HomeMy WebLinkAbout7b. DCD CAO Packet for PC 04-02-25 RevisedJEFFERSON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan Street | Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-379-4454 | email: gballard@co.jefferson.wa.us
www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/CommunityDevelopment
MEMO DATE: March 28, 2025
TO: Jefferson County Planning Commission & Interested Parties FROM: Jefferson County DCD
RE: Background information for the Jefferson County Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) Update 1. Attachment 1 - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Riparian
Ecosystems Vol 1 (1st attachment is an excerpt at beginning of document and pages 272 to 290 - summary). Entire document is at the link below https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01987/wdfw01987.pdf
2. Attachment 2 - Amy Summe, Shannon & Wilson technical memo on Best Available Science (BAS) for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (stream buffers) with WDFW comments.
3. Attachment 3- Kevin Hitchcock, Jefferson County GIS provided information on how many parcels and acres would be affected on parcels 5 acres or smaller if the fish habitat streams (old DNR Type 2 and 3 streams) stream buffers were increased from 150 to 200 feet. Also if non-fish habitat streams (old DNR Type 4 and 5 streams were increased from 50 and 75 feet to 100 feet for parcel smaller than 5 acres in size (non-conforming per zoning).
4. Attachments 4 & 5 - Snohomish County CAO process 5. Attachments 6 - Kitsap County CAO process Below is Kitsap website on their CAO process
https://www.kitsap.gov/dcd/Pages/Critical-Areas-Ordinance-Update-2024.aspx
6. Attachment 7 - Kitsap County Technical Memo on WDFW Riparian Management
Guidance
Kitsap County Technical Memo on WDFW Riparian Management Guidance
For Kitsap County Critical Area Code Update
Seatle
9706 4th Ave NE, Ste 300 Seatle, WA 98115 Tel 206.523.0024
Kirkland
750 6th Street Kirkland, WA 98033 Tel 425.822.5242
Mount Vernon
2210 Riverside Dr, Ste 110 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Tel 360.899.1110
Whidbey
1796 E Main St, Ste 105 Freeland, WA 98249 Tel 360.331.4131
Federal Way
31620 23rd Ave S, Ste 307 Federal Way, WA 98003 Tel 253.237.7770
Spokane
601 Main Ave, Ste 617 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel 509.606.3600
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: December 8, 2023
To: Kitsap County Department of Community Development
From: Alexandra Plumb; Dan Nickel
Project Name: Kitsap County CAO Update
Project Number: 211214
Subject: WDFW Riparian Management Guidance
DCG/Watershed recently prepared a Best Available Science Summary Report and a Consistency
and Gap Analysis Report to support the update of Kitsap County’s Critical Areas Ordinance
(CAO). Building upon and supplementing the County’s existing record of best available science
(BAS), the BAS Summary Report highlights recent additional BAS since the County’s last
update of the CAO. The Consistency and Gap Analysis Report identifies where the BAS
presented in the BAS Summary Report indicates that amendments to the County’s CAO may be
necessary.
Regarding fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs), the Consistency and Gap
Analysis Report indicated that two of the recommendations would be further addressed in a
technical memo. These recommendations were:
• Consistency and Gap Analysis Recommendation #2: Consider the designation of fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas based on recent WDFW riparian management guidance.
• Consistency and Gap Analysis Recommendation #5: Consider the approach to riparian protection
based on recent WDFW riparian management guidance.
The purpose of this technical memo is to further address these two recommendations in the
context of the most recent guidance from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW).
Summary of Recent WDFW Riparian Management Guidance
WDFW recently released the following two publications related to riparian ecosystems. The
latter is the “recent WDFW riparian management guidance” mentioned in the two Consistency
and Gap Analysis Report recommendations identified above. These publications include the
following:
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 2 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
• Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications (Volume 1)
(Quinn et al. 2020)
• Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations (Volume 2) (Rentz et al.
