Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC Meeting Packet 9-17-26
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 6:30 PM This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.com/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE III. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Meeting Minutes from May 21, 2026 VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS • 2027 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Allocation • UGA Expansion Resolution VIII. WORKSHOP • Comprehensive Plan Overview • Critical Areas Update IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS • Unified Development Code Status Update X. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2026 6:30 PM Page 1 of 3 CALL TO ORDER City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Jerry Cochran. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Rob Waites, Dana Crutchfield, Brian Tungesvik, Migues Miranda and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared. Excused Commissioners: Kim Lehrman Staff Present: CED Director Haylie Matson, Planning Manager Daniel Leavitt, Planner II Shannon Zimmerman and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick DECLARATIONS Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. No declarations were heard. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. No declarations were heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jones moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 19, 2026. Commissioner Crawford seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None WORSHOP • Commercial Land Capacity Director Matson presented the Commercial Land Capacity analysis prepared as part of the Comprehensive Plan update and requested policy guidance from the Planning Commission. The analysis found that Pasco has sufficient commercial land capacity to accommodate projected employment growth through 2046. She expressed concern regarding multiple requests to convert commercial land to residential uses and noted that such conversions could reduce future job growth opportunities. She also emphasized the importance of preserving commercial land to support economic development, employment, and regional commercial destinations, and indicated that commercial-to-residential conversion requests are not being supported as part of the current Comprehensive Plan update. Feedback was on policies to preserve commercial land capacity and support long-term economic growth. Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Questions/Comments: Commissioners generally supported preserving commercial land to accommodate future employment growth, maintain economic development opportunities, and protect the City's long-term fiscal health. Discussion emphasized that commercial and industrial lands are difficult to replace once converted to residential use and provide important revenue sources to support City services. Commissioners also discussed the importance of balancing current development demands with long- term planning objectives, encouraging commercial development through efficient permitting processes, and considering policy or code changes to discourage commercial-to-residential conversions. Director Matson confirmed that conversion requests would continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that mixed-use development opportunities would be explored where appropriate. Additional discussion addressed the role of mixed-use development, the fiscal impacts of residential growth, the need to preserve commercial opportunities in key growth areas, and the treatment of existing residential uses located on commercially designated properties. Director Matson noted that existing grandfathered residential uses would generally remain, but that commercial land planned for future economic development should be preserved where possible. • Unified Development Code Introduction Director Matson provided an overview of the ongoing development code update, which is focused on complying with state mandates, implementing the Comprehensive Plan, and improving the clarity and usability of City regulations. Discussion included potential consolidation of residential and commercial zones, creation of neighborhood commercial areas, updates to development standards, and efforts to simplify zoning regulations impacted by state middle housing requirements. Commissioner Questions/Comments: Commissioners discussed balancing code simplification with preserving neighborhood character and ensuring development standards reflect existing infrastructure and community goals. Discussion noted that higher-density development may be more appropriate in northern growth areas where infrastructure can be planned accordingly, while established southern neighborhoods may warrant a different approach. Director Matson also reviewed proposed improvements to the permitting process, including clearer permit classifications, review procedures, decision-making authority, and timelines. She outlined plans for community outreach and stakeholder engagement on the proposed code amendments, with draft revisions anticipated to return to the Planning Commission in September and to City Council later in the year. • Less Restrictive Housing Director Matson informed the Planning Commission of a proposed code amendment regulating Less Restrictive Alternative (LRA) housing and Secure Community Transition Facilities, which is being advanced directly to City Council due to moratorium deadlines. Explaining that while state law prohibits cities from banning these facilities outright, local regulations may establish siding standards and buffers from schools, parks, daycares, places of worship, libraries, and other sensitive uses. She noted that public outreach has been conducted, a draft code and siting map will be released for review, and commissioners were encouraged to provide comments prior to Council consideration. Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Questions/Comments: Commissioners noted their support for the City's proactive approach to the matter, citing recent circumstances in Kennewick as justification for addressing the issue before similar concerns arise locally. It was asked that, because the facility is privately owned and operates in conjunction with the state, it could be viewed as a commercial use and may be more appropriately situated within mixed-use zoning districts. Director Matson commented on the classification and location of the facilities. It was stated that state law permits these facilities within residential areas, subject to required buffering or separation from certain uses. While the facilities may have some commercial characteristics, they are considered residential uses for zoning purposes, and the City cannot regulate them in a manner that conflicts with state law. Next steps are June 1, 2026, public hearing, then a workshop with the city council on June 22, 2026, and a public hearing and decision hopefully by July 6, 2026. Director Matson encouraged the commissioners to email comments to her or attend the city council meetings. OTHER BUSINESS • Director Items Director Matson introduced Shannon Zimmerman, the newest Planner II for the City of Pasco. Director Matson informed the Commission that the city is not planning on having any Planning Commission meetings for the months of June, July and August, resuming in September. If there is an emergency, then one will be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Waites, and the motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:52 pm. YouTube link to watch full meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiULILReZSk Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 6:30 PM 1 To: Planning Commission From: Kristin Webb, Block Grant Administrator Subject: 2027 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM ALLOCATION Requests for Funding Attached for your review and consideration are the CDBG Fund and Proposal Summaries (Attachment 1) relating to our Community Development Block Grant Program for program year 2026. Thirteen (13) requests for funds were submitted totaling $912,121. Applicants will present their proposals before the Planning Commission tonight. No action is required of the Planning Commission at tonight’s meeting, only consideration of the applications is necessary. Estimated Funds Available It is estimated that the 2027 annual entitlement grant will be $621,797 based on the award for program year 2026. There is always some question regarding actual funding levels approved by Congress. Actual available funding for these FY 2027 activities will remain in question until the middle part of the year when the CDBG allocation is made by Congressional Resolution. If funding levels are lower than estimated or eliminated the city will need to consider several options, including a voluntary or proportionate reduction of allocation, possible inclusions in the 2027 city general fund budget requests. If funding levels are higher than estimated, activity funding will be reallocated in accordance with the contingency plan according to the greatest need. Public Service Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support public service activities may not exceed 15% of the combined total of the entitlement. Based on the estimated entitlement of $621,797, the maximum available for public service activities in 2027 is $93,269. Current requests for public services total $125,000. Planning & Administration Cap HUD regulations state that the amount of CDBG Funds obligated within a program year to support planning and administration activities may not exceed 20% of the combined total of the entitlement. For 2027, the estimated entitlement of $621,797 makes the maximum available for planning and administration $125,369. Current requests for planning and administration total $125,000. No action from the Planning Commission is necessary. The Commission is expected to hear from the 2027 applicants and will have the opportunity to ask questions. The City Staff would like to thank the members of the Planning Commission for your time and assistance. Attachments: 1 2027 CDBG Fund Summary 2 2027 CDBG Projects and Proposal Requests 2026 CDBG Fund Summary BGAP2025-003 Planning Commission Meeting Proposals-Recommendations Attachment 1 Page 1 PJID LOCID RECIPIENT ACTIVITY / AGENCY NAME NonCDBG Match Agency Requested Staff Recommend Activity GoalStrat Obj Risk Priority 1 1 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development CDBG Program Administration 125,000.00 Admin & Planning All 0-Low All 2 2 YMCA of the Greater Tri-Cities YMCA Martin Luther King Community Center Recreation Program 45,000.00 20,000.00 Public Service 1 3-Low B 2 3 The Arc of the Tri-Cities Arc Therapeutic Recreation Scholarship 30,000.00 10,000.00 Public Service 1 3-Low B 2 4 Boys & Girls Club of Benton and Franklin Counties Pasco Clubhouse Teen Program Expansion 20,000.00 Public Service 2 3-Low B 2 5 Columbia Industries DBA Columbia Ability Alliance Community Center Recreational Scholarships 5,000.00 15,000.00 Public Service 1 3-Low B 2 6 Elijah Family Homes Transition to Success Case Management & Housing Support 507,531.00 30,000.00 Public Service 1 6-Med A 2 7 Columbia Basin Veterans Center Veteran's Stability & Resource Connection 150,000.00 30,000.00 Public Service 1 6-Med A 3 8 City of Pasco Downtown Lighting Program 131,590.00 50,000.00 Economic Opportunties 3 4-Low C 3 9 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development Façade Improvement Program 25,000.00 Economic Opportunties 3 6-Med C 4 10 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development CHIP Minor Rehab Program 125,000.00 Housing 1 4-Low A 5 11 City of Pasco- Parks & Recreation Department ADA Improvements- Playground Equipment 0.00 100,000.00 Publlic Facilities 1 3-Low C 5 12 Children's Development Center Installation of Men's Restroom & Staff Breakroom 43,000.00 7,000.00 Public Facilities 3 9-Med B 8 13 City of Pasco-Community & Economic Development Section 108-Debt Repayment 250,000.00 Debt Payment N/A 912,121.00 807,000.00 0.00 0.00 2026 Estimated Entitlement 621,797$ $125,359 20% CAP ADMIN CDBG Prior year & Program Income $93,269 15% CAP PUBLIC SERVICES CDBG Funds Available (Entitlement, Prior Year & Program Income)621,797$ Proposals Received 807,000$ SURPLUS/DEFICIT (185,203)$ 2027 Proposals Recommended 9/8/2026 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers TO: Planning Commission FROM: Haylie Matson, CED Director SUBJECT: Recommendation for Future Urban Growth Area Boundary – Support of CPAM2025-02 (North Reimann Industrial Center) File Numbers: CPA2026-001 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Applicant: City of Pasco Description: The City is evaluating its preferred future Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary in response to Franklin County’s 2026 Comprehensive Plan update. Two industrial expansion proposals are under consideration: CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02. The City’s updated Land Capacity Analysis identifies a need for additional industrial employment capacity, and staff recommends supporting the approximately 180-acre North Reimann Industrial Center expansion (CPAM2025-02) because it builds upon existing industrial development, infrastructure, utilities, and coordinated capital facilities planning. CPAM2025-01 is not recommended for inclusion at this time but may be considered in a future UGA review. Environmental Determination The environmental review will occur as part of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update. Attachments 01 Proposed Resolution & Preferred UGA Boundary Map 02 Draft Land Capacity Analysis and Supplemental Information 03 CPAM2025-01 – BFF LLC/Truax UGA Expansion Application – Map Location 04 CPAM2025-01 – BFF LLC/Truax UGA Expansion Application 05 CPAM2025-02 – Port of Pasco North Reimann UGA Expansion Application Map 06 CPAM2025-02 – Port of Pasco North Reimann UGA Expansion Application Map 07 Franklin County Request for GMA Update Information, dated 06-03-26 08 Public Hearing Notice – Planning Commission 09-17-26 Action Requested Conduct a public hearing and recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Resolution identifying the City's preferred future Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary. The proposed boundary supports inclusion of the approximately 180-acre North Reimann Industrial Center REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers expansion identified in CPAM2025-02 and does not recommend inclusion of the approximately 110-acre property located further north and proposed under CPAM2025-01 at this time. Fiscal Impact Approval of the Resolution does not itself annex property into the City or immediately obligate the City to extend municipal services. Future fiscal impacts associated with infrastructure, utility extensions, annexation, or development would be evaluated through subsequent planning, annexation, capital facility, and development processes. History and Facts Brief Under the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A), jurisdictions periodically evaluate whether sufficient land capacity exists within the Urban Growth Area to accommodate projected population, housing, and employment growth. As part of Pasco's 2026 Comprehensive Plan update, the City prepared a Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) to evaluate the City's ability to accommodate its allocated growth and to inform future land use and UGA decisions. On June 3, 2026, Franklin County formally requested information from the City related to the County's ongoing Growth Management Act update. The County requested the City's Land Capacity Analysis, information supporting the City's employment growth projections, transportation modeling information, and a resolution from the City identifying its preferred UGA boundary. The County specifically requested that the City's resolution address, at a minimum, the two formal industrial UGA expansion applications received by the County, CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02. In response to the County's request, staff evaluated both UGA expansion applications in conjunction with the City's updated land capacity analysis. Based on that evaluation, staff recommend that the City's preferred UGA boundary include CPAM2025-02, the approximately 180-acre North Reimann Industrial Center expansion proposed by the Port of Pasco (Attachments 4 & 5) and not include CPAM2025-01 (Attachments 3 & 4) or any other city- initiated UGA expansions at this time. The City's LCA remains in draft because the final UGA boundary affects the amount and location of land included within the City's capacity analysis. Once Franklin County establishes the UGA boundary through the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City can complete the final LCA using the adopted boundary. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers The analysis indicates that, with development code changes currently underway, Pasco has sufficient residential capacity within the existing UGA to accommodate its residential growth allocation. However, updated analysis of industrial employment capacity identifies a need for additional employment capacity. The March 10, 2026, draft LCA used an industrial employment density of 4.3 jobs per acre based on developed industrial land within Pasco. Subsequent review determined that recent and anticipated industrial development is increasingly characterized by large-footprint, land-intensive users. For example, the Darigold facility at the Reimann Industrial Center occupies approximately 137 acres and is anticipated to employ approximately 220 people at full operation, or approximately 1.6 jobs per acre. The revised LCA methodology therefore uses a blended industrial employment density assumption, with 10 percent of buildable industrial land developing at approximately 1.6 jobs per acre and the remaining 90 percent developing at approximately 4.3 jobs per acre. Under this revised methodology, modeled industrial employment capacity within the City decreases by approximately 331 jobs, from 4,515 to approximately 4,184 jobs. As a result, total employment capacity changes from approximately 144 jobs above the City's 2046 employment target to approximately 187 jobs below the target. This analysis establishes a demonstrated need for additional employment capacity and provides the basis for evaluating the two industrial UGA expansion applications currently under consideration by Franklin County. Background In response to Franklin County's June 3, 2026, request, the City reviewed the two formal industrial UGA expansion applications currently under consideration by the County: CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02. The applications propose separate expansions of Pasco's UGA for future industrial development. CPAM2025-01 – BFF LLC/Truax CPAM2025-01 proposes adding approximately 110 acres, identified as Parcel 124670056, to the Pasco UGA. The property is currently designated Rural Industrial and zoned I-2 General Industrial by Franklin County. The applicant describes the future vision for the property as a multi-business industrial park intended to accommodate small- to medium-sized businesses. The property is located north of and adjacent to the Reimann Industrial Center and near existing rail and transportation infrastructure. The applicant identifies improvements to Railroad Avenue, REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers proximity to BNSF rail facilities, nearby utility investments, and proximity to Pasco's growing residential areas as reasons supporting eventual inclusion within the UGA. The County requested additional information from the applicant regarding development anticipated during the 20-year planning horizon and why inclusion within the UGA is necessary rather than continued development under the property's existing County industrial designation. The County also noted the need for UGA expansion to be supported by the City's land capacity analysis and information demonstrating the need for additional industrial land. The applicant subsequently provided a revised narrative describing a general vision for a multi- business industrial park and identifying infrastructure and economic development benefits associated with UGA inclusion. However, unlike CPAM2025-02, the proposal does not currently have the same level of coordinated capital facilities planning with the City or available City utility infrastructure serving the proposed expansion area. While CPAM2025-01 may represent a potential future opportunity for industrial expansion, staff does not recommend its inclusion in the City's preferred UGA boundary at this time. The City's current capacity analysis identifies a specific industrial employment-capacity deficit, and the additional acreage proposed by CPAM2025-01 is not presently necessary to address that demonstrated shortfall when considered together with CPAM2025-02. Not recommending CPAM2025-01 during the current review does not foreclose future consideration of the property. The applicant may seek consideration during a future County Comprehensive Plan amendment or UGA review cycle when the County reopens the applicable amendment window and when additional industrial land needs or more specific development and infrastructure plans may be demonstrated. CPAM2025-02 – Port of Pasco North Reimann Industrial Center CPAM2025-02 was submitted by the Port of Pasco and proposes adding approximately 180 acres immediately north of the existing Reimann Industrial Center to the Pasco UGA. The property is currently designated Rural Industrial and zoned I-2 General Industrial by Franklin County. The proposal consists of three parcels: 124680038, 900022007, and 124680045. A portion of Parcel 124680038 is already located within the City of Pasco’s existing UGA, while the remaining property is located outside the current UGA boundary. The application identifies the intended Comprehensive Plan designation as Industrial and anticipated City zoning as I-2 Medium Industrial. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers The North Reimann property represents a continuation of an established master-planned industrial area and has a greater degree of development readiness. A 2019 master plan evaluated infrastructure needs and future development of the Reimann Industrial Center with the expectation that the northern portion would ultimately be incorporated into the City's urban area. The City and Port have also previously coordinated planning for the capital facilities necessary to support development of the Reimann Industrial Center. Utilities were planned and sized for buildout of the master-planned area, and City utilities have subsequently been extended along North Railroad Avenue to the existing UGA boundary and are available to support future development of the North Reimann area. The availability of infrastructure is an important distinction between the two proposals. CPAM2025-02 builds upon capital facilities and utility planning already undertaken by the City and Port and represents an orderly continuation of an existing industrial center rather than an area for which comparable urban infrastructure planning would still need to occur. The application also identifies proximity to major transportation and freight corridors, rail infrastructure, separation of industrial activity from residential areas, and adjacency to established industrial development as reasons supporting the expansion. Based on discussions with the Port, development of the approximately 180-acre North Reimann area is anticipated at approximately 1.6 jobs per acre, resulting in an estimated 288 industrial jobs. This exceeds the approximately 187-job capacity deficit identified through the City's revised LCA methodology. Impact (Other Than Fiscal) Establishing a preferred UGA boundary provides Franklin County with the City's policy recommendation regarding where future urban industrial growth should occur and responds to the County's request for a formal City position on the pending UGA applications. It is important to note that this action is limited to establishing the City's preferred UGA boundary for purposes of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan update and Franklin County's UGA application and adoption process. Inclusion of property within the UGA does not annex the property into the City of Pasco or otherwise change the City limits. Any future incorporation of the CPAM2025-02 area into the City would require a separate formal annexation process in accordance with applicable state and local requirements. At that time, the City would evaluate the proposed annexation, including the availability and extension REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers of utilities and public services, infrastructure and capital facility needs, fiscal impacts, and the overall feasibility of incorporating the area into the City. Until a future annexation is approved and becomes effective, the property will remain outside the City limits and under Franklin County jurisdiction. Supporting CPAM2025-02 at this time would provide additional industrial employment capacity adjacent to an established industrial center where the City and Port have already coordinated capital facilities planning and utilities are available to support future development. This allows the proposed UGA expansion to build upon existing public infrastructure investments and supports a logical and orderly pattern of future urban industrial growth. The Resolution itself would not annex the property or authorize development. Future development would remain subject to applicable annexation, land use, environmental, infrastructure, utility, and development requirements. The city intends to add this property to its Capital Facilities Plan as there is capacity to add this to system as shown in the infrastructure plans in the Port of Pasco application (Attachment 06). Discussion The primary question before the Planning Commission and City Council is which UGA expansion is presently justified by Pasco's demonstrated 20-year growth needs and represents the most logical and development-ready extension of the existing urban area. Franklin County has requested that the City identify its preferred UGA boundary and address, at a minimum, both formal industrial UGA expansion applications currently before the County. Accordingly, staff evaluated CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02 in relation to the City's updated land capacity analysis, anticipated employment growth, existing development patterns, capital facilities planning, infrastructure and utility availability, and the orderly extension of urban services. The City's revised LCA identifies an employment-capacity deficit of approximately 187 jobs. Staff therefore finds that some additional industrial capacity is warranted. However, the existence of an industrial capacity deficit does not necessarily support inclusion of every property proposed for UGA expansion. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers Staff recommend CPAM2025-02 because the North Reimann proposal most directly addresses the demonstrated capacity need while representing a logical continuation of an established industrial development pattern. The approximately 180-acre expansion: • Is immediately adjacent to the existing UGA and Reimann Industrial Center; • Was contemplated as part of the broader Reimann Industrial Center planning effort; • Has been the subject of prior coordinated capital facilities and infrastructure planning between the City and Port; • Has City utilities available to support future development; • Builds upon existing transportation, utility, and public infrastructure investments; • Is located near established industrial development, rail infrastructure, and major transportation and freight corridors; and • Is estimated to provide approximately 288 jobs, which is sufficient to address the approximately 187-job employment-capacity deficit currently identified by the City's analysis. These factors distinguish CPAM2025-02 from an expansion based primarily upon potential future industrial development. The North Reimann expansion has been contemplated through prior planning efforts, has infrastructure available, and has coordinated capital facilities planning already undertaken by the City and Port. Together, these factors support its inclusion as a logical and efficient extension of the existing UGA. CPAM2025-01 also possesses characteristics favorable to future industrial development, including proximity to the Reimann Industrial Center, rail facilities, roadway infrastructure, and other nearby investments. However, the proposal currently presents a more generalized future industrial development concept and does not have the same level of coordinated City capital facilities planning or available City utility infrastructure as CPAM2025-02. Additionally, once CPAM2025-02 is considered, the City's current LCA does not demonstrate a need for the additional approximately 110 acres proposed under CPAM2025-01 to meet Pasco's presently identified employment-capacity requirement. For these reasons, city staff recommends establishing a preferred UGA boundary that includes CPAM2025-02 but does not include CPAM2025-01 at this time. This approach addresses the City's demonstrated industrial capacity need with an area that is adjacent to existing urban industrial development, supported by prior capital facilities planning and available utilities, and represents an orderly extension of the existing industrial area. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers The recommendation does not constitute a determination that CPAM2025-01 is unsuitable for eventual inclusion within Pasco's UGA. Rather, staff find that its inclusion is not presently necessary to accommodate the City's demonstrated growth needs. The property may be considered during a future County Comprehensive Plan amendment or UGA review cycle when the County reopens the applicable amendment window and when future land capacity analysis, industrial growth, infrastructure planning, or a more defined development proposal demonstrates a need for additional industrial land. Recommendation Staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council approve, the proposed Resolution establishing the City's preferred future UGA boundary to include the approximately 180-acre CPAM2025-02 North Reimann Industrial Center expansion. Staff recommend CPAM2025-02 based upon the City's demonstrated industrial employment- capacity need, the site's relationship to the existing Reimann Industrial Center, prior coordinated capital facilities planning between the City and Port, availability of City utility infrastructure, and the estimated employment capacity provided by the expansion. Staff do not recommend inclusion of CPAM2025-01 within the preferred UGA boundary currently. This recommendation does not preclude consideration of CPAM2025-01 during a future County amendment or UGA review cycle when additional industrial capacity may be needed. Approval of the Resolution will provide Franklin County with the City's formal recommendation regarding the pending UGA expansion applications and the City's preferred future UGA boundary. Constraints (Time or Other Considerations) Franklin County's June 3, 2026 request was made in connection with the County's ongoing Growth Management Act periodic update and requested the City's preferred UGA boundary and supporting information. The City's recommendation must be provided in sufficient time for Franklin County to consider the preferred boundary as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and UGA update process. The City's review and recommendation should therefore be completed by the end of 2026. Additionally, the City's final LCA cannot be completed until the UGA boundary is established. The UGA boundary directly affects the land base evaluated through the LCA, as well as related Resolution - _____ - 1 Version 1.9.26 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE URBAN GROWTH AREA (UGA) AND DECLARING THE PREFERRED URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARY FOR THE CITY OF PASCO. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and Franklin County, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040, are required to fully plan under the Washington Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, each county required to plan under the Growth Management Act shall designate an Urban Growth Area or areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110; and WHEREAS, based upon growth projections and allocations, the County and each city within the County must plan for areas and densities sufficient to accommodate projected growth during the applicable planning period; and WHEREAS, counties and cities planning under the Growth Management Act shall ensure sufficient capacity for housing and employment growth pursuant to RCW 36.70A.115; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco continues to participate and plan under the Franklin County County-Wide Planning Policies, including policies relating to the establishment and modification of Urban Growth Areas; and WHEREAS, an Urban Growth Area should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have adequate existing public facilities and service capacities, and second in areas that can be adequately served by a combination of existing and additional public facilities and services, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110; and WHEREAS, as part of the City's 2026 Comprehensive Plan update, the City prepared a Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) to evaluate whether sufficient capacity exists to accommodate projected population, housing, and employment growth; and WHEREAS, the City's LCA remains in draft pending establishment of the final Urban Growth Area boundary because the adopted UGA boundary affects the land base and capacity evaluated through the LCA; and Resolution - _____ - 2 Version 1.9.26 WHEREAS, based upon development code amendments and other updates currently underway, the City's analysis indicates sufficient residential capacity within the existing Urban Growth Area to accommodate Pasco's allocated residential growth; and WHEREAS, the City's updated analysis of industrial employment capacity identifies a need for additional employment capacity to accommodate projected employment growth during the planning period; and WHEREAS, the March 10, 2026 draft LCA utilized an industrial employment density of approximately 4.3 jobs per acre based upon historically developed industrial lands within the City; and WHEREAS, subsequent analysis determined that recent and anticipated industrial development in Pasco includes large-footprint and land-intensive industrial users that may develop at lower employment densities than historically developed industrial lands; and WHEREAS, the City's revised analysis applies a blended industrial employment density assumption reflecting both historically observed industrial development and anticipated land-intensive industrial development patterns; and WHEREAS, under the revised analysis, the City's modeled industrial employment capacity is approximately 4,184 jobs, contributing to an estimated total employment capacity deficit of approximately 187 jobs relative to Pasco's employment growth target; and WHEREAS, Franklin County is currently considering two Comprehensive Plan amendment applications proposing expansion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area for industrial purposes, identified as CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02; and WHEREAS, CPAM2025-01 proposes inclusion of approximately 110 acres north of the existing Reimann Industrial Center for future industrial development; and WHEREAS, CPAM2025-01 is currently designated and zoned for industrial use by Franklin County, and the applicant has identified a future vision for development of the property as a multi-business industrial park; and WHEREAS, CPAM2025-02, submitted by the Port of Pasco, proposes inclusion of approximately 180 acres immediately north of the existing Reimann Industrial Center for continued industrial development; and Resolution - _____ - 3 Version 1.9.26 WHEREAS, the CPAM2025-02 property represents a logical continuation of the existing Reimann Industrial Center and an established industrial development pattern; and WHEREAS, planning for the Reimann Industrial Center contemplated future development of the northern area, and public infrastructure and utilities have been planned, sized, or extended to support continued industrial development in the area; and WHEREAS, the CPAM2025-02 property is strategically located near existing industrial development, transportation and freight corridors, rail infrastructure, and existing or planned urban utilities and services; and WHEREAS, the anticipated development of approximately 180 acres proposed under CPAM2025-02 at approximately 1.6 jobs per acre is estimated to provide capacity for approximately 288 additional industrial jobs; and WHEREAS, the estimated employment capacity associated with CPAM2025-02 is sufficient to address the approximately 187-job employment capacity deficit currently identified through the City's revised Land Capacity Analysis; and WHEREAS, while CPAM2025-01 may provide an opportunity for future industrial expansion, the City's current Land Capacity Analysis does not demonstrate a need for the additional approximately 110 acres proposed under CPAM2025-01 after consideration of the employment capacity provided by CPAM2025-02; and WHEREAS, the City finds that supporting CPAM2025-02 at this time appropriately responds to the City's demonstrated industrial employment capacity need while encouraging an orderly, efficient, and infrastructure-supported pattern of urban growth; and WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with and will be added to the final Capital Facilities Plan as part of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update; WHEREAS, the City's decision not to recommend inclusion of CPAM2025-01 at this time does not preclude future consideration of the property for inclusion within the Urban Growth Area should future land capacity analysis, employment growth, industrial development trends, or other changed circumstances demonstrate a need for additional industrial land; and Resolution - _____ - 4 Version 1.9.26 WHEREAS, the Pasco Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 17, 2026, regarding the City's preferred future Urban Growth Area boundary and recommended (TBD after Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 17, 2026) to the Pasco City Council; and WHEREAS, the Franklin County Board of Commissioners determines and adopts the final Urban Growth Area boundaries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON: That the City Council declares that the boundary and area identified in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is the City's preferred future Urban Growth Area boundary, and Be It Further Resolved, that the City Council recommends that Franklin County approve the approximately 180-acre Urban Growth Area expansion proposed under CPAM2025-02, Port of Pasco – North Reimann Industrial Center, and incorporate the area into the Pasco Urban Growth Area as generally depicted in Exhibit "A.", and Be It Further Resolved, based upon the City's currently demonstrated industrial employment capacity needs and the additional capacity anticipated through CPAM2025- 02, the City Council does not recommend inclusion of the approximately 110-acre area proposed under CPAM2025-01 within the Pasco Urban Growth Area at this time. Nothing in this Resolution precludes future consideration of the property should additional industrial land needs be demonstrated, and Be It Further Resolved, the City's final Land Capacity Analysis shall incorporate the Urban Growth Area boundary ultimately established by Franklin County. The City recognizes that modification of the UGA boundary affects the land base and related capacity analysis used in the City's Comprehensive Plan update, and Be It Further Resolved, this Resolution and Exhibit "A" shall be forwarded to Franklin County for consideration as part of the County's review and determination of the pending Urban Growth Area and Comprehensive Plan amendment applications, and Be It Further Resolved, that this resolution shall take effect immediately. Resolution - _____ - 5 Version 1.9.26 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, on this ____ day of ________________, 20__. Charles Grimm Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ ___________________________ Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC City Clerk City Attorney City Clerk M el od y L n N R o a d 3 6 W V i n e y a r d D r N R a i l r o a d A v e C l a r k R d R o a d 3 6 N R a i l r o a d A v e N G l a d e R d 395 395 395 395 C W i l l i a m s R d ² Proposed location of UGA expansion Date 8/6/2026 Legend Proposed UGA Parcels City Limits Urban Growth Areas Location of proposed UGA Expansion SITE LOCATION City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 1 DRAFT June 2026 CITY OF PASCO LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS DRAFT June 2026 | Prepared by BERK Consulting BERK is preparing a land capacity analysis (LCA) for the City of Pasco to assess whether there is sufficient land within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) to accommodate the City’s adopted 2046 population and housing targets as well as anticipated job growth. The purpose of the LCA is to estimate the amount of housing and jobs that may be developed in the study area, subject to adopted or proposed land use policies and development regulations, and estimate the total growth that can likely be supported. The LCA evaluates current land use, applicable site constraints, and local housing market trends to determine the amount of land available for development in the UGA. Permitted residential densities and other development standards for each zoning designation are applied to the developable land supply to calculate housing unit capacity by zone. The estimated capacity by zone is then compared to the City’s adopted housing targets by income level based on allowed density levels, housing types, and potential income levels served. Population capacity is estimated by multiplying the existing vacancy rate by housing unit capacity and then multiplying by the average household size in the UGA. Employment capacity is estimated by considering the amount of land available for commercial and industrial development and comparing it to existing employees per acre. This process is described in greater detail in the following sections. GROWTH TARGETS Population and housing growth targets over the 20-year planning period in Franklin County are developed by the County and Cities within. In 2025, the County and Cities developed population projections for the incorporated and unincorporated areas based on the State’s 2022 Medium projection. The agreed upon population forecast is summarized in Exhibit 1, including a projected population of 117,354 in the City of Pasco and 3,936 residents in the unincorporated UGA by 2046 (or 35,986 new residents in the full Pasco UGA by 2046). Exhibit 1. Franklin County 20-Year Population Projection and Distribution (2024–2046) Jurisdiction 2024 Population Projected 2046 Population Projected Growth (2024-2046) Connell City 5,175 6,046 871 Unincorporated UGA 74 60 -14 Kahlotus City 145 128 -17 Unincorporated UGA 10 9 -1 Mesa City 400 336 -64 Unincorporated UGA — — — Pasco City 82,220 117,354 35,134 Unincorporated UGA 3,084 3,936 852 Unincorporated County Rural 11,192 15,864 4,672 Total 102,300 143,732 41,432 Sources: OFM, 2025; City of Pasco; 2025; Franklin County, 2025; BERK, 2025. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 2 DRAFT June 2026 In 2021, the WA State Legislature passed House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), which amends the Growth Management Act (GMA) to require the housing element of comprehensive plans to include explicit consideration of capacity to meet housing needs for extremely-low to moderately low-income households, permanent supportive housing (PSH), emergency housing and shelters, and duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes.1 The City of Pasco’s housing growth targets overall and by income band are summarized in Exhibit 2 as set in the Franklin County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). About half of new units are needed at the lowest end of the a]ordability spectrum (less than or equal to 80% AMI). A total of 3,588 units in city limits and 84 units in the UGA are needed for households earning 30% AMI or less, including 1,791 units in city limits and 42 units in the UGA of permanent supportive housing that include wrap- around services for people who need support to maintain residency. Emergency housing targets are in addition to permanent supportive housing. Exhibit 2. Pasco UGA Adopted Housing Growth Targets (2020–2046) Total Housing Need 0-30% AMI >30 to ≤50% AMI >50 to ≤80% AMI >80 to ≤100% AMI >100 to ≤120% AMI >120% AMI Emergency Housing Beds Non-PSH PSH City: 18,831 1,797 1,791 2,454 3,431 1,783 1,581 5,994 153 UGA: 438 42 42 57 80 41 37 139 4 Total: 19,269 1,839 1,833 2,511 3,511 1,824 1,618 6,133 157 Legend: PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing; AMI = Area Median Income. Notes: While additional units have been built since 2020, the affordability level of those units is unknown at this time. These units have therefore not been deducted from the overall target to ensure the analysis doesn’t imply less remaining need than actually exists. Emergency housing includes emergency housing and shelter and is in addition to permanent housing needs. Source: City of Pasco, 2025; Franklin County, 2025. The County and City of Pasco do not adopt formal employment growth targets. However, the Franklin County CPPs require the City to plan for su_cient land supply for industrial and commercial development. Most employment growth in the county is planned in the City of Pasco and in unincorporated areas. The agreed upon employment forecast of 16,046 new jobs expects most employment growth to be in the City of Pasco or across unincorporated areas throughout Franklin County, including an additional 12,997 jobs in the City of Pasco by 2046. As of 2022, the US Census Bureau’s OnTheMap tool estimates there were 25,033 jobs in Pasco, including 1,222 jobs in natural resource based sectors (agriculture, mining, etc.), 16,676 jobs in commercial sectors, 6,477 jobs in industrial sectors, and 658 jobs in public administration.2 Based on estimated employment growth, there would be an estimated total of 38,030 jobs in the city by 2046. 1 HB 1220 Guidance for Evaluating Land Capacity to Meet All Housing Needs. 2 US Census Bureau, OnTheMap (LEHD, Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, All Jobs), 2022. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 3 DRAFT June 2026 LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY To estimate capacity, the following methodology is used: • Step 1: Identify land available for development within the existing Pasco city limits and UGA. o Identify vacant and underutilized land capable of supporting future development. o Subtract lands unavailable for development . o Summarize net available acreage by zoning designation. • Step 2: Calculate net housing and job development capacity. • Step 3: Calculate capacity for emergency housing beds. The LCA does not take into consideration potential prohibiting and/or limiting factors of growth that can include the lack of infrastructure, utilities, and access in areas of the city and UGA. STEP 1: IDENTIFY LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT Identify Lands Capable of Supporting Future Development The LCA includes all parcels within the Pasco UGA. From a practical perspective, this means that all lands within tax lots identified by the Franklin County Assessor’s O_ce that fall within the UGA are inventoried. BERK used the tax lot shapefile (Parcels.shp) obtained from Franklin County in August 2025 for the analysis. The inventory then builds from the tax lot-level database to estimates of buildable land by zone. Any duplicate polygons or records were removed, including overlapping condominium polygons. Based on the County’s GIS parcel database, Franklin County Assessor property records, and pipeline development information supplied by the City, each parcel in the study area is classified according to its development status per Exhibit 3. These categories are also consistent with the Benton County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs). After applying these rules, a visual survey of the results and staff review of the classification was used to confirm the results are accurate based on what is on the ground and local knowledge. All tax lots in the UGA are ultimately classified into one of the categories in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3. Development Status Definitions Development Status Definition Undevelopable: Easements, Tracts, Publicly Owned, and Tax-Exempt Properties Lands in public ownership or otherwise dedicated to public use are unlikely to be available for development and should be excluded from the land supply. These parcels are classified as Undevelopable and considered unavailable to support future growth and development. This includes lands with and without public zoning (for example, schools are sometimes zoned residential but still considered unlikely to redevelop for purposes of the land capacity analysis). Examples include parks, land owned by public service providers (e.g., governments, school districts, utility providers, etc.), and land and designated as open space under RCW 84.34. These parcels were selected using the exempt field code and ownership field and use code included within the attribute table of the parcel GIS (see also Exhibit 4). Pipeline Pipeline parcels are known projects anticipated to be developed in the near future, but no land use records exist of the improvement. These developments contribute to expected growth in the UGA over the planning period and are thus included as capacity. City staff provided a list of pipeline residential and commercial development projects and the associated parcels for each anticipated in the next 3 years. Vacant Vacant land is property with no significant improvements (i.e., parcels classified by the Assessor as “vacant” or with an assessed improvement value of no more than $500, not including lands that are identified as having manufactured homes). City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 4 DRAFT June 2026 Development Status Definition Underdeveloped Land is considered Underdeveloped if significant improvements are present, but the property could support additional or more intense development that its current use. Underdeveloped lands include: Partially Used: Land developed at a low residential density compared to what is allowed by development regulations (e.g., a property large enough to be subdivided into additional lots that could support new housing). Parcels in Low Density Residential zones (R-T, R-S- 20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-1-A, and R-1-A2 city zones and all relevant County residential zones) are considered underdeveloped if they are at least three times the minimum lot size. Underutilized: Properties with a low assessed improvement value relative to the assessed value of the land. This includes parcels in Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Non-residential zones (where multifamily, commercial, or industrial uses are allowed) with an assessed improvement to land value ratio (ILR) less than 0.5. Developed Land is considered Developed if it includes significant improvements and has no additional space for development. All land not identified as Exempt, Pipeline, Vacant or Underdeveloped, as defined above, fall into this category. Sources: Commerce Urban Growth Area Guidebook, May 2025 Draft; City of Pasco, 2025; BERK, 2025. In total, 757 parcels with an estimated sum of 7,981 acres were considered undevelopable. See Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5. Exhibit 4. Exempt and Undevelopable Parcels in the Pasco UGA Owner Parcels Acres City of Pasco 120 602 Port of Pasco 68 2,894 Pasco School District 42 593 BNSF Railway 39 290 US/Army Corps of Engineers/Bonneville Power Administration 42 635 Franklin County Housing Authority 40 57 Franklin County Irrigation District 7 26 Franklin County (Other) 36 131 State of Washington (Dept. of Natural Resources) 20 1,683 State of Washington (WSDOT, Others) 25 112 Confederated Tribes of Colville 4 199 Columbia Basin College 4 139 Religious Organization 88 143 Medical Facility 12 5 All Others (Exempt) 103 113 All Others (Undevelopable) 107 359 Total 757 parcels 7,981 acres Source: Franklin County Assessor, 2025; BERK, 2025. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 5 DRAFT June 2026 Exhibit 5. Geographic Distribution of Undevelopable Parcels in the Pasco UGA Source: Franklin County Assessor, 2025; City of Pasco, 2025; BERK, 2025. Subtract Lands Unavailable for Development Some land that otherwise meets the above criteria to be classified as Vacant or Underdeveloped will not be capable of supporting development due to unsuitable site conditions or environmentally critical areas. Critical areas listed in Exhibit 6 were identified using GIS and overlain on the land supply parcel base from Step 1. The portions of each parcel covered by the critical area thresholds in Exhibit 6 are considered unbuildable and thus deducted from the parcel’s gross acreage to determine net buildable area. Exhibit 6. Development Constraints in Environmentally Critical Areas Constraint Threshold File Name Wetlands1 Identified wetland areas with 80-foot buffer WetlandsRiparian City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 6 DRAFT June 2026 Constraint Threshold File Name Critical fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas2 Identified habitat areas with 50-foot buffer (80- foot buffer used in LCA analysis, see footnote) WetlandsRiparian Flood hazard areas3 Lands within FEMA FIRM frequently flooded areas FEMA Floodplain Geologically hazardous areas4 Identified erosion and landslide hazard areas with 30-foot buffer SteepSlope Notes: Aquifer recharge areas (PMC 29.25.050) are also mapped in the city. Aquifer recharge areas include additional requirements for development but do not preclude most residential, commercial, or industrial development from occurring (unless there are hazardous substances, disposal of on-site sewage, or landfills) and are thus not removed from the parcel base. 1 Most non-residential and residential uses above 1 unit/acre (consistent with residential densities generally allowed in Pasco’s zoning) are considered high impact uses that would require a buffer of between 50 to 250 feet depending on the wetland category (PMC 29.25.030). The City expects most mapped wetland are Category III or IV with less than a moderate level of function for habitat, requiring a buffer of between 50-80 feet depending on the land use. This land capacity analysis assumes an 80-foot buffer for all other mapped wetlands, consistent with a high intensity land use. Where lands adjacent to a wetland display a continuous slope of 25% or greater, the buffer shall include such sloping areas. Where the horizontal distance of the sloping area is greater than the required standard buffer, the buffer shall be extended to a point 25 feet beyond the top of the bank of the sloping area. 2 Riparian habitat areas: For the protection of habitat along rivers, the buffer widths provided in Table 29.15.020(2), Shoreline Development Standards Matrix, apply. Most non-residential and residential uses would require a 50-foot buffer, except for Urban Conservancy areas, where a 75-foot buffer is required. Wetland and riparian areas were provided in one combined GIS layer so a more conservative 80-foot buffer was used for both wetlands and riparian areas in this analysis. 3 Flood hazard areas include floodways, special flood hazard areas, and floodplains. The approximate location and extent of frequently flooded areas are shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) prepared for the City of Pasco and Franklin County by FEMA, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (PMC 29.25.060). PMC Title 16, Buildings and Construction, and Chapter 24.20 PMC, Flood Hazard Protection, regulate proposed activities in all areas of special flood hazards. Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study (FIS), FIRM, or from another authoritative source (PMC 24.16.050), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding (PCM 24.20.060). 4 Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas: A minimum standard buffer width of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe, and all edges of landslide and erosion hazard areas. Volcanic Hazards: The GMA requires that volcanic hazards be addressed in local critical area regulations. However, since no volcanic hazards exist in the City area, no volcanic hazards regulations are needed. Sources: City of Pasco, 2026; BERK, 2026. In addition to the site-level constraints identified above (undevelopable parcels and critical areas), some portion of the buildable land supply is assumed to remain unavailable for development due to a variety of factors. These are represented as a series of deduction factors, which are applied sequentially to the total net buildable area for each zoning designation. • Unavailable land factor (market factor)—15% of Vacant and 20% of Underdeveloped land is assumed to remain undeveloped during the planning period due to title disputes, encumbrances, and property owner discretion. • Infrastructure factor—20% of remaining Vacant and Underdeveloped land is deducted to account for new road rights-of-way, utility corridors, landfills, sewage treatment plants, parks, schools, and other public uses necessary to serve housing and population growth.3 Recent residential development has varied below 20% while central Pasco has higher ROW totals (up to 28%). This LCA uses a combined 20% infrastructure factor to incorporate a balanced approach for future development considerate of a more refined transportation (grid) pattern as well as additional public facilities. 