e
March 2007
Page i
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
A.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
BACKGROUND
1. Name of the proposed project:
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update
2. Name of Applicant:
City of Federal Way
3. Address and telephone number of applicant and contact person:
Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner
City of Federal Way, Community Development Services Department
33325 8th Ave S
PO BOX 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Phone: (253) 835-2601
4. Date checklist prepared:
March, 20, 2007
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Federal Way
6.
Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
City Council Action expected September 2007
e
7. Plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected
with this proposal:
The current SMP project is considered a comprehensive update. Shoreline master
programs are required to be updated by amendment periodically by state law. The next
comprehensive SMP update for Federal Way is scheduled for 2018. Amendments may
be adopted at any time. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan will be amended
to incorporate SMP goals and policies as a new chapter (Chapter 11) following adoption
of proposed SMP amendment.
8. Environmental information that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly
related to this project:
. DRAFT City of Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization, August
2006;
. City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update, DRAFT Cumulative Impacts
Analysis Technical Memorandum, January 2006; and
9.
. City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update, DRAFT Restoration Plan,
December 2006.
Applications that are pending for governmental approvals or other proposals
directly affecting the property covered by the proposal:
No pending applications or approvals would be affected. Once adopted, the proposed
SMP amendment could affect any new development projects or activities located along
Puget Sound in Federal Way and new development projects or activities located along
.
January 2006
Page 1
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
10.
11.
e
SMP regulated lakes in Federal Wayl. Permit applications for development in the
shoreline area would be processed according to the SMP regulations and procedures in
effect at the time the application was determined to be complete.
List of governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for the proposal:
The proposed Shoreline Master Program amendment will need the following approvals:
. Review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act for
Non-project actions;
. Adoption by the Federal Way City Council; and
. Approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology (RCW 90.58.090).
Brief, complete description of the proposal, including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site:
The proposal is to amend the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (FWMC
Chapter 18, Article III; Ordinance No. 90-38 [adoption of King County Shoreline Master
Program at time of incorporation], adopted 2-27-1990; Ordinance No. 98-323, Adopted
12-1-1998; Ordinance No. 99-355, 11-16-1999) and Chapter Two of the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposal may also make a minor amendment to FWCC Chapter 22, dealing
with side yard setbacks for shared docks, floats, etc. 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 Sound and SMP regulated lakes within
the City limits. The existing City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was
adopted in 1998 and 1999. The City of Federal Way is in the process of annexing several
areas of unincorporated King County along the City's existing eastern limits; annexation
of these areas would include the addition of four lakes and the remainder of one lake that
is currently partially within City limits that would require planning efforts and regulation
under the SMP. Previously described existing SMP materials have been prepared to
assume that annexation will occur. As such, all 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 approximately 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.
e
1 Federal Way's SMP regulated lakes include Steel Lake, North Lake, and a portion of Lake Killamey; SMP
regulated lakes within the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva,
Five Mile Lake, and the remaining shoreline of Lake Killamey. PAA lakes are not subject tot eh Federal way SMP
until the area annexes to the city.
January 2006
Page 2
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Area
Approximate
Length
(miles)
e
Coastal Puget
Sound - East
Coastal Puget
Sound - Dumas
Bay
Coastal Puget
Sound - West
Steel Lake
Star Lake
Lake Dolloff
Lake Geneva
e North Lake
Lake Killamey
Five Mile Lake
Total
lA
1.67
IB
1.43
lC 1.74
2 1.69
3 1.33
4 1.81
5 1.12
6 2.16
7 2.12
8 1.87
From the City limits boundary with Des Moines
on Puget Sound, near 1 51 Avenue South,
extendin west to Dumas Bay
Dumas Bay
From Dumas Bay extending west to the City
limits along the KinglPierce County line,
includin Dash Point State Park
Inside the City limits, west ofI-5.
Inside the northeast portion of the City's PAA,
near the bound with Ci of Kent
Inside the northeast portion of the City's PAA,
near I-5 and Military Road.
In the southeast portion of the City's PAA,
southeast of SR 18.
Inside the City limits, between I-5, SR 18, and
Military Road
Partially in the City limits, partially in the
southeast portion of the City's PAA, east ofI-5
and SR 18.
In the southeast portion of the City's PAA, near
Military Road.
Approximately 4.84 miles ofPuget Sound
16.93 shoreline and approximately 12.09 miles of lake
shoreline.
The proposed SMP amendment is similar to the City's Comprehensive Plan, in that it
contains general goals and policies for several elements. The elements are: 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 of the 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 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.
e
January 2006
Page 3
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
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. 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.
12.
Location of the proposal, including street address, if any, and section, township, and
range; legal description; site plan; vicinity map; and topographical map, if
reasonably available:
The proposed SMP amendment is a city and P AA-wide, non-project action that affects
activities and developments in the City's SMP jurisdiction. The shoreline jurisdiction in
Federal Way includes subtidal and intertidal lands of the Puget Sound shoreline, seven
lakes described above in Table 1 and their lake beds; associated wetlands; and adjacent
uplands within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) (Figure 2).
e
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (underline):
The City of Federal Way includes 16.9 miles of designated shoreline. Steep
bluffs, coastal beach and stream mouths characterize the Puget Sound Marine
shoreline in the City. Lakes are generally surrounded by low-bank uplands or
wetlands in flat topographies.
b.
What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Bluffs of 40 percent slope or greater are mapped throughout the majority of the
Federal Way marine shoreline (see Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Map Oa-9c).
All lake shoreline areas are relatively flat, with the steepest slopes associated
with lake banks; these slopes incur a rise of no more than 5 feet.
e
January 2006
Page 4
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
e
e
c.
What general types of soils are found on the site (for example clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? Specify the classification of agricultural soils and note
any prime farmland.
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service 1973 soil survey for
King County, the following soil types are located in the Federal Way marine
shoreline: coastal beach flanked by steep bluffs of Alderwood and Kitsap soils
with very steep slopes. Alderwood soils generally form in till while Kitsap soils
form in fine-grained lacustrine deposits. More gently sloped ground above the
steep bluffs are mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. The mouth of Joe's
and Lakota Creeks is mapped as Pilchuck loamy fine sand, which forms on
alluvial terraces. Indianola loamy fine sand on slopes of 4 to 15 percent
generally forms on deposits of outwash sand.
Soil types are located in the Federal Way lacustrine shoreline areas are generally
till and, at Lake Dolloff and Five Mile Lake, recessional outwash deposits. Small
areas of wetland or poorly drained soil types border the majority of lakes.
See Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Figure 4.
There is no designated prime farmland or active agricultural activities in any
portion of the Federal Way shoreline.
d.
Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? H so, describe.
Bluff and steep slope areas are mapped by the City and King County almost
continuously along the marine shoreline as Erosion Hazard Areas, Landslide
Hazard Areas, and Steep Slopes (greater than 40%) (See Figs. 9a, 9b, and 9c of
the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization). Along the seven lake shorelines,
only Steel Lake includes a mapped Geologically Hazardous Area; the outflow
stream, Redondo Creek, at this west end of the lake is bordered by an area of
Erosion Hazard (See Figs. 9d, ge, 9f, 9g, and 9h of the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization) .