2020)
Volume 1 is intended to be a source of BAS for understanding how riparian areas and surrounding
watersheds affect ecological functions and aquatic habitats. Using the scientific foundation
established in Volume 1, Volume 2 sets forth land use guidance for local governments and other
organizations to conserve watershed processes and riparian ecosystems in support of aquatic
species and their habitats. As noted by WDFW, “the guidance presented in Volume 2 is not in and of
itself ‘best available science.’ Rather, it represents the recommendations of WDFW as to how a local
government could include the best available science in policies, plans, and regulations to protect riparian
ecosystems and their associated aquatic habitats”.
Volume 2 identifies WDFW’s eight key recommendations for riparian management as follows:
1. Designate riparian ecosystems as critical areas;
2. Include watershed-scale management considerations;
3. Use reference points to locate the inner edge of the riparian management zone (RMZ);
4. Include CMZs in delineation of the RMZ;
5. Establish RMZ widths based on site-specific conditions;
6. Apply the recommended RMZ delineation steps to all streams, regardless of if they are
fish-bearing;
7. Establish monitoring and adaptive management frameworks; and
8. Consider needs of relevant terrestrial species.
WDFW’s recommendations 1, 5, and 6 would represent a considerable shift in the County’s
overarching approach to the designation and protection of FWHCAs; therefore, these three
WDFW recommendations and their potential application in Kitsap County are discussed in the
sections below.
WDFW Recommendation 1
WDFW recognizes riparian ecosystems as a priority habitat for fish and wildlife and
recommends that local jurisdictions designate them as FWHCAs, a type of critical area. WDFW
defines the bounds of the riparian ecosystem as the riparian management zone (RMZ). Volume
2 defines the RMZ as “the area that has the potential to provide full riparian functions.”
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 3 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
Kitsap County, like most jurisdictions in Washington, currently designates streams as
FWHCAs, a type of critical area. The County protects streams using dimensional buffer
standards; however, under this approach, the buffers themselves are not specifically designated
as FWHCAs.
Therefore, if the County were to implement this WDFW recommendation, the County would
shift from only considering streams as FWHCAs to considering entire RMZs as FWHCAs. WAC
365-190-130 describes fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as “land management for
maintaining populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so
that the habitat available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated
subpopulations are not created. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas do not include such artificial
features or constructs as irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or
drainage ditches that lie within the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation
district or company. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does
mean not degrading or reducing populations or habitats so that they are no longer viable over the long
term. Counties and cities should engage in cooperative planning and coordination to help assure long
term population viability.”
Further, WAC 365-190-130 requires that the following fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas must be considered for classification and designation including:
(a) Areas where endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary
association;
(b) Habitats and species of local importance, as determined locally;
(c) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas;
(d) Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring, smelt, and other forage fish spawning areas;
(e) Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat;
(f) Waters of the state;
(g) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal
entity; and
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 4 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
(h) State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife
areas.
This definition does not include the requirement to designate a RMZ as a fish and wildlife
habitat conservation area but does require the protection of riparian ecosystems. The County
could consider retaining stream buffers in alignment with the WAC definition but should
consider increasing protections to better align with BAS. RCW 36.70A.172 (1)1 describes that “In
designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best
available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of
critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection
measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.” The WDFW guidance has been
reviewed and considered in the development of the recommendations described below.
WDFW Recommendations 5 & 6
WDFW recommends protecting riparian ecosystems by establishing site-specific RMZ widths
for all streams in the County. Their recommended approach to establishing site-specific RMZ
widths is organized around a site-potential tree height at 200 years (SPTH200) framework.
“SPTH200” refers to the “the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees (200 years or more)
for a given site class.” The phrase “200 years or more” is in reference to the approximate minimum age of
old-growth forests, which reflects an underlying assumption that old-growth forest conditions are
needed for full riparian ecosystem functions. Regarding use of the SPTH200 framework, Volume 2
states:
The scientific literature review (see Volume 1) informs WDFW’s position that protecting the area
within one SPTH200 from the edge of a stream channel maintains full riparian ecosystem
functions for all aquatic species, including salmon, and promotes healthy, intact riparian
ecosystems. This recommendation provides the greatest level of certainty that land use activities
do not impair functions and values of riparian ecosystems.
