Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 0317 08JEFFERSON COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON In the matter of creating a new Chapter } 18.22 JCC, a Critical Areas Ordinance and replacing 18.15 JCC, Environmentally Sensitive Areas Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas Ordinance No. 03-0317-08 WHEREAS, RCW Chapter 36.70A, et seq., also known as the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), requires that counties planning under the GMA adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, the Unified Development Code (UDC) was originally adopted on December 18, 2000 as a development regulation required by the Growth Management Act, to be effective January 16, 2001; and WHEREAS, for proper citation in courts of law the UDC has been codified within the Jefferson County Code (JCC) at Title 18; and WHEREAS, Jefferson County adopted amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code through Ordinance No. 17-1213-04 on December 13, 2004, to comply with the 7 -year update mandated by the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A, by this action re -adopted UDC Section 3 -JCC Chapter 18.15 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) without modification; and WHEREAS, the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) filed a petition for review (PFR) on March 2, 2001, at the initial adoption of the UDC and filed another PFR on February 15, 2005; and WHERAEAS, Jefferson County entered into settlement agreements in order to agenda issues, limit unnecessary costs, time and resources; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development proposed code amendments for protection of critical areas in the May 17, 2006 Master Land Use Application (MLA) #06-242; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the May 17, 2006 proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission decided to redraft the May 17, 2006 proposed Critical Areas Ordinance; and Page 1 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas WHEREAS, the Planning Commission appointed a committee to research best available science (BAS) and provide a recommended draft version of the Critical Areas Ordinance for the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the committee's work and completed a Planning Commission final draft Critical Areas Ordinance during December of 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission forwarded the January 9, 2008, final draft to the Board of County Commissioners as their official recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation and forwarded all reports to the Board of County Commissioners including the Planning Commission official recommendation, and the Planning Commission minority report; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (or "BoCC") now completes this process by the adoption of this ordinance and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act (or "GMA") in 1990. 2. Jefferson County began planning under the GMA in the early 1990s. 3. The County adopted a Comprehensive Plan under GMA on August 28, 1998. 4. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.050 requires the state agency Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) to provide guidelines to classify and protect critical areas. The GMA, at RCW 36.70A.060 requires each county to adopt development regulations to protect critical areas. 6. RCW 36.70A.170, part of the GMA, requires counties to designate critical areas. To comply with RCW 36.70A.172 counties planning under GMA must include Best Available Science to protect the functions and values of critical areas. RCW 36.70A.172 also states that special Consideration shall be given to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. 7. Critical Areas are defined in the GMA at RCW 36.70A.030 as including the following areas and ecosystems: a) wetlands; b) critical recharge areas for aquifers used for potable water; c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; d) frequently flooded areas; and e) geologically hazardous areas. 8. The GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.035, requires public participation. Participation shall be early and continuous, frequent and often. Page 2 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 9. The GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.3201, recognizes the broad range of discretion that may be exercised by counties. This means that the BoCC, as the County legislature for Jefferson County, must balance the priorities and options based upon local circumstances. Within the framework of state goals and requirements, the State Legislature has concluded that the ultimate burden for planning, harmonizing and implementing a county's future rests with that community. 10. In order to balance the planning goals of the GMA, the BoCC encouraged the involvement of citizens and coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. 11. DCD staff, the Planning Commission, Planning Commission committee, Wetland Advisory team, and the BoCC engaged citizens, agencies, tribes, to develop an elongated public review process. 12. The CAO represents numerous compromises between disparate perspectives while honoring all of the goals of the GMA. The code reflects innovative ideas by incorporating multiple components of the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies through the various elements including natural resources, land use, environment, open space, and economic development. 13. The GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.130 requires Jefferson County to review and update their Comprehensive Plan every 7 years. The last update of the Comprehensive Plan was in 2004. 14. The 1998 and 2004 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan includes an Environment Element as a chapter of the Plan. 15. The policy found at ENP 2.5 states "maintain buffers between land -disturbing activities and surface water resources to meet the standards of the best available fisheries science for protecting water resources and related habitat functions". 16. ENP 2.6: "Promote best management practices to protect surface and ground water in land use regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development" 17. ENP 2.7: "Minimize the adverse impacts of land use activities on water resources where there is a potential for hydraulic continuity between surface and ground waters" 18. ENP 2.8: "Work with the Department of Ecology and other agencies to minimize salt water intrusion, to evaluate ground water resources that have been damaged either by salt water intrusion or other contamination, and to identify technically and financially feasible measures for remediation of adverse impacts" Page 3 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 19. ENG 9.0: "Ensure that landslide and erosion hazard areas are appropriately designated and that measures to protect public health and safety are implemented for hazardous areas" 20. ENP 9.1: 'Review standards to minimize adverse impacts to public health and safety and to public and private property for areas where risks may occur from hazards such as landslides, erosion, subsidence, and other impacts associated with geologic hazards" 21. ENP 9.2: "Improve the scientific information which serves as the basis of land use and planning, such as the nature and distribution of geologic materials, processes, and conditions" 22. ENP 9.3: "Land uses in geologic hazard areas should be allowed only when appropriate mitigation is provided to protect public safety and the environment" 23. ENP 9.4: 'Establish a preference for the use of landslide mitigation measures which are compatible with natural conditions, including setbacks, appropriate siting, drainage control, buffers, and bioengineering solutions" 24. ENP 9.5: "The County may require geotechnical reports for areas of potential risk from geologic conditions or processes when necessary, and may provide for qualified staff or peer review of studies under a reasonable fee schedule" 25. ENP 9.6: 'Promote best management practices to minimize landslide in land use regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development" 26. ENP 9.7: 'Promote public education programs that foster an understanding of landslide hazard areas and encourage homeowners and communities to mitigate existing problems" 27. ENG 10.0: "Minimize seismic. risk to life and property on new and existing structures." 28. ENP 10.1: "Continue to promote development which is designed to avoid or minimize seismic risk in land use regulations, including best management practices related to septic systems, drainage, industry, and other development." 29. ENP 10.2: "Continue to improve the scientific information for identifying areas of seismic risk from impacts such as shaking, ground breaking, tsunami, and landsliding, to serve as a basis of land use decisions and for recommending the retrofitting of existing development, as appropriate." 30. ENP 10.3: "Locate and construct transportation facilities, utilities, and essential public facilities to minimize adverse impacts from seismic events." 31. ENG 11.0: 'Protect flood hazard areas from development and uses that compromise the flow, storage and buffering of flood waters, normal channel functions, and fish and Page 4 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas wildlife habitat and to minimize flood and river process risk to life and property." 32. ENP 11.5: "Minimize flood damage to development by limiting flood plains to low intensity land uses and by limiting land uses in floodways to repairs of existing structures, temporary uses which are removable in the event of a flood, and uses that have a low flood damage potential, such as agriculture, stock grazing, parks, golf courses, horticulture, forestry, or parking areas subject to applicable regulations." 33. ENP 11.7: "Storm water management plans should minimize adverse effects of floods on existing and future development and protect the natural conditions and functions of the flood plain." 34. ENP 11.8: "Encourage the designation and purchase of open space and riparian habitat in flood hazard areas consistent with watershed and habitat conservation plans and a flood management plan." 35. ENP 11.9:"Land use decisions should consider the future cumulative cost to the public of flood plain development" 36. ENG 12.0: "Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat throughout Jefferson County." 37. ENP 12.1: 'Participate in multi jurisdictional processes with community representation for development of coordinated watershed and habitat conservation plans to serve as the basis of land use decisions that may affect fish and wildlife habitat." 38. ENP 12.2: "Land use decisions should recognize the priority of the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in accordance with proposed listings of threatened and endangered species and the Federal Endangered Species Act." 39. ENP 12.3: 'Buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas should be consistent with the best available science for habitat protection." 40. ENP 12.4: 'Promote the protection of wildlife habitat corridors that connect otherwise isolated habitat areas." 41. ENP 12.5: 'Promote best management practices to protect fish and wildlife habitat inland use regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development." 42. ENP 12.6: "Coordinate with appropriate agencies to avoid adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat in the review and approval of development proposals." 43. ENG 13.0: 'Protect aquifer recharge areas from depletion of aquifer quantity or degradation of aquifer quality." Page 5 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 44. ENP 13.1: "Aquifer recharge areas should be designated and managed based on the best available science." 45. ENP 13.2: "Until geohydrologic studies provide additional information regarding the full extent of aquifer recharge areas, the County should protect aquifer recharge capability in all areas of the County." 46. ENP 13.3: " Storm water should be managed to enhance and protect aquifer recharge quality and rate of infiltration based on a comprehensive watershed plan." 47. ENP 13.4: "Promote best management practices to protect aquifer recharge areas in land use regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development." 48. ENP 13.5: "Encourage the use of community water systems to serve new shoreline development." 49. ENG 14.0: "Protect and enhance wetlands in all their functions." 50. ENP 14.1: 'Designate and manage wetlands based on the best available science." 51. ENP 14.2: "Land use activities that may impact should be reviewed in the context of a comprehensive watershed and habitat conservation plan." 52. ENP 14.3: "Standards for wetland buffers should be consistent with the best available science as recommended by wetland and habitat biologists." 53. ENP 14.4: "Promote best management practices to protect wetlands in land use regulations related to septic systems, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development." 54. OSG 2.0: Identify and develop an interconnected County -wide network of naturally occurring and planned opened spaces. 55. OSG 3.0: Encourage the multiple use of open spaces and wildlife corridors. 56. OSP 3.1: Protect environmentally critical open spaces, such as drainage corridors or floodplains, by associating them with appropriate recreational uses. 57. HSG 2.0: Promote a variety of affordable housing choices throughout the County through the use of innovative land use practices, development standards, design techniques, and building requirements. 58. HSP 2.1: Establish consistent development regulations and procedures that protect environmental quality, such as public health and safety standards, while minimizing the economic impact on the development of housing. 59. HSP 2.2: Provide the most current available information on environmentally critical areas and natural resource lands, including maps, to identify potential land development Page 6 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas constraints. 60. EDG 9.0: Encourage economic development that sustains natural resources and open spaces, protects environmental quality and enhances Jefferson County's overall quality of life. 61. EDP 9.1: Support and protect the economic value and long-term sustainability of Jefferson County's environmental resources. 62. EDP 9:2: Develop and update land use policies that conserve resource lands and provide sustainable employment opportunities. 63. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Critical Areas Strategy #7: Review the flood proofing and storm water management measures for development in the flood plain to minimize adverse impacts to property and to natural flood plain functions, such as channel storage and lateral migration of channels. 64. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Critical Areas Strategy #9: Collect existing information, identify and map important areas of both private and public lands containing fish (including shellfish) and wildlife habitat areas, as funding becomes available. Example of such areas are: • Stream corridors and wetland areas; • Habitat areas for endangered, threatened, candidate, monitored, and sensitive species; • Priority habitats as identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; • No wildlife movement corridors; • Priority recreation and commercial shellfish growing areas as identified by the responsible State agency; • Kelp and eelgrass areas which are important to herring reproduction; • Naturally occurring ponds of less than 20 acres; • Raptor habitat areas; • Corridors which provide the only cover in high density areas and serve as connection to other habitat areas; • Other "small habitats and species of local importance" (Chapter 365- 190-080(5)(c)(ii) WAC) such as the winter range of the Roosevelt elk herd; and • Fish hatcheries. 65. An Interim Critical Areas Ordinance for Jefferson County was adopted by the BoCC on May 9, 1994 by Ordinance #05-0509-94. 66. The Interim Critical Areas Ordinance was amended on June 26, 1995, through Ordinance #14-0626-95. 67. The GMA was amended in 1995 by the addition of the requirement that local jurisdictions include "best available science" (BAS) when establishing protection measures for critical areas. Adopted administrative code provisions relating to BAS can be found at part 9 of Chapter 365-195 WAC. Page 7 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 68. Jefferson County established an Interim land -use Control Ordinance (ICO) on February 14, 1996 which implemented Rural Standards for Jefferson County by creating RR 1:5, 1:10, 1:20 zones throughout the county. The Interim Critical Areas Ordinance remained in effect during this time. 69. On August 28, 1998, the BoCC implemented an Emergency Interim Controls Ordinance (EICO) to implement the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The 1994 Interim Critical Areas Ordinance remained in effect during this period. 70. During the period 1998-2000, the County continued to use Interim Zoning Controls and the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. 71. On December 18, 2000, the BoCC adopted through Ordinance #11-1218-00 a Unified Development Code (UDC) to guide land -use development in a manner that is consistent with, and implements various state statues and the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. The 1994 Interim Critical Areas Ordinance was rescinded and the development regulations that protected critical areas were codified in Chapter 3 of the Unified Development Code. 72. The Jefferson County UDC became effective on January 16, 2001 in accordance with the terms of Ordinance #11-1218-00. 73. The Jefferson County UDC was codified under Title 18 Jefferson County Code. The Critical Areas Section was 18.15. 74. On March 2, 2001, Washington Environmental Council filed Petition For Review No. 01-2-0013 challenging Jefferson County's Ordinance #11-1218-00. 75. Washington Environmental Council and Jefferson County reached a Settlement Agreement on March 26, 2002, in WWGMHB Case No. 01-02-0013. 76. Jefferson County BoCC, by and through the Department of Community Development, submitted an Application for Suggested UDC Amendment, MLA02-00485, on September 12, 2002. The Suggested UDC Amendment affected UDC Sections 3.6.4.f.(1)ii and iii: Environmentally Sensitive Areas District; UDC 3.6.9f(2)i: Wetlands; UDC Table 3-5 and Note 1: Required Replacement Ratios for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation; and UDC 8.2.4.a: Permit Application and Review Procedures/SEPA Implementation. Once formally adopted into the UDC by a BoCC Ordinance the changes adopted, for example, served to require larger replacement ratios for compensatory wetlands and to allow state agencies 28 days to comment upon habitat management plans that an applicant might submit. Page 8 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 77. Jefferson County adopted Ordinance #17-1213-04 on December 13, 2004, "An Ordinance Approving Master Land Use Application 404-28, Adopting Amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code to Comply with the 7 -Year Update Mandated by State Law and the Periodic Assessment Established by this County". This was the Ordinance adopted to comply with the GMA requirement found at RCW 36.70A.130(1)(a) and (1)(b). 78. Ordinance # 17-1213-04 readopted UDC Section 3 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) without modification. 79. Washington Environmental Council filed a Petition For Review on February 15, 2005, challenging the Jefferson County Unified Development Code as re -adopted by Ordinance No. 17-1213-04 on December 13, 2004. 80. Jefferson County and Washington Environmental Council agreed to the dismissal of WWGMHB Case No. 01-2-0013 on April 4, 2005 without prejudice to issues asserted by WEC in WWGMHB Case No. 05-2-0006. 81. For each of the five types of "critical areas" defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) the County's existing development regulations, starting with JCC § 18.15.240, first classify and then provide a designation mechanism for that type of critical area. Classification and/or designation of certain regions of the county as a particular type of critical area is, in many cases, based on information disseminated by others. By way of example only, certain geologic units such as "alluvial fans (Ha)," a term found on State DNR mapping, are considered to be a type of critical aquifer recharge area and the county classifies and designates geologically hazardous areas based, in part, on the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County. These citations to outside sources used to determine where critical areas are located within the County are hereby incorporated by reference as Best Available Science. 82. As part of the 2004 update process, County staff and consultants reviewed current Best Available Science and received a report entitled: Christensen, D. 2004. Review of Best Available Science for 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update. September 22, 2004. (See Review of Best Available Science in 2004 Docket Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum). 83. The Board of County Commissioners adopted by resolution the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan, prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District, December, 2004, i.e., after the County had finished its mandatory seven-year update of its Comprehensive Plan. 84. The Wetlands in Washington State Volume I: A Synthesis of the Science is a document prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology (Publication #05-06-006) provides recommendations for wetland science. Final publication of Volume 1 occurred in March, 2005. Page 9 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 85. The Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands document prepared by Washington State Department of Ecology (Publication #05-06-008) provides recommendations for including best available science into policies and regulations to protect wetlands. Much of the Jefferson County critical areas update was based on guidance in this document, especially as it pertains to establishing standard wetland buffer widths and determining mitigations ratios. Final publication of Volume 2 occurred in April, 2005, i.e., after the County had finished its mandatory seven-year update of its Comprehensive Plan. 86. The Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part P Agency Policies and Guidance provides recommendations for local jurisdictions to implement mitigation programs at the local level. DOE, US Army Corp of Engineers (Seattle District) and EPA (Region 10) Version 1 March, 2006 Publication #06-06-011a. 87. The Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans provides practical tools for developing mitigation plans. DOE, US Army Corp of Engineers (Seattle District) and EPA (Region 10) Version 1 March, 2006 Publication # 06-06-011b. 88. The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington provides information on how to categorize wetlands within the framework of a standard methodology. DOE Publication 04-06-025 August, 2004. 89. Jefferson County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Department of Community Development receive report Perkins, S.J. 2006. Final Report. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Perkins Geosciences, in February, 2006. 90. USDI Bureau of Reclamation September, 2004 Channel Migration Zone Study Jefferson County, Washington Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers. Technical Service Center Flood Hydrology Group D-8530 Denver, Colorado, provides channel migration zone information. 91. A Framework for Delineating Channel Migration Zones, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Transportation, November, 2003. Ecology Final Draft Publication #03-06-027, provides channel migration zone information. 92. The Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats - Riparian, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife December, 1997. K. Lea Knutson and Virginia L. Naef, provides information on stream buffers. 93. Jefferson County initiated the identification of important wildlife habitat units in an effort to protect and enhance key wildlife habitat areas and corridors linking wildlife habitat in eastern Jefferson County and assisted with the report "Management Strategies Page 10 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas for Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County, Suzanne Tomassi, Wildlife Biology, July 1, 2004. 94. On April 14, 2005, the BoCC, CTED, and DOE held a workshop on wetland science. 95. Jefferson County and Washington Environmental Council signed a Second Settlement Agreement on January 18, 2006. 96. On February 1, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the settlement agreement between WEC and Jefferson County on critical areas. 97. On June 7, 2006, as part of a 15 -year celebration of the Growth Management Act, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire awarded Jefferson County with one of six Smart Communities Awards for "supporting agriculture while protecting fish and wildlife habitat." 98. Jefferson County Department of Community Development submitted an Application for Suggested UDC Amendment, MLA06-242, proposing Line-in/Line-out Development Code Language for JCC 18.15 on May 17, 2006. 99. On May 17, 2006, the DCD staff presented the Planning Commission with the proposed code amendments on critical areas. 100. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed May 17th, 2006 (MLA06-242) critical areas ordinance. 101. On June 21, 2006, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the draft critical areas ordinance. 102. On July 19, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed the process and timeline on the draft critical areas ordinance. All Planning Commission and committee meetings are noticed to the public and are public meetings. 103. On August 2, 2006, the Planning Commission held a workshop on the draft critical areas ordinance. 104. On August 2, 2006, the Planning Commission formed the Critical Areas Committee. 105. The Critical Areas Committee met on 31 occasions between August 10, 2006 through April 26, 2007 to review, discuss, research, and deliberate citizen recommendations on critical area protection and Best Available Science in order to formulate recommendations to the Planning Commission. The citizen recommendations typically had as their basis compilations of scientific reports gathered by a citizen, who was sometimes someone with a scientific background, who then offered conclusions based upon the scientific reports relied upon. Therefore these reports rarely, if ever, constituted BAS as that term of art is defined in WAC 365-195-905(5) because they Page 11 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas could not satisfy the six -part test for a valid scientific process laid out in that WAC. Generally, the Critical Areas Committee and then the Planning Commission received two citizen reports or recommendations that typically reached two quite different conclusions with respect to all of the important topics that these panels needed to discuss and thus it is clear that all points of view on what the new Critical Areas Ordinance should contain or not contain were aired, debated and considered in a manner that reflected "early and continuous" public participation as is required by the GMA. 106. On October 4, 2006, the Planning Commission discussed a request for an extension of the timeline on the draft critical areas ordinance. 107. On January 17, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed the progress of the Critical Areas Committee. 108. On February 7, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed the progress of the Critical Areas Committee. 109. On April 16, 2007, the BoCC authorized DCD to utilize a professional code writer to work on the Planning Commission draft CAO. 110. On April 18, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the process for the Critical Areas Committee to report back to the Planning Commission. 111. On May 2, 2007, the Critical Areas Committee presented their reports to the Planning Commission. 112. On May 9, 2007, the Critical Areas Committee presented their reports to the Planning Commission. 113. On May 16, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed agricultural issues as they relate to protection of critical areas. 114. On May 23, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed agricultural issues as they relate to protection of critical areas. 115. On May 30, 2007, staff from the Department of Ecology presented wetland science information to the Planning Commission. 116. On June 6, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed aquifer recharge, forestry and geologic hazards. 117. On June 13, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed channel migration zones and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 118. On June 20, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed channel migration zones and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and wetlands. Page 12 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 119. On June 27, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed channel migration zones and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 120. On July 11, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed channel migration zones and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 121. On July 18, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed channel migration zones and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 122. On July 25, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed prescriptive buffers for fish and wildlife protection. 123. On August 1, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed prescriptive buffers for fish and wildlife protection. 124. On August 8, 2007, the Planning Commission discussed prescriptive buffers for fish and wildlife protection. 125. On August 15, 2007, DCD staff introduced the rural stewardship planning concept to the Planning Commission. 126. During this period of time, staff from DCD and staff from the State Department of Ecology convened a working group to explore optional approaches to prescriptive regulations under a concept referred as rural stewardship planning. 127. On August 27, 2007, staff from the Jefferson County Environmental Health presented information on their water quality monitoring program. 128. On August 27, 2007, DCD staff reviewed the rural stewardship plan, hereafter referred to as the critical area stewardship plan (GASP), including monitoring and adaptive management concepts. 129. On September 5, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed Robert Crittenden's Critical Area Report "Objections to Majority and Minority". 130. On September 12, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed format and administration, Hearing Board decisions , fundamental and foundation principles and values, preamble and purpose, reasonable economic use. 131. DCD staff and the code writer finalized the Planning Commission draft/draft CAO on October 5, 2007. 132. On October 17, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft/draft CAO. 133. On October 27, 2007, the Planning Commission deliberated on the draft CAO. Page 13 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 134. On November 7, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's draft CAO. 135. On November 14, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the public comments and deliberated on the merits of a draft Planning Commission CAO. 136. On November 28, 2007, the Planning Commission continued deliberations on the Planning Commission draft CAO. 137. On November 28, 2007, the Planning Commission appointed a committee to work with DCD staff to finalize the Planning Commission final draft CAO. 138. On December 3, 2007 and December 5, 2007, the Planning Commission committee met with DCD staff to review and finalize the Planning Commission's final draft CAO. 139. On December 5, 2007, the Planning Commission continued deliberations on the Planning Commission's final draft CAO. 140. On December 12, 2007, the Planning Commission made a motion to forward on the final draft CAO to the BoCC as the Planning Commission's final draft CAO recommendation. 141. On January 9, 2008, DCD staff posted on the Jefferson County web page the Planning Commission's final draft CAO. 142. On February 7, 2008, the Planning Commission forwarded their official recommendation and minority report for a final draft CAO to the BoCC. 143. Because this is an amendment to the County's development regulations, the proposed text for the CAO does not need to be compared to the eight (8) site specific requirements listed at JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c). 144. The BoCC concludes that the attached CAO is not a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property that would require just compensation. 145. The BoCC concludes that the attached CAO will not act to deprive property owners in this County of all economically viable uses of their real property. 146. The BoCC concludes that the attached CAO will not deny or substantially diminish a fundamental attribute of real property ownership. Page 14 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas 147. The BoCC concludes that the attached CAO does not require a real property owner to dedicate a portion of their property to a public use because when a permit application is made by a citizen and the terms of this CAO are applied as part of determining whether the permit should be granted, the conditions required of the applicant by the CAO will and must have a nexus to the adverse impacts of that proposal and will and must be roughly proportional to the magnitude of the perceived likely harm. 148. The BoCC concludes that the CAO will not rise to the level of a'regulatory taking' with respect to real property because any possible interference with investment -backed expectations that the new CAO will cause is outweighed by the fact that the new CAO furthers an important governmental interest [as established by RCW 36.70A.060(2)] in the least -intrusive means possible given, by way of example only, the CA Stewardship Program and the greatly revised "reasonable economic use variance" process. 149. The BoCC concludes that the CAO does not violate or diminish the substantive due process rights that real property owners hold because the CAO serves a legitimate public purpose through means that are both reasonably necessary to achieve the intended purpose and not unduly oppressive to the landowner. 150. Because this is an amendment to the County's development regulations, the proposed text for the CAO does not need to be compared to the seven (7) Growth Management Indicators listed at JCC Section 18.45.080(1)(c). 151. The staff line in-line out of March 10, 2008 was based on staff review of the public's comments, oral and written, after the close of the public comments period of March 5, 2008. 152. All modifications to staff line in-line out of March 10, 2008, relate to issues reviewed and discussed with the Planning Commission and public review process during the Planning Commission deliberations.. 153. On March 10, 2008 during a public meeting the Board of County Commissioners deliberated on the merits of the January 9, 2008 draft final Planning Commission CAO in consideration of DCD's final recommendations and individual commissioner concerns in view of all public, agency, and tribal comments. 154. The Board of County Commissioners instructed staff to incorporate changes identified during this public meeting and finalized the critical areas code by directing staff to prepare an ordinance of adoption with findings of fact and conclusions of law to be presented on the agenda for March 17, 2008. This motion passed in the affirmative 3-0. 155. The BoCC is aware of and considered the case known as Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 161 Wn. 2d 415, 166 P. 3d 1198, a case published in September 2007. In this case the Supreme Court reached four conclusions pertinent to this adoption of a Critical Areas Ordinance by Jefferson County: Page 15 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas a. Protection of critical areas does not require enhancement or improvement of conditions in a critical area that is already in a degraded condition, b. The duty to protect critical areas means only the duty to prevent additional harm to the critical area, the so-called "no harm" standard c. With a reasoned justification a local government can protect a critical area through methods that are not deemed BAS d. That to the extent a county chooses to use adaptive management to prevent any further harm, then the county must have benchmarks in place as a starting place so that when additional data is collected, the county can determine if further harm is occurring The provisions in JCC 18.22 that allow an applicant to be his or her own rural steward under the Critical Area Stewardship Plan reflect the ability of this County, after the Swinomish decision, to use methods to protect critical areas that may not be BAS. 156. Another case of importance for the adoption of this Ordinance is W.E.A.N. vs. Island County, 122 Wn. App. 156, 173, 93 P. 3d 885 (2004), cert denied 156 Wn. 2d 1025, 110 P. 3d 756 (2005). W.E.A.N. contains two important propositions that 1) a local government such as Jefferson County is obligated to balance the dozen or so goals of the GMA that are laid out at RCW 36.70A.020 AND 2) a local jurisdiction must consider BAS but is not required to adopt regulations that are consistent with BAS because that would interfere with the jurisdiction's ability to balance the GMA goals and adopt a balance between them that is appropriate for local, i.e., Jefferson County, conditions. The BoCC notes that because the State Supreme Court refused to hear the W.E.A.N. appeal the conclusions and holdings made by the Court of Appeals represent good law in this state. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners for Jefferson County, Washington, in regular session assembled does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Adoption of JCC 18.22 Pursuant to the County's authority conferred by RCW 36.70, 36.70A, 36.70B, and 43.21C, the Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts the development regulations which are marked as EXHIBIT C, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, entitled "Jefferson County Code Title 18.22", as an official land use control and comprehensive plan implementing regulation for Jefferson County, Washington. Section 2: Repealer. Those text deletions and sections of JCC Title 18.15 being replaced by JCC Title 18.22 are attached in EXHIBIT B and are hereby repealed for all uses, permits, applications, development and other land use activities except those described below in Section 4. The sections of the JCC Title 18.15 that are being replaced by JCC Title 18.22 shall contain a note that "these sections remain applicable only through July 1, 2010 and apply only to agricultural activities that pre -date the existence of this Ordinance and are occurring on land designated "AG" pursuant to JCC Page 16 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas § 18.15.020(1)". All other provisions of JCC Title 18 shall continue to be in full force and effect upon adoption of this amendment. Section 3: Best Available Science (BAS). All references listed in EXHBIT A are considered the review of scientific literature that was submitted, considered, and evaluated by citizens, agencies, tribes, the Planning Commission committee, the Planning Commissioners, Department of Community Development, and the Board of County Commissioners. This scientific literature was synthesized by the Board of County Commissioners and resulted in the regulations identified in this Critical Areas Ordinance. See Findings and Conclusions for specific references determined by the Board of County Commissioners to balance the goals of the Growth Management Act and include best available science. Section 4: Agricultural Uses. Any existing agricultural uses occurring on lands designated as "AG" in JCC § 18.15.020(l ), to the extent such a use is regulated or governed by any provision of the existing CAO found at JCC 18.15, shall continue to be regulated and/or governed by the existing JCC 18.15 in order to comply with SSB 5248 enacted by the State Legislature, signed by the Governor and now found at Section 2 of Chapter 353 of the 2007 Session Laws. To comply with SSB 5248 between May 1, 2007 and July 1, 2010 local governments planning under GMA "may not amend or adopt CA Ordinances under RCW 36.70A.060(2) as they apply to agricultural activities.' _Since this new Critical Areas Ordinance is being enacted during the time frame covered by SSB 5248, that law applies in the manner described above. Section 5: Severability. In the event any one or more of the provisions of this ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate any other provisions of this ordinance, but this ordinance shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid provision had not been contained therein; PROVIDED, that any provision which shall for any reason be held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent permitted by law. Section 6: Attachments Exhibit A Bibliography of Best Available Science Reviewed Exhibit B Rescinded JCC 18.15 Exhibit C New Critical Areas Code JCC 18.22 Section 7: SEPA: Adoption of Existing Environmental Documents The SEPA responsible official has determined that existing environmental documents provide adequate environmental review of this ordinance to satisfy the requirements of WAC 197-11-600. The following existing environmental documents are being adopted: • Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS/FEIS) and addenda prepared in anticipation of adoption of the Page 17 Ordinance #03-0317-08 RE: Critical Areas Comprehensive Plan in 1998. The DEIS and FEIS are dated February 24, 1997 and May 27, 1998, respectively, and examined the potential cumulative environmental impacts of adopting alternative versions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket Department of Community Development Integrated Staff Report and SEPA Addendum issued September 22, 2004. The Addendum included description and analysis of code amendments proposed in 2004 that are similar to those being proposed now. The current proposal is more protective than the 2004 proposal, which was not adopted, and incorporates best available science with respect to critical areas protection under GMA. Section 8: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on March 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm. Approved and signed this 17th day of March, 2008. Attest:' ` , rna L. D Laney Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i Phil Johnson, Chairman Approved as to Form Only: '� ,, ly" / "�'A 3) 1;916,3 David Alvarez Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Page 18 711". David W. Sullivan, Member John Austin, Member EXHIBIT A Critical Area Ordinance CITATIONS Considered as the range of science for Jefferson County. Abbe, T. B., and D. R. Montgomery. 1996. Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics, and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 12:201-221. Abbe, T. B., and D. R. Montgomery. 2003. Patterns and processes of wood debris accumulation in the Queets River Basin, Washington. Geomorphology, 51:81-107. Abbe, T. B., Pess, G., Montgomery, D. R., and K. L. Fetherston. 2003. Integrating Engineered Log Jam Technology into River Rehabilitation. In D. R. Montgomery, S. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall (eds) Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, 443-482. AN, S.R., W.P. Clary, and C.I. Thorton. 1994. Sediment deposition and entrapment in vegetated streambeds. In: Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Irrigation andDrainage Division 120:1098- 1111 Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: Exotic species and habitat change in Western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4): 1162-1171. Alberti, M. et al. 2006. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub -basins. Article in Press: Landscape Urban Planning. doi: 10. 10 1 6/jlandurbplan.2006.08.0. www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan Azous, Amanda L. and Richard R. Horner, 1997. Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Available on the internet at htto://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/weturban.htm, Azous, A.L. and K.O. Richter. 1995. Amphibian and plant community responses to changing hydrology in urban wetlands. Pages 156-162 in E. Robichaud (ed.), Puget Sound Research 1995 Proceedings, Volume 1. Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Bahls, Peter, Cary Kindberg, Micah Wait, and Jamie Glasgow. 2002. An Assessment of Error in State Shoreline Designation for Lakes of Washington. http://www.washingtontrout.ory/ludlow/index.shtml Baker, J.M.R. and T.R. Halliday. 1999. Amphibian colonization of new ponds in an agricultural landscape. Herpetological Journal 9:55-63. Bash, Berman, and Bolton. 2001. Effects of sediment and suspended solids on salmonids. UW Center for Streamside Studies. November, 2001. Beamer, Eric, Aundrea McBride, Rich Henderson, and Karen Wolf, May 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. http://dots.washington.edu/cwws/Outreach/Publications/Salmon%20and%2OTurbidity.pdf BELKNAP, WILLIAM. 1994. WALL -BASE CHANNELS IN WESTERN WASHINGTON: LOCATION, DETECTION, MAPPING AND WINTER USE BY JUVENILE SALMONID FISHES. M. S. THESIS, U.W. CENTER FOR STREAMSIDE STUDIES. HTTP://DEPTS.WASHINGTON.EDU/CW WS/THESES/BELKNAP.HTML Bolton et al. 2001. Ecological Issues in Floodplains and Riparian Corridors. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology. Washington Department of Transportation. July 2001. Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents Seattle, WA. 34 p. hllp://www.wsg.washington.edu/research/ecohealth/brennan.pdf Brennan, J.S. Riparian Functions and the Development of Management Actions in Marine Nearshore Ecosystems. p. 11 in Lemieux, J.P., Brennan, J.S., Farrell, M., Levings, C.D., and Myers, D. Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop, Tsawwassen, BC, February 17-18, 2004. 2004. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2680. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Literature review and model evaluation describing the environmental effects and carrying capacity associated with the intensive culture of mussels (Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis). Technical appendix for an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 129 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Supplemental study of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter in waters near the proposed mussel farm in North Totten Inlet, Washington State, USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 48 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2007. Supplemental best available science supporting recommendations for wetland buffer widths in Jefferson County, Washington. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington. Brooks, K. M. and Elston R. A. 1991. Epizootiology of hemic neoplasia in Mytilus trossulus in Washington State, Part IL J. Shel�rish Res., 10:223 Brooks, K. M. 1991. The Genetics and Epizootiology of Hemic Neoplasia in Mytilus edulis. 1991. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 282 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1991. Shellfish Inventory and Management Considerations associated with the intensive cultivation of Crassostrea gigas in California and Washington by Coast Oyster Company. Report prepared for First Interstate Bank, Seattle, Washington. Brooks, K. M. 1992. Infaunal community structure changes associated with organic loading at an intensive salmon husbandry site. Report to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 19 pp. Brooks, K. M. 1992. Review of bacterial and toxicant contamination in Dyes Inlet, WA and request for shellfish harvest certification of Chico Bay, Phiney Bay and the east side of Erland Point, all in Dyes Inlet, Kitsap County, Washington. 21 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Report prepared for, and published by, the Western Wood Preservers Association, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, Vancouver, WA 98550. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Impacts on Benthic Invertebrate Communities Associated with the Aerial Application of Carbaryl to Control Burrowing Shrimp on Cultivated Oyster Beds in Willapa Bay for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 63 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Integrated Pest Management Program Development. Differential pesticide impacts on closely related invertebrate species in eelgrass meadows of Pacific Northwest estuaries. Pacific Estuarine Research Society Annual Meeting, Long Beach, WA, May 14, 1993.47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Recovery of benthic communities associated with interrupted production at a commercial salmon net-pen in Port Townsend, WA. Report to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (Included in the annual monitoring report for the Paradise Bay net pen site.) Brooks, K.M. 1993. Changes in arthropod and mollusk populations associated with the application of Sevin[] to control burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay, Washington - July to September, 1992. Report to the US EPA, Contract BSCC 692. 31 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1994. Histopathological Examination of Archived Bivalves Mytilus edulis trossulus and Protothaca staminea in Support of the Prince William Sound Long Term Monitoring Program. Report to NOAA/ORCA/HMRAD/ORCA32. 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 40 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential Environmental Risks Associated With Creosote Treated Wood Products Used in Aquatic Environments. Published by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, Vancouver, WA 98660. 137 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of Treated Wood in Lotic Systems. Published by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, WA 98660. 17 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Aquatic Environmental Risk Assessments and a Spreadsheet Model Predicting Creosote Treated Wood Contributions of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to the Water Column and Sediments. 2 ASTM Conference Proceedings. Fifth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessments: Biomarkers and Risk Assessment. Sponsored by: ASTM Committee E-47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate. April 3 - 5, 1995. Denver, Colorado. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Long Term Response of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Associated with the Application of Carbaryl (Sevin--) to Control Burrowing Shrimp, and an Assessment of the habitat Value of Cultivated Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Beds in Willapa Bay, Washington to Fulfill Requirements of the EPA Carbaryl Data Call In. Report to the U.S. EPA under Contract BSCC 692. 69 PP. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Evaluating the environmental risks associated with the use of chromated copper arsenate -treated wood products in aquatic environments. Estuaries Vol. 19, No. 2A, p. 296-305. Brooks, K.M., D.E. Konasewich, H.C. Bailey, E.B. Szenasy and G.E. Brudermann. 1996. Antisapstain chemical Technical Review. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment; Subcommittee on Antisapstain chemical Waste Control Regulation Amendments of the B.C. Stakeholder Forum on Sapstain Control. 133 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Baseline Shellfish Surveys of Tidelands Near the Tatitlek, Nanwalek and Port Graham Villages in Support of the Nanwalek/Port Graham/Tatitlek Clam Restoration Project; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Project Number 95131. 52 p. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Assessment and Management of Wastes Associated with the Intensive Culture of Salmon in British Columbia, Canada. Prepared for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, Vancouver, B.C. 47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. September, 1996, Baseline electrophoretic survey of mussels, Mytilus edulis trossulus and Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis in Holmes Harbor, Washington. Produced for Taylor United, Inc. Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, Washington 98584 in fulfillment of conditions of Island County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SPD 013/94 and Army Corps of Engineers Permit COE (94-1- 00327). 13 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory. Produced for the City of Ocean Shores under Department of Ecology Grant G9600033. 28 pp. plus appendices. Brooks. K.M. 1997. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of ACZA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Second Edition. Prepared for the Western Wood Preservers' Institute 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 98 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1997. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated With the Use of CCA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. 3,d Edition. Prepared for the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99 Ste. 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 100 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1997. Final Report — PAH Sediment Sampling Study in River South Parcel — July 17, 1996 to August 26, 1997. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Environmental Services Department, One First National Plaza, 10 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60690. 21 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1998. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated With the Use of ACQ Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Prepared for: Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. Brooks, K.M. 1998. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential environmental risks Associated with Pentachlorophenol Treated Wood Products Used in Aquatic Environments. Prepared for: Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. Brooks, K.M. 1998. 1998 Annual Report of the Evaluation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands — a Mesocosm Study. Prepared for Dr. Richard Monzingo, Commonwealth Edison, P.O. Box 767, Chicago, IL 60690-0767 for submission to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 pages plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Environmental effects associated with the use of CCA -C, ACZA and ACQB pressure treated wood used to construct boardwalks in wetland areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture — Forest Products Laboratory, Research Paper FPL -RP -582. 126 pp. plus appendices. 3 Brooks, K.M. 2000. Assessment of the environmental effects associated with wooden bridges preserved with creosote, pentachlorophenol or chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA -C). U.S. Department of Agriculture - Res. Pap. FPL -RP -587. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 100 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1999. Stolt Canada Arrow Pass Salmon Farm Benthic and Shellfish Effects Study 1996 - 997. Produced for Stolt Sea Farm Incorporated, 1405 Spruce Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 7K1. 107 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Final Report - Evaluation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands. Midwest Generation, Corporate EH&S Group, 440 S Lasalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60605. 94 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Sediment concentrations of sulfides and total volatile solids near salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada, during the period June through August, 2000 and recommendations for additional sampling. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers' Association. 16 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Literature review and model evaluation describing the environmental effects and carrying capacity associated with the intensive culture of mussels (Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis). Technical appendix for an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 129 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Determination of copper loss rates from Flexgard XITm treated nets in marine environments and evaluation of the resulting environmental risks. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. 24 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Sediment concentrations of zinc near salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada during the period June through August 2000. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. 12 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the June 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Report prepared for Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 93 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the June 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at Pacific National Group netpens located in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Report prepared for Pacific National Group, 737 Yates Street- Suite 310, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1L6. 35 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Database report describing sediment physicochemical response to salmon farming in British Columbia from 1996 through April 2000. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association, 408 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2S9. 41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the Fall 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at tenures operated by Stolt Sea Farms and Pacific National Aquaculture in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Salmon Farmers' Association. Number 408 - 1200 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2S9.15 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Recommended interim sediment quality guidelines for evaluating the environmental response to marine netpen culture operations. Prepared for the British Columbia Salmon Farmers' Association, Number 408 -1200 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2S9. 11 PP. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Final Report - Chugach Regional Resources Commission Bivalve Enhancement Program - Bivalve inventories and native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) culture studies - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Project Number 95131. 189 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Chapter 4. Salmon Farming and the Environment. In: Nash (2001) The Net -pen Salmon Farming Industry in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFS-NWFSC-49. pp. 36 - 73. Brooks, K.M. 2001. An evaluation of the relationship between salmon farm biomass, organic inputs to sediments, physicochemical changes associated with those inputs and the infaunal response - with emphasis on total sediment sulfides, total volatile solids, and oxidationreduction potential as surrogate 4 endpoints for biological monitoring - Final Report. Technical report produced for the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9T 6J9. 186 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros) holding and feeding studies in support of Emamectin Benzoate acute toxicity testing. Technical report produced for Dr. Rejean Berman, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 3535 Trans -Canada Highway, Pointe -Claire, Quebec, Canada H9R 1134. 50 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Results of Summer 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Pacific National Aquaculture netpens located in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Technical reported prepared for Pacific National Aquaculture, 1001 Wharf Street - Suite 300, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1T8. 65 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Results of the July 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 64 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. New salmon net -pen site assessments and baseline surveys at Beddingfield and South Millar Channel, Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Technical reported prepared for Pacific National Aquaculture, 1001 Wharf Street - Suite 300, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1T8. 21 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Native littleneck clam (Prototheca staminea) culture and associated environmental effects in Alaska. Technical paper presented at the November 13 - 14, 2001 Alaska Sea Grant Program conference in Anchorage, Alaska. 23 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Recommendations to the British Columbia Fanned Salmon Waste Management Technical Advisory Group for Biological and Physicochemical Performance Standards Applicable to Marine Netpens. Technical report produced for the Technical Advisory Group of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9T 6J9. 24 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Environmental assessment and monitoring program associated with aquaculture production facilities operated by Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute at the Grace oil drilling platform in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. Technical report prepared for Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, California 92109. 26 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Results of the July 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 81 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Copper loss from copper naphthenate treated piling immersed in fresh water. Technical report prepared for Mr. James A. Brient, Naphthenic Acid Technology Manager, Merichem Company Research Center, 1503 Central, Houston, Texas 77012-2797. 9 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Literature review, computer model and assessment of the potential environmental risks associated with copper naphthenate treated wood products used in aquatic environments. Technical report prepared for Mr. Gerald E. Davis, Merichem Chemicals and Refinery Services LLC, 2701 Warrior Road, P.O. Box 40777, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 24404. 22 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Characterizing the environmental response to pressure treated wood. Proceedings. In: Enhancing the Durability of Lumber and Engineered Wood Products", Forest Products Society, 2801 Marshall Court, Madison, WI 53705-2299. pp. Annual Meeting, February 11 - 13, 2002, Kissimmee, Florida. Pp. 59-71. Brooks, K.M., C. Mahnken and C. Nash. 2002. Environmental Effects Associated with Marine Netpen Waste with Emphasis on Salmon Farming in the Pacific Northwest. In: Responsible Marine Aquaculture, Eds: Stickney and McVey. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom pp. 159 - 204. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific Northwest Environment. II. Organic Wastes. Fisheries Research, Vol. 62, Issue 3, pp. 255 - 293. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest Environment. III. Accumulation of zinc and copper. Fisheries Research, Vol. 62, Issue 3, pp. 295-305. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Chemical and biological remediation of the benthos near Atlantic salmon farms. Aquaculture, Volume 219, Issues 1-4, pp. 355-377. 5 Brooks, K.M. 2003. Chemical and Biological Remediation at the Upper Retreat Atlantic Salmon Farm in Retreat Passage, Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia — Tenure 1404379. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 34 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. An assessment of whether pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuschai) runs in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada are threatened by sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infections originating on cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Legal affidavit prepared for Mr. Christopher Harvey, Q.C., MacKenzie Fujisawa Barristers & Solicitors, 1600-1095 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6E 2M6 57 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agencies Draft preliminary Risk Assessment on Creosote. Technical response provided to U.S. Creosote Council II, care -of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Preliminary Risk Assessment for Arsenical Wood Preservatives. Technical response provided to the Arsenical Wood Preservatives Task Force, American Chemistry Council, care -of Mr. Has Shah, 1300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209.41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Environmental Risk Assessment for CCA -C and ACZA Treated Wood. Technical report prepared for the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99 Ste. 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 40 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Metal loss rates from southern yellow pine treated with ACQ-C preservative amended with and without water repellents and from CCA -C treated wood. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Metal loss rates as a function of rainfall from southern yellow pine treated with ACQ-C preservative amended with and without water repellents. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. 22 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Environmental response to the use of ACQ-C, CCA -C Tebuconazole, and Untreated southern yellow pine floats and posts in Montgomery's Pond. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. 141 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Application of the Infaunal Trophic Index to the evaluation of macrobenthic effects associated with salmon farming in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 30 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Measurement of nutrients in bottom water under and adjacent to the Deepwater Point mussel farm in Totten Inlet, Washington. Prepared for the Pacific Shellfish Institute, 120 State Avenue NE #142, Olympia, Washington as part of Department of Commerce Award No. NAI 6RG1591. 9 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Metal loss rates in a dynamic leaching system from Strong -Seal fibreglass wrapped CCA -C treated wood. Technical report prepared for Wood Preservers Incorporated, P.O. Box 158, Warsaw, Virginia 22572. 8 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental response to creosote treated wood structures in Puget Sound, Washington. Technical report prepared for U.S. Creosote Council II, care -of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 52 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Creosote treated piling — perceptions versus reality. Public outreach document prepared for U.S. Creosote Council II, care -of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 15 PP. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Baseline inventory of macrobenthos at Stolt Sea Farms' Humphrey Rocks Tenure in Tribune Channel, Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 18 pp. Brooks, K.M. , A.R. Stierns and C. Backman. 2004. Seven year remediation study at the Carrie Bay Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farm in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, Canada. Aquaculture. Aquaculture 239, pp. 81-123. 6 Brooks, K.M. 2004. Evaluation of the macrobenthic community at the edge of tenure on the 300 oT transect at Stolt Sea Farms' Swanson Island Tenure (Number 130438 1) in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7.12 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Creosote -Treated Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands. Res. Pap. FPL -RP -617. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 53 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Modelling, managing and assessing the environmental risks associated with the use of creosote treated wood products. Technical report prepared for Creosote Council Europe, care of Per Bech A/S, Koppers Denmark, Avernakke, 5800, Nyborg, Denmark. 84 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental feasibility study for aquaculture in Port Angeles Harbor and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Technical report prepared for Olympic Aqua Ventures, L.L.C., 111 Hurricane View Lane Port Angeles, WA 98362 42 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. September 2004 sediment physicochemical monitoring at Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute's enhancement netpens located at Santa Catalina Island, Aqua Hedionda Laboon and San Diego Bay. Technical report prepared for Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA 92109. 29 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental response to ACZA treated wood structures in Pacific Northwest marine environments. Technical report prepared for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 30 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005 (In -review) Computer model and risk assessment predicting the aquatic environmental response to bridges constructed using creosote preserved wood. Technical report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI 53705. Timber Bridge Joint Venture Agreement 01 -JV -11111136-104. 86 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. The epibenthic community observed in association with the intensive raft culture of Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis in Totten Inlet, Washington. Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce Award No. NA16RG1591. Submitted to Pacific Shellfish Institute, 120 State Avenue NE #142, Olympia, WA 98501. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Copper and tebuconazole loss rates from southern yellow pine treated to a retention of 0.246 pounds per cubic foot with CA -B preservative. Technical report produced for Arch Wood Protection, 1955 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. 38 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Baseline information describing sediment physicochemistry of Totten Inlet and the macrobenthos of the proposed North Totten Inlet mussel farm. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 53 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Benthic response at the Deepwater Point mussel farm in Totten Inlet, Puget Sound,. Washington State USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 45 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Biological evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment - road crossing over the Middle Branch of Cassalery Creek and adjacent wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reference D200401495-3755. Prepared for Four Seasons Engineering, Port Angeles, Washington 98362. 19 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Metal loss rates to rainfall falling on 2"x6" lumber treated with Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) preservative. Technical report produced for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 12pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Copper, zinc and arsenic loss rates from Douglas fir piling treated to a nominal retentions 1.0 and 1.5 pounds per cubic foot with Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) preservative and receiving four different post treatment Best Management Practices designed to minimize metal losses to fresh- and saltwater environments. Technical report prepared for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. The affects of water temperature, salinity and currents on the survival and distribution of the infective copepodid stage of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) originating on Atlantic salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 13:177-204. 7 Brooks, K.M. (In -Review). The frequency of Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis alleles in Washington State marine waters where the species is commercially cultivated. 14 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Supplemental study of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter in waters near the proposed mussel farm in North Totten Inlet, Washington State, USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 48 pp. Brooks, K.M. and D.J. Stucchi. 2006. The Effects of Water Temperature, Salinity and Currents on the Survival and Distribution of the Infective Copepodid Stage of the Salmon Louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Originating on Atlantic Salmon Farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada (Brooks, 2005) — A Response to the Rebuttal of Krkosek et al. (2005a). Reviews in Fisheries Science. 14:13-23. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Assessing the environmental costs associated with the netpen culture of Atlantic salmon in the Northeast Pacific. 59 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Fisheries Trust (WFT) Workshop on Comparative Environmental Costs of Aquaculture and Other Food Production Sections — 24-28 April 2006, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In -press by FAO. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Sediment physicochemical monitoring at delayed release netpens and raceways for white seabass located in southern California during 2004 and 2005. Report prepared for Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, California Department of Fish and Game and Advisors to the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, WA 98368. 97 pp. Brooks, K.M., D. Goyette and S. Christie. 2006. Sooke Basin Creosote Evaluation — Results of the October 2005 Reconnaissance Survey. Creosote Evaluation Committee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Yukon Region, 201-401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 355. 