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any :tilling or
grading proposed. Indicate the source of the fill.
No specific filling or grading is proposed. Under the proposed SMP amendment,
fill activities below the OHWM would only be allowed in association with new
water dependent use developments (including shoreline restoration projects) and
would be subject to a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. These provisions are
consistent with the existing SMP.
The proposed SMP amendment generally strengthens protection of the shoreline
through new provisions for vegetation conservation and limits to clearing and
grading activities. Clearing and grading activities would only be allowed in
association with an allowed shoreline development subject to a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit. All filling and grading activities would also be
subject to the existing provisions of the Federal Way Land Clearing, Grading, or
Filling Requirements (FWMC Chapters 5, 19,21 and 22).
January 2006
Page 5
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
f.
Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
Erosion control would be addressed on a project level basis through the City's
surface water design requirements (FWMC Chapter 21), the clearing and grading
requirements (FWMC Chapters 5, 1921 and 22) and other provisions of the
SMP.
e
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example bOOdings or asphalt)?
No new impervious area is proposed. Development standards for setbacks and
lot coverage in the proposed SMP amendment and existing zoning regulations
would control the amount of new impervious area allowed in the shoreline. The
regulations of the proposed SMP amendment contain new provisions for
nonconforming uses and developments consistent with state guidelines (WAC
173-27-080). The new provisions allow existing nonconforming uses and
developments to remain, but prohibits expansion of those uses and developments
in a manner that increases the degree of nonconformity (in terms of height,
setbacks, buffers, etc.).
h.
Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, ifany.
The proposed SMP amendment strengthens erosion control provisions and
requires native vegetation conservation in the shoreline. The proposed SMP
amendment contains new policies and regulations related to preservation and
restoration of vegetation to benefit both habitat and slope stability in erosion
prone areas.
e
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (e.g. dust,
automobUe, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? H any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities, if knOWD.
None.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your
proposal? H so, generally describe.
No.
c. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts
to air, if any.
None specifically.
e
January 2006
Page 6
e
e
e
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
3.
Water
a. Surface:
1.
Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, and wetlands)? Hyes, describe type and provide names. H
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
In addition to the Puget Sound marine shoreline, the following
freshwater streams discharge to Puget Sound in the shoreline
jurisdiction: Joe's Creek, Lakota Creek, and an unnamed tributary
largely within Dash Point State Park, two unnamed tributaries draining to
Dumas Bay, and several other unnamed tributaries to the east of Dumas
Bay. Intertidal wetlands are also mapped in the shoreline (see Figures 5
and 6 in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization).
In addition to the seven SMP regulated lake shorelines, the following
streams discharge or drain these freshwater lakes: Redondo Creek
(Drains Steel Lake, mouth of stream within Des Moines), an unnamed
tributary draining Star Lake (eventually to the Green River to the east),
Hylebos Creek, and other unnamed tributaries draining to each of the
lakes. Lake fringe wetlands and hydric soils are mapped along the
shorelines of many of the regulated lakes (see Figures 5 and 6 in the
Shoreline Inventory and Characterization).
2.
Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described waters? Hyes, please describe and attach
available plans.
No. However, new development in the shoreline jurisdiction (which
includes work in or over Puget Sound and lake waters and within 200
feet of the ordinary high water mark of all regulated shorelines) would be
subject to the provisions of the proposed SMP amendment.
January 2006
Page 7
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
3.
Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that could be placed
in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area
of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill materials.
No filling or dredging is proposed. However, under the proposed SMP
amendment, fill activities would only be allowed in association with new
water dependent use developments (including shoreline restoration
projects) and fills waterward of the OHWM would be subject to a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. These provisions are consistent with
the existing SMP. The proposed SMP amendment allows dredging for
purposes of navigation and maintenance of public safety, subject to a
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. Dredging in designated critical areas
located in the shoreline is prohibited.
e
4. WiD the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversion?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
No.
5.
Does the proposal lie within a tOO-year flood plain? If so, note
location on the site plan.
All coastal beaches within the City's jurisdiction are included within the
100-year floodplain (King County, 2002, from FEMA flood insurance
rate mapping). Coastal floodplain hazard areas are typically associated
with storm waves.
e
According to FEMA FIRM mapping, only one of the lakes in Federal
Way lies within the 100 year floodplain - Lake Dolloff. All of the other
lakes lie outside ofthe floodplain (See Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Figure).
6. Does the proposal involve discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
No. Work to expand wastewater and stormwater treatment facilities
would be allowed under the proposed SMP amendment, subject to a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (for work in upland portions
of the shoreline) or a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (for work
waterward of the ordinary high water mark) as well as other applicable
state and federal regulations.
b. Ground
t. WiD ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
No.
2.
e
Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any. Describe the general size of the
January 2006
Page 8
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
.
-
e
system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) is expected to serve.
Not applicable. Existing and proposed developments in the shoreline are
required to be connected to the sanitary sewer system provided by one of
the several utility districts serving the City (primarily the Lakehaven
Utility District).
c.
Water Runoff (including storm water)
1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
coUection and disposal, if any (including quantities if known).
Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?
If so, describe.
Not applicable. The proposed SMP amendment carries forward existing
policies and includes new policies addressing preservation and
improvement of water quality. New development in the shoreline would
likely connect to the City's stormwater conveyance system and discharge
to Puget Sound. New development in the shoreline will be required to
comply with the provisions of the SMP and the City's surface water
design manual.
2.
Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
No.
d. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any.
No specific measures are proposed since the proposed SMP amendment is a
citywide non-project action. More generally, the proposed SMP amendment
strengthens goals and policies related to the conservation and restoration of water
quality. Policies address expansion of the City's water quality monitoring
program; development of clean-up plans for waterbodies that have exceeded state
water quality standards; and minimizing the discharge of pollutants at all SMP
regulated shorelines. Development and performance standards (e.g., buffers and
setbacks) for wetlands and streams, and mitigation requirements for potential
impacts are. contained in the proposed SMP amendment.
In addition, special provisions have been added to the shoreline regulations to
increase the water quality requirements for new developments with increased
potential for water quality impacts. Any project creating greater than six total
parking stalls will be required to meet water quality standards for "high use" sites
and "resource stream protection," as per the King County Surface Water Design
Manual.
Finally, the Restoration Plan discusses coordination with the City's Surface
Water Management Division, which includes projects resulting in improved
water quality.
January 2006
Page 9
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
4.
Plants
a. Types of vegetation fonnd on-site:
Undeveloped portions of Federal Way shoreline areas include:
e
Deciduous trees: Big leaf maple, and alder
Evergreen trees: Pacific madrone, Douglas fir, Western red cedar, Western
hemlock
Shrubs: Indian plum, salal, Oregon grape, elderberry, oceanspray, and
salmonberry
Herbs: ferns, groundcover, and ornamental herbs
Grass: maintained lawns
Pasture: none
Wet Soil Plants: salmonberry, willow, water lily
Water Plants: eelgrass, water milfoil, yellow flag iris
b.
What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None specifically. Generally, the proposed SMP amendment strengthens
conservation of shoreline vegetation. The amendment contains new goals and
policies for the conservation and restoration of native vegetation. Existing
regulations from the environmentally sensitive areas code have been incorporated
into the proposed SMP amendment. Specific regulations related to clearing,
grading, and landscaping activities require avoiding or minimizing impacts to
vegetation. Buffers of natural vegetation are to be maintained on all sides of
bluffs and steep slope areas.
e
c. List threatened or endangered species or critical habitat known to be on or
near the site.