Based on the guidance in Volume 2, in forested ecoregions like Kitsap County, establishing site-
specific RMZ widths essentially consists of the following two steps:
1. Use SPTH200 if it is at least 100 feet. To aid with site-specific RMZ delineation, WDFW
offers an internet-based mapping tool that indicates recommended widths for RMZs
statewide based on SPTH200.
1 Also consistent with the recommenda�ons of WAC 365-195-925.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 5 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
2. Overlay 100-foot pollution removal delineation. In cases where SPTH200 is less than 100 feet,
WDFW recommends a minimum RMZ of 100 feet, as this provides the width necessary for
95% pollution removal target for most pollutants and approximately 80% of surface
nitrogen. The mapping tool mentioned immediately above also indicates where a 100-
foot pollution removal RMZ should be applied.
Existing Protections
Washington Department of Natural Resources’ Forest Practice Board Stream
Typing
Kitsap County’s current approach to protecting streams is not site-specific. As is currently
typical for most Washington jurisdictions and consistent with previous WDFW riparian
management recommendations, the County uses the Washington Department of Natural
Resources Forest Practice Board water typing system set forth in WAC 222-16-030 to classify
streams as Type F, Np or Ns waters (KCC 19.300.310.B.1).
Existing Buffer Widths
Based on water type, the code (KCC Table 19.300.315) specifies the applicable buffer width and
setback, as shown in Table 1:
Existing County stream buffers and setbacks by water type
Water Type Buffer Width Minimum Building Setback
F 150 feet 15 feet beyond buffer
Np 50 feet 15 feet beyond buffer
Ns 50 feet 15 feet beyond buffer
Therefore, if the County were to implement these two WDFW recommendations, the County
would shift from applying a defined buffer width and setback to streams based on water type to
establishing site-specific RMZ widths for all streams. The intent of critical area policies and
regulations are to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and values in compliance with
WAC 365-196-830. The requirement for no net loss serves as a benchmark to evaluate BAS and
identify gaps in existing development regulations to determine if updates are needed. The
County must also give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary
to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries pursuant to WAC 365-195-925.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 6 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment
Team2 (FEMAT) curves, similar to those included in WDFW’s recommendations for
establishing the bounds of RMZs (Quinn et al. 2020). The curves show the percentage of full
function for riparian habitat attributes with increasing distance from a stream channel. The
“FEMAT Curves” are a generalized conceptual model describing contributions of four key
riparian ecosystem functions to aquatic ecosystems as the distance from a stream channel
increases.
Source: FEMAT 1993
Figure 1. FEMAT Curves
Note: “Tree height” refers to average height of the tallest dominant tree (200 years old or greater), referred
to as site potential tree height (SPTH).
Rentz et al. (2020) includes this graphic to justify recommending one full SPTH200 for the width
of a RMZ to attain “full” riparian function. An examination of the graphed habitat functions
shown in the red intersection lines demonstrates where most of the four referenced functions
2 “In 1993, a group of experts (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]) was convened to develop
a conceptual model to determine how to protect riparian areas in forested landscapes. This model has come to be known as the FEMAT curves (FEMAT 1993). Though this model is over 25 years old, it continues to be one of the
most useful conceptual models informing riparian management (Rentz et al. 2020).”
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 7 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
level off before reaching one full SPTH200 from the channel, indicating that a large portion of
cumulative effectiveness may be achieved at roughly 75% SPTH200. Exceptions to this include
coarse wood recruitment, but only a slight improvement of cumulative effectiveness is shown
beyond approximately 0.75 SPTH200. Where old-growth conditions no longer exist within a
buffer or RMZ, up to 200 years would be needed for this added small percentage of habitat
benefit to accrue. Figure 1 indicates that the majority of RMZ function is experienced at 70-80%
of SPTH200, with only slight improvements beyond that. Most of the cumulative effectiveness
can be achieved with a width of no less than 75% of one full SPTH200, as is shown on the FEMAT
curves, though arguably, some additional small gains for aquatic habitat would be realized
even beyond 100% SPTH200. It should also be noted that some functions never achieve 100%
cumulative effectiveness, such as shading, as illustrated on Figure 1. This also assumes that all
referenced functions can achieve 100% effectiveness based on the site-specific conditions and be
maintained in these conditions for 200 years. This approximation indicates that ideal conditions
would exist on every site instead of current conditions. As referenced in WAC 365-196-830(4),
“development regulations must preserve the existing functions and values of critical areas.”