150 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2007. An analysis of sediment sulfide and macrobenthic data for purposes of assessing the concept of ecological threshold in monitoring the benthic effects of fish farms. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Contract CNAEN07029. Technical report produced for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 6J9. 63 pp., plus appendices Brooks, K.M. 2007. Sediment physicochemical monitoring at delayed release netpens and raceways for white seabass located in Southern California during the period 2004 through 2006. Technical report produced for Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, California Department of Fish and Game, and Advisors to the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). 118 pp. Brooks, K. M. 1991. The Genetics and Epizootiology of Hemic Neoplasia in Mytilus edulis. 1991. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 282 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1991. Shellfish Inventory and Management Considerations associated with the intensive cultivation of Crassostrea gigas in California and Washington by Coast Oyster Company. Report prepared for First Interstate Bank, Seattle, Washington. Brooks, K. M. 1992. Infaunal community structure changes associated with organic loading at an intensive salmon husbandry site. Report to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 19 pp. Brooks, K. M. 1992. Review of bacterial and toxicant contamination in Dyes Inlet, WA arid request for shellfish harvest certification of Chico Bay, Phiney Bay and the east side of Erland Point, all in Dyes Inlet, Kitsap County, Washington. 21 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Report prepared for, and published by, the Western Wood Preservers Association, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, Vancouver, WA 98550. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Impacts on Benthic Invertebrate Communities Associated with the Aerial Application of Carbaryl to Control Burrowing Shrimp on Cultivated Oyster Beds in Willapa Bay for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 63 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Integrated Pest Management Program Development. Differential pesticide impacts on closely related invertebrate species in eelgrass meadows of Pacific Northwest estuaries. Pacific Estuarine Research Society Annual Meeting, Long Beach, WA, May 14, 1993. 47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1993. Recovery of benthic communities associated with interrupted production at a Ell commercial salmon net -pen in Port Townsend, WA. Report to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (Included in the annual monitoring report for the Paradise Bay net pen site.) Brooks, K.M. 1993. Changes in arthropod and mollusk populations associated with the application of SevinC to control burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay, Washington - July to September, 1992. Report to the US EPA, Contract BSCC 692. 31 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1994. Histopathological Examination of Archived Bivalves Mytilus edulis trossulus and Protothaca staminea in Support of the Prince William Sound Long Term Monitoring Program. Report to NOAA/ORCA/HMRAD/ORCA32. 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115.40 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential Environmental Risks Associated With Creosote Treated Wood Products Used in Aquatic Environments. Published by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, Vancouver, WA 98660. 137 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of Treated Wood in Lotic Systems. Published by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 601 Main Street, Suite 401, WA 98660. 17 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Aquatic Environmental Risk Assessments and a Spreadsheet Model Predicting Creosote Treated Wood Contributions of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to the Water Column and Sediments. ASTM Conference Proceedings. Fifth Symposium on Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessments: Biomarkers and Risk Assessment. Sponsored by: ASTM Committee E-47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate. April 3 - 5, 1995. Denver, Colorado. Brooks, K.M. 1995. Long Term Response of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Associated with the Application of Carbaryl (Sevin EI) to Control Burrowing Shrimp, and an Assessment of the habitat Value of Cultivated Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas) Beds in Willapa Bay, Washington to Fulfill Requirements of the EPA Carbaryl Data Call In. Report to the U.S. EPA under Contract BSCC 692. 69 PP. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Evaluating the environmental risks associated with the use of chromated copper arsenate -treated wood products in aquatic environments. Estuaries Vol. 19, No. 2A, p. 296-305. Brooks, K.M., D.E. Konasewich, H.C. Bailey, E.B. Szenasy and G.E. Brudermann. 1996. Antisapstain chemical Technical Review. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment; Subcommittee on Antisapstain chemical Waste Control Regulation Amendments of the B.C. Stakeholder Forum on Sapstain Control. 133 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Baseline Shellfish Surveys of Tidelands Near the Tatitlek, Nanwalek and Port Graham Villages in Support of the Nanwalek/Port Graham/Tatitlek Clam Restoration Project; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Project Number 95131. 52 p. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1996. Assessment and Management of Wastes Associated with the Intensive Culture of Salmon in British Columbia, Canada. Prepared for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, Vancouver, B.C. 47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. September, 1996, Baseline electrophoretic survey of mussels, Mytilus edulis trossulus and Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis in Holmes Harbor, Washington. Produced for Taylor United, Inc. Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, Washington 98584 in fulfillment of conditions of Island County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SPD 013/94 and Army Corps of Engineers Permit COE (94-1- 00327). 13 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1996. City of Ocean Shores Wetland Inventory. Produced for the City of Ocean Shores under Department of Ecology Grant G9600033. 28 pp. plus appendices. Brooks. K.M. 1997. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated with the Use of ACZA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Second Edition. Prepared for the Western Wood Preservers' Institute 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 98 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1997. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated With the Use of CCA Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. 3,d Edition. Prepared for the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99 Ste. 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 100 pp. 9 Brooks, K.M. 1997. Final Report — PAH Sediment Sampling Study in River South Parcel — July 17, 1996 to August 26, 1997. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Environmental Services Department, One First National Plaza, 10 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60690. 21 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 1998. Literature Review and Assessment of the Environmental Risks Associated With the Use of ACQ Treated Wood Products in Aquatic Environments. Prepared for: Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. Brooks, K.M. 1998. Literature Review, Computer Model and Assessment of the Potential environmental risks Associated with Pentachlorophenol Treated Wood Products Used in Aquatic Environments. Prepared for: Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99, Suite 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. Brooks, K.M. 1998. 1998 Annual Report of the Evaluation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands — a Mesocosm Study. Prepared for Dr. Richard Monzingo, Commonwealth Edison, P.O. Box 767, Chicago, IL 60690-0767 for submission to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 34 pages plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Environmental effects associated with the use of CCA -C, ACZA and ACQB pressure treated wood used to construct boardwalks in wetland areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture — Forest Products Laboratory, Research Paper FPL -RP -582. 126 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Assessment of the environmental effects associated with wooden bridges preserved with creosote, pentachlorophenol or chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA -C). U.S. Department of Agriculture — Res. Pap. FPL -RP -587. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 100 pp. Brooks, K.M. 1999. Stolt Canada Arrow Pass Salmon Farm Benthic and Shellfish Effects Study 1996 — 1997. Produced for Stolt Sea Farm Incorporated, 1405 Spruce Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 7K1. 107 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Final Report — Evaluation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands. Midwest Generation, Corporate EH&S Group, 440 S Lasalle Street, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60605. 94 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Sediment concentrations of sulfides and total volatile solids near salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada, during the period June through August, 2000 and recommendations for additional sampling. Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Fanners' Association. 16 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Literature review and model evaluation describing the environmental effects and carrying capacity associated with the intensive culture of mussels (Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis). Technical appendix for an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 129 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Determination of copper loss rates from Flexgard XITM treated nets in marine environments and evaluation of the resulting environmental risks. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. 24 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Sediment concentrations of zinc near salmon farms in British Columbia, Canada during the period June through August 2000. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association. 12 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the June 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Report prepared for Stolt Sea arm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 93 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the June 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at Pacific National Group netpens located in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Report prepared for Pacific National Group, 737 Yates Street— Suite 310, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1L6. 35 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Database report describing sediment physicochemical response to salmon fanning in British Columbia from 1996 through April 2000. Report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of 10 Environment and the British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association, 408 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 259. 41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Results of the Fall 2000 interim salmon farm monitoring at tenures operated by Stolt Sea Farms and Pacific National Aquaculture in British Columbia. Prepared for the British Columbia Salmon Farmers' Association. Number 408 — 1200 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2S9.15 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Recommended interim sediment quality guidelines for evaluating the environmental response to marine netpen culture operations. Prepared for the British Columbia Salmon Farmers' Association, Number 408 — 1200 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 2S9. 11 PP. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Final Report — Chugach Regional Resources Commission Bivalve Enhancement Program — Bivalve inventories and native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) culture studies — Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council Project Number 95131. 189 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Chapter 4. Salmon Farming and the Environment. In: Nash (2001) The Net-pen Salmon Farming Industry in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFS-NWFSC-49. pp. 36 — 73. Brooks, K.M. 2001. An evaluation of the relationship between salmon farm biomass, organic inputs to sediments, physicochemical changes associated with those inputs and the infaunal response with emphasis on total sediment sulfides, total volatile solids, and oxidationreduction potential as surrogate endpoints for biological monitoring — Final Report. Technical report produced for the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9T 6J9. 186 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) and spot prawn (Pandalus platyceros) holding and feeding studies in support of Emamectin Benzoate acute toxicity testing. Technical report produced for Dr. Rejean Berman, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 3535 Trans -Canada Highway, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada H9R 1B4. 50 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Results of Summer 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Pacific National Aquaculture netpens located in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Technical reported prepared for Pacific National Aquaculture, 1001 Wharf Street — Suite 300, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1T8. 65 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Results of the July 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 64 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. New salmon net-pen site assessments and baseline surveys at Beddingfield and South Millar Channel, Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. Technical reported prepared for Pacific National Aquaculture, 1001 Wharf Street — Suite 300, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 1T8. 21 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Native littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea) culture and associated environmental effects in Alaska. Technical paper presented at the November 13 — 14, 2001 Alaska Sea Grant Program conference in Anchorage, Alaska. 23 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Recommendations to the British Columbia Farmed Salmon Waste Management Technical Advisory Group for Biological and Physicochemical Performance Standards Applicable to Marine Netpens. Technical report produced for the Technical Advisory Group of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada V9T 6J9. 24 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2001. Environmental assessment and monitoring program associated with aquaculture production facilities operated by Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute at the Grace oil drilling platform in the Santa Barbara Channel, California. Technical report prepared for Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute, 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, California 92109. 26 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Results of the July 2001 interim salmon farm monitoring at Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. salmon aquaculture tenures located in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farm, Inc. 1261 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 81 pp. 11 Brooks, K.M. 2002. Copper loss from copper naphthenate treated piling immersed in fresh water. Technical report prepared for Mr. James A. Brient, Naphthenic Acid Technology Manager, Merichem Company Research Center, 1503 Central, Houston, Texas 77012-2797. 9 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Literature review, computer model and assessment of the potential environmental risks associated with copper naphthenate treated wood products used in aquatic environments. Technical report prepared for Mr. Gerald E. Davis, Merichem Chemicals and Refinery Services LLC, 2701 Warrior Road, P.O. Box 40777, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 24404. 22 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2002. Characterizing the environmental response to pressure treated wood. Proceedings. In: Enhancing the Durability of Lumber and Engineered Wood Products", Forest Products Society, 2801 Marshall Court, Madison, WI 53705-2299. pp. Annual Meeting, February 11 -13, 2002, Kissimmee, Florida. Pp. 59-71. Brooks, K.M., C. Mahnken and C. Nash. 2002. Environmental Effects Associated with Marine Netpen Waste with Emphasis on Salmon Farming in the Pacific Northwest. In: Responsible Marine Aquaculture, Eds: Stickney and McVey. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, United Kingdom pp. 159 - 204. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific Northwest Environment. II. Organic Wastes. Fisheries Research, Vol. 62, Issue 3, pp. 255 - 293. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest Environment. III. Accumulation of zinc and copper. Fisheries Research, Vol. 62, Issue 3, pp. 295-305. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Chemical and biological remediation of the benthos near Atlantic salmon farms. Aquaculture, Volume 219, Issues 1-4, pp. 355-377. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Chemical and Biological Remediation at the Upper Retreat Atlantic Salmon Farm in Retreat Passage, Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia - Tenure 1404379. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 34 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. An assessment of whether pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuschai) runs in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada are threatened by sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infections originating on cultured Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Legal affidavit prepared for Mr. Christopher Harvey, Q.C., MacKenzie Fujisawa Barristers & Solicitors, 1600-1095 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6E 2M6 57 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agencies Draft preliminary Risk Assessment on Creosote. Technical response provided to U.S. Creosote Council II, care -of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 47 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft Preliminary Risk Assessment for Arsenical Wood Preservatives. Technical response provided to the Arsenical Wood Preservatives Task Force, American Chemistry Council, care -of Mr. Has Shah, 1300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209. 41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Environmental Risk Assessment for CCA -C and ACZA Treated Wood. Technical report prepared for the Western Wood Preservers Institute, 7017 NE Highway 99 Ste. 108, Vancouver, WA 98665. 40 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Metal loss rates from southern yellow pine treated with ACQ-C preservative amended with and without water repellents and from CCA -C treated wood. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Metal loss rates as a function of rainfall from southern yellow pine treated with ACQ-C preservative amended with and without water repellents. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. 22 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Environmental response to the use of ACQ-C, CCA -C Tebuconazole, and Untreated southern yellow pine floats and posts in Montgomery's Pond. Technical report produced for Chemical Specialties Inc. One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250, Charlotte, North Carolina 28217. 31 pp. plus appendices. 141 pp. plus appendices. 12 Brooks, K.M. 2003. Application of the Infaunal Trophic Index to the evaluation of macrobenthic effects associated with salmon farming in British Columbia. Technical report prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. 30 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Measurement of nutrients in bottom water under and adjacent to the Deepwater Point mussel farm in Totten Inlet, Washington. Prepared for the Pacific Shellfish Institute, 120 State Avenue NE 4142, Olympia, Washington as part of Department of Commerce Award No. NAI 6RG1591. 9 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Metal loss rates in a dynamic leaching system from Strong-Seal fibreglass wrapped CCA-C treated wood. Technical report prepared for Wood Preservers Incorporated, P.O. Box 158, Warsaw, Virginia 22572. 8 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental response to creosote treated wood structures in Puget Sound, Washington. Technical report prepared for U.S. Creosote Council ll, care-of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 52 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Creosote treated piling — perceptions versus reality. Public outreach document prepared for U.S. Creosote Council 11, care-of Mr. David Webb, 357 Browns Hill Road, Valencia, PA 16059. 15 PP. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Baseline inventory of macrobenthos at Stolt Sea Farms' Humphrey Rocks Tenure in Tribune Channel; Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7. 18 pp. Brooks, K.M. , A.R. Stiems and C. Backman. 2004. Seven year remediation study at the Carrie Bay Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) farm in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, Canada. Aquaculture. Aquaculture 239, pp. 81-123. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Evaluation of the macrobenthic community at the edge of tenure on the 300 oT transect at Stolt Sea Farms' Swanson Island Tenure (Number 130438 1) in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia. Technical report prepared for Stolt Sea Farms, 1761 Redwood Street, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada V9W 3K7.12 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Migration From Creosote-Treated Railway Ties Into Ballast and Adjacent Wetlands. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-617. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 53 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Modelling, managing and assessing the environmental risks associated with the use of creosote treated wood products. Technical report prepared for Creosote Council Europe, care of Per Bech A/S, Koppers Denmark, Avemakke, 5800, Nyberg, Denmark. 84 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental feasibility study for aquaculture in Port Angeles Harbor and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Technical report prepared for Olympic Aqua Ventures, L.L.C., 111 Hurricane View Lane Port Angeles, WA 98362 42 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. September 2004 sediment physicochemical monitoring at Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute's enhancement netpens located at Santa Catalina Island, Aqua Hedionda Laboon and San Diego Bay. Technical report prepared for Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute 2595 Ingraham Street, San Diego, CA 92109. 29 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2004. Environmental response to ACZA treated wood structures in Pacific Northwest marine environments. Technical report prepared for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 30 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005 (In-review) Computer model and risk assessment predicting the aquatic environmental response to bridges constructed using creosote preserved wood. Technical report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI 53705. Timber Bridge Joint Venture Agreement 01-JV-11111136-104. 86 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. The epibenthic community observed in association with the intensive raft culture of Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis in Totten Inlet, Washington. Funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce Award No. NA16RG1591. Submitted to Pacific Shellfish Institute, 120 State Avenue NE #142, Olympia, WA 98501. 13 Brooks, K.M. 2005. Copper and tebuconazole loss rates from southern yellow pine treated to a retention of 0.246 pounds per cubic foot with CA -B preservative. Technical report produced for Arch Wood Protection, 1955 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. 38 pp. plus appendices. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Baseline information describing sediment physicochemistry of Totten Inlet and the macrobenthos of the proposed North Totten Inlet mussel farm. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 53 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Benthic response at the Deepwater Point mussel farm in Totten Inlet, Puget Sound,. Washington State USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584.45 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Biological evaluation and essential fish habitat assessment - road crossing over the Middle Branch of Cassalery Creek and adjacent wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reference D200401495-3755. Prepared for Four Seasons Engineering, Port Angeles, Washington 98362. 19 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Metal loss rates to rainfall falling on 2"x6" lumber treated with Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) preservative. Technical report produced for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 12pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. Copper, zinc and arsenic loss rates from Douglas fir piling treated to a nominal retentions 1.0 and 1.5 pounds per cubic foot with Ammoniacal Copper Zinc Arsenate (ACZA) preservative and receiving four different post treatment Best Management Practices designed to minimize metal losses to fresh- and saltwater environments. Technical report prepared for J.H. Baxter and Company, 1700 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA 94402. 41 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2005. The affects of water temperature, salinity and currents on the survival and distribution of the infective copepodid stage of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) originating on Atlantic salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 13:177-204. Brooks, K.M. (In -Review). The frequency of Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis alleles in Washington State marine waters where the species is commercially cultivated. 14 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Supplemental study of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter in waters near the proposed mussel farm in North Totten Inlet, Washington State, USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 48 pp. Brooks, K.M. and D.J. Stucchi. 2006. The Effects of Water Temperature, Salinity and Currents on the Survival and Distribution of the Infective Copepodid Stage of the Salmon Louse (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Originating on Atlantic Salmon Farms in the Broughton Archipelago of British Columbia, Canada (Brooks, 2005) - A Response to the Rebuttal of Krkosek et al. (2005a). Reviews in Fisheries Science. 14:13-23. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Assessing the environmental costs associated with the netpen culture of Atlantic salmon in the Northeast Pacific. 59 pp. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Fisheries Trust (WFT) Workshop on Comparative Environmental Costs of Aquaculture and Other Food Production Sections - 24-28 April 2006, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In -press by FAO. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Sediment physicochemical monitoring at delayed release netpens and raceways for white seabass located in southern California during 2004 and 2005. Report prepared for Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, California Department of Fish and Game and Advisors to the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, WA 98368. 97 pp. Brooks, K.M., D. Goyette and S. Christie. 2006. Sooke Basin Creosote Evaluation - Results of the October 2005 Reconnaissance Survey. Creosote Evaluation Committee, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Yukon Region, 201-401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 355. 150 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2007. An analysis of sediment sulfide and macrobenthic data for purposes of assessing the concept of ecological threshold in monitoring the benthic effects of fish farms. British Columbia Ministry of Environment Contract CNAEN07029. Technical report produced for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2080-A Labieux Road, Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 6J9. 63 pp., plus appendices Brooks, K.M. 2007. Sediment physicochemical monitoring at delayed release netpens and raceways for white seabass located in Southern California during the period 2004 through 2006. Technical report 14 produced for Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, California Department of Fish and Game, and Advisors to the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). 118 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2000. Literature review and model evaluation describing the environmental effects and carrying capacity associated with the intensive culture of mussels (Mytilus edulis galloprovincialis). Technical appendix for an Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 129 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2003. Measurement of nutrients in bottom water under and adjacent to the Deepwater Point mussel farm in Totten Inlet, Washington. Prepared for the Pacific Shellfish Institute, 120 State Avenue NE #142, Olympia, Washington as part of Department of Commerce Award No. NA16RG1591. 9 pp. Brooks, K.M. and C.V.W. Mahnken. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic Salmon in the Pacific Northwest Environment. II. Organic Wastes. Fisheries Research, Vol. 62, Issue 3, pp. 255 - 293. Brooks, K.M. 2006. Supplemental study of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter in waters near the proposed mussel farm in North Totten Inlet, Washington State, USA. Technical report prepared for Taylor Resources, Southeast 130 Lynch Road, Shelton, WA 98584. 48 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2006. DRAFT Supplemental Best Available Science. Produced for the Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance Review Committee. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. 67 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2007a. Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance Review Committee - Response to the Department of Ecology critique of Brooks (2006) dated March 9, 2007. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. 71 pp. Brooks, K.M. 2007b. Background information and development of recommendations for wetland buffers by the Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance Review Committee. Aquatic Environmental Sciences, 644 Old Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Washington 98368. 67 pp. Brosofske, K.D, J. Chen, R. J. Naiman, and J. F. Franklin. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological Applications, 7(4), 1997, pp. 1188- 1200. Brumme, C.J., Abbe, T.B., Sampson, J.R. & Montgomery, D.R. 2006. Influence of vertical channel change associated with accumulations on delineated channel migration zones, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 80, 2006. 295-309. Brummer, C.J. 2007. Effects of Riparian Forest Recovery on the Delineation of Channel Migration Zones. Geologic Society Annual Meeting, Seattle May 4-6, 2007. Brummer, C. J. et al. 2006. Influence of vertical channel change associated with wood accumulations on delineating channel migration zones, Washington, USA. Geomorphology, 80 (2006) 295-309. November, 2006. www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Buckhouse and Gifford. 1976. Water Quality Implications of Cattle Grazing on a Semiarid Watershed in Southeastern Utah. J. Range Management 29(2):109-113. Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements - A review. J. Environ. Qual. 234:878-882. Cederholm, C. J., et.al. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife-Ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special Edition Technical Report, Prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil (Managing Directors), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. 2007. Digest of Decisions 1992-2007. (February 2007) Chen, J. et al. 1999. Microclimate in Forest Ecosystem and Landscape Ecology: Variations in local climate can be used to monitor and compare the effects of different management regimes. BioScience Vol. 49 No. 4, pp 288 - 297. Christiansen, D. 2004. Review of Best Available Science for 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update. September 22, 2004. Christiansen, D. 2005. Draft Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. November 15, 2005. Draft report to Jefferson County Natural Resources Department. 15 Clark, M. 2007. Letter to Dr. Brooks describing the effectiveness of voluntary programs undertaken by the Washington State Conservation Commission and the state's 39 Conservation Districts. Washington State Conservation Commission. PO Box 47721, Olympia, WA 98504-7721. Clary, W.P., C.I. Thornton, and S.R. Abt. 1996. Riparian stubble height and recovery of degraded Streambanks. Rangelands 18:137-140. Collins, B. D., and D. R. Montgomery. 2002. Forest development, wood jams, and restoration of floodplain rivers in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Restoration Ecology 10(2):237-247. Collins, B. D., D. R. Montgomery, and A. D. Haas. 2002. Historical changes in the distribution and functions of large wood in Puget Lowland rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (59):66-76. Community Trade and Economic Development Portal on BAS http://www.eted.wa.,-ov/portal/alias CTED/lane en/tabID 418/DesktopDefault.asPxx Cooke, Sarah, et a1. 2002. Pacific Northwest Forested Wetland Literature Survey Synthesis. Cooke Scientific Services. November 1, 2002. Forested Wetlands and Silvicultural Practices Workshop presentation downloads available at: htip://www.cookescientific.com/FWWS Downloads.HTM Crittenden, R.N. 1978. A theoretical model for the water temperature of small clear streams. Ecol. Mod. 5: 207-224. Crittenden, R.N. 1992. Salmon at Risk, first edn. Hargrave Publishing, Carlsborg WA. Crittenden, R.N. 1994. Optimum Escapement Computed using the Ricker Spawner Recruit Curve. Fisheries Research. 20: 215-227. CTED. 2003. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Olympia, November 2003, pg. 1-2. Cummins, K. W. and M. A. Wilzbach. 2005. The inadequacy of the fish -bearing criterion for stream management. Overview Article, Aquatic Sciences 67: 486-49120. January, 2005. Desbonnet, A., Pogue, P., Lee, V., and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone: A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 72pp. Desbonnet, A., V. Lee, P. Pogue, D. Reis, J. Boyd, J. Willis, and M. Imperial. 1995. Development of coastal vegetated buffer programs. Coastal Management, Vol. 23, pp. 91-109. Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard and D. Lee. 1986. Long -Term Effectiveness and Maintenance of Vegetative Filter Strips. Wirginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Bulletin 153. Dillaha, T.A. and S.P. Inamdar. 1997. Buffer Zones as Sediment Traps or Sources. In: Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection. Eds: N.E. Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding and G. Pinay. ISBN 09530051 Quest Environmental. Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton and D.C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of Forest and Grass Buffer Strips in Improving the Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Paper No. 77-2501. Dumbauld, B.R., K.M. Brooks and M.H. Posey. 2001. Response of an Estuarine Benthic Community to Application of the Pesticide Carbaryl and Cultivation of Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in Willapa Bay, Washington. Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 42, No. 10, pp. 826 - 844. Easter, F. R. 2007. Review Comments - Supplemental Best Available Science supporting recommendations for minimum buffer widths in Jefferson County with emphasis on a voluntary wildlife enhancement program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 316 W. Boone Avenue, Suite 450, Spokane, WA 99201-2348. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. 2006. Digest of Decisions 1992 through August 2006. Ebersole, J.L. et al. 2006. Juvenile Coho Salmon Growth and Survival across Stream Network Seasonal Habitats. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1681-1697, 2006 16 Edge, W.D. 2001. Wildlife of Agriculture, Pastures, and Mixed Environments. In: Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil (eds). Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Pp. 342-360. Edwards, D.R., B.T. Larson and T.T. Lim. 2000. Runoff Nutrient and Fecal Coliform Content From Cattle Manure Application to Fescue Plots. J. American Water Res. Assn. 36(4):711-721. Edwards, D.R.; T.C. Daniel and P.A. Moore Jr. 1996. Vegetative Filter Strip Design for Grassed Areas Treated with Animal Manures. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 12(1):31-38. Elston, R., Bonar, D., Brooks, K., Gee, A., Miahle, E., Moore, J., Noel, D., and Stephens, L. 1990b. Studies on pathogenesis and etiology of circulating sarcomas in Mytilus. 4th Internat. Colloq. Pathol. Marine Aquacul, 17-21 Sept., Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain, p. 119. Elston, R.A., J.D. Moore and K.M. Brooks. 1992. Disseminated Neoplasia of Bivalve Mollusks. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences, 6(5,6): 405-466. EPA. 1992. Region 10 In -Stream Biological Monitoring Handbook For Wadable Streams in the Pacific Northwest. EPA 910/9-92-013. Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61(3): 603-610. Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Revue of Ecology and Systematics. 34:487-515. Fairbairn, S.E. and J.J. Dinsmore. 2001. Local and landscape -level influences on wetland bird communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21(1): 41-47. Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: Evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 15(2): 212-231. FEMA. 1999. FEMA Riverine Erosion Hazard Areas Mapping Feasibility Study. September 1999. Forest Practices Board Manual - 0212002 Determining Fish Use for the Purpose of Typing Waters Section 13 - Guidelines for Determining Fish Use for the Purpose of Typing Waters htlp://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/board/manual/section 1 3.pdf Fresh, K. L., D. Rabin, C. Simenstad, E. O. Salo, K. Garrison, and L. Matheson. 1979. Fish ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of Southern Puget Sound, Washington. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRI-UW-7904. Seattle. Fresh, K.L., R.D. Cardwell, and R.R. Koons. 1981. Food habitats ofpacific salmon, baitfish, and their potential competitors and predators in the marine waters of Washington, August 1978 to September 1979. Washington Department of Fisheries. Progress Report No. 145. 58pp. Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson and S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado Front Range stream. J. Soil and Water Conservation. March -April 1983:124-128. Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis and J.L. Melnick. 1975. Fate of Wastewater Bacteria and Viruses in Soil. J. Irrigation and Drainage Division 11572:IR3:157-174. Gibbs, James. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland - associated animals. Wetland Journal. Vol 13, No. 1 (pages 25-31). Gonor, J. J., J. R. Sedell, and P. A. Benner. 1988. "What we know about large trees in estuaries, in the sea, and on coastal beaches." in From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. Edited by C. Maser, R.F. Tarrant, J.M. Trappe, and J.F. Franklin. Pac. NW Res. Sta. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW- GTR-229. Goyette, D. and K.M. Brooks. 1998. Creosote Evaluation: Phase II. Sooke Basin Study - Baseline to 535 Days Post Construction 1995 - 1996. Published by Environment Canada. 224 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7M 3H7. 568 pp. Goyette, D. and K.M. Brooks. 2000. Addendum Report - Continuation of the Sooke Basin Creosote Evaluation Study (Goyette and Brooks, 1998). Year 4 - Days 1360 and 1540. Published by Environment Canada. 224 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7M 3H7. 51 pp. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley and E Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands Final. Washington Department of Ecology Publication 05-06-008. 17 Haggerty, M., M. McHenry and R. McCoy. 2006. Pysht River Floodplain Inventory and Habitat Assessment. February 2, 2006. Report submitted to Pacific Salmon Commission. Vancouver, B.C. Henning, Julie 2004. An Evaluation of Fish and Amphibian Use of Restored and Natural Floodplain Wetlands. Final Report EPA Grant CD -97024901-1. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. 81 p. htty://www.noplegroup.org/NOPLE/documents/watersheds/pysht/Pysht-FP%20Rgport%20Final l .ndf Herrera et al. 2002. Reach Analysis: Hoh River in the Vicinity of U.S. Highway 101, MP 176.6 to MP 170.2. Prepared for WSDOT. April, 2002. Hicks, M. 1998a. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life In Washington's Surface Water Quality Standards Temperature Criteria. Sponsored by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Watershed Management Section, Olympia, Washington 98504-7710. Hicks, M. 1998b. Water Quality Antidegradation Implementation Plan. Example of Possible Rule Language to Replace Chapter 173-201A-070 WAC. Sponsored by the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program Watershed Management Section, Olympia, Washington 98504-7710. Hirschi, Ron, Thomas Doty, Aimee Keller, and Ted 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. Hofmann, L. and R.E. Ries. 1991. Relationship of soil and plant characteristics to erosion and runoff on pasture and range. J. Soil and Water Conservation. March -April 1991:143-147. Holcomb, J. 2005. Developing Riparian Guidelines on Forest Service Land in the Southern Appalachians. Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 25-27, at the University of Georgia, Athens Georgia. Hruby, T., A. McMillan, R. Mraz. 2007. Department of Ecology Comments on the document "Supplemental best available science supporting recommendations for minimum buffer widths in Jefferson County with emphasis on a voluntary wildlife enhancement program by Dr. Kenneth M. Brooks. Department of Ecology, PO Box 47775, Olympia, Washington 98504-7775. 28 pp. References cited by Hruby et al. (2007), according to K. Brooks Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone — A Summary Review and Bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical Report NO. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, RI 02882. 72pp. Franklin, I.R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. in Conservation Biology, an evolutionary -ecological perspective. M.E. Soule and B.A. Wilcox eds. Sinauer Assoc, Sunderland MA. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil (eds). 2001. Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455- 1460. Larsen, E. M., J. M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, eds. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia. 268pp. Stebbins, Robert C. Western Reptiles and Amphibians (third edition). Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003. Hubanks, R.L. 2007. Letter to Dr. Brooks from the NRCS State Conservations regarding the efficacy of voluntary stewardship programs. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 316 W. Boone Ave. Suite 450, Spokane, Washington 99201-2348. 18 Innes, J.L., Er. K.b.H., , K. Martin, and B. Klinkenburg. Forest loss with urbanization predicts bird extirpations in Vancouver. Biol. Cons. 126 (2005)410-419. Isenhart, T.M., R.C. Schultz and J.P. Colletti. 1998. Watershed restoration and agricultural practices in the Midwest: Bear Creek of Iowa. Chapter 19, pp. 318-334. Eds. J.E. Williams, C.A. Wood and M.P. Dombeck. Watershed Restoration: Principles and practices. Am. Fish. Soc. 561 pp. Jefferson Conservation District (2001). Water Quality Screening Report. Water Quality Implementation Grant 99-02-1M. Puget Sound Grant 99 -02 -PS. CREP Grant 01 -02 -CR. Prepared for the Washington State Conservation Commission, by the Jefferson County Conservation District, Port Hadlock, WA, August 2001. Jefferson County Critical Areas Web Page — Studies and Reports: hqp://www.co.iefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/criticalareas.htm Johnson, A.W. and D. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, Washington. In: Castelle, A.J. and A.W. Johnson, Riparian vegetation effectiveness. Technical Bulletin No. 799 NCASI. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil (managing directors). 2001. Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768pp. Jorgensen, J. 1996. Coho, Steelhead, and Chinook production at Elk Creek, Hoh River, Washington. Report to the Hoh Tribe. Klawon, J.E. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, U.S. Department of Interior, Denver, Co. Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 181 pp. Olympia, Washington. Knutson, M.G., J.R. Sauer, D.A. Olsen, M.J. Mossman, L.M. Hermesath, and M.J. Lannoo. 1999. Effects of landscape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1437-1446. Knutson, M.G., W.B. Richardson, D.M. Reinke, B .R. Gray, J.R. Parmelee, and S.E. Weick. 2004. Agricultural ponds support amphibian populations. Ecological Applications. 14:669-684. Kresh et al. 2000. Determination of Upstream Boundary Points on Western Washington Streams and Rivers under the Requirements of the Shoreline Management Act . Water -Resources Investigation Report 96- 4208, USGS. The new jurisdictional points are listed at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st guide/iurisdiction/rivers.html Labbe, T., R. Grotefendt, A. Carter -Mortimer, and J. L. Jones. 2005. Dosewallips River Habitat Assessment: Coupling High -Resolution Remote Sensing and Ground Surveys to Prioritize Aquatic Conservation, Olympic Mountains, Washington State. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. December 6, 2005. Final Report to: USDI — Bureau of Indian Affairs, Portland Area Office. Larsen, R.E., J.R. Miner, J.C. Buckhouse and J.A. Moore. 1994. Water -Quality Benefits of Having Cattle Manure Deposited Away From Streams. Bioresource Technology. 48:113-118. Larson, P.A. and L.L. Larson. 2003. Landowner monitoring of stream temperature and bottom sediments. Latham, A. 2007. Letter to Dr. Brooks describing voluntary programs undertaken by the Jefferson County Conservation District and the beneficial effects of these efforts demonstrated through monitoring. Jefferson County Conservation District, 205 W. Patison Street, Port Hadlock, Washington 98339-9751. Lebow, S. and K.M. Brooks 2002. Environmental Impact of Treated Wood in Service. Proceedings: "Enhancing the Durability of Lumber and Engineered Wood Products", February 11 —13, 2002, Kissimmee, Florida. 25 pp. Lee, D., T.A. Dillaha, and J.H. Sherrard. 1989. Modeling phosphorus transport in grass buffer strips. J. Env. Eng. 115:409-427. Lehtinen, R.M., S.M. Galatowitsch and J.R. Tester. 1999. Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19(l): 1-12. 19 Lehtinen, R.M., and S.M. Galtowitsch. 2001. Colonization of restored wetlands by amphibians in Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 145(2): 388-396. Leschine, T. M., K.F. Wellman and T. H. Green. 1997. Wetlands' Role in Flood Protection. October 1997. Report prepared for: Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 97-100. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/97100.pdf Lim, T.T., D.R. Edwards, S.R. Workman, B.T. Larson and L. Dunn. 1998. Vegetated Filter Strip Removal of Cattle Manure Constituents in Runoff. Transactions of the Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. 41(5):1375-1381. May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream -riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Prepared for Kitsap County Natural Resources Coordinator. July 2000. McCreary, F.R. 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. McKenna, R. 2006. Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property. State of Washington, Office of the Attorney General. Miner, J.R., J.C. Buckhouse, and J.A. Moore. 1992. Will a water trough reduce the amount of time hay -fed livestock spend in the stream (and therefore improve water quality)? Rangelands. 14(1):35-38. Minton, S.A. 1968. The fate of amphibians and reptiles in a suburban area. Journal of Herpetology 2(3-4): 113-116. Monoham, C. 2004. Riparian buffer function along lowland agricultural streams. Watershed Review. 2(1):1- 2. Montgomery, D. R. 2004. Geology, geomorphology, and the restoration ecology of salmon. GSA Today, v.14, no. 11. November, 2004. Moore, J.A. and J.R. Miner. 1997. Stream Temperatures - Some Basic Considerations. Oregon State University Extension Service Bulletin EC 1489. Morrill, J. C.; R. C. Bales, and M. H. Conklin. 2005. Estimating Stream Temperature from Air Temperature: Implications for Future Water Quality. Journal of Environmental Engineering© ASCE: January 2005. Mosley, J.C., P.S. Cook, A.J. Griffis and J. O'Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for Managing Cattle Grazing in Riparian Areas to Protect Water Quality: Review of Research and Best Management Practices Policy. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho Report No. 15. 64 pp. Naiman, R.J., Bilby, R.E., and Bisson, P.A. 2000. Riparian Ecology and Management in the Pacific Coastal Rain Forest. Bioscience, 50(11) 2000, 996-1011. Naiman, R. J. et al. 2002. Dead Wood Dynamics in Stream Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. 2002 Nash, C.E., K.M. Brooks, W.T. Fairgrieve, R.N. Iwamoto, C.V.W. Mahnken, M.B. Rust, M.S. Strom and F.W. Waknitz. 2001. The Net -pen Salmon Farming Industry in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-49. 125 pp. Naugle, D.E., R.R. Johnson, M.E. Estey, and K.F. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach to conserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota. Wetlands 21: 1-17. Neibline, W.H. and E.E. Alberts. 1979. Composition and yield of soil particles transported through sod strips. ASAE Paper 79-2065. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. Newman, J.R. 1967. The Harper Encyclopedia of Science, Revised Edition. Edited by James R. Newman. Harper & Row Publishers. New York. (page 477). O'Connor, J. E., M. A. Jones, and T. L. Haluska. 2003. Floodplain and channel dynamics of the Quinault and Queets Rivers, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 51:31-59. Olson, P.L. and J.A. Silver. 2005. Groundwater and Heat Transport in the Hoh River Watershed: A Pilot Study on the Impact of Forest Practices on Ground and Surface Water Interactions. CREES Groundwater under the Pacific Northwest Conference. November 2, 2005: http://www.swwrc.wsu.edu/conference2005/ Owens, L.B., W.M. Edwards, and R.W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface Runoff Water Quality Comparisons Between Unimproved Pasture and Woodland. Perkins, S. J. Perkins Geosciences. 2003. Lower Hoh Channel Migration Study. Report to the Hoh Tribe. 20 Perkins, S. J., 1996. Channel Migration in Three Forks of the Snoqualmie River. King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA. Perkins, S. J., 1993. Green River Channel Migration Study. King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA. Perkins, S.J. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers Jefferson County Washington, Final Report. Perkins Geosciences, Deming WA. Pess, G.R. et al. 2002. Landscape characteristics, land use, and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) abundance, Snohomish River, Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 59: 613-623 (2002) DOI: 10.1139/F02-035. Peterson, N.P. and L.M. Reid. 1984. Wall -base channels: their evolution, distribution, and use by juvenile coho salmon in the Clearwater River, Washington. Pages 215-225 in J.M. Walton and D. B. Houston, editors. Proceedings of the Olympic wild fish conference. Peninsula College, Fisheries Technology Program, Port Angeles, Washington. Petterssen, S. 1958. Introduction to Meteorology. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York. 327 pp. Pizzimenti, J.J. 2002. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands - Phase I, Work in Progress. GEI Consultants, Inc., 6950 S. Potomac Street, Suite 200, Englewood, CO 80112. Pizzimenti, J.J. 2005. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands - State of Washington Phase I1. Technical report submitted the Washington Agricultural Caucus, P.O. Box 1207, Moxee, WA 98936. 136 pp. Pollock M. M. and D. Werner. 2003. Comparison of Summer Stream Temperatures in Managed and Unmanaged Watersheds of the Western Olympic Peninsula. Draft Version 1.1. Report to the Department of Natural Resources. NOAA NW Fisheries Science Center. April 29, 2003. Pollock M. M., G. R. Pess, T. J. Beechie, and D. R. Montgomery. 2004. The Importance of Beaver Ponds to Coho Salmon Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington, USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:749-760, 2004. Pollock, M. M., and P. M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. 10,000 Years Institute, Bainbridge Island, Washington. Porath, M.L., P.A. Momont, T. DelCurto, N.R. Rimbey, J.A. Tanaka and M. McInnis. Offstream water and trace mineral salt as management strategies for improved cattle distribution. 2002. J. Animal Sci. 80:346- 356. Rapp, R.G. and Abbe, R.G. 2003. A Framework for Delineating Channel Migration Zones. Washington Department of Ecology Publication #03-06-027. RCW 36.07A: Growth Management - Planning by selected Counties and Cities. RCW 76.09: Forest Practices. RCW 86.09: Flood control districts -1.937 act RCW 90.58: Shoreline Management Act of 1971. Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland characteristics in the Puget Sound basin. Wetlands 15:305-312. Richter, K.O. 1996. Criteria for the restoration and creation of wetland habitats of lenticbreeding amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Pages 72-94 in K.B. Macdonald and F. Weinmann (eds.), Wetland and Riparian Restoration: Taking a Broader View. EPA 910-97-007. Seattle, Washington: U.S. EPA, Region 10. Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 2001a. Amphibian distribution, abundance, and habitat use. Chapter 5, pages 143-166 in A.L. Azous and R.R. Homer (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. New York: Lewis Publishers. Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 2001b. Bird distribution, abundance, and habitat use. Chapter 7, pages 201- 220 in A.L. Azous and R.R. Horner (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. New York: Lewis Publishers. 21 Robins, J.W.D. 1979. Impact of Unconfined Livestock Activities on Water Quality. Rumsey, C.J. 1996. The effect of three residual vegetation heights on streambank sediment deposition and vegetation production. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming at Laramie. Cited in Mosley et al. (1997). Rot, Byron. 1996. Productivity of floodplain complexes for fish production: Elk Creek, Hoh River Washington. Report to the Hoh Tribe. Rumsey, C.J. 1996. The effect of three residual vegetation heights on streambank sediment deposition and vegetation production. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming at Laramie. Cited in Mosley et al. (1997). Schmitt, T.J., M.G. Dosskey, and K.D. Hoagland. 1999. Filter Strip Performance and Processes for Different Vegetation, Widths, and Contaminants. J. Environ. Qual. 28:1479-1489. Semlitsch, R.D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic -breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3). Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid Bioassessments of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities: Biocriteria Development. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209. 45 pp. Shared Strategy. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. Nearshore chapter prepared by the Puget Sound Action Team. June 30, 2005. htti)://www.i)sat.wa.gov/Programs/salmon recovery/section2.pdf Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science - Final. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006. Sheldon, D. et al. 2004. Washington Wetlands. Vol. I. Dept. of Ecology, Lacey WA Sias, Joan. 2003. Estimation of multi -season evapotranspiration in relation to vegetation cover for regions with rainy winter/ dry -summer climate. Prepared for the Upland Processes Science Advisory Group of the Committee for Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research (CMER). October 2, 2003. hqp://www.dnr.wa. gov/forestpractices/adaptivemanagement/cmer/publications/TFW-UPSAG-01-001.pdf Silver, J.A. 2004. Integrated Population and Environmental Baseline Evaluation for Bull Trout in the Lower Hoh River, Jefferson County, Washington. Report prepared by 10,000 Years Institute for Jefferson County Public Works Department. July 2004. Bainbridge Island, WA. Spence, B.C., Lomnicky, G.A., Highes, R.M. and Novitzki, R.P. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. TR -450196-6057. Mantech Environmental Research Services Corporation. Rapp, C.F. and T.B. Abbe. 2003. A Framework for Delineating Channel Migration Zones. Ecology Publication #03-06-027. November 2003. htip://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0306027.pdf Steeger, C. and J. Dulisse. 2002. Characteristics and Dynamics of Cavity Nest Trees in Southern British Columbia. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report pSSW-GTR-181. Steinblums, I.J., H.A. Froehlich, and J.K. Lyons. 1984. Designing Stable Buffer Strips for Stream Protection. J. Forestry 82(1)49:52. Strivastava, P., D.R. Edwards, T.C. Daniel, P.A. Moore Jr., and T.A. Costello. 1996. Performance of Vegetative Filter Strips with Varying Pollutant Source and Filter Strip Lengths. Trans. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. 39(6):2231-2239. Symposium on the Ecology and Management of Dead Wood in western Forests. November 2-4, 1999. Reno, Nevada. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/ Todd, A.H. 2000. Making Decisions About Riparian Buffer Width. International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi -Land Use Watersheds. American Water Res. Assn. 445-450. Tomassi, Suzanne. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County. Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 1, 2004. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Department of the Army, Waterways Experimental Station, Corps of Engineers, PO Box 631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631. USBOR et al. 2004. Geomorphic Assessment of Hoh River in Washington State - Hoh River Miles 17 to 40: Oxbow Canyon to Mount Tom Creek. Report to Jefferson County Public Works. US Bureau of Reclamation. July, 2004. WAC Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. WAC Chapter 173-204 WAC, Sediment Management Standards. 22 WAC 222-16 Definitions: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/rules/wac222-16.odf Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 173-18-200. Shoreline management act- streams and rivers constituting shorelines of the state — Jefferson County. Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-221: General master program provisions. Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11. SEPA Rules. Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 220-110. Hydraulic Code Rules. Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 222. Forest Practices Rules. Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands - CMZ page: htty://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st guide/jurisdiction/CMZ.html Washington State Department of Ecology - Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised. WDOE Publication 04-06-025. 134 pp. 2004. Ibid. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. WDOE Publication 405- 06-006, March, 2005. Ibid. Wetlands in Washington State Volme 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. WDOE Publication 905-06-008. April, 2005. Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Seattle District), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part I: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ibid. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans, Version 1. March, 2006 — Publication 406-06-0116. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Checklist for Reviewing Development Regulations h_tti)://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/checklis.i)df Policy Issues Relating to the Growth Management Act: Comprehensive Plans and Development Regulations htW://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/bottoml.pdfPriority Habitats and Species http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsi)age.htm Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Forest Practices Board Manual. Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission. 1997. Final Joint WDFW/Tribal Wild Salmonid Policy. December 5, 1997. ham://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/wsi)/ioint/final/finalwsp.pdf Washington State Forest Practices Board. 2004. Forest Practices Board Manual. Section 2 - Standard Methods for Identifying Bankfull Channel Features and Channel Migration Zones. 2004. htti)://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/board/manual/ http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/board/manual/section2.pd Washington State Horse Council. 1989. Horse Waste and Land Management Manual. Washington State University (Pullman) Cooperative Extension Bulletin EM4806. WDOE. 2004. Washington State Department of Ecology - Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised. WDOE Publication 04-06-025. 134 pp. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. 2006. Digest of Decisions 4a' Edition. (December 2006) Wheeler, W. 2006. Communication to the Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance Review Committee documenting land -use patterns. Available from the Jefferson County Planning Department. Wheeler, W.A. 2007. Personal correspondence with Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Department of Natural Resources. Wigington, P.J., Jr., J.L. Ebersole, M.E. Colvin, S.G. Leibowitz, B. Miller, B. Hansen, H. Lavigne5, D. White, J.P. Baker, M.R. Church, J.R. Brooks, M.A. Cairns, and J.E. Compton. 2006. Coho Salmon Dependence on Intermittent Streams. Research Communication submission to Frontiers in Ecology and Environment. July 5, 2006. Williams, G. D. and Ronald M. Thom. Marine and Nearshore Modification Issues. (Sequim, WA: Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 17, 2001). White Paper submitted to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation. Williams, G. D. and Ronald M. Thom. White Paper: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. (Sequim, WA: Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, April 17, 23 2001). Willson, Mary F., Karl C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous Fish as Keystone Species in Vertebrate Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), pp. 489-497. 007A Young, R.A., T. Huntrods and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer Strips in "Controlling Pollution from Feedlot Runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9(3):483-487. Zimbardo, P.G. 1970. "The human choice: Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos. in W.J. Arnold and D. Levine (eds.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 1969. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Zimbardo, P.G. et al. 1982. "The psychology of imprisonment" in J.C. Brigham and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Social Psychology Brooks/Cole Publ. Co. Monterey CA 395 p. 24 Page 1 Exhibit B Development Code Language to be deleted All header references are to the Jefferson County Code (JCC), Title 18 Unified Development Code (UDC). Note: JCC Table of Contents to be modified appropriately. Line to be deleted includes: 18.15.155(2) Environmentally Sensitive areas (ESA); Entire sections to be deleted include: JCC 18.15.165, and JCC 18.15.185 through and including JCC 18.15.400 as follows: 18.15.165 Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA) maps Article VI -D. Environmentally Sensitive Areas District (ESA 18.15.185 Purpose. 18.15.190 Applicability. 18.15.195 Allowable uses. 18.15.200 Coverage. 18.15.205 General exceptions. 18.15.210 General exemptions. 18.15.215 Nonconforming uses. 18.15.220 Reasonable economic use variance. 18.15.225 Notice. 18.15.230 Findings. 18.15.235 Conditions. Article VI -E. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 18.15.240 Classification 18.15.245 Designation 18.15.250 Applicability. 18.15.255 Protection standards. Article VI -F. Frequently Flooded Areas 18.15.260 Incorporation by reference. 18.15.265 Relationship to other regulations. Article VI -G. Geologically Hazardous Areas 18.15.270 Classification/designation. 18.15.275 Protection standards. 18.15.280 Conditions. Article VI -H. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas 18.15.285 Classification/designation. 18.15.290 Sources used for identification. 18.15.295 Fish and wildlife habitat area maps. 18.15.300 Exempt activities. 18.15.305 Regulated activities. 18.15.310 General prohibitions. 18.15.315 Protection standards. 18.15.320 Conditions. Page 2 Article VI -I. Wetlands 18.15.325 Classification/designation. 18.15.330 Regulated activities. 18.15.335 Exempt activities. 18.15.340 Protection standards. 18.15.345 Noncompensatory enhancement. 18.15.350 Mitigation. Article VI -J. Special Reports 18.15.355 Waivers. 18.15.360 General contents. 18.15.365 Retaining consultants. 18.15.370 Responsibility, 18.15.375 Aquifer recharge area report. 18.15.380 Drainage and erosion control plan. 18.15.385 Geotechnical report. 18.15.390 Grading plan. 18.15.395 Habitat management plan. 18.15.400 Welland delineation report. EXHIBIT C Note: a) Add the following language to JCC 18. b) JCC Table of Contents to be modified appropriately. Chapter 18.10 Definitions 18.10.030 C definitions. "Channel migration zone" means an area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement that is subject to risk due to stream bank destabilization, rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion and shifts in the location of stream channels. "Channel migration zone" means the corridor that includes the present channel, the severe channel migration hazard area and the moderate channel migration hazard area. "Channel migration zone" does not include areas that lie behind an arterial road, a public road serving as a sole access route, a state or federal highway or a railroad. "Channel migration zone' may exclude areas that lie behind a lawfully established flood protection facility that is likely to be maintained by existing programs for public maintenance consistent with designation and classification criteria specified by public rule. When a natural geologic feature affects channel migration, the channel migration zone width will consider such natural constraints. Chapter 18.15 Land Use Districts On page 18-68 of the JCC Title 18 add: Article VI -D. (1) See JCC 18.20.030 for exemptions from the critical area requirements for agricultural activities designated under RCW 36.70A.170. Any agricultural activities designated under RCW 36.70A.170 that are not exempt from critical area requirements shall be subject to the JCC Title 18. (2) See JCC 18.22 for critical areas. All references to Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the Jefferson County Code are interchangeable with the term "Critical Areas". Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas ARTICLE I Purpose 18.22.010 Purpose - generally ARTICLE II Administrative Provisions 18.22.020 Applicability 18.22.030 Identification and mapping of critical areas 18.22.050 Coverage 18.22.070 General exemptions 18.22.080 Nonconforming uses 18.22.090 Reasonable economic use variance 18.22.095 Physical separation, functional isolation ARTICLE III Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 18.22.100 Classification 18.22.110 Designation 18.22.120 Applicability 18.22.130 Protection standards 18.22.135 Adaptive management ARTICLE IV Frequently Flooded Areas 18.22.140 Incorporation by reference Page 1 18.22.150 Relationship to other regulations ARTICLE V Geologically Hazardous Areas 18.22.160 Classification/designation 18.22.170 Protection standards 18.22.180 Conditions ARTICLE VI fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 18.22.195 Compliance alternative — critical area stewardship plan (GASP) 18.22.200 Classification/designation 18.22.210 Process and requirements for designating habitats of local importance 18.22.360 as critical areas 18.22.220 Sources used for identification 18.22.230 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area maps 18.22.250 Regulated activities 18.22.265 Habitat management plans —when required 18.22.270 Protection standards 18.22.280 Conditions ARTICLE VII Wetlands 18.22.290 Stewardship alternative 18.22.300 Classification/designation 18.22.310 Regulated activities 18.22.330 Protection standards 18.22.340 Non -compensatory enhancement 18.22.350 Mitigation ARTICLE VIII Special Reports 18.22.360 General requirements 18.22.370 Waivers 18.22.380 Retaining consultants 18.22.390 Acceptance of special reports 18.22.400 Aquifer recharge area report 18.22.410 Drainage and erosion control plan 18.22.420 Geotechnical report 18.22.430 Grading plan. 18.22.440 Habitat management plan 18.22.450 Wetland delineation report ARTICLE IX Alternative Protection Standards — Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) 18.22.460 Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) — generally 18.22.461 Applicability and limitations 18.22.465 Performance standards 18.22.470 CASPcontents— existingconditions 18.22.480 Description of the management proposal 18.22.490 Maintenance 18.22.510 As built plan requirement 18.22.520 Periodic monitoring 18.22.530 Contingency planning 18.22.540 Failure to submit required reports 18.22.550 Waiver ARTICLE X Implementation Strategies 18.22.570 Conservation futures 18.22.580 Education 18.22.590 Best management practices (BMPs) 18.22.600 Cost sharing incentives 18.22.610 Static buffer widths for voluntarily enhanced critical areas 18.22.620 Public benefit rating system 18.22.630 Residential best management practices (BMPs) ARTICLE XI Watershed Monitoring 18.22.640 Watershed monitoring ARTICLE XII Adaptive Management Page 2 18.22.650 Adaptive management Article I Purpose 18.22.010 Purpose - Generally The purpose of the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance is to comply with state law and to describe authorized methods and procedures established to ensure the functions and values of Critical Areas are not degraded when allowing approved uses and development activities in the County. This regulation offers landowners a choice of two (2) methods for ensuring the functions and values of Critical Areas are not degraded; (a) For any critical area, landowners may use a prescriptive method, as described herein, or (b) For Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) and Wetlands, landowners may choose an adaptive method by providing a site-specific stewardship plan (see Article IX, 18.22.460). Article 11— Administrative Provisions 18.22.020 Applicability Unless otherwise exempted under 18.22.070, any land use or development activity that is subject to a development permit or approval under JCC Title 18 may only be undertaken on land located within or containing a critical area or its buffer if the provisions of this Chapter 18.22 are met. Unless otherwise exempted under 18.22.070, uses and activities in critical areas or their buffers for which no permit or approval is required by any other provision of county code are also subject to the development standards and other requirements of this chapter. 18.22.030 Identification and Mapping of Critical Areas The approximate locations and extents of critical areas within the county are displayed on various inventory maps available through the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. The critical areas maps are provided only as a general guide to alert the viewer to the possible location and extent of critical areas. These maps need not to be relied upon exclusively to establish the existence/absence or boundaries of a critical area, or to establish whether all of the elements necessary to identify an area as a critical area actually exist. Conditions in the field control: in the event of a conflict between the information shown on the maps and information shown as a result of field investigations, the latter shall prevail. To the extent practicable, the County shall ensure that its critical area maps are updated as inventories are completed in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. 18.22.050 Coverage (1) The following permits and approvals shall be subject to, and coordinated with, the requirements of this section: clearing and grading; site plan approval; sewage disposal; subdivision or short subdivision; binding site plans; building permit; planned residential development; shoreline substantial development; variance; conditional use permit; certain forest practice permits (Class IV general, Class III conversion option harvest plans); other permits leading to the development or alteration of land; and rezones if not combined with another development permit. In instances where a proposal involves a parcel of real property with more than one critical area or critical area buffer, the standards that pertain to each identified critical area shall apply. When provisions of this section conflict with one another, or when provisions of this section conflict with any other local law, the provision that provides more protection to the critical area shall apply. No permit involving a designated critical area shall be approved unless it is determined to be in compliance with this code. (2) Any action taken in a critical area designated under this chapter that is in violation of the standards and conditions contained herein is expressly prohibited. 