According to WDNR Natural Heritage mapping, no rare plant species are
documented in Federal Way shoreline areas.
d. Describe proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on-site.
No site-specific provisions are proposed. The proposed SMP restoration plan
promotes restoration of riparian vegetation along bluffs, lake shorelines, streams,
and other shoreline areas where natural vegetation has been denuded or degraded.
Existing landscaping standards have been incorporated from the environmentally
sensitive areas (critical areas) code for bluffs and steep slope areas in the
shoreline. These regulations require that disturbed areas of development sites not
used for buildings or other improvements be planted with native trees and shrubs.
5. Animals
a.
UnderUne any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the
site or are known to be on or near the site:
Federal Way shorelines and "nearshore" area provides habitat for a number of
aquatic and terrestrial species. Detailed discussion is included in Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization report.
Species that have been documented in Federal Way marine and lake shoreline
e
January 2006
Page 10
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
areas include, but are not limited to:
Fish: Bull trout, Chinook, chum, coho, cutthroat, pink, and sockeye salmon are
known or expected to use the nearshore environment and streams in Federal
Way. Forage fish species most likely to occur in the City's shoreline jurisdiction
include surf smelt, sand lance, Pacific herring, longfin smelt, and eulachon
(Kerwin and Nelson 2000 and King County DNR, 2001). Fish species found in
the shoreline lakes include stocked trout, bass, yellow perch, sunfish, and brown
bullheads.
Shellfish and Invertebrates: Geoduck clams; intertidal hardshell clams; native
littleneck, macoma, manila, butter, horse, softshell, and cockle clams; purple and
green shore crabs, black-clawed crabs, red rock crabs, and graceful crabs; Sitka
shrimp, and tubeworm hermit crabs (King County DNR, 2001).
Amphibians: Frogs and salamanders in several of the lake shoreline areas
Reptiles: none specifically documented
Birds: Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and green heron (Butorides striatus)
nesting colonies have been identified in Reach IB (WDFW, 2006). Documented
observation dates of these nesting colonies range from 1980 to 2003 (WDFW,
2006). Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests have also been documented
in Reaches lA and lC (WDFW, 2004). A seabird colony outside of the City's
jurisdiction, associated with the northeast shore of Commencement Bay and the
Hylebos Waterway, as well as breeding purple martins (Progne subis) south of
the City, may utilize nearshore resources within Federal Way. Waterfowl,
including Canadian Geese, mallards, and several other species are known to use
Federal Way shorelines.
Mammals: Seals, sea lions, whales, and dolphins may all be observed off the
shores of Federal Way. No seal or sea lion haul-outs have been documented in
Federal Way, although they have been documented on buoys, floats, and
logbooms in Commencement Bay and southeast of Maury Island (Jeffries et aI.,
2000).
e
Whales and dolphins known to regularly visit central Puget Sound include
southern resident killer whales, common dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall's
porpoise. They do not typically use the nearshore areas within City of Federal
Way shoreline jurisdiction. Critical Habitat has been proposed for killer whales,
including Puget Sound marine waters deeper than 20 feet (6.1 meters) (Federal
Register, 2006).
e
b. List any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat near the site.
The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains priority
habitat and species (PHS) information for Washington State, including the status
of species as threatened or endangered. The City of Federal Way occurs within
the WDFW Region 4. Priority habitats within Region 4 and occurring within the
City include marine/estuarine shorelines, cliffs, snags, riparian areas, old-
growth/mature forests, and urban open spaces.
Species listed as federally-listed threatened or endangered include: Bald eagle
(T), coho salmon (Species of Concern), Chinook salmon (Threatened), Puget
Sound steelhead (Proposed threatened) and CoastallPuget Sound bull trout.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests have also been documented within
the marine shoreline in Reaches lA and lC (WDFW, 2004).
January 2006
Page 11
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Critical Habitat has been designated for Pacific salmon and steelhead in
Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, including the Puget Sound Evolutionarily ..
Significant Unit (ESU) Chinook salmon. Areas within Federal Way that are .
included as Chinook Critical Habitat include West Hylebos Creek, and estuarine,
and nearshore marine areas to a depth of 30 meters relative to Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW) (Federal Register, 2005a). Critical Habitat has also been
designated for bull trout, which may be present in the nearshore areas of Federal
Way. Designated Critical Habitat for bull trout includes marine waters to a depth
of33 feet (10 meters) relative to MLLW (Federal Register, 2005b).
Whales and dolphins known to regularly visit central Puget Sound include
southern resident killer whales, common dolphin, harbor porpoise, and Dall's
porpoise. They do not typically use the nearshore areas within City of Federal
Way shoreline jurisdiction. Critical Habitat has been proposed for killer whales,
including Puget Sound marine waters deeper than 20 feet (6.1 meters) (Federal
Register, 2006).
Other Priority species in the Federal Way area include geoduck clams, great blue
heron, green heron and purple martin.
Geoduck clams (Panopea generosa) are documented in subtidal areas adjacent to
shoreline in a small portion of Reach lA, as well as all ofReacheslB and lC,
southwest of Poverty Bay Park and extending beyond the City limits (See Figure
10 of the shoreline Inventory and Characterization). The tract was last surveyed
in 1971, as reported in Sizemore and Ulrich (2000). At the time of the 1971
survey, densities within the tract and other geoduck tracts along the WRIA 9
mainland area were shown to be amongst the highest in Puget Sound _
(approximately 4 to 7 per square meter). _
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) and green heron (Butorides striatus) nesting
colonies have been identified in Reach IB (WDFW, 2006). Documented
observation dates of these nesting colonies range from 1980 to 2003 (WDFW,
2006). Purple martin occurs south ofthe City and may utilize nearshore
resources within Federal Way.
c. Is the site part of a migratory route? If so, explain.
The City's shoreline jurisdiction is known or expected to contain juvenile
migratory salmonids including bull trout (federally listed), Chinook, chum, coho,
cutthroat, pink, and sockeye based on the knowledge of species life histories
(KCDNR, 2001). Salmonid species use the Hylebos Creek, Lakota Creek, and
Joe's Creek.
Federal Way is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for
migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyway extends south
from Alaska to Mexico and South America.
d.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.
The proposed SMP amendment strengthens protection of intertidal and subtidal
habitats by restricting uses and expansions of existing over-water developments.
The proposed SMP amendment contains goals, policies, and development
standards for the conservation and restoration of natural vegetation in the
shoreline.
e
January 2006
Pagel2
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
Existing provisions for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas (as well as mitigation for impacts to those areas) have been incorporated
into the SMP.
The City's SMP is meant to be consistent with and work in conjunction with
several City, State and federal programs to protect the functions and values of
shoreline ecological resources. These programs include, but are not limited to,
the following:
. Zoning and critical areas regulations (City);
. Surface water management regulations (City);
. Federal Endangered Species Act compliance (NOAA and USFWS);
. Federal Clean Water Act compliance (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Washington Department of Ecology);
. Marine Protected Areas (three areas in the City managed by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Parks);
. State Hydraulic Project Approval (Washington Department ofFish and
Wildlife); and
. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Washington Department
of Ecology).