Overall, the highest rates of return on aquatic habitat function generally occur at and near the
streambank and diminish from there with distance. However, it is acknowledged that the
FEMAT curves only evaluate four ecological functions for the benefit of aquatic species. The
WDFW guidance references that RMZs can also provide habitat for many terrestrial wildlife
species including movement corridors and that regulations should consider their protection, as
well as aquatic habitat. Since riparian protections benefit both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
species, concentrating protections around riparian areas may be an efficient use of resources
(Rentz et al. 2020).
In WDFW’s Riparian Management guidance, it is recommended to provide reference to
mapped CMZs in the FWHCA section to ensure that these areas are adequately protected. A
high-level screening for the CMZs within unincorporated Kitsap County was completed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Screening Tools for Identifying Migrating Stream
Channels in Western Washington prepared by the Department of Ecology (Publication 15-06-003)
identified several CMZs as shown in Figure 2 below. When a CMZ is present, the riparian
protection area should be measured from the edge of the CMZ instead of from the OHWM. This
will improve protection of riparian functions and values and will result in larger riparian
management zones adjacent to CMZs. However, the County currently has this requirement in
KCC 19.300.315.A.6, which states, “In areas where channel migration zones can be identified the buffer
distance shall be measured from the edge of the channel migration zone.). Building setbacks for
geologically hazardous areas may also apply (Chapter 19.400), if determined necessary.” The County
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 8 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
may consider determining when it is warranted to provide screening-level information and
indicate when a site-specific assessment is needed by a licensed geologist or qualified
professional.
Note: Potential CMZs are delineated in yellow, orange, and blue lines.
Potential CMZs based on the Department of Ecology Channel Migration Potential Tool (CHAMP).
Application of WDFW Mapping Tool to Kitsap County
As previously noted, WDFW offers an online mapping tool to aid with determining site-specific
RMZ widths. We performed an informal, limited review of the application of this mapping tool
to Kitsap County to gain a general understanding of how use of the tool could affect riparian
protected areas.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 9 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
The mapping tool was used at a variety of sample locations in Kitsap County. The determinant
tree species for SPTH200 was typically Douglas-fir, and less frequently red alder. The sampling
found the ranges of values for SPTH200 shown below in Table 2.
Ranges of sample SPTH200 values in Kitsap County
Tree Species SPTH200 Range
Douglas-fir 144-235 feet
Red alder 102-105 feet
As indicated above, the County currently applies a 150-foot buffer to fish-bearing streams
(Water Type F) and a 50-foot buffer to non-fish-bearing streams (Water Type Np, Ns).
Accordingly, based on the sampling results, the mapping tool may frequently indicate an RMZ
width that is significantly larger than the current buffer standards with a maximum value of 235
feet, particularly for streams that are currently designated as non-fish-bearing. Significantly
larger RMZ widths applied throughout County jurisdiction would be expected to substantially
increase the amount of land in the County that would include regulated riparian areas.
Guidance Implementation
Volume 2 provides a variety of riparian management recommendations; however, specific
implementation guidance is not provided. For example, WDFW does not provide model code
language for consideration by local jurisdictions. Therefore, each local jurisdiction must
determine how the recommendations might translate into its regulatory program.
Other Jurisdictions
Because this is the first periodic update cycle under the Growth Management Act since the
WDFW riparian management guidance was published, there are very limited number of other
jurisdictions to look to for examples of how the guidance is being applied in practice. Only two
other jurisdictions are known to have incorporated the guidance into their regulatory programs:
the City of Anacortes and Clark County.
The City of Anacortes appears to closely follow the guidance. The City designates the entire
RMZ as a critical area (AMC 19.70.330.A). The width of the RMZ is the height of the tallest 200-
year-old site-potential tree (SPTH200) or 100 feet, whichever is greater (AMC 19.70.330.A.1).