18.22.070 General Exemptions The following activities in critical areas or their buffers are exempt from the requirements of this chapter. (1) Agricultural activities when undertaken pursuant to best management practices to minimize impacts to critical areas and consistent with JCC Chapter 18.20.030. (2) Forest practices regulated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 76.09 Page 3 RCW and forest practice regulations, Title 222 WAC, and which are exempt from Jefferson County jurisdiction. (3) Maintenance or reconstruction of existing public or private roads, paths, bicycle ways, trails, bridges, and associated storm drainage facilities when undertaken pursuant to best management practices to minimize impacts to critical areas and to immediately restore any disturbed critical area or its buffer, provided that reconstruction does not involve expansion of facilities. (4) Maintenance and repair of existing drainage facilities or systems, including, but not limited to, ditches, culverts, catch basins, and outfalls when undertaken pursuant to best management practices to minimize impacts to critical areas and immediately to restore any disturbed critical area or its buffer. (5) Utility activities, when undertaken pursuant to best management practices to minimize impacts to critical areas and immediately to restore any disturbed critical area or its buffer: (a) Normal and routine maintenance or repair of existing utility facilities or rights-of-way. (b) Installation, construction, relocation and replacement, operation, repair, or alteration of all utility lines, equipment, or appurtenances, not including substations, in improved road rights-of-way. (6) Reconstruction, remodeling, or maintenance of existing structures. This exemption shall not apply to reconstruction which is proposed as a result of structural damage associated with a Geologically Hazardous Area and does not allow further intrusion into a wetland, fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and/or their buffers. (7) Site investigative work. Site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals, including but not limited to surveys, soil logs, and percolation tests involving no fill or use of heavy equipment in a wetland, or a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area or their buffers, provided that disturbed critical areas and their buffers are immediately restored and best management practices are implemented and excavation for soil logs or percolation tests are filled. (8) Emergency action. Action that is taken which is necessary to resolve or prevent imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, or to public or private property, or serious environmental degradation. If the nature of the emergency is such that it is not possible to first seek review, the Department, as well as any federal or state agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., the US Army Corps of Engineers), must be notified of the action within thirty (30) days of the initiation of the emergency work. (9) Artificial wetlands and artificial ponds. (10) Flood Control. Operation, maintenance and repair of dikes, ditches, reservoirs, and other structures and facilities which were created or developed as part of normal flood control activities, except that this exemption does not extend to the permanent draining or permanent alteration of any regulated wetland. (11) Irrigation. Operation, maintenance and repair of ditches, reservoirs, ponds and other structures and facilities. (12) Recreational Uses. Swimming, boating and fishing. Maintenance and repair of docks, piers, boat launches and floats in lakes (provided that the proposed action complies with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act), in deep water habitats one (1) acre or greater in size when such activities are for recreational purposes and do not involve alteration of or construction through, over or in a regulated wetland. Other outdoor activities, including hunting and fishing (pursuant to state law), bird watching, hiking, bicycling; (13) Existing Residential Landscaping. Planting, irrigating, fertilizing, spraying, mowing and pruning and maintenance and repair of structures when such activities are part of existing normal residential landscaping activities and no building permit is required. This exemption does not allow further intrusion into a wetland, fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, geologically hazardous area or their buffers. (14) All wetlands wherein wetland conditions are being maintained only because of human -induced water, even if it can be determined that the wetland conditions would no longer exist if the activity (for example, irrigation or pumping water) were to be terminated. (15) Removal or destruction of noxious weeds listed in Chapter 16-750 WAC is the responsibility of the landowner, provided that, the following conditions are met: (a) The removal or control of noxious weeds shall follow guidelines issued by the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board. The Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board shall coordinate with the Department of Planning and Community Development for the control of noxious weeds in wetlands. (b) All herbicide applications in aquatic environments shall conform to the rules of the Department of Ecology, Department of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to WAC 173-201, WAC 16- 228, and WAC 222-38. (16) The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling soil, planting crops, or changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources and provided these activities do not have any adverse impacts on protection of the critical area or its buffer. (17) The enhancement of a buffer by planting indigenous vegetation; (18) The construction of unpaved trails when located in the buffer areas and elevated when located in wetlands, which are not intended for motorized use, and which are no wider than five feet, unless additional width is necessary for safety along a precipice, steep hillside, or other hazardous area; Page 4 (19) Installation of navigation aids and boundary markers; (20) Drilling or digging and maintenance of wells; provided, that impacts to critical areas and their buffers are minimized and disturbed areas are immediately restored; (21) The administrator may determine that an activity is closely allied or similar to any activity in this list. If such an activity does not impact the functions and values of any critical area or its buffers, it may also be determined to be exempt. 18.22.080 Nonconforming Uses (1) Any legal use or legal structure in existence on the effective date of this Chapter 18.22 that does not meet the buffer requirements of this chapter for any designated critical area shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. (2) Any use or structure for which an application has vested or for which a permit has been obtained prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, that does not meet the buffer requirements of this chapter for any designated critical area, shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. (3) A legal nonconforming use or structure may be maintained or repaired without limitation by this chapter. (4) A legal nonconforming use or structure that has been damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity may be restored and its immediately previous use may be resumed. 18.22.090 Reasonable Economic Use Variance (1) Generally. If the application of this Chapter 18.22 would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, the applicant, upon denial of a permit due to the requirements of this chapter, may apply for a reasonable economic use variance. (2) Staff recommendation and burden of proof. Upon application to the department, the department shall prepare a recommendation to the hearing examiner. The property owner and/or applicant for a reasonable economic use variance shall bear the burden of proving that the property is deprived of all reasonable economic use. (3) Hearing examiner process. The hearing examiner shall conduct a public hearing on the variance request. Decisions of the hearing examiner shall be final and conclusive. Public notice shall be provided as follows: (a) The department shall arrange for at least one publication of the notice of hearing to appear in a newspaper of general circulation within the county at least 10 days before the hearing. Payment of all publication fees shall be the responsibility of the applicant. (b) The department shall send notice to adjacent property owners advising them of the hearing. The notice shall be mailed to the owners of record of all property lying within 300 feet of the property at issue, at least 10 days before the public hearing. Names and addresses of adjacent property owners shall be provided to the department by the applicant, subject to department approval. (c) The department shall provide the applicant with at least two copies of the hearing notice, and one copy of an affidavit of posting. The applicant shall post the notices and maintain them in place for at least 10 days prior to the hearing, not including the day of posting or the day of the hearing. The notices shall be placed in conspicuous locations on or near the property and shall be removed by the applicant after the hearing. Notices shall be mounted on easily visible boards provided by the department. The affidavit of posting shall be signed, notarized, and returned to the department at least 10 days prior to the hearing. (d) All hearing notices shall include a legal description of the property involved, and a concise description of the variance requested in lay language. (4) Hearing examiner - required findings. A reasonable economic use variance may be granted only when the hearing examiner finds that the application meets all of the following criteria: (a) No reasonable economic use with less impact on the critical area or its buffer is possible. (b) There is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to critical areas or associated buffers. Feasible on-site alternatives shall include, but are not limited to: (i) Reduction in density, scope, scale or intensity; (ii) Phasing of project implementation; (iii) Change in timing of activities; and (iv) Revision of road or parcel layout or related site planning considerations. (c) The proposed variance will result in the minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the critical area functional characteristics and existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions. (d) Disturbance of critical areas has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in critical area buffers to the minimum extent possible. (e) The proposed variance will not cause degradation to surface or groundwater quality. Page 5 (f) The proposed variance complies with all federal, state and local statutory and common law, including the Endangered Species Act, and statutory laws related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on site wastewater disposal, and common law relating to property and nuisance. (g) There will be no material damage to nearby public or private property and no material threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property. (h) The inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of the regulations codified in this chapter. (5) Conditions. (a) In granting approval for reasonable economic use variances, the hearing examiner may require mitigating conditions. (b) In granting approval for reasonable economic use variances involving designated wetlands, the hearing examiner shall consider the following mitigating conditions: (i) Provision of a mitigation plan demonstrating how the applicant intends to substantially restore the site to predevelopment conditions following project completion; and (ii) The restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's actions; the overall goal of any restoration, creation or enhancement project shall be no net loss of wetlands function and acreage. (6) Performance Bond. The Administrator may require a performance bond of 120% of the cost of the outstanding work items to be accomplished. 18.22.095 Physical Separation, Functional Isolation Buffers areas which are both physically separated and functionally isolated from a critical area and do not protect the critical area from adverse impacts shall be excluded from buffers otherwise required by this Chapter. Functional isolation can occur due to existing public roads, structures, vertical separating, or any other relevant physical characteristic The Administrator may require a Biological Site Assessment to determine whether the buffer is functionally isolated. Article III — Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 18.22.100 Classification Critical aquifer recharge areas are naturally susceptible due to the existence of permeable soils or a seawater wedge in coastline aquifers. Certain overlying land uses can lead to water quality and/or quantity degradation. The following classifications define critical aquifer recharge areas. (1) Susceptible aquifer recharge areas are those with geologic and hydrologic conditions that promote rapid infiltration of recharge waters to groundwater aquifers. For the purposes of this Article III, unless otherwise determined by preparation of an aquifer recharge area report authorized under this article, the following geologic units, as identified from available State of Washington Department of Natural Resources geologic mapping, define susceptible aquifer recharge areas for east Jefferson County: (a) Alluvial fans (Ha); (b) Artificial fill (Hx); (c) Beach sand and gravel (Hb); (d) Dune sand (Hd); (e) Floodplain alluvium (Hf); (f) Vashon recessional outwash in deltas and alluvial fans (Vrd); (g) Vashon recessional outwash in melt water channels (Vro); (h) Vashon ice contact stratified drift (Vi); (i) Vashon ablation till (Vat); Q) Vashon advance outwash (Vao); (k) Whidbey formation (Pw); and (1) Pre-Vashon stratified drift (Py). (2) Those areas meeting the requirements of susceptible aquifer recharge areas (above) and which are overlain by the following land uses as identified in this code are subject to the provisions of the protection standards in this article: (a) All industrial land uses; (b) All commercial uses; (c) All rural residential land uses: Page 6 (i) Requiring a discretionary use or conditional use permit, or (ii) With nonconforming uses that would otherwise require a discretionary use or conditional use permit; (d) Unsewered planned rural residential developments; (e) Unsewered residential development with gross densities greater than one unit per acre. (3) Special aquifer recharge protection areas include: (a) Sole source aquifers designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523); (b) Special protection areas designated by the Washington Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-200 WAC; (c) Wellhead protection areas determined in accordance with delineation methodologies specified by the Washington Department of Health under authority of Chapter 246-290 WAC; (d) Groundwater management areas designated by the Washington Department of Ecology in cooperation with local government under Chapter 173-100 WAC. (4) Seawater intrusion protection zones (SIPZ) are aquifers and land overlying aquifers with some degree of vulnerability to seawater intrusion. SIPZ are defined either by proximity to marine shoreline or by proximity to groundwater sources that have demonstrated high chloride readings. All islands and land area within one-quarter mile of marine shorelines and associated aquifers together compose the coastal SIPZ. Additionally, areas within 1,000 feet of a groundwater source with a history of chloride analyses above 100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) are categorized as either at risk (between 100 mg/L and 200 mg/L) or high risk (over 200 mg/L) SIPZ. Individual groundwater sources with a history of chloride analyses above 200 mg/L shall be considered "sea -salt water intrusion areas," which are among the "sources or potential sources of contamination" listed in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-160-171, implementing code for the Water Well Construction Act. (a) In some cases, high chloride readings may be indicative of connate seawater (i.e., relic seawater in aquifers as opposed to active seawater intrusion). When best available science or a hydrogeologic assessment demonstrate that high chloride readings in a particular area are due to connate seawater, the area in question shall not be considered an at risk or high risk SIPZ. When the status of an area is in question, the UDC administrator is responsible for making the determination based upon recommendation from county department of health and human services. 18.22.110 Designation Jefferson County shall prepare and exhibit dated critical aquifer recharge area maps which demonstrate the approximate distribution of the susceptible aquifer recharge areas, special aquifer recharge protection areas, and seawater intrusion protection zones. The critical aquifer recharge area maps shall be periodically revised, modified, and updated to reflect additional information. 18.22.120 Applicability (1) The following land use activities are considered high impact land uses due to the probability and/or potential magnitude of their adverse effects on groundwater and shall be prohibited in susceptible aquifer recharge areas and special aquifer recharge protection areas. In all other areas of the county outside of susceptible aquifer recharge areas and special aquifer recharge protection areas, these activities shall require an aquifer recharge area report pursuant to this Article III: (a) Chemical manufacturing and reprocessing; (b) Creosote/asphalt manufacturing or treatment (except that asphalt batch plants may be permitted in susceptible aquifer recharge areas only if such areas lie outside of special aquifer recharge protection areas and only if best management practices are implemented pursuant to JCC 18.20.240 (2)(h)(iv) and 18.30.170 and an accepted aquifer recharge area report); (c) Electroplating and metal coating activities; (d) Hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities; (e) Petroleum product refinement and reprocessing; (f) Underground storage tanks for petroleum products or other hazardous materials; (g) Recycling facilities as defined in this code; (h) Solid waste landfills; (i) Waste piles as defined in Chapter 173-304 WAC; 0) Wood and wood products preserving; (k) Storage and primary electrical battery processing and reprocessing. Page 7 (2) All other land uses shall be subject to the protection standards contained in this article and mitigating conditions included with an aquifer recharge area report, where applicable. (3) Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones: Marine shorelines and islands are susceptible to a condition that is known as seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is a condition in which the saltwater/freshwater interface in an aquifer moves inland so that wells drilled on upland areas cannot obtain freshwater suitable for public consumption without significant additional treatment and cost. Maintaining a stable balance in the saltwater/freshwater interface is primarily a function of the rate of aquifer recharge (primarily through rainfall) and the rate of groundwater withdrawals (primarily through wells). New development, redevelopment, and land use activities on islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines in particular should be developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge and maintain the saltwater/freshwater balance to the maximum extent possible. 18.22.130 Protection Standards (1) General. The following protection standards shall apply to land use activities in susceptible aquifer recharge areas and special aquifer protection areas, and when specified in seawater intrusion protection zones, unless mitigating conditions have been identified in a critical aquifer recharge report that has been prepared pursuant to this Article III. (2) Storm water Disposal. (a) In all critical aquifer recharge areas, storm water runoff shall be controlled and treated in accordance with best management practices and facility design standards as identified and defined in the Storm water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, as amended, and the storm water provisions contained in Chapter 18.30 JCC. (b) To help prevent seawater from intruding landward into underground aquifers, all new development activity on Marrowstone Island, Indian Island and within one-quarter mile of any marine shoreline shall be required to infiltrate all storm water runoff on site. The administrator will consider requests for exceptions to this policy on a case-by-case basis. This provision is interpreted as establishing a hierarchy in which the first and best alternative is on-site infiltration using drywells or other methods, the second best alternative is direct discharge into marine waters through a storm water tightline. In order to utilize the least preferred alternative, which is considered an exception to the policy, applicants must demonstrate through a geotechnical or similar report prepared by a licensed professional that both on-site infiltration and upland off-site disposal are not practicable or feasible. The report must include cost figures for comparison. (3) On -Site Sewage Disposal. (a) All land uses identified in JCC 18.22.120 and special aquifer recharge protection areas that are also classified as susceptible aquifer recharge areas (as defined in this article) shall be designated areas of special concern pursuant to WAC 246. (i) Such designation shall identify minimum land area and best management practices for nitrogen removal as design parameters necessary for the protection of public health and groundwater quality. (ii) Best management practices (BMPs) shall be adopted by action of the Board of Health. (b) As new information becomes available that would classify an area as a special aquifer recharge protection area or an area of special concern under this article, said area may be designated as such by the county. Any additional areas of special concern designated through this process shall receive the same protections identified in subsection (3)(a) of this section. (4) Golf Courses and Other Turf Cultivation. In all critical aquifer recharge areas, golf courses shall be developed and operated in a manner consistent with the most current edition of "Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation," King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. Recreational and institutional facilities (e.g., parks and schools) with extensive areas of cultivated turf shall be operated in a manner consistent with portions of the aforementioned best management practices pertaining to fertilizer and pesticide use, storage, and disposal. In seawater intrusion protection zones, golf courses and other turf cultivation using groundwater for irrigation shall be prohibited, unless the water source is located outside of seawater intrusion protection zones or in an approved public water supply. (5) Above -Ground Storage Tanks. Above ground tanks shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used and operated in'a manner which prevents the release of hazardous substances or dangerous wastes to the ground or groundwater. Above -ground storage tanks intended to hold or store hazardous substances or dangerous wastes shall be provided with an impervious containment area, equivalent to or greater than 100 percent of the tank volume, enclosing and underlying the tank; or ensure that other measures are undertaken as prescribed by the Uniform Fire Code which provide an equivalent measure of protection. Page 8 (6) Mining and Quarrying. Mining and quarrying performance standards containing groundwater protection best management practices pertaining to operation, closure, and the operation of gravel screening, gravel crushing, cement concrete batch plants, and asphalt concrete batch plants, where allowed, are contained in Chapters 18.20 and 18.30 JCC. (7) Hazardous Materials. Land use activities that generate hazardous waste, which are not prohibited outright under this code, and which are conditionally exempt from regulation by the Washington Department of Ecology under WAC 173-303-100, or which use, store, or handle hazardous substances, shall be required to prepare and submit a hazardous materials management plan that demonstrates that the development will not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality. The facility owner must update the hazardous materials management plan annually. (8) Well Drilling, Land Division, and Building Permits in Seawater Intrusion Protection Zones. (a) Well Drilling. The Washington State Department of Ecology regulates well drilling pursuant to the Water Well Construction Act. Proposed wells, including those exempt from permitting requirements, must be sited at least 100 feet from "known or potential sources of contamination," which include "sea -salt water intrusion areas" (WAC 178-160-171), unless a variance is obtained from Ecology per WAC 173-160-106. (b) Subdivisions. Applications for land division (Chapter 18.35 JCC) must include specific and conclusive proof of adequate supplies of potable water through a qualifying hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an aquifer recharge area report per JCC 18.22.400) that demonstrates that the creation of new lots and corresponding use of water will not impact the subject aquifer such that water quality is degraded by seawater intrusion. (i) Marrowstone Island Subdivision Moratorium: Due to documented seawater intrusion on Marrowstone Island and the existence of undeveloped lots of record, Jefferson County has imposed a moratorium on additional land divisions on the island until such time as public water is available or it is demonstrated through the well monitoring program that groundwater quality is not degrading due to seawater intrusion. (c) Building Permits (i) Evidence of potable water may be an individual well, connection to a public water system, or an alternative system. Whatever method is selected, the regulatory and operational standards for that method must be met, including Jefferson County health codes and Washington Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 4 of the state "Guidelines for Determining Water Availability for New Buildings" (Ecology Publication 93-27), investigation and identification of well interference problems and impairment to senior rights is the responsibility of the Washington Department of Ecology. If the possibility of a problem is suspected, the local permitting authority should contact Ecology. (ii) All types of building permits that require proof of potable water use are subject to this policy, specifically building permits for new single-family residences (SFRs) or other structures with plumbing that are not associated with an existing SFR (i.e., shops or garages with a bathroom). (d) Voluntary and mandatory measures of the Jefferson County seawater intrusion policy apply to development proposals within the coastal, at risk, and high risk SIPZ, and upon Marrowstone Island, in the following manner, in addition to all existing applicable health codes: (i) Coastal SIPZ. (A) Voluntary actions: (1) Water conservation measures; (II) On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration; (III) Submittal of data to county. (B) Mandatory actions: (1) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH -approved public water system if available; (11) If public water is unavailable, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirement: 1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory -certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; 2. Installation of source -totalizing meter (flow). (III) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. (ii) At Risk SIPZ. (A) Voluntary actions: (1) Water conservation measures. (B) Mandatory actions: Page 9 (9) (1) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH -approved public water system if available; (II) If public water is unavailable, an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Chloride concentration of a laboratory -certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; 2. Installation of a source -totalizing meter (flow); 3. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration; 4. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the county per monitoring program; (III) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. (iii) High Risk SIPZ. (A) Mandatory actions: (1) Water conservation measures (per list maintained by UDC administrator); (ll) For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH -approved public water system if available; (III) If public water is unavailable, an individual well may only be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements: 1. Variance from WAC Title 173 standards granted by Ecology per WAC 173-160-106 for a new groundwater well within 100 feet of a sea -salt water intrusion area per WAC 173-160-171 (i.e., within 100 feet of a groundwater source showing chloride concentrations above 200 mg/L or within 100 feet of the marine shoreline); or for an existing groundwater well not subject to an Ecology variance, applicant must provide a hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of an aquifer recharge area report per JCC 18.22.400) which shall be transmitted to Ecology for review, demonstrating that use of the well does not cause any detrimental interference with existing water rights and is not detrimental to the public interest; 2. Chloride concentration of a laboratory -certified well water sample submitted with building permit application; 3. If chloride concentration exceeds 250 mg/L in a water sample submitted for a building permit, then the property owner shall be required to record a restrictive covenant that indicates a chloride reading exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secondary standard (250 mg/L) under the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; 4. Installation of a source -totalizing meter flow; 5. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration; 6. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the county per monitoring program; (IV) If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water. (iv) Marrowstone Island. In addition to all voluntary and mandatory actions associated with the applicable SIPZ as described above, the following measures apply to all development proposals on Marrowstone Island that include groundwater withdrawal: (A) Voluntary Actions. (1) Installation of timers together with new well pump installations to enable pump use limitation to low demand times. (B) Mandatory Actions. (1) The use of a well proposed as proof of potable water for a new building permit shall be conditioned through the building permit such that enrollment in a county - sponsored monitoring program is required, including periodic submittal of flow and chloride data as determined by the county. (II) Installation of a source -totalizing meter (flow). (III) Installation of a variable speed pump, controllable from the surface, in order to enable reduction of withdrawal rate, as may be necessary. (IV) Installation of a 1,000 -gallon minimum storage tank that shall conform to the ANSI/NSF standard 61. Mitigating Conditions. The administrator may require additional mitigating conditions, as needed, to provide protection to all critical aquifer recharge areas to ensure that the subject land or water use action will not pose a Page 10 risk of significant adverse groundwater quality impacts. The determination of significant adverse groundwater quality impacts will be based on the anti -degradation policy included in Chapter 173-200 WAC. (10) Authority for Denial. In all critical aquifer recharge areas, the administrator may deny approval if the protection standards contained herein or added mitigating conditions cannot prevent significant adverse groundwater quality impacts. 18.22.135 Adaptive Management As part of the periodic review and amendment to Jefferson County's implementing regulations required under RCW 36.70A.130(4), Jefferson County shall review the need for and implement an adaptive management program for groundwater resources in certain discrete geographic areas of the County, consistent with the provisions of WAC 365-195-920(2). Article IV — Frequently Flooded Areas 18.22.140 Incorporation by Reference This Article IV incorporates by reference the classification, designation and protection provisions contained in the Jefferson County floodplain management ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC) with the following addition: (1) In addition to the insurance maps identified in the floodplain management ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC), flood hazard areas shall be identified with reference to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100 -year floodplain designations. Such flood hazard areas shall be subject to the criteria of the floodplain management ordinance. (2) The floodplain management ordinance conforms with the intent of the minimum guidelines (WAC 365- 190-080(3)) through directly considering the effects of flooding on human health and safety, together with effects on public facilities and services, through its protection standards. 18.22.150 Relationship to Other Regulations While the Jefferson County floodplain management ordinance requires consistency with all other applicable laws, in the event that a conflict should exist the stricter standard shall apply to the regulated development. Article V - Geologically Hazardous Areas 18.22.160 Classification/Designation (1) Classification. Geologically hazardous areas shall be classified based upon a combination of erosion, landslide and seismic hazard. (2) Designation. The following erosion, landslide, seismic, and channel migration zone (CMZ) hazard areas shall be subject to the standards of this Article V: (a) Erosion Hazard Areas. Areas containing soils or soil complexes described and mapped within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County as having a severe or very severe erosion hazard potential. (b) Landslide Hazard Areas. Areas potentially subject to mass movement due to a combination of geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors including: (i) Areas of historic failures or potentially unstable slopes, such as: (A) Areas described and mapped as having severe or very severe building limitations for dwellings without basements within the United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for Jefferson County; (B) Areas described and mapped as recent or old landslides or slopes of unstable materials within the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas of Jefferson County; and (C) Areas described and mapped as areas of poor natural stability, former landslides and recent landslides by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources; (ii) Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, or undercutting by wave action; and (iii) Areas with any indications of earth movement, such as: Page 11 (A) Rockslides; (B) Earthflows; (C) Mudflows; and (D) Landslides. (c) Seismic Hazard Areas. Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These areas are identified by the presence of: poorly drained soils with greater than 50 percent silt and very little coarse material; loose sand or gravel, peat, artificial fill and landslide materials; or soil units with high organic content. (d) Channel Migration Zones (CMZs). Areas subject to the natural movement of stream channel meanders. In the delineated high risk CMZ area, channel migration is likely within the next 100 years. Areas protected from channel movement due to the existence of permanent levees or infrastructure improvements such as roads and bridges constructed and maintained by public agencies are excluded from the high or moderate risk designation (3) Sources Used for Identification. Sources used to identify geologically hazardous areas include, but are not limited to: (a) United States Department of Agriculture/Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey for Jefferson County. (b) Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Atlas. (c) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Slope Stability and Geologic Maps of Eastern Jefferson County. (d) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geographic Information System: Soil Survey. (e) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Maps of Eastern Jefferson County, Compressibility of Earth Materials in Eastern Jefferson County. (f) United States Department of the Interior, USGS Quad Maps. (g) US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Denver, CO. (h) Perkins Geosciences. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. Seattle, WA. (i) Perkins Geosciences with TerraLogic GIS. June, 2004. Lower Hoh River Channel Migration Study Summary Report. (j) The following rivers are not regulated in this section as a result of not having mapped CMZs (not an exhaustive list): Thorndyke Creek, Shine Creek, Chimacum Creek, Snow Creek, Salmon Creek, Upper Hoh River, Bogachiel River, Clearwater River, and Quinault River (4) Geologic Hazard Area Maps. The maps prepared by the county using the identification sources listed in this section have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this code. 18.22.170 Protection Standards (1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated geologically hazardous area or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. (2) Drainage and Erosion Control (a) An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in this chapter, when the project application involves either of the following: (i) The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or (ii) The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area. (b) Drainage and erosion control plans required under this chapter shall discuss, evaluate and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of adjacent properties during and after construction. (c) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a marine bluff, landslide hazard or ravine. The applicant must demonstrate that the storm water discharge cannot be accommodated on-site or upland by evidence of a geotechnical report, unless waived by the administrator. If drainage must be discharged from a bluff to adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the face of the bluff and directed to the water by tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the shoreline, above OHWM. (d) In addition to any erosion control methods specified in the drainage and erosion control plan, the administrator may require hydroseeding of exposed or disturbed areas or other BMPs. (3) Clearing and Grading. Page 12 (a) In addition to the general clearing and grading provisions in Chapter 18.30 JCC, the following provisions shall also apply: (i) Clearing within geologically hazardous areas shall be allowed only from April 1st to November 1st, unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein; (ii) Only that clearing necessary to install temporary sedimentation and erosion control measures shall occur prior to clearing for roadways or utilities; (iii) Clearing limits for roads, septic, water and storm water utilities, and temporary erosion control facilities shall be marked in the field and approved by the administrator prior to any alteration of existing native vegetation; (iv) Clearing for roads and utilities shall remain within construction limits which must be marked in the field prior to commencement of site work; and (v) The authorized clearing for roads and utilities shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish project specific engineering designs and shall remain within approved rights-of-way. (b) The following provisions regarding grading shall apply: (i) An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in this chapter, when the application involves either of the following: (A) The alteration of a geologically hazardous area or its buffer; or (B) The creation of a new parcel within a known geologically hazardous area. (ii) Excavation, grading and earthwork construction regulated under this section shall only be allowed from April 1st to November 1st, unless the applicant demonstrates that such activities would not result in impacts contrary to the protection requirements herein. (4) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: (a) During clearing for roadways and utilities, all trees and understory lying outside of approved construction limits shall be retained; provided, that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned. (b) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained. (c) Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the triggering application. (5) Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of landslide hazard area buffers shall be marked in the field as follows: (a) A permanent physical separation along the boundary of the landslide hazard area shall be installed and permanently maintained. Such separation may consist of logs, a tree or hedgerow, fencing, or other prominent physical marking approved by the administrator. (b) Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: "Landslide Hazard Area & Buffer — Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native Vegetation." (c) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan or site plan approvals under this code, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the landslide hazard area and its buffer. (6) Buffers — Standard Requirements. The following landslide hazard area buffer provisions shall apply: (a) Buffer areas shall be required to provide sufficient separation between the landslide hazard area and the adjacent proposed project. (b) The appropriate width of the landslide hazard area buffer shall be determined by either: application of the standard buffer width set forth below; or, by acceptance of a geotechnical report meeting the criteria of this section. (c) Buffers shall remain naturally vegetated. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, replanting with native vegetation shall be required. (d) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition; however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views may be permitted by the administrator on a case-by-case basis. (e) All buffers shall be measured perpendicularly from the top, toe or edge of the landslide hazard area boundary. (f) A standard buffer of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe and all edges of landslide hazard areas. (g) A building setback line is required to be five (5) feet from the edge of any buffer area for a landslide hazard area OR to outside the full extent of the high risk channel migration zone (CMZ), whichever is greater. (7) Reducing Buffer Widths. The administrator may reduce the standard landslide hazard area buffer width only when the project applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the administrator, that the project cannot meet the Page 13 required setback. The reduced buffer must adequately protect the proposed project from the risks of the landslide hazard area to the maximum extent possible. Under no circumstances shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 15 feet. (8) Increasing Buffer Widths. The administrator may increase the standard landslide hazard area buffer width when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the proposed project and the landslide hazard area. This determination shall be made when the administrator demonstrates any one of the following through appropriate documentation: (a) The landslide area is unstable and active. (b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe landslide or erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively protect the proposed project from the risks posed by the landslide hazard area. (c) The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover. (9) Geotechnical Report. (a) An applicant submitting a project application shall submit, and have approved, a geotechnical report, as specified in Article VIII of this chapter, when the application involves any of the following: (i) The alteration of a landslide hazard area or its buffer. (ii) The creation of a new parcel within a known landslide hazard area. (iii) The construction of a publicly owned facility in a designated seismic hazard area. (b) Where a geotechnical report is required for a landslide hazard area, the project application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report certifies all of the following: (i) There is minimal landslide hazard as proven by a lack of evidence of landslide activity in the vicinity in the past; (ii) An analysis of slope stability indicates that the proposal will not be subject to risk of landslide, or the proposal or the landslide hazard area can be modified so that hazards are eliminated; (iii) The proposal will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; (iv) The proposal will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and (v) All newly created building sites will be stable under normal geologic and hydrogeologic conditions (if applicable). (c) Where a geotechnical report is required for a seismic hazard area, the project application shall not be approved unless the geotechnical report demonstrates that the proposed project will adequately protect the public safety. 18.22.180 Conditions (1) General. In granting approval for a project application subject to the provisions of this Article V, the administrator may require mitigating conditions that will, in the administrator's judgment, substantially secure the objectives of this article. (2) Basis for Conditions. All conditions of approval required pursuant to this section shall be based upon either the substantive requirements of this section or the recommendations of a qualified professional, contained within a special report required under this chapter. Article VI - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) 18.22.195 Compliance Alternatives Article VI sets forth the prescriptive requirements. Applicants for development permits or approvals subject to this Article VI may elect to comply with the Critical Area Stewardship Plan (GASP) provisions set forth in Article IX of this Chapter in lieu of the prescriptive requirements set forth herein. 18.22.200 Classification/Designation (1) Classification. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) are those areas identified as being of critical importance to the maintenance of endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of fish, wildlife and/or plants, or species of local importance. These areas are typically identified either by known point locations of specific species (such as a nest or den) or by habitat areas or both. All areas within the County meeting these criteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this article. (2) Mapping. The approximate location and extent of identified fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) are shown on the County's critical area maps. These maps are to be used as a guide and do not provide a Page 14 definitive critical area determination. The County shall update the maps as new FWHCAs are identified or new information related to updates to existing maps becomes available. (3) Designation. The following are designated as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs): (a) Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species listed by the federal or state government have a primary association. (i) Federally designated and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Services should be consulted for current listing status. (ii) State endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are those species native to the State of Washington identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered within the state. The state maintains the list of these species in WAC 232-12-014 (endangered species) and in WAC 232-12-014 (threatened and sensitive species). The State Department of Fish and Wildlife should be consulted for current listing status. (b) Rivers and Streams not otherwise protected under Washington State Forest Practices regulations (RCW 76.09 and Chapter 222 WAC) that have FWHCAs are protected according to stream type. (c) Lands covered under the Forest Practices Act. Forested areas in Jefferson County provide protection as FWHCAs under the Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09) and Forest Practices Regulations (Chapter 222 WAC). (d) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas, including designated Shellfish Habitat Conservation Areas (note: shellfish aquaculture activities within all public and private tidelands and bed lands suitable for shellfish harvest are allowed uses; such activities include but are not limited to bed marking, preparation, planting, cultivation, and harvest). (e) Kelp and eelgrass beds. (f) Surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance spawning areas. (g) Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. (h) All areas designated by the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") through the Washington Natural Heritage Program as high quality wetland ecosystems and high quality terrestrial ecosystems. (i) Species and Habitats of Local Importance established pursuant to the process delineated in JCC 18.22.210. 18.22.210 Process and Requirements for Designating Habitats of Local Importance as Critical Areas (1) Purpose. This section describes the process for designating species and habitats of local importance that are not covered by the Federal and State sensitive, threatened or endangered species regulations. Accordingly, this section details the requirements for designating and monitoring species and habitats of local importance, as well as removing such species and habitats from designation if necessary. (2) Definition. The use of the term "habitat" in this section includes areas designated as "wildlife corridors" (3) Procedure for designation — generally. An application/nomination to designate a habitat of local importance as a critical area shall be processed according to the procedures for Type V land use decisions established in Chapter 18.40 JCC. (4) Nominations/applications. Any person, organization, or Jefferson County agency may nominate and apply for designation a species or habitat of local importance. A nominating person or organization must be a resident of, or headquartered in, Jefferson County. (5) Nomination/application submittal. (a) The applicant shall provide information demonstrating that the species or habitat is native to Jefferson County existing on or before the date of adoption of the regulations codified in this chapter. (b) All nominations/applications for designation of a species/habitat of local significance shall include the following: (i) Identification of the species including its scientific and locally common name(s); (ii) Identification of the geographic location, including Jefferson County Parcel Numbers, and extent of the habitat associated with a nominated species or the nominated habitat itself if not associated with a nominated species; a map of an appropriate scale to properly describe the location and extent of the habitat will accompany the nomination, as well as geo-referencing information sufficient to allow mapping of the habitat site in the county GIS mapping system; (iii) The status of the species or the occurrence of the type of habitat in surrounding counties and in the rest of the State has been considered in making this nomination; Page 15 (iv) A management strategy for the species or habitat; (v) Indications as to whether the proposed management strategy has been peer reviewed, and if so, how was this done and by whom; (vi) Where restoration of habitat is proposed, a specific plan, including how the restoration will be funded, must be provided as part of the nomination; (vii) Recommendations for allowed, exempt, and regulated activities within the area; (viii) Recommended buffer and setback requirements and their justification; (ix) Seasonal requirements; (x) A monitoring plan must be practical and achievable and includes the following: (A) Baseline data and a description of what measurements will be used to determine the success of the project. The plan shall include the criteria and time period required to evaluate the success of the plan. (B) A contingency plan for failure. (C) A list of all parcels not included in the nomination but affected by the monitoring process. (xi) The nomination must also include an economic impact, cost and benefits analysis. The nomination must also include an analysis of alternative solutions to formal designation of the habitat of local importance as a regulated critical area under this chapter. (c) The applicant shall be responsible for paying all fees and all expenses incurred by Jefferson County to process the application. (6) Review and approval criteria. (a) Species nominated for designation under this section must satisfy the following criteria: (i) Local populations that are in danger of extirpation based on documented trends since the adoption of the Growth Management Act; (ii) The species is sensitive to habitat manipulation; (iii) The species or habitat has commercial, game, or other special value such as locally rare species; (iv) The nomination includes an analysis of the proposal using best available science; and (v) The nomination specifies why protection by other county, state or federal policies, laws, regulations or non-regulatory tools is inadequate to prevent degradation of the species or habitat and for which management strategies are practicable, and describes why, without designation and protection, there is a likelihood that the species will not maintain and reproduce over the long term, or that a unique habitat will be lost. (b) Habitats nominated for designation under this section must satisfy the following criteria: (i) Where a habitat is nominated to protect a species, the use of the habitat by that species must be documented or be highly likely or the habitat is proposed to be restored with the consent of the affected property owner so that it will be suitable for use by the species; and, long term persistence of the species in Jefferson County and adjoining counties is dependent on the protection, maintenance or restoration of the habitat; (ii) Areas nominated to protect a particular habitat must represent either high quality native habitat or habitat that has an excellent potential to recover to a high quality condition and which is either of limited availability or highly vulnerable to alteration. (iii) The nomination specifies the specific habitat features to be protected (e.g., nest sites, breeding areas, nurseries, etc.). In the case of proposed wildlife corridors, the nomination shall specify those features that are required for the corridor to remain viable to support and protect the nominated species. (7) Review and approval process. (a) The Department of Community Development shall determine whether the application submittal is complete. If deemed complete, the department shall evaluate the proposal for compliance with the approval criteria set forth in this section and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission based on those criteria. The department shall also notify all parcel owners affected of the terms and contents of the proposal. (b) Upon receipt of a staff report and recommendation from the department, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, and make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners based upon the approval criteria set forth in this section. (c) The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall consider the recommendation transmitted by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting, and may then adopt an ordinance formally approving the designation. Should the Board wish to vary from the Planning Commission recommendation and alter or reject the application, such action may only occur following a separate public hearing conducted by the Board. Page 16 (d) Upon approval, the ordinance designating and regulating the species or habitat of local importance shall be codified in this article for public information and implementation by the department, and a notice to title shall be placed upon all parcels affected by the designation. (e) Each ordinance creating a species or habitat of local importance shall include periodic review of reassessment of the initial designation. The length of the periodic review may be dependent on the characteristics of the species or habitat. (8) Removal from designation. Species or habitats of local significance may be removed at any time, PROVIDED, that they no longer meet the criteria set forth in JCC 18.22.210(5). (e.g., as a result of a natural catastrophe or climatic change event), and PROVIDED FURTHER, that the procedural requirements of this section and the procedural requirements established for Type V land use decisions set forth within Chapter 18.40 JCC. 18.22.220 Sources used for Identification Sources used to identify fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) include, but are not limited to the following: (1) United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. (2) Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Water Type Index Maps. (3) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Non -Game and Priority Habitats and Species databases. (4) Public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable for shellfish harvest and identified by the Washington Department of Health's classification system and shellfish protection districts established pursuant to Chapter 90.72 RCW. (5) Kelp and eelgrass beds may be classified and identified with the Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Program and the Department of Ecology (note: many locations are compiled in the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas). (6) Herring and smelt spawning times and locations are outlined in WAC 220-110-240 through WAC 220-110-250, Hydraulic Code Rules, Technical Report No. 79, and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas. 18.22.230 Fish and wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) Maps County maps identifying FWHCAs have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this Article VI. 18.22.250 Regulated Activities Any land use or development activity that is subject to a development permit or approval requirements of this code shall be subject to the provisions of this Article VI. These include, but are not limited to the following activities that are directly undertaken or originate in a FWHCA or its buffer, unless otherwise exempted under JCC 18.22.070. (1) Stream Crossings. Any private or public road expansion or construction which is proposed and must cross streams classified within this article, shall comply with the following minimum development standards: (a) The design of stream crossings shall meet the requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fish passage shall be provided if necessary to address manmade obstructions on-site. Other alternatives may be allowed upon a showing that, for the site under review, the alternatives would be less disruptive to the habitat or that the necessary building foundations were not feasible. Submittal of a habitat management plan which demonstrates that the alternatives would not result in significant impacts to the fish and wildlife habitat area (FWHCA) may be required; (b) Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other reasonable crossing site exists. For new development proposals, if existing crossings are determined to adversely impact salmon spawning or passage areas, new or upgraded crossings shall be located as determined necessary through coordination with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; (c) Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed either within the floodway or between the ordinary, high water marks unless no other reasonable alternative placement exists; (d) All stream crossings shall be designed based on the 100 -year projected flood flows, even in non -fish bearing Type Np and Ns streams. In addition, crossings for Type S and F streams should allow for downstream transport of large woody debris; (e) Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible; and (f) Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a culvert, the culvert shall be the minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity. Page 17 (2) Utilities. Placement of utilities within designated fish and wildlife habitat areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards: (a) Construction of utilities may be permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers, only when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available and the utility corridor meets the requirements for installation, replacement of vegetation and maintenance outlined below. Utilities are encouraged to follow existing or permitted roads where possible. (b) Construction of sewer lines or on-site sewage systems are not permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers, except that they may be permitted in a buffer area when the applicant demonstrates it is necessary to meet state and/or local health code requirements; there are no other practicable alternatives available; and construction meets the requirement of this article. Joint use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed. (c) New utility corridors shall not be allowed in FWHCAs with known locations of federal or state -listed endangered, threatened or sensitive species, except in those circumstances where an approved habitat management plan is in place. (d) Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the environment of fish and wildlife habitat areas and their buffers. (i) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid cutting trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (four and one-half feet) measured on the uphill side. (ii) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation at not less than preconstruction vegetation densities or greater, immediately upon completion of construction or as soon thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints. The utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives for a three-year period. (e) Utility towers should be painted with brush, pad or roller and should not be sandblasted or spray -painted, nor shall lead -base paints be used. (3) Bank Stabilization. (a) A stream channel and bank, bluff, and shoreline may be stabilized when naturally occurring earth movement threatens existing legal structures (structure is defined for this purpose as those requiring a building permit pursuant to the building code), public improvements, unique natural resources, public health, safety or welfare, or the only feasible access to property, and, in the case of streams, when such stabilization results in maintenance of fish habitat or improved water quality, as demonstrated through a habitat management plan or equivalent study or assessment. Bluff, bank and shoreline stabilization shall follow the standards of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, geologically hazardous areas provision in this chapter, and the floodplain management ordinance. (b) The administrator shall require that bank stabilization be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington with demonstrated expertise in hydraulic actions of shorelines. For bank stabilization projects within FWHCAs, the applicant must provide a geotechnical report that demonstrates that bioengineering solutions (vegetation versus hard surfaces) are infeasible. The report must document the engineering rationale why bioengineering solutions are infeasible in a manner that can be confirmed through review by other engineering professionals. Bank stabilization projects may also require a hydraulic project approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that will be determined after consultation with WDFW. (4) Gravel Mining. Gravel mining is discouraged within FWHCAs or their buffers, and it shall not be permitted if it causes unmitigatable significant adverse impacts, but it may be allowed following the review and approval of a habitat management plan, including a detailed mining and reclamation plan pursuant to the applicable performance standards in Chapter 18.20.240 JCC or as otherwise required in this code. (5) Forest Practices, Class IV General. Timber harvesting with associated development activity involving land conversions from forest use, or otherwise meeting the DNR definition as a Class IV General application, shall comply with the provisions of this article, including the maintenance of buffers, where required. (6) Road/Street Repair and Construction. Any private or public road or street expansion or construction which is allowed in a FWHCA or its buffer shall comply with the following minimum development standards: (a) No other reasonable or practicable alternative exists and the proposed road or street serves multiple properties whenever possible; (b) Public and private roads are encouraged to provide for other purposes, such as utility crossings, pedestrian or bicycle easements, viewing points, etc.; (c) The road or street construction is the minimum necessary, as required by the department of public works' guidelines. Minimum necessary provisions may include projected level of service requirements; and (d) Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ensure species and habitat protection. Page 18 (7) Outdoor Recreation, Education and Trails. Activities and improvements that do not significantly affect the function of the FWHCA or regulated buffer (including viewing structures, outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities, trails, hunting blinds, etc.) may be permitted in FWHCAs or their buffers. (a) Trails and other facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or other previously disturbed areas; (b) Trails and other facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat; (c) Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, benches and access to them, shall be designed and located to minimize impacts to wildlife, fish, or their habitat and/or critical characteristics of the affected FWHCA; (d) Trails, in general, shall be set back from streams so that there will be minimal impact to the stream from trail use or maintenance. Trails shall be constructed with pervious surfaces when feasible and trails within FWHCAs are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles. (8) Chemical Application or Storage. Chemical applications are not permitted within FWHCAs unless expressly approved as part of a farm plan, forest practices application, or for the control of invasive or noxious plant species. In cases where approved chemical applications occur as part of a forest practices application or farm plan, proper reporting procedures shall be followed. Chemical storage shall not be permitted within a FWHCA or its buffer. 18.22.265 Habitat Management Plans — When Required When a development proposal is located on lands which may contain a habitat for a Protected Species other than Bald Eagle nesting territories, or when the applicant proposes to alter, decrease or average the standard buffer, a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be required, consistent with the requirements of JCC 18.22.440. 18.22.270 Protection Standards (1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated FWHCA or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth in this section. (2) Drainage and Erosion Control. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan, as specified in this chapter. (3) Grading. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a grading plan, as specified in this chapter, (4) Vegetation Retention. The following provisions regarding vegetation retention shall apply: (a) All trees and understory lying outside of road rights-of-way and utility easements shall be retained (except for hazard trees) during clearing for roadways and utilities; provided, that understory damaged during approved clearing operations may be pruned. (b) Damage to vegetation retained during initial clearing activities shall be minimized by directional felling of trees to avoid critical areas and vegetation to be retained. (c) Retained trees, understory and stumps may subsequently be cleared only if such clearing is necessary to complete the proposal involved in the project application. (5) Buffers — Standard Requirements. The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the edges of all FWHCAs in accordance with the following: (a) Buffers generally. (i) Buffers shall be established for activities adjacent to FWHCAs as necessary to protect the integrity, functions and values of the resource, consistent with the requirements set forth in Tables 18.22.270(1) and 18.22.270(2) of this section. (ii) A building setback line of five feet is required from the edge of any buffer area, however, nonstructural improvements such as septic drain fields may be located within setback areas. (iii) Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition, however, minor pruning of vegetation to enhance views or provide access may be permitted as long as the function and character of the buffer are not diminished. (iv) Lighting shall be directed away from the FWHCA. (b) Prescriptive FWHCA Buffers. (i) The standard buffer widths required by this article are considered to be the minimum required to protect the stream functions and values at the time of the proposed activity. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation to protect critical area functions, the administrator may deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (ii) The standard buffer shall be measured landward horizontally on both sides of the stream from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field. Nevertheless, the required buffer shall Page 19 include any adjacent regulated wetland(s), landslide hazard areas and/or erosion hazard areas and required buffers, but shall not be extended across paved roads or other lawfully established structures or hardened surfaces. The following standard buffer width requirements are established, provided that portions of streams that flow underground may be exempt from these buffer standards at the administrator's discretion when it can be demonstrated that no adverse effects on aquatic species will occur. TABLE 18.22.270(1: STREAM BUFFERS* STREAM TYPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT Type "S" - Shoreline Streams 150 feet Type "F" — Fish Bearing Streams 150 feet Type "Np"- Non -Fish Bearing Streams Perennial 75 feet Type "Ns" — Non -Fish Bearing Seasonal Streams greater than orequal to 20% grade 75 feet Type "Ns" — Non -Fish Bearing Streams less than 20% grade Seasonal 50 feet Note: (a) The buffers set forth above shall apply to culverted streams; though in limited circumstances, a variance may be made in the application of stream buffers under Article IX of JCC Chapter 18.40. (b) Stream type shall be determined using the criteria set forth in WAC 222-16-030. (iii) Buffers for other FWHCAs. The administrator shall determine appropriate buffer widths for other FWHCAs based on the best available information. Buffer widths for non -stream habitat conservation areas shall be as follows: Page 20 Table 18.22.270(2): Buffers for Other FWHCAs FWHCA Type Buffer Requirement Areas with which federally listed species have Buffers shall be 150 feet provided that local a primary association and site specific factors shall be taken into consideration and the buffer width based on the best available information concerning the species/habitat(s) in question and/or the opinions and recommendations of a qualified professional with appropriate expertise. Commercial and recreational shellfish areas Buffers shall extend one hundred -fifty (150) feet landward from ordinary high water mark of the marine shore. Kelp and Eelgrass Beds Buffers shall extend one hundred -fifty (150) feet landward from ordinary high water mark of the marine shore. Surf Smelt, Pacific Herring, and Pacific Buffers shall extend one hundred -fifty (150) Sand Lance Spawning Areas feet landward from ordinary high water mark of the marine shore. Natural Pond and Lakes Ponds under 20 acres - buffers shall extend 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark; Lakes 20 acres and larger - buffers shall extend 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark, provided that where vegetated wetlands are associated with the shoreline, the buffer shall be based on the wetland buffer requirements. Natural Area Preserves and Natural Buffers shall not be required adjacent to these Resource Conservation Areas areas. These areas are assumed to encompass the land required for species preservation. Page 21 Table 18.22.270 2 , continued: Buffers for Other FWHCAs FWHCA Type Buffer Requirement Locally Important Habitat Areas The buffer for marine nearshore habitats shall extend landward 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The need for and dimensions of buffers for other locally important species or habitats shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the needs of the specific species or habitat area of concern. Buffers shall not be required adjacent to the wildlife corridor. The administrator shall coordinate with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other state, federal or Tribal experts in these instances, and may use WDFW PHS management recommendations when available and applicable. (6) The administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case -by case basis, provided that the specific standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1) shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of the following criteria are met: (a) The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical area. (b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than seventy-five (75) percent of the standard buffer. (c) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed thirty percent (30%). (7) The administrator shall have the authority to average buffer widths on a case -by case basis, provided that the specific standards for avoidance and minimization set forth in JCC 18.22.350(1) shall apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all the following criteria are met: (a) The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer and all increases in buffer dimension are parallel to the FWHCA. (b) The buffer averaging does not reduce the functions or values of the FWHCA or riparian habitat, or the buffer averaging, in conjunction with vegetation enhancement, increases the habitat function. (c) The buffer averaging is necessary due to site constraints caused by existing physical characteristics such as slope, soils, or vegetation. (d) The buffer width is not reduced to less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the standard width. (e) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient does not exceed thirty percent (30%). (f) Buffer averaging shall not be allowed if FWHCA buffers are reduced pursuant to subsection 6 of this section. (8) Buffer Marking. The location of the outer extent of required buffers shall be marked in the field as follows: During Construction: Buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: 'Buffer — Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native Vegetation." (9) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan, and site plan approvals under this code, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the FWHCA. (10) The applicant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed restriction that shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the prosecuting attorney. 