Finally, the proposed SMP amendment contains goals, policies, and discussion
of opportunities for shoreline restoration. Potential opportunities include
restoration of riparian vegetation, replacement of hard shoreline armoring with
"soft-shore" alternative designs, restoration of wetlands associated with the
marine and freshwater shorelines, and restoration of subestuaries and deltas
where streams discharge to Puget Sound. Restoration activities, if implemented
over time, would have a beneficial effect on nearshore fish and wildlife habitat.
e
6.
Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (eleetric, natural gas, on, wood, solar) will be used to
meet the completed projeet's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Not applicable.
b. Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, explain.
No. The proposed SMP amendment maintains a maximum building height
limitation of 35-feet above average grade level for properties in the shoreline
jurisdiction.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
e
January 2006
Page 13
City o/Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
7. Environmental Health
a.
Are there any environmental health hazards, ineluding exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spills, or hazardous waste that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No.
e
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Not applicable.
2. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards.
Not applicable.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project
(for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)?
Not applicable.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated
with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example:
traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Not applicable.
Describe proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if
any.
Not applicable.
3.
e
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The City of Federal Way has an established land use pattern in the shoreline
jurisdiction. The nearshore shoreline area of Federal Way along the Puget Sound
shoreline is predominantly developed as single-family residential, interspersed
with parks, open space, and multi-family developments. The City has a diversity
of housing types. The nearshore shoreline areas are comprised of approximately
55 percent single-family development, 18 percent parks, 14 percent open space,
10 percent vacant land, and 2 percent multi-family development.
Along the freshwater lakes, land use is also primarily single-family residential.
Between 55 and 80 percent ofthe shoreline land use is single-family residential,
with the exceptions of North Lake (35 percent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent).
Other uses are public parks and open space, vacant land, commercial, office and
multi-family residential.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
e
January 2006
Page 14
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
e
e
c.
Describe any structures on the site.
Shorelines along the Puget Sound within the City are modified and contain
residential and accessory structures, parks buildings, bulkheads, docks, and other
structures. Bulkheads and residential recreational docks are common shoreline
modifications throughout the regulated lake shorelines. Approximately 40
percent of the marine shoreline within the City is modified with hardened
bulkheads. Bulkheads occur on 20 to 50 percent of the lake shorelines in the
City.
d. Will any structures be demolished? H so, what?
No.
The proposed SMP amendment chapter addressing restoration planning, as well
as the Restoration Plan, discusses the potential for removal of boulder riprap and
vertical concrete or wooden bulkheads along stream mouths and beaches as well
as along lake shorelines. The use of "soft-shore" armoring, or bioengineering
alternatives to erosion control and shoreline stabilization is discussed in the
Restoration Plan and promoted in the proposed SMP amendment goals and
policies.
e.
What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Zoning designations in the City of Federal Way follow land use designations of
the Comprehensive Plan. Within the City's nearshore shoreline jurisdiction,
zoning is exclusively residential single-family (See shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Figures 12-A through l2-C). These include residential 1 unit!
7,200 square feet (RS 7.2), residential 1 unit!9,600 square feet (RS 9.6),
residential 1 unit!15,000 square feet (RS 15.0), residentiall unit/35,OOO square
feet (RS 35.0), and residential 1 unit!5 acres (SE).
Zoning designations in the City of Federal Way and the PAA, in the areas of all
of the regulated lakes, follow the land use designations established in the City's
Comprehensive Plan (See shoreline Inventory and Characterization Figures l2-D
through 12-H) and the King County Comprehensive Plan (for PAA areas). King
County zoning designations apply in the P AA until those areas are incorporated
through annexation at which time, the pre-annexation zoning classifications
established in the city's Comprehensive Plan will apply. Star Lake, Lake
Dolloff, Lake Geneva, and Five Mile Lake are all completely within
unincorporated King County. County zoning designations in the pertinent
freshwater lakes' shoreline planning areas are primarily Moderate-Density
Single-Family Residential (Urban Residential Zones R-4 and R-6). More than 90
percent of the Star Lake and Lake Dolloff shoreline planning areas in the PAA
are zoned by King County as Urban Residential R-6. The remaining freshwater
lake shoreline planning areas within the P AA are zoned by King County as
primarily Urban Residential R-4 (KCC Chpt. 21A.04.080). Federal Way pre-
annexation zoning classifications in the P AA are very similar to existing county
zoning classifications for the area.
City zoning within the North Lake, Steel Lake, and Lake Killamey shoreline
planning areas is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan designations.
January 2006
Page 15
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Steel Lake is zoned as primarily Single-Family Residential with small areas of
Multi Family Residential and Commercial zoning. Lake Killarney is zoned as _
roughly two-thirds Single-Family Residential with the majority of the remaining ..,
area zoned as Office. Approximately one-half of the North Lake shoreline
planning area is zoned Single-Family Residential with Corporate Park (33.90
percent) and Office (6.20 percent) zoning designations over the majority of the
remaining area.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
According to the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Map (2006), the
shoreline planning areas for the marine shoreline and lakes in the City is largely
comprised of properties designated as Low, Medium and High density Single
Family (I to 4.5 dwelling units per acre). The Parks and Open
Spaceacilities/Utilities designation comprises the second largest portion of the
shoreline. Small areas designated as commercial, office and multi-family
comprise the remainder. The exception to this is North Lake, which is about one-
half single family and one-half office park uses.
Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan designations in the P AA are primarily
medium and high density residential with smaller areas of multi-family,
commercial and office.
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
The City's existing Shoreline Master Program goals and policies are included as
an element in the land use chapter of the City's current Comprehensive Plan.
These goals and policies encourage water-oriented uses and existing residential
uses in balance with protection of the Puget Sound shoreline's natural resources
(City of Federal Way, 2002). This document also establishes shoreline
environment designations as Natural, Conservancy, Rural, or Urban
Environments, depending on the land use and intensity of development. In the
coastal shoreline, the existing shoreline environment designations are shown on
Figures 12-A through 12-C.
e
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentaUy sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
Chapter 22, Article XN of the Federal Way Municipal Code establishes critical
areas and/or their buffers (Le., geologic hazard areas; wetlands, aquifer recharge
areas, wellhead protection areas and stream areas) and associated regulatory
requirements.. The proposed SMP amendment incorporates these regulations
into the proposed SMP regulations.
Designated environmentally sensitive areas are found throughout the City's
shoreline jurisdiction. They include streams, wetlands, flood hazard areas,
wellhead protection areas and geologic hazard areas (bluffs, ravine sidewalls,
steep slopes, landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, and seismic hazard
areas) (see Figures 6, 9a-9h, 10, and lla-llh of the Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization).
e
January 2006
Page 16
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
e
i.
Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
Not applicable.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None.
k. Describe proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any.
Not applicable.
I.
Describe proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any.