Activities that may impact an RMZ must provide a critical areas report prepared by a qualified
professional describing the functions and values of the RMZ, and the report must include the
findings of the WDFW mapping tool (AMC 19.70.330.A.3).
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 10 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
In contrast, Clark County has tailored the guidance for local application.3 Clark County has
designated the entire “riparian habitat area” as a critical area (CCC 40.445.020.C.1.b). However,
Clark County does not establish fully site-specific RMZ widths, has retained the water typing
system set forth in WAC 222-16-030, and does not elect to use the WDFW mapping tool to
determine RMZ widths.
Instead, Clark County, using a locally developed methodology for application of the SPTH200
framework, sets forth specific riparian habitat area widths based on site class (defined in WAC
222-16-010) and water type (defined in WAC 222-16-030), as shown below in Table 3. The
County has developed its own interactive map to aid with implementation.
Clark County riparian habitat areas (CCC Table 40.445.020-4)
Site Class Type S & F Waters Type Np Waters Type Ns Waters
II 235 feet 155 feet 100 feet
III 205 feet 135 feet 100 feet
IV 165 feet 105 feet 100 feet
V 150 feet 100 feet 100 feet
Based on a supporting memo, it appears that Clark County selected this overall approach to
reduce the number of applicable riparian habitat area widths. Notably, the County found that
its locally developed methodology for application of the SPTH200 framework “greatly expands the
widths of riparian habitat adjacent to non-fish bearing waters, which raises concerns about impacts to
affected landowners, increase in the number of affected landowners, and the County’s ability to meet other
goals of the Growth Management Act. (Clark County 2023)” The County found that
implementation of their locally developed methodology for application of the SPTH200
framework would subject an additional 58,109 acres to regulation as riparian habitat areas.
Therefore, the County reduced the riparian habitat area widths (citing application of a
reduction provision in the then-existing CAO) for non-fish bearing waters below the widths
indicated by their locally developed methodology for application of the SPTH200 framework.
Options for Consideration
To address the BAS recommendations described in the WDFW riparian management guidance,
the following options referenced below could be considered by the County for implementation
in the CAO:
3 Clark County locally adopted their updated CAO in March 2023 (Ordinance No. 2023-03-01). However, whether
the updated CAO is in effect is unclear based on available informa�on. The updated CAO has not yet been codified.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 11 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
Option 1: Retain Existing Values
The current Kitsap County buffer widths described in KCC 19.300.315 (see Table 1) are at or
below the range of SPTH200 in most cases. The WDFW guidance recommends a minimum buffer
width of 100’ for 95% removal of most pollutants and approximately 80% of surface nitrogen.
By retaining existing buffer widths, this may be considered a deviation from BAS by WDFW.
Departures from BAS must provide a record that is consistent with the criteria described in
WAC 365-195-915(c).
Option 2: SPTH200 Model
The County could consider adopting one of the following approaches for incorporating the
WDFW SPTH200 model to align with the methodology described in Volume 2:
• Utilize the WDFW SPTH200 online tool to determine the riparian protection area width
or;
• Create their own GIS layer at a parcel-by-parcel scale using the WDFW SPTH200 base
data.
WDFW’s online GIS-based mapping tool provides 200-year SPTH values statewide largely
based on ecosystem type and soil data. The online tool contains designated SPTH values for
forested ecoregions and selected urban areas based on the National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) soil polygons. The WDFW SPTH200 Mapping Tool utilizes NRCS soil data to
determine SPTH values from 1966 that was collected on a regional basis. However, portions of
the soil data and associated SPTH information are missing in some areas of the County. The
WDFW guidance does not currently include implementation guidance to support parcel-
specific applications.
The SPTH200 values, using the WDFW SPTH200 online tool, vary between 102-235 feet depending
on the location within the County and the predominant tree species. For a predictive approach
and consistent application, the County could consider incorporating their own stream layer that
evaluates the parcel-level SPTH200 to reduce variability across a single parcel, provide a more
accessible resource for applicants, and aid in implementation for County staff. It is noted that
there are certain areas that lack SPTH200 data that will need to be determined in consultation
with WDFW.