3 RCW 36.70A.150, 2025. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 7 DRAFT June 2026 Summarize Net Available Acreage by Zoning Designation After applying all application exclusions and deductions described above, the remaining net buildable acreage is summarized by zoning designation and development classification (Vacant/Underdeveloped). This represents the total land area available to accommodate future growth in the study area. Exhibit 7 summarizes the net developable acreage by zoning designation. Exhibit 7. Existing Net Developable Area by LCA Development Status and Zone in the Pasco UGA Zone LCA Type Net Acres Market Factor Deduction Infrastructure Factor Deduction Net Buildable Acres City Zoning BP Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% C-1 Vacant 258.18 acres 15% 20% 208.41 acres Underutilized 51.32 acres 20% C-2 Vacant 0.24 acres 15% 20% 0.45 acres Underutilized 0.45 acres 20% C-3 Vacant 145.19 acres 15% 20% 155.97 acres Underutilized 89.45 acres 20% C-R Vacant 28.12 acres 15% 20% 19.65 acres Underutilized 0.83 acres 20% I-1 Vacant 866.19 acres 15% 20% 652.22 acres Underutilized 98.77 acres 20% I-2 Vacant 536.85 acres 15% 20% 388.34 acres Underutilized 36.38 acres 20% I-3 Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% O Vacant 2.01 acres 15% 20% 2.13 acres Underutilized 1.19 acres 20% MU Vacant 4.76 acres 15% 20% 3.24 acres Underutilized — 20% R-4 Vacant 23.40 acres 15% 20% 68.87 acres Underutilized 82.75 acres 20% R-3 Vacant 202.78 acres 15% 20% 140.13 acres Underutilized 3.50 acres 20% R-3/PUD Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% R-2 Vacant 11.92 acres 15% 20% 14.47 acres Underutilized 9.95 acres 20% R-1 Vacant 797.23 acres 15% 20% 699.77 acres Partially Used 246.34 acres 20% R-1/PUD Vacant 1.85 acres 15% 20% 1.92 acres Partially Used 1.04 acres 20% City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 8 DRAFT June 2026 Zone LCA Type Net Acres Market Factor Deduction Infrastructure Factor Deduction Net Buildable Acres R-1-A Vacant 6.51 acres 15% 20% 5.36 acres Partially Used 1.46 acres 20% R-1-A2 Vacant 0.50 acres 15% 20% 0.34 acres Partially Used — 20% R-S-1 Vacant 27.05 acres 15% 20% 21.86 acres Partially Used 5.41 acres 20% R-S-1/PUD Vacant 17.27 acres 15% 20% 12.89 acres Partially Used 1.80 acres 20% R-S-12 Vacant 42.14 acres 15% 20% 124.05 acres Partially Used 149.05 acres 20% R-S-20 Vacant 117.24 acres 15% 20% 270.63 acres Partially Used 298.30 acres 20% R-T Vacant 519.11 acres 15% 20% 710.35 acres Partially Used 558.36 acres 20% RP Vacant — 15% 20% 19.24 acres Partially Used 30.07 acres 20% City Zoning—Broadmoor Overlay Commercial/ C-1 Vacant 98.16 acres 15% 20% 66.75 acres Underutilized — 20% Mixed R-C/ C-1 Vacant 57.91 acres 15% 20% 39.38 acres Underutilized — 20% Mixed R-C/ MU Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% MDR/R-4 Vacant 6.04 acres 15% 20% 4.11 acres Underutilized — 20% MDR/R-3 Vacant 63.75 acres 15% 20% 43.35 acres Underutilized — 20% MDR/R-2 Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% LDR/R-1 Vacant 109.22 acres 15% 20% 74.32 acres Partially Used 0.08 acres 20% R-T Vacant 419.04 acres 15% 20% 284.95 acres Partially Used — 20% County Zoning (UGA) C-1 Vacant 0.03 acres 15% 20% 6.5 acres Underutilized 10.12 acres 20% C-2 Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% Vacant 320.92 acres 15% 20% 251.86 acres City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 9 DRAFT June 2026 Zone LCA Type Net Acres Market Factor Deduction Infrastructure Factor Deduction Net Buildable Acres I-2 Underutilized 52.55 acres 20% I-3 Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% O Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% RS-20 Vacant 126.87 acres 15% 20% 324.03 acres Partially Used 371.50 acres 20% RS-40 Vacant 35.90 acres 15% 20% 60.02 acres Partially Used 55.63 acres 20% RR-1 Vacant 19.63 acres 15% 20% 16.67 acres Partially Used 5.19 acres 20% RR-5 Vacant 1.15 acres 15% 20% 0.79 acres Partially Used — 20% R-T Vacant 0.44 acres 15% 20% 0.30 acres Partially Used — 20% AP-20 Vacant 72.67 acres 15% 20% 49.42 acres Partially Used — 20% County Zoning (UGA)—Broadmoor C-1 Vacant — 15% 20% 3.96 acres Underutilized 6.19 acres 20% MU Vacant — 15% 20% — Underutilized — 20% RS-20 Vacant 30.09 acres 15% 20% 37.44 acres Partially Used 26.54 acres 20% R-T Vacant 138.69 acres 15% 20% 135.23 acres Partially Used 63.94 acres 20% Sources: Commerce Urban Growth Area Guidebook, May 2025 Draft; PMC Title 25, 2025; Franklin County Code Title 17; City of Pasco, 2026; BERK, 2026. STEP 2: CALCULATE NET HOUSING UNIT & JOB DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY Estimated housing unit capacity is calculated by multiplying the maximum allowed residential densities for each zoning designation by the net available acreage in that zone. This results in a gross housing unit capacity for each zone. To determine net housing unit capacity, existing housing units in each zone are subtracted from the gross capacity (existing housing units by parcel are based on the assessor’s existing land use code).4 4 Existing housing units in the city and unincorporated UGA by parcel are unknown at this time. For the purposes of this analysis, underdeveloped parcels zoned for residential are assigned an existing housing unit value based on their assessor land use code (one existing unit on parcels coded as “(11) Residential – Single Family, (18) Residential – All other, or (15) Residential – City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 10 DRAFT June 2026 Capacity to add ADUs and middle housing infill is also accounted for on lots with existing single-family development in residential zones that are not big enough to subdivide and redevelop at a higher density (e.g., classified as developed; see Exhibit 3). This analysis assumes existing single-family lots in the mixed use and residential zones between 1.5–3 the minimum lot size could add one ADU and, consistent with Commerce guidance, that 5% of eligible lots would add an ADU based on local market factors.5 Similarly, this analysis assumes another 5% of existing single-family lots between 1.5–3 the minimum lot size in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones would add a middle housing unit (infill). Estimated job development capacity is calculated by multiplying existing employees per acre by net available acreage in each commercial and industrial zone. The existing number of employees in commercial and industrial sectors, taken from the most recent LEHD data available for the City of Pasco, is divided by the total acres of developed commercial and industrial lands from the step above to determine existing commercial employees and existing industrial employees per acre. These are then multiplied by the net available acreage in commercial and industrial zones to determine gross job capacity in commercial and industrial areas. Note that site level data for existing jobs is not available—as such, this estimate of job capacity may be overestimating net capacity by zone as existing jobs are not subtracted from the gross capacity by zone. STEP 3: CALCULATE CAPACITY FOR EMERGENCY HOUSING BEDS According to Commerce guidance, emergency housing can be provided in the form of either a congregate shelter that provides indoor overnight accommodations or temporary housing units. In either case, they must provide housing/shelter for individuals or families that are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Furthermore, Commerce guidance for Housing Elements states that “emergency housing needs may be met through a number of di]erent housing types. Emergency housing may include, but is not limited to, traditional shelter arrangements, hotel rooms, tiny home villages or short-term apartments. Regardless of the housing type…the facility must be indoors and allow for access to personal hygiene facilities (e.g., a restroom), meeting the requirements for shelter or other facility types based on current Washington Shelter Guidelines …”6 Per guidance from Commerce, land included in the general residential land capacity analysis may also be counted as land for the emergency housing land capacity analysis. This is allowed to avoid double- counting housing needs that would be accommodated if the jurisdiction were successful at providing for all permanent housing needs.7 For all zones in which emergency housing use types are allowed by right, the amount of vacant and underdeveloped land is multiplied by the estimated density of emergency housing that could reasonably develop in Pasco. The analysis assumes one bed per unit (the most conservative estimate) to estimate capacity for emergency housing. The assumed reasonable density of emergency housing is based on examples provided by Commerce and on existing emergency housing facilities in Pasco and other similar communities. Mobile Home Park,” two existing units on parcels coded as “(12) Residential – 2-4 units,” and five existing units on parcels coded as “(13) Residential – Multiunits”). Parcels with the existing use code “(16) Residential – Hotels/Motels” are not considered as existing permanent housing and therefore not deducted as existing units. Parcels with the existing use code “(17) Residential – Institutional Lodging” are considered undevelopable as they include adult family homes, rehabilitation centers, emergency housing, and other public housing unlikely to redevelop. 5 A total of 32 ADUs were constructed in Pasco between 2010–2024, representing less than 1% of all residential units constructed. However, most of these (25) were constructed in the last two years (2023–2024) indicating a gradual increase in ADU production trends. Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element (p.27), 2023; PMC 25.161.020, 2025; OFM, 2025. 6 Commerce, Establishing Housing Targets for Your Community, updated September 2023, pg. 21-22, 43. 7 Commerce, Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element, updated September 2024, pg. 46. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 11 DRAFT June 2026 EXISTING LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS STEP 1: CLASSIFY ZONES BY ALLOWED DENSITY LEVEL & HOUSING TYPE & RELATE TO POTENTIAL INCOME LEVELS SERVED. Di]erent housing types are more suitable for meeting housing needs at di]erent income/a]ordability levels due in part to significant di]erences in land and construction costs per unit. In this step, each zone is classified based on the type of housing most likely to be constructed within it, assuming that the full capacity for development is used in the future. Exhibit 8 presents di]erent zone categories as well as the lowest level of income that can feasibly be served assuming new housing is either market-rate or a subsidized a]ordable housing project. The categories and resulting a]ordability assumptions used for the capacity analysis are consistent with Commerce’s guidance for updating housing elements in moderate- cost communities and housing market conditions in Pasco. The exhibit shows that some housing types are more appropriate for meeting lower income housing needs than other types. Exhibit 8. Residential Zone Categories and Potential Income Levels Served in the Pasco UGA Zone Category Definition Income Level Served Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis Market Rate With Subsidies Mid-rise Multifamily Apartments, condominiums (4-8 floors or ~40-85 feet in height) Low income (>50- 80% AMI) Extremely-low and very- low income (0-50% AMI) Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH Low-rise Multifamily Walk-up apartments, condominiums (2-3-floors) Low income (>50- 80% AMI) Extremely-low and very- low income (0-50% AMI) Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH Moderate Density Small format multifamily housing types such as townhomes, duplex, triplex, or quadplex—also known as “middle housing” Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Not typically feasible at scale. Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Low Density Detached single family homes Higher income (>120% AMI) Not typically feasible at scale. Higher income (>120% AMI) ADU Accessory dwelling units associated with a detached single-family home Low income (>50- 80% AMI) N/A Low income (>50-80% AMI)— group with low-rise and mid-rise multifamily Note: Adapted from Commerce’s Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element (Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 12), revised 2024. Sources: City of Pasco, 2025; BERK, 2025. Exhibit 9 summarizes the types of housing and allowed residential densities of zones used in the existing capacity analysis and assigns each a zone category and resulting a]ordability level per Exhibit 8. Exhibit 9. Residential Zone Classifications and Potential Income Levels Served in the Pasco UGA Zone Typical Housing Types Allowed1 Density/Min. Lot Size Assigned Zone Category Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis City Zoning C-1, C-2, C-3 Single family, duplex/triplex, multifamily (4+)—conditional uses in C-1, permitted outright in C-2 and C- 3 Units must be in a mixed-use building and above ground floor No density or min lot size defined in code, assume same density as MU zone Mid-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH MU Single family, duplex/triplex, multifamily (4+), ADUs2 Allowed density: 5–29 du/ac Min density: 7 du/net ac (14 du/net ac at Osprey Pointe)3 Mid-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 12 DRAFT June 2026 Zone Typical Housing Types Allowed1 Density/Min. Lot Size Assigned Zone Category Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis Osprey Pointe limitations: single family detached (allowed west of S Maitland Ave), duplexes and triplexes (allowed east of the extension of S Maitland Ave but no further than 500’ east of S Oregon Ave), and multifamily 4+ (allowed no further than 500’ east of S Oregon Ave). See PMC 25.127.020(2). Min lot size: 1,000 sqft for SFDU, 1,500 for duplex/triplex, none for multifamily R-4 Single family, duplex/triplex, multifamily (4+), manufactured homes, ADUs2 Allowed density: 6–21 du/ac Min lot size: 2,000 sqft for SFDU, 1,250 sqft for SFAU, 2,500 sqft for duplex/triplex, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Low-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH R-34 Allowed density: 6–20 du/ac Min lot size: 2,500 sqft for SFDU, 1,500 sqft for SFAU, 3,000 sqft for duplex/triplex, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) R-3/PUD4 Same as R-1, except: Allowed density: 12-20 du/acre Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) R-24 Allowed density: 6–20 du/ac Min lot size: 3,000 sqft for SFDU, 2,000 sqft for SFAU, 4,000 sqft for duplex/triplex, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) R-1 Allowed density: 3–6 du/ac Min lot size: 4,000 sqft for SFDU, 3,500 sqft for SFAU, 5,000 sqft for duplex/triplex, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-1/PUD Same as R-1, except: Allowed density: 5-7 du/acre Min site area: 2 acres Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) R-1-A Single family, manufactured homes, ADUs2 Allowed density: 3–6 du/ac Min lot size: 7,200 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-1-A2 R-S-1 Single family, duplex/triplex, multifamily (4+), courtyard apartments, manufactured homes, ADUs2 Allowed density: 3–6 du/ac Max density: 3 units/lot Min lot size: 10,000 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-S-1/PUD Allowed density: 5-7 du/acre Min lot size: 10,000 sqft Min site area: 2 acres R-S-12 Single family, duplex/triplex, multifamily (4+), manufactured homes, ADUs2 Allowed density: 3–6 du/ac Max density: 3 units/lot Min lot size: 12,000 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-S-20 Single family, manufactured homes, ADUs2 Min lot size: 20,000 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-T Single family, manufactured homes, ADUs2 Min lot size: 5 acres Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 13 DRAFT June 2026 Zone Typical Housing Types Allowed1 Density/Min. Lot Size Assigned Zone Category Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis RP Manufactured home parks, ADUs2 Min park size: 5 acres Allowed Density: 6-20 du/acre Min lot size: 5,000 sqft (min lot size results in max density of ~8.7 du/ac) Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) City Zoning—Broadmoor Overlay Commercial Multifamily (4+)—conditional Density maximums of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply Units must be in a mixed-use building and above ground floor No density or min lot size defined in code, assume same density as Mixed R-C in Broadmoor Mid-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH Mixed R-C Townhome/row house, duplex/triplex/fourplex, cottage housing, courtyard housing (4-12 units), live/work, multifamily (4+), ADUs2 Density maximums of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply Min density for residential portion of the site: 21 du/ac Min 20% of site for residential and 20% for commercial/non-residential Mid-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH MDR Single family, townhome/row house, duplex/triplex/fourplex, cottage housing, courtyard housing (4-12 units), live/work, multifamily (4+), manufactured homes, ADUs2 Underlying zone R-4 Allowed density: 6–29 du/ac Min lot size: 2,000 sqft for SFDU, 1,500 sqft for townhome/row house, duplex/triplex/fourplex, or cottage/courtyard housing, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Low-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH Underlying zone R-3 Allowed density: 6–29 du/ac Min lot size: 3,000 sqft for SFDU, 2,000 sqft for townhome/row house or duplex/triplex/fourplex, 1,800 sqft for cottage/courtyard housing, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Underlying zone R-2 Allowed density: 6–29 du/ac Min lot size: 5,000 sqft for SFDU, 3,000 sqft for townhome/row house, 2,500 sqft for duplex/triplex/fourplex, 2,000 sqft for cottage/courtyard housing, multifamily depends on site design & parking requirements Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) LDR Single family, townhome/row house, duplex/triplex/fourplex, cottage housing, courtyard housing (4-12 units), manufactured homes, ADUs2 Underlying zone R-1 (see R-1 above) Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) County Zoning (UGA) C-1, C-2 Multifamily—conditional Units must be in a mixed-use building and above ground floor in C-1 No density or min lot size defined, assume same density as City’s MU zone Low-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 14 DRAFT June 2026 Zone Typical Housing Types Allowed1 Density/Min. Lot Size Assigned Zone Category Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis RS-20 Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/20,000 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) RS-40 Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/40,000 sqft Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) RR-1 Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/acre Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) RR-5 Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/5 acres Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) R-T Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/5 acres Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) AP-20 Single family, ADUs2 Min lot size: 1 du/20 acres Low Density Higher income (>120% AMI) Note: du/ac = dwelling units per acre; sqft = square feet; SFDU = single family detached; SFAU = single family attached. Per PMC 25.22.020, multifamily attached includes apartments, stacked flats, and condos and multifamily detached includes cottage housing. 1 Housing types from Pasco’s Municipal Code are slightly simplified or summarized in this exhibit to best convey and compare the typical residential uses allowed in each zone for purposes of the LCA. 2 Per PMC 25.161.020, one attached or one detached ADU is allowed per lot in all of the City’s residential zoning districts and it must be accessory to a single-family residence. Per FCC 17.66.050 and FCC 17.66.060, one attached or detached ADU is permitted per single-family dwelling in all of the County’s single-family districts—detached ADUs are only allowed on residential lots at least 2 acres in size. 3 Net acre excludes infrastructure, such as roads, utility easements, stormwater infrastructure, and excludes critical areas, and applies to the entire Osprey Pointe rather than to individual developments. 4 A density increase is allowed above the base densities listed here in the R-2 and R-3 residential districts per PMC 25.155. Developers are allowed an increased density if they voluntarily incorporate architectural creativity, site and aesthetic considerations in the design of residential developments that achieve a more efficient site plan, result in a physical development which blends more favorably or harmoniously with neighboring uses, uses within the vicinity, and increase the quality of the living environment for its future residents. In the R-2 district, minimum lot area requirements may be reduced a maximum of 1,400 sqft, from 5,000 sqft/du to 3,600 sqft/du. In the R-3 district, minimum lot area requirements may be reduced to a maximum of 1,000 sqft, from 3,000 sqft/du to 2,000 sqft/du. Sources: PMC Title 25, 2025; Franklin County Code Title 17; City of Pasco, 2026; BERK, 2026. STEP 2: SUMMARIZE LAND CAPACITY FOR HOUSING & JOBS BY ZONE. Vacant/Underdeveloped Capacity Exhibit 10 summarize results of the capacity analysis for residential, commercial, and industrial zones in the Pasco UGA based on existing zoning and the methodology outlined above. Assumed residential densities are detailed in Step 1 and Exhibit 9 above. Assumed commercial and industrial job densities are based on 2022 LEHD employment statistics for the City of Pasco (16,676 commercial employees and 7,699 industrial employees) and total existing developed commercial (922 acres) and industrial land (1,775 acres) in city limits.8 Exhibit 11 maps the geographic distribution of vacant and underdeveloped parcels by assumed type of development across the city and unincorporated UGA. 8 Industrial jobs used to calculate existing job densities include 1,222 jobs in natural resource based sectors and 6,477 jobs in industrial sectors as the City’s zoning would allow these types of jobs in existing industrial zones. US Census Bureau, OnTheMap (LEHD, Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, All Jobs), 2022; Franklin County, 2025; BERK, 2025. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 15 DRAFT June 2026 Exhibit 10. Existing Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Capacity by Zone in the Pasco UGA Zone Assumed Type of Development Net Buildable Acres1 Assumed Density2 Gross Unit/ Job Capacity Existing Units on Underdeveloped Land3 Net DU Capacity ADU Capacity Infill Capacity City Zones BP 100% Commercial — 18.1 jobs/ac — — — — — C-1 90% Commercial 187.57 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 3,394 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 20.84 acres 29 du/ac 604 units 8 units 596 units — — C-2 90% Commercial 0.41 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 7 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 0.05 acres 29 du/ac 1 unit — 1 unit — — C-3 90% Commercial 140.38 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 2,540 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 15.60 acres 29 du/ac 452 units 4 units 448 units — — C-R 100% Commercial 19.65 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 356 jobs — — — — I-1 100% Industrial 652.22 acres 4.3 jobs/ac 2,830 jobs — — — — I-2 100% Industrial 388.34 acres 4.3 jobs/ac 1,685 jobs — — — — I-3 100% Industrial — 4.3 jobs/ac — — — — — O 100% Commercial 2.13 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 38 jobs — — — — MU 50% Commercial 1.62 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 29 jobs — — — — 50% Residential 1.62 acres 29 du/ac 47 units — 47 units — — R-4 100% Residential 68.87 acres 21 du/ac 1,446 units 6 units 1,440 units 3 ADUs — R-3 100% Residential 140.13 acres 20 du/ac 2,803 units 12 units 2,791 units 27 ADUs 27 units R-3/PUD 100% Residential — 20 du/ac — — — — — R-2 100% Residential 14.47 acres 20 du/ac 289 units 10 units 279 units 25 ADUs 25 units R-1 100% Residential 699.77 acres 6 du/ac 4,199 units 520 units 3,679 units 425 ADUs 425 units R-1/PUD 100% Residential 1.92 acres 7 du/ac 13 units 6 units 7 units 7 ADUs 7 units R-1-A 100% Residential 5.36 acres 6 du/ac 32 units 10 units 22 units 3 ADUs 3 units R-1-A2 100% Residential 0.34 acres 6 du/ac 2 units 1 units 1 units — — R-S-1 100% Residential 21.86 acres 6 du/ac 131 units 10 units 121 units 3 ADUs — R-S-1/PUD 100% Residential 12.89 acres 7 du/ac 90 units 10 units 80 units 4 ADUs — R-S-12 100% Residential 124.05 acres 6 du/ac 744 units 107 units 637 units 19 ADUs — R-S-20 100% Residential 270.63 acres 2.2 du/ac 589 units 119 units 470 units 18 ADUs — R-T 100% Residential 710.35 acres 0.2 du/ac 142 units — 142 units — — RP 100% Residential 19.24 acres 8.7 du/ac 168 units 2 units 166 units — — City Zoning—Broadmoor Overlay Commercial/ C-1 90% Commercial 60.07 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 1,087 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 6.67 acres 43.6 du/ac 291 units — 291 units — — Mixed R-C/ C-1 50% Commercial 19.69 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 356 jobs — — — — 50% Residential 19.69 acres 43.6 du/ac 858 units — 858 units — — Mixed R-C/ MU 50% Commercial — 18.1 jobs/ac — — — — — 50% Residential — 43.6 du/ac — — — — — MDR/R-4 100% Residential 4.11 acres 29 du/ac 119 units — 119 units — — MDR/R-3 100% Residential 43.35 acres 29 du/ac 1,257 units 36 units 1,221 units 2 ADUs 2 units MDR/R-2 100% Residential — 29 du/ac — — — — — LDR/R-1 100% Residential 74.32 acres 6 du/ac 446 units 27 units 419 units 2 ADUs 2 units City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 16 DRAFT June 2026 Zone Assumed Type of Development Net Buildable Acres1 Assumed Density2 Gross Unit/ Job Capacity Existing Units on Underdeveloped Land3 Net DU Capacity ADU Capacity Infill Capacity R-T 100% Residential 284.95 acres 0.2 du/ac 57 units — 57 units — — County Zones (UGA) C-1 90% Commercial 5.85 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 106 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 0.65 acres 29.0 du/ac 19 units — 19 units — — C-2 90% Commercial — 18.1 jobs/ac — — — — — 10% Residential — 29.0 du/ac — — — — — I-2 100% Industrial 251.86 acres 4.3 jobs/ac 1,093 jobs — — — — I-3 100% Industrial — 4.3 jobs/ac — — — — — O 100% Commercial — 18.1 jobs/ac — — — — — RS-20 100% Residential 324.03 acres 2.2 du/ac 706 units 149 units 557 units 9 ADUs — RS-40 100% Residential 60.02 acres 1.1 du/ac 65 units 8 units 57 units 1 ADUs — RR-1 100% Residential 16.67 acres 1 du/ac 17 units 1 units 16 units — — RR-5 100% Residential 0.79 acres 0.2 du/ac — 1 units -1 units — — R-T 100% Residential 0.30 acres 0.2 du/ac — — — — — AP-20 100% Residential 49.42 acres 0.1 du/ac 2 units — 2 units — — County Zones (UGA)—Broadmoor Overlay C-1 90% Commercial 3.57 acres 18.1 jobs/ac 65 jobs — — — — 10% Residential 0.40 acres 29 du/ac 11 units — 11 units — — Mixed R-C 50% Commercial — 18.1 jobs/ac — — — — — 50% Residential — 43.6 du/ac — — — — — RS-20 100% Residential 37.44 acres 2.2 du/ac 82 units 1 units 81 units — — R-T 100% Residential 135.23 acres 0.2 du/ac 27 units — 27 units — — Note: du = dwelling units; ac = acre. 1 See Exhibit 7 for net buildable acres by zone. 2 See Exhibit 9 for assumed maximum residential densities. Assumed commercial and industrial job densities are based on 2022 LEHD employment statistics for the City of Pasco (16,676 commercial employees and 7,699 industrial employees) and total existing developed commercial (922 acres) and industrial land (1,775 acres) in city limits. 3 Existing housing units in the city and unincorporated UGA by parcel are unknown at this time. For the purposes of this analysis, underdeveloped parcels zoned for residential are assigned an existing housing unit value based on their assessor land use code (one existing unit on parcels coded as “(11) Household, single family units, (18) All other residential not elsewhere coded, or (15) Mobile home parks or courts,” two existing units on parcels coded as “(12) Household, 2-4 units,” and five existing units on parcels coded as “(13) Household, multiunits (5 or more)”). Sources: US Census Bureau, OnTheMap (LEHD, Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, All Jobs), 2022; City of Pasco, 2026; BERK, 2026. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 17 DRAFT June 2026 Exhibit 11. Geographic Distribution of Vacant, Underdeveloped, and Pipeline Parcels in the Pasco UGA Note: This map shows parcels based on their assigned development status (Exhibit 3) and current zone and does not remove undevelopable portions of each parcel (e.g., critical areas, setbacks, etc.). Source: Franklin County Assessor, 2025; City of Pasco, 2025; BERK, 2025. Capacity for ADUs In addition to the net unit capacity shown in Exhibit 10, ADUs could be added on existing single family lots in all of the City’s residential zones and mixed use zone and in the County’s residential zones that are not big enough to subdivide and redevelop at a higher density (e.g., classified as developed; see Exhibit 3). This analysis assumes developed lots with an existing single family dwelling in residential zones between 1.5–3 the minimum lot size could add one ADU.9 As many property owners who can legally 9 Per PMC 25.161.020, one attached or one detached ADU is allowed per lot in all residential zoning districts and it must be accessory to a single-family residence. Per FCC 17.66.050 and FCC 17.66.060, one attached or detached ADU is permitted per City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 18 DRAFT June 2026 establish new ADUs on developed lots may choose not to do so given the significant associated cost and e]ort, the analysis assumes a participation factor of 5% consistent with guidance from Commerce and based on local market factors.10 In other words, the analysis assumes that 5% of currently developed lots in residential zones that could add an ADU will add one ADU by 2046, resulting in additional capacity for 543 ADUs (including 539 ADUs in city limits and 10 ADUs in the unincorporated UGA). More than three- quarters of this capacity is in the R-1 zone in city limits (425 ADUs). Middle Housing Infill In the City’s R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones, infill middle housing could also be added on existing single family lots that are not big enough to subdivide and redevelop at a higher density (e.g., classified as developed; see Exhibit 3). This analysis assumes 5% of existing single-family lots between 1.5–3 the minimum lot size in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones would add one infill middle housing unit by 2046, resulting in additional capacity for 491 middle housing units in city limits. Most of this capacity is in the R-1 zone (425 infill units). Pipeline Capacity The City anticipates several pipeline projects will be developed in the next 3 years that can be counted towards meeting the City’s adopted housing needs per Commerce guidance. This includes 2,009 units of single-family development , 5 duplex units, 247 townhomes, 462 units of multifamily development, 88 RV spots, and 286,850 square feet of commercial development (or approximately 820 commercial jobs at 350 square feet per employee). The estimated unit count, expected a]ordability level, and location of each project are detailed in Exhibit 12 and mapped in Exhibit 11. The pipeline single family units are assumed to be a]ordable for higher incomes, the duplex and townhomes units are assumed to be a]ordable for moderate income levels, and the multifamily units are assumed to be a]ordable at lower income levels consistent with Exhibit 8. Note that all parcels associated with these developments were marked as pipeline per Exhibit 3. Exhibit 12. Known Pipeline Projects in Pasco (0–3 Years) Project Expected Units / Square Feet Commercial Timeline Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis Allison Court 15 single family 1 to 3 years High income (>120% AMI) Alvarado 14 single family 1 to 3 years AMI — 1 to 3 years Barker Heights 211 single family 1 to 3 years Barker Ranch 1st Addition 96 single family 1 to 3 years Columbia Water Estates 213 single family 1 to 3 years Crossings at Pearl 71 single family 1 to 3 years Davidson 2 single family 1 to 3 years Duarte 3 single family 1 to 3 years Glacier Park 105 single family 1 to 3 years Guardians Nest 20 single family 1 to 3 years Guillen 2 single family 1 to 3 years single-family dwelling in all of the County’s single-family zoning districts—detached ADUs are only allowed on residential lots at least 2 acres in size. 10 Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element (p.27), 2023. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 19 DRAFT June 2026 Project Expected Units / Square Feet Commercial Timeline Assumed Affordability Level for Capacity Analysis Hayden Homes Rd 76 57 single family 1 to 3 years Kimmie Estates 11 single family 1 to 3 years Marroquin 7 single family 1 to 3 years Milan 59 single family 1 to 3 years Peak Towneplace 73 single family 1 to 3 years River's Edge 3 single family 1 to 3 years Sandhu 2 single family 1 to 3 years Sawyers 8 single family Less than 1 year Seven Sisters 108 single family 1 to 3 years Sickle 2 single family 1 to 3 years The Grove 103 single family 1 to 3 years Three Rivers Ranch 140 single family 1 to 3 years Vida I 2 single family Less than 1 year Vida II — Less than 1 year Wernett Ridge 10 units 5 single family Less than 1 year High income (>120% AMI) 5 duplex Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Stutesman — Less than 1 year Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Burns & Kohler Subdivision 168 units1 126 single family 1 to 3 years High income (>120% AMI) 42 townhomes Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Wilson Property Residential 734 units1 551 single family 1 to 3 years High income (>120% AMI) 184 townhomes Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) Midland North Townhomes 22 townhomes 1 to 3 years Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) 3rd Ave Apartments 80 multifamily 1 to 3 years Low income (0-80% AMI) and PSH CBC Housing 47 multifamily 1 to 3 years Chapel Hill Apartments 204 multifamily 1 to 3 years Desert Flats (Glacier Park) 66 multifamily Less than 1 year Empire Living Apartments — Less than 1 year Midland Central 65 multifamily 1 to 3 years Lewis Place RV Park 88 transient accommodations (RV spots) 1 to 3 years Emergency Housing Aquatic Center Jobs unknown 1 to 3 years NA Columbia Basin Health Association 28,317 sqft (~81 jobs) 1 to 3 years Commercial Building 128,000 sqft (~366 jobs) 1 to 3 years Corwin Ford 50,065 sqft (~143 jobs) 1 to 3 years Fast Food Restaurants 10,500 sqft (~30 jobs) 1 to 3 years Goodwill 35,212 sqft (~101 jobs) 1 to 3 years Home2 Suites Hilton – Airport Jobs unknown, 107 hotel rooms Less than 1 year Idaho Central Credit Union (ICCU) 7,240 sqft (~21 jobs) 1 to 3 years Oregon Potato Company (New Building) 18,516 sqft (~53 jobs) 1 to 3 years Sandifur Gas Station + Carwash 9,000 sqft (~26 jobs) Less than 1 year City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 20 DRAFT June 2026 1 Actual unit split is currently unknown—this LCA assumes a split of 75% single family and 25% townhomes. Sources: City of Pasco, 2025; BERK, 2025. STEP 3: COMPARE AGGREGATE CAPACITY BY ZONE CATEGORY TO HOUSING NEED, POPULATION TARGET, & ESTIMATED JOB GROWTH. Residential Capacity The final step to analyze housing capacity is aggregating the capacity for residential growth by zone category and comparing that capacity to Pasco’s housing targets by income band. Exhibit 13 summarizes the results of the residential capacity analysis in Steps 1 and 2 above under existing zoning. The additional capacity column is the total net dwelling unit capacity from Exhibit 10 organized by zone category assigned per Exhibit 8 (see the lowest potential income level served for relevant zones in Exhibit 9). This is added to know pipeline capacity to determine total capacity by zone category. Exhibit 13. Summary of Residential Capacity by Existing Zone Category in the Pasco UGA Zone Category Affordability Level Pipeline Capacity Additional Capacity Total Capacity City Limits UGA City Limits City Limits + UGA Low Density High income (>120% AMI) 2,009 5,629 739 7,637 8,377 Moderate Density Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) 253 4,464 — 4,717 4,717 Low-rise/mid-rise Multifamily Low income (0-80% AMI) & PSH 462 3,801 30 4,263 4,293 ADUs Low income (0-80% AMI) & PSH — 539 10 539 549 Middle Housing Infill Moderate income (>80-120% AMI) — 491 — 491 — Total 2,723 14,924 779 17,647 18,426 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Sources: City of Pasco, 2026; BERK, 2026. Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 then compare the existing capacity for net new housing production by zone category to housing growth targets by income level in the city limits only and entire Pasco UGA, respectively. Housing capacity is aggregated by the lowest potential income level served consistent with Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9. Note that ADU capacity is added as capacity to serve households earning less than 80% AMI and infill capacity is added as capacity to serve moderate-income households. The surplus/deficit comparisons in Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 subtract the aggregated housing target from the capacity for each income level group. Numbers in red indicate a deficit of capacity compared to the target. Under existing zoning, there is suKcient capacity to accommodate the city’s growth targets for moderate- and higher-income households (>80% AMI) but there is a deficit of 1,184 units overall and 4,671 units for households at the lowest income levels (≤80% AMI) within city limits (Exhibit 14). When compared to growth targets in the entire Pasco UGA, the overall capacity deficit decreases to 843 units but the deficit for households at the lowest income levels (≤80% AMI) grows to 4,852 units (Exhibit 15). Exhibit 14. Comparison of Existing Housing Capacity to Housing Growth Targets—City Limits Only Housing Need (% of AMI) Zone Categories 2020–2046 Target Aggregated Target Capacity Surplus / (Deficit) 0-30% PSH 1,797 9,473 4,8021 (4,671) City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 21 DRAFT June 2026 Housing Need (% of AMI) Zone Categories 2020–2046 Target Aggregated Target Capacity Surplus / (Deficit) 0-30% Non-PSH Low-Rise, Mid-Rise, ADUs 1,791 >30 to ≤50% 2,454 >50 to ≤80% 3,431 >80 to ≤100% Moderate Density 1,783 3,364 5,2082 1,844 >100 to ≤120% 1,581 >120% Low Density 5,994 5,994 7,637 1,643 Total 18,831 18,831 17,647 (1,184) Legend: PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing; AMI = Area Median Income. Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 1 Includes capacity for 539 ADUs on developed residential lots. 2 Includes capacity for 491 infill middle housing units on developed residential lots. Sources: City of Pasco, 2026; Franklin County, 2026; BERK, 2026. Exhibit 15. Comparison of Existing Housing Capacity to Housing Growth Targets—City Limits and UGA Housing Need (% of AMI) Zone Categories 2020–2046 Target Aggregated Target Capacity Surplus / (Deficit) 0-30% PSH Low-Rise, Mid-Rise, ADUs 1,839 9,694 4,8421 (4,852) 0-30% Non-PSH 1,833 >30 to ≤50% 2,511 >50 to ≤80% 3,511 >80 to ≤100% Moderate Density 1,824 3,442 5,2082 1,766 >100 to ≤120% 1,618 >120% Low Density 6,133 6,133 8,377 2,244 Total 19,269 19,269 18,426 (843) Legend: PSH = Permanent Supportive Housing; AMI = Area Median Income. Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 1 Includes capacity for 549 ADUs on developed residential lots. 2 Includes capacity for 491 infill middle housing units on developed residential lots. Sources: City of Pasco, 2026; Franklin County, 2026; BERK, 2026. As of 2024, the Washington State O_ce of Financial Management (OFM) estimates there were 82,220 people living in the city and 85,304 people living in the Pasco UGA (city limits and the unincorporated UGA, including 788 people living in group homes). OFM also estimates 25,286 out of 26,315 total housing units in Pasco city limits were occupied. This equates to an average household size of about 3.22 people per household with a vacancy rate of about 3.9%.11 Applying this to the housing unit capacity from Exhibit 14, there is capacity for about 54,641 more people in the City of Pasco by 2046, above the adopted population growth target of 35,134 people from 2024–2046. In the entire Pasco UGA, OFM estimates 26,324 out of 27,426 total housing units were occupied, equating to an average household size of approximately 3.21 people per household at a vacancy rate of about 4.0%.12 Applying this to the housing 11 OFM Small Area Estimates (Urban Growth Areas), 2024. 12 OFM Small Area Estimates (Urban Growth Areas), 2024. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 22 DRAFT June 2026 unit capacity from Exhibit 15, there is capacity for about 56,783 more people in the entire Pasco UGA by 2046, above the combined population growth target of 35,986 people from 2024–2046. Job Capacity The agreed upon employment forecast expects an additional 12,997 jobs in the City of Pasco by 2046. An estimated 286,850 square feet of commercial development is expected in the next three years (or approximately 820 commercial jobs at 350 square feet per employee; see Exhibit 12). Per Exhibit 10, there is capacity for 7,807 commercial jobs and 4,515 industrial jobs in city limits, 144 more than estimated job growth by 2046 when combined with pipeline commercial growth. There is also capacity for another 170 commercial jobs and 1,093 industrial jobs in the unincorporated UGA. Emergency Housing Capacity In addition to permanent supportive housing, Pasco needs to demonstrate capacity for 153 units of emergency housing beds in city limits and 4 in the UGA for individuals or families that are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. See Step 3: Calculate Capacity for Emergency Housing Beds above for the types of housing that can meet emergency housing needs per Commerce guidance.13 HB 1220 also added new requirements for cities that limit development regulations related to the siting of emergency housing and emergency shelters, codified as RCW 35A.21.430 and RCW 35.21.683. Specifically, a city cannot prohibit indoor emergency housing or indoor emergency shelters in any zones where hotels are allowed unless the community has already permitted such development in more than 50% of their zones within one mile of transit. Cities must also allow permanent supportive housing and transitional housing in all areas zoned for hotels and all areas zoned for residential dwellings. Any local restrictions on spacing, occupancy, and intensity of use for these developments must be linked specifically to public health and safety reasons (e.g., reference emergency response times, building code, etc.) in their ordinance's findings section. However, these regulations must not be so restrictive that they prevent the development of a su_cient number of emergency housing beds to meet the community’s identified need.14 The City of Pasco’s municipal code considers emergency housing or emergency shelters as a level two category “community service facility.” Community service facilities are considered unclassified uses which are permitted subject to the approval of a special use permit in most zones (except the R-T, R-P, I-2, and I-3 zones and in the Downtown Overlay).15 Hotels and motels are currently allowed in the MU, BP, and C-1 zones by right as well as the commercial and mixed of the Broadmoor Planning Area. See Exhibit 16. Emergency housing is also not addressed as a specific use type in Franklin County’s code. The RR-1, RR-5, AP-20 zones within Pasco’s UGA allow group homes with conditional use permits, which are homes where more than six unrelated individuals over 16 years of age live together.16 Temporary use of a trailer is also allowed in certain cases, but this is considered short-term land use commitments per FCC 17.66.250 and so cannot be counted as emergency housing capacity per Commerce guidance. Exhibit 16. Existing City Zones That Allow Hotels Use Types MU BP C-1 Broadmoor Mixed Broadmoor Commercial Hotels P P P P P 13 Commerce, Establishing Housing Targets for Your Community, updated September 2023, pg. 21-22, 43. 14 Commerce, STEP Model Ordinance, User Guide and Best Practices Report, July 2024. 15 PMC Title 25 including PMC 25.15.050 and PMC 25.200.020, 2025. Note community service facilities are expressly prohibited in the I-3 zone and Downtown Overlay (PMC 25.95.040). 16 FCC 17.06.440, 2025. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 23 DRAFT June 2026 Use Types MU BP C-1 Broadmoor Mixed Broadmoor Commercial Community service facilities C C C1 C C Notes: P = Permitted; C = Conditionally Permitted. 1 Community service facilities are prohibited in the C-1 zone within the Downtown Overlay. Sources: PMC Title 25, 2025; BERK, 2025. Sample emergency congregate shelter and emergency housing development typologies and densities provided by Commerce suggest a possible range of densities anywhere between 23 to 200 beds per acre, including the Tri-City Union Gospel Mission in Pasco at a density of 25 beds/acre.17 This analysis assumes that additional emergency housing could reasonably develop at a density of 25 beds/acre—similar to the Tri -City Union Gospel Mission and consistent with density encouraged in the existing mixed and high density residential areas—and assumes one bed per unit (the most conservative estimate). Per Exhibit 12, a total of 88 transient RV spaces are expected in the next 1–3 years at the Lewis Place RV Park, reducing the City’s adopted emergency housing target to 65 beds (or 69 beds in the entire Pasco UGA ; again assuming one bed per RV space as the most conservative estimate). At a density of 25 beds/acre, only about 2.6 acres of land would be needed to meet the City’s remaining emergency housing target of 65 beds (or 2.8 acres to provide 69 beds). Exhibit 10 shows there is surplus buildable land in the zones that allow hotels outright that could be developed as emergency housing without jeopardizing the City’s 2046 employment needs. As discussed above, there is a surplus capacity of 144 jobs in city limits under existing zoning (or 8.01 acres at the existing commercial employment density of 18.1 jobs/acre). In the C-1 zone alone, for example, there is about 187.6 acres of buildable land for commercial development (or capacity for 3,394 jobs). Commercial areas in the Broadmoor Overlay within city limits likewise have about 60.1 acres of buildable land (or capacity for 1,087 jobs). Developing less than 3 acres in either of these zones as emergency housing would reduce employment capacity by only about 47 jobs, still above anticipated 2046 job growth. However, there are existing barriers to the provision of new emergency housing in Pasco that should be addressed to make adequate provisions for meeting emergency housing needs. These include ensuring emergency housing is not prohibited anywhere hotels are permitted (e.g., Downtown) and ensuring any occupancy, spacing, and intensity of use requirements for indoor emergency housing and shelters are limited only to those reasonable to protect public health and safety. LAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS WITH CODE REVISIONS Prepared by Framework Concurrent with this Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, the City is restructuring its development code to address the capacity deficits identified above. The revisions currently being explored focus on encouraging and supporting additional higher density development a]ordable to Pasco households at the lowest income levels (less than or equal to 80% AMI), and on aligning the code with recent changes to state law, including HB 1110 (middle housing), HB 1337 (accessory dwelling units), and E2SSB 6026 (residential uses in commercial and mixed-use zones). Areas of focus are summarized below. Zone consolidation The proposed Unified Development Code consolidates the City's approximately 20 existing zoning districts into a reduced set of implementing zones aligned with the updated Future Land Use Map. Low-density 17 Commerce’s Guidance for Updating Your Housing Element (Exhibit 18), revised 2024. City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 24 DRAFT June 2026 residential zones (R-T, R-S-1, R-1, R-1-A, R-1-A2, and RP) consolidate into a single Neighborhood Residential (NR) zone. R-S-12 and R-1518 consolidate into a Riverview area zone (NR-R) reflecting their larger parcel sizes. R-2, R-3, and R-4 consolidate into a single Moderate Residential (MR) zone. The current MU zone, together with select C-1 and C-3 parcels suitable for mixed-use development, all consolidate into a Mixed-Use (MU) zone. C-2 converts to a Downtown (DT) zone, and remaining C-1 and C-3 parcels consolidate into a Commercial (C) zone. The industrial zones are retained, and two new zones, Neighborhood Center (NC) and Industrial Flex (IF), are created. The City is analyzing individual parcels for suitability in assigning legacy commercial parcels between the Mixed-Use and Commercial zones, particularly outside the Downtown area, which is geographically bounded. Residential uses in commercial and mixed-use zones Consistent with E2SSB 6026, the consolidated Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Downtown zones permit residential uses, including in areas where the legacy C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones restricted them. This change expands the land base available for multifamily development serving households at the lowest income levels and is reflected in the assumed residential capacity of commercial zones in the existing-conditions analysis above. Density and lot standards The proposed code removes maximum residential density expressed as dwelling units per gross acre, instead regulating development through minimum lot area and unit counts per lot in combination with with urban form standards (height, bulk, lot coverage, etc.). Consistent with RCW 36.70A.635, code updates will establish a minimum of four dwelling units per lot in applicable residential zones, with up to 18 In the time since the completion of this Land Capacity Analysis, City Council replaced the R-S-20 zone with R-15 zoning citywide. This change is reflected in this section summary and in Exhibit 17. Exhibit 17. Proposed Zone Consolidation City of Pasco Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update | Land Capacity Analysis 25 DRAFT June 2026 six units per lot where at least two units are a]ordable, and applies minimum lot areas uniformly across all permitted housing types within each zone. Middle housing types will be permitted in proportion to zone intensity: six of the nine HB 1110 housing types in NR-R, seven in NR, and all nine in MR. Unit lot subdivision for middle housing is also being implemented, consistent with RCW 58.17.060. Next Steps A revised land capacity analysis reflecting these code changes will be completed as the numeric standards are finalized, including minimum lot areas for the consolidated residential zones and minimum residential densities in commercial and mixed-use zones. Preliminary analysis indicates the proposed revisions will materially increase capacity for housing a]ordable to households at the lowest income levels and close the capacity deficits identified in Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15. The revised analysis will be incorporated into this document prior to adoption. M e l o d y L n N R o a d 3 6 W V i ne y a r d D r N R a i l r o a d A v e C l a r k R d R o a d 3 6 N R a i l r o a d A v e N G l a d e R d 395 395 395 C W i l l i a m s R d ² Proposed location of UGA expansion Date 8/11/2026 Legend Proposed UGA Parcels City Limits Urban Growth Areas Location of proposed UGA ExpansionSITE LOCATION July 30, 2026 Revision to Narrative for Inclusion of Parcel 124-670-056 into the City of Pasco UGA We are requesting inclusion of the 110-acre parcel 124-670-056 into the City of Pasco UGA. Inclusion in the UGA represents efficient use and improved benefit of invested funds (primarily public) for existing and near-term planned public utility installations, roadway / traffic improvements, mass freight accessibility, and ease of commuter travel from existing City UGA residential areas. We envision this parcel being developed as a multi-business industrial park providing continued economic growth and employment for the city and population. County industrial zoning is not enough to support such development and inclusion in the UGA is critical to ease development costs and challenges for small businesses and start-ups for city residents including the nearby UGA residential area. The following items provide further basis for inclusion in the UGA: • The inclusion of this parcel in the UGA is consistent with Washington State Comprehensive Plan Updates as it represents a logical, efficient, and strategically located expansion of City of Pasco’s existing industrial employment area. Including this parcel in the UGA maximizes prior and current public infrastructure investments, continues opportunities for family-wage employment, and aligns with surrounding land uses and developments. • Because the property is directly adjacent to the Port of Pasco Reinmann Industrial Park, its inclusion would support continued urban growth along an existing and developing transport and utility corridor. • Current development within the existing UGA appears to be on a northerly trajectory (aligned with our parcel). Inclusion of this parcel in the UGA encourages ease of continued industrial and small business growth opportunities. Simply zoning county industrial leaves too many infrastructure development challenges for small and newer business growth. • As per the Franklin County Economic Development Plan; transportation is a public service. Significant road improvements have recently been completed on Railroad Avenue providing access to existing UGA and proposed UGA areas immediately adjacent to the south of our parcel. These transportation improvements have been completed along the entire western border of our parcel and the benefit of that public funds investment is maximized by including this parcel in the UGA thereby easing development for small and large business employers. • This parcel is centrally and conveniently located to the City of Pasco UGA residential expansion (including new high school) located to the west across the mainline BNSF rail route. There are two existing crossings of the mainline, one to the south at I-82, and the other being slightly north of this parcel on Selph Landing Road. Including this parcel in the UGA improves opportunity for small and large business growth at a conveniently nearby location to residential development. • This parcel has adjacent proximity to a BNSF Certified Sites rail spur. Economic development within a BNSF Certified Site reduces development time, increases speed to market, and reduces upfront development risks. Rail access within an economic development plan should be recognized for crucial and secure transportation within regional and national supply chains. Inclusion of this parcel provides opportunity for the City of Pasco and the Port of Pasco to have an additional income source supporting the rail development and expenses to improve public investment efficiencies. Not being in the UGA and remaining as county industrial is a dis-incentive to ease of development offered by the enhanced opportunity of the adjacent BNSF certified site property. The utility and urban services offered by UGA status go hand-in-hand with the adjacent certified site status to create an especially attractive development opportunity within the city. • According to the Franklin County Economic Development Plan, in the event of a future action involving Snake River flows and transport, current increases in rail and highway capacities to move freight and goods adds resiliency to the transport system. This parcel is ideally located to provide additional access to highway and rail facilities as described above with adjacent completed road improvements, very nearby US-395 access, and railroad spur development. • Our current vision for this property is a multi-business industrial park with the potential to provide new and existing small to medium size businesses excellent ease of growth, commuter access, and good transport. Addition of this parcel to the UGA would bolster a shrinking inventory of 100+ acre parcels within the UGA, adjacent to existing transport and utility developments along with worker commuter accessibility. • Our parcel of land has historically been irrigated farmland. In the recent past the northern portion is now under development for utility infrastructure in support of businesses and UGA growth to the south of our property. Railroad Avenue has been expanded and improved along the west edge of the property. We have been asked by the Franklin Utility District to agree to easement encumbrances for utility lines to carry power across our parcel to serve businesses and the UGA south of our property which benefits the City of Pasco. It is clear that our property is an integral portion of the urban growth development that is underway. UGA inclusion of our parcel with water, sewer, and municipal services will enhance the benefit to public funds investment for efficient infrastructure, improved ease of business development, and continue expansion of employment opportunities for the growing population including the nearby residential UGA area. M el od y L n N R o a d 3 6 W V i n e y a r d D r N R a i l r o a d A v e C l a r k R d R o a d 3 6 N R a i l r o a d A v e N G l a d e R d 395 395 395 395 C W i l l i a m s R d ² Proposed location of UGA expansion Date 8/6/2026 Legend Proposed UGA Parcels City Limits Urban Growth Areas Location of proposed UGA Expansion SITE LOCATION Community Development Department 525 N 3rd Ave, Pasco, WA 99301 P: 509.545.3441 City of Pasco NOTICE OF OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Urban Growth Area Boundary Map Amendments Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council Si necesita ayuda para entender este aviso o necesita más información, por favor llame al Departamento de Desarrollo Comunitario y Económico de la Ciudad de Pasco a 509-545-3441. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The City of Pasco is currently conducting its statutorily mandated periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130. As part of this process, the City is evaluating its preferred Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary in coordination with Franklin County. On June 3, 2026, Franklin County formally requested information from the City in support of the County's ongoing Growth Management Act update, including the City's Land Capacity Analysis, employment growth information, transportation modeling, and a City Council resolution identifying the City's preferred UGA boundary. Franklin County specifically requested that the City's recommendation address two formal industrial UGA expansion applications received by the County, CPAM2025-01 and CPAM2025-02. The Pasco Planning Commission will hold an open record public hearing to receive public testimony on the proposed UGA boundary amendments and consider a recommendation regarding the City's preferred UGA boundary to the Pasco City Council. The public hearing will be held at 6:30 p.m. on September 17, 2026, in the Council Chambers at Pasco City Hall, 525 N. 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington. Access is available through the east or south entrances. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will consider the testimony and information presented and may forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will subsequently consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and determine whether to adopt a resolution identifying the City's preferred UGA boundary for recommendation to Franklin County. Franklin County will consider the City's recommendation as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and UGA review process. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will receive public testimony regarding the following proposed UGA boundary amendments: CPAM2025-01 – BFF LLC/Truax UGA Expansion Application: CPAM2025-01 proposes adding approximately 110 acres, identified as Parcel 124-670-056, to the Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA). The property is located north of and adjacent to the Reimann Industrial Center and is currently designated Rural Industrial and zon ed I-2 General Industrial by Franklin County. The applicant proposes future development of the property as a multi -business industrial park serving small- to medium-sized businesses and identifies proximity to transportation and rail infrastructure, utilities, and economic development opportunities in support of the requested UGA expansion. City staff does not recommend inclusion of CPAM2025-01 in the City's preferred UGA boundary at this time. While the proposal may provide an opportunity for future industrial expansion, the City's current Land Capacity Analysis does not demonstrate a need for the additional approximately 110 acres after consideration of the employment capacity provided by CPAM2025-02. The proposal also does not currently have the same level of coordinated capital facilities planning or available City utility infrastructure serving the proposed expansion area. Not recommending CPAM2025- 01 for inclusion in the City's preferred UGA boundary at this time does not preclude future consideration of the property through a subsequent Comprehensive Plan amendment or UGA review when additional industrial land needs or more specific development and infrastructure plans may be demonstrated. For more information please contact: 509-544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov CPAM2025-02 – Port of Pasco North Reimann UGA Expansion Application: CPAM2025-02, submitted by the Port of Pasco, proposes adding approximately 180 acres immediately north of the existing Reimann Industrial Center to the Pasco Urban Growth Area (UGA). The proposal includes Parcels 124680038, 900022007, and 124680045. A portion of Parcel 124680038 is already located within the existing UGA, while the remainder of the proposed expansion area is outside the current UGA boundary. The properties are currently designated Rural Industrial and zoned I-2 General Industrial by Franklin County. The proposed City Comprehensive Plan designation is Industrial, with an anticipated I-2 Medium Industrial zoning designation upon future annexat ion. The proposed expansion represents a continuation of the established Reimann Industrial Center and builds upon previous master planning and capital facilities coordination between the City and Port of Pasco. City utilities have been extended along North Railroad Avenue to the existing UGA boundary and were planned to support future development of the master-planned industrial area. The property is also located near established industrial development and major transportation, freight, and rail infrastructure. Development of the approximately 180-acre North Reimann area is anticipated to support approximately 288 industrial jobs, based on an estimated 1.6 jobs per acre. This exceeds the approximately 187-job industrial employment capacity deficit identified through the City's revised Land Capacity Analysis. City staff recommends inclusion of CPAM2025-02 in the City's preferred UGA boundary. The proposal appropriately responds to the City's demonstrated industrial employment capacity need while encouraging an orderly, efficient, and infrastructure-supported pattern of urban growth. For more information please contact: 509-544-4146 / barragani@pasco-wa.gov Public Comment Period: Written comments may be submitted to the City of Pasco Community and Economic Development Department no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 17, 2026. Interested persons may also attend the public hearing and provide oral testimony regarding either or both of the proposed UGA boundary amendments. Written comments received prior to the hearing and oral testimony received during the hearing will be inclu ded in the official record. Interested persons may also request notification of the Planning Commission's findings and recommendation to the City Council and subsequent City Council action regarding its recommendation to Franklin County. Questions, written comments, and requests for notification may be directed to the project contact identified at the end of each project description above or submitted by mail or in person as follows: Mail: City of Pasco – Planning Division 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 In Person: City of Pasco – Community and Economic Development Department 525 N. 3rd Avenue, 1st Floor Pasco, WA 99301 Persons wishing to participate in the public hearing virtually must register at least two (2) hours prior to the meeting using the following registration link: Public Comment. Following registration, participants will receive a confirmation email containing information on how to join the meeting. Accessibility: The City of Pasco welcomes full participation in public meetings by all individuals. Pasco City Hall is accessible to persons with disabilities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), no qualified individual with a disability shall be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of City services, programs, or activities. If you require auxiliary aids, services, or other accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community and Economic Development Department at (509) 545-3441, TTY 711, or patrickc@pasco- wa.gov at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting to request assistance. THANK YOU for your legal submission! Your legal has been submitted for publication. Below is a confirmation of your legal placement. You will also receive an email confirmation. ORDER DETAILS Order Number:IPL0368699 Order Status:Submitted Classification:Legals & Public Notic… Package:TRI - Legal Ads Site:tricity Final Cost:$731.11 Referral Code:NOPH CPAM 8-26-26 Payment Type:Account Billed User ID:IPL0018633 ACCOUNT INFORMATION Debra Barham 525 North Third Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 509-544-3096 cityclerk@pasco-wa.gov City of Pasco TRANSACTION REPORT Date August 24, 2026 3:34:… Amount:$731.11 SCHEDULE FOR AD NUMBER IPL03686990 << Click here to print a printer friendly version >> PREVIEW FOR AD NUMBER IPL03686990 4.9inches x 8.41inches 8/24/26, 2:35 PM Adportal Self Service Advertising Confirmation https://placelegal.mcclatchy.com/legals/tricity/home/confirmation.html?id=341898&returnto=1/2 NUMBER IPL03686990 August 26, 2026 Tri-City Herald Print Publication i-Publish AdPortal: 3.0.69 ©2026 iPublish Media Solutions, LLC Terms and Conditions® 8/24/26, 2:35 PM Adportal Self Service Advertising Confirmation https://placelegal.mcclatchy.com/legals/tricity/home/confirmation.html?id=341898&returnto=2/2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers TO: Planning Commission FROM: Haylie Matson, CED Director SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Presentation File Numbers: CPA2026-001 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Applicant: City of Pasco Description: The PowerPoint presentation will provide an overview of the City’s required 2026 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update under the Washington Growth Management Act. The update will guide Pasco’s growth through 2046 and address key planning areas, including land use, housing, transportation, capital facilities, utilities, public services, resource lands, and related policies. The presentation will summarize the Land Capacity Analysis, which identifies a significant deficit in the City’s capacity to accommodate housing needs below 80 percent of Area Median Income, while indicating sufficient capacity at moderate- and higher-income levels. The update is focused on expanding housing opportunities while maintaining employment capacity and responding to state requirements and community priorities. Staff and the consultant team will also present the guiding principles informing the update: compliance with state mandates, response to Land Capacity Analysis findings, and incorporation of community feedback. Draft Comprehensive Plan elements are anticipated to be available by the end of September for continued review and direction. Environmental Determination N/A Presentation Only. Attachments 01 PowerPoint only REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers TO: Planning Commission FROM: Haylie Matson, CED Director SUBJECT: Critical Areas Ordinance Update and Draft Amendments to PMC Title 28 File Number: CA2025-005 Critical Areas Ordinance Update Applicant: City of Pasco Description: The City of Pasco is conducting a periodic review and update of its Critical Areas Ordinance, contained in Pasco Municipal Code Title 28. The proposed update incorporates Best Available Science, current state guidance, and recommendations identified through a comprehensive Gap Analysis of the City’s existing regulations. Draft amendments address wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and general critical area review and mitigation requirements. A significant component of the update is the City’s approach to regulating shrub steppe habitat. Staff and Facet have developed two potential regulatory approaches for Planning Commission consideration. Option 1 would rely primarily on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance and Priority Habitats and Species management recommendations. Option 2 would establish more tailored City of Pasco standards that provide a graduated review process based on site conditions and habitat quality. Planning Commission direction on the preferred approach will be incorporated into the draft amendments prior to the proposed October 15, 2026, public hearing. Environmental Determination Environmental review will be completed as part of the City’s adoption process for the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance amendments. Attachments: 01 Pasco Critical Areas Gap Analysis 02 Pasco Critical Areas Draft Municipal Code Amendments 03 Meeting Summary Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08-27-26 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers Action Requested: Provide direction to staff on the proposed amendments to PMC Title 28, including the preferred regulatory approach for shrub steppe habitat: Option 1, reliance primarily on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance, or Option 2, establishment of more tailored City of Pasco standards. Following Planning Commission direction, schedule a public hearing for October 15, 2026, to consider the proposed code amendments. Fiscal Impact: The current Planning Commission review does not adopt regulations or authorize expenditures beyond the City’s existing consultant and staff work associated with the periodic update. Future implementation of amended critical areas regulations may affect staff review procedures and requirements applicable to development proposals involving critical areas. History and Facts Brief The Washington Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to designate and protect critical areas and periodically review their adopted critical areas policies and development regulations. Critical areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas. Critical areas regulations are also required to incorporate Best Available Science. The City last completed a comprehensive update to its critical areas regulations in 2021. The City’s Critical Areas Ordinance is contained in PMC Title 28 and currently includes chapters addressing general provisions, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, flood hazard areas, and geologic hazard areas. As part of the current periodic update, the City retained Facet to evaluate the existing ordinance against Growth Management Act requirements, Best Available Science, state guidance, and current regulatory practices. Facet’s work includes a focused Best Available Science review for shrub steppe habitat, a comprehensive gap analysis of Title 28, preparation of preliminary draft code amendments, coordination with City staff and state agencies, and technical assistance through the local adoption process. Gap Analysis The September 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Gap Analysis (Attachment 1) identifies areas where Title 28 could be updated for consistency with state law and Best Available Science and where additional clarity could improve implementation. The analysis is organized according to REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers the existing structure of Title 28 and provides recommendations addressing general provisions and definitions as well as each category of critical area. Overall, the Gap Analysis recommends updating statutory references and terminology to align with the Growth Management Act and incorporating a clearer no net loss standard for ecological functions and values. The analysis also recommends updating and expanding definitions used throughout the ordinance, including terms related to critical area reports, qualified professionals, Best Management Practices, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, priority habitats and species, restoration, and other technical terms. The general provisions are proposed to be updated to improve the process for determining when additional critical areas review is necessary. Recommendations include clearer requirements for qualified professionals, proximity thresholds, preliminary reconnaissance, detailed studies, mitigation sequencing, use of Best Available Science, consideration of cumulative impacts, and mitigation standards intended to achieve no net loss of ecological functions and values. Wetlands The Gap Analysis identifies several updates to the City’s wetland regulations. Recommended changes include establishing a five-year validity period for wetland delineations, updating references to current Washington Department of Ecology guidance, revising wetland buffer standards and habitat score classifications, clarifying building setbacks and land use intensity standards, and updating compensatory mitigation requirements. The analysis also recommends additional requirements related to mitigation implementation, monitoring, adaptive management, documentation, and long-term success. Wetland mitigation ratios and buffer mitigation requirements would be updated or clarified to better reflect current Ecology guidance and Best Available Science. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas A significant component of the current update involves Chapter 28.20 and the City’s regulation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The draft amendments would strengthen requirements for qualified professional review, habitat descriptions, identification of vegetation and habitat features, evaluation of direct and indirect impacts, mitigation planning, mapping, and consideration of applicable federal, state, tribal, and local requirements. The update has placed particular emphasis on shrub steppe because of its importance as a priority habitat and the practical challenges associated with applying existing state guidance to development review within an urbanizing community. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers Shrub Steppe Habitat Staff and Facet have been evaluating how shrub steppe habitat should be identified, evaluated, and regulated through the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance. The overall objective is to provide meaningful protection for higher functioning shrub steppe habitat while creating a clearer and more proportionate review process for disturbed, fragmented, or marginal habitat. The preliminary amendments introduce the concept of a preliminary reconnaissance before requiring a full detailed study. This would allow a qualified professional to evaluate whether mapped habitat is actually present and whether the condition of the site warrants additional review rather than automatically requiring a full critical area detailed study based solely on mapping. For sites containing or potentially containing higher quality shrub steppe habitat, the draft amendments identify factors that could be evaluated through a detailed study. These include native shrub and perennial bunchgrass cover, invasive species, soil disturbance, historic disturbance, habitat patch size, fragmentation, connectivity, surrounding land uses, existing development, priority species, and other conditions relevant to determining habitat functions and appropriate mitigation. The materials also explore a potential habitat classification system that would distinguish between high, moderate, and low-quality shrub steppe habitat. This approach could allow mitigation requirements to correspond more directly to actual habitat quality rather than treating all mapped shrub steppe in the same manner. WDFW Coordination City staff and Facet met with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on August 27, 2026 (see Attachment 3 – meeting summary), to discuss the proposed shrub steppe amendments and the practical implementation of WDFW guidance. The discussion focused on the City’s proposed permitting pathway, habitat classification concepts, mapping, habitat assessment, and mitigation. The City’s proposed approach is intended to improve the initial screening process, establish clearer criteria for determining habitat quality, and provide greater flexibility for site specific mitigation. The materials presented to WDFW identify preliminary reconnaissance, potential exemptions for small or isolated invasive dominated habitat, standardized habitat assessment criteria, habitat classifications, and flexible mitigation approaches as potential components of the updated ordinance. The draft materials therefore present an important policy consideration for the City. One approach would continue to rely primarily on WDFW Priority Habitats and Species management REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers recommendations when determining appropriate habitat protections and mitigation. Another approach would establish more specific local standards within PMC Title 28 for evaluating shrub steppe habitat quality and determining the appropriate level of review and mitigation. The preliminary draft currently contains language associated with both approaches so that the City can determine the preferred regulatory framework before the amendments are finalized. Other Critical Areas The Gap Analysis also recommends updates to the City’s critical aquifer recharge area regulations. These recommendations include improved mapping and screening resources, additional consideration of activities that could affect groundwater quality, updated detailed study requirements, mitigation planning, and incorporation of applicable Best Management Practices. For frequently flooded areas, the analysis recommends updating terminology and considering broader protections for floodplain ecological functions, flood storage, groundwater recharge, floodplain connectivity, channel migration hazards, and climate resilience. The existing regulations currently focus primarily on FEMA mapped floodplains and structural flood protection. For geologically hazardous areas, the primary recommendation is to improve the City’s mapping resources. Existing City mapping identifies steep slopes but does not comprehensively identify all known or suspected erosion, landslide, seismic, or mine hazard areas addressed by the ordinance. Draft Code Amendments Facet has prepared preliminary amendments (Attachment 2) to PMC Title 28 based on the Gap Analysis, Best Available Science review, staff comments, and agency coordination. The draft includes revisions throughout the ordinance and is intended to provide the City with a working document for continued review rather than a final ordinance. The draft amendments generally strengthen the connection between critical area review and Best Available Science, clarify when qualified professional review is required, improve the preliminary review and detailed study process, update wetland standards, strengthen mitigation requirements, improve consistency between Title 28 and other City regulations, and provide a more detailed framework for evaluating fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The draft also includes specific language addressing shrub steppe habitat and potential methods for evaluating habitat quality. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers Planning Commission Decision Point: Shrub Steppe Regulatory Approach As part of the Critical Areas Ordinance update, staff and Facet have identified two potential approaches for regulating shrub steppe habitat. Both approaches are currently reflected in the draft amendments for Planning Commission consideration. The purpose of presenting both options is to receive direction on which approach should be incorporated into the final draft amendments. Option 1: WDFW Guidance Under this approach, the City would continue to rely primarily on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance and Priority Habitats and Species management recommendations when evaluating shrub steppe habitat and determining appropriate protection and mitigation requirements. This approach would maintain consistency with WDFW recommendations and rely on WDFW’s technical guidance rather than establishing separate local standards. However, WDFW is currently developing revised shrub steppe guidance, which may not be finalized until 2027. As a result, the specific standards and recommendations applicable to shrub steppe habitat may continue to evolve Option 2: Pasco Specific Standards Under this approach, the City would establish more tailored local standards within PMC Title 28 for evaluating and regulating shrub steppe habitat. The proposed framework would provide a review process based on actual site conditions and habitat quality, including factors such as native vegetation, invasive species, disturbance, fragmentation, connectivity, surrounding development, and potential use by priority species. This approach would allow the City to distinguish between higher quality shrub steppe habitat and areas that are substantially disturbed, fragmented, or lower functioning. It would also provide greater local predictability regarding when additional study or mitigation is required while continuing to use Best Available Science and applicable state requirements. Action Requested Provide direction to staff on the proposed amendments to PMC Title 28, including the preferred regulatory approach for shrub steppe habitat: Option 1, reliance primarily on WDFW guidance, or Option 2, establishment of more tailored City of Pasco standards. Following direction, schedule a public hearing for October 15, 2026, to consider the proposed code amendments. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers Next Steps Following Planning Commission review and direction, staff and Facet will continue refining the proposed amendments to PMC Title 28. This work will include resolving outstanding policy and technical comments, finalizing the preferred approach for shrub steppe habitat, incorporating applicable recommendations from the Gap Analysis, and preparing a consolidated public review draft. Staff will also complete the required SEPA review and public notice in preparation for the October 15, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing. Critical Areas Ordinance Update Gap Analysis PASCO, WASHINGTON SEP TEMBER , 2 02 6 Prepared for: City of Pasco 525 N 3rd Ave 1st Floor Pasco, WA 99301 SEATTLE | KIRKLAND | BURLINGTON | WHIDBEY ISLAND | FEDERAL WAY | SPOKANE facetnw.com Facet Number: 2509.0515 Spokane Office 601 W Main Avenue, Spokane WA. 99218 Prepared by: Dan Nickel – Principal of Planning B.S. in Biology at Pacific Lutheran University M.S. in Civil Engineering at the University of Washington Hilary Hahn – Environmental Planner & Ecologist B.S. in Environmental Studies at the University of Idaho Katy Crandall – Ecologist B.S. in Environmental Science at Western Washington University P.C. Wetland Science & Management at University of Washington SWS Professional Wetland Scientist and ISA Certified Arborist Douglas Yormick – Environmental Planner B.A. in Environmental Design at State University of New York at Buffalo P.C. Wetland Science & Management at University of Washington The information contained in this report is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state, and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is mad TABLE OF CONTENTS / i Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Title-citation-purpose .................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Critical Areas (PMC 28.04.030) .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Intent of critical area regulation (PMC 28.04.040) ......................................................................................... 2 3. Definitions (Chapter 28.08) ........................................................................................................... 3 3.1 B definitions (PMC 28.08.030) ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 C definitions (PMC 28.08.040) ............................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 E definitions (PMC 28.08.070) ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.4 F definitions (PMC 28.08.070) ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.5 H definitions (PMC 28.08.090) ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.6 M definitions (PMC 28.08.140) ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.7 N definitions (PMC 28.08.150) ............................................................................................................................... 6 3.8 P definitions (PMC 28.08.170) ................................................................................................................................ 7 3.9 Q definitions (PMC 28.08.180) ............................................................................................................................... 7 3.10 R definitions (PMC 28.08.180) ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.11 W definitions (PMC 28.08.200) .............................................................................................................................. 8 4. General Provisions (Chapter 28.12) ............................................................................................. 10 4.1 Exemptions (PMC 28.12.030) ................................................................................................................................. 11 4.2 Reasonable Use (28.12.040) .................................................................................................................................. 13 4.3 Waivers from critical area detailed study requirements (PMC 28.12.130) ............................................ 13 4.4 Critical area detailed studies (28.12.140) .......................................................................................................... 13 4.5 Mitigation Standards for wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas (28.12.170) ......................................................................................................... 14 4.6 Buffers (PMC 28.12.180) .......................................................................................................................................... 14 5. Wetlands (Chapter 28.16) ............................................................................................................ 16 5.1 Wetland designation (PMC 28.16.020) ............................................................................................................. 16 5.2 Wetland rating classification (PMC 28.16.030) ............................................................................................... 16 5.3 Wetland detailed study – Requirements .......................................................................................................... 17 5.4 Required buffers (PMC 28.16.080) ...................................................................................................................... 17 5.5 Compensatory mitigation (PMC 28.16.090) ................................................................................................... 20 6. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Chapter 28.20) ................................................ 22 6.1 Purpose (28.20.010) ................................................................................................................................................ 23 6.2 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area designation and classification criteria (PMC 28.20.020) .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 6.2.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Classification ..................................................................................... 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS / ii 6.2.2 Classification Sources and Mapping ..................................................................................................... 23 6.3 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area rating (PMC 28.20.030) ..................................................... 24 6.4 Determination of need for fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study (PMC 28.20.040) ........... 24 6.5 Fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study requirements (PMC 28.20.050) ................................... 24 6.6 Performance standards minimum requirements (PMC 28.20.050) ....................................................... 24 7. Aquifer recharge areas (Chapter 28.24) ..................................................................................... 25 7.1 General ........................................................................................................................................................................ 25 7.2 Aquifer Recharge Designation Criteria (PMC 28.24.020) .......................................................................... 25 7.3 General regulations (PMC 28.24.030) .............................................................................................................. 26 7.4 Determination of need for aquifer recharge area (PMC 28.24.030) ......................................................27 7.5 Aquifer recharge area detailed study (PMC 28.24.050) ..............................................................................27 7.6 Performance standards basic requirements (PMC 28.24.070) ................................................................ 28 8. Flood Hazard aReas (Chapter 28.28) ........................................................................................... 29 8.1 General (PMC 28.28.010) ...................................................................................................................................... 29 8.2 Management (PMC 28.28.040) .......................................................................................................................... 29 9. Geologic hazard areas (Chapter 28.32) ....................................................................................... 30 9.1 Determination of need for geologic hazard area detailed study (PMC 28.32.060) ......................... 30 10. References ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Tables Table 1. Definitions Chapter review summary. ............................................................................................................ 2 Table 2. Definitions Chapter review summary. ............................................................................................................ 3 Table 3. Example code table summary. ........................................................................................................................ 10 Table 4. Example code table summary. ........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 5. Current wetland buffers from PMC Table in 28.16.080 to protect water quality functions ....... 18 Table 6. Example code table summary. ....................................................................................................................... 22 Table 7. Example code table summary. ....................................................................................................................... 25 Table 8. Example code table summary. ....................................................................................................................... 29 Table 9. Example code table summary. ....................................................................................................................... 30 Appendices APPENDIX A. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: 2022 Update (Ecology Publication No. 22-06-014) TABLE OF CONTENTS / iii Acronyms and Abbreviations BAS Best Available Science BMP Best Management Practices CA Critical Area CAO Critical Areas Ordinance CARA Critical Aquifer Recharge Area DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFA Frequently Flooded Area FWHCA Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area GHA Geologic Hazard Area GMA Growth Management Act PHS Priority Habitats and Species PMC Pasco Municipal Code RHA Riparian Habitat Area RCW Revised Code of Washington SMP Shoreline Master Program USDA United Stated Department of Agriculture WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 1 1. INTRODUCTION With passage of the Growth Management Act (GMA), local jurisdictions throughout Washington State, including the City of Pasco, were required to develop policies and regulations to designate and protect critical areas. Critical areas are defined in the GMA and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.030(11) to include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The GMA requires local jurisdictions to periodically review and evaluate their adopted critical areas policies and regulations. The City of Pasco last completed a comprehensive update of its critical areas policies and regulations in 2021. A periodic update is now required. According to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-195-915, critical area regulations must incorporate best available science (BAS), and any deviations from science-based recommendations must be identified, assessed, and explained. In addition, jurisdictions must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. A BAS review for code updates pertaining to shrub-steppe habitat has been prepared as a separate document (Facet 2026). The City of Pasco’s critical areas ordinance is codified in Title 28 of the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC). This gap analysis reviews the current critical areas regulations and evaluates gaps in consistency between them and BAS or the GMA. It also includes recommendations for improvements to general aspects of the CAO, such as clarity, consistency, and ease of use. The primary intention of this gap analysis is to help guide the update of the City’s critical areas policies and regulations. This Gap Analysis document is organized by relevant code sections within Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Title 28 Critical Areas. Sections 2 through 9 provide recommendations for updating the City’s existing critical areas regulations. Sections 2 through 4 address the purpose, general provisions and definitions applicable to all critical areas; Sections 5 through 9 address the different types of critical areas covered by the GMA, organized according to their organization in the current code. Each section contains a summary table of recommendations followed by a detailed analysis of the existing code, potential gaps, and recommendations . 2 / MONTH 2025 2. TITLE-CITATION-PURPOSE This chapter provides the title, citation and purpose for PMC Title 28. This section spans PMC Sections 28.04.010 – 28.04.070. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 1; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 1. Definitions Chapter review summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.04.030 Critical Areas Align critical area terminology with definitions provided in RCW 36.70A.030(6) GMA, Consistency PMC 28.04.040 Intent of critical area regulation Add No Net Loss GMA, BAS 2.1 Critical Areas (PMC 28.04.030) Revise the statutory reference from RCW 36.70A.030(6) to RCW 36.70A.030(12) to accurately reference the definition of “critical areas.” Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030(12), the five critical area categories include wetlands; areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; frequently flooded areas; geologically hazardous areas; and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. To maintain consistency with the terminology established in the RCW, consider replacing “aquifer recharge areas” with “critical aquifer recharge areas”, “flood hazard areas” with “frequently flooded areas” and revising “fish and wildlife habitats” to “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.” 2.2 Intent of critical area regulation (PMC 28.04.040) Currently, this section states that one of the intents of the critical areas regulations is to “mitigate unavoidable, significant impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to such areas.” Consider strengthening this provision by incorporating a “no net loss of ecological functions and values” standard, consistent with WAC 365-190-180(1). GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 3 3. DEFINITIONS (CHAPTER 28.08) This chapter provides definitions for terms used in PMC Title 28. Definitions span PMC Sections 28.08.010 – 28.08.270. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 2; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 2. Definitions Chapter review summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.08.030 B Definitions Add “best management practices” BAS PMC 28.08.040 C Definitions Add “critical area report” Update “compensatory mitigation” Clarity, BAS PMC 28.08.060 E Definitions Add Emergency Add Erosion Hazard Area BAS, Consistency PMC 28.08.070 F Definitions Add “fish and wildlife habitat conservation area” definition. Add “functions and values” Add “frequently flooded areas” definition Add Erosion Hazard Areas from PMC 28.28.020 to the definitions BAS, GMA, clarity, consistency PMC 28.08.090 H definitions Distinguish between “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,” and “habitats and species of local importance” BAS, clarity PMC 28.08.100 I definitions Add “isolated wetland” PMC 28.08.140 M definitions Add “monitoring” Clarity PMC 28.08.150 N definitions Add “No Net Loss” Add “Noxious Vegetation” BAS, Clarity PMC 28.08.170 P definitions Update “Priority Habitats” and “Priority Species” Consistency, BAS PMC 28.08.180 Q definitions Update “qualified professional” Clarity PMC 28.08.190 R definitions Update “restoration” Clarity 4 / MONTH 2025 Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.08.200 S definitions Add “site potential tree height” BAS PMC 28.08.240 W definitions Update “wetland delineation” BAS We recommend aligning the definitions more closely with WAC 365-190-030. The definitions of critical areas should align with WAC definitions. 3.1 B definitions (PMC 28.08.030) Best Management Practice Consider updating the definition for BMP measures consistent with Ecology Publication 22-06-014, that discusses controlling water quality degradation, minimizes adverse impacts to surface and groundwater, protects vegetation and provides standards for chemical applications. 3.2 C definitions (PMC 28.08.040) Compensatory Mitigation Consider updating the definition for Compensatory Mitigation to include all critical areas per the Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) Wetland Guidance, which is provided below. Compensatory Mitigation – Replacing project-induced losses or impacts to a critical area or buffer that remains after all appropriate avoidance and minimization measures have been applied. Compensatory mitigation includes mitigation that occurs at the same time or in advance of a project’s impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: a. Restoration – Actions performed to reestablish critical area functional characteristics and processes that have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area that no longer meets the definition of a wetland; b. Creation – Actions performed to intentionally establish a critical area at a site where it did not formerly exist; c. Preservation – Actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing, high-quality critical areas; and d. Enhancement – Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded critical area so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. Cumulative Impacts Consider adding the definition for Cumulative Impacts. A definition can be found in Ecology Publication 22-06-014 and is provided below. Cumulative Impacts: The combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular place and within a particular GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 5 time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. 3.3 E definitions (PMC 28.08.070) Emergency The term “emergencies” is used throughout the CAO. A description is found in PMC 28.12.030 but not elsewhere in the CAO. Consider including a definition for Emergency. A definition can be found in Ecology Publication 22-06-014 and is provided below. Emergency: Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventive action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of the critical areas regulations. Erosion Hazard Areas Consider including a definition for erosion hazard areas, which is classified in Table 28.32.030 – Criteria for classification of Geologic Hazard Areas as one of the five main types of geologically hazardous areas. The definition from WAC 365-190-030(5) is provided below. Erosion hazard areas: those areas containing soils which, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Program, may experience significant erosion. Erosion hazard areas also include… channel migration zones. 3.4 F definitions (PMC 28.08.070) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Consider adding a definition for “fish and wildlife habitat conservation area” to align with terminology established under the GMA, promote consistent terminology throughout the CAO, and improve regulatory clarity. WAC definition: “Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" are areas that serve a critical role in sustaining needed habitats and species for the functional integrity of the ecosystem, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will persist over the long term. These areas may include, but are not limited to, rare or vulnerable ecological systems, communities, and habitat or habitat elements including seasonal ranges, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors; and areas with high relative population density or species richness. Counties and cities may also designate locally important habitats and species. "Habitats of local importance" designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include those areas found to be locally important by counties and cities. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" does 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. 6 / MONTH 2025 Functions and Values The CAO lacks a definition for functions and values. All critical areas contribute to functions and values society. The city should consider updating the definition to include all critical areas in alignment with WAC 365-190-080. A definition can be found in Ecology Publication 22-06-014 and is provided below. Functions and Values: The ecosystem services provided by critical areas to society, including, but not limited to, improving and maintaining water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitat, supporting terrestrial and aquatic food chains, reducing flooding and erosive flows, wave attenuation, carbon sequestration, thermal refugia, historical or archaeological importance, cultural uses and significance, educational opportunities, and recreation. Frequently Flooded Areas Consider adding a definition for “frequently flooded areas” consistent with terminology established under the GMA and WAC 365-190-110. To promote clarity and consistency with the GMA, consider renaming Chapter 28.28 “flood hazard areas” to “frequently flooded areas” and consolidating the terminologies in the CAO to “Frequently Flooded Areas.”. The definition from WAC 365-190-110 is provided below. Frequently Flooded Areas: Flood plains and other areas subject to flooding perform important hydrologic functions and may present a risk to persons and property. To further promote consistency and regulatory clarity throughout the CAO, consider adding the existing classifications of “flood hazard areas” found in PMC 28.28.020 to the definitions section 3.5 H definitions (PMC 28.08.090) The term “habitat conservation areas of local importance” is not commonly used in critical areas regulations and may create ambiguity regarding its intended application. Consider distinguishing between “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas,” as defined in PMC 28.08.070, and “habitats and species of local importance,” a more commonly used term for habitats and species specifically designated for protection by the City. This distinction would improve regulatory clarity and provide greater consistency with terminology commonly used in critical areas ordinances. 3.6 M definitions (PMC 28.08.140) Monitoring The CAO lacks a definition for monitoring, which limits clarity in how impacts and mitigation performance should be evaluated over time within the CAO. Including a definition for “monitoring” would establish clear expectations for data collection, analysis, and ongoing assessment of critical areas and mitigation measures. 3.7 N definitions (PMC 28.08.150) No Net Loss GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 7 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends adding a definition for No Net Loss to improve clarity and ensure consistency with state expectations for critical area protection. Including this definition helps establish that permitted activities must avoid and minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable, with any remaining impacts mitigated so ecological functions and values are maintained over time. Noxious or Invasive Vegetation Consider adding provisions addressing noxious vegetation within the CAO to clearly establish expectations for identification and management. Including this concept would improve resource protection and support consistent implementation of vegetation management standards. 3.8 P definitions (PMC 28.08.170) Priority Habitats and Priority Species Consider updating the definitions for Priority Habitats and Priority Species. These definitions can be found in Ecology Publication 22-06-014 and are listed below. Priority habitats: As defined by WDFW, habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type (e.g., shrub-steppe) or dominant plant species (e.g., juniper savannah), a described successional stage (e.g., old-growth forest), or a specific habitat feature (e.g., cliffs). Priority species: As defined by WDFW, State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. 3.9 Q definitions (PMC 28.08.180) Qualified Professional The current definition of “qualified wetland biologist” does not fully identify all the disciplines necessary to prepare technical reports for each critical area type. We recommend updating the definition to match the City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program (SMP) definition of Qualified Profession so that each critical area report is prepared by a professional with expertise directly relevant to that specific critical area. The definition taken from the SMP is included below: Qualified professional" means a person with experience and training in the pertinent discipline, and who is a qualified expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant critical area or shoreline subject. A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S., B.A., or equivalent degree or certification in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, landscape architecture, forestry or related field, and 2 years of related work experience. a) A qualified professional for wildlife, habitats, or wetlands must have a degree in biology, zoology, ecology, fisheries, or related field, and professional experience in Washington State. 8 / MONTH 2025 b) A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington. c) A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydrogeologist, geologist, engineer, or other scientist with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments. d) A qualified professional with flood and channel migration zone expertise must be a hydrologist or fluvial geomorphologist. e) A qualified professional for vegetation management must be a registered landscape architect, certified arborist, biologist, or professional forester with a corresponding degree or certification. f) A qualified archaeologist must be a person qualified for addressing cultural and historic resources protection and preservation, with a degree in archaeology, anthropology, history, classics or other germane disciplines with a specialization in archaeology and/or historic preservation and with a minimum of 2 years of experience in preparing Cultural Resource Site Assessments reports. 3.10 R definitions (PMC 28.08.180) Restoration Consider updating the definition for restoration to improve clarity and ensure consistent interpretation and application of wetland mitigation standards within the CAO. A definition can be found in Ecology Publication 22-06-014 and is provided below. Restoration: Measures taken to restore an altered or damaged natural feature, including: a. Active steps taken to restore damaged wetlands, streams, protected habitat, or their buffers to the functioning condition that existed prior to an unauthorized alteration; and b. Actions performed to re-establish structural and functional characteristics of a critical area that have been lost by alteration, past management activities, or catastrophic events. 3.11 W definitions (PMC 28.08.200) Wetland Delineation Consider updating the definition for Wetland Delineation per Ecology’s Wetland Guidance, which is provided below. Wetland Delineation: The method used to establish the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for purposes of federal, state, and local regulations. Wetland Mitigation Bank GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 9 Consider adding a definition for wetland mitigation bank, which are referenced in PMC 28.16.100. A definition can be found in Ecology’s Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Publication 22-06-014 and is provided below. Wetland mitigation bank: A site or suite of sites where resources are restored, created, enhanced, and/or preserved, for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for impacts. In general, a mitigation bank sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the mitigation bank sponsor. The operation and use of a mitigation bank are governed by a mitigation banking instrument. 10 / MONTH 2025 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS (CHAPTER 28.12) This chapter covers general provisions that apply to multiple critical areas, in PMC Sections 28.08.010 – 28.08.210. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 3; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 3. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.12.030 Exemptions Add parameters for hazard tree removal and herbicide use in critical areas Add select vegetation removal BAS, Clarity PMC 28.12.040 Reasonable use exemptions Add qualified professional BAS PMC 28.12.060 Vested development and pending development approvals Update effective date Clarity PMC 28.12.130 Waivers from critical area detailed study requirements Strengthen criteria and add submittal requirements Consistency PMC 28.12.140 Critical area detailed studies Add qualified consultant requirement for 28.12.140(2) in accordance with WAC 365-195- 905(4) Add proximity thresholds Add BAS requirement Consider adding a description of a stormwater management plan and impacts to drainage alterations Add an assessment of cumulative impacts to facilitate a not net loss of ecological functions Include mitigation sequencing requirement per PMC 28.12.170(1) Consistency, BAS GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 11 Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.12.170 Mitigation standards for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and geologic hazard areas Add use of native plant species for restoration and ecology guidelines Add qualified professional and BAS requirement Add mitigation requirement for hazard tree removal or other vegetation loss Add no net loss of ecological functions Consider adding monitoring period and schedule specifications Require contingency plan for adaptive management Consider adding plan sheet requirement Add mitigation timing Consistency, BAS PMC 28.12.180 Buffers Add vegetated buffer conditions Add disconnected buffer PMC 28.12.210 Critical areas mapping Update maps available, as necessary 4.1 Exemptions (PMC 28.12.030) The City's current exemption provisions allow certain activities within or adjacent to critical areas without requiring compliance with standard critical area review requirements. While exemptions can streamline routine maintenance and low-impact activities, exempted actions may still result in direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to critical area functions and values. To better support the Growth Management Act's goal of no net loss of ecological functions, the City should consider establishing performance standards or thresholds for exempt activities, such as limits on vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and herbicide application within or near critical areas and their buffers. Potential standards may include maximum disturbance thresholds (e.g., square footage limits for clearing or grading, limitations on exposed soils, or restrictions on herbicide use adjacent to aquatic resources). Such measures would help reduce the risk of adverse impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, riparian functions, and other critical area processes. The City should also consider tracking exempt activities and evaluating their cumulative effects over time, particularly within riparian corridors, wildlife habitat areas, and locations supporting priority, rare, or listed species. 