The proposed SMP environment designations include an "Urban Conservancy"
environment that includes waterfront park areas, as well as residential and office
areas that continue to have shorelines with high levels of ecological function; a
"Shoreline Residential" environment for areas of the City that are characterized
by single family residences; and a "Natural" environment which is meant to
uniformly manage all lands of the City that are minimally developed, including
some park areas and other protected open spaces. The purpose, management
policies, designation criteria and boundary description of all the environment
designations are located in the regulations of the proposed SMP. The proposed
environment designations are consistent with both the existing land use pattern
and Comprehensive Plan future land use designations. A map of the
environment designations is shown on Figure 3.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
None. The proposed SMP amendment would not change the underlying
Comprehensive Plan land use or zoning designations.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
None. The proposed SMP amendment would not change the underlying
Comprehensive Plan land use or zoning designations.
c. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
Not applicable.
10. Aesthetics
e
a.
What is the tallest height of any of the proposed structure(s), not including
antennas? What is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No specific structures are proposed. The proposed SMP amendment maintains a
maximum building height limitation of35-feet above average grade level for
properties in the shoreline jurisdiction.
January 2006
Page 17
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
b.
e
What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Not applicable.
c. Describe proposed measures to reduce aesthetic impacts, if any.
No specific measures are proposed. The proposed SMP amendment strengthens
protection of views and aesthetic visual quality in the shoreline. The amendment
prohibits billboards in all environment designations and limits commercial
development. These measures, in conjunction with height limits and policies
promoting conservation and restoration of native vegetation, would minimize
aesthetic impacts and potentially enhance the aesthetics of the shoreline over
time.
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of Ught and glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Not applicable.
b. Could Ught or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views?
Not applicable. The 35-foot height limitation for structures in the shoreline is
intended, in part, to preserve views.
c.
What existing off-site sources of Ught or glare may affect your proposal?
Not applicable.
e
d. Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control Ught and glare
impacts, if any.
As no light and glare impacts are expected, none are proposed.
12. Recreation
a.
What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
Approximately 31 percent of the City's shoreline is dedicated as parks or open
space and is available for public access and use. Figure 13 of the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization shows the locations of all the shoreline public
parks and open space within the City's shoreline. Existing parks, open space,
and public facilities in the City's marine shoreline planning area include the
following:
Dash Point State Park - This 398-acre state park is located on the westernmost
point of the Federal Way marine shoreline. The park provides access to 3,302
feet ofPuget Sound marine shoreline. The park also contains two covered picnic
shelters, 11 miles of hiking and biking trails, amphitheater, and 138 camping
sites, with a mix of primitive tent sites and a serviced campground.
Dumas Bav Park - This 19.3-acre neighborhood park is located along the City's
western Puget Sound shoreline, north of Dash Point State Park, off Dash Point
e
January 2006
Page 18
City a/Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
Road. The park offers 12 parking stalls and unpaved trails which lead to the
beach front. The park also contains interpretive signs.
Dumas Bay Centre - Located on the north side of Dumas Bay, opposite Dumas
Bay Park, the Dumas Bay Center features the Knutzen Family Theater, a retreat
and meeting center, as well as a park and Puget Sound beach front.
Poverty Bay Park - Located north of Dumas Bay Center, this park is a 48-acre
site of undeveloped open space, with approximately 500 feet of beach shoreline.
Of the seven freshwater lakes included in this shoreline plan inventory, only Star
Lake and Lake Dolloff are without public access. Existing public access parks
along the other lakes are owned and operated by the City, King County, and
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (boat ramps). The City's
Parks Website (2006), King County's Parks Website (2006a), and Washington
State's Park Website (2006) describes the following parks, open spaces, and
public facilities in the City's freshwater lake shoreline planning area. These
areas are shown on Figure 13 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization.
Steel Lake Park - Public access is provided at various locations within the park
including a Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife boat ramp located in
the northeast comer of the park. This park is located on the southern shore of
Steel Lake. Included in the 51.7 acre park is beach and lake access, a boat
launch, and swimming and fishing areas. Other park amenities include a
children's play structure, a sand volleyball court, 5 picnic areas, restrooms, a
parking area and a concessions building. The park continues across South 3 12th
Street to the south, with additional parking (roughly 100 total stalls), three
ballfields, and a skate park. Trout and largemouth bass are stocked in the lake for
fishing. Other fish found in the lake include yellow perch, pumpkinseed, and
brown bullhead.
Star Lake and Lake Dolloff - Although there is not a park at either Star Lake or
Lake Dolloff, the public has access via public boat ramps at each lake. Trout and
largemouth bass are stocked in each of these lakes.
Lake Geneva Park - Owned and operated by King County, this park extends to
the east from the northeast shore of Lake Geneva. Included in the 18.64 acre
park is beach and lake access, a fishing area, a boat ramp, and a non-motorized
boat put-in area. Other park amenities include a children's play structure, open
playfields, 5 picnic areas, 1 covered picnic area, restrooms, a parking area and
two ball fields. Trout and largemouth bass are stocked in the lake
Lake Killarnev and North Lake Public Fishing Areas - Washington Department
ofFish and Wildlife owns and operates public fishing areas at Lake Killarney
and North Lake. Both areas include public access to the respective lakes as well
as public restroom facilities. Lake Killarney Public Fishing Area, located at the
north end of the lake, includes gravel parking area as well as a boat ramp into the
lake. North Lake Public Fishing Area, located at the north end of the lake,
includes two paved parking stalls. 'A trail maintained by Weyerhaeuser runs
along the western shoreline of North Lake.
Lake Killarney Park - Owned and operated by the City, this park extends
northwest from Lake Killarney to the corner of South 349th Street and
Weyerhaeuser Way South. Included in the 12-acre park is lake access along
walking trails and at picnic facilities. The City describes the park as being a
'Neighborhood / Open Space Park'. A WDFW boat ramp provides water access
on the eastern shore. Fishing and boating are popular activities at Lake Killarney.
Trout and largemouth bass are stocked in the lake, though other species present
include perch, pumpkinseed and catfish.
e
e
January 2006
Page 19
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Five Mile Lake Park - Owned and operated by the King County, this park
extends to the northeast from the lake's eastern shore. Included in the 31.94 acre
park is beach and lake access, including swimming and fishing areas. The
swimming area includes a floating swim platform and a bathhouse facility. The
fishing area includes a pier. Other park amenities include a children's
playstructure, a sand volleyball court, picnic areas, picnic shelters, barbeque
areas, a lookout tower, local trails, several sports courts, two baseball fields, an
open play field, restrooms, parking area and a concessions building.
e
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No.
c.
Describe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant.
One goal of the Shoreline Management Act is to provide and enhance public
access and recreational opportunities in the shorelines of the state. The Federal
Way proposed SMP amendment implements this goal in several ways. First, the
proposed amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan contains general goals
and policies related to public access and recreation. Second, the purpose
statement and management policies for two shoreline environment designations
(Urban Conservancy and Shoreline Residential) include provisions for public
access and recreation. And third, the proposed SMP amendment use regulations
allow recreational development in all shoreline environments (Table 2, below).
e
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on or eligible for national, state, or
local preservation registen known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
The existing Federal Way Comprehensive Plan provides a general goal to
identify, protect, and restore those areas and facilities within the City that are of
historical or archeological significance (City of Federal Way, 2002). The plan
establishes a goal to ensure that historic properties and archeological sites are
protected as "important elements in the overall design of the City." Policies in
the Comprehensive Plan define characteristics that enable the identification of
historic and archeological sites, and direct the City to preserve and protect these
sites from incompatible land uses.