Option 3. Predictive Model
The County could consider incorporating a hybrid approach that would retain the current
stream typing system but would increase values to better align with BAS. This approach would
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 12 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
incorporate values that would meet or exceed the WDFW recommended minimum 100’ buffer
to ensure adequate pollution removal but would include a set SPTH200 supported value for Type
F waters. The riparian protection areas vary by stream classification to allow for predictable and
consistent implementation at the permit application level.
Incorporating the recommendations above, in conjunction with the proposed riparian
protection area widths, will support County’s compliance with no net loss requirements for
existing riparian ecological functions and values pursuant to WAC 365-196-830(4).
Alternatively, the County could also consider calculating alternative riparian protection area
widths based on the soil site classes defined in WAC 222, Forest Practices Board, consistent with
Clark County. Alternative riparian protection area widths could be extrapolated from the 50-
year site index range (SPTH50) to determine SPTH200 values. Riparian protection areas under
this approach would be variable based on both the type of stream and soil site class. This
approach would result in variable riparian protection area widths based on soil site class that
would likely exceed the 100’ riparian protection area for non-fish perennial (Np streams)
waters. Either of the hybrid alternative options would allow for the County to maintain existing
reduction in riparian protection areas for non-fish waters, but would incorporate the minimum
100’ foot pollution removal buffer for all stream types as recommended by WDFW.
Recommendation
For increased consistency with the WDFW guidance, and to provide equivalent or greater
riparian protections, it is recommended that the County consider incorporating larger riparian
protection area widths.
The County could consider increasing their Type N stream buffer width from 50' to 100' to align
with BAS. Such buffer increases would meet the WDFW recommended minimum 100’ buffer to
ensure adequate pollution removal for all stream types. For Type F waters, the County could
consider incorporating an established set buffer width for Type F waters in close alignment
with SPTH200 values for Kitsap County. To help assess an appropriate value for Type F streams,
a county-wide GIS analysis was conducted using the SPTH200 values from the WDFW online
tool and the Kitsap County stream layer to compare the potential predictive model values to
BAS-based SPTH200 protections for riparian areas. This analysis removed all incorporated cities,
Type S waters, military lands, publicly owned forest lands, or National Parks to improve
accuracy of the data.
Based on an example of this GIS analysis shown in Appendix A, a 200’ riparian protection area
width would meet or exceed SPTH200 values approximately 72% of the time for Type F waters.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 13 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
This approach will significantly increase dimensional buffer standards for fish and non-fish
bearing waters but will allow the County flexibility in improving conformance with WDFW’s
guidance. Riparian protection areas that vary by stream classification allow for predictable and
consistent implementation at the permit application level. When coupled with the additional
recommendations below, this approach will support County’s compliance with no net loss
requirements for riparian ecological functions and values.
Other Recommendations:
To assist in the implementation of the updated guidance, WDFW released a Riparian
Management Zone (RMZ) Checklist for CAOs in April 2023 with an addendum in August 2023.
The RMZ checklist is intended to be a voluntary technical assistance tool that is supplemented
with the Department of Commerce’s CAO Checklist.4 To align with the recommendations
contained within the RMZ Checklist, improvements can be made to the existing critical areas
regulations to better protect the functions and values of riparian ecosystems.
To reduce unnecessary habitat impacts within riparian ecosystems, it is recommended to
provide improved regulations for mitigation sequencing. As described in WAC 365-196-830,
“Avoidance is the most effective way to protect critical areas”. Applicants should be required to
demonstrate that mitigation sequencing was used in each project proposal that may impact
habitat functions within the riparian protection area, including that avoidance was considered.
It is also recommended that the County limit clearing, filling, and grading activities within
riparian areas in KCC 19.300.315, unless they are directly related to restoration, as these
activities can negatively impact riparian ecosystems (Rentz et al. 2020).