18.22.280 Conditions Page 22 (1) General. In granting approval for a project application subject to the provisions of this Article VI, the administrator may require mitigating conditions that will, in the administrator's judgment, substantially secure the objectives of this article. (2) Basis for Conditions. All conditions of approval required pursuant to this article shall be based upon either the substantive requirements of this article or the recommendations of a qualified professional utilizing best available science, contained within a special report required under this chapter. Article VII - Wetlands 18.22.290 Stewardship Alternative Article VII sets forth the prescriptive requirements for wetlands. Applicants for development permits or approvals subject to this Article VII may elect to comply with the Critical Area Stewardship Plan (GASP) provisions set forth in Article IX of this Chapter in lieu of the prescriptive requirements set forth herein. CASP may be applied within Category II, III, & IV wetlands and buffers, and within buffers in Category I. They cannot be used in Category I wetlands. 18.22.300 Classification/Designation (1) Classification. Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended. Wetland rating categories shall not be determined based upon illegal modification of the land. Wetland delineations shall be determined by using the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, or as amended hereafter. (2) Designation. As determined using the 1997 Washington State Department of Ecology's Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology Publication #96-94 or as amended), wetlands shall be designated as critical areas and regulated under this article regardless of size; PROVIDED that Category IV wetlands less than one-tenth (0.1) acre (4,356 square feet) shall be exempt from the requirements of this article when all of the following criteria are met: (a) The wetland does not provide breeding habitat for native amphibian species. Breeding habitat is indicated by adequate and stable seasonal inundation, presence of thin -stemmed emergent vegetation, and clean water; (b) The wetland does not have unique characteristics that would be difficult to replace through standard compensatory mitigation practices; (c) The wetland is not located within a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) as defined in the section of this ordinance dealing with FWHCAs, and is not integral to the maintenance of habitat functions of an FWHCA; (d) The wetland is not located within a floodplain; (e) The wetland is not associated with a shoreline of the state as defined by the County's Shoreline Master Program; (f) The wetland is not part of a mosaic of wetlands and uplands, as determined using the guidance provided in the Wetland Rating System. (3) Sources Used for Identification. The following sources should be used to identify potential wetland locations. Sources include, but are not limited to: (a) United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. (b) United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Jefferson County Areas, Washington. (c) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hydric Soils List, Jefferson County Area. (d) County Critical Areas Mapping. The wetland maps prepared by the county have been produced for informational purposes only and are not regulatory devices forming an integral part of this article. 18.22.310 Regulated Activities Any land use or development activity shall be subject to the provisions of this Article VII, including, but not limited to, the following activities that are directly undertaken or originate in a regulated wetland or its buffer, unless exempted under JCC 18.22.070: Page 23 (1) The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of material of any kind, including the construction of ponds and trails; (2) The dumping, discharging of any material, or placement of any fill; (3) The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the wetland water level or water table; (4) The driving of pilings; (5) The placing of obstructions; (6) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; (7) The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, application of herbicides or pesticides, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland; provided, that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under Chapter 76.09 RCW (Forest Practices Act) and its rules; or (8) Activities that result in: (a) A significant change of water temperature; (b) A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity; or (c) The introduction of pollutants. (9) Wetland Buffers. In addition to those activities allowed in regulated wetlands in this article, the following activities are allowed within wetland buffers without having to meet the protection standards, or requirements for wetland studies or mitigation set forth in this article; provided, that impacts to buffers are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored except as specifically allowed in subsection (2)(a) of this section. (a) Activities having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on regulated wetlands. These include low intensity, passive recreational activities, such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing or hunting. Trails within buffers shall be designed to minimize impacts to the wetland, and shall not include any impervious surfaces. (b) Within the buffers of Category III and IV wetlands only, vegetation -lined swales designed for storm water management or conveyance when topographic restraints determine there are no other upland alternative locations. Swales used for detention purposes may only be placed in the outer 25 percent of the buffer. Conveyance swales may be placed through the buffer, if necessary. 18.22.330 Protection Standards (1) General. Application for a project on a parcel of real property containing a designated wetland or its buffer shall adhere to the requirements set forth below. (2) Delineation. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a wetland delineation report as specified in JCC 18.22.450. Additionally, the following provisions shall apply: (a) The location of the wetland and its boundary shall be determined through the performance of a field investigation utilizing the methodology contained in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, or as amended hereafter. (b) If the wetland is located off of the property involved in the project application and is inaccessible, the best available information shall be used to determine the wetland boundary and category. (c) The wetland boundary shall be staked or flagged in the field. (d) This requirement may be waived under the following circumstances: (i) Single -Family Residences. The requirement for a wetland delineation and special report may be waived by the administrator for construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot of record if DCD staff or a qualified wetland evaluator determines that: (A) Sufficient information exists for staff to estimate the boundaries of a wetland without a delineation; and (B) The single-family residence and all accessory structures and uses are not proposed to be located within the distances identified in Table 18.22.330(1), below, from the estimated wetland boundary. "Qualified wetland evaluator" means an individual recognized and acceptable to the Administrator in using the most current edition of the Department of Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (2004), Ecology Publication # 04-06-025, or as amended in categorizing and rating wetlands. (ii) Subdivisions and Short Subdivisions. The requirement for a wetland delineation and special report will be waived for subdivisions and short subdivisions of an existing lot of record if a site assessment made by a qualified wetland evaluator indicates the following: Page 24 (A) Sufficient information exists to estimate the boundaries of a wetland without a delineation; and (B) Building envelopes or building setback lines are not proposed to be located within the distances identified in Tables 18.22.330(1), (2) and (3), below, from the estimated wetland boundary. (3) Wetland Buffer Requirements. Wetland buffer widths shall be prescribed and established based upon the category of the wetland, the wetland rating scores and the impact level of the proposed land use. The resulting buffers are shown in Tables: 18.22.330 (1), (2), and (3) [for low, moderate and high impact land -uses]. (a) The category and rating scores of a wetland shall be determined by a qualified wetland evaluator who must be: recognized and acceptable to the Administrator and use the most current edition of the Department of Ecology's "Wetlands in Washington State Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and managing Wetlands" (DOE Publication #05-06-0008) in categorizing and rating wetlands. (b) There are three (3) Land -Use Impact Level types. Each type is presented with the Table containing the buffer widths that would be prescribed for its associated wetland category. (c) Proposals for development will have three options for deciding what their buffer distance will be. A buffer distance is the closest distance the proposed development can be to the wetland boundary. (i) The Stewardship Plan Option, as detailed in Article IX of this Chapter 18.22. (ii) The Professionally Delineated Boundary Option: A prescriptive buffer distance based on an actual delineation of the wetland boundary as determined by an qualified wetland evaluator (cost is the responsibility of proponent). This buffer distance will be measured outward from the delineated wetland boundary. Refer to the column in the Tables with the word "delineation" in the heading. (iii) The Apparent Boundary option: A prescriptive buffer distance based on the apparent location of the wetland boundary as proposed by the county's wetland specialist. In these cases the buffer will be the total distance calculated using the buffer distance as shown in the "delineation" column of the Tables plus an additional twenty (20) to fifty (50) feet, depending upon wetland category (shown in the "non -delineation" column of the table). This calculated buffer distance will be measured outward from the apparent wetland boundary. (4) Drainage and Erosion Control. An applicant submitting a project application shall also submit, and have approved, a drainage and erosion control plan as specified in this chapter. The plan shall discuss, evaluate and recommend methods to minimize sedimentation of designated wetlands during and after construction. (5) Buffer Marking. Upon approval of the delineation report the location of the outer extent of the wetland buffer shall be marked in the field as follows: (a) A permanent physical indicator along the upland boundary of the wetland buffer area shall be installed and permanently maintained. (b) During construction activities, buffer perimeters shall be marked with temporary signs at an interval of one per parcel or every 100 feet, whichever is less. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The signs shall contain the following statement: "Wetland & Buffer — Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native Vegetation." (c) In the case of short plat, long plat, binding site plan, and site plan approvals under this code, the applicant shall include on the face of any such instrument the boundary of the wetland and its buffer. (d) The applicant may also choose to dedicate the buffer through a conservation easement or deed restriction that shall be recorded with the Jefferson County auditor. Such easements or restrictions shall, however, use the forms approved by the prosecuting attorney. (6) Buffers — Standard Requirements. (a) The administrator shall have the authority to require buffers from the boundaries of all wetlands as established by this article, and in accordance with the following criteria. (i) Wetland buffer widths shall be measured along a horizontal line perpendicular to the wetland boundary as marked in the field during delineation if required, or based upon site investigation, aerial photographs, or LiDAR images. (ii) Functionally isolated buffer areas are those areas separated from a wetland that do not protect the wetland from adverse impacts. Buffers need not include areas that are functionally isolated and physically disconnected from the wetland by a substantial developed surface such as a dike, building, parking lot, or road. In determining whether or not a buffer area is functionally isolated, the administrator shall take into consideration whether or not the isolated buffer area is used by wildlife to gain access to the wetland. In instances where substantial wildlife use is documented, the area shall be retained as buffer despite being otherwise isolated or disconnected from the wetland. Page 25 (iii) When a buffer is on a slope steeper than forty percent (40%), and/or lacks adequately dense and diverse vegetation, the administrator may deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (b) The prescribed buffer widths shall be established on the basis of the following factors: (i) The wetland's value and sensitivity to disturbance, based on its category (I, II, III, IV) as determined by the total score on the rating form for the Wetland Rating System; (ii) The expected level of impact of the proposed adjacent land use, as determined from the tables in 18.22.330 (1), (2), and (3), below. The administrator may determine, on the basis of detailed information from the applicant about the site conditions, scope, and intensity of the proposed development, that the proposed land use will have a lesser level of impact on the wetland than indicated by similar land uses on the list. Page 26 TABLE 18.22.330(1) WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS FOR LOW IMPACT LAND USES Low Impact Land -Uses shall include the following: • Private driveways serving no more than two (2) residential parcels; • Unpaved trails (when not exempted by 18.22.070); • Utility corridors (private or public) without a maintenance road; • Landscaping, lawns, gravel driveways, etc. Wetland Category Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width with an + An Additional Distance • Habitat (H) Identified Wetland from an Apparent • Water Quality (WQ) Boundary Wetland Boundary Delineated Not Delineated) IV [Total of scores less than 30 points] 25 feet +20 feet (Total of scores for all functions is less than 30points) III [With H score 20 — 28 points] 75 feet +30 feet (Total of scores for all [Not meeting above characteristic] 40 feet functions is 30 — 50 points) II [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 50 feet +40 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is 51 — 69 [H score 29 — 36 points] 150 feet points or having [H score 20 — 28 points] 75 feet "Special [Estuarine] 75 feet Characteristics" [Interdunal] 75 feet identified in the rating [Not meeting above characteristics] 50 feet form [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 50 feet +50 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is more than [H score 29 — 36 points] 150 feet 70 points or having [H score 20 - 28 points] 75 feet "Special [Coastal Lagoon] 100 feet Characteristics" [Estuarine] 100 feet identified in the rating [Natural Heritage Wetland] 125 feet form) [Bog] 125 feet [Forested] Buffer width based on score for H functions or WQ functions Not meeting above characteristics 50 feet Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended. Page 27 TABLE 18.22.330(2) WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS FOR MODERATE IMPACT LAND USES Moderate Impact Land -Uses shall include the following: • Single-family residential use on parcels of one (1) acre or larger; • Private roads of driveways serving three (3) or more residential parcels; • Paved trails; • Passive recreation areas; • Utility corridors (private or public) with a maintenance road; • Class IV -General forest conversions, including conversion option harvest plans. Wetland Category Wetland Characteristics: Buffer Width with an + An Additional Distance • Habitat (H) Identified Wetland from an Apparent • Water Quality (WQ) Boundary Wetland Boundary (Delineated) (Not Delineated) IV [Total of scores less than 30 40 feet +20 feet (Total of scores for all points] functions is less than 30points) III [With H score 20 — 28 points] 110 feet +30 feet (Total of scores for all [Not meeting above 60 feet functions is 30 — 50 characteristic] points) II [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 75 feet +40 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is 51 — 69 [H score 29 — 36 points] 225 feet points or having [H score 20 — 28 points] 110 feet "Special [Estuarine] 110 feet Characteristics" [Interdunal] 110 feet identified in the rating [Not meeting above 75 feet form characteristics I [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 75 feet +50 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is more than [H score 29 — 36 points] 225 feet 70 points or having [H score 20 to 28 points] 110 feet "Special [Coastal Lagoon] 150 feet Characteristics" [Estuarine] 150 feet identified in the rating [Natural Heritage Wetland] 190 feet form) [Bog] 190feet [Forested] Buffer width based on score for H functions or WQ functions [Not meeting above 75 feet characteristics Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended. Page 28 TABLE 18.22.330(3) WETLAND CATAGORIES, RATING SCORES & BUFFER WIDTHS FOR HIGH IMPACT LAND USES High Impact Land -Uses shall include the following: • Single-family residential use on parcels smaller than one (1) acre; • Commercial, multi -family, industrial and institutional uses; • Public Roads. Wetland Category Wetland Characteristic: Buffer Width with an + An Additional Distance • Habitat (H) Identified Wetland from an Apparent • Water Quality (WQ) Boundary Wetland Boundary (Delineated) (Not Delineated IV [Total of scores less than 30 50 feet +20 feet (Total of scores for all points] functions is less than 30points) III [With H score 20 — 28 points] 150 feet +30 feet (Total of scores for all [Not meeting above 80 feet functions is 30 — 50 characteristic] points) II [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 100 feet +40 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is 51 — 69 [H score 29 — 36 points] 300 feet points or having [H score 20 — 28 points] 150 feet "Special [Estuarine] 150 feet Characteristics" [Interdunal] 150 feet identified in the rating [Not meeting above 100 feet form characteristics [WQ score 24 - 32 points and H 100 feet +50 feet (Total of scores for all score less than 20 points] functions is more than [H score 29 — 36 points] 300 feet 70 points or having [H score 20 to 28 points] 150 feet "Special [Coastal Lagoon] 200 feet Characteristics" [Estuarine] 200 feet identified in the rating [Natural Heritage Wetland] 250 feet form) [Bog] 250 feet [Forested] Buffer width based on score for H functions or WQ functions [Not meeting above 100 feet characteristics Note: Wetlands shall be classified using the 2004 Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology Publication #04-06-025), or as amended. (7) Reducing Buffer Widths. Upon submission of a special report by a qualified professional that demonstrates a buffer reduction does not have any adverse impact on the existing functions and values of the wetland, the administrator shall have the authority to reduce the prescribed buffer widths, [within a defined area], listed in the section above, provided that all of the following shall apply: (a) The buffer of a Category I or II wetland is not reduced to less than seventy-five (75) percent of the required buffer or fifty (50) feet, whichever is greater; (b) The buffer of a Category III or IV wetland is not reduced to less than seventy-five (75) percent of the required buffer, or twenty five (25) feet, whichever is greater; (c) The applicant implements reasonable measures to reduce the adverse impacts of structures and appurtenances on the subject parcel as determined by the Administrator. Page 29 (d) Buffer area reduction shall be minimized to accommodate only those structures and appurtenances as approved by the administrator. (8) Averaging Buffer Widths. Upon submission of a special report by a qualified professional, that demonstrates a buffer reduction does not have any adverse impact on the existing functions and values of the wetland, the administrator shall have the authority to average wetland buffer widths on a case-by-case basis, provided that all of the following shall apply: (a) The buffer averaging does not have any adverse impact on the functions and values of the wetland; (b) The total area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the prescribed buffer, and the buffer boundary remains more or less parallel to the wetland boundary in order to avoid the creation of "panhandles"; (c) The most sensitive, or highest value, areas of the wetland have the widest buffer dimensions, and the buffer boundary takes into account variations in slope, soils, or vegetation to optimize the overall effectiveness of the buffer; (d) The minimum buffer width is no less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the standard prescribed buffer width; (e) The buffer has not been reduced in accordance with section (5) above. Buffer averaging is not allowed if the width of the entire buffer has been reduced already. 18.22.340 Non -Compensatory Enhancement Non -compensatory enhancement projects are those which are conducted solely to increase the functions and values of an existing wetland and which are not required to be conducted pursuant to the mitigation requirements of JCC 18.22.330. There are two types of non -compensatory enhancement: (1) Type 1 Non -compensatory Enhancement. Type 1 non -compensatory enhancement projects involve the filling, draining, or excavating of a regulated wetland. All applications for Type 1 non -compensatory enhancement projects shall be accompanied by an enhancement plan prepared in accordance with subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section, which demonstrates that the proposed activities will result in an increase in wetland functions and values. (a) The enhancement plan must be submitted for review, and approved by the administrator. (b) The enhancement plan must either be prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Washington Department of Ecology. (2) Type 2 Non -compensatory Enhancement. Type 2 non -compensatory enhancement projects involve wetland alterations that do not include the filling, draining, or excavating of a regulated wetland. Such projects might involve the removal of non-native plant species or the planting of native plant species. All applications for Type 2 non -compensatory enhancement projects shall be accompanied by an enhancement plan prepared in accordance with subsections (2)(a) through (2)(c) of this section, which demonstrates that the proposed activities will result in an increase in wetland functions and values. (a) The enhancement plan shall be submitted for review, and approved, by the administrator; (b) The enhancement plan must include a detailed description of the activity including the following information: (i) The goal of the enhancement project; (ii) What plants, if any, will be removed or planted; (iii) How the activity will be conducted, including the type(s) of tools or machinery to be used; and (iv) The qualifications of the individual who will be conducting the enhancement activity. (c) The enhancement plan must either be prepared by a qualified wetlands consultant or accepted in writing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Washington Department of Ecology. 18.22.350 Mitigation The overall goal of mitigation shall be no net loss of wetland function, value, and acreage. (1) Mitigation Sequence. Mitigation includes avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers. When a proposed use or development activity poses potentially significant adverse impacts to a regulated wetland or its buffer, the preferred sequence of mitigation as defined below shall be followed unless the applicant demonstrates that an overriding public benefit would warrant an exception to this preferred sequence. (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions on that portion of the site which contains the regulated wetland or its buffer; Page 30 (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; or (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. (2) Compensatory Mitigation — General Requirements. As a condition of any permit or other approval allowing alteration which results in the loss or degradation of regulated wetlands, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Chapter 18.50 JCC, compensatory mitigation shall be required to offset impacts resulting from the actions of the applicant or any code violator. (a) Except persons exempt under this article, any person who alters or proposes to alter regulated wetlands shall restore or create areas of wetland equivalent to or larger than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. The following table specifies the ratios that apply to creation or restoration that is in- kind, on-site, and is accomplished prior to or concurrently with alteration: Table 18.22.350 Required Replacement Ratios for Compensatory Wetland Mitig=ation Category and Re-establishment Rehabilitation Re-establishment or Re-establishment Enhancement Type of Wetland or Creation Only i Creation (RIC) and or Creation (R/C) Onlyt Impacts Rehabilitation and Enhancement (RH)i (E')i All Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1 All Category III 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1RH 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8.1 Category II Case-by-case 4:1 Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case Estuarine Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland Category II 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 RH Not considered an Not considered an Interdunal Compensation has Compensation has Compensation has to Option 2 Option 2 to be interdunal to be interdunal be interdunal wetland wetland wetland All other 3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E 12:1 Category H Category 1 6:1 12:1 1:1 R/C and 10:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 20:1 E 24:1 Forested Category I 4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 fd 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1 based on score for functions Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C Not considered R/C Not considered Case-by-case Natural Heritage Possible 3 Rehabilitationof a possible Possible 3 site NaturalHeritage site Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C not considered R/C not considered Case-by-case Coastal Lagoon Possible 3 Rehabilitation of a possible 3 Possible 3 coastal lagoon i Category I Not considered 6:1 R/C Not considered R/C Not considered Case-by-case Bog Possible 3 Rehabilitationof a Possible 3 Possible 3 bog Category I Case-by-case 6:1 Case-by-case Case-by-case Case-by-case Estuarine Rehabilitation of an estuarine wetland Page 31 'These ratios are based on the assumption that the rehabilitation or enhancement actions implemented represent the average degree of improvement possible for the site. Proposals to implement more effective rehabilitation or enhancement actions may result in a lower ratio, while less effective actions may result in higher ratio. The distinction between rehabilitation and enhancement is not clear-cut. Instead, rehabilitation and enhancement actions span a continuum. Proposals that fall within the gray area between rehabilitation and enhancement will result in a ratio that lies between the ratios for rehabilitation and the ratios for enhancement. 2 Due to the dynamic nature of interdunal systems, enhancement is notconsidered an ecologically appropriate action. 3 Natural Heritage sites, coastal lagoons, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is proposed. (b) Compensation must be completed prior to wetland destruction, where possible. (c) Compensatory mitigation must follow an approved compensatory mitigation plan pursuant to this article, with the replacement ratios as specified above. (d) Compensatory mitigation must be conducted on property that will be protected and managed to avoid further development or degradation. The applicant or code violator must provide for long-term preservation of the compensation area. (e) The applicant shall demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources, including bonding, to carry out the project. The applicant must demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (f) Compensatory mitigation must monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures. (3) Compensatory Mitigation — Type, Location, and Timing. (a) Priority will be given to in-kind, on-site compensation if feasible and if the wetland to be lost has a moderate to high functional value. (b) When the wetland to be impacted is of a limited functional value and is degraded, compensation may be of the wetland community type most likely to succeed with the highest functional value possible. (c) Out -of -kind compensation may be allowed when out -of -kind replacement will best meet identified goals (for example, replacement of historically diminished wetland types). Where out -of -kind replacement is accepted, greater acreage replacement ratios may be required to compensate for lost functional values (d) Off-site compensation can be allowed only if: (i) On-site compensation is not feasible due to hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors; (ii) On-site compensation is not practical due to probable adverse impacts from surrounding land uses; (iii) Potential functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than the lost wetland functional values; or (iv) Off-site compensation will be conducted in accordance with subsection (4) of this section (Cooperative Compensation Projects). (e) Except in the case of cooperative compensation projects, off-site compensation must occur within the same watershed where the wetland loss occurs; provided, that Category IV wetlands maybe replaced outside of the watershed if there is no reasonable technical alternative. The storm water storage function provided by Category IV wetlands must be provided for within the design of the development project. (f) Except in the case of cooperative compensation projects, in selecting compensation sites applicants must pursue locations in the following order of preference: (i) Filled, drained, or cleared sites which were formerly wetlands and where appropriate hydrology exists; and (ii) Upland sites, adjacent to wetlands, if the upland is significantly disturbed and does not contain a mature forested or shrub community of native species, and where the appropriate natural hydrology exists. (g) Construction of compensation projects must be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. Construction must be timed to assure that grading and soil movement occurs during the dry season. Planting of vegetation must be specifically timed to the needs of the target species. (h) A mitigation plan shall include a monitoring plan. The duration, frequency and methods of monitoring depend on a project's goals, objectives, and performance standards. In general, monitoring is required for at least five (5) years. If a scrub -shrub or forested vegetative community is proposed, monitoring may be required for ten (10) years or more. Monitoring may be extended if interim performance standards are not met. Page 32 (4) Cooperative Compensation Projects. The county may encourage, facilitate, and approve cooperative projects where one or more applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a compensation project if it is demonstrated that: (a) Creation of one or several larger wetlands may be preferable to many small wetlands; (b) The group demonstrates the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively; (c) The group demonstrates that long term management of the compensation area can and will be provided; and (d) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed compensation at the identified compensation site. Conducting compensation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required replacement ratios outlined in this article. Article VIII • Special Reports 18.22.360 General Requirements (1) The administrator may require a special report or reports when critical areas are impacted. (2) Special reports for critical areas shall include a scale map of the development proposal site and a written report. (3) The special report shall identify and characterizes any critical area as a part of the larger development proposal site, assess impacts of the development proposal on any critical area on or adjacent to the development proposal site, and assess the impacts of any alteration proposed for a critical area. (4) The special report shall propose adequate protection mechanisms that may include mitigation, maintenance and monitoring plans, and performance surety. (5) Special reports shall include documentation certifying the qualifications of the preparer. 18.22.370 Waivers The administrator may waive the requirement for a special report when an applicant demonstrates all of the following: (a) The proposal involved will not affect the critical area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes and objectives of this code. (b) The minimum protection standards required by this chapter are satisfied. 18.22.380 Retaining Consultants Jefferson County may retain consultants to assist in the review of special reports outside the range of staff expertise. The applicant shall pay for the costs of retaining said consultants. 