Native American use of water bodies throughout western Washington has been
well documented. Native peoples undoubtedly used tributaries of the Green
River, the Hylebos Creek, and Puget Sound Marine shoreline for fisheries
resources. Historic GLO survey maps from the 1860s do not identify any Native
American village sites or any other Native American sites within the City's
marine shoreline planning area. The Historical Society of Federal Way includes
an article review of Native American use within the vicinity of the City. The e
article does not indicate that village sites are known to exist within the vicinity.
January 2006
Page 20
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Check/ist
e
e
However, the article notes the presence of Native American artifacts and, in one
instance, human remains along the marine shoreline (Historical Society of
Federal Way, 2005). Shell middens have been documented within the City's
marine shorelines. The City requires review of archeological and historical
resources on a parcel-by-parcel basis during development review as warranted.
The Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
maintains a database of sites listed on Washington's Historic register and the
national register. A search of the database for sites within the City's shoreline
planning area revealed no listed sites of historical significance (DAHP).
Additionally, no sites are listed on King County's Local Landmarks List (King
County,2006).
There are no known archeological or historical resources within the freshwater
lake shoreline planning areas. However, native American archaeological
resources may exist along the shoreline of the freshwater lakes in the City and its
PAA. The Washington State Department of Archeology and Historical
Preservation does not indicate any areas within and adjacent to freshwater lake
shoreline designation as being included in their database of listed properties
(DAHP). The Historical Society of Federal Way documents the history of a
series of dance halls associated with parks and resorts at several of the lakes
within the City and the PAA; however none of the dance hall structures remain
(Historical Society of Federal Way, 2000).
b.
GeneraUy describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None other than those described above in 13.a.
c. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
The proposed goals and policies of the SMP amendment expand existing goals
and policies for the preservation and restoration of archeological and historic
resources. Policies also promote public education about Federal Way historic
and cultural resources.
14. Transportation
e
a.
Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on-site plans, if any.
As described above the majority of the City's marine shoreline is occupied by
low- to medium-density single-family development. Public shoreline access is
available at Dash Point State Park, Dumas Bay Park, Dumas Bay Center, and
Poverty Bay Park. Limited shoreline access and uniformity in shoreline land use
(single family) created a land use pattern with relatively few roads in the City's
shoreline. Most of the roads that provide access to the shoreline are located
outside the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The exceptions are a small portion of
Southwest 300th Place in shoreline environmental Reach IB, and Southwest
292nd Street, 2nd Avenue Southwest, and Southwest 291st Street, in Reach lC.
All streets in the City's shoreline are local streets.
However, one larger roadway influences the shoreline area by providing access,
but is outside of the City's shoreline. Leading to Dumas Bay Center, Dumas Bay
Park, and Dash Point State Park, is Southwest Dash Point Road, State Route 509
(located in Reach IB, Ie). King County Metro, Sound Transit, and Pierce
January 2006
Page 21
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Transit provide transit services in the City of Federal Way. The only transit route
in the Federal Way nearshore shoreline vicinity is Metro's Route 175 that _
provides service along Southwest Dash Point Road. ..,
In the freshwater lake shoreline planning areas, roads and transportation
infrastructure reflect the existing land use patterns described above. The density
of roads is relatively low within the shoreline planning areas at all lakes due to
the residential development and open spaces that surround. In areas where roads
do pass into the City's freshwater lake shoreline planning areas, the majority of
roads are functionally classified as 'local streets'. According to the Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan, these roads primary function is to "provide direct access to
abutting land uses and serve as feeders to [road] facilities with higher functional
classifications" (FWCP Chpt. 3, Ill-I 5). Traffic levels on local roads are light
relative to what is seen on collector or arterial roads.
Roads and transportation infrastructure near or adjacent to waterbodies can create
adverse impacts to those natural systems by blocking flow or creating impervious
surfaces. Roadways represent a significant source of impervious surface in urban
areas. Auto-related pollutants including petroleum products, hydrocarbons, and
heavy metals accumulate on road surfaces and are carried to nearby waterbodies
during storm events through sheet runoff or stormwater collection systems.
b.
Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Transit services in the City of Federal Way are provided by King County Metro
and Sound Transit.
e
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eUminate?
Not applicable.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
Not applicable.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Not applicable.
g. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any.
The proposed SMP amendment Circulation Element retains many ofthe existing
goals and policies related to transportation facilities, and adds a new policy
promoting development of trails and other non-motorized forms of access to the
shoreline. Policies address limiting roads and parking lots to those serving water _
dependent or water related uses (such as the marina) and encourage development .,
of trails and other forms of non-motorized access to the shoreline. Development
January 2006
Page 22
-
e
e
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
standards and use regulations related to transportation facilities require design
elements and siting of allowed facilities in a manner that avoids or minimizes
impacts to the natural environment.
15.
Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally explain.
No.
b. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services.
Not applicable.
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity. natural gas. water. refuse service. telephone. sanitary sewer, cable,
septic systems, other
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be needed.
No new utilities are proposed.
c. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Name (print):
Title:
Date Submitted:
January 2006
Page 23
City ofF ederal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
e
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the
elements of the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to
result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal
were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production,
storage, or release of to DC or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. All development and redevelopment in
the shoreline jurisdiction would be subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements,
including building code, fIre code, and surface water design standards, in addition to the provisions of the
proposed SMP amendment.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increase are:
The proposed SMP amendment includes policies and regulations for the protection of shorelines,
addressing impacts of specific uses and shoreline modifIcations. Generally, the proposed SMP
provides a new system of shoreline environment designations that establishes more uniform
management of the City's shoreline. The updated development standards and regulation of
shoreline modifications provides more protection for shoreline ecological processes. The updated
standards and regulations are more restrictive of activities that would result in adverse impacts to
the shoreline environment.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine Dfe? e
The proposed SMP amendment has been developed, in part, to meet the goal of "no net loss" of shoreline
ecological functions. That is, as development occurs in accordance with the SMP, degradation of the
natural environment and shoreline ecological functions will be avoided, minimized, or mitigated.
Additionally, SMP planning for shoreline restoration addresses the goal of improving shoreline ecological
functions that have been degraded over time from past development activities. Through goals, policies,
development standards, use regulations, and mitigation requirements, the proposed SMP amendment
provides protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, natural vegetation, and management of
critical areas (marine bluffs, streams, wetlands, etc.). These elements are discussed above in Section B. of
this checklist, as well as below.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
. Changes to Shoreline Environment Designations
The proposed SMP environment designations include: Shoreline Residential, Urban
Conservancy and Natural Environments. Goals, policies and regulations have been updated
in each ofthese designations to better achieve a "no net loss" in ecological shoreline function
as development occurs.