12 / MONTH 2025 Hazard Tree Removal PMC 28.12.030(5) exempts the removal of hazard trees from standard critical area regulations. To improve consistency with BAS and recommendations contained in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) guidance, the City should consider requiring documentation from a qualified tree professional, such as an ISA Certified Arborist with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ), to verify that a tree meets hazard tree criteria prior to removal. Additional standards could be incorporated to ensure that hazard tree removal minimizes impacts to critical area functions. These provisions may include requirements to: Conduct hazard tree removal in a manner that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts to riparian and wildlife habitat functions to the maximum extent practicable; Retain portions of hazard trees as snags, wildlife trees, or coarse woody debris where safety considerations allow, recognizing their value as priority habitat features; Minimize damage to adjacent native vegetation, root systems, and soil conditions during removal activities; and Require replacement planting when removal results in a measurable loss of canopy cover or habitat function. Invasive and Non-Native Vegetation Removal The City should also consider establishing a specific exemption category for the removal of invasive and non-native plant species. Such provisions could encourage proactive habitat restoration while ensuring that vegetation management activities do not inadvertently result in excessive clearing or disturbance within critical areas. It is recommended for exemption criteria to reference best management practices published by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board and other state agencies and include thresholds for exempt vegetation removal activities. Examples include maximum clearing limits for herbaceous, shrub, and vine species, as well as diameter thresholds for invasive tree removal. Where invasive vegetation management exceeds established thresholds, a vegetation management or restoration plan could be required to ensure that removal activities are appropriately phased, erosion is controlled, and native vegetation is restored. Washington Department of Ecology's Critical Areas Ordinance guidance identifies the hand removal of invasive, non-native vegetation within wetlands as an allowable activity; however, the guidance does not establish disturbance thresholds. The City may wish to adopt locally appropriate standards that balance invasive species management objectives with the protection of critical area functions and ecological integrity. GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 13 4.2 Reasonable Use (28.12.040) The current CAO review criteria for reasonable use does not have an explicit requirement for no net loss of ecological functions, mitigation sequencing and requiring qualified professionals to provide evidence supporting the application. Updating this section to incorporate these elements would align the CAO with Ecology guidance and improve clarity and consistency in implementation. 4.3 Waivers from critical area detailed study requirements (PMC 28.12.130) To codify how waivers are to be reviewed, consider adding a requirement for the submittal of memorandum or application that addresses the waiver criteria and states the absence of a critical area within the vicinity of the project area. The memorandum should be prepared by a qualified professional. As an option for more local shrub-steppe regulation, waivers from critical detailed study requirements could be restructured to be a preliminary reconnaissance where a 4.4 Critical area detailed studies (28.12.140) PMC 28.12.140(1), Preliminary Reconnaissance, requires the use of a qualified consultant; however, PMC 28.12.140(2), Minimum Requirements, does not explicitly require that a critical area detailed study be prepared by a qualified professional. To improve consistency with state guidance, it is recommended that PMC 28.12.410(2) be amended similar to PMC 28.20.050(2) to require that all critical area detailed studies be prepared by qualified professionals consistent with the qualifications outlined in WAC 365- 195-905(4). The code would also benefit from the establishment of proximity thresholds to clarify when a critical area detailed study is required and the extent to which the analysis must evaluate critical areas located adjacent to or beyond the project site. Clearly defined thresholds can improve predictability for applicants and ensure that off-site critical areas and ecological processes that may be affected by a proposal are adequately considered. In addition, the City should consider adopting a validity provision for critical area assessments. Similar to provisions found in other Washington jurisdictions, the code could specify the period during which a critical area assessment remains valid and identify circumstances that would require an updated study, such as the passage of more than five years or significant changes in site conditions, surrounding land use, or applicable regulations. To strengthen consistency with the Growth Management Act and state guidance, the code should also include BAS requirements. Critical area detailed studies should be required to utilize scientifically valid methods, data sources, and analytical techniques; document the scientific references relied upon; and evaluate the proposed development and its probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with BAS principles. 14 / MONTH 2025 Additional minimum study requirements should include a description of the proposed stormwater management approach and an evaluation of potential impacts associated with drainage alterations. Such analysis should consider changes in runoff quantity, runoff quality, hydrologic connectivity, groundwater recharge, erosion potential, and other hydrologic functions that may affect critical areas and their buffers. Finally, consistent with BAS and the Growth Management Act's goal of achieving no net loss of ecological functions, critical area detailed studies should include an assessment of probable cumulative impacts. This assessment should evaluate the combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on critical areas and associated ecological processes. At a minimum, cumulative impact analyses should address effects to wildlife habitat and migration corridors, water quality and quantity, watershed processes, geologic functions, and other ecological services provided by critical areas and their buffers. 4.5 Mitigation Standards for wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas (28.12.170) The City should consider explicitly requiring the use of native plant species appropriate to local site conditions for mitigation and restoration activities. The use of locally adapted native vegetation is widely recognized as a best management practice for restoring ecological functions and enhancing long-term resilience. This approach is also consistent with climate adaptation strategies, as native plant stock sourced from local or regional conditions is generally better suited to withstand changing environmental conditions and climate-related stressors. While this practice may already be implemented through project review, codifying the requirement would provide greater consistency and predictability. The code should also be updated to reference the most current State wetland mitigation guidance. Existing references should be revised to cite Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 – Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 2) (Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. 21-06-003, 2021), as amended. Incorporating updated references and future revisions would help ensure consistency with current mitigation standards, regulatory guidance, and technical tools developed since the original 2006 publication. For additional clarity and consistency, mitigation plans should be required to be prepared by a qualified professional with expertise appropriate to the affected critical area. The code should also explicitly require that mitigation plans be developed using BAS and demonstrate how proposed mitigation will achieve the goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. 4.6 Buffers (PMC 28.12.180) Vegetated buffer condition GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 15 Pasco could provide more clarity and specification in this section that the use of the standard wetland buffers assumes that impact minimization measures are also implemented and that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate to the ecoregion. This provision could also provide clear criteria for native plant density, invasive plant (i.e., noxious weed) cover thresholds, and buffer increase amount when conditions are not met. Buffer reduction Ecology no longer recommends a wetland buffer reduction provision beyond the narrower buffers achieved through implementation of minimization measures and a habitat corridor. Therefore, it should be further specified you cannot “reduce required buffers” for wetlands per PMC 28.12.180.(2) to maintain consistency with BAS specific to wetlands and to ensure no net loss of functions and values. Disconnected buffer areas Consider adding a provision to address disconnected buffer areas; recommend similar language for this provision in both the stream and wetland sections. Buffers are commonly interrupted by roads and legally established land uses in urban environments. Addressing this in the code facilitates practical implementation. 16 / MONTH 2025 5. WETLANDS (CHAPTER 28.16) This section addresses code sections that are applicable to wetland critical areas as located in PMC Sections 28.16.010 – 28.16.120. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 4; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 4. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.16.020 Wetland designation Include 5-year delineation validation period BAS, clarity PMC 28.16.030 Wetland rating (classification) Add Ecology mitigation guidance BAS, clarity PMC 28.16.050 Wetland Detailed Study – Requirements Add qualified professional Add additional critical area report requirements BAS, Ecology Publication 22- 06-014 PMC 28.16.080 Required buffers Revise habitat score classifications Add building setback Update land use intensity table BAS, Ecology Publication 22-06- 014 PMC 28.16.090 Compensatory mitigation Additional mitigation requirements BAS 5.1 Wetland designation (PMC 28.16.020) Under the wetland designation provision, the five-year period for which wetland delineations are considered valid should be added for consistency with Ecology guidance and BAS. Furthermore, the quality of wetland mapping could be specified for clarity and consistency. For example, Ecology (2022) suggests “wetland delineations will be documented on a ground-verified map using either professional surveying methods or an equivalent professional method using GPS with sub-meter accuracy.” 5.2 Wetland rating classification (PMC 28.16.030) Consider referencing Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, as amended, to promote consistency with current best available science (BAS) and applicable state agency guidance for wetland mitigation. GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 17 5.3 Wetland detailed study – Requirements The CAO references qualified wetland biologist. To align with the definition consider updating the term qualified wetland biologist to qualified professional. For consistency with Ecology CAO guidance, it is recommended to update the report requirements. 5.4 Required buffers (PMC 28.16.080) The Washington Department of Ecology's most recent wetland guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance updates, Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: 2022 Update (Publication No. 22-06-014), identifies three Best Available Science (BAS)-based approaches for establishing wetland buffer widths. These alternatives provide varying levels of regulatory flexibility while maintaining the objective of protecting wetland functions and values. Buffer Alternative 1 establishes buffer widths based solely on wetland category. This approach is the simplest to administer but provides the least flexibility because it does not differentiate between wetland functions, site-specific conditions, or adjacent land-use intensity. As a result, the recommended buffer widths are generally the largest of the three alternatives and are intended to provide adequate protection for wetlands subject to the highest potential impacts. Buffer Alternative 2 incorporates both wetland category and the anticipated intensity of adjacent land-use impacts. This approach recognizes that different development activities pose varying levels of risk to wetland functions and allows buffer widths to be adjusted based on whether proposed impacts are classified as low, moderate, or high intensity. Buffer Alternative 3 provides the greatest level of flexibility and is based on three factors: wetland category, intensity of adjacent land-use impacts, and the specific functions and characteristics of the wetland identified through the Ecology rating system. This approach allows buffer widths to be tailored to the resources and functions requiring protection and is considered the most functionally based method for determining appropriate buffer widths. The City of Pasco's current wetland buffer standards generally align with Ecology's Buffer Alternative 3 and are therefore largely consistent with Best Available Science. The City's buffer framework incorporates wetland category and habitat function scoring to establish buffer widths, consistent with Ecology's function-based approach. One area of potential inconsistency relates to habitat score classifications. Ecology revised habitat score categories in 2018, consolidating scores of 3 through 5 into the "low" habitat function category, scores of 6 through 7 into the "moderate" category, and scores of 8 through 9 into the "high" category. Pasco's current code classifies habitat scores of 5 through 7 within the moderate function category, which differs from Ecology's current guidance. 18 / MONTH 2025 Because Pasco's buffer standards otherwise closely mirror Ecology's Buffer Alternative 3, the City should consider either revising the habitat score classifications to align with the current Ecology guidance or documenting the rationale for maintaining the existing scoring framework. Providing such justification would help demonstrate consistency with BAS and support the City's wetland protection program during future CAO updates. The City's current wetland buffer standards are provided in Table 5 below. Table 5. Current wetland buffers from PMC Table in 28.16.080 to protect water quality functions Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Category IV Wetlands (For wetlands scoring fewer than 16 points for all functions) Score for all three basic functions is less than 16 points Low—25 ft. Moderate—40 ft. High—50 ft. No recommendations at this time Category III Wetlands (For wetlands scoring 16-18 points for all functions, or isolated vernal pools) Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 5-7 points)* Low—75 ft. Moderate—110 ft. High—150 ft. No recommendations at this time *If wetland scores 8-9 habitat points use row below for Category II buffers Score for habitat 3-4 points Low—40 ft. Moderate—60 ft. High—80 ft. No recommendations at this time Category II Wetlands (For wetlands that score 19—21 points for all functions or having the "Special Characteristics" identified in the rating system) High level of function for habitat (score for habitat 8—9 points) Low—100 ft. Moderate—150 ft. High—200 ft. Maintain connections to other habitat areas. Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 5—7 points) Low—75 ft. Moderate—110 ft. High—150 ft. No recommendations at this time High level of function for water quality improvement and low for habitat (score for water quality 8—9 points; habitat less than 5 points) Low—50 ft. Moderate—75 ft. High—100 ft. No additional surface discharges of untreated runoff Not meeting above characteristic Low—50 ft. Moderate—75 ft. High—100 ft No recommendations at this time GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 19 Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Vernal pool Low—100 ft. Moderate—150 ft. High—200 ft. OR Develop a regional plan to protect the most important vernal pool complexes—buffers of vernal pools outside protection zones can then be reduced to: Low—40 ft. Moderate—60 ft. High—80 ft. No intensive grazing or tilling of wetland Category I Wetlands (For wetlands that score 22 points or more for all functions or having the "Special Characteristics" identified in the rating system) Wetlands of high conservation value Low—125 ft. Moderate—190 ft. High—250 ft. No additional surface discharges to wetland or its tributaries. No septic systems within 300 ft of wetland. Restore degraded parts of buffer. High level of function for habitat (score for habitat 8—9 points) Low—100 ft. Moderate—150 ft. High—200 ft. Restore degraded parts of buffer. Maintain connections to other habitat areas Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 5—7 points) Low—75 ft. Moderate—110 ft. High—150 ft. No recommendations at this time High level of function for water quality improvement (8—9 points) and low for habitat (less than 5 points) Low—50 ft. Moderate—75 ft. High—100 ft. No additional surface discharges of untreated runoff Not meeting above characteristics Low — 50 ft Moderate — 75 ft High — 100 ft No recommendations at this time Additional details and examples can be found in the following guidelines: The 2022 Ecology document, Wetland Guidance for Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Updates, Western and Eastern Washington (Ecology 2022), is intended to update the 2016/2018 document. 20 / MONTH 2025 Wetlands in Washington State – Volume 2, Appendix 8-C (Granger et al. 2005, Revised July 2018). Current Ecology guidance for Eastern Washington is provided in Appendix A. Building Setback Cross-referencing the building setback requirements under general critical area requirements would provide clarity and make this requirement simpler to administer. Land Use Intensity Table Update PCC 28.16.020(2) Land use intensity table to include missing elements from Ecology’s guidance for CAO updates. 5.5 Compensatory mitigation (PMC 28.16.090) The City's wetland mitigation replacement ratio requirements in PMC 28.16.090(2) should be reviewed for consistency with current BAS and Washington Department of Ecology guidance. Specifically, the City should consider updating PMC 28.16.090(2) - to align with the recommendations contained in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: 2022 Update (Ecology Publication No. 22-06-014). Referencing the current Ecology guidance would provide applicants with clear, consistent, and scientifically supported standards for determining compensatory mitigation requirements. Additional Mitigation Requirements The Critical Areas Ordinance could be strengthened by providing additional direction regarding mitigation implementation, timing, monitoring, and long-term project success. The code should clarify that compensatory mitigation may not be implemented until a critical area detailed study and associated mitigation plan have been reviewed and approved by the City. The City should also consider establishing adaptive management requirements for compensatory mitigation projects. Where monitoring demonstrates that mitigation performance standards are not being achieved, the CAO should require implementation of contingency measures, corrective actions, or additional mitigation to address deficiencies and achieve the intended ecological outcomes. Requiring adaptive management provisions would help ensure the long-term success of mitigation projects and support the goal of no net loss of ecological functions. For additional accountability and consistency, mitigation plans should include requirements for the submission of as-built documentation and monitoring reports that demonstrate compliance with approved design specifications, performance standards, and success criteria. Mitigation ratios The mitigation ratios in table 28.16.120(3) are generally consistent with Ecology recommendations. However, some wetland categories based on special characteristics could be added to the Wetland Mitigation Ratios table (e.g., bogs, alkali, estuarine wetlands). Additional information could be added to GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 21 clarify when mitigation ratios apply. For example, that ratios are intended for permanent, direct impacts. Other ratios may be appropriate for other types of impacts, like long-term temporary or conversions. Required mitigation ratios for wetland buffer impacts are not provided. Ecology recommends that impacts to buffers be mitigated at a minimum one-to-one (1:1) ratio and that compensatory buffer mitigation replaces functions lost from development. 22 / MONTH 2025 6. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS (CHAPTER 28.20) This chapter covers fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) regulations in PMC Sections 28.20.010 – 28.08.060. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 6; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 6. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.20.010 Purpose Consider Including no net loss BAS, Commerce Checklist PMC 28.20.020 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area designation and classification criteria 1. Consider removing table listing all FWHCAs 2. Consider separating the classification sources into separate section 1. BAS, Clarity 2. Bas, Clarity PMC 28.20.030 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area rating 1. Consider removing section 1. Clarity PMC 28.20.040 Determination of need for fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study 1. Consider removing. Determination addressed elsewhere in code 1. Clarity PMC 28.20.050 Fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study requirements 1. Consider including qualified professional 2. Remove term fish and wildlife critical area and replace with FWHCA 3. Update critical area minimum report requirements 1. Clarity, definition change 2. Clarity 3. BAS GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 23 Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.20.060 Performance standards minimum requirements 1. Consider adding riparian habitat areas 2. Consider adding riparian habitat area regulatory/performance standards 1. BAS 6.1 Purpose (28.20.010) The purpose section does not reference the requirement in WAC 365‑190‑180(1) for jurisdictions to ensure no net loss of the functions and values of FWHCA. The City should consider revising the purpose statement to explicitly include the no‑net‑loss requirement so that the section reflects state expectations for protecting ecological functions and values. 6.2 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area designation and classification criteria (PMC 28.20.020) 6.2.1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area Classification The City's FWHCA designation section does not comprehensively identify all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas recognized under WAC 365-190-130 and instead relies on a summarized list that may omit certain state-designated habitat categories. For clarity and consistency with state guidance, the City should consider revising the FWHCA designation section to explicitly identify all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas described in WAC 365-190-130. Incorporating the state habitat categories directly into the code would improve transparency, reduce ambiguity, and help maintain consistency with applicable state regulations and guidance documents. 6.2.2 Classification Sources and Mapping Table 28.20.020(1) identifies resources used to designate habitat areas, but the sources are not consolidated within the mapping section and could be expanded. The City should consider listing all applicable mapping sources within the mapping section, including WDNR Natural Heritage Program mapping data and anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in Habitat Limiting Factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission. This would improve clarity and provide a more comprehensive basis for critical area identification. 24 / MONTH 2025 6.3 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area rating (PMC 28.20.030) PMC 28.20.030 includes a habitat rating system that classifies habitat areas as either primary or secondary. However, these ratings do not appear to be used elsewhere in the chapter to establish differing protection standards, buffers, mitigation requirements, or review criteria. The City should consider removing the habitat rating section to streamline the code and eliminate terminology that does not have a clear regulatory function. This would improve clarity and reduce potential confusion for staff, applicants, and decision-makers. 6.4 Determination of need for fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study (PMC 28.20.040) The City's FWHCA regulations include a separate section establishing when a detailed study is required. However, PMC 28.12.120 already contains a citywide critical area screening and initial determination process that serves a similar purpose. The City should consider removing or consolidating this section with the general initial determination provisions to reduce redundancy and improve code clarity. This would help ensure that critical area review is administered through a single, consistent process. 6.5 Fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study requirements (PMC 28.20.050) It is recommended to expand the critical area report requirements to include a description of habitat protection measures, cumulative impacts assessment, monitoring, adaptive management, and long‑term stewardship. Adding these elements ensures that reports address how habitat functions will be protected and maintained over time, consistent with state agency expectations. 6.6 Performance standards minimum requirements (PMC 28.20.050) The City currently does not establish riparian habitat area buffers. To facilitate implementation of riparian habitat buffer standards, the City should consider adopting specific riparian habitat area performance standards. These provisions could include standards for vegetative condition, buffer averaging, increased buffer widths when warranted by site conditions, and functionally disconnected buffers. Incorporating these performance standards would improve implementation of riparian habitat area protections and allow buffer requirements to better reflect site-specific conditions. GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 25 7. AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CHAPTER 28.24) This chapter covers aquifer recharge areas regulations in PMC Sections 28.24.010 – 28.24.090. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 7; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 7. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.24.020 Aquifer recharge designation criteria Update WAC reference Include DOE resources Match designation and vulnerability criteria to SMP BAS, Clarity, Consistency PMC 28.24.030 General regulations Consider adding allowed activities Clarity PMC 28.24.040 Determination of need for aquifer recharge area detailed study Update list of resources Add agricultural activities Consistency, Clarity PMC 28.24.050 Aquifer recharge detailed study requirements Add mitigation Consistency, BAS PMC 28.24.070 Performance standards basic requirements Include BMP’s BAS 7.1 General Consider renaming section to “critical aquifer recharge area” (CARA) for consistency with WAC critical area designations and SMP. 7.2 Aquifer Recharge Designation Criteria (PMC 28.24.020) Update WAC reference. Consider referencing the Department of Ecology’s confirmed or suspected contaminated groundwater sites and associated map resources. Add Designations per SMP Consider revising the aquifer recharge area designation criteria to align with Table 29.01.540(2)(a), Designation of Aquifer Recharge Areas, in the Pasco Shoreline Master Program (City of Pasco 2023) as follows: 26 / MONTH 2025 (1) Wellhead Protection Areas pursuant to WAC 246-290 WA Department of Health, US Environmental Protection Agency (2) Areas designated for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management program, RCW 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 and WAC 173-100 and 173-200 Ecology (3) Areas overlying unprotected aquifers. Such aquifers shall be identified through any existing competent hydrogeologic study USGS, WDNR (4) Areas within identified unprotected aquifers but possessing the following characteristics: a) Slopes less than 15% b) Coarse alluvium or sand and gravel in the soil profile and no known impermeable layers (b) WDFW Add Vulnerability Assessment Consider incorporating the vulnerability assessment criteria established in the Shoreline Master Program (2023) to provide consistency between the City’s CAO and SMP and establish a clear framework for evaluating the relative vulnerability of critical aquifer recharge areas. High Vulnerability High significance aquifer recharge areas are areas with slopes of less than 15% underlain by coarse alluvium or sand and gravel Moderate Vulnerability Moderate significance aquifer recharge areas are: (1) Areas with slopes of less than 15% underlain by fine alluvium, silt, clay, glacial till, or deposits from the electron mudflow (2) Areas with slopes of 15% to 30% underlain by sand and gravel Low Vulnerability Moderate significance aquifer recharge areas are: (1) Areas with slopes of 15% to 30% underlain by silt, clay, or glacial till (2) Areas with slopes greater than 30% 7.3 General regulations (PMC 28.24.030) Consider including a list of activities that are permitted outright within CARAs to provide greater clarity and predictability for applicants. Clearly identifying exempt or allowed activities can improve code usability, reduce uncertainty during project planning, and streamline the permit review process. Examples of such activities are provided below: Allowed uses (do not require approval or submission of a site assessment report) All residential uses; Development and improvement of parks, recreation facilities, open space, or conservation areas resulting in less than five percent total site impervious surface area that do not increase the use of a hazardous substance; Public water systems; GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 27 On-site domestic septic systems releasing less than 14,500 gallons of effluent per day and that are limited to a maximum density of one system per one acre. 7.4 Determination of need for aquifer recharge area (PMC 28.24.030) Consider updating the list of referenced information resources to reflect currently available and accessible materials. The City of Pasco Wellhead Protection Area Plan does not appear to be publicly available online and should be reviewed to confirm its continued applicability and availability as a reference. Additionally, the City of Pasco Water System Plan appears to have been renamed the City of Pasco Comprehensive Water System Plan and should be updated accordingly. Based on the resources reviewed, none appear to specifically identify, map, or reference high significance aquifer recharge areas, which may limit their usefulness in determining when the associated regulatory provisions apply. It is recommended that the City consider developing or updating GIS mapping for its CARA designations. Having readily accessible mapping would provide greater consistency in project review, help applicants identify potential CARA requirements earlier in the permitting process, and reduce the likelihood that potentially vulnerable aquifer recharge areas are overlooked. Agriculture Consider requiring new agricultural activities within critical aquifer recharge areas to be conducted in accordance with applicable approved land management and conservation practices designed to protect groundwater quality, including practices identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical guides, as well as applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing agricultural practices, as amended. For new agricultural land uses that may affect critical aquifer recharge areas, consider requiring the preparation of a detailed study, as appropriate, to evaluate potential risks to groundwater resources and identify measures necessary to avoid or minimize impacts. 7.5 Aquifer recharge area detailed study (PMC 28.24.050) Consider incorporating the following language from the Pasco Shoreline Master Program (PMC 29.01.540(5)(d)) to promote consistency between the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program in the review and mitigation of potential impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas: “The Detailed Study shall include a mitigation plan detailing how the activity will offset any impact on the resource and control risk of contamination to the aquifer.” 28 / MONTH 2025 7.6 Performance standards basic requirements (PMC 28.24.070) Consider referencing and requiring implementation of applicable Best Management Practices from the Washington Department of Ecology’s Stormwater, Water Quality, Hazardous Waste, Wetland, and Solid Waste Programs BMPs; Chapter 13.26A; and BMPs from the Washington Departments of Health, Agriculture, Transportation, and State Conservation District Office to minimize impacts to CARAs. GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 29 8. FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (CHAPTER 28.28) This chapter covers flood hazard areas regulations in PMC Sections 28.28.010 – 28.28.040. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 8; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 8. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.28..040 Management Address floodplain ecological functions, flood storage, groundwater recharge, floodplain connectivity, channel migration hazards, and climate resilience. BAS 8.1 General (PMC 28.28.010) Consider renaming section to “frequently flooded areas” for consistency with WAC critical area designations 8.2 Management (PMC 28.28.040) Designation criteria is limited to FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplains and does not fully reflect the broader frequently flooded area definition in WAC 365-190-030. Current regulations emphasize flood damage prevention and structural protection but contain limited provisions specifically addressing floodplain ecological functions, flood storage, groundwater recharge, floodplain connectivity, channel migration hazards, and climate resilience. Consideration should be given to expanding the flood hazard area designation criteria, strengthening protection of natural floodplain processes, and updating regulations to reflect contemporary floodplain management and climate adaptation practices. 30 / MONTH 2025 9. GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS (CHAPTER 28.32) This chapter covers geologic hazard area regulations in PMC Sections 28.32.010 – 28.32.090. A summary of recommended updates is provided in Table 9; only sections where updates are currently recommended have been included. A discussion of recommended updates is provided after the table. Table 9. Example code table summary. Code Section Title Review Comment and Recommendations Reason for Recommendation PMC 28.32.060 Determination of need for geologic hazard area detailed study Update mapping resources Consistency, clarity 9.1 Determination of need for geologic hazard area detailed study (PMC 28.32.060) The City of Pasco’s online GIS mapping and other available critical areas mapping resources do not currently identify known or suspected erosion, landslide, seismic, or mine hazard areas. However, the City’s online GIS includes a steep slopes layer that may assist in identifying areas with potential geologic hazards. To improve consistency between the City’s mapping resources and the Critical Areas Ordinance, consider updating or supplementing the available mapping resources to identify, where data are available, the geologically hazardous areas designated under PMC 28.32.060(1). GAP ANALYSIS / PASCO CAO UPDATE / 31 10. REFERENCES City of Pasco. 2023. "Shoreline Master Program." City of Pasco, Washigton. Ecology, the Corps, and EPA. 2021. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State - Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 2). Ecology Publication #21-06-003, Washington State Department of Ecology. ESA and Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum. Publication #08-06-018, Washington State Department of Ecology. Facet. 2026. "Shrub-steppe Habitat Best Available Science." City of Pasco. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-3, Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. USDA, NRCS. 2024. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: A Guid for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 9.0). United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. WDFW. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Updated June 2023, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. APPENDIX A. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: ɎɌɎɎ Update (Ecology Publication No. ɎɎ -Ɍɒ -Ɍɍɐ ) Washington State Wetland Rating System For Eastern Washington 2014 Update October 2014 - Effective January 2015 Publication no. 14-06-030 Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1406030.html For more information contact: SEA Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: 360-407-6600 Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400 This publication should be cited as: Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-030). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. To request ADA accommodation including materials in a format for the visually impaired, call the SEA Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with impaired hearing may call Washington Relay Service at 711. Persons with speech disability may call TTY at 877-833-6341. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington 2014 Update by Thomas Hruby, PhD SEA Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update i Effective January 1, 2015 Table of Contents Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Changes made to the 2004 Rating System in this update .............................................................. 2 Peer and public review of this update ................................................................................................... 4 2. Rationale for the Categories ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Category I .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Category II ................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Category III ............................................................................................................................................ 10 2.4 Category IV ............................................................................................................................................ 10 3. Overview for Users ...................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 When to use the wetland rating system .................................................................................... 11 3.2 How the wetland rating system works ...................................................................................... 11 3.3 General guidance for using the Wetland Rating Form ......................................................... 11 4. Identifying Wetland Boundaries for Rating ....................................................................................... 15 4.1 Identifying unit boundaries in large contiguous wetlands in valleys (Depressional and Riverine) ................................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 Wetland units along the banks of streams or rivers ............................................................. 18 4.3 Identifying wetland units in a patchwork on the landscape (mosaic) ........................... 20 4.4 Identifying unit boundaries along the shores of lakes or reservoirs (Lake Fringe wetlands only) ............................................................................................................................................. 21 4.5 Wetlands bisected by human-made features .......................................................................... 22 4.6 Cases when a wetland should not be divided .......................................................................... 23 4.7 Freshwater wetlands where only part of the wetland is a forest or a bog .................. 24 4.8 Very small wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 24 5. Detailed Guidance for the Rating Form: Scoring Functions ......................................................... 27 5.1 Classifying the wetland .................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Classifying the plant communities ............................................................................................... 35 5.3 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Depressional wetlands (questions starting with ‘D’) ......................................................................................................................................... 37 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update ii Effective January 1, 2015 5.4 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Riverine wetlands (questions starting with ‘R’) ........................................................................................................................................................... 54 5.5 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Lake Fringe wetlands (questions starting with “L”) .......................................................................................................................................................... 68 5.6 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Slope wetlands (questions starting with “S”) .................................................................................................................................................................... 77 5.7 Habitat functions for all HGM classes (questions starting with ‘H’) ............................... 86 6. Detailed Guidance for the Rating Form: Wetlands With Special Characteristics .............. 105 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix A. Rating Form Appendix B. WDFW Priority Habitats in Eastern Washington Appendix C. Estimating Soil Texture Appendix D. Modeling Functions and Values in This Rapid Method Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update iii Effective January 1, 2015 Preface This document is an update of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington, published by the Department of Ecology in 2004 (Hruby, 2004a). This is the third edition of the rating system for eastern Washington since the Department of Ecology published the first one in 1991. The original document was published with the understanding that modifications would be incorporated as we increase our understanding of wetland systems, and as many different people use the rating system. The need to update the previous version became apparent as we have learned more in the last decade about how wetlands function and what is needed to protect them. Furthermore, statistical analyses of the data collected during the use of the previous version indicated that scoring functions from 0-100 could not be supported by the science. The method can accurately document the levels at which wetlands function only to three qualitative ratings of High, Medium, or Low. We are calling this version an update of the 2004 edition rather than a revision because the changes made are not as significant as those made between the 1993 and the 2004 versions. Much of the information and text remain the same and changes were made only if new scientific information indicated changes were needed. This update was initially published online as Publication # 14-06-018 in June 2014. It was removed from the website to allow time for local jurisdictions to update relevant code language and to correct typographical and formatting errors. Because typographical changes were made to the rating form, we replaced the published version with a new publication number, rather than issuing a notice of errata. Acknowledgements This document would not have been possible without the participation and help of many people. The document is an update of existing tools, and thus represents the culmination of two decades of development, review, and field testing. Special thanks go to the technical committee of wetland experts and planners from local governments and Ecology’s Wetlands Technical Advisory Group who helped develop the objectives for the rating system in 2004, reviewed and field tested the Credit/Debit Method in 2010 (Ecology publication #11-06-015), and provided feedback on the these tools. Special thanks to Joe Rocchio of the Natural Heritage Program for refining our list of bog species and those found in calcareous fens. We have also received valuable comments from 19 individuals and organizations who took the time to review the draft sent out for public comment, and we wish to acknowledge their efforts. These include: Suzanne Anderson, Confluence Environmental Services, Kathy Curry, Geoff Gray, Grette Associates, Patricia Johnson, Kennewick Irrigation District, Mike Layes, Torrey Luiting, Jeff Meyer, David Moore, Hugh Mortensen, Brad Murphy, NW Ecological Services, Scott Rozenbaum, Rebecca Schroeder, Lee Stragis, Doug Swanson, and Patrick Togher. Amy Yahnke edited the final draft. Thank you all. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update iv Effective January 1, 2015 Abbreviations for standard units of measure used in this document inch = in centimeter = cm foot = ft meter = m mile = mi kilometer = km acre = ac hectare = ha horsepower = hp parts per thousand = ppt Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 1 Effective January 1, 2015 1. Introduction The wetlands in Washington State differ widely in their functions and values. Some wetland types are common, while others are rare. Some are heavily disturbed, while others are still relatively undisturbed. All, however, provide some functions and resources that are valued. These may be ecological, economic, recreational, or aesthetic. Managers, planners, and citizens need tools to understand the resource value of individual wetlands in order to protect them effectively. Many tools have been developed to understand the functions and values of wetlands. The methods range from detailed scientific analyses that may require many years to complete, to the judgments of individual resource experts done during one visit to the wetland. Managers of our wetland resources, however, are faced with a dilemma. Scientific rigor is often time consuming and costly. Tools are needed to provide information on the functions and values of wetlands in a time- and cost-effective way. One way to accomplish this is to categorize wetlands by their important attributes or characteristics based on the collective judgment of regional experts. Such methods are relatively rapid but still provide some scientific rigor (Hruby, 1999). This rating system was designed to differentiate among wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and the functions they provide. The rating system, however, does not replace a full assessment of wetland functions that may be necessary to plan and monitor a project of compensatory mitigation. The intent of the rating categories is to provide a basis for developing standards for protecting and managing the wetlands. Some decisions that can be made based on the rating include the width of buffers needed to protect the wetland from adjacent development and permitted uses in, and around, the wetland. Many local jurisdictions have included language on buffers in their critical areas ordinances based on the 2005 guidance on wetland buffers (found in Wetlands in Washington State – Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, Publication #05-06-008). The update of the rating systems will provide a more accurate rating of the functions and values of a wetland but keeps the same four wetland categories used in the 2005 guidance. For the 2015-2019 critical areas ordinance update cycle, we are not proposing any changes to the buffer widths recommended in the 2005 guidance, however any buffer strategy that uses function scores to determine buffer widths will need to be adjusted to use the new scores in the 2014 update. The Washington State Wetland Rating System categorizes wetlands based on specific attributes such as rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, and the functions they provide. These attributes are not comparable, and thus cannot be rated on the same scale. Only the functions are actually rated on a qualitative scale. The term “rating,” however, is being kept in the title to maintain consistency with the previous editions. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 2 Effective January 1, 2015 The rating system is intended for use primarily with vegetated, freshwater, wetlands as identified using the federal wetland delineation manual and the appropriate regional supplements. The rating system also does not characterize streambeds, riparian areas, and other valuable aquatic resources. The rating system also has not been calibrated to montane wetlands generally found above 3000 ft elevation. We do not recommend that the rating system be used to rate functions in these montane wetlands. Changes made to the 2004 Rating System in this update Chapters 2-4 and the scoring for the site potentials in Chapter 5 are carried over from the 2004 version of the rating system. Some changes in these sections were made to reflect the annotations added in 2007 and to include current definitions used by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Natural Heritage Program at the Department of Natural Resources. The substantive differences between this version of the rating system and the 2004 version are the conversion of scores for each function to ratings of High, Medium, or Low, and the replacement of the Opportunity section with two new sections (Landscape Potential and the Value). Only the ratings of functions are assigned a score rather than using the raw scores of the indicators. The range of possible scores for a wetland category based on function was reduced to 9-27 (from 1-100) to better reflect the accuracy of the method (see box on next page). The field indicators for Site Potential are the same as in the 2004 version of the rating system and that were also kept in the more recent Credit/Debit Method developed by Ecology in 2012 (Ecology publication #11-06-015). The new sections on Landscape Potential and Value in Chapter 5 of this update are the same as in the Credit/Debit Method. Also, we have added calcareous fens to the description of peat systems (bogs) that are Category I wetlands in eastern Washington (see Chapter 2). A companion document, Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update should be used for wetlands in western Washington (Ecology publication #14-06-029). The boundary between eastern and western Washington for the purpose of rating wetlands is defined in WAC 222-16-010. Eastern Washington means the geographic area in Washington east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains from the international border to the top of Mt. Adams, then east of the ridge line dividing the White Salmon River drainage from the Lewis River drainage and east of the ridge line dividing the Little White Salmon River drainage from the Wind River drainage to the Washington-Oregon state line. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 3 Effective January 1, 2015 The distribution of categories of reference wetlands in the updated rating system Data were collected at 90 wetlands to calibrate the rating system in 2004. Data from 86 of these could be used to re-calibrate the scoring for this update. Some wetlands were lost through natural and human alterations and some could not be re-located. The range of scores for wetland categories based on functions in this update is between 9– 27 rather than the 0–100 possible in the 2004 version. This change was necessary because a statistical analysis of data collected in the last decade indicated that rapid methods such as these are not scientifically accurate beyond a qualitative rating of High, Medium, or Low (unpublished data collected at reference sites during the calibration and field testing of the method). Choosing the score at which we separate levels of functioning is a decision that is based on best professional judgment in rapid methods such as these. For example, in the 2004 Rating System we chose to call wetlands with a very high level of function (Category I) those with a score of 70 or more, while those with a high level of function (Category II) scored between 51 – 69, those with a moderate level of function (Category III) scored between 30 – 50 points, and those with a low level of function (Category IV) scored less than 30 points. These divisions were based on the judgment of the teams of wetland experts that developed the rating system in 2004. It reflects the teams’ scientific consensus on what is meant by very high, high, moderate, and low levels of functions after visiting the reference sites. The divisions also reflected the teams’ observations that most wetlands function at high or moderate levels and there are fewer that function at very high or low levels. The divisions between wetland categories based on levels of function in this update were chosen to match as closely as possible the distribution of ratings found for the 86 reference sites when rated using the 2004 method. However, given that the range of possible scores was reduced, it was not possible to get the exact same distribution. We do consider, however, that the scores used to place a wetland in a category were very close (see the first page of the rating form in Appendix A for the scores of the different categories). Number of Reference Wetlands in Each Category Based on Their Score for Functions Category 2004 Rating System Updated Rating System I 13 11 II 36 36 III 35 33 IV 6 6 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 4 Effective January 1, 2015 Peer and public review of this update The 2004 version of the rating system went through a thorough peer and public review process as did the Credit/Debit Method. The new sections on Landscape Potential and Value were field tested for one year prior to publication in 2012. Over 40 individuals and groups provided comments on the Credit/Debit Method. These comments and our responses can be found at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206005.html. In addition to the 40 reviewers of the Credit/Debit Method, we received comments from 19 reviewers of a draft of this update. The rating system is based on the best information available at this time and meets the needs of “best available science” under the Growth Management Act. We anticipate that the method will be further modified over time as we keep increasing our understanding of our wetland resources. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 5 Effective January 1, 2015 2. Rationale for the Categories This rating system is designed to differentiate among wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, rarity, the functions they provide, and whether we can replace them or not. The emphasis is on identifying those wetlands: Where our ability to replace them is low. That are sensitive to adjacent disturbance. That are rare in the landscape. That perform many functions well. That are important in maintaining biodiversity. The following description summarizes the rationale for including different wetland types in each category. As a general principle, it is important to note that wetlands of all categories have valuable functions in the landscape, and all are worthy of inclusion in programs for wetland protection. 2.1 Category I Category I wetlands are those that 1) represent a unique or rare wetland type; or 2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or 3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or 4) provide a high level of functions. We cannot afford the risk of any degradation to these wetlands because their functions and values are too difficult to replace. Generally, these wetlands are not common and make up a small percentage of the wetlands in the region. Of the 86 wetlands used to field-test the current rating system, only 11 (13%) were rated as a Category I. In eastern Washington the following types of wetlands are Category I: Alkali Wetlands. Alkali wetlands are characterized by the presence of shallow saline water with a high pH. In eastern Washington these wetlands contain surface water with specific conductance that exceeds 3000 micromhos/cm. These wetlands provide the primary habitat for several species of migrant shorebirds and are also heavily used by migrant waterfowl. They also have unique plants and animals that are not found anywhere else in eastern Washington. For example, the small alkali bee that is used to pollinate alfalfa and onion for seed production lives in alkali systems. Other bees used to pollinate fruits and vegetables are generally too large to pollinate the small flowers of those commercially important plants. Therefore, alkali wetlands are a valuable natural resource for agriculture in the western U.S. and especially in eastern Washington (Delaplane & Mayer, 2000). The salt concentrations in these wetlands have resulted from a relatively long-term process of groundwater surfacing and evaporating. These conditions cannot be easily reproduced through compensatory mitigation because the balance of salts, evaporation, and water inflows are hard to reproduce, and to our knowledge has never been tried. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 6 Effective January 1, 2015 Alkali wetlands are placed into Category I because they probably cannot be reproduced through compensatory mitigation. No information was found on any attempts to create or restore alkali wetlands. Any impacts to alkali wetlands will, therefore, probably result in a net loss of their functions and values. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (formerly called Natural Heritage Wetlands). These Category I wetlands have been identified by scientists from the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) as important ecosystems for maintaining plant diversity in our state. Wetlands that represent rare plant communities or provide habitat for rare plants are uncommon in eastern Washington. As of March 2014, there are 946 Wetlands of High Conservation Value in eastern WA; most of those sites are based on the presence of rare plants (877); only 69 sites are based on plant communities (J. Rocchio, WNHP, personal communication, March 2014). The total number of wetlands in eastern Washington, however, is surprisingly high even in the arid parts of the region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mapped 3124 wetlands in Lincoln County alone (Tiner et al., 2002). Unfortunately, we do not have a good count of wetlands in other locations in the eastern part of the state. If you find a rare plant species, rare plant community, or high-quality common plant community that you believe would qualify the site as a Wetland of High Conservation Value but is not currently documented in the WNHP database, you can submit the information to them. If WNHP staff have the capacity to review the information, they will make a determination about whether sufficient information exists to designate the site as a Wetland of High Conservation Value. If WNHP does not respond within 30 days, then the wetland cannot be rated as a Wetland of High Conservation Value. Information required for documenting a new rare plant location can be found at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/amp_nh_sighting_form.pdf. Visit WNHP’s website for resources to assist in classifying the plant community: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/communities.html. By categorizing these wetlands as Category I, we are trying to provide a high level of protection to these important but rare wetlands. These natural systems and species will survive in Washington only if we give them special attention and protection. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 7 Effective January 1, 2015 Bogs and Calcareous Fens. Bogs and Calcareous Fens are Category I peat wetlands because they are sensitive to disturbance and have not been successfully re-created through compensatory mitigation. Bogs are wetlands with peat soils and a low pH, usually a pH < 5. The chemistry of these wetlands is such that changes to the water regime or water quality of the wetland can easily alter their ecosystem. The plants and animals that grow in bogs are specifically adapted to such conditions and do not tolerate changes well. Immediate changes in the composition of the plant community often occur after the water regime changes. Minor changes in the water regime or nutrient levels in these systems can have major adverse impacts on the plant and animal communities (e.g., Grigal & Brooks, 1997). In addition to being sensitive to disturbance, bogs are not easy to re-create through compensatory mitigation. Researchers in northern Europe and Canada have found that restoring bogs is difficult, specifically in regard to plant communities (Bolscher, 1995; Grosvermier et al., 1995; Schouwenaars, 1995; Schrautzer et al., 1996; Mazerolle et al., 2006), water regime (Grootjans & van Diggelen, 1995; Schouwenaars, 1995), and/or water chemistry (Wind-Mulder & Vitt, 2000). In fact, restoration may be impossible because changes to the biotic and abiotic properties preclude the re-establishment of bogs (Schouwenaars, 1995; Schrautzer et al., 1996), although one study (Lucchese et al., 2010) did find that a sphagnum layer did become re-established after 17 years. Furthermore, bogs form extremely slowly, with organic soils forming at a rate of about 1 in per 40 years in western Washington (Rigg, 1958). Calcareous fens are a type of alkaline, rather than acidic, peat wetland. They are peat- accumulating wetlands maintained by groundwater that have a neutral or high pH and high concentrations of calcium and other alkaline minerals. Calcareous fens support rare plant species tolerant of these unique chemical conditions (Calcareous Fen Technical Committee, 1994). The groundwater is typically rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates and sometimes calcium and magnesium sulfates (Eggers & Reed, 1997). Calcareous fens are thought to be one of the rarest wetland types in the United States (Eggers & Reed, 1997) and appear to be one of the rarest peat wetland types in Washington State. Within Washington, calcareous fens have been found only in the north central to northeastern portion of the State. The Washington Natural Heritage Program has identified only 5 calcareous fens out of 946 Wetlands of High Conservation Value in their survey of eastern We use the term bogs to represent a range of acidic peat wetlands. The criteria we have been using in the rating system encompass a broader range of wetlands than what many scientists consider to be true bogs. Many scientists consider bogs to be peat wetlands that receive almost all of their water from rainfall (J. Rocchio, Washington Natural Heritage Program, personal communication, March 2014). Since many of the acidic peat wetlands in the state also get some of their water from the surrounding landscape or groundwater, they cannot be considered as true bogs, but should rather be called “acidic fens.” The criteria we use define a group of wetlands that should be called acidic peatlands, but we are not changing the name in this update to avoid confusion and because we have not changed the criteria for identifying bogs. . Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 8 Effective January 1, 2015 Washington. As a result of their rarity, we have added calcareous fens to the other Category I peat systems in this update. Mature and Old-Growth Forested Wetlands with Slow Growing Trees. Mature and old-growth forested wetlands over ¼ ac in size that are dominated by slow growing native trees are Category I because these wetlands cannot be easily replaced through compensatory mitigation. A mature forest of slow growing trees may require a century or more to develop, and the full range of functions performed by these wetlands may take even longer (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). Wetland species considered to be slow growing and native in eastern Washington are western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Alaska yellow cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis), pine spp. (mostly western white pine, Pinus monticola), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii). Forests with Stands of Aspen. Aspen stands in a forested area are Category I because their contribution as habitat far exceeds the small acreage of these stands and relatively small number of stems (Hadfield & Magelssen, 2004). Furthermore a mature stand of aspen and its underground root system may be difficult to reproduce. Regeneration of aspen stands by sexually produced seeds is an unusual phenomenon (Romme et al., 1997). Aspen stands are also important because they represent a priority habitat as defined by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, “Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species.” (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf, accessed December 3, 2013). NOTE: All wetlands are categorized as a priority habitat by the WDFW. Wetlands with aspen stands, therefore, represent two priority habitats that coincide. Wetlands That Perform Functions at High Levels. Wetlands scoring 22 points or more (out of 27) from the rating of functions are Category I wetlands. Not all wetlands function equally well, especially across the suite of functions performed. The field questionnaire was developed to provide a method by which wetlands can be rated based on their relative performance of different functions. Wetlands scoring 22 points or more were judged to have the highest levels of functions. These wetlands are also relatively rare. Of the 86 wetlands used to calibrate the rating system in eastern Washington, only 11 (13%) scored 22 points or higher based on their functions. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 9 Effective January 1, 2015 2.2 Category II Category II wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. These wetlands occur more commonly than Category I wetlands, but still need a relatively high level of protection. Category II wetlands in eastern Washington include: Forested Wetlands in the Floodplains of Rivers. Forested wetlands are an important resource in the floodplains of rivers, especially in the areas through which the river may flow regularly (often called the channel migration zone). These wetlands are rated Category II, at a minimum, because the questionnaire on functions does not adequately capture their unique role in the ecosystem. Trees in the floodplains are critical to the proper functioning and the dynamic processes of rivers. They influence channel form, and create pools, riffles, and side channels that are essential habitat for many fish and other aquatic species. These trees also create localized rearing and flood refuge areas, and contribute to the stabilization of the main river channel (NRC, 2002). Please note, however, that many forested wetlands in floodplains that have structurally complex habitats may actually be a Category I based on their functions. Mature and Old-Growth Forested Wetlands with Fast Growing Trees. Mature and old-growth forested wetlands with over ¼ ac of forest dominated by fast growing native trees are rated as Category II because they are hard to replace within the time frame of most regulatory activities. The time needed to replace them is shorter than for forests with slow growing trees, but still significant. Native fast-growing wetland trees include: Alders: Red (Alnus rubra), thinleaf (A. incana ssp. tenuifolia) Cottonwoods: Narrowleaf (Populus angustifolia), black (P. balsamifera) Willows: Peach-leaf (Salix amygdaloides), Sitka (S. sitchensis), Pacific (S. lasiandra) Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) Water birch (Betula occidentalis) Vernal Pools. Vernal pools, also called rainpools, that are located in a landscape with other wetlands, and that are relatively undisturbed during the early spring, are rated Category II because the questionnaire on functions does not adequately capture their unique role in the ecosystem. Vernal pool ecosystems are formed when small depressions in the scabrock or in shallow soils fill with snowmelt or spring rains. They retain water until the late spring when they dry out as a result of reduced precipitation and increased evapotranspiration. The wetlands hold water long enough throughout the year to allow some strictly aquatic organisms to flourish, but not long enough for the development of a typical wetland environment (Zedler, 1987). The Washington Natural Heritage Program has recognized the vernal pool ecosystem as an important component of Washington's Natural Area System. Vernal pools in the scablands are the first to melt in the early spring. This open water provides areas where migrating waterfowl can find food while other, larger, bodies of water are still frozen. Furthermore, the Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 10 Effective January 1, 2015 open water provides areas for pair bonding in the waterfowl (R. Friesz, WDFW, personal communication, 2002). Thus, vernal pools in a landscape with other wetlands provide an important habitat function for waterfowl that requires a relatively high level of protection. This is the reason why relatively undisturbed vernal pools in a mosaic of other wetlands are Category II, and isolated, undisturbed vernal pools are Category III. Wetlands That Perform Functions Well. Wetlands scoring between 19-21 points (out of 27) on the questions related to the functions present are Category II wetlands. These wetlands were judged to perform most functions relatively well, or performed one group of functions very well and the other two moderately well. 2.3 Category III Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scores between 16-18 points) and can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project. Wetlands scoring between 16-18 points generally have been disturbed in some ways, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. 2.4 Category IV Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scores less than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, and in some cases, improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and also need to be protected. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 11 Effective January 1, 2015 3. Overview for Users 3.1 When to use the w etland rating system The rating system is designed as a rapid screening tool to categorize wetlands for use by agencies and local governments in protecting and managing wetlands. It should be used only on vegetated wetlands as defined using the delineation procedures in WAC 173-22-35. The rating system does not try to establish the economic values present in a wetland; it only helps to identify its sensitivity, rarity, and functions. Two versions of the rating system have been developed, one for western Washington and one for eastern. This broad division of the state into east and west may not reflect all regional differences in the importance of wetlands. Developing special measures to protect locally unique wetlands is recommended where local governments need to provide a level of protection that would not be otherwise provided by the rating system. 3.2 How the w etland rating system w orks The Wetlands Rating Form (the rating form) in Appendix A of this document asks the user to collect information about the wetland in a step-by-step process. We recommend careful reading of the guidance and taking one of the classes on the rating system given by the Department of Ecology before filling out the form. A wetland may be rated in two different categories based on the different criteria used in this method. It is important, therefore, to fill out the entire rating form. If two categories can be applied to a wetland, it is the one that provides the most protection that applies. If you are interested in learning more about how the rating system was developed, details are described in Hruby (2001, 2009). In addition, Appendix D discusses rapid methods for characterizing functions and how this rating system was calibrated. 3.3 General guidance for using the Wetland Rating Form Land-owner’s permission It is important to obtain permission from the land owner(s) before going on their property. Time Involved Over the last decade the scientific community has standardized how we group assessment methods based on the information collected and the time required (Kentula, 2007). The rating system is classified as a “rapid method” or “Level 2 Assessment” (see definitions in box on next page). We define rapid as usually taking no more than two people a half day in the field and requiring no more than a half day of office preparation and data analysis to come to an answer (Fennessy et al., 2004). In some cases, however, it may be necessary to visit the wetland more than once. Some of the questions cannot be answered if the ground is covered with snow or the surface water is frozen. If this is the case at the time a wetland is being rated, it may be necessary to revisit the site later. NOTE: We recommend that field work always be done by two people for reasons of safety. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 12 Effective January 1, 2015 Several of the questions require analyzing and preparing figures. Aerial photographs downloaded from the internet, topographic, or other maps are useful for preparing these figures. The list of figures needed to correctly answer the questions is found on the back of the first page of the rating form in Appendix A. Experience and qualifications needed It is important that the person completing the rating have experience in the identification of natural wetland features, indicators of wetland function, vegetation classes, and some ability to distinguish among different plant species. Reviewers of the rating system should also be familiar with wetlands and how they function. We recommend that qualified wetland consultants or wetland experts be used to rate most sites, particularly the larger and more complex ones. This will help ensure that results are repeatable. Training is highly recommended In addition, we highly recommend that users of this method take the training provided by the Department of Ecology on this method. Users of this method who have not taken the training can expect that, on the average, their scores for each function will be off by at least 1 point per function. This is based on data collected during the calibration of the 2004 wetland rating systems and subsequent training sessions. Untrained users will underestimate, or overestimate, the scores for functions by 15%. This is an average, and actual differences may be as high as 40%. Levels of Assessment Wetland assessment techniques are classified as Levels 1, 2, or 3 based on the scope and detail required to complete the assessment (Kentula, 2007). The levels are generally defined as follows: • Level 1 Assessment: Expert systems that use readily available digital data to define ecological relationships based on best professional judgment. • Level 2 Assessment: Rapid assessment based on data collection from easily observable field indicators. A Level 2 assessment usually lasts less than four hours in the field, has relatively simple metrics, and results in a single rating for each wetland. • Level 3 Assessment: Comprehensive assessment in which quantitative data are collected on biological, physical, chemical and/or morphological aspects of the ecosystem. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 13 Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures Some of the questions on the rating form can only be answered by drawing polygons on aerial photos of the site and by calculating the relative area of these polygons (as a percent of total area) within the wetland. Visual estimates of area can be prone to large errors as high as 40%. The pictures or figures used to make these estimates have to be included with the rating form for the rating to be considered as complete. A list of the figures and photographs needed is provided in the rating form in Appendix A. Rating the wetland Each wetland can have several ratings: one resulting from its score for the functions and one or more resulting from special characteristics it may have. The first page of the rating form contains a box for recording each rating. This box should be filled out after completing the form. If the wetland meets the criteria for two categories, select the one that will provide the higher level of protection for the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 14 Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 15 Effective January 1, 2015 4. Identifying Wetland Boundaries for Rating To begin, determine the location and approximate boundaries of all wetlands at the site you are investigating. A surveyed delineation of the wetland is not necessary to rate the wetland, unless this information is required for another part of your project. The boundary, however, will need to be verified during the field visit. Boundaries that are not verified by a field survey may cause problems in the scoring of the indicators. This is especially true in forested wetlands where the boundaries are difficult to determine from aerial photographs. The rating form identifies the information that needs to be included on aerial photos or maps and submitted with the form. It is highly recommended that you obtain aerial photos of the site. The entire wetland has to be scored. Usually it is the entire delineated wetland that is scored. Small areas within a wetland (such as the footprint of an impact) cannot be rated separately. The method is not sensitive enough, or complex enough, to allow division of a wetland into smaller units based on level of disturbance, property lines, or plant communities. DO NOT SCORE ONLY THE PART BEING ALTERED OR MITIGATED (Figure 1). Figure 1. Footprint of the impact is the red rectangle, but the unit for rating is the entire wetland (yellow line). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 16 Effective January 1, 2015 Furthermore, you do not subdivide a wetland into different hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes if more than one is present. A wetland with more than one HGM class within its boundary is treated as one HGM class for rating (Figure 2). The second page of the classification key in Appendix A provides guidance on how to classify wetlands having more than one HGM class within its boundary. Figure 2. A wetland with two HGM classes within the delineated boundary. This wetland is rated as a Lake Fringe wetland. There are, however, ecological criteria that can be used to separate very large wetlands into smaller units for scoring. These criteria are described below. If you do not have access to the entire wetland because the wetland includes different properties or because parts of the site are impenetrable or not accessible, you should do the best you can to answer the questions from aerial photos, using binoculars, or any other additional information. Note your lack of access on the rating form and record which questions are based on incomplete data. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 17 Effective January 1, 2015 4.1 Identifying unit boundaries in large contiguous wetlands in valleys (Depressional and Riverine) Wetlands can often form large contiguous areas that extend over hundreds of acres. This is especially true in river valleys where there is some surface water connection among all areas of the floodplain. In these situations the initial task is to identify the wetland unit that will be rated. A large contiguous area of wetland can be divided into smaller units using the criteria described below. The guiding principles for separating a wetland in a valley into different units are changes in the water regime or a lack of wetland plants. Boundaries between different units should be set at the point where the volume, flow, or velocity of the water changes abruptly. These changes in water regime can be either natural or human-caused (anthropogenic). The following sections describe some common situations that might occur. The criteria for separating wetlands into different units are based on the observations made during the calibration of the rating systems and the methods for assessing wetland functions. They reflect the collective judgment of the teams of wetland experts that developed and calibrated the methods. Wetland units in a series of depressions in a valley Wetlands that form ponded depressions in river corridors may contain constrictions where the wetland narrows between two or more depressions. The key consideration is the direction of flow through the constriction. If the water moves back and forth freely it is not a Examples of Changes in Water Regime Berms, dikes, cascades, rapids, falls, and culverts. Features that change flow, volume, or velocity of water over short distances. The presence of drainage ditches that significantly reduce water detention in one area of a wetland. More detailed data are needed to adequately assess functions in only a part of a wetland The rating of an entire wetland unit rather than just the part of it being mitigated or impacted is a trade-off made between scientific rigor and the need for a rapid method. None of the rapid methods developed by Ecology (the rating systems and function assessment methods) are rigorous enough to adequately assess the functions of only a small area within a wetland unit. We did numerous tests of this question, and both methods produced invalid results when applied to small areas within a wetland. More detailed data are needed to adequately assess functions in only a part of a wetland. This would require monitoring and measuring the actual processes taking place in different parts of a wetland rather than characterizing the structural indicators present, and would certainly require monthly sampling for at least one year. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 18 Effective January 1, 2015 separate unit. If the flow between depressions is unidirectional, down-gradient, and has a change in elevation from one part to the other, then a separate unit should be created. The justification for separating wetlands increases as the flow between two areas becomes more unidirectional and has a higher velocity. Constrictions can be natural or human-made (e.g., culverts) (Figure 3). Generally, if the high water mark in the lower wetland is 6 in or more lower than the high water mark in the upper wetland, then the two should be considered as separate units for rating. 4.2 Wetland units along the banks of streams or rivers In eastern Washington, linear wetlands contiguous with a stream or river may be broken into units using criteria based on either hydrologic factors or the distribution of plants. Figure 4 presents a diagram of how wetland units might be separated along a stream corridor based on change in the water regime. Three changes in water regime are illustrated: 1) a weir or dam, 2) a series of rapids, and 3) a tributary coming into the main stream that increases the flow significantly (generally > 25%). NOTE: Unit 1 in Figure 4 should be classified as a Depressional wetland. Units 2, 3, and 4 would probably be Riverine or Slope, depending on the area of overbank flooding. Figure 5 illustrates how units can be separated based on the distribution of plants. Units can be separated when: 1) wetland plants disappear and are replaced with unvegetated bars or banks for at least 50 ft along the stream, and 2) the wetland plant community is less than 5 ft wide along the shore for at least 100 ft. Unit 1 Area 2a Area 2b Figure 3. Determining depressional wetland units along a stream corridor with constrictions. Areas 2a and 2b should be rated as one unit. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 19 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 4. Determining wetland units in a riverine system based on changes in water regime. Figure 5. Determining wetland units in a riverine setting based on reduced plant cover. In this case, the river is wider than 17 ft and the vegetated wetlands on either side are rated separately. Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 1 Unit 2 Wetland Unit 1 Wetland Unit 2 Wetland Unit 3 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 20 Effective January 1, 2015 In cases when a wetland contains a stream or river, you must also decide whether the stream or river is a part of the wetland. Use the following guidelines to make your decision: Wetland on one side only — If the wetland unit is contiguous with, but only on one side of, a river or stream, do not include the river as a characteristic of the wetland unit for rating. Wetland on both sides of a wide stream or river — If the river or stream has an unvegetated channel that is more than 17 ft (5 m) wide, and there are contiguous wetland areas on both sides, treat each side as a separate unit for rating. Do not include the river as a characteristic of the wetland unit for rating. Wetland on both sides of a narrow river or stream — If the river or stream has an unvegetated channel less than 17 ft (5 m) wide, and there are contiguous vegetated wetlands on both sides, treat both sides together as one unit, and include the river as a characteristic of the wetland. 4.3 Identifying w etland units in a patchwork on the landscape (mosaic) If the wetland area being scored contains a mosaic of wetlands and uplands, the entire mosaic should be considered one unit for rating when: Each patch of wetland is less than 1 ac (0.4 ha), AND Each patch is less than 100 ft (30 m) away from the nearest wetland, AND The total area delineated as vegetated wetland is more than 50% of the total area of wetlands and uplands, open water, and river bars around which you can draw a polygon (see Figure 6), AND There are at least three patches of wetland that meet the size and distance thresholds. If these criteria are not met, each wetland area should be considered as a separate unit for this method (see Figure 6). NOTE: One of the most common mosaic landscapes in eastern Washington is formed by riparian wetlands in the floodplains of rivers and streams. In this landscape, vegetated wetlands, as defined by the delineation manual, are interspersed with “uplands” of cottonwood or willow. In this case, use the criteria above. Treat the entire area as a wetland if the areas that meet the criteria for wetlands are greater than 50% of the total area. In this landscape the cottonwoods growing outside the wetland patches, but within the mosaic, should be included as features of the wetland. Unit 3 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 21 Effective January 1, 2015 4.4 Identifying wetland unit boundaries along the shores of lakes or reservoirs (Lake Fringe wetlands only) Lakes or reservoirs will often have a fringe of wetland plants along their shores. Different areas of this vegetated fringe can be separated into different units if there are gaps where the width of plants narrows or they disappear completely. Use the following criteria for separating units along a lakeshore. Only the vegetated areas along the lake shore are considered part of the wetland unit for rating. Open water within areas of plants are considered to be part of the wetland, but open water that separates patches of plants along a shore is not considered to be part of the wetland (Figure 7). If only some parts of the lakeshore are vegetated with wetland plants, separate the vegetated parts into different units at the points where the wetland plants thin out to less than a foot in width for at least 33 ft (10 m) (Figure 8). NOTE: If the open water is less than 20 ac, the entire area (open water and any other vegetated areas) is considered as one wetland unit, and is a Depressional or Riverine wetland. Figure 1 Wetland Unit boundary Total wetland area < 50% of polygon – each wetland is a separate unit Figure 6. Determining unit boundaries when wetlands are in small patches. Each wetland polygon should be scored separately when the total area is less than 50% wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 22 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 7. Lake Fringe wetland showing open water that is included within the wetland boundary Figure 8. Absence of wetland plants along the shore of a lake that separates the wetlands into two units for rating. 4.5 Wetlands bisected by human-made features When a Depressional wetland is divided by a human-made feature, such as a road embankment, the wetland should not be divided into different units if there is a level surface- water connection between the two parts of the wetland. Water should be able to flow equally Unit 1 Open water outside the boundary of unit being rated. Open water inside the boundary of unit being rated. Break in wetland vegetation Unit 1 Unit 2 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 23 Effective January 1, 2015 well between the two areas. For example, if there is a wetland on either side of a road with a culvert connecting the two, and both sides of the culvert are partially or completely underwater for most of the year, the wetland should be treated as one unit. Make the down- gradient wetland a separate unit, however, if the bottom of the culvert is above the high water marks in the receiving wetland, or the high water marks on either side of the road or dike differ by more than 6 in of elevation. 4.6 Cases w hen a w etland should not be divided Differences in land use within a wetland should not be used to define units unless they coincide with the circumstances described above. Many functions that wetlands perform are independent of the land use in the wetland. For example, a Depressional wetland has approximately the same amount of live storage whether the surface is a shrub community or a pasture. Furthermore, the rating system used in this method is not robust enough to capture slight differences in habitat functions within different portions of the same wetland unit. Attempts were made during the calibration of the 2004 Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004a) to score different portions of a wetland unit based on differences in land use, but the results did not provide an accurate representation of the system. This compromise is necessary in order to make the tool rapid and easy to use. For example, if half a wetland has been recently cleared for farming and the other half left intact, the entire area functions as, and should be categorized as, one unit. Figure 9 shows a wetland that is a lawn along one side and a wetland plant community on the other side. In this case, the entire wetland should be rated as one unit. Figure 9. A wetland with two land uses and separated by a fence. The entire wetland should be treated as one unit. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 24 Effective January 1, 2015 4.7 Freshwater w etlands where only part of the w etland is a forest or a bog Freshwater wetlands may be rated as Category I because they contain a smaller area of bogs, calcareous fens, or mature or old-growth forest. If the entire wetland (including the bog and forested areas) scores between 16 and 21 points for its functions (Table 1), it may be possible to assign a dual rating to the wetland (Category I/II, Category I/III). Table 1. Situations where dual ratings may be possible. Rating Based on Special Characteristics Score for Functions 22-27 Score for Functions 19-21 Score for Functions 16-18 Cat. I bog Not possible – Cat. I I/II I/III Cat. I forest Not possible – Cat. I I/II I/III To develop a dual rating you will need to establish a boundary within the wetland that clearly establishes the area that is the Category I bog or forest. If you are unable to clearly map the boundaries between the forest or bog and the rest of the wetland, it may be impossible to assign a dual rating. Dual ratings are acceptable only when a wetland contains a small area of bog, calcareous fen, or forest. Wetlands that are Category I, Wetlands of High Conservation Value, and Alkali wetlands cannot be assigned a dual rating. The criteria to be used in establishing the boundary between the Category I part of a wetland and those that are either Category II or III are as follows: For wetland areas that are Category I as a result of the presence of a forest, the boundary between categories should be set at the edge of the forest. For wetland areas that are Category I because they are Bogs or Calcareous Fens, the boundary between categories should be set where the characteristic vegetation of these peatlands changes (i.e., most of the plants that are specifically adapted to acidic and calcareous peatlands are replaced with more common wetland species) and/or where the organic soils become shallow (less than 16 in). 4.8 Very small w etlands Users often question the effectiveness of using rapid methods in wetlands that are ¼ ac or less. One tree or shrub may be all that is needed in a small wetland to score points on the rating form for certain questions. The data collected during the calibration of the rating systems, however, indicate that wetlands smaller than a ¼ ac can be rated accurately. The smallest wetlands rated during the calibration were about 1/10 ac in size (see Figure 10 for an example of a small wetland that is about 1/10 ac in size), and all were judged by the field teams to be adequately characterized. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 25 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 10. A Slope wetland near Padilla Bay that is approximately 1/10 ac in size. At present, the accuracy of the scoring has not been tested for wetlands smaller than 1/10 ac, but the method may be applicable to even smaller wetlands because the scoring of water quality and hydrologic functions is not dependent on the size or the habitat niches in the wetland. For example, the ability of a square yard of organic soil in a wetland to remove nitrogen is not dependent on the size of the wetland. A square yard of soil in a wetland of 1/10 ac can be just as effective at performing a function as a square yard in a large wetland. The same is true for the hydrologic functions. A small wetland that stores 3 ft of water during a flooding event is more effective, on a per acre basis, than a large wetland that stores only 1 ft. The larger wetland may store a larger volume overall, but it is the volume per unit area that needs to be characterized. Impacts to wetlands are usually calculated by area. For example, an impact to 1/10 ac of a wetland that stores 3 ft of water needs to be mitigated by replacing a similar amount of storage (i.e., 3 ft over 1/10 ac). It makes no difference if the size of the wetland impacted is ¼ ac, 10 ac, or 100 ac. The field testing, however, indicated that the method will not work well for scoring habitat functions in wetlands smaller than 1/10 ac (4000 ft2). For example, one large tree may cover 400 ft2 of a 4,000 ft2 wetland and this would give it a "forested" class. It is not expected, however, that the tree will provide functions to the same level as a forested class in a larger wetland. On the other hand, wetlands that are larger than 1/10 ac are adequately Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 26 Effective January 1, 2015 characterized. This is based on the consensus of the different teams (function assessment and rating) that went out into the field when we were developing the methods. Also, very small wetlands may not provide good habitat for some of the larger wildlife species such as otter or beaver, but they are known to provide critical habitat for many smaller species. For example, amphibians were found using and breeding in wetlands as small as 270 ft2 in the Palouse region of northern Idaho (Monello and Wright 1999). Thus, very small wetlands may be less important for large wildlife but more important for smaller wildlife. Since the methods were judged to be accurate for wetlands as small as a 1/10 of an acre, the review team and the Department of Ecology staff decided not to develop additional questions for very small wetlands less than 1/10 ac in size. Very small wetlands can be rated with the understanding that the results are not as robust as in larger wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 27 Effective January 1, 2015 5. Detailed Guidance for the Rating Form: Scoring Functions This chapter provides detailed guidance for answering the questions on the rating form (Appendix A). The questions are listed in the order they appear on the form. Results from each section should be summarized on the first page of the form. More than three-fourths of the questions are the same as, or similar to, those used in the previous version of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology publication #04- 06-015). A correctly filled out Wetland Rating Form requires maps or figures to correctly answer the questions. Most of these maps are needed to estimate the area covered by different environmental indicators, but several can be combined in one figure. The second page of the rating form lists the figures and photographs needed to correctly fill out the form. NOTE: Do not estimate area visually without a graphic aid such as a gridded overlay. Visual estimates of area can be off by 30-40% and this will change the results. 5.1 Classifying the w etland Scientists have come to understand that wetlands can perform functions in different ways. The way wetlands function depends to a large degree on hydrologic and geomorphic conditions (Brinson, 1993). As a result, we group wetlands into categories based on the geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics that control many functions. This classification system is called the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification. The rating system described here uses only the highest grouping in the HGM classification (i.e., wetland class). The more detailed methods for assessing wetland functions developed for eastern and western Washington (Hruby et al., 1999; Hruby et al., 2000) refine this classification and subdivide some of the classes further. A classification key is provided with the rating form to help you identify whether the wetland is Lake Fringe, Slope, Riverine, or Depressional. The key contains eight questions that need to be answered sequentially. Each question is described below in more detail than that found in the key. Question 1: Lake Fringe Wetlands Lake Fringe wetlands are on the water side of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of lakes. Lake Fringe wetlands are separated from other wetlands based on the area and depth Training is highly recommended An analysis of data collected during training sessions and field tests suggest that untrained users of this method can expect that, on the average, their scores will be off by at least 4 points out 27. One-third of untrained users will have errors of 8 points or more. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 28 Effective January 1, 2015 of open water adjacent to them. If the area of open water (without vegetation) next to a vegetated wetland is larger than 20 ac (8 ha), and more than 10 ft (3 m) deep over 30% of the open water areas, the wetland is considered to be Lake Fringe. The criterion here is 20 ac of open water without any vegetation. If the water levels fluctuate, the depth criterion has to be met for at least 9 months of the year in a year with average rainfall. This definition of lakes is different than in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The Shoreline Management Act requires that a water body have 20 ac within the OHWM in order to be considered a lake under shoreline jurisdiction. Thus, a 20 ac shallow pond that is completely vegetated would be a lake under the SMA but a Depressional wetland for the purpose of this method. The definition of lakes in this rating system is based on limnological characteristics and not the criteria used in the SMA. Lakes have different environmental processes than do small ponds (e.g., stratification, spring turnover, etc.). In general, these processes occur in eastern Washington only in systems that have at least 20 ac of open water that is deeper than 10 ft. Wetlands found along the shores of large reservoirs such as those found behind dams are also considered to be Lake Fringe. Figure 11 shows a Lake Fringe wetland along the shores of a reservoir on the Snake River with a narrow band of wetland shrubs along the shore. Although the area was once a river valley, these wetlands function more like Lake Fringe wetlands rather than Riverine wetlands. The technical teams developing the 2004 Wetland Rating Systems (Hruby, 2004a; b) decided to include wetlands along the shores of reservoirs as Lake Fringe if they meet the thresholds for open water and depth. Figure 11. Lake Fringe wetland along the shores of a reservoir on the Snake River with a narrow band of wetland shrubs along the shore. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 29 Effective January 1, 2015 Question 2: Slope Wetlands Slope wetlands occur on slopes where groundwater surfaces and begins running along the surface, or immediately below the surface. Water in these wetlands flows only in one direction (down the slope) and the gradient is steep enough that the water is not impounded. The downhill side of the wetland is always the point of lowest elevation in the wetland. Figure 12 shows a Slope wetland along the Columbia River that formed where the slope of the hillside changed and caused groundwater to come to the surface. Slope wetlands with surface flows can be distinguished from Riverine wetlands by the lack of a defined stream bed with banks. Slope wetlands may develop small rivulets along the surface, but they serve only to convey water away from the wetland. There is no surface flow coming into the wetland through channels. Also, Slope wetlands do not impound water except in very small depressions that may form on the surface. These are only a few inches in diameter and a few inches deep. Some Slope wetlands can only be identified by their vegetation. For example, in the Palouse region, you may find a small swale that collects groundwater percolating through the loess (windblown) soils. The only indication that a wetland is present is the stand of cattails growing in the swale (Figure 13). Such swales are not considered to be Riverine wetlands because there are no indications of a channel with defined banks nor indications of overbank flooding. Figure 12. Slope wetland along the Columbia River identified by the presence of wetland plants (Carex spp. and Juncus spp.). Wetland occurs where there is a major break in this slope of the hillside. Break in slope Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 30 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 13. Slope wetland in Pullman identified by cattails in a swale (red arrow). Question 3: Riverine Wetlands Riverine wetlands occur in valleys associated with stream or river channels. They lie in the active floodplain, and have important hydrologic links to the flows in the river or stream. Their proximity to the river facilitates both the rapid transfer of floodwaters in and out of the wetland, and the import and export of sediments. The distinguishing characteristic of Riverine wetlands in eastern Washington is that they are flooded by overbank flow from the river at least once every 10 years. Riverine wetlands, however, may also receive significant amounts of water from other sources such as groundwater and slope discharges. Wetlands that lie in floodplains but are not flooded at least once every 10 years by the stream are not classified as Riverine. Also, wetlands behind dikes are usually disconnected from the active floodplain and are no longer regularly flooded. In cases where wetlands in floodplains are not flooded frequently enough to meet the flooding criterion, they should be classified as Depressional or Slope. In eastern Washington, the technical committee developing the rating system decided that the frequency of overbank flooding needed to call a wetland Riverine is at least once in 10 years (10 yr return frequency). This is in contrast to western Washington where a wetland has to be flooded at least once every 2 years to be considered Riverine. The decision to reduce the flooding frequency for Riverine wetlands is based on the observations that the region is often subject to periods of drought that may last several years. In periods of drought, wetlands that are an integral part of the river system may not get flooded. Even during periods of drought, however, they still function as an integral part of the river system because they are connected to the underground flows in the valley (hyporheic flows). Most Riverine wetlands in eastern Washington are relatively easy to identify because they lie directly within the channel as vegetated bars (Figure 14), vegetated channels (Figure 15), or Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 31 Effective January 1, 2015 are old oxbows within the floodplain (Figure 16). The Riverine wetlands in the northeastern part of the state (Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille Counties) may be harder to identify because the broad valleys there were formed by glaciers rather than the existing rivers. The valley around Colville, for example, is, or used to be, all a wetland. These wetlands, however, are mostly Slope wetlands rather than Riverine. The floodplain of the Colville River is a narrow band within the much larger valley created by the glaciers. Many Riverine wetlands are associated with rivers that are very dynamic. Their proximity to the river facilitates the rapid transfer of floodwaters in and out of the wetland, and the import and export of sediments. Riverine wetlands are often replaced by Depressional or Slope wetlands near the headwaters of streams and rivers, where the channel (bed) and bank disappear, and overbank flooding grades into inundation by surface or groundwater. In headwaters, the dominant source of water becomes surface runoff or groundwater seepage. For the purposes of classification, wetlands that show evidence of frequent overbank flooding, even if from an intermittent stream, are considered Riverine even if they receive water from surface flows or groundwater. Wetlands that are created in a stream channel by impounded water from an obstruction such as a beaver dam, weir, or debris dam are considered to be Depressional rather than Riverine. The major hydrologic factor that maintains and provides the structures in these systems is the ongoing flow that is impounded. The overbank flooding is not as important a factor. A wetland would be considered Riverine, however, if the dam or weir impounds water for only a short time, such as a single storm. The impounded water must be present for at least 2 months every year to be considered Depressional. However, a Riverine wetland may have depressions where water is maintained by high levels of groundwater (hyporheic waters). If it is flooded at least once every 10 years it still should be classified as Riverine. The difference between a Depressional and Riverine wetland in such cases may be subtle. The wetland is Depressional if the impounded water is maintained by a physical feature (dam, weir, or log jam) that raises the water level in the floodplain. If the water is impounded in a depression that is below the general surface, then it would be Riverine. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 32 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 14. Vegetated river bars on the Touchet River that are classified as Riverine wetlands because the depressions in them get flooded at least once every 10 years. Figure 15. Riverine wetland in the Palouse where the entire channel is vegetated between the banks and is a wetland. This channel has only seasonal flow. It is dry by late summer. Impoundment created by a beaver dam has increased the amount of open water in this wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 33 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 16. Oxbow wetland on the Colville River that is classified as Riverine. Question 4: Depressional Wetlands Depressional wetlands occur in topographic depressions where the elevation of the surface within the wetland is lower than in the surrounding landscape. The shapes of Depressional wetlands vary, but in all cases, the movement of surface water and shallow subsurface water is toward the lowest point in the depression. The depression may have an outlet, but the lowest point in the wetland is somewhere within the boundary, not at the outlet. Depressional wetlands can sometimes be hard to identify because the depressions in which they are found are not very evident. By working through the key it may not be necessary to look at topographic maps, or try to identify that the lowest point of the wetland is in the middle. If a wetland has surface ponding, even if only for a short time, and does not meet the criteria for Lake Fringe or Riverine wetlands, it can be classified as Depressional. Vernal pools and Alkali wetlands are also classified as Depressional wetlands. A wetland where there is no surface ponding, such as a true bog without any open water, would also be classified as Depressional. Such wetlands may be difficult to differentiate from Slope wetlands, but are probably rare in eastern Washington. All of the Depressional wetlands visited as part of the function assessment project and the calibration of the rating system have had some surface water ponding during part of the year. Question 5: Wetland Is Hard to Classify Sometimes it is hard to determine whether the wetland unit you are scoring meets the criteria for a specific wetland class. You may find characteristics of several different hydrogeomorphic classes within one wetland boundary. For example, seeps at the base of a slope often grade into a Riverine wetland, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides that would be classified as Riverine. If you have a wetland with the characteristics of several HGM classes present within its boundaries, use Table 2 to identify the appropriate class to use for rating. Use this table only Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 34 Effective January 1, 2015 if the area encompassed by the “recommended” class is at least 10% of the total area of wetland being rated. For example, if a Slope wetland grades into a Riverine wetland and the area of the Riverine wetland is ¼ of the total wetland unit you are rating, use the questions for Riverine wetlands. However, if the area that would be classified as Riverine is less than 10% (e.g., ½ ac of a 10 ac unit is frequently flooded), use the questions for the Slope wetlands. The same applies for other combinations of classes. A unit in which the depressional area is only 5% of the entire unit that is otherwise a slope should be rated as a Slope wetland. If, however, the area classified as Depressional is 15% of the area of the unit it should be rated as Depressional. Table 2. Classification of wetlands with multiple hydrogeomorphic classes for the purpose of rating their functions. HGM classes found within one wetland unit HGM Class to use if area of this class > 10% total area of unit Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or you have more than two HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional. Hydrologically complex wetlands found in eastern Washington during the calibration of the methods have always had some features of Depressional wetlands, and thus, could be classified as Depressional. Once you have classified the wetland, you will need to answer only the questions that pertain to the HGM class of the wetland being rated. The first letter of the question on the rating form identifies the wetland class for which the question is intended: D = Depressional or Flats R = Riverine L = Lake Fringe S = Slope The guidance in the following sections is divided according to the HGM class of the wetland being rated. Each question on the rating form is addressed in turn. NOTE: The questions for scoring habitat functions are labeled [H] and apply to all HGM classes of wetlands. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 35 Effective January 1, 2015 5.2 Classifying the plant communities Several questions on the data sheet ask you to classify the plant communities found within the wetland unit. This should not be confused with classifying the wetland as described earlier. The rating system uses several different classification schemes for plant communities; only one of which is the commonly used Cowardin classification (Cowardin et al., 1979). The Cowardin classification is the most complex one and is described in more detail below. You will need to carefully read the description of each question to ensure that you use the classification scheme appropriate for that question. Use caution in filling out the rating form because the thresholds for scoring, as well as the way in which plants are classified, differ among the questions. The Cowardin Classification Cowardin plant classes are distinguished by the uppermost layer of plants (forest, shrub, etc.) that provides more than 30% surface cover within part or all of a wetland. This area is often called a Cowardin polygon when mapping the distribution of plants. If the total cover of plants is less than 30%, the area does not have a Cowardin plant class. Areas with less than 30% plant cover should be categorized as open water or sand/mud flats. If the plants are deciduous and you are rating the wetland during periods when leaves have fallen, try to reconstruct what the cover would be when the plants are fully leafed-out. A deciduous forest of alder would still be considered a forest using the Cowardin classification even in winter when there are no leaves present and the cover may be less than 30%. Plant names used in the rating system: The rating system identifies some specific plants as indicators. For example, lists of species found in bogs and calcereous fens are provided in the identification key in Chapter 6. The plant names listed in the rating system are those found in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov) and are current as of August 2014. Plant names change based on new information from genetics, morphology, and historical records. The reference databases we commonly use for plant names are sometimes in disagreement. For example, at the time of this publication, USDA PLANTS Database, Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; http://www.itis.gov/), and US Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List (NWPL; http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/) disagree on the names of some common wetland species. We used the USDA PLANTS Database because it is familiar to many users of the rating system, provides a map of where each species is located, lists wetland indicator status where available, includes moss species, and acknowledges subspecies and variety names. Though we consider NWPL an authority on wetland indicator status, it does not distinguish among different subspecies and variety names, and it does not include mosses. Likewise, ITIS is an authority on the current taxonomic standing of plant names, but it does not provide a map. When distinguishing among plants with similar names, a map of the plants’ distributions is sometimes helpful Therefore, we have chosen the PLANTS database as the most useful for the rating system. Where plant names in the PLANTS database differ from NWPL, the synonym is provided in parentheses. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 36 Effective January 1, 2015 This method uses only four of the major Cowardin plant classes to map the plant communities in a wetland. These are: Forested class: An area (polygon) in the wetland unit where the canopy of woody plants over 20 ft (6 m) tall (such as cottonwood, aspen, cedar, etc.) covers at least 30% of the ground. Trees need to be at least partially rooted in the wetland in order to be counted toward the estimates of cover (unless the unit is a mosaic of small wetlands as described in Section 4.3 and the trees are on hummocks between the wetlands). Some small wetlands may have a canopy over the unit but the trees are not rooted within the wetland. In this case the wetland does not have a Forested class. Scrub-shrub class: An area (polygon) in the wetland unit where woody plants less than 20 ft (6 m) tall are the top layer of plants. To count, the shrub plants must provide at least 30% cover and be the uppermost layer. Examples of common shrubs in western Washington wetlands include the native roses, young alder, young cottonwoods, hardhack (Spiraea), willows, and red-osier dogwood. Emergent class: An area (polygon) in the wetland unit covered by erect, rooted herbaceous plants excluding mosses and lichens, and where total cover of shrubs and trees is less than 30%. These plants have stalks that will support the plant vertically in the absence of surface water during the growing season. These plants are present for most of the growing season in most years. To count, the emergent plants must provide at least 30% cover of the ground and be the uppermost layer. Cattails and bulrushes are good examples of plants in the Emergent class. NOTE: The definition of emergent plants used by Cowardin is different from the one used in delineation for determining the boundaries between “vegetated wetlands” and “vegetated shallows”. Aquatic Bed class: An area (polygon) in the wetland unit where rooted aquatic plants, such as lily pads, pondweed, etc., cover more than 30% of the surface of the standing water. These plants grow principally on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season in most years. This is in contrast to the emergent plants described above that have stems and leaves that extend above the water most of the time. Aquatic bed plants are found only in areas where there is seasonal or permanent ponding or inundation. Lemna spp. (duckweed) is not considered an aquatic bed species because it is not rooted. Aquatic bed plants do not always reach the surface and care must be taken to look into the water. NOTE: Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a plant found in the water is an aquatic bed species or an emergent species. A simple criterion to separate emergent and aquatic bed plants most of the time is to observe whether the stalk will support the plant vertically in the absence of water. If so, it is emergent. If, however, the stalk is not strong Herbaceous plants are defined as seed-producing species that do not develop persistent woody tissue (stems and branches). Many herbaceous species die back at the end of the growing season. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 37 Effective January 1, 2015 enough to support the plant when water is removed, it is considered an aquatic bed species. Examples of how different areas might be classified are given below. An area of trees (mapped as a polygon on your aerial photograph) within the wetland unit having a 50% cover of trees and with an understory of shrubs that have a 60% cover would be classified as a Forest. The trees are the highest layer of plants and meet the minimum requirement of 30% cover. An area with 20% cover of trees overlying a shrub layer with 60% cover would be classified as Scrub-shrub. The trees do not meet the requirement for minimum cover. An area where trees or shrubs each cover less than 30%, but together have a cover greater than 30% is classified as Scrub-shrub. When trees and shrubs together cover less than 30% of an area, the polygon is classified based on the next highest plant class that has a 30% cover. This would be either Emergent or Aquatic Bed. 5.3 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Depressional wetlands (questions starting with ‘D’) D 1.0 Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland (This indicator is used for both the water quality and the hydrologic functions): As you walk around the edge of the Depressional wetland, note carefully if there are any indications that surface water leaves the wetland and flows farther down-gradient. The question is relatively easy to answer if you find a channel. Many Depressional wetlands in eastern Washington, however, have outflows only during the wet season or during summer thunderstorms (seasonally or intermittently flowing). These are harder to locate and identify because they have no banks. Some indicators of seasonal outflows are as follows: Rationale for indicator: Pollutants that are in the form of particulates (e.g., sediment, or phosphorus that is bound to sediment) will be retained in a wetland with no outlet. Wetlands with no outlet are scored the highest for this indicator. An outlet that flows only seasonally is usually better at trapping particulates than one that is flowing all the time because there is no chance for a downstream release of particulates for most of the year (a review of the scientific literature on the trapping potential of wetlands is found in Adamus et al., 1991). Each polygon with a wetland unit can only have one Cowardin class. For this reason, it is useful to map the Cowardin classes on an aerial photo. This will avoid the common mistake of counting emergent plants under a canopy of trees or shrubs as a separate class. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 38 Effective January 1, 2015 A swale at one end of a depression that has a gradient away from the wetland and that has wetland vegetation in it (Figure 17). A section along the circumference of the wetland where the herbaceous vegetation is all lying in one direction and perpendicular to the circumference (last year’s reed canarygrass in Figure 17 is oriented in the direction of the outflow). A ditch that has been dug to drain the wetland. Figure 17. The seasonal outflow of a depressional wetland. The swale is dry for most of the year, but is filled with reed canarygrass. The arrow points in the direction of the outflow. You are asked to characterize the surface outlet in one of three ways, and these are: Wetland has no surface water outlet. You find no evidence that water leaves the wetland on the surface. The wetland lies in a depression in which the water never goes above the edge (Figure 18). Wetland has an intermittently flowing, or highly constricted, outlet. Intermittently flowing means that surface water flows out of the wetland during the wet season (seasonal outflow) or during heavy thunderstorms. A Depressional wetland with occasional outflow resulting from stormwater runoff from an adjacent developed area is considered to have intermittent flow as well. Highly constricted outlets are those that are small or heavily incised, narrow channels anchored in steep slopes. In general, you will find marks of flooding or inundation 3 ft or more above the bottom of the outlet if the outlet is severely constricted. Another indicator of a severely constricted outlet is evidence of erosion of the down-gradient side of the outlet. Wetland has a permanently flowing, unconstricted, surface outlet. This means that the wetland is a depression along a permanently flowing stream or is the point of groundwater discharge that does not dry out. This includes Depressional wetlands where ditches act as the outlet and where the water level fluctuations are less than 3 ft. Reed canarygrass that is oriented in the direction of the outflow. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 39 Effective January 1, 2015 One can expect that some “permanent” flows dry up during periods of drought. In general, water should be flowing all year in 8 years out of 10 to be considered permanent. NOTE: If you cannot find or do not have access to an outlet in the Depressional wetland, assume it is intermittently flowing when rating it. Figure 18. A depressional wetland on a basalt plateau with no surface water outlet. D 1.2 The soil 2 in below the surface is a true clay or true organic soil. If the unit is found within an area that is mapped as an organic or clay soil by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on their county soil maps, consider the unit to have clay or organic soils. If it is not mapped as an organic or clay soil, you will need to take at least one sample at the site and determine its composition. To look at the soil: Dig a small hole within the wetland boundary and pick a sample from the area that is about 2-3 in below the duff layer. Usually it is best to sample the soil toward the middle of the wetland rather than at the edge. Do not sample the soil under areas of permanent ponding. Avoid picking up any of the duff or recent plant material that lies on the surface. Determine whether the soil is organic or clay. If you are unfamiliar with the methods for doing this, a key for clay soils is provided in Appendix C. NOTE: There is no scaling for this question based on the size of the patch of soil. This simplification is necessary because it is not possible to develop a reproducible map of different soils in a wetland unit within the time frame for doing a rating. Rationale for indicator: Clay soils and organic soils are good indicators that a wetland can remove a wide range of pollutants from surface water. The uptake of dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles is highest when soils are high in clay or organic content (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1993). We only consider the type of soil near the surface because this is where the soil actually has contact with the surface waters carrying the pollutants. This is where most of the chemical and biological reactions occur. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 40 Effective January 1, 2015 See the NRCS web page on soils for more descriptions on how to identify soils: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/?cid=nrcs142p2_05358 0#simplified D 1.3 Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested classes): Use the Cowardin classification of plants for this question. You are looking for the areas that would be classified as Emergent, Scrub-shrub, or Forested (see Section 5.2). These are all persistent types of plants; those species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season (Cowardin et al., 1979). Emergent plants do not have to be alive at the time of the site visit to qualify as persistent. The dead stalks of emergent species will provide a vertical structure to trap pollutants as well as live stalks. You are asked to characterize the plants in terms of how much area within the wetland unit is covered by persistent, ungrazed or unmowed plants. There are three size thresholds used to score this characteristic: more than 1/10 of the wetland unit is covered in persistent plants; more than ½ of the wetland unit is covered; or more than 95% of the wetland unit is covered. You will need to draw the area of persistent plants on a map or aerial photo before you can feel confident that your estimates are accurate. NOTE: This question applies only to persistent plants that are not grazed or mowed (or if grazed or mowed, the plants are taller than 6 in). An easy way to estimate the amount of persistent plants is to map the areas that are open water, covered with aquatic bed plants, mudflats, or rock on an aerial photograph. Also include areas that are grazed because much of the vertical structure of wetland plants is removed when plants are grazed. The remaining area is then, by default, the area of persistent plants. Figure 19 shows a Depressional wetland in which persistent plants cover between 1/10 and 1/3 of the area of the wetland. The remainder is open water. NOTE 1: To meet the requirement for a Cowardin plant class, a polygon within the wetland unit needs at least 30% cover of the specified plant type (forest, shrub, etc.). However, to count the Cowardin polygon as an indicator in the rating system, the polygon itself has to meet a size threshold. The threshold is 10% of the area of the unit if the unit is smaller than 2.5 ac or at least ¼ ac if the unit is larger. Rationale for indicator: Plants enhance sedimentation by acting like a filter, and cause sediment particles to drop to the wetland surface (review in Adamus et al., 1991). Plants in wetlands can take on different forms and structures. The intent of this question is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that persist throughout the year and provide a vertical structure to trap or filter out pollutants. It is assumed, however, that the effectiveness at trapping sediments and pollutants is severely reduced if the plants are grazed. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 41 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE 2: If the unit has just been mowed or grazed, but you suspect this occurs infrequently, you will need to determine whether the plants in the wetland are 6 in or less at the time when the wetland is receiving surface waters that transport sediment and pollutants. If the grazing occurs in summer (because the area is too wet for cattle in the winter), but the plants have time to grow again before the flood season, then the unit is ungrazed because the plants will meet the height threshold at the time of inundation. If, however, the grazing pressure is intense enough that the grass does not have time to recover before the wet season, then it should be considered grazed. The same question can be asked of seasonal mowing or haying. Figure 19. A depressional wetland where persistent vegetation is between 1/10 and 1/3 the area of the wetland. D 1.4 Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: To answer this question you will need to estimate how much of the wetland is seasonally ponded with water. Areas that are seasonally ponded must be inundated for at least 2 consecutive months, but then dry out for part of the year. Because the seasonally ponded area will change from year to year, try to estimate what the average condition might be in 5 out of 10 years. Rationale for indicator: The area of the wetland that is seasonally ponded is an important characteristic in understanding how well it will remove different forms of nitrogen that cause eutrophication. The highest levels of nitrogen transformation occur in areas of a wetland that undergo a cyclic change between oxic (oxygen present) and anoxic (oxygen absent) conditions. The oxic regime is needed so certain types of bacteria can change nitrogen that is in the form of ammonium ion (NH4+) to nitrate, and the anoxic regime is needed for denitrification (changing nitrate to nitrogen gas) (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1993). The area that is seasonally ponded is used as an indicator of the area in the wetland that undergoes this seasonal cycling. The soils are oxygenated when dry but become anoxic during the time they are flooded. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 42 Effective January 1, 2015 One way to estimate this area is to make a sketch of the boundary of the wetland unit, and on this diagram draw the outside edge of the area you believe has surface water during the wet season. If the wetland also has permanent surface water, you will have to draw this and subtract it when making your estimate (see Figure 20). Figure 20. Sketch showing the boundaries of areas that are seasonally ponded and permanently ponded. The answer to question D 1.4 for this wetland is that the area seasonally ponded is more than ½ the total area of the wetland. The boundary of seasonal ponding will usually coincide with the delineated boundary of the wetland in Depressional wetlands of eastern Washington. This edge is often very distinct on the Columbia Plateau. There may be periods of time when a Depressional wetland is flooded very briefly during exceptionally heavy rainfall or snowmelt. This area of brief ponding should not be counted as seasonal ponding. For example, if a site is visited during the wet season and wetland vegetation is inside the area of ponding, then the area outside of the wetland vegetation line is probably only ponded for a short time and may not meet the criteria used in delineating a wetland. During the dry season, the boundary of areas ponded for several months (seasonal ponding) will have to be estimated by using indicators such as: Marks on trees and shrubs of water/sediment/debris (Figure 21). The boundary of seasonal ponding can be estimated by extrapolating a horizontal line from this mark to the edge of the wetland. Water stained vegetation lying on wetland surface. For example, downed fragments of bulrushes and cattails that are dark gray or near black in color. Dried algae left on the stems of emergent vegetation and shrubs and on the wetland surface (Figures 22 and 23). Boundary of permanent ponding Upper edge of seasonal ponding that in this unit coincides with the unit boundary Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 43 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 23. Algae left hanging on vegetation as wetland dried out. The top of the algae marks the vertical extent of seasonal ponding. The boundary of seasonal ponding can be estimated by extrapolating a horizontal line from this mark to the edge of the wetland. NOTE: Avoid making visual estimates of area covered by seasonal ponding when standing at the wetland edge. These estimates can be very inaccurate. Drawing the boundary on an aerial photograph and then using a graphic tool such as a grid to calculate area is a more accurate way to estimate area. A Global Positioning System (GPS) that has been corrected for positional inaccuracies can also be used to locate the boundaries and estimate area. Figure 21. Water mark on tree showing vertical extent of seasonal ponding. Figure 22. Small depressional wetland covered with algae. The edge of the algae marks the area that is seasonally ponded. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 44 Effective January 1, 2015 D 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Wetlands can remove many pollutants from waters coming into them. It is the removal of this excess pollution that is considered to be a valuable function for society. The landscape surrounding the wetland will determine, to some degree, how well a wetland improves water quality. If the wetland receives a heavy load of pollutants from the surrounding areas, it will function to its maximum capacity. However, if there are no pollutants coming in, the wetland cannot remove them, even if it has the necessary physical and chemical characteristics. Thus, the Landscape Potential for the function is related to the amount of pollutants that come into the wetland from the surrounding areas. Qualitatively, the level of pollutants can be correlated with the level of disturbance, development, and intensity of agriculture in the landscape. For example, relatively undisturbed watersheds will carry much lower sediment and nutrient loads than those that have been impacted by development, agriculture, or logging practices (Hartman et al., 1996; Reinelt & Horner, 1995). D 2.1 Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? Answer YES to the question if you see any pipes coming into the wetland from the surrounding land. These are usually stormwater discharges. Also, look on the aerial photograph of the wetland and its surroundings for stormwater ponds. If you see any ponds, determine if their discharges can get into the wetland. Stormwater may come into the unit by way of a stream or ditch as well as a pipe. Stormwater can also come into a Depressional wetland in runoff from parking lots or roads even if no pipes are present. If you see evidence that such runoff comes into the wetland answer YES to this question. D 2.2 Is more than 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, commercial, urban)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line around the unit that is 150 ft from the edge of the wetland you have mapped for rating. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed uses within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 10% of the area within this 150 ft Rationale for indicator: Farming, grazing, golf courses, residential areas, commercial areas, and urban areas, in general, are major sources of pollutants (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The review also found that a well-vegetated buffer of 150 ft will only remove 60-80% of some pollutants from surface runoff into a wetland. Thus, pollutants from such land uses will probably reach the wetland unit if they are within 150 ft of the wetland. Rationale for indicator: Stormwater coming from residential or developed areas is often discharged into wetlands. Untreated stormwater is a source of many different pollutants (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). Furthermore, stormwater ponds do not remove all pollutants leaving them, even those constructed recently (Mallin et al., 2002). Thus, any stormwater discharge into a wetland increases the pollutants coming into it. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 45 Effective January 1, 2015 perimeter around the wetland. Use a graphic aid, such as an acetate overlay with a grid or dots, to estimate area. Visual estimates are not accurate enough and may result in significant errors. D 2.3 Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Use the aerial photograph of the unit to determine if there are any residences within 250 ft of the wetland. Septic systems are still in common use in many areas of eastern Washington that are outside city boundaries. If your wetland is within a city limit, you will need to check with the local planning office to determine if the area has sewers serving the houses or if they are still on septic systems. If you are outside city limits in areas with lots of ½ ac or larger, you can assume the houses are on septic systems. D 2.4 Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1–D 2.3? Answer YES to the question if you can identify any source of pollutants in the groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland caused by human activities. Identify the source of the pollution on the rating form. Wetlands can receive polluted waters even if they have large, well-vegetated buffers. For example, a stream that drains areas where pollutants are released far from the unit can pass through the wetland. Also, silt fences often do not prevent all the sediment from reaching the wetland during construction. Other sources of pollutants may be pesticide spraying on golf courses, particulates in exhausts from airplanes or motor vehicles, and pesticides used in mosquito control. Activities that generate pollutants within the wetland itself, such as grazing, also count for a YES for this question. Cattle, sheep, or large native herbivores such as elk grazing within the wetland are a source of pollutants. Also, answer YES to this question if the wetland has a larger pond that is commonly used by migrating waterfowl. Waterfowl droppings are a source of both excess nutrients and bacteria. Rationale for indicator: The sources of pollutants listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3 may not be the only sources coming into the wetland unit from the surrounding landscape. In addition, sources of pollutants can be within the wetland unit itself. For example, pollutants are discharged within the wetland if it is used for grazing. Rationale for indicator: Septic systems can pollute groundwater because nitrogen is not removed underground. Plumes of nitrogen from septic systems can be traced at least 250 ft in the groundwater (Aravena et al., 1993). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 46 Effective January 1, 2015 D 3.0 Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1 Does the wetland discharge directly to a stream, river, or lake that is on the 303(d) list? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists all the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Use the Map Tool to locate your site. Determine from the aerial photograph or the map on the Ecology website if the wetland unit you are rating is within at least 1 mi up-gradient of any aquatic resource mapped as not meeting water quality standards and has a surface water channel, ditch, or other discharge leading to it (red lines or polygons on the map). D 3.2 Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue in some aquatic resource (i.e., there is an aquatic resource in the basin that is on the 303(d) list)? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists all the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html . Determine from the aerial photo if the wetland unit you are rating is in the contributing basin of any aquatic resource mapped as not meeting water quality standards. To find the boundaries of contributing basins in the area, consult with the planning department of the local jurisdiction. If this information is not available, use the guidance for mapping contributing basins described in question D 5.3. Rationale for indicator: Wetlands can mitigate the impacts of pollution even if they do not discharge directly to a polluted body of water. Wetlands can remove nitrogen from groundwater as well as surface water. They can also trap airborne pollutants. Thus, wetlands can provide an ecosystem service and value to our society in any basin and sub- basin that has pollution problems. The removal of pollutants by wetlands is judged to be more valuable in basins where other aquatic resources are already polluted or have problems with eutrophication. Rationale for indicator: The phrase "303(d) list" is short for the list of impaired waters (stream segments, lakes) that the Clean Water Act requires all states to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. In Washington, we identify all waters where pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable than those that discharge to unpolluted bodies of water because their role in cleaning up the pollution is critical for reducing further degradation of water quality. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 47 Effective January 1, 2015 D 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? To answer this question you will need to seek information from the planning department of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. Information on regional or local plans can often be found on the website of the city or county in which the site is found. Useful search phrases include: “watershed plan”, “water quality”, or “wetland protection”. If the basin in which the wetland is found has a Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) plan (also called a Water Cleanup Plan) developed for it, then you should answer YES for this question. It is assumed that all wetlands are valuable in a basin where water quality is poor enough to require a TMDL. The Department of Ecology’s website lists all the bodies of water that have TMDLs: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/TMDLbyWria.html. NOTE: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) or Water Cleanup Plans describe the type, amount, and sources of water pollution in a particular water body. They analyze how much the pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to meet water quality standards, and then provide targets and strategies to control the pollution. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable because they function at a landscape scale to mitigate discharges of pollutants. TMDLs are based on models that estimate the natural decay and adsorption of pollutants under current conditions. Wetlands are an important part of that natural decay; their destruction would require a recalibration of the TMDL models and force reductions in current levels of discharge. D 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1 Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: See the description for question D 1.1. This question is answered the same way as question D 1.1. The difference between D 1.1 and D 4.1, however, is in the scores assigned to each type of Rationale for indicator: Wetlands with no outflow are more likely to reduce flooding than those with outlets, and those with a constricted outlet will more likely reduce flooding than those with an unconstricted outlet (review in Adamus et al., 1991). In wetlands with no outflow, all waters coming in are permanently stored and do not enter any streams or rivers. Constricted outlets will hold back flood waters and release them slowly to reduce flooding downstream. Wetlands with intermittent flow also provide a higher level of protection than those with unconstricted permanently flowing discharges because they can hold back flash floods that can occur during storms when there is no outflow. Rationale for indicator: Not all pollution and water quality problems are identified by Ecology’s water quality monitoring program. Local and watershed planning efforts sometimes identify wetlands that are important in maintaining existing water quality. These wetlands provide a value to society at the local level that needs to be replaced if they are impacted. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 48 Effective January 1, 2015 outflow. Differences in scores are based on the difference in importance of the outflow characteristics to the two functions. D 4.2 Depth of storage during wet periods (estimating live storage): The depth of the water stored during wet periods can be estimated as the difference in elevation between the upper edge of seasonal ponding and the low point of the wetland or surface of permanent ponding (see Figure 24). For wetlands that have areas of permanent ponding, the lowest point is the surface of the permanent ponding (as measured at its lowest point, typically in late summer and fall). See Figure 25 for an example. You should estimate the height of seasonal ponding above that. For wetlands that have no areas of permanent ponding, locate the lowest point in the wetland and measure the depth of the ponding above that. Level of seasonal ponding Depth above lowest point Rationale for indicator: The amount of water a Depressional wetland stores is an important indicator of how well it functions to reduce flooding and erosion. Retention time of flood waters is increased as the volume of storage is increased for any given inflow (Fennessey et al., 1994). It is too difficult to estimate the actual amount of water stored for a rapid method such as this one, and we use an estimate of the maximum depth of storage as a surrogate. This is only an approximation because depressional wetlands may have slightly different shapes and therefore the volume of water they can store is not exactly correlated to the maximum depth of storage. Bottom of wetland, or surface of permanent ponding Figure 24. Measuring maximum depth of seasonal ponding. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 49 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 25. A Depressional wetland with permanent water present. This is the maximum extent of summer drawdown in the wetland. The difference between this level and the seasonal high water mark is more than 3 ft. NOTE: During the winter and spring it may be difficult to identify the level to which the water drops during the summer. In general, the level will usually be at the edge of the area dominated by large, obligate, emergent plants such as bulrushes or cattails (Figure 26). Use the lower edge of this vegetation as the bottom from which to estimate the depth of seasonal ponding. Estimate the difference in elevation between the bottom of the plants and any marks of ponding along the shore to estimate the depth of seasonal ponding. Figure 26. A Depressional wetland with water level close to its seasonal maximum. This is the same wetland as shown in Figure 25 but photographed in March rather than late September. There are five thresholds used to score this characteristic: 3 ft or more of storage, 2 ft to <3 ft of storage, 1 ft to <2 ft, 6 in to <1ft, and less than 6 in. Your measurements, therefore, do not There are marks on the shore left behind by the high water during the seasonal maximum. The difference in elevation between the mark on the shore and the level of the permanent ponding is the depth of seasonal storage. Use the depth of water along the inward edge of emergent plants (bulrushes in this case) to estimate the depth of seasonal ponding. In this case, the depth of water is about 3.5 ft at the edge of the plants. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 50 Effective January 1, 2015 need to be exact. These thresholds can usually be estimated with a yard stick or tape measure without needing to use special equipment. Headwater wetlands: Question D4.2 also asks if the wetland being rated is a headwater wetland. Depressional wetlands found in the headwaters of streams often do not store surface water to any great depth. However, they can be important in reducing peak flows because they slow down and desynchronize the initial peak flows from a storm (Brassard et al., 2000). A review of 169 scientific articles worldwide of the role of wetlands in the hydrologic cycle concluded that about ½ of the relevant studies showed that headwater wetlands have an important role in desynchronizing flood flows (Bullock & Acreman, 2003). The depth of seasonal storage in headwater wetlands was judged to be an inadequate representation of the importance of these wetlands in the hydrologic functions. For this reason, headwater wetlands are scored 4 points, out of 8 possible, even if their storage is less than 2 ft. To identify if the wetland is a headwater wetland, use the information collected in question D 1.1. If the wetland has a permanent or seasonal outflow through a defined channel but NO inflow from a permanent or seasonal channel, it is a headwater wetland for the purposes of this rating. NOTE: One exception to this criterion is wetlands whose water regime is dominated by groundwater coming from water storage facilities. Depressional wetlands at the base of irrigation reservoirs, dams, or the edge of irrigation canals are not headwater wetlands, even if they have surface water that flows out of them without an inflow. D 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? Human changes in land use tend to de-stabilize the flows of water in a watershed. Generally, human activities reduce infiltration and increase the run-off during storm events and thus increase flooding problems (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). A wetland located in areas where run-off has increased can provide more flood protection than one located in an undeveloped area. Thus, the Landscape Potential for the function is related to the increased amounts of water coming into the wetland from human sources. Qualitatively, the increase is modeled as the number of different new sources of water coming into the wetland. D 5.1 Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? This question is the same as D 2.1. Answer YES to the question if you see any pipes coming into the wetland from the surrounding land. These are usually stormwater discharges. Also, look on the aerial photograph of the wetland and its surroundings for stormwater ponds. If you see any ponds, determine if their discharges can get into the wetland. Stormwater may come into the wetland by way of a stream, road runoff, or ditch, as well as a pipe. Rationale for indicator: A depressional wetland that receives stormwater directly has a higher potential for providing hydrologic functions. It will receive more water during a rain event than under normal (no stormwater discharges) conditions. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 51 Effective January 1, 2015 D 5.2 Is more than 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, commercial, or urban)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line that is 150 ft from the edge of the wetland you have mapped for rating. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed uses within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 10% of the area within the 150 ft perimeter around the wetland. Use a graphic aid, such as an acetate overlay with a grid or dots, to estimate area. Visual estimates are not accurate enough and may result in significant errors. D 5.3 Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? This question asks you first to estimate the geographic area that contributes surface water to the wetland you are rating. This is called the “contributing basin” of the wetland. You will then need to estimate the area of the wetland and calculate the ratio of the two. You do not need to estimate these areas exactly because the scoring is based on thresholds for the ratio. If the contributing basin is less than 10 times the size of the wetland itself, the wetland will score the most points. On the other hand, if the area of the contributing basin is more than 100 times the area of the wetland, the score is 0, and you will not need to make any further estimates. If the wetland is large relative to its contributing basin, you will need to add the area of the wetland to the total since rain also falls within the wetland. NOTE: You can use whatever means available to estimate the area of the upstream basin contributing surface water to a wetland. A topographic map works well if the landscape is not too confusing. If you have GIS with basin boundaries, you will have to be careful to include only the areas up-gradient of the wetland. If you are unfamiliar with the methods for mapping contributing basins, the procedure is described in a fact sheet by the NRCS, How to Read a Topographic Map and Delineate a Watershed: http://www.nycswcd.net/files/NRCS%20Reading%20Topo%20Maps%20to%20Delineate% 20Watersheds1.pdf . NOTE: If this link is no longer valid, search for the title of the focus sheet using your web search engine. Rationale for indicator: Human changes in land use tend to de-stabilize the flows of water in a watershed. Generally, human activities reduce infiltration and increase the run- off during storm events and thus increase flooding problems (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). Research in the Puget Sound area by the University of Washington has found that there are significant increases in water flows when intensive land uses represent more than 25- 35% of the contributing basin (Azous & Horner, 1997). Rationale for indicator: Water can also flow into the depression directly from surrounding land uses that prevent some or all water from infiltrating. For example, a lawn can reduce infiltration by as much as 65% relative to a forest (Kelling & Peterson, 1975). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 52 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: It is sometimes difficult to map the contributing basins of Depressional wetlands on the Columbia Plateau in the areas that were eroded by the ice-age floods. In general, the contributing basin for surface waters of wetlands on the top of the plateau is very small and may extend only a few feet beyond the wetland boundary. However, the contributing basin for the Depressional wetlands in the major coulees and channels will usually be much larger. D 6.0 Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1 Is the wetland in a landscape that has flooding problems? You will need to do some fact finding if you do not know whether floods have caused damage downstream of the wetland. Your best sources of information on flooding problems are the emergency planning office in your local government, the local Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the United State Geological Survey (USGS) for groundwater issues. You can search the web using the name of the location, town, or watershed and “flooding” or “flooding problems”. Choose the descriptions that best match conditions for the wetland being rated; then choose the description that generates the highest score on the rating form. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds). o Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of wetland. o Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin where the wetland is found. The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. NOTE 1: Many Depressional wetlands with no surface water outflow can protect natural or human resources from flooding. They are performing the hydrologic functions at the highest levels possible. No surface water leaves the wetland to cause flooding or erosion. The water either infiltrates to groundwater or it evaporates. To answer the Value question for a wetland with no outflow, try to picture the wetland as filled with a parking lot. Where would the surface water it normally stores flow? If it would flow into a swale, channel, or stream, there is a possibility that the flow would increase flooding or erosion. Rationale for indicator: The value of wetlands in reducing the impacts of flooding and erosion is based on the presence of human or natural resources that can be damaged by these disturbances. In general, the value of a wetland in reducing flood damage is judged to decrease with the distance downstream because the amount of water stored by the wetland relative to the overall flows decreases. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 53 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE 2 (a landscape constraint on function): When a Depressional wetland is situated upslope of a road where water movement through the road is limited by ineffective culverts, the roadway typically acts as a levee, de-coupling upslope wetlands from downstream flooding. The roadway, rather than the wetland, delays storm flows, and acts like a flood- control dam. This indicates that the hydrologic connection between the floodway and the upslope area is impaired. If, however, the water impounded on the upslope side of the road recedes at the same rate as the water on the downslope side, you can assume the connections through the road are not constrained. In this case, the storage provided by the wetland on the upslope side is important, and the wetland should be scored accordingly. NOTE 3 (a landscape constraint on function): Depressional wetlands situated at the base of a hillside typically receive water inputs from groundwater. Generally, you can conclude that wetlands receiving less than 10% of their water from surface flows do not provide much protection from flooding because they are not connected to the major patterns of surface flows. If the dominant water inputs are from a spring or seep emerging from a hillslope, then the wetland likely does not provide much value in reducing surface flooding. If, however, there are indicators that the wetland receives surface runoff from farther up the slope (e.g., small gullies, washes, etc.) as well as groundwater, then the wetland may be valuable if there are flooding problems farther downstream. A wetland can be considered to have more than a 90% groundwater influence if there is no seasonal or permanent surface water inflow and a very small contributing basin. NOTE 4 (a landscape constraint on function): A Depressional wetland that receives only return flow from irrigation is not in a landscape position to perform the hydrologic functions. Since the inflow is controlled, there is little chance that the water coming into the wetland will cause downstream flooding or erosion. D 6.2 Has the site has been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? To answer this question contact the jurisdiction in which the site is found to determine whether any regional flood control plans exist. A search of websites for flood prone areas will probably also list flood control plans for the watershed in question. If plans exist, determine if the site is listed as important or valuable for flood storage. To answer YES to this question, the flood control district needs to have developed a flood control or flood hazard mitigation plan that identifies the site as one that needs to be preserved or enhanced to improve flood protection. Rationale for indicator: The values of flood storage and flood conveyance provided by wetlands are often recognized in regional flood control plans, and specific sites are mentioned in these plans. If the value of a wetland for flood attenuation has already been recognized, it is assigned a High rating for value. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 54 Effective January 1, 2015 5.4 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Riverine wetlands (questions starting with ‘R’) R 1.0 Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1 Total area of surface depressions within the wetland that can trap sediments and associated pollutants during a flooding event: For this question you will need to estimate the fraction of the wetland that is covered by depressions. Using your map or photo of the site, sketch the areas where depressions are found. From this you can make a rough estimate of the total area that has depressions. Determine if this area is more than 1/3 or more than 1/10 of the total area of the wetland. Standing or open water present in the wetland when the river is not flooding are good indicators of depressions. Figure 27 shows a Riverine wetland that has a large depression filled with water. NOTE: Generally you should count only depressions that hold water for more than a week after a flood recedes. If a depression is not flooded at the time of your site visit, look for the deposition of fine or mucky sediments in the bottom of the depression. Sediments in the depression usually have a finer texture than those in the immediate area and indicate the water was present in the depression for longer periods of time. Rationale for indicator: Depressions in Riverine wetlands will tend to accumulate sediment and the pollutants associated with sediment (phosphorus and some toxics) because they reduce water velocities (Fennessey et al., 1994) when the river floods. Wetlands where a larger part of the total area has depressions are relatively better at removing pollutants associated with sediments than those that have no such depressions. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 55 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 27. A Riverine wetland with two depressions. In this wetland the depressions cover between 1/10 and 1/3 the area of the wetland. R 1.2 Structure of the plants in the wetland: For this question you will need to group the plants found within the wetland into three categories: 1) forest or shrub, 2) ungrazed or unmowed emergent plants (> 6 in high), and 3) neither forest, shrub, nor ungrazed emergent plants. NOTE: This question about plant cover is NOT based on the Cowardin classification. The polygons you draw for this question must have a 90% cover of the ground when you look down from a person’s height (~5 ft). Rationale for indicator: Plants in a Riverine wetland will improve water quality by acting as a filter to trap sediments and associated pollutants. The plants also slow the velocity of water which results in the deposition of sediments. Persistent, multi-stemmed plants enhance sedimentation by offering frictional resistance to water flow (review in Adamus et al., 1991). Shrubs and trees are considered to be better at resisting water velocities in riverine systems than emergent plants during flooding and are scored higher. Aquatic bed species or grazed, herbaceous (non-woody) plants are not judged to provide much resistance to water flows and are not counted as filters. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 56 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: You will need to judge if the plants in the wetland are 6 in high or more at the time when the stream floods and is actually transporting sediment. If grazing or mowing occurs in summer but the plants have time to grow again before the time when the Riverine wetland gets flooded, then the system is ungrazed. If, however, the grazing pressure is intense enough that the grass does not have time to recover during the flood season, then it should be considered grazed. There are two size thresholds used to score this characteristic: 1) more than 2/3 of the wetland area is covered (>66% cover) with either herbaceous, forest, or shrubby plants, and 2) more than 1/3 is covered with these plants. These thresholds should be measured from aerial photographs of the site. R 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? Wetlands will remove many pollutants from water coming into them, and it is the removal of these pollutants that is considered to be a valuable function for society. The landscape surrounding the wetland will, to some degree, determine how well a wetland improves water quality. If the wetland receives a heavy load of pollutants from the surrounding areas it will function to its maximum capacity. If, however, there are no pollutants coming in, the wetland cannot remove them, even if it has the necessary physical and chemical characteristics. Thus, the Landscape Potential for the function is related to the amount of pollutants that come into the wetland from the surrounding areas. Qualitatively, the level of pollutants can be correlated with the level of disturbance, development, and intensity of agriculture in the landscape. For example, relatively undisturbed watersheds will carry much lower sediment and nutrient loads than those that have been impacted by development, agriculture, or logging practices (Hartman et al., 1996; Reinelt & Horner, 1995). R 2.1 Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its Urban Growth Area (UGA)? R 2.2 Does the contributing basin to the wetland include an UGA or incorporated area? To begin, trace the stream or river to its source and determine if there are any urban or suburban areas adjacent to the stream that floods the wetland. Answer YES to R 2.1 if the site is in a city or Urban Growth Area (UGA) and YES to question R 2.2 if there are any incorporated cities and towns or their UGAs upstream of the wetland, but the wetland is not within the boundaries. Maps of UGAs and urban areas can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/ugamaps.htm. Rationale for indicators: Urban and suburban areas are a major source of pollutants to streams (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The presence of development adjacent and upstream of the wetland is a good indicator that there are pollutants in the water reaching the Riverine unit from the stream. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 57 Effective January 1, 2015 For questions R 2.2 and R 2.3, you will need to identify the contributing basin to the stream that floods the wetland you are rating. This can be done using topographic maps or through websites such as the USGS: http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html. NOTE: A wetland can have a YES answer for both questions if it is within a UGA and there are other cities or UGAs farther upstream. R 2.3 Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Define the boundaries of the contributing basin to the stream that floods the wetland as in question R 2.2. Answer YES to this question if at least 10% of the total area of the upstream contributing basin has at least one or a combination of pasture, tilled fields, or clearcut logging. Land uses can be determined from aerial photographs of the area or by downloading land use maps from the USGS: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php R 2.4 Is more than 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, urban, commercial)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line around the wetland that is 150 ft from the edge of the wetland you have mapped for rating. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed uses that generate pollutants within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 10% of the area within the 150 ft perimeter around the wetland. Use a graphic aid, such as an acetate overlay with a grid or dots, to estimate area. Visual estimates are not accurate enough and may result in significant errors. Rationale for indicator: Farming, grazing, golf courses, residential areas, commercial areas, and urban areas, in general, are major sources of pollutants (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The review also found that a well-vegetated buffer of 150 ft will only remove 60-80% of some pollutants from surface runoff into a wetland. Thus, pollutants from such land uses will probably reach the wetland unit if they are within 150 ft of the wetland. Rationale for indicator: Tilled fields are a source of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment. Pastures are a source of nutrients and pathogenic bacteria, and clearcut areas are a source of sediment (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The presence of these conditions upstream of the wetland unit is a good indicator that there are pollutants in the river waters reaching the unit. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 58 Effective January 1, 2015 R 2.5 Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4? Answer YES to the question if you can identify any source of pollutants in the groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland caused by human land uses. Identify the source of the pollution on the rating form. Wetlands can receive polluted waters even if they have large, well-vegetated buffers. For example, a stream that drains areas where pollutants are released far from the wetland can pass through the wetland. Also, silt fences often do not prevent all the sediment from reaching the wetland during construction. Other sources of pollutants may be pesticide spraying on golf courses, particulates in exhausts from airplanes or motor vehicles, and pesticides used in mosquito control. Activities that generate pollutants within the wetland itself, such as grazing, also count for a YES for this question. Cattle, sheep, or large native herbivores such as elk grazing within the wetland are a source of pollutants. Also answer yes to this question if the wetland has a pond that is commonly used by migrating waterfowl. Waterfowl droppings are a source of both excess nutrients and bacteria. R 3.0 Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1 Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to a stream on the 303(d) list? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html . Determine if the Riverine wetland lies on a stream or river mapped as a Category 5 water, or is on a tributary to one. The map tool on the Ecology website provides a quick way to identify Category 5 waters. Answer YES to this question if the wetland is along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi. Rationale for indicator: The phrase, "303(d) list," is short for the list of impaired waters (stream segments, lakes) that the Clean Water Act requires all states to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. In Washington, we identify all waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain water quality standards. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable than those that discharge to unpolluted bodies of water because their role at cleaning up the pollution is critical for reducing further degradation of water quality. Rationale for indicator: The sources of pollutants listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4 may not be the only sources coming into the wetland unit from the surrounding landscape. In addition, sources of pollutants can be within the wetland unit itself. For example, pollutants are discharged within the wetland if it is used for grazing. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 59 Effective January 1, 2015 R 3.2 Is the wetland along a stream or river that has TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists all the bodies of water that have TMDLs: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/TMDLbyWria.html. Determine if the wetland you are rating is flooded by a stream or river in a drainage for which TMDLs have been developed or are being developed. R 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? To answer this question you will need to seek information from the planning department of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. Information on regional or local plans can often be found on the website of the city or county in which the wetland is found. Useful search phrases include: “watershed plan”, “water quality”, or “wetland protection”. If the river or stream along which the wetland is found has a TMDL plan developed for it, then answer YES on this question. It is assumed that all wetlands are valuable in a basin where water quality is poor enough to require a TMDL. The Department of Ecology’s website lists all the bodies of water that have TMDLs (see above). NOTE: The fact that a TMDL has been developed for the river or basin in which the wetland is found is scored twice for Riverine wetlands: once in question R 3.2 and also in R 3.3. Rationale for indicator: Not all pollution and water quality problems are identified by Ecology’s water quality monitoring program. Local and watershed planning efforts sometimes identify wetlands that are important in maintaining existing water quality. These wetlands provide a value to society that needs to be replaced if they are impacted. Rationale for indicator: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) or Water Cleanup Plans describe the type, amount, and sources of water pollution in a particular water body. They analyze how much the pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to meet water quality standards, and then provide targets and strategies to control the pollution. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable because they function at a landscape scale to mitigate discharges of pollutants. TMDLs are based on models that estimate the natural decay and adsorption of pollutants under current conditions. Wetlands are an important part of that natural decay; their destruction would require a recalibration of the TMDL models and force reductions in current levels of discharge. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 60 Effective January 1, 2015 R 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? R 4.1 Characteristics of the overbank flood storage the wetland provides, based on the ratio between the channel width and the width of the wetland perpendicular to the flow: You will need to estimate the average distance of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow, and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between the top of the banks of the stream). Calculate this ratio by taking the width of the wetland and dividing by the width of the stream. There are five thresholds for scoring: a ratio more than 2, a ratio between 1- 2, a ratio between ½- 1, a ratio between ¼- ½, and a ratio < ¼. Riverine wetlands are found in different positions in the floodplain and it may sometimes be difficult to estimate this indicator. The following bullets describe some common types of Riverine wetlands and how to estimate this indicator. If the vegetated wetland lies within the banks of the stream or river, the ratio is estimated as: the average width of the wetland ÷ average distance between banks. Figure 28 shows a wetland where vegetation fills the entire distance between the banks. In this case the ratio is 1. Figure 29 shows a small vegetated wetland on a gravel bar where the distance between banks is much greater than the width of the wetland. In this case the ratio is < ¼. If the wetland lies outside the existing banks of the river, you may need to estimate the distances using a map or aerial photograph. Riverine wetlands in old oxbows may be some distance away from the river banks. Instead of trying to estimate a width for the wetland and the distance between banks in feet or yards, it may be easier to estimate the ratio directly from an aerial photo using a ruler. Ask yourself if the average width of the wetland is more or less than the distance between banks. If it is more, is it more than twice as wide? If not, the ratio is between 1-2. If the width of the wetland is less than the distance between banks, use the same process: is it less than ¼, or is it less than ½? Figure 30 shows a Riverine wetland in an old oxbow where the ratio was estimated to be between 1-2. Rationale for indicator: The ratio of the width of the channel to the width of the wetland perpendicular to the flow is an indicator of the relative volume of storage available within the wetland. The width of the stream between banks is an indicator of the relative flows at that point in the watershed. Wider streams will usually have higher volumes of water than narrower streams. More storage is therefore needed in larger systems to lessen the impact of peak flows. The width of the wetland perpendicular to the stream is used as an indicator of the amount of short-term storage available during a flood event. A wetland that is wide relative to the width of the stream is assumed to provide more storage during a flood event than a narrow one. The ratio of the two values provides an estimate that makes it possible to rank wetlands relative to each other in terms of their overall potential for storage. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 61 Effective January 1, 2015 If you are including the river or stream as part of the wetland, then the width of the stream is also included in the estimate of the width of the wetland. Braided channels: If the wetland is associated with only some of the braids, you should use the cumulative width of all channels to calculate the average width of the channel. Figure 28. A riverine wetland where the width of the wetland is the same as the distance between banks. Figure 29. A riverine wetland where the ratio of the width of the wetland to the distance between banks is less than ¼ (30 ft / 150 ft = 0.2). Distance between banks is the same as the width of the wetland perpendicular to stream flow. The ratio is 1. Distance between banks is approximately 150 ft. The width of the river seems smaller in the photograph because it is farther away. Average width of wetland perpendicular to river flow is approximately 30 ft. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 62 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 30. A Riverine wetland in an old oxbow of the Colville River where the ratio of width of wetland to distance between banks is between 1-2. R 4.2 Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: For this question you will need to group the plants found within the wetland into two categories: 1) emergent, and 2) forest and scrub-shrub. There are four size thresholds used to score this characteristic: 1) forest or shrub > 1/3 the area of the wetland, 2) emergent plants > 2/3 area, 3) forest or shrub > 1/10 area, and 4) emergent plants > 1/3 area. Figure 30 shows an aerial photograph of a Riverine wetland that has dense shrub plants over most of its area. NOTE: This plant cover is NOT based on the Cowardin classification. The polygons you draw of emergent and shrub plants must have a 90% cover of the ground when you look down from a person’s height (5ft). NOTE: If the wetland is covered with downed trees, you can treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Rationale for indicator: Riverine wetlands play an important role during floods because the plants act to slow water velocities and thereby erosive flows. This reduction in velocity also spreads out the time of peak flows, thereby reducing the maximum flows. The potential for reducing flows will be greatest where the density of wetland plants and other obstructions is greatest and where the obstructions are rigid enough to resist water velocities during floods (Adamus et al., 1991). The indicator combines both characteristics for the scoring. Shrubs and trees are considered to be better at resisting water velocities than emergent plants. Aquatic bed species are judged not to provide much resistance and are not counted. Wetlands with a dense cover of trees and shrubs are scored higher than those with a cover of only emergent species. Current location of riverbanks The average width of the old oxbow is about ½ the maximum width. When compared to the distance between banks of the river in the background of the photograph, the ratio of width of wetland to width of river is between 1-2. Note: The photograph is not to scale because of differences in the distance from the camera. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 63 Effective January 1, 2015 R 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1 Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? To answer this question you will need to view the section of the stream that provides the overbank flows to the wetland. Generally, downcutting becomes visible when its watershed contains more than 10% impervious surface (Donaldson & Hefner, 2005). Figures 31, 32, 33 and 34 show a progression of different levels of downcutting that result from development. For the purposes of this rating, Figures 33 and 34 show streams for which the answer to R 5.1 would be YES. Figures 31 and 32 are streams for which the answer would be NO because the floodplain is still somewhat connected to the stream. Figures 31-34 are from Donaldson & Hefner (2005). Rationale for indicator: Streams in developed areas are often downcut because of the increased flows from impermeable surfaces (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). As a result, the streams can become disconnected from the surrounding floodplain and floodwaters go overbank less frequently. A Riverine wetland that is directly adjacent to a downcut stream will not provide the same level of flood attenuation as one that is adjacent to a stream with no downcutting. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 64 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 31. Stream in a watershed with less than 5 percent impervious surface cover, showing no downcutting. Figure 32. A stream in a watershed with 8-10% impervious surface cover. Streambed is still relatively stable, but signs of stream erosion are more apparent. Not much downcutting is evident. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 65 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 33. A stream in a watershed with approximately 20% impervious surface cover showing downcutting. You would answer YES to question R 5.1 for this stream. Figure 34. This stream has a surrounding area of approximately 30% impervious surface cover. The manhole in the middle of the picture was originally in the floodplain and is an indicator of the degree to which the channel has been downcut. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 66 Effective January 1, 2015 R 5.2 Does the up-gradient watershed include an UGA or incorporated area? (This question is the same as R 2.2.) To begin, trace the stream or river to its source and determine whether there are any urban or suburban areas adjacent to the stream. Answer YES to this question if there are any incorporated cities and towns or their Urban Growth Areas (UGA) upstream of the wetland. The wetland may be within the UGA as long as some of the UGA is upstream. Maps of UGAs and urban areas can be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/ugamaps.htm. If there are no developed areas adjacent to the stream, you will need to identify the contributing basin to the stream that floods the wetland you are rating. This can be done using topographic maps or through websites such as the USGS: http://water.usgs.gov/wsc/map_index.html. Answer YES to this question if there are any incorporated cities and towns or UGAs within the contributing basin. R 5.3 Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? To answer this question you will have to trace on a map or aerial photo the stream or river adjacent to the wetland you are rating. Answer YES to this question if there is a dam within 10 miles upstream of the wetland. Look only for dams on the main channel of the stream adjacent to the wetland. Dams on tributaries to the main stream do not count. Rationale for indicator: Dams will buffer the flood waters that a wetland receives by holding much of the waters back upstream of the unit. This can reduce the flood storage and attenuation that the wetland itself performs. The landscape potential for a wetland performing hydrologic functions is therefore reduced when dams are present upstream. Rationale for indicator: Urban and suburban areas are a major source of impervious surface. These areas increase both intensity of peak flows and the amount of water flowing during a storm event (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The presence of development upstream of the wetland is a good indicator that the landscape is increasing the flood flows to the wetland unit, thereby increasing the wetland’s level of functioning in attenuating floods. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 67 Effective January 1, 2015 R 6.0 Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1 Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: If you do not know whether floods have caused damage downstream of the wetland, you will need to do some research. Your best sources of information on flooding problems are the emergency planning office in your local government and the local Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). You may also find useful information using search engines on the web. Search using the name of a downstream city or the “watershed name” + “flooding” (or :flood problems”, “flood history”). Determine whether flooding occurs that damages resources in: The sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of the wetland. A sub-basin farther down-gradient. R 6.2 Has the site has been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? To answer this question contact the jurisdiction in which the site is found to determine whether any regional flood control plans exist. A search of websites for flood prone areas will probably also list flood control plans for the watershed in question. If plans exist, determine if the site is listed as important or valuable for flood storage. To answer YES to this question, the flood control district needs to have developed a flood control or flood hazard mitigation plan that identifies the site as one that needs to be preserved or enhanced to improve flood protection. Rationale for indicator: The values of flood storage and flood conveyance provided by wetlands are often recognized in regional flood control plans, and specific sites are mentioned in these plans. If the value of a wetland for flood attenuation has already been recognized, it is assigned a High rating for value. Rationale for indicator: The value of wetlands in reducing the impacts of flooding and erosion is based on the presence of human or natural resources that can be damaged by these processes. The indicator characterizes whether the wetland’s position in the landscape protects downgradient resources from flooding. In general, the value of a wetland in reducing flood damage is judged to decrease with increasing distance from downstream flood-prone areas because the amount of water stored by the wetland relative to the overall flows decreases. Distance is characterized qualitatively in terms of hydrologic basins. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 68 Effective January 1, 2015 5.5 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Lake Fringe w etlands (questions starting with “L”) L 1.0 Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? NOTE: Lake Fringe wetlands have a maximum score for site potential of 12 points instead of 16 for the site potential. The technical review team developing the 2004 Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004a; b) concluded that Lake Fringe wetlands do not improve water quality to the same extent as Riverine or Depressional wetlands because any pollutants taken up in plant material will be more easily released into the water column and dispersed when the plants die off. L 1.1 Average width of plants along the lakeshore: It is often difficult to map the outside edge of a wetland when it is along the shores of a lake where open water can extend out for large distances. For this reason, the question is phrased in terms of width of the zone of plants perpendicular to the shore rather than the area of plants. There are three thresholds for scoring the average width of the zone of plants: 33 ft or more (10 m) 16 ft-< 33 ft (5-10 m) 6 ft-<16 ft (2-5 m) Sketch the zone of plants on a map or aerial photo, and average the width by segment. Then, calculate an overall average width for the wetland. Figure 35 gives an example of such a sketch. Figure 36 shows an actual Lake Fringe wetland where the average width of plants is greater than 33 ft. Rationale for indicator: The intent of this question is to characterize the width of the zone of plants that provides a vertical structure to filter out pollutants or absorb them. Wetlands in which the average width of plants is large are more likely to retain sediment and toxic compounds than wetlands where plants are in a narrow band (Adamus et al., 1991). Even aquatic bed species that die back every year are considered to play a role in improving water quality. These plants take up nutrients in the spring and summer that would otherwise be available to stimulate algal blooms in the lake. In addition, aquatic bed species change the chemistry of the lake bottom to facilitate the binding of phosphorus (Moore et al., 1994). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 69 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 35. Estimating width of the plant zone along the shores of a lake. The average width for the entire area is: (20 ft x 0.5) + (35 ft x 0.5) = 27.5 ft. Figure 36. A Lake Fringe wetland where the zone of plants is wider than 33 ft. The plants along the shores of this lake consist of a zone of shrubs and a zone of aquatic bed and emergent species. L 1.2 Characteristics of the plants in the wetland: Rationale for indicator: The intent of this question is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that are more effective at improving water quality in a lake environment. Herbaceous emergent species have, in general, been found to sequester metals and remove oils and other organics better than other plant species (Hammer, 1989; Horner, 1992). Average width = 20 ft for ½ of the wetland Average width = 35 ft for ½ of the wetland Vegetated area Lakeshore Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 70 Effective January 1, 2015 For this question you will need to group the plants found within the wetland into three categories: 1) herbaceous, 2) aquatic bed, and 3) any other plants. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant plant form (in this case it would be called emergent class) or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These groupings are not the Cowardin classes for plants. There are several size thresholds used to score this characteristic: More than 90%, more than 2/3, or more than 1/3, of the vegetated area is covered in herbaceous plants or other types. You will need to draw the areas of plant types on a map or aerial photo before you can be confident that your estimates are accurate. NOTE: In Lake Fringe wetlands, the area of the wetland used as the basis for determining thresholds is only the area that is vegetated. Do not include open water beyond the outer edge of the wetland in determining the area of the wetland covered by a specific type of plants. Small patches of open water within the vegetated zone, however, are included in the estimate for total area. L 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? L 2.1 Is the lake used by power boats? To answer this question you will need to know if the lake has any restrictions on use by power boats. The local planning department or parks department should have this information. The answer to this question is NO if there is a complete ban on gasoline or diesel motors on the lake. Many lakes are limited to small outboards of less than 5 or 10 hp, but these are still sources of pollutants and the answer would be YES. Other lakes are limited to electric motors only. In this latter case, the answer would also be NO. The answer to this question should be YES unless you can provide evidence that a ban on power boats exists. Rationale for indicator: The presence of power boats on a lake will increase the pollutants entering a Lake Fringe wetland. Toxic chemicals, oils, cleaners, and paint scrapings from boat maintenance can make their way into the water (reviewed in Asplund, 2000). In addition, older two stroke engines still found on many recreational boats and jet skis were purposely designed to discharge their exhaust, which often contains gasoline and oil, into the water. The landscape potential of a wetland along the shores of a lake to improve water quality is higher if the lake itself is directly receiving pollutants from power boats. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 71 Effective January 1, 2015 L 2.2 Is more than 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland on the upland side in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, commercial, urban)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line around the wetland that is 150 ft from the upland edge of the wetland. The line should be 150 ft on the landward side of the wetland boundary. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed uses within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 10% of the area within this 150 ft perimeter upslope of the wetland. L 2.3 Does the lake have problems with algal blooms or excessive plant growth such as milfoil? To answer this question you will need to visit the lake in the summer, or examine aerial photographs taken in the summer, to determine whether there is excessive plant growth (Figures 37, 38). If you are rating the wetland in the winter, you will need to inquire locally (residents, board of health officials, or parks departments) to determine whether blooms occur in the summer. Rationale for indicator: Algal blooms and blooms of larger plants such as milfoil are an indication of excessive nutrients in the lake water (Schindler & Fee, 1974; Smith et al., 1999). The increased levels of nutrients in the lake increase the amount of nutrients that the wetland plants absorb (Venterink et al., 2002) and thus also increase the level of function within the wetland unit. Rationale for indicator: Farming, grazing, golf courses, residential areas, commercial areas, and urban areas, in general, are major sources of pollutants (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). The review also found that a well-vegetated buffer of 150 ft will remove only 60-80% of some pollutants from surface runoff into a wetland. Thus, pollutants from such land uses will probably reach the wetland unit along the lake if they are within 150 ft of it. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 72 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 37. Algal blooms in a lake in the Puget Sound area. Figure 38. A lake infested with milfoil indicating the presence of excess nutrients (photo courtesy of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Protection). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 73 Effective January 1, 2015 L 3.0 Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? L 3.1 Is the lake on the 303(d) list of degraded aquatic resources? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Determine if the wetland is along the shores of a lake on the 303(d) list. L 3.2 Is the lake in a sub-basin where another aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists all the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards (see above). Determine if the wetland is in a basin or sub-basin where any body of water is on the 303(d) list. L 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? To answer this question you will need to seek information from the planning department of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. Information on regional or local plans can often be found on the website of the city or county in which the site is found. Useful search phrases include: “watershed plan”, “water quality” , or “wetland protection”. Rationale for indicator: Not all pollution and water quality problems are identified by Ecology’s water quality monitoring program. Local and watershed planning efforts sometimes identify wetlands that are important in maintaining existing water quality. These wetlands provide a value to society that needs to be replaced if they are impacted. Rationale for indicator: Lake Fringe wetlands can mitigate the impacts of pollution even if they are not located directly on a polluted body of water. At a watershed scale, Lake Fringe wetlands can remove pollutants that might otherwise cause problems farther downstream. They can also trap airborne pollutants. Thus, wetlands can provide an ecosystem service and value to our society in any basin and sub-basin that has pollution problems. The removal of pollutants by wetlands is judged to be more valuable in basins where other aquatic resources are already polluted. The 303(d) list is used as an indicator of pollution problems in a basin. Rationale for indicator: The phrase "303(d) list" is short for the list of impaired waters (stream segments, lakes) that the Clean Water Act requires all states to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every two years. In Washington, we identify all waters where pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. Wetlands along the shores of lakes on the 303(d) list are judged to be more valuable because their role in cleaning up the pollution is critical for reducing further degradation of water quality. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 74 Effective January 1, 2015 If the basin in which the wetland is found has a Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) plan (also called a Water Cleanup Plan) developed for it, then answer YES for this question. It is assumed that all wetlands are valuable in a basin where water quality is poor enough to require a TMDL. The Department of Ecology’s website lists all the bodies of water that have TMDLs: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/TMDLbyWria.html. NOTE: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) or Water Cleanup Plans describe the type, amount, and sources of water pollution in a particular water body. They analyze how much the pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to meet water quality standards, and then provide targets and strategies to control the pollution. Wetlands in these basins are judged to be more valuable because they function at a landscape scale to mitigate discharges of pollutants. TMDLs are based on models that estimate the natural decay and adsorption of pollutants under current conditions. Wetlands are an important part of that natural decay; their destruction would require a recalibration of the TMDL models and force reductions in current levels of discharge. L 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? The site potential for Lake Fringe wetlands has a maximum score of only 6 points for the hydrologic functions instead of 16. The technical review team developing the 2004 wetland rating system concluded that Lake Fringe wetlands do not provide hydrologic functions to the same extent as Riverine or Depressional wetlands. The function of reducing shoreline erosion at the local scale was not judged to be as important as reducing peak flows and reducing erosion at the watershed scale, and should not be scored as highly. Lake Fringe wetlands, however, do provide a hydrologic function by dissipating wave energy before it reaches the shore. Waves can erode shorelines and cause damage to resources along the shore. L 4.1 Average width and characteristics of plants along the lakeshore (do not include aquatic bed species): This characteristic is similar to that used in L 1.1 and L 1.2, but the grouping of plant types and thresholds for scoring are different. You are looking for the areas that would be classified as Forested, Scrub-shrub, or Emergent. This indicator is based on the Cowardin plant classes. It is difficult to map the outside edge of a wetland when it is along the shores of a lake where open water can extend out for large distances. For this reason the question is phrased in terms of the width and type of plants found only within the area of trees, shrubs, and Rationale for indicator: The intent of this question is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that provide a physical barrier to waves and protect the shore from erosion. This protection consists of both shoreline anchoring and the dissipation of erosive forces (Adamus et al., 1991). Wetlands that have extensive, persistent (especially woody) plants provide protection from waves and currents associated with large storms that would otherwise penetrate deep into the shoreline (Adamus et al., 1991). Emergent plants provide some protection but not as much as the stiffer shrubs and trees. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 75 Effective January 1, 2015 emergents. There are two thresholds for measuring the average width of plant zones [33 ft (10 m) and 6 ft (2 m)], and two thresholds based on length of the wetland along the shore (¾ and ¼ of the length along the shore). Figure 39 gives an example of such a sketch. L 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? L 5.1 Is the lake used by power boats with more than 10 hp? To answer this question you will need to know whether the lake has any restrictions on power boats. The local planning department or parks department should have this information. The answer to this question is NO if there is a complete ban on gasoline or diesel motors on the lake. Many lakes are limited to small outboards of less than 5 or 10 hp. Other lakes are limited to electric motors only. In both cases the answer would also be NO because the speed of these smaller boats is limited, and correspondingly, their wakes will be smaller. The answer to this question should be YES unless you can provide evidence that the bans on power boats are present. Rationale for indicator: Boat wakes can be a major source of shoreline erosion (Maynord et al., 2008; review in Asplund, 2000). Lakes with boat traffic will have larger waves than lakes without. Wetlands along the shores of the latter will provide a higher level of function by reducing the impact of the larger waves. Average width = 20 ft for ½ of the distance along the shore Average width = 35 ft for ½ of the distance along the shore Area of shrubs Area of emergents Figure 39. Estimating width of plant types along the shores of a lake. The average width of shrubs is 35 ft for ½ the distance along the shore and the width of emergents is 20 ft for ½ of the distance. This wetland would score 4 points because more than ¼ distance consists of shrubs wider than 33 ft. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 76 Effective January 1, 2015 L 5.2 Is the fetch on the lake side of the wetland at least 1 mile in distance? Use a topographic map or scaled aerial photograph to measure the farthest distance to another shore or obstruction. This is the maximum fetch over which a wind can blow. Answer YES to this question if the length is 1 mi or more. L 6.0 Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? L 6.1 Are there resources, both human and natural, along the shore that can be impacted by erosion? Users of this method must make a qualitative judgment on the value of the Lake Fringe wetland in protecting resources from shoreline erosion. Generally, a Lake Fringe wetland does have value if: There are human structures or old growth/mature forests within 25 ft of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the shore in the wetland. There are nature trails or other paths and recreational activities within 25 ft of the OHWM. The rating form has space to note observations of resources along the shore that do not meet the criteria above. If you observe or know of other resources, note this on the form and score it. Rationale for indicator: Lake Fringe wetlands provide value by protecting a shoreline from erosion if there is some resource that could be damaged by this erosion. For example, houses are often built along a shoreline, and these can be damaged by shoreline erosion, especially if the house is on a bluff. Buildings, however, are not the only resource that can be impacted. A mature forest along the shores of a lake is a valuable natural resource that provides important habitat. Shoreline erosion, especially erosion from boat wakes, may topple trees into the lake and reduce the overall area of this valuable resource. Rationale for indicator: The size of wind-generated waves on lakes depends on the fetch. The fetch is the uninterrupted distance over which the wind blows without a significant change in direction. Lakes with larger fetches will have larger waves. Wetlands along the shores of lakes with longer fetches will provide a higher level of function by reducing the impact of the larger waves. The threshold of 1 mi was chosen because in many lakes such a fetch will generate a wave of approximately 1 ft in a 20 mph wind. See the following website for more information: http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/staffpages/csherwood/sedx_equations/RunSPMWave.html Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 77 Effective January 1, 2015 5.6 Water quality and hydrologic functions in Slope wetlands (questions starting with “S”) S 1.0 Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? The site potential for Slope wetlands has a maximum score of 12 points for the water quality functions instead of 16. The technical review team that developed the 2004 Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004a; b) concluded that Slope wetlands do not improve water quality to the same extent as Riverine or Depressional wetlands because Slope wetlands tend to release surface water fairly quickly. They are usually less effective at trapping sediment and all the pollutants associated with sediment because of their topography and the way water moves through them. S 1.1 Characteristics of the average slope of the wetland: For this question you will need to estimate the average slope of the wetland. Slope is measured either in degrees (°) or as a percent (%). In this method, we use the latter measurement, percent, which is calculated as the ratio of the vertical change between two points and the horizontal distance between the same two points [vertical drop in feet (or meters) ÷ horizontal distance in feet (or meters)]. For example, a 1-ft drop in elevation between two points that are 100 ft apart is a 1% slope, and a 2-ft drop across the same distance is a 2% slope. For large wetlands, the slope can be estimated from topographic maps of the area. The change in contour lines can be used to calculate the vertical drop between the top and bottom edges of the wetland. The horizontal distance can be estimated using the appropriate scale (which should be at the bottom of the map). Local jurisdictions sometimes have assessor’s maps that are contoured at 2-ft intervals. These can be very useful in estimating the slope. For small wetlands, it will be necessary to estimate the vertical drop visually and the horizontal distance by pacing or using a tape measure. Visual estimates of the vertical drop are more accurate if you can find a point of reference near the bottom edge of the wetland. Stand at the upper edge of the wetland and visualize a horizontal line to a tree, telephone pole, or another person at the lower edge of the Slope wetland. The point at which the horizontal line intersects the object at the lower edge can be used to estimate the vertical drop between the upper and lower edges of the wetland (see Figure 40). NOTE: If you are standing at the upper edge of the wetland looking for a visual marker at the lower edge using a level, do not forget to subtract your height from the total. If you are at the bottom edge, you will need to add your height. Rationale for indicator: Water velocity decreases with decreasing slope. This increases the retention time of surface water in the wetland and the potential for retaining sediments and associated toxic pollutants. The potential for sediment deposition and the retention of toxics by burial increases as the slope decreases (reviewed in Adamus et al., 1991). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 78 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: If the slope of a wetland changes, the best way to estimate the average is to calculate the slope between the uppermost wetland boundary and the lowest point on the boundary. This will average out all the variations unless the wetland has a much higher slope for a short distance on the borders of the wetland. NOTE: If the Slope wetland has a ditch along its bottom side DO NOT use the bottom of the ditch for calculating the slope. Use the elevation of the top of the ditch for calculating the slope. Figure 40. Estimating the slope of a small Slope wetland. The top of a 6-ft tall person is about level with the upper edge of the wetland. The average slope is approximately 6/200 = 0.03 or 3%. S 1.2 The soil 2 in below the surface is a true clay or true organic soil. If the wetland lies within an area that is mapped as an organic or clay soil by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in their county soil maps, you do not need to Rationale for indicator: Clay soils and organic soils are both good indicators that a wetland can remove a wide range of pollutants from surface water. The uptake of dissolved phosphorus and toxic compounds through adsorption to soil particles is highest when soils are high in clay or organic content (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1993). Upper edge of wetland Lower edge of wetland 200 ft 6 ft - The approximate height of a person standing here Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 79 Effective January 1, 2015 investigate further. Consider the wetland to have clay or organic soils. If it is not mapped as an organic or clay soil, you will need to take at least one sample at the site. To look at the soil: Dig a small hole within the wetland boundary and pick a sample from the area that is about 2 in below the duff layer. Usually it is best to sample the soil toward the middle of the wetland rather than at the edge. Avoid picking up any of the duff or recent plant material that lies on the surface. Determine if the soil is organic or clay. If you are not familiar with procedures for identifying clay soils, a key is provided in Appendix C. NOTE: The presence of organic or clay soils anywhere within the wetland counts. There is no scaling for this question based on the size of the patch of soil. This simplification is necessary because it is not possible to develop a reproducible map of different soils in a wetland within the time frame for doing the field work. See the NRCS web page for more descriptions on how to identify organic soils: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/?cid=nrcs142p2_053 580. S 1.3 Characteristics of the plants that trap sediments and pollutants: For this question you will need to group the plants found within the wetland into two groups: 1) dense, ungrazed or unmowed, herbaceous plants, and 2) all other types (Figure 41). NOTE: The Cowardin plant classes are NOT used for this question. For this question the area of herbaceous plants can include the areas of emergent plants as classified by Cowardin as well as the herbaceous understory in a shrub or forest. To qualify as “dense”, the herbaceous plants must cover at least ¾ (75%) of the ground (as opposed to the 30% requirement in the Cowardin plant classes). NOTE: The best information on reducing surface flows in a slope is provided by the basal cross-section of the plants. However, this is not easy to measure. The best indicator we were able to find is an estimate of the cover from a person's height. Generally, if less than 25% of the ground is visible at 5-6 ft, then there will be a fairly high stem density and basal cross section to trap sediments and reduce flows. Rationale for indicator: The intent of this question is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that are more effective at improving water quality in a slope environment. Herbaceous species have, in general, been found to sequester metals and remove oils and other organics better than other plant species (Hammer, 1989; Horner, 1992). Furthermore, dense herbaceous plants present the greatest resistance to the surface flow often found on slope wetlands. Water in this environment tends to flow very close to the surface and be shallow (not more than a few inches). Trees and shrubs tend to be widely spaced relative to herbaceous plants and don’t provide as much resistance to this type of surface flow. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 80 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 41. A Slope wetland where dense, unmowed plants are between ¼ and ½ the area of the wetland. S 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? S 2.1 Is more than 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland on the uphill side in land uses that generate pollutants in surface runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, commercial, or urban)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line around the wetland that is 150 ft from the edge of the wetland. The line should be 150 ft upslope of the wetland boundary. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed uses within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 10% within this perimeter upslope of the wetland. Use a graphic aid, such as an acetate overlay with a grid or dots, to estimate area. Visual estimates are not accurate enough and may result in significant errors. Rationale for indicator: Farming, grazing, golf courses, residential areas, commercial areas, and urban areas, in general, are major sources of pollutants (review in Sheldon et al., 2005). The review also found that a well-vegetated buffer of 150 ft will only remove 60- 80% of some pollutants from surface runoff into a wetland. Thus, pollutants from such land uses will probably reach the wetland unit if they are within 150 ft of the unit and upslope of it. Unmowed part of the wetland covered by Juncus spp. Mowed part of wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 81 Effective January 1, 2015 S 2.2 Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions S 2.1? Answer YES to the question if you can identify any source of pollutants in the groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland caused by human activities. Identify the source of the pollution on the rating form. Other sources of pollutants may be spraying of pesticides on golf courses, particulates in exhausts from airplanes or motor vehicles, and pesticides used in mosquito control. Activities that generate pollutants within the wetland itself, such as grazing, also count for a YES for this question. Cattle, sheep, or large native herbivores such as elk grazing within the wetland are a source of pollutants. Also, answer YES to this question if the wetland has a pond that is commonly used by migrating waterfowl. Waterfowl droppings are a source of both excess nutrients and bacteria. S 3.0 Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1 Does the wetland discharge directly to a stream, river, or lake that is on the 303(d) list? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists all the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. Use the Map Tool to locate your site. Determine from the aerial photograph or the map on the Ecology website if the wetland you are rating is within at least 1 mi up-gradient of any aquatic resource mapped as not meeting water quality standards and has a surface water channel, ditch, or other discharge leading to it (red lines or polygons on the map). Rationale for indicator: The phrase "303(d) list" is short for the list of impaired waters (stream segments, lakes) that the Clean Water Act requires all states to submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) every 2 years. In Washington, we identify all waters where pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable than those that discharge to unpolluted bodies of water because their role in cleaning up the pollution is critical for reducing further degradation of water quality. Rationale for indicator: The sources of pollutants listed in question S 2.1 may not be the only sources coming into the wetland unit from the surrounding landscape. In addition, sources of pollutants can be within the wetland unit itself. For example, pollutants are discharged within the wetland if it is used for grazing. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 82 Effective January 1, 2015 S 3.2 Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where another aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? To answer this question you will need to access the Department of Ecology’s website that lists the bodies of water that do not meet water quality standards: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/currentassessmt.html. To find the boundaries of basins and sub-basins (called hydrologic units) in the area, consult with the planning department of the local jurisdiction, or use the map of hydrologic units developed by the USGS: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. S 3.3 Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? To answer this question you will need to seek information from the planning department of the local jurisdiction where the site is located. Information on regional or local plans can often be found on the website of the city or county in which the site is found. Useful search phrases include: “watershed plan”, “water quality” , or “wetland protection” . If the basin in which the wetland is found has a Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) plan (also called a Water Cleanup Plan) developed for it, then answer YES for this question. It is assumed that all wetlands are valuable in a basin where water quality is poor enough to require a TMDL. The Department of Ecology’s website lists all the bodies of water that have TMDLs: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/TMDLbyWria.html. NOTE: Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) or Water Cleanup Plans describe the type, amount, and sources of water pollution in a particular water body. They analyze how much the pollution needs to be reduced or eliminated to meet water quality standards, and then provide targets and strategies to control the pollution. Wetlands that discharge directly to these polluted waters are judged to be more valuable because they function at a landscape scale to mitigate discharges of pollutants. TMDLs are based on models that estimate the natural decay and adsorption of pollutants under current conditions. Wetlands are an important part of that natural decay; their destruction would require a recalibration of the TMDL models and force reductions in current levels of discharge. Rationale for indicator: Not all pollution and water quality problems are identified by Ecology’s water quality monitoring program. Local and watershed planning efforts sometimes identify wetlands that are important in maintaining existing water quality. These wetlands provide a value to society that needs to be replaced if they are impacted. Rationale for indicator: Wetlands can mitigate the impacts of pollution even if they do not discharge directly to a polluted body of water. Wetlands can remove nitrogen from groundwater as well as surface water. They can also trap airborne pollutants. Thus, wetlands can provide an ecosystem service and value to our society in any basin and sub- basin that has pollution problems. The removal of pollutants by wetlands is judged to be more valuable in basins where other aquatic resources are already polluted. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 83 Effective January 1, 2015 S 4.0 Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? The site potential for Slope wetlands can only rate low or moderate for the hydrologic functions . The technical review teams that developed the 2004 Wetland Rating Systems (Hruby, 2004a; b) concluded that Slope wetlands may provide some velocity reduction but do not provide flood storage. Thus, they should be rated lower than wetlands that can perform both aspects of the function. S 4.1 Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows: For this question you will need to estimate the area of two categories of plants found within the wetland: 1) dense, uncut, rigid plants, and 2) all other plants. This indicator for plants is not related to any of the Cowardin classes. Dense means that individual plants are spaced closely enough that the soil is barely, if at all, visible (> 75% cover of plants) when looking at it from the height of an average person. Uncut means that the height of the plants has not been significantly reduced by grazing or mowing. “Significantly reduced” means that the height is less than 6 in. Rigid is defined as having stems thick enough (usually > 1/8 in) to remain erect during surface flows. There is only one threshold used to score this characteristic: dense, ungrazed, rigid plants for more than 90% of the area of the wetland (Figure 42), The wetland in Figure 41 was mowed over much of its area, except where the Juncus spp. was growing. The mowed plants were less than 6 in high, so the only plants that were included for this indicator were the Juncus. NOTE: This is a simpler version of the questions in the 2004 Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2004a). Only one answer resulted in a Moderate rating of 6 or more points. As a result, the other questions were dropped since their scores did not change the rating. NOTE: This description is not species specific because a species may be rigid in one environment and not rigid in another. For example, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) can grow very thick and rigid stems in areas with high nutrients. In other situations (e.g., shady environment), however, it can be very thin and would easily be bent to the ground by runoff. Rationale for indicator: The intent of this question is to characterize how much of the wetland is covered with plants that provide a physical barrier to sheetflow coming down the slope. Plants on slopes will reduce peak flows and the velocity of water during a storm event (U.S. Geological Service, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/urbaneffects.html, accessed July 31, 2003). The importance of plants on slopes in reducing flows has been well documented in studies of logging (Lewis et al., 2001), though not specifically for Slope wetlands. The assumption is that plants in Slope wetlands play the same role as plants in forested areas in reducing peak flows. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 84 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 42. A Slope wetland with dense erect, ungrazed plants over more than 90% of its area. The direction of the slope is from the bottom of the photograph toward the center. S 5.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1 Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses that generate excess surface runoff (agricultural, pasture, residential, commercial, or urban)? Use your aerial photo and draw a line around the wetland that is 150 ft from the edge of the wetland. Estimate the land uses in the area 150 ft upslope of the wetland boundary. Answer YES to this question if you find the listed land uses within 150 ft of the wetland and they cover more than 25% of the area upslope within this perimeter. Rationale for indicator: Human land uses tend to de-stabilize the flows of water in a watershed. Generally, human activities reduce infiltration and increase the run-off during storm events (review in Sheldon et al., 2005). For example, a lawn can reduce infiltration by as much as 65% (Kelling & Peterson, 1975). Thus, a slope unit located in areas where run-off has increased can provide more velocity reduction of surface flows than one located in an undeveloped area. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 85 Effective January 1, 2015 S 6.0 Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1 Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: If you do not know whether floods have caused damage in the sub-basin farther downstream, you will need to do some research. Your best sources of information on flooding problems are the emergency planning office in your local government and the local Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland being rated. The wetland reduces velocities that would otherwise impact down-gradient areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): In the sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of the wetland. In a sub-basin farther down-gradient. NOTE 1 (a landscape constraint on function): A Slope wetland that receives only return flow from irrigation is not in a landscape position to perform the hydrologic functions. Since the inflow is controlled, there is little chance that the water coming into the wetland will cause downstream flooding or erosion. Answer NO to the question if you can document that more than 90% of the flow through the wetland is a result of irrigation. NOTE 2 (a landscape constraint on function): When a Slope wetland is situated upslope of a road where water movement through the road is limited by ineffective culverts, the roadway typically acts as a levee, de-coupling upslope wetlands from downstream flooding. The roadway, rather than the wetland, delays storm flows, and acts like a flood-control dam. This indicates that the hydrologic connection between the floodway and the upslope area is impaired. If, however, the water impounded on the upslope side of the road recedes at the same rate as the water on the downslope side, you can assume the connections through the road are not constrained. In this case, the velocity reduction provided by the wetland on the upslope side is important, and the wetland should be scored accordingly. Rationale for indicator: The value of wetlands in reducing the impacts of flooding and erosion is based on the presence of human or natural resources that can be damaged by these processes. The indicator used characterizes whether the wetland’s position in the landscape protects downgradient resources from flooding. In general, the value of a wetland in reducing flood damage is judged to decrease with increased distance to downstream areas with flooding problems because the amount of water flowing through the unit relative to the overall flows decreases. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 86 Effective January 1, 2015 S 6.2 Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? To answer this question contact the jurisdiction in which the site is found to determine whether any regional flood control plans exist. A search of websites for flood prone areas will probably also list flood control plans for the watershed in question. If plans exist, determine if the site is listed as important or valuable for flood storage. To answer YES to this question, the flood control district needs to have developed a flood control or flood hazard mitigation plan that identifies the site as one that needs to be preserved or enhanced to improve flood protection. 5.7 Habitat functions for all HGM classes (questions starting with ‘H’) A rapid method such as this one relies on indicators of function that are fixed and present throughout most of the year (see Appendix D). As a result, it is not possible to actually monitor the species that use a wetland, or determine their abundance. The one aspect of habitat that we can determine is the number of habitat niches present. The questions below describe indicators that represent different habitat niches. The basic assumption is that wetlands with more niches can provide a higher level of habitat functions than one with fewer. The rating of the site potential for this function is based on the number of species for which a site can potentially provide habitat. H 1.0 Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1 Structure of the plant community: Rationale for indicator: This indicator addresses two types of vegetation structure, the Cowardin vegetation classes and several size ranges within the Emergent class of vegetation. First, more habitat niches are provided within a wetland as the number of vegetation classes increases. The increased structural complexity provided by different plants optimizes potential breeding areas, escape, cover, and food production for the greatest number of species (Hruby et al., 2000). Secondly, the team developing the methods for assessing wetland functions in the Columbia Basin judged that different guilds of species may partition the habitat based primarily on differences in height in the emergent plants. The assessment team determined that the varying heights of emergent vegetation played a significant role in providing structural complexity that might otherwise, in wetter environments, be provided by scrub-shrub and forested vegetation. This increased species richness arising from the increased structural diversity also supports a greater number of terrestrial species in the overall wetland food web (Hruby et al., 2000). Rationale for indicator: The values of flood storage and flood conveyance provided by wetlands are often recognized in regional flood control plans, and specific sites are mentioned in these plans. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 87 Effective January 1, 2015 For this question you will need to identify the Cowardin classes of vegetation in the wetland and whether the emergent class has areas where plants are of different heights. Vegetation classes are grouped into 6 categories: Aquatic bed Emergent plants 0-12 in high (0-30 cm) Emergent plants >12-40 in high (>30-100cm) Emergent plants > 40 in high (> 100 cm) Scrub-shrub Forested If you have determined there is an Emergent class of plants in the wetland, you will need to estimate whether these plants can be further divided based on the heights of the plants. There are three size criteria: 0-12 in (0-30 cm), >12-40 in (>30 – 100 cm), and more than 40 in (> 1 m). Record the number of different categories of plant height categories in the wetland. Remember, a height category must cover at least ¼ ac, or 10% of the wetland for wetlands smaller than 2.5 ac, to be counted. Do not count the actual vertical height of vegetation that is broken or on the ground when identifying structure categories. Use the estimated vertical height of vegetation before it was knocked down. Figure 44 shows a wetland with three concentric rings of emergent plants of different heights. NOTE 1: Each class of vegetation or height category of Emergent species has to cover more than ¼ ac, or, if the wetland is smaller than 2.5 ac, 10% of the wetland area. Cowardin vegetation types are distinguished on the basis of the uppermost layer of vegetation (forest, shrub, etc.) that provides more than 30% surface cover within the area of its distribution (see Section 5.2). NOTE 2: Aquatic bed plants do not always reach the surface and care must be taken to look beneath the water’s surface. Because waterfowl can graze certain species of aquatic bed early in the growing season, you may incorrectly conclude that aquatic bed plants are not present if the field visit is made during this time period. Therefore, examine the pond bottom in areas of open water for evidence of aquatic bed species that have senesced. If a wetland is being rated very late in the growing season, when either the standing water is gone or very limited in extent, examine mudflats and adjacent vegetated areas for the presence of dried aquatic bed species (Figure 43). NOTE 3: Nuphar lutea (yellow pond-lily) is considered as aquatic bed, not emergent. Water level fluctuations in eastern Washington are so great that it is difficult to base the classification on water levels. The intent of the question was to highlight habitat functions, and Nuphar generally has the habitat characteristics of aquatic bed rather than emergent, regardless of whether it sticks out above the water or is below it. See Section 5.2 for a description of how to identify aquatic bed plants. NOTE 4: If a plant class is distributed in several patches, the patches can be added together to meet the size threshold. However, the patches have to be large enough so that no more than 10 are needed to meet the size threshold. For example, if 15 patches of shrubs are needed to meet the size threshold then the wetland does NOT have a Scrub-shrub class. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 88 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE 5: You cannot assume that a plant species will always be of the same height category. Reed canarygrass is a good example. This species will grow to be 6 ft tall in nutrient rich wetlands, but it will be less than 40 in tall if it is stressed by too much water. The same can be said for Juncus effusus, which is usually 12-40 in tall but can reach 5 ft in some wetlands. Figure 43. Aquatic bed plants that have been bleached by the sun and left stranded as the water levels receded during the summer. Figure 44. A Depressional wetland with three height classes of emergent plants. More than 40 in tall. 12-40 in tall. 0-12 in tall. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 89 Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.2 Is one of the vegetation types Aquatic Bed? Add one point to the site potential if the wetland has an Aquatic Bed class that meets the size threshold. H 1.3 Surface water H 1.3.1 Does the wetland have areas of ponded surface water without emergent or shrub plants over at least 10% of its area during the spring (March to early June) OR in early fall (August to end of September)? NOTE: Answer YES for Lake Fringe wetlands. To answer this question you will have to determine if the wetland has surface water present during the specified seasons without any persistent emergent, shrub, or forest species poking up through the water. You are trying to judge if the wetland has open water on which waterfowl can land or if flying insectivores can forage near the surface. Aquatic bed species are not a detriment for this indicator because they do not cover the open water all the time. There is a period during the early part of the growing season when the water is open, before the aquatic bed species grow to the surface. Rationale for indicator: This indicator attempts to capture several different habitat features that are important for birds, bats, and amphibians. It represents a simplification of several habitat indicators used in the methods for assessing functions (Hruby et al., 2000) that are too complex for this rating system. Generally, open water provides an area for waterfowl to access the wetland. It also is an indicator of potentially greater underwater structural heterogeneity that supports a greater variety of invertebrate food sources for different species of waterfowl. The presence of open water is also an indicator that the wetland may hold water long enough to provide for the successful incubation of amphibian eggs (Hruby et al., 2000). Open water also provides space for flying insectivores such as bats and some birds to forage near the wetland surface. The time periods for open water specified in the question (March-June, or August-September) coincide with the peak of the waterfowl migrations. The question is divided into two parts to avoid ambiguity. Some Riverine wetlands have open water in the form of a stream. Streams play a similar role in Riverine wetlands that open water does in Depressional wetlands. Lake Fringe wetlands, by definition, have to have open water adjacent to them, and thus, are answered YES in all cases. Rationale for indicator: Aquatic bed plants were judged to be more important than the other vegetation types as a habitat feature in eastern Washington. The increased structural complexity provided by aquatic bed species increases habitat niches for a number of invertebrate and vertebrate species. The team developing function assessment methods for eastern Washington observed an increase in the number of invertebrate species when aquatic bed plants were present (unpublished data collected during the validation of methods for assessing functions). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 90 Effective January 1, 2015 It may sometimes be hard to determine if a wetland has open water if you do your field work outside the times specified (March-June and August-September). However, some indicators can be used to determine if surface water was present. If the entire central (or deepest) part of the wetland is covered with large species such as cattails and bulrushes (see Figure 44), you can assume the wetland does not have open water. If the wetland still has standing water outside the zone of emergent plants in July or October, you can assume the wetland does have open water during the spring and late summer (see Figure 43). If the wetland has exposed areas of mudflats without any vegetation (Figure 45), you can assume the wetland does have open water. Figure 45. A mudflat indicates the presence of open water earlier in the season. The size threshold for this indicator is ¼ ac, or 10% of the area of the wetland if the wetland is smaller than 2.5 ac. Include an outline of the area that has open water on the map or photograph of the wetland. H 1.3.2 Does the wetland have an intermittent or permanent stream within its boundaries or along one side with an unvegetated bottom (answer only if H 1.3.1 is NO)? Consider this question only if the wetland does not have any open water as defined in H1.3.1. Some Riverine wetlands or Depressional wetlands without open water may have a stream or river along one side or within it. The open water provided by the stream plays a similar ecological role as the open water defined above. If you answered NO to H 1.3.1, you will need to determine if there is a permanently or seasonally flowing stream or river in the wetland, or immediately adjacent (contiguous) to it. To answer YES for this question, the stream or river needs to have defined banks with a bottom that is not vegetated and the area that is contiguous with the wetland is at least 10% or ¼ ac of the wetland. Also answer YES if the wetland is along the side of a stream or river with an unvegetated area that is at least 16 ft (5 m) wide. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 91 Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.4 Richness of plant species: As you walk through the wetland, keep a list of the patches of different plant species you find. You should count both wetland and upland plants. However, you should include only species that form patches that cover at least 10 ft2 within the wetland. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold. This threshold was established to reduce the variability among users with different levels of expertise in identifying plants. You should try to identify plants, but keying them out is not necessary. All you need to track is the total number, so you can identify species as Species 1, Species 2, etc. In order to capture the full range of plant species present during the year, record any species that are dead and recognizably different from other species present. There are three thresholds to keep in mind for this indicator: 10 or more species, 4-9, and less than 4 species. If you count more than 10 species, you do not need to continue identifying plants. For this question the following species are NOT TO BE INCLUDED in the total: Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), Canadian thistle (Circium arvense), saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria),common reed (Phragmites australis), and yellow-flag iris (Iris pseudacorus). H 1.5 Interspersion of habitats: In question H 1.1, you determined how many different Cowardin plant classes are present in the wetland being rated, and how many height classes of emergent species are present. This question uses that information and also asks you to identify any areas of open water in the wetland (open means without plants on or above the water surface during the spring, summer, or fall). You are asked to rate the interspersion among these structural characteristics of the wetland. The diagrams on the rating form show what is meant by Rationale for indicator: In general, interspersion among different physical structures (e.g. open water) and types of vegetation (e.g. aquatic bed, emergent vegetation of different heights) increases the suitability for some wildlife guilds by increasing the number of ecological niches (Hruby et al., 2000). For example, a higher diversity of plant forms is likely to support a higher diversity of macroinvertebrates (Chapman, 1966; Dvořak & Best, 1982; Lodge, 1985). Rationale for indicator: The number of plant species present in a wetland reflects the potential number of niches available for animal and invertebrate species. The total number of animal and invertebrate species in a wetland is expected to increase as the number of plant species increases (Hruby et al., 2000). For example, the number of invertebrate species is directly linked to the number of plant species (Knops et al., 1999). This indicator includes both native and non-native plant species (with the exceptions noted below) because both provide habitat for animal and invertebrate species. The six aggressive species not counted tend to form large monocultures that exclude other species and reduce the structural richness of the habitat. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 92 Effective January 1, 2015 ratings of High, Medium, Low, or None. Each polygon with a different shading represents a different plant class or open water. To answer this question first consider if the interspersion falls into the two “default” ratings. If the wetland has only one vegetation structure present and no open water, it will always be rated as NONE (see Figures 12, 13). If the wetland has four vegetation structures (from question H 1.1), or three types and open water (from questions H 1.1 and H 1.3) it will always be rated as HIGH. The only time you will have to make a decision is when the wetland has two or three types of habitat structure. For example, the wetland in Figure 44 has three concentric rings of emergent plants at different heights and no open water. This wetland is rated as Moderate for interspersion (see the fourth diagram on the rating form). The wetland in Figure 46 has one vegetation type and open water in a concentric system. It is rated as LOW (see the second diagram on the rating form). Additional notes for determining the interspersion are: Lake Fringe wetlands will always have at least two categories of structure (open water and one class of vegetation). A wetland with a meandering, unvegetated, stream (seasonal or permanent) that does not meet the size threshold (<10% of the wetland or <¼ ac) should be rated LOW if it has only one plant class. If, however, the area of the unvegetated stream is greater than the threshold size, the interspersion is MODERATE. Several isolated patches of one structural category (e.g., patches of open water) should be considered the same as one patch with many lobes. In scoring wetlands with two types of structure, the difference between LOW and MODERATE interspersion is the amount of edge habitat between the structures. Wetlands with convoluted edges are scored MODERATE. Those with relatively straight edges are scored LOW. For wetlands with three types of structure, the same criterion is used to differentiate between a MODERATE and HIGH rating. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 93 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 46. A Depressional wetland with one height category of emergent plants and open water. The interspersion is rated as LOW. H 1.6 Special habitat features: Record the presence of any the following special habitat features within the wetland on the rating form: Rocks >4 in (10 cm) in diameter or large woody debris that is more than 4 in diameter Rationale for indicator: There are certain habitat features in a wetland that provide refuge and resources for many different species. The presence of these features increases the potential that the wetland will provide a wide range of habitats (Hruby et al., 2000). These special features include: Rocks within the area of surface ponding or large downed woody debris in the wetland. Cattails or bulrushes as indicators of long periods of ponding. Snags that provide perches and cavities for birds and other animals. Emergent or shrub vegetation in areas that are permanently ponded. Steep banks of fine material that might be used by aquatic mammals for denning. As a habitat feature, rocks can mimic the function of large woody debris typically found in western Washington, but rarely found in many areas of eastern Washington. Rocks provide refuge, habitat, and structure for a number of different species. Woody debris, snags, and erect vegetation, where present, provide major niches for decomposers (e.g., bacteria and fungi) and invertebrates. They also provide refuge for some amphibians and other vertebrates. Downed woody material and the duration of ponding are important structural elements of habitat for many other species. (review in Hruby et al., 2000). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 94 Effective January 1, 2015 within the area that is seasonally or permanently ponded (Figures 47, 48). Presence of cattails (Typha spp.) or bulrushes [Schoenoplectus (formerly Scirpus) acutus]. Snags present in the wetland, or in the first 30 m (100 ft) of the buffer, that are more than 4- in diameter at breast height. Emergent or shrub vegetation is found in areas that are permanently ponded. The presence of yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) is a good indicator of vegetation in areas that are permanently ponded. Steep banks of fine material for denning, or evidence of use of the wetland by beaver or muskrat. Banks need to be at least 33 ft long, 2 ft high within or immediately adjacent to the wetland and have the following characteristics: at least a 30 degrees slope, with at least a 3-ft depth of fine soil such as sand, silt, or clay. OR, Evidence the area has been recently used by beaver, such as downed trees and shrubs with teeth marks, and where the wood has not turned gray yet (Figure 49). Evidence of grazing by muskrat does not count because it may be the result of nutria, an invasive aquatic mammal. It is very difficult to differentiate between these two species in the field. Aggressive, opportunistic plant species cover less than 20% of the wetland area in EACH vertical stratum of plants in the wetland. The five possible strata are canopy, sub- canopy, shrub, herbaceous/emergent, and ground-cover. For example, a forested wetland with a 100% canopy of alder or cottonwood but with an understory of reed canarygrass that covered 70% of the ground would not qualify for this characteristic. The species that are considered aggressive for answering this question are as follows: Circium arvense (Canadian thistle) Lysimachia vulgaris (garden loosestrife) Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) Myriophyllum spicatum (European milfoil) Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) Phragmites australis (common reed) Polygonum cuspidatum [=Reynoutria japonica (Japanese knotweed)] Polygonum sachalinense [=Reynoutria sachalinensis (giant knotweed)] Polygonum x bohemicum [=Reynoutria X bohemica (Bohemian knotweed)] Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) Rubus laciniatus (evergreen blackberry) Tamarix spp. [either Tamarix ramosissima and/or T. parviflora, saltcedar. (there is some dispute regarding the correct taxonomy of the deciduous species of tamarisk that have escaped and become invasive in western North America.)] Only the species on the list count as aggressive. This is the list on which the experts developing and reviewing the rating system could agree. Other species may be considered aggressive by one or more botanists, but we could not achieve consensus to include any other species on the list. Check off each habitat feature present in the wetland on the rating form. Add the total number of checks and record that as the score in the right-hand column. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 95 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 47. Rocks within area of surface ponding. Figure 48. Large woody debris in wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 96 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 49. Evidence of beaver activity. Note the conical shape of the cut. H 2.0 Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? Habitat loss and fragmentation are a major source of losses in biodiversity (Fahrig, 2003). Thus, wetlands in areas that have not been subject to fragmentation and habitat loss are in a better landscape position to provide habitat for a wide range of species that require both uplands and wetlands to survive. Questions H 2.1 and H 2.2 describe two indicators for characterizing the availability of good habitat around a wetland. Land uses that are often called “high intensity,” such as dense residential areas, manufacturing areas, and commercial, all have negative impacts on habitat because of noise, light, toxic runoff, and other disturbances (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). Wetlands that are located in such areas are therefore less suited as habitat for many species. Question H 2.3 attempts to characterize these impacts by reducing the overall landscape potential of a site if these high- intensity land uses are present. You will need to map three types of land uses in a polygon that extends 1 km in all directions from the edge of the wetland being rated. These are “high intensity” land uses, “moderate and low intensity” land uses, and “relatively undisturbed”. Do this by: Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 97 Effective January 1, 2015 1. Drawing a polygon around the wetland that extends 1 km from the edge of the entire wetland (not the center). Use an aerial photograph or a map of land uses if available. This is called the “1 km Polygon” that surrounds the wetland being rated. 2. Drawing smaller polygons within this 1 km Polygon around the areas that are relatively undisturbed, have low or moderate intensity land uses, and have high intensity land uses. 3. To answer the following questions you will need to estimate the relative area of these polygons. However, you do not need to measure actual acreages, just the percent of the total area within the larger polygon (Figure 50). If you do not have access to GIS capabilities, relative area can be easily determined by copying a piece of gridded graph paper onto an acetate sheet, overlaying it on the aerial photograph, and counting squares. Terms are defined in Table 3 and in the box following it. If you find a land use that is not listed, you will have to decide how to categorize it (high intensity, moderate/low intensity, relatively undisturbed). In this case, you should document your rationale on the rating form or attached to the figures you submit. Table 3. Land uses that can be classified as high and moderate/low intensity based on their impacts to wetland habitat. Level of Impact Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations High Intensity • Commercial • Urban • Industrial • Institutional • Retail sales • Residential (more than 1 unit/ac) • High-intensity agriculture (dairies, nurseries, greenhouses, growing and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling, and raising and maintaining animals, etc.) • High-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields, etc.) Moderate and Low Intensity • Residential (1 unit/ac or less) • Parks • Moderate-intensity agriculture (orchards, hay fields, pastures) • Trails • Forestry • Utility corridors Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 98 Effective January 1, 2015 H 2.1 What is the area of accessible habitat? Rationale for indicator: It is difficult to separate the effects of habitat loss from the fragmentation of habitat (Fahrig, 2003). Thus, Eigenbrod et al. (2008) have developed an indicator, called “accessible habitat”, that integrates these two concepts into one measurable indicator. Accessible habitat is defined as the amount of habitat that can be reached from the wetland without crossing a human land use (e.g., roads, fields, and development). Some lower intensity human land uses such as parks do not completely isolate a habitat. As a result, low and moderate intensity land uses are not completely discounted as accessible habitat. The total area of low and moderate intensity land uses adjacent to the unit is divided by two and then added to the area of undisturbed habitat. This addresses the issue that some lower intensity land uses do still provide habitat, but not the same level of habitat as undisturbed areas. Relatively undisturbed is a general term used to describe areas that are almost completely free of human impacts and activities. Relatively undisturbed areas can include uplands, other wetlands, lakes or other bodies of water. It means that the area is free of regular disturbances such as: Tilling and cropping Residential and urban development Grazing Paved roads or frequently used gravel roads Mowing Pets Boating and fishing NOTE 1: Areas dominated by aggressive species are not considered disturbed unless you also have other evidence that disturbances are still present. The aggressive species could be a result of some past disturbance that is no longer present. NOTE 2: Logged areas that have been undisturbed for at least 5 years can qualify as relatively undisturbed. This includes hybrid poplar plantations that are more than 5 years old. NOTE 3: Areas that are accessed daily by dogs, either from residential areas or from people walking them, should be treated as disturbed. Dogs and other pets cause stress among the animals using a wetland. NOTE 4: A rarely used path or gravel road can be considered relatively undisturbed if it is used less than once or twice a week. Daily usage of a road or area is considered disturbed. NOTE 5: Lakes, ponds, and other bodies of open water can be considered relatively undisturbed if they are not regularly used for boating or for other water-related activities. Daily usage of the lake by boats would be considered disturbed. A lake can be considered undisturbed if it is used only once or twice a week by non-motorized craft. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 99 Effective January 1, 2015 To calculate the accessible habitat around the wetland you are rating, follow these steps: 1. Highlight all polygons of relatively undisturbed land uses on your map that are contiguous with the wetland boundary and not separated from the wetland by some human disturbance. 2. Estimate the relative area of all such polygons as a percent of the total area within the larger 1 km Polygon. You do not need to measure actual acreages, just the percent of the total areas within the larger polygon (Figure 50). Include this number on the rating form. 3. Highlight all polygons of moderate or low intensity land uses that are contiguous with the wetland boundary or to the relatively undisturbed areas mapped in #1 above. 4. Estimate the relative area of the polygons categorized as moderate or low intensity as a percent of the total area within the larger 1 km Polygon. Divide this result by 2 and add it to the percent of accessible, undisturbed, habitat calculated in steps #1 and #2 above. Use the sum as the area of accessible habitat to answer question H 2.1. Figure 50. A 1 km Polygon from edge of wetland showing the accessible habitat. Accessible habitat is 10-19 % of the total area of the 1 km Polygon. 1 km Polygon around unit Relatively undisturbed habitat Wetland unit Park Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 100 Effective January 1, 2015 H 2.2 Total undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around wetland unit: Use the diagram of land uses within 1 km of the edge of the wetland to answer this question as well, but use the following criteria: 1. Select the polygons identified as relatively undisturbed even if they are separated from the wetland by some human disturbance. Estimate the percent of the 1 km Polygon that they cover. 2. Select the polygons of low or moderate intensity land uses. Estimate the percent of the 1 km Polygon these represent and divide this percentage by 2. 3. Add the percents from #1 and #2. If the total is more than 50%, record that on the rating form. 4. If the total of relatively undisturbed patches and those with low or moderate land use intensity is between 10% and 50%, count the number of distinct patches in the 1 km Polygon and score this using the criteria on the rating form. H 2.3 Land use intensity in the 1 km Polygon Use the diagram of land uses within 1 km of the wetland boundary to answer this question as well, but analyze using the following steps. 1. Identify all areas of high intensity land uses. 2. Calculate the relative area of these land uses in the 1 km Polygon. If the total is more than 50% of the area of the entire polygon, record that on the rating form and subtract two points from the total. H 2.4 The wetland is in an area where annual rainfall is less than 12 in, and its water regime is not influenced by irrigation practices, dams, or water control structures. Rationale for indicator: Land uses that are often called high intensity, such as dense residential, manufacturing, and commercial areas, all have negative impacts on habitat because of noise, light and other disturbances (reviewed in Sheldon et al., 2005). Wetlands that are located in such areas are therefore less suited as habitat for many species. Rationale for indicator: The focus of this indicator is more on the fragmentation of the surrounding landscape. Flying species such as birds are not dependent on undisturbed corridors to move from habitat patch to habitat patch, but more on the total area of habitat available (Rodewald & Bakermans, 2006). This indicator characterizes the overall undisturbed habitat available surrounding the wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 101 Effective January 1, 2015 If you do not know the average annual rainfall at or near the wetland, you can access this information online. The USGS maintains rain gauges throughout the state, and the agency summarizes the annual rainfall data for over 100 sites on its website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmwa.html. To determine if the rainfall at the wetland being rated is more or less than 12 in per year, access the data for the gauge that is closest to the wetland. If you determine that the wetland is in an area that receives less than 12 in of rain a year, you will have to determine that the water regime is NOT dominated by water from the following activities: Irrigation practices: Irrigation return flows on the surface or shallow subsurface. Dams: The wetland is in a backwater of a dam or reservoir. Generally, this means the wetland is outside the boundaries of reclamation areas, irrigation districts, or reservoirs. H 3.0 Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? People do not value all species equally. Some are valued for their “charismatic” characteristics, some because they are in danger of extinction, and some for their commercial, aesthetic, or moral values (Perry, 2010). The value of the habitat a wetland provides for society is therefore linked to the presence of these more-valued species. Furthermore, as individuals we often place different values on individual species of wildlife. For example, some may value a beaver more than frogs, while others disagree. Question H 3.1 attempts to characterize the values of different species of wildlife at a broad level by highlighting wetlands that provide habitat for species that are recognized by jurisdictions, the state, and federal agencies as having some importance and that are protected by laws and regulations. In this case, we are relying on the agencies and jurisdictions (as representatives of society as a whole) to identify the valuable species and habitats. The Department of Ecology does not have the resources, or the mandate, to develop a different list of valuable species. Rationale for indicator: Wetlands in areas of the state with low rainfall are an oasis for birds, amphibians, and terrestrial wildlife. The importance and suitability of a wetland within the overall ecosystem increases with a decrease in annual precipitation since wetlands play a relatively more important role in maintaining habitat for all species (Stein & Ambrose, 2001). The landscape potential is reduced, however, in an arid landscape where there is a significant input of water through irrigation or dams. Wetlands in arid areas, where the amount of surface water is increased through human activities, are not considered as important because the lack of rainfall is augmented by human sources. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 102 Effective January 1, 2015 H 3.1 Does the site provides habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Wetlands are assigned a high value for habitat if the wetland: Provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered (T/E) species on either a state or federal list. This includes both plants and animals. For the latest information on T/E species you will have to access the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) links below, or contact the local WDFW biologist. These links were active as of May 2014: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/ For information on plants, contact the Natural Heritage Program at Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR): http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/plants.html NOTE: Be aware that wetlands with streams running through them in the Puget Sound area and on the Columbia River will probably be providing habitat for one or more species of threatened or endangered fish. Is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species. WDFW maintains maps of important habitat areas and locations for species on their priority habitats and species (PHS) list. These maps should be used to identify if a PHS data point (NOT a polygon) in the database falls within the wetland. The WDFW website (http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/) provides a map of the PHS data for the entire state. Zoom to the location of your wetland unit and determine if a PHS data point (not a habitat polygon) falls within the boundary of the wetland. Is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by WDNR. (See question SC 3.0 under Wetlands with Special Characteristics; Chapter 6). http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/communitiesxco/countyindex.html Has at least three different WDFW priority habitats within 100 m of the wetland that are not wetlands. The list in Appendix B summarizes the priority habitats as of July 2013. However, these may change, and you need to use the latest definitions for priority habitats. The list of priority habitats can be accessed from the WDFW web page: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/ Rationale for indicator: There are some species that are identified through federal and state Endangered Species Acts or are the focus of management and conservation by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife through their priority species and habitat program (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phspage.htm). These species are judged to have a higher value to society than others. Wetland units that provide habitat for these species are considered to have a higher habitat value than wetlands that do not. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 103 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: Wetlands are specifically excluded from the list of WDFW priority habitats used for this question. Has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, Shoreline Master Plan, or a watershed plan. The Department of Ecology does not maintain a database of important habitat areas identified in local plans. You will need to contact the planning department of the jurisdiction in which your wetland is found to determine if it has been identified as an area that provides valuable habitat. Wetlands are assigned a moderate value for habitat if the wetland has one or two different WDFW priority habitats within 100 m. Wetlands are assigned a low value for habitat if they do not meet any of the criteria above. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 104 Effective January 1, 2015 Page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 105 Effective January 1, 2015 6. Detailed Guidance for the Rating Form: Wetlands With Special Characteristics This rating system was designed to differentiate among wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance, their rarity, our ability to replace them, and the functions they provide. The first four criteria can be considered as values that are somewhat independent of the functions provided by a wetland. Questions SC 1 to SC 6 provide the information needed to identify and rate the wetlands with these special characteristics. These types of wetlands have an importance or value that may supersede their functions. You should determine whether the wetland being rated meets any of the conditions described below as well as answering the questions about functions. Questions to identify wetlands with special characteristics SC 1.0 Vernal pools Vernal pools are precipitation-based, seasonal wetlands. For the purposes of this rating system, they include only scabrock and rainpool vernal wetlands. Pools where surface water ponds for short periods that are found in forested areas, or surrounded by trees and shrubs, are not considered vernal pools in the context of this rating system. Figures 51 and 52 show typical vernal pools in scabland areas. Relatively undisturbed vernal pools are either a Category II or III, depending on their location in the landscape. To be classified as a vernal pool, the wetland should be less than 4000 ft2, and meet at least two of the following criteria: Its only source of water is rainfall or snowmelt from a small contributi ng basin and the wetland has no groundwater input. The wetland will typically lay in areas where the basalt has been exposed by the ice age floods and where the basalts have small depressions that collect rainwater or snowmelt. Wetland plants are typically present only in the spring; the summer vegetation is typically upland annuals. The water is present in the wetland for only short periods of time, usually less than 120 days. Wetland plants will be found only during the time of standing water or immediately afterwards. NOTE: If you find perennial, obligate, wetland plants, the wetland is probably NOT a vernal pool. The soils in the wetland are shallow (<30 cm or 1 ft deep) and are underlain by an impermeable layer such as basalt or clay. You can determine the depth of the soil by digging a small hole with a tile spade. Determining if the impermeable layer is basalt should be easy (can’t dig any farther), but identifying a clay layer is harder. You may have to take some of the soil between your fingers, add water, and feel if it is greasy and smooth (without grit). If in doubt, use the “ribbon test” for clay (Appendix C). Surface water is present for less than 120 days during the wet season. Estimating the duration of surface water in a vernal pool wetland is difficult unless one visits the Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 106 Effective January 1, 2015 wetland several times and notes the time at which the wetland fills and the time it dries out. Information about the drying and wetting cycles in the wetland may sometimes be obtained from local residents or frequent visitors to the wetland. SC 1.1 Is the vernal pool relatively undisturbed in February and March? To meet the criterion for relatively undisturbed, a vernal pool has no disturbance within 200 ft during the months of February and March. Disturbance includes grazing, pets, urban or residential noise, and human activity, including road traffic. If the pool is grazed during the late spring and summer or fall, but not the early spring, it can be considered relatively undisturbed. SC 1.2 Is the wetland a relatively undisturbed vernal pool in an area where there are at least three other separate aquatic resources (other wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes, etc.) within ½ mi? If the wetland being rated meets the criteria for undisturbed vernal pools described in the section above, determine if there are any other wetlands or aquatic resources within ½ mi. Aquatic resources include lakes, reservoirs, wasteways with open water, rivers, and other wetlands. Use an aerial photograph or topographic map to answer this question if you cannot visit or see the area around the wetland. If there are at least three other aquatic resources nearby, the vernal pool is rated as a Category II wetland. If the wetland is a relatively undisturbed vernal pool with fewer than three aquatic resources within ½ mi, it is rated a Category III wetland. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 107 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 51. A scabrock vernal pool above Lake Lenore. Figure 52. A scabrock vernal pool with water still in it. The pool is in a grazed pasture but undisturbed in early spring. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 108 Effective January 1, 2015 SC 2.0 Alkali wetlands Alkali wetlands are wetlands with high concentrations of salt. They have formed where groundwater comes to the surface and evaporates. The evaporation over many years has concentrated the salts that were present in the groundwater. These wetlands cannot be replicated through compensatory mitigation to our knowledge, and are limited to only certain areas of the Columbia Plateau. All alkali wetlands are Category I wetlands. A wetland is alkali if it meets one of the following four criteria: The wetland has conductivity greater than 3.0 mS. Conductivity is measured with a conductivity meter, and the units measured are called “Siemens” or “Mhos”. The units of measure are equivalent. For example, 3.0 milliSiemens is the same as 3.0 millimhos. Measure the conductivity in the water at least 1-2 ft from the edge. If the weather is hot, the conductivity near the edge may be much higher because of local evaporation. The wetland has a conductivity between 2.0-3.0 mS, and more than 50% of the plant cover in the wetland can be classified as salt tolerant species (see Table 4 for list of plants found in alkali systems). The plant list in Table 4 is not exclusive, and the criterion can be met by any plant species known to be salt tolerant. If the wetland is dry at the time of your field visit, the central part of the area is covered with a layer of salt. (Figure 53) Wetland meets two of the following three sub-criteria: o Salt is encrusted around more than 3/4 of the edge of the wetland. Alkali wetlands will usually have a rim of salt crystals around their edge as the water in the wetland evaporates. Some freshwater wetlands have a fairly high salt content and are on the verge of being alkali. Such borderline wetlands will have an occasional patch of salt encrusted around their edges. Any wetland, however, where the encrustations are found around more than 3/4 of the edge should be alkali. All eight alkali wetlands visited during the field calibration met this criterion and their conductivity was confirmed by the meter. Figure 54 gives an example of an alkali wetland with a ring of salt around it. o More than ¾ of the plant cover consists of species listed on Table 4. o A pH above 9.0. All alkali wetlands have a high pH, but please note that some freshwater wetlands may also have a high pH. Thus, pH alone is not a good indicator of alkali wetlands. The pH can be measured using a pH meter or paper tabs with indicators on them (pH paper). Conductivity measures the ability of a solution to conduct an electric current between two electrodes. With an increasing amount of ions (i.e. salts) present in the liquid, the liquid will have a higher conductivity. Normal units of measurement are: 1 micromho (µmho) = 1 microSiemen (µS), 1 millimho (mmho) = 1 milliSiemens (mS) = 1,000 µS Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 109 Effective January 1, 2015 Figure 53. An alkali wetland where surface is encrusted with salt. In this wetland, the salt was 4-6 in deep. Figure 54. Salt encrustation around an alkali wetland (black arrow). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 110 Effective January 1, 2015 Table 4. Plant species that are tolerant of high salt concentration and are often dominant in alkali wetlands. Latin Name Common Name Schoenoplectus maritimus bulrush Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis (= J. balticus) Baltic rush Distichlis spicata saltgrass Potentilla gracilis, Argentina (=P.) anserina cinquefoils Salicornia rubra, S. depressa glasswort, saltwort Puccinellia lemmonii alkali grass Bassia hyssopifolia smother weed Eleocharis rostellata beaked spike-rush SC 3.0 Wetlands of High Conservation Value (formerly Natural Heritage Wetlands) Wetlands that are Wetlands of High Conservation Value (formerly called Natural Heritage Wetlands) have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) at the Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support rare or sensitive plant populations. At the time of publication, WNHP is updating its database on these wetlands. The information on the Wetlands of High Conservation Value will be available online in the future. Until the information is available online, you will need to use the approach developed in the previous version of the rating system. More up-to-date information may be available on the WNHP website at: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/index.html. Until WNHP updates its database, you first need to determine whether the Section, Township, and Range (S/T/R) within which the wetland is found contains a Wetland of High Conservation Value (Question SC 3.3 on the rating form). The latest list of land sections with such wetlands is available on the WDNR website at: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf. If the site does not fall within the S/T/Rs listed, it is not a Wetland of High Conservation Value. (This question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP/WDNR.) If, however, the wetland being rated falls within one of the S/T/R listed, you will need to contact WNHP directly to find out if the wetland is a Wetland of High Conservation Value (Questions SC 3.3 and SC 3.4). Contact information is also available at: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/index.html. Another option is to We have changed the name from Natural Heritage Wetlands to Wetlands of High Conservation Value because the former name has caused some confusion. Some users of the rating system believed that the Natural Heritage Wetlands are Natural Heritage Sites maintained by WDNR. This is not the case. Wetlands are Category I wetlands because WDNR has found that they hold rare or threatened plant communities or populations of rare or threatened plant species. These wetlands are not necessarily Natural Heritage Sites. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 111 Effective January 1, 2015 contact WNHP by calling 360-902-1667. You should ask whether the wetland has been identified as a Wetland of High Conservation Value. The WNHP will provide information on whether the site is a Wetland of High Conservation Value. If it is, it is a Category I wetland. SC 4.0 Bogs and Calcareous Fens If more than a ¼ ac of the wetland you are rating meets the criteria for bogs and fens described below, it is a Category I wetland. These peat wetlands cannot be replicated through compensatory mitigation and are very sensitive to disturbance. True bogs and acidic fens are generally acidic and have low levels of nutrients available for plant growth. Plants growing in these sensitive wetlands are specifically adapted to such conditions and are usually not found elsewhere. Relatively minor changes in the water regime or nutrient levels in bogs may cause major changes in the plant community. Bogs, and their associated acidic peat environment, provide habitat for unique species of plants and animals. The ground is usually very spongy and covered with mosses (often of the genus Sphagnum). Some bogs will actually float on top of a lake or pond. Forested bogs may be more difficult to identify. Bogs may contain highly stunted individual trees of Sitka spruce, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen, or crab apple. However, some bogs contain mature, full-size, trees, especially on the Long Beach Peninsula. These wetlands contain mature, full-sized trees of Sitka spruce, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, or aspen. The trees grow very slowly and may take many centuries to reach sizes common in much younger forests. The characteristics that typically identify these forests as bogs are peat soils and, frequently, the presence of true bog species such as Sphagnum moss. Sphagnum or other bog species may cover only a small portion of the ground, especially if there are pools of standing water in the forest or if there is substantial litter. Identifying bogs can be challenging, particularly in a forested setting. It is necessary to confirm the presence of organic soils by digging soil pits, and it further requires the identification of particular plant species. It may also be difficult to determine the boundaries of a bog. The terms associated with bogs are complex and often confusing (e.g. bogs, fens, mires, peat bogs, Sphagnum acidic bogs, heaths). Bogs occupy one end of a gradient of wetlands dominated by organic soils, low nutrients, and low pH (between 3.5 and 5.0). The criteria we use to identify Category I bogs encompass a broader range of wetlands than what many scientists consider to be true bogs. Many scientists consider bogs to be only those acidic peat wetlands that receive almost all of their water from rainfall (J. Rocchio, WNHP, personal communication, March 2014). On the other hand, most definitions of bogs in dictionaries include any wetland with peat or muck soils; criteria that are more inclusive than we have in the rating system. Bogs, as defined in the rating system, include both true bogs that rely only on rainfall for their water, and acidic fens that receive some of their water from the surrounding landscape or groundwater. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 112 Effective January 1, 2015 Calcareous fens, on the other hand, are a type of alkaline, rather than acidic, peat wetland. They are peat-accumulating wetlands maintained by groundwater having a neutral or high pH, and high concentrations of calcium and other alkaline minerals. Both bogs and calcareous fens can be identified by the presence of peat soils, pH, and plant species that are characteristic to these wetlands. Key for Identifying Bogs and Calcareous Fens in the rating system SC 4.1 Does an area within the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes - go to Question SC 4.3 No - go to Question SC 4.2 The following description of organic soils is from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service). Soils with an organic carbon content of 18% or more (excluding live roots) if the mineral fraction contains more than 60% clay; 2) soils with an organic carbon content of 12% if the mineral fraction contains no clay; or 3) soils with an organic carbon content between 12-18% based on the percentage of clay present (multiply the actual percentage of clay by 0.1 and add to 12%). It is not usually necessary, however, to do a chemical analysis of the soil to determine if a soil is organic. Organic soils are easy to recognize as black-colored mucks or as black or dark brown peats. Mucks feel greasy and stain skin when rubbed between the fingers. Peats have plant fragments visible throughout the soil and feel fibrous. Many organic soils, both peats and mucks, may smell of hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs). Black soils that feel gritty or sandy, however, are usually not organic soils. SC 4.2 Does an area within the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes - go to Question SC 4.3 No - is not a bog or calcareous fen for purpose of rating SC 4.3 Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the species listed in Table 5 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 5) Yes – is a BOG for purpose of rating No - go to Question SC 4.4 A wetland may only meet the criteria for a bog or calcareous fen in a small area within its boundaries. Even though the entire unit does not meet the criteria for these peat systems, the entire unit should be rated as a Category I wetland, or rated as a wetland with a dual rating (see Section 4.7). The questions in the key apply to any areas within the unit being rated, and they do not have to apply to the entire unit. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 113 Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species listed in Table 5 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 4.4 Is an area with peats or mucks forested (>30% cover) with subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 5 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy. Yes – is a BOG for purpose of rating No – go to Question SC 4.5 NOTE: Total cover is estimated by assessing the area of wetland covered by the shadow of plants if the sun were directly overhead. You are trying to determine whether 30% of the total footprint of plants within the polygon identified as a bog consists of plant species listed in Table 5. SC 4.5 Do the species listed in Table 6 comprise at least 20% of the total plant cover within an area of peats and mucks? Yes – is a Calcareous Fen for purpose of rating No - go to Question SC 4.6 SC 4.6 Do the species listed in Table 6 comprise at least 10% of the total plant cover an area of peats and mucks, AND one of the two following conditions is met: Marl deposits [calcium carbonate (CaCO3) precipitate] occur on the soil surface or plant stems The pH of free water is ≥ 6.8 AND electrical conductivity is ≥ 200 uS/cm at multiple locations within the wetland Yes – is a Calcareous Fen for purpose of rating No - is not a calcareous fen If in doubt, it is important to consult someone with expertise in identifying these peat systems. The intent of the criteria is to include those bogs and calcareous fens that have relatively undisturbed native plant communities. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 114 Effective January 1, 2015 Table 5. Characteristic species of bogs in eastern Washington (list provided by Joe Rocchio, Washington Natural Heritage Program). Species Field Notes compiled by Natural Heritage Program Agrostis humilis (=Podagrostishumilis) Acidic fens, alpine wet meadows Betula nana (B. glandulosa var. glandulosa) Acidic fens Carex chordorrhiza Acidic fens, very rare in Washington (only one known population) Carex cusickii Acidic fens, marshes Carex echinata ssp. echinata Acidic fens, occasional marshes Carex exsiccata Acidic fens and marshes near Cascade crest Carex illota Marshes, wet meadows, and acidic to circumneutral fens Carex lasiocarpa Acidic to calcareous fens, often on floating mats Carex limosa Restricted to acidic fens, on floating or quaking mats Carex luzulina Acidic fens, wet meadows Carex magellanica ssp. irrigua Primarily acidic fens Carex saxatilis Acidic fens, lakeshore Carex scopulorum var. bracteosa Acidic fens to wet meadows Carex scopulorum var. prionophylla Acidic fens, marshes to forested swamps Carex tenuiflora Acidic fens, rare in Okanogan highlands Drosera anglica Montane acidic fens Drosera rotundifolia Mostly acidic fens, occasional in other acidic wet soil Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. angustifolium Acidic fens Eriophorum chamissonis Acidic fens Kalmia microphylla Acidic fens Rhynchospora alba Acidic fens Scheuchzeria palustris ssp. americana Montane acidic fens Sphagnum spp. Typically dominant in acidic fens Triantha occidentalis ssp. brevistyla Acidic fens Trichophorum cespitosum Montane acidic fens Trientalis europaea ssp. arctica Acidic fens Utricularia intermedia Acidic fens Utricularia minor Acidic fens Vaccinium oxycoccos Acidic fens Vaccinium uliginosum Acidic fens Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 115 Effective January 1, 2015 Table 6. Characteristic species of calcareous fens in eastern Washington (list provided by Joe Rocchio, Washington Natural Heritage Program). Species Field Notes compiled by Natural Heritage Program Carex buxbaumii Primarily calcareous fens Carex capillaris Wet meadows, calcareous fens, riparian; rare Carex flava Calcareous fens, rare species of NE Washington Carex gynocrates Calcareous fens, rich swamps, often in moss carpets; rare Carex hystericina Calcareous or alkaline seeps/springs, marshes Carex interior Calcareous fens Carex lasiocarpa Acidic to calcareous fens, often on floating mats Carex viridula Typically in alkaline wetlands, calcareous fens and wet meadows Cypripedium parviflorum Mostly known from calcareous seeps, calcareous streams Occurrence in fen would be indicator of calcareous conditions Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda When found in peatlands it often occurs in calcareous fens Dryopteris cristata Calcareous fens, swamps, wet meadows. Rare fern limited to NE Washington Eleocharis rostellata Restricted to alkaline wetlands, saline seeps/springs & lakeshores to calcareous fens in NE Washington; rare Eriophorum viridicarinatum Mostly calcareous fens but occasional in acidic fens in NE WA, rare Geum rivale Wet meadows, calcareous fens, riparian; rare Helodium blandowii Rare moss found in calcareous fens in Washington Meesia triquetra Rare moss found in calcareous fens in Washington Muhlenbergia glomerata Alkaline wetlands of NE Washington, mostly calcareous fens and wet meadows; rare Salix brachycarpa Small statured willow found in alkaline upland and wetland environments, found in calcareous fens in NE Washington Salix candida Rare willow restricted to alkaline wetlands (mostly calcareous fens) in NE Washington Salix maccalliana Rare willow found in calcareous fens or swamps in NE Washington Scorpidium scorpioides Rare moss found in calcareous fens in NE Washington Symphyotrichum boreale Rare aster primarily found in calcareous fens in eastern Washington Tomentypnum nitens Rare moss found in calcareous fens in Washington Triglochin palustris Within Washington, this species appears to be restricted to calcareous fens, could be expected in other alkaline wetlands NOTE: Spiraea douglasii is not included in the list because it is often found in peat systems that no longer have the low pH and other special characteristics. It is not considered to be an indicator species for the bogs dominated by mosses at the ground level. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 116 Effective January 1, 2015 SC 5.0 Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have an area of forest rooted within its boundary that meets at least one of the following three criteria? (Continue only if you have identified that a forested class is present in question H 1.1.) The wetland is within the 100-year floodplain of a river or stream. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) represents at least 20% of the total cover of woody species There is at least ¼ ac of trees (even in wetlands smaller than 2.5 ac) that are “mature” or “old-growth” according to the definitions for tree size, age, and community composition developed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and listed below. The descriptions of these forests are copied from WDFW and any updates are available on the department’s web page: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/. Old-growth forests east of Cascade crest: Stands are highly variable in tree species composition and structural characteristics due to the influence of fire, climate, and soils. In general, stands will be >150 years of age, with 10 trees/ac (25 trees/ha ) that are greater than 21 in (53 cm ) diameter at breast height (dbh), and 1 - 3 snags/ac (2.5-7.5 snags/ha ) that are >12-14 in(30-35 cm) diameter. Downed logs may vary from abundant to absent. Canopies may be single or multi-layered. Evidence of human-caused alterations to the stand will be absent or so slight as to not affect the ecosystem's essential structures and functions. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two- hundred-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The WDFW criterion is an “OR”, so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. Data collected in wetlands indicates that 200-year-old trees may have different diameters (Painter, 2007). Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 160 years old east of the Cascade crest. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Eighty- to 200-year-old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The WDFW criterion is an “OR”, so mature forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. NOTE: Trees can be either deciduous or coniferous. NOTE: There are no requirements for the number of trees per acre in the mature forest definition. For the purpose of the rating system, we will assume that the average dbh refers only to the trees forming the canopy. This is based on clarification from Jeff Azerrad: Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 117 Effective January 1, 2015 The second part describes just how old a forest needs to be before we consider it mature (i.e., 80-200 years for western WA). This part of the definition should weigh heavily in identifying mature forest. And because most of Washington's forests have been invaded by a dense understory layer due to widespread fire suppression, I interpret our definition as not including the smaller understory trees. But if I was to update this definition, mentioning that the dbh measured is only intended for the overstory trees only would certainly add clarity. (e-mail from Jeff Azerrad, WDFW, received April 10, 2013) YES – go to SC 5.1 NO – Not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.1 Does the wetland have a forest canopy of at least ¼ ac where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) are slow-growing native trees? Slow-growing forests include those where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) that provide the canopy are slow-growing as listed in Table 7. YES – Category I NO – go to SC 5.2 SC 5.2 Does the wetland have aspen (Populus tremuloides) that represents at least 20% of the total cover of woody species? YES – Category I NO – go to SC 5.3 SC 5.3 Does the wetland have at least ¼ ac of a fast-growing forest? Fast growing forests include those where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) that provide the canopy are fast growing as listed in Table 7. YES – Category II NO – go to SC 5.4 SC 5.4 Is the forested component of the wetland within the 100-year floodplain of a river or stream? All forested wetlands in the 100-year floodplain are Category II wetlands based on their location. These wetlands, however, may often