18.22.390 Acceptance of Special Reports (1) The administrator shall verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all special reports within 42 calendar days of their submission. (2) If the administrator finds that a special report does not accurately reflect site conditions, or does not incorporate appropriate protections mechanisms, the administrator shall cite evidence (e.g., soil samples, well log data, etc.) that demonstrates where the special report is insufficient or in error. The applicant may then either revise the special report and submit another special report, or appeal the administrative determination pursuant to this code. 18.22.400 Aquifer Recharge Area Report (1) General. Aquifer recharge area reports serve as the primary means for Jefferson County to verify the accuracy of its critical aquifer recharge area map and to determine specific aquifer protection measures to be applied to prevent significant adverse groundwater quality impacts. (2) Aquifer Recharge Area Report Content. An initial evaluation shall be made by a qualified groundwater scientist/engineer. The aquifer recharge area report shall include: (a) A detailed description of the project, including all processes and other activities that have the potential for contaminating groundwater; (b) A hydrogeologic evaluation that includes, at a minimum: (i) A description of the hydrogeologic setting of the aquifer region; Page 33 (ii) Site location, topography, drainage, and surface water bodies; (iii) Soils and geologic units underlying the site; (iv) Groundwater characteristics of the area, including flow direction and gradient, and existing groundwater quality; (v) The location and characteristics of wells and springs within 1,000 feet of the site; (vi) An evaluation of existing groundwater recharge; and (vii) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon groundwater recharge; (c) A contaminant transport analysis for the uppermost groundwater supply aquifer assuming an accidental spill or release of project specific contaminants or on-site sewage discharge, or both if applicable; (d) A discussion and evaluation that details available on-site spill response and containment equipment, employee spill response training, and emergency service coordination measures; (e) Proposed best management practices to minimize exposure of permeable surfaces to potential pollutants and to prevent degradation of groundwater quality; and (f) Requirements for a monitoring program with financial guarantees/assurances that the monitoring program will be implemented. (3) Professional Qualifications. The minimum qualifications for groundwater scientists and engineers performing groundwater and contaminant transport evaluations and preparing aquifer recharge area reports shall be established pursuant to acceptable industry standards for training and experience and as established by the state of Washington in the Washington Administrative Code or by statute. (4) County Review. Reports shall be forwarded to the Jefferson County environmental health division for technical review. The environmental health division shall review the reports within 30 days of receipt to determine their adequacy. The county may request additional information in order to determine the adequacy of the reports. The administrator shall determine appropriate conditions as identified in the report to mitigate proposed land uses. The administrator shall be authorized to collect fees necessary to recover costs associated with processing and review of aquifer recharge area reports, implementation of the protection standards contained in this chapter, and administration of the general provisions of the critical aquifer recharge area provisions of this code. Such fees will be incorporated into the Jefferson County Fee Schedule. 18.22.410 Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (1) General. This plan shall address best management practices that are physical, structural or managerial practices, that when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce pollution of water. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, except for small parcel erosion control plans. (3) Information Requirements. The design standards and information requirements for submission of drainage and erosion control plans shall be established in accordance with the Department of Ecology's Storm water Management Manual currently adopted by Jefferson County. 18.22.420 Geotechnical Report (1) General. This report shall include a description of the geology of the site, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposal, and opinions and recommendations on the suitability of the site to be developed. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Geotechnical reports shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer, a professional geologist, or a licensed professional engineer knowledgeable in regional geologic conditions with professional experience in landslide, erosion, or seismic hazard evaluation. (3) Information Requirements. (a) A description of the geologic setting of the region, based upon readily available data, including: (i) Site location and topography; (ii) Soils and geologic units underlying the site; and (iii) The location and characteristics of springs within 1,000 feet of the site; (iv) Level of hazard in CMZ. (b) An evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon existing geological hazards. (c) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposal upon existing geological hazards. (d) Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to minimize the risk of erosion or landslide. 18.22.430 Grading Plan Page 34 (1) General. This plan shall identify the proposed development project including the movement of material on-site, along with the proposed and existing contours of the site, and cross-sections thereof. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Grading plans shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer or an individual with at least three years experience in the preparation of grading plans who is knowledgeable of soil conditions and geology in Jefferson County. (3) Information Requirements. (a) A description of the general vicinity of the proposed site. (b) The property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. (c) Limiting dimensions, elevations of finish contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. (d) Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of, the proposed work together with a map showing the drainage areas and the estimated runoff of the areas served by any drains. (e) The location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 15 feet of the property or which may be affected by proposed grading operations. (f) A discussion and evaluation of the potential impact of the proposed grading upon designated critical areas. (g) Recommendations on appropriate protection mechanisms, if necessary, to prevent degradation of designated critical areas and to ensure public safety. 18.22.440 Habitat Management Plan (1) General. This report shall identify how the development impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations shall be the basis for this report. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Habitat management plans shall be prepared by persons who have a minimum of a bachelor's degree in wildlife or fisheries habitat biology, or a related degree in a biological field from an accredited college or university with a minimum of four years experience as a practicing fish or wildlife habitat biologist. (3) Information Requirements. (a) A map(s) prepared at an easily readable scale, including the following information: (i) The location of the proposed development site, including property limits; (ii) The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and cultural features; (iii) The nature and density of the proposed development or land use change; (iv) Proposed building locations and arrangements; and (v) The boundaries of forested areas. (b) A legend that includes the following information: (i) A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the description shall include the total acreage of the parcel); (ii) Title, scale and north arrows; (iii) Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and (iv) Certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate. (c) A report that contains the following information: (i) A description of the nature, density and intensity of the proposed development in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon identified fish and wildlife habitat; (ii) The applicant's analysis of the effect of the proposed development, activity or land use change upon the fish or wildlife species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife within the identified priority habitat, utilizing the management guidelines; (iii) A plan by the applicant that shall explain how any adverse impacts created by the development will be mitigated. (d) Possible mitigating measures that may include, but are not limited to: (i) Establishment of buffer zones; (ii) Preservation of critically important plants and trees; (iii) Limitation of access to habitat area; (iv) Seasonal restriction of construction activities; and (v) Establishing a timetable for periodic review of the plan. 18.22.450 Wetland Delineation Report Page 35 (1) General. This report shall be required when a proposed development encroaches upon a designated wetland or its buffer, and shall be used to identify the boundaries and classification of the designated wetland. (2) Qualifications of the Preparer. Wetland delineation reports shall be prepared by a biologist with wetlands expertise, a Professional Wetland Scientist certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists. (3) Information Requirements. (a) A map(s) prepared at an easily readable scale, including the following information: (i) Wetland boundaries; (ii) Sample site and sample transects; (iii) Boundaries of forested areas; and (iv) Boundaries of wetland classes if multiple classes exist. (b) A legend that includes the following information: (i) A complete and accurate legal description as prescribed by the triggering application form (the description shall include the total acreage of the parcel); (i i) Title, scale and north arrows; (iii) Date, including revision dates, if applicable; and (iv) Certificates by a professional biologist as appropriate. (c) A report that contains the following information: (i) A discussion of the delineation methods and results, with special emphasis on technique used from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual; March 1997, or as amended hereafter; (ii) A description of relevant site information acquired from the National Wetland Inventory maps and the Soil Survey for Jefferson County; (iii) The acreage of each wetland on the site, based on the survey, if the acreage will impact the buffer size determination or the project design; (iv) All completed Feld data sheets numbered to correspond to each sample site; (v) Project cross-sections, both before and after completion, in relation to the surface elevation of the wetland must be indicated for proposed activities that involve cutting or filling operations within the wetland or its proposed buffer; (vi) Classification of the wetland in accordance with the standards adopted in this chapter and a detailed written analysis of the existing regulated wetland including: vegetation communities classified per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Deepwater Habitats (1979); species composition of vegetation communities, including presence and percent cover; existing soils; and existing hydrologic conditions including inflow/outflow, source of water within the system, relative water quality, and seasonal changes in hydrology, if applicable; (vii) A detailed analysis of wildlife species use of the wetland and its buffer; (viii) A detailed analysis of the existing wetland buffer including species composition and percent coverage, whether the buffer is disturbed or not, and the functional value of the buffer in relation to the regulated wetland; (ix) If the development activity would eliminate all or part of a regulated wetland then a detailed compensatory mitigation plan as outlined in subsection (4) of this section must be provided. (4) Mitigation Plan Contents. All wetland restoration, creation, and enhancement projects required by this code, either as a condition of project approval or as the result of an enforcement action, shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified specialist as defined herein and conducted in accordance with the requirements described in this code. The applicant or violator must receive written approval of the mitigation plan by the administrator prior to commencement of any wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement activity. ARTICLE IX Alternative Protection Standards — Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) 18.22.460 Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) — Generally Property owners may elect to develop site-specific critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) as an alternative to the prescriptive requirements of Articles VI (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) through VII (Wetlands) of this Chapter 18.22 JCC. At a minimum, the CASP must provide equal or greater protection of critical area functions and values than the prescriptive standards of buffers and setbacks. The property owner shall be responsible for developing these plans in consultation with a qualified professional meeting the applicable requirements of Article VIII of this Chapter 18.22 JCC. When available, qualified Jefferson County staff may assist landowners with these submissions. The administrator shall be responsible for reviewing and approving submitted plans. The Administrator may, at his/her discretion, seek technical assistance from the Jefferson County Page 36 Conservation District, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Washington Department of Ecology when reviewing CASPs for approval. 18.22.461 Applicability and Limitations The following provisions define the applicability and limitations of the CASP. 1. CASPs apply to only residential development, related activities and appurtenances, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs). They may be used in Rural Village Centers (RVCs) but are not to be used in Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). They are not to be used for commercial or industrial uses or developments, as identified and defined in JCC 18.10. 2. They can be applied to properties 1/4 acre or larger. 3. CASPs are only applicable to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Article VI) or Wetlands (Article VII). 4. CASPs must provide equal or greater protection of critical area functions and values than the prescriptive standards of buffers and setbacks. 5. They may be applied within Category ll, III & IV wetlands and buffers, and within buffers of Category I wetlands. They cannot be used in Category I wetlands. 6. CASPs may not be used for activities involving fill for building within wetlands and FWHCAs but may be used for fill or vegetation management within these critical areas if it is for enhancement of their functions. 7. CASPs will be administered as a Type I Permit, per JCC 18.40. 8. A CASP may be prepared by any person, but it is strongly advised that a qualified professional be at least consulted. 18.22.465 Performance Standards Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) shall identify specific performance standards focused on maintaining or enhancing the functions and values of the critical area(s). (1) Performance standards will vary from one plan to another depending on the critical area being protected and the potential hazards associated with the proposed development. Chosen performance standards should be quantifiable so that they can be measured. They may include maintenance of a wetland's hydraulic capacity, percent ground cover in revegetated areas, control of invasive plants, survival of shrubs and trees and etc. Compliance with Washington State water and/or sediment quality standards (WAC 173-201A and WAC 173-204) will be determined by Jefferson County's watershed monitoring program described in Article X of this Chapter 18.22 JCC. (2) The CASP shall include protocols for monitoring these performance standards to include sampling and analytical methods; timing of the sampling; and determination of the statistical procedures used to define significant departures from the performance standards. Performance standards should contain the following components: (a) Indicator. They identify what will be monitored, such as woody vegetation, invasive species (e.g., reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), wetland area, or water regimes). (b) Attributes. They identify what aspect of the indicator will be monitored, such as percent cover of vegetation, density of stems of surviving vegetation, size of the wetland buffer area, or percent of an inundated area. (c) Actions. They identify the degree of compliance, such as "will not exceed X percent cover of invasive species", or "will establish X acres of wetland area", or will "prescribe a required survival of planted vegetation. (d) Quantities/Status. They identify the amount of change or the desired level the attribute should reach, such as achieving X% total aerial cover of trees and shrubs, or establishing X acres of wetland buffer. (e) Time Frame. They identify when the standard should be achieved. For example, "having X area inundated at the end of July each year." Or achieving X% total aerial cover of trees and shrubs by year Y." Performance standards should be appropriate for the monitoring period. 18.22.470 CASP Contents — Existing Conditions Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) shall include the following elements: (1) A site plan of the entire parcel identifying the critical area being protected by the CASP. (2) When wetlands are present on the property, a wetland delineation report shall be completed in accordance with JCC 18.22.450. The most current edition of Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington shall be used in preparing the report. The report shall detail the scores determined for hydrologic, water quality Page 37 and habitat functions, and shall ensure the most pertinent score is accorded the greatest weight in rating the wetland. The ratings forms and supplemental information required for completing those forms shall be included in the report. The prescriptive wetland buffers appropriate to the wetland class and proposed activity defined in JCC 18.22.330 shall be reviewed. (3) Surface waters and wetlands shall be surveyed for accurate stream typing and/or wetland rating by a qualified professional, consistent with State law. (4) Habitats of Local Importance documented by Jefferson County on and within 3/10ths of one mile the property shall be documented. (5) Presence of any other critical areas. (6) A description of the property and adjacent watershed to include: (a) A contour map describing land elevations within 3/10ths of one mile of the property. (b) Documented or observed presence of threatened or endangered species. (c) A qualitative assessment of the property's hydrology to include evidence of prolonged flooding or ponding, known significant aquifer recharge areas, observed surface water drainage patterns and stream flows. (7) A qualitative assessment of surface waters to include stream and/or pond substrate types, presence of large woody debris and riffles and pools, potential fish spawning areas, observed fish and aquatic invertebrates, etc. (8) A qualitative assessment of the existing landscape located within the prescriptive buffers defined in JCC 18.22.330 for wetlands and JCC 18.22.270 for surface waters shall include: (a) The presence of invasive and/or exotic plant species and the presence and condition of all layers of vegetation. The species composition and general age and condition of existing forests within this area should be documented. This section should be supported with photo documentation; (b) Evidence of historic or existing and ongoing agricultural and/or forestry activities; (c) A determination of the landscape slopes adjacent to surface waters to include a qualitative assessment of soil textures and stability together with an assessment of the value of existing vegetation for stabilizing soils. (9) A description of existing human disturbances within the critical area to include roads, bridges, bulkheads, hydrologic modification to include pre-existing (i.e., grandfathered) farm ponds, excavated ditches, drain tile lines and other structures. The location of these features should be annotated on the site map. (10) A description of how the proposed development might adversely affect the critical area's functions and values. (11) This section should be supported by photo documentation. 18.22.480 Description of the Management Proposal The overall goal of the critical area stewardship plan (GASP) is to maintain or enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed while addressing the needs and desires of the property owner. The proposed plan should be described in detail to include the following: (1) A clear statement of the goals, objectives, and performance standards of the plan and how implementation of this plan will protect the functions and values. This section shall also describe the goals of the property owner, including proposed multiple uses of the critical area and/or the areas within the buffers defined in JCC 18.22.270 and JCC 18.22.330. (2) The CASP shall be supported with the site map described in JCC 18.22.470(1) overlaid with the following information: (a) The location of the development activities proposed at the site; (b) Final contours when grading within the critical area or its buffer is proposed; (c) Existing vegetation in the critical area or its buffer that is to be preserved; (d) Invasive and/or noxious vegetation that is to be controlled or eradicated including control methods; (e) Species and general location of new vegetation to be planted; (f) Location of all structures to be placed within a critical area and the buffers prescribed in JCC 18.22.270 and JCC 18.22.330. (3) The proposed buffers shall be described with an emphasis on how they will protect the critical area's functions and values from being degraded. This section of the report should be supported by reference to published literature or well reasoned rationales provided by the professional preparing the report. (4) A rationale for the final contours when grading is involved with a description of how the changes will help implement the goals of the plan. (5) A detailed plan describing the maintenance of existing vegetation and/or re -vegetation of the site. For trees and shrubs, this plan should describe the density (spacing) of individual species as well as their location in the landscape. A rationale for the vegetation maintenance and/or revegetation plan shall be provided to include a Page 38 description of how the plants will function to meet the goals of the management plan and of the property owner. This plan should include: (a) A table describing the numbers and types of plants to be introduced; (b) A description of how the various vegetation layers will function to protect water quality, the critical area's hydrology, and the habitat needs of wildlife known to exist in the area. (c) Planting density (spacing) by species; (d) A planting schedule with reference to local rainfall patterns and additional watering requirements and methods; (e) Short term protection methods such as protective tubes, socks, control of other vegetation that might out - compete the planted stock, mulching requirements, etc. (6) A proposed or approved storm water management plan as applicable per JCC 18.30.060 through JCC 18.30.070 shall be attached as an appendix. (7) The timing of proposed plan implementation, with an emphasis on how the anticipated timing will minimize disturbance to the critical area and eliminate potential effects to adjoining properties and/or wildlife of local concern. (8) A list of the additional local, state and federal permits that will be required for implementing the CASP. 18.22.490 Maintenance Some critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) may require periodic maintenance activities. These plans shall include a maintenance schedule detailing these activities. In general, plans that do not require long-term maintenance are preferred to plans that require periodic maintenance to be verified by County staff. 18.22.510 As Built Plan Requirement An initial As Built Plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional judged competent by Jefferson County describing the action taken to implement the critical area stewardship plan (GASP). This report shall include: (1) A contour map describing final contours if grading is required; (2) A quantitative description of the vegetation planted; (3) Establishment of two or more permanent photo documentation stations with established bearings and monuments to insure that subsequent photographs depict the same landscape for comparative purposes. (4) Additional photographic documentation is encouraged. 18.22.520 Periodic Monitoring Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) shall be monitored and reports submitted as prescribed by the approving authorities implementation program. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development, and shall include the following: (1) Identification of the goals, objectives and performance standards of the CASP including the specific Performance Standards adopted pursuant to JCC 18.22.465; (2) A qualitative comparison of the critical area functions and values present at the time of annual monitoring with conditions existing during creation of the CASP and conditions observed during previous annual reports; (3) A discussion of real time observation describing compliance with the Performance Standards described in JCC 18.22.500; (4) When analysis of monitoring results describes a deficiency in meeting the CASP's goals, adaptive management shall be employed to rectify the deficiency (5) The landowner agrees to allow approved Jefferson County staff access to property for the purposes of monitoring. (6) Monitoring periods may be extended when necessary, as determined by the Administrator. 18.22.530 Contingency Planning A contingency plan is required describing how the critical area stewardship plan (CASP) might be modified if monitoring indicates a failure to meet the stated goals, or a need to modify the goals because of events outside the landowner's control (e.g., damage associated with a wildlife). For instance, if one of the planted species of vegetation proves ill adapted to the environment and fails to survive or thrive to the extent needed to provide the intended function then alternative species should be identified. In general, plans should initially plant at greater than120% of the specified final density of shrubs and trees. The contingency plan should call for either Page 39 supplemental planting when the density falls below the prescribed final density or it could call for the planting of alternate specie(s). 18.22.540 Failure to Submit Required Reports Failure to submit a report required under this Article IX shall constitute a failure to comply with the terms of the permit, and shall be processed by the administrator pursuant to Chapter 18.50 JCC, Enforcement. 18.22.550 Waiver The administrator may waive portions of critical area stewardship plan (CASP), if in his/her opinion, critical area functions and values will not be adversely affected by a proposed activity. An approved CASP must be recorded on the property deed [recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor] and must remain in effect unless replaced by a new or updated CASP approved by the County. Article X Implementation Strategies 18.22.570 Conservation Futures Jefferson County through the Conservation Futures Fund (JCC Ordinance No. 06-0708-02) may use conservation futures funds to compensate affected property owners for their costs in protecting fish and wildlife through the purchase of conservation easements. 18.22.580 Education Jefferson County encourages good stewardship on its land to provide benefits to fish and wildlife. The county will seek funds to provide general resource education and site-specific assistance to help landowners understand why it is important to improve their management practices and to show them how to improve those practices in a way that benefits both the landowner and natural resources. The county believes that these are win-win goals key to maintaining and enhancing natural resources. 18.22.590 Best Management Practices (BMPs) As a general practice, Jefferson County encourages and supports the use of Best Management Practices by all landowners in an effort to enhance the county's natural resources. Farm BMPs have been developed over the last five decades by the USDA and Jefferson County's Conservation District. Residential BMPs (JCC 18.22.640) are promoted for all land -owners in Jefferson County, whether engaged in agriculture or not. 18.22.600 Cost Sharing Incentives Jefferson County will assist and encourage landowners to participate in private, state and federally funded resource enhancement projects. In addition, Jefferson County will seek outside sources of grant funds to increase the resources available for resource stewardship programs. 18.22.610 Static Buffer Widths for Voluntarily Enhanced Critical Areas For purposes of determining required buffer widths, wetlands and or riparian areas that are intentionally enhanced, where such enhancement is not part of a required mitigation plan will retain the prescriptive buffer requirements determined prior to the enhancement activity. Additional future restrictions will not be placed on wetlands associated with their increased functions and values caused by voluntary enhancement. 18.22.620 Public Benefit Rating System Buffers that are dedicated as permanent open space tracts will qualify for the maximum number of points under the Public Benefit Rating System. Qualifying applicants will be offered the opportunity to enroll in the Jefferson County Open Space tax program at no cost. 18.22.630 Residential Best Management Practices (BMPs) Page 40 The following Best management practices (BMPs) will be encouraged by Jefferson County for all existing and future residential development adjacent to critical areas. Permits may be conditioned to require these BMPs when utilizing buffer averaging or other administratively available means of buffer reduction. (1) Storm water management. (a) Filter runoff from impervious surfaces through appropriate vegetation such as lawns or biofiltration swales prior to entering wetlands or wetland buffers. (b) Direct gutter downspouts into either biofiltration swales or gravel lined pits to sequester bacteria and atmospherically deposited contaminants. (c) Store petroleum, fertilizer and pesticide containers under cover and away from water sources and critical areas until properly disposed. (d) Apply only the amount of irrigation water that can be absorbed into the ground to landscapes. Avoid excessive water resulting in surface flows into wetland or wetland buffers. (e) Avoid the use of chlorinated water for landscape use. (f) Avoid using salt on impervious surfaces such as walks and driveways during freezing weather. (g) Ensure that all outside burning is controlled. (h) Avoid motorized vehicle incursions into the wetland and/or wetland buffer. (2) Management of household contaminants and yard waste. (a) Maintain all garbage and litter in enclosed containers that exclude wildlife. (b) Do not use poisons to control moles, rodents or other pests near wetlands. (c) Strictly adhere to label restrictions when using EPA approved pesticides. (d) Do not dispose of yard waste (grass clippings, trimmings, etc.) or any other waste in wetlands or wetland buffers. (e) Do not maintain vehicles or equipment in areas where contaminants will wash directly into wetland buffers. Maintenance areas should include filter swales or grassy areas of sufficient width to intercept surface flows into critical areas or their buffers. (f) Store all potential contaminants, including petroleum products, pesticides, cleaners, etc. under cover and properly dispose of empty containers. (3) Landscape management. (a) Do not plant invasive ornamental plants in or adjacent to all critical area buffers. (b) Retain, where possible, large trees that shade wetland areas — even though they may grow outside the required buffer. (c) Leave permeable surfaces on as much of the landscape as possible. (d) Attempt to incorporate large woody debris into the landscape plan as a benefit to wildlife. (e) Shield outside lights so that they do not shine directly into nearby wetlands. Article XI Watershed Monitoring 18.22.640 Watershed Monitoring Jefferson County shall develop and implement a countywide monitoring plan designed to give early notification of degrading water quality and to document improving water quality as a result of an increased emphasis on voluntary landowner stewardship. This effort will include the following: (1) The county will initiate this process by conducting an inventory of all current monitoring activities conducted by local, state and federal agencies and private groups such as Stream keepers and Water watchers. (2) The county will assist with compilation of all of the marine and freshwater data applicable to Jefferson County in a single database to establish a baseline dataset. (3) When the inventory described above is complete, a monitoring program will be designed to complement existing efforts to assess the following endpoints: (a) Temperature; (b) Dissolved oxygen (c) pH; (d) Fecal and total coliform; (e) Total suspended solids; (f) Total volatile solids; and (g) Nutrients, to include NH4+, NH3, NO3 and PO4. Page 41 (4) Monitoring of all appropriate Type S and F streams will be accomplished near their entry into the marine environment. Additional monitoring will be accomplished during the first one inch of rain in the fall of each year and during the period of anticipated lowest flow in late summer (August or September). (5) Jefferson County will encourage biological monitoring using rapid bio -assessment procedures of the health of its watersheds by voluntary programs such as Water watchers. (6) Three samples will be collected at each established sampling site. Where sampling indicates a significant exceedance of Washington State Water Quality Criteria (using appropriate statistical analyses) and/or an exceedance of existing baseline data, Jefferson County will notify (as appropriate) the Washington State Department of Health and the Department of Ecology requesting assistance in determining the cause of the exceedance. (7) Jefferson County will work cooperatively with landowners contributing to the exceedance to correct the problem. If property owners do not cooperate, or if the exceedance persists despite attempts at adaptive management, then Jefferson County will take whatever legal or regulatory steps are necessary to correct the situation. Those steps may include legal action or an increase in the buffer widths in stream segments causing the exceedances. Article XII Adaptive Management 18.22.650 Adaptive Management Adaptive management relies on scientific methods to evaluate how well regulatory and nonregulatory actions achieve their objectives and makes adjustments to those programs. Management, policy, and regulatory actions are treated as experiments that are purposefully monitored and evaluated to determine whether they are effective and, if not, how they should be improved to increase their effectiveness. An adaptive management program is a formal and deliberate scientific approach to taking action and obtaining information in the face of uncertainty. To effectively implement an adaptive management program, Jefferson County, in support of its CAO will: (a) Address funding for the research component of the adaptive management program; (b) Change course based on the results and interpretation of new information that resolves uncertainties; and (c) Commit to the appropriate time frame and scale necessary to reliably evaluate regulatory and nonregulatory actions affecting critical areas protection and anadromous fisheries. Page 42 Agenda Request JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Frank Gifford, Con r Administrator FROM: Al Scalf, Director �r� Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager 0 �' Joel Peterson, Assistant PlannegW DATE: March 17, 2008 SUBJECT: Adoption of Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) JCC 18.22 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Planning Commission submitted a draft CAO to the BoCC in January of 2008. The BoCC conducted a public hearing on February 27, 2008 at the Chimacum High School Auditorium. Additionally, the BoCC had a public comment period from February 13, 2008 through March 5, 2008. The BoCC deliberated the merits of the Planning Commission CAO in view of all the oral and written testimony submitted as of March 5, 2008. The Department of Community Development provided the BoCC with a final line inline out staff recommendation. During the March 10, 2008 public meeting the BoCC made final decisions on the Planning Commission's final draft ordinance of January 9, 2008. By motion of the Board, DCD was instructed to prepare an ordinance for adoption and a final critical areas code. Per the compliance schedule established with Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (WWGMHB), the BoCC is to make a legislative decision by March 18, 2008. ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS: The Growth Management Act requires the County to implement development regulations consistent with the comprehensive plan. FISCAL IMPACT: This work is budgeted through Long Range Planning as a General Fund Expenditure. Subsequent permit applications require applicable fees to accompany the proposal and will be reviewed through the Development Review Division. Monitoring and adaptive management for the CAO Stewardship Plan may require additional funding. RECOMMENDATION: DCD recommends the BoCC formally adopt the final draft CAO included in this agenda request. REVIEWED BY: 3113laB Frank Gifford, County Administrator Date