. Changes to Development Standards and Use Regulations
The proposed SMP offers several changes to the development regulations that encourage
shoreline conservation and prohibit activities that would cause adverse impact to shoreline
functions and processes. Many of these changes deal with shoreline modification such as
bulkheads and ripnip revetments along much ofthe City's shoreline. These shoreline
modifIcations have significantly altered the natural net-shore drift direction and the
e
January 2006
Page 24
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Check/ist
e
availability and local distribution of beach sediment. Other changes related to specific uses in
the shoreline are also designed to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes, while
continuing to allow legal uses, access, and development. These proposed changes to
development standards and use regulations are, in general, more protective than the existing
SMP. As redevelopment occurs in other environments (particularly for shoreline
stabilization), policies and development standards establish a preference for alternative "soft-
shore" erosion control or stabilization designs. In some cases, project applicants would be
required to demonstrate why a "soft-shore" design would not provide adequate protection of
existing development. Over time these changes will likely have a net beneficial effect on
shoreline ecological processes as properties are redeveloped.
. Restoration Planning
Consistent with state guidelines (173-26-186), the proposed SMP includes a new section of
goals and policies addressing shoreline restoration. The Master Program Goal has also been
modified to acknowledge that the City's intent is not simply to meet the "no net loss"
standard, but that the proposed SMP should serve to improve the overall condition of the
habitat and resources within the shoreline jurisdiction ofthe City.
The Restoration Plan of the proposed SMP specifically addresses shoreline restoration
planning. This proposed SMP document identifies restoration opportunities that include
programmatic opportunities (e.g. surface water management; water quality improvement;
public education), site-specific opportunities (e.g. restoration of subesturaries/stream mouth
deltas), regional plans and policies for Puget Sound restoration, and potential funding and
partnership opportunities. The SMP's restoration planning is focused on areas where
shoreline functions have been degraded by past development activities. These areas were
identified in the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. Over time implementation
of these restoration opportunities will have the effect of improving shoreline ecological
functions within the City.
e
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
The proposed SMP amendment would not result in depletion of energy or natural resources. Extractive or
resource based industries, such as mining, forestry, agriculture, and aquaculture, are prohibited in all
shoreline environments in the proposed SMP amendment.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
No specific measures are proposed.
e
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or afTect environmentaUy sensitive areas or areas
designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness,
wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites,
wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?
Generally, the proposed SMP amendment establishes policies and regulations for the protection and
conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and public access recreational sites. The proposed SMP
provides a new system of shoreline environment designations that establishes more uniform management
of the City's shoreline. The updated development standards and regulation of shoreline modifications
provides more protection for shoreline processes. The updated standards and regulations are more
restrictive of activities that would result in adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The restoration
planning effort outlined in the proposed SMP provides the City with opportunities to improve or restore
ecological functions that have been impaired as a result of past development activities. In addition, the
proposed SMP is meant to compliment several City, state and federal efforts to protect shoreline functions
and values.
January 2006
Page 25
City afFederal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: ..
Chapter 22, Article XIV of the Federal Way Municipal Code establishes critical areas and/or .
their buffers (i.e., geologic hazard areas, , wetlands, , aquifer recharge areas, wellhead protection
areas and stream areas) and associated regulatory requirements. The proposed SMP amendment
incorporates these regulations.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would
allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The City of Federal Way has an established land use pattern in the shoreline jurisdiction that predates the
current regulatory regime. The pattern generally includes public waterfront parks, single-family
development, and on a few of the lake shorelines areas that are privately held and, although undeveloped
along the shoreline, contain office buildings that are set back. The limited amount of vacant land in the
shoreline jurisdiction is all located in residential zones. This land use pattern is consistent with both the
City's current zoning and vision offuture land use as established by the City's Comprehensive Plan land
use designations.
The City's existing Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2003. The Comprehensive Plan establishes
goals and policies that defme the community's vision for the physical, economic, and social development
of the City for the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan land use designations near the Puget Sound
shoreline includes Parks and Open Space, Single Family Low, Medium and High Density. Along the lake
shorelines, the Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the shoreline area are again predominantly
Single Family residential, however they also include Multi-Family, Office and Commercial areas. The
proposed SMP shoreline environment designations are consistent with the land use vision expressed in
the Comprehensive Plans. Following adoption, the City's proposed SMP goals and policies will be
incorporated as Chapter 11 (a new chapter) of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 22 of the Federal Way Municipal Code establishes zoning designations. Zoning implements the
Comprehensive Plan's vision for future land use. Zoning designations near the Puget Sound shoreline
and lake shorelines reflect the zoning described in the Comprehensive Plan.
e
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are:
Based on the developed nature of the City's shoreline, the lack of extensive vacant developable
land, and consistency among land use regulations and long-range plans, reasonable foreseeable
development will likely be redevelopment of property rather than new development.
Redevelopment will not likely result in significant changes in land use (e.g. single-family to
multi-family, commercial, or industrial uses).
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and
utilities?
The proposed SMP amendment does not establish new patterns of land use or increased density of
existing land use patterns. As described above, reasonable foreseeable development will likely be
redevelopment of property rather than new development. Redevelopment will not likely result in
significant changes to or increased demand for public services or infrastructure.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:
Since increased demands are not anticipated, no specific measures are proposed.
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or
requirements of the protection of the environment.
e
January 2006
Page 26
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
In general, the City's SMP will not conflict with other local, state or federal laws. The SMP is meant to
be consistent with and work in conjunction with several City, State and federal programs to protect the
functions and values of shoreline resources and protect the health and safety of City residents. These
programs include, but are not limited to, the following:
City Programs
Ci/v of Federal Wav Municioal Code. Chapter 22. Article XlV, Critical Areas - Chapter 22,
Article XIV of the Federal Way Municipal Code establishes critical areas and/or their buffers
(i.e., geologic hazard areas, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, wellhead protection areas and
stream areas) and associated regulatory requirements. Consistent with state guidelines,
development standards for critical areas that are physically located in the shoreline jurisdiction
have been incorporated as regulations within the proposed SMP.
State and Federal Regulations
A number of state and federal agencies may have jurisdiction over land or natural elements in the
City's shoreline jurisdiction. The state and federal regulations affecting shoreline-related
resources include, but are not limited to:
Endangered Species Act: The federal ESA addresses the protection and recovery of federally
listed species. The ESA is jointly administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (formerly referred to as the National Marine Fisheries
Service), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
e
Clean Water Act rCWA): The federal CW A requires states to set standards for the protection of
water quality for various parameters, and it regulates excavation and dredging in waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. Certain activities affecting wetlands in the City's shoreline jurisdiction
or work in the adjacent rivers may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and/or Washington State Department of Ecology under Section 404 and Section 401 of the CW A,
respectively.
Hvdraulic Proiect Aoproval (BPA): The Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW)
regulates activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow ofthe beds or banks of
waters of the state and may affect fish habitat. Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction requiring
construction below the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound or streams in the city could
require an HPA from WDFW. Projects creating new impervious surface that could substantially
increase stormwater runoff to waters of the state may also require approval.
National Pol/utant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES): Ecology regulates activities that
result in wastewater discharges to surface water from industrial facilities or municipal wastewater
treatment plants. NPDES permits are also required for stormwater discharges from industrial
facilities, construction sites of five or more acres, and municipal stormwater systems that serve
populations of 100,000 or more.
Additionally, the Washington State Department of Ecology will review the proposed Federal
Way SMP for consistency with the SMA and state guidelines.