To align with the WDFW guidance, it is recommended that the County incorporate specific
Habitat Management Plan requirements as suggested in Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2:
Management Recommendations (Rentz et al. 2020). WDFW recommends that when an activity is
proposed in a RMZ or could affect riparian or aquatic functions, a Habitat Management Plan
should be required. For consistency with the guidance in WDFW Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2:
Management Recommendations, the Habitat Management Plant requirements in KCC 19.700.720
should include the following:
• Identification of all critical areas within and adjacent to the project site, including
ecosystem functions that need to be protected.
4 Washington Department of Commerce Growth Management Critical Areas dated December 2022.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 14 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
• A description of the project proponent’s mitigation sequencing, including detailed
measures to avoid impacts and minimize unavoidable impacts. Examples could include
clustering of development, conservation easements, and seasonal construction
restrictions.
• Measurable standards and expectations to monitor compliance and defined triggers for
requiring more actions, i.e., performance standards. Examples of measurable standards
could include extent of vegetative cover, composition of riparian tree species and
maximum invasive plant cover. The Habitat Management Plan is recommended to also
identify the frequency of visits to monitor the site and specify who is responsible for
preparing, reviewing, and submitting monitoring reports.
• If necessary, the report could include a cost estimate for monitoring and the project
proponent could post a bond for this amount or more to allow for overages.
• Require that the Habitat Management Plan be prepared by a qualified professional
biologist, botanist, or ecologist.
KCC 19.100.125 could be revised to strengthen the emergency exemption provision to require
landowners to outline that landowners may be required to modify, mitigate, or remove any
emergency repair work. To align with the recommendations included in the WDFW RMZ
Checklist, KCC 19.100.130.B could be revised to incorporate additional criteria for hazard tree
removal including the following requirements:
o Require that the method of hazard tree removal not adversely affect riparian
ecosystem functions to the extent practicable;
o Encourage the creation of snags (Priority Habitat features) rather than complete
tree removal; and
o Involve an avoidance and minimization of damage to remaining trees and
vegetation within the RMZ,
The County could also consider including a purpose statement in KCC 19.100.105.B to retain
and restore riparian ecosystems to maximize riparian function overtime to emphasize the
necessary protections.5 Further, the County may consider developing a streamlined review
process for riparian restoration/enhancement projects to comply with the RMZ Checklist.
Potential options could include incorporation of an exemption provision or allowing for
5 WDFW August 2023 RMZ Checklist Addendum
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 15 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
abbreviated habitat management plan requirements for projects that are solely for the benefit of
riparian restoration or enhancement.
Lastly, in accordance with the WDFW guidance, the County could consider incorporating
regulations for replacing or removing existing infrastructure in riparian ecosystems. Examples
contained within the WDFW guidance include:
• Mapping the area to pinpoint the best sites to restore – consider connectivity and
adjacency to other Priority Habitats;
• Improving aquatic connectivity by replacing culverts and removing barriers to
movement;
• Revegetating the area with native plants and consider improvements for wildlife by
integrating structures necessary for nesting, breeding, and foraging;
• As infrastructure is remodeled or replaced, incorporating additional setbacks from
streams;
• Controlling access to limit soil compaction;
• Avoiding operating equipment near the stream to reduce sedimentation and soil
compaction; and
• Avoiding using chemicals which are not approved for use in the particular area by
Ecology.
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 16 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
References
Anacortes Municipal Code. https://anacortes.municipal.codes/
Clark County. (2023) Designating Riparian Habitat Areas Using WAC 222 Site Class and 200-year
Site Potential Tree Height. https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2023-
02/Designating%20Riparian%20Habitat%20Areas%20%28CPZ2022-00010%29.pdf
Clark County. (2023). Ordinance No. 2023-03-01.
https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2023-03/2023-03-01.pdf
Quinn, T., Wilhere, G.F. & Krueger, K.L. (2020). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science synthesis
and management implications. Habitat Program, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01987
Rentz, R., Windrope, A., Folkerts, K., & Azerrad, J. (2020). Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2:
Management Recommendations. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01988
DCG/Watershed December 2023
Kitsap County CAO Update Page 17 of 18
WDFW RMZ Guidance Memo
Appendix A