-
January 2006
Page 27
Citi� oJFederu! Way Shoreline Mas[er Program Update
SEPA Environmen[a! Checklist
FIGURES
January 1007 Page 29
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Figure 1. City of Federal Way - Regional Context and Vicinity Map
e
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
Regional
Context
Legend
("~'WRlA9& 10
~i::~;t1j, CIty of Federal Way
Other Incorporated Area
e
Map SOIIrell: Oily rilFe!ler,at way, KIng county
l\IIapDate: :May, 2000
City of Fedem: Way
33325 athAve S.
PO 60)(9718
Federal VVa,/:, WA90063~9718
(253) 635-7000
ww..M:ityoffederalway.ecm
t.l. 0 2.5 5 Miles
N. ..-
A Federal Way
il1lS map 16 aceo:mpanied Dy NC.walT;JOws.
alMl!}5 &imply i! gr~1C tepU!senl3mn
e
January 2006
Page 30
e
.
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program late
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Figure 2. City of Federal Way SMP - Shoreline Jurisdiction
Federal Way Shoreline
Master Program
Streams, Wetlands
and Flood Plains
Way
Federal Way
Potenlial
nexation Area
~Unincorporaled
iGz~Area
~10lher
_Incorporated Area
100 Year
Floodplain
Surface Water
. Wetlands'
"Wetands and Streams
were Identified In a
1998 City of Federal Way
SUNey
Map Source: Cfiyof
Federal INay, King County
0.0
1 Mile"
J.
N
[,,::m:..
Map Dale: May, 2006
Shorelines:
O Shoreline
Planning Area
;'1'\ Puyet Sound
""" East
Puyet Sound -
.CD Dumas Bay
~ Puget Sound
......West
e Steel Lake
o Star Lake
o Lake Dolloff
o Lake Geneva
o North Lake
o Lake Killamey
o Five Mile Lake
City of Federal Way
33325 8tll Ave S
PO Box 9716
Federal Way. WI>. 98063
(253) 835-7000
:A Federal Way
Tl1is map Is accompanied by NO warranties. and is simply
a graphic representation. For more .nformation, visd us on
tile web: w\\'W.cityollecJeralway.com
Figure 3. City of Federal Way SMP - Proposed Shoreline E~vironment Designations
January 2007
Page 31
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Federal Way
Shoreline
Master Program
Proposed
Shoreline
Environment
Designations
Legend
City of Federal Way
Potentia! Annexation Area
Proposed Shoreline
Environment Desiignations:
Natural
Shoreline Residential
Urban Conservancy
Q 0 .0.5. .1 Miles
.~
N Map Date: November 2000
A FeOfderal Way
ibis ......p is """"n~nied by NO warranties,
and is simply'" graphic ",prec..entalioo.
January 2006
e
e
Page 32
e
SEP A Environmental Checklist
e
References
Federal Way, City of. 1999. Shoreline Master Program.
Federal Way, City of. 2004. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter
18.141-145, Federal Way, WA.
Federal Way, City of. 2001. Comprehensive Plan.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Panels 962, 964, 968.
Kerwin, John and Nelson, Tom S. (Eds.). December 2000. "Habitat Limiting Factors and Reconnaissance
Assessment Report, GreenlDuwamish and Central Puget Sound Watersheds (WRIA 9 and
Vashon Island)." Washington Conservation Commission and the King County Department of
Natural Resources.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the
State of the Nearshore Report: Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Seattle,
WA.
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP), Water and Land Resource
Division. 2004. King County's 1996/1997 Beach Assessment Program. Available at
http://www.metrokc.gov. Accessed September 21,2004.
e
King County Historic Preservation Program (KCHHP). 2004. Personal communication with Charlie
Sundberg, Historic Preservation Planner.
King County, 1990, Sensitive Areas Map Folio
King County, 2002, Sensitive areas ordinance geographic information systems (GIS) data, Seattle,
Washington.
Soil Conservation Service, 1979, Soil survey of King County Area, Washington; United States
Department of Agriculture.
Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (WDAHP). 200S. Washington
Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). Available
online at: http://www.oahp.wa.gov/pages/wisaardIntro.htm.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology Website). Final 1998 Section 303(d) List - WRIA 9.
Available online athttp://www.ecy .wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/1998/wrias/wria9.pdf (accessed
September 2004).
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1979, Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, King County, v. 6.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2000. Drift Cells mapping in the Digital Coastal Zone Atlas
of Washington. Available online at http://www.ecv.wa.gov
e Washington State Department of Ecology. 2001. Oblique Aerial Photos.
Doc. 1.0.
SEP A Environmental Checklist
Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2004. Habitats and Species, Streamnet, and Marine
Resources GIS Databases. Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, e
Washington.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory. Nearshore Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Olympia, WA.
Williams, R. W., R. M. Laramie, and J. J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon
Utilization - Volume I, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries (currently
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife).
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (W A DNR). 2003. Natural Heritage Plan. Olympia,
Washington.
e
e
Doc. 1.0.
~
CITY OF ~
e Federal Way
!
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNlF1CANCE (DNS)
City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update
Federal Way File #05-104947-00~SE
Description of Proposal: The proposal is to amend the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP),
which consists of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 18, Article III, and.a sub element of Chapter Two of tile
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The proposed update also includes a new Shoreline Inventory and
Characterization Report, Public Palticipation Plan, Shoreline Restoration Plan, other supporting materials, and
minor amendment of FWCC Chapter 22. The proposed amendment is cOl1sidered a comprehensive update to the
SMP and has been prepared consistent with Department of Ecology guidelines (WAC 173-26-20 I).
The proposed amendments make changes to shoreline goals and policies and shoreline regulations addressing
setbacks, vegetation retention, shoreline modifications, bulkheads, docks, etc., consistent with Ecology guidelines.
Three shoreline environment designations (Shoreline Residential, Urban Conservancy, and Natural) are proposed. A
voluntary, incentive-based shoreline restoration plan is proposed. The proposed amendments are based on a
scientific shoreline inventory and characterization report prepared in 2006.
Proponent: The City of Federal Way
e
Location of Proposal: Citywide within shoreline jurisdiction (200 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark [OHWM],
including associated wetlands, ofPuget Sound, Steel Lake, and North Lake, and the northwest portion of Lake
KilIamey) and including the entire Potential Annex.ation Area (P AA) within shoreline jurisdiction (within 200 feet
of the OHWM ofStae Lake, Dolloff Lake, Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake, and the remainder of Lake Killamey). The
area waterward oflakes and the Puget Sound shoreline is also regulated by the SMP.
I
I
i.
Lead Agency: The City of Federal Way
City Contact: Acting Senior Planner Isaac Conlen, 253-835-2643
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse. impact on the
environment. An environmental impact statement (ErS) is not required under RCW 4.:n ICQ30(2)(c). This decision
was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other intormation on file with the lead agency.
This information is available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the
date below: Comments must be submitted by April 16, 2007. This determination may be appealed to the Director of
Community Development Services (address below), no later than5:00 p.m. Oll April 30, 2007, by a written letter
stating the reason for the appeal of the 'determination. The appellant should be prepared to make specific factual
objections.
Responsible Official:
Address:
Kathy McClung, Director, Department ofCorrununity Development Services
33325 8tl. Avenue South, PO Box. 9718, Federal Way; W A 98063-9718
.
Date Issued: March 3 L 2007
Signat.,", -K~ IY\L~
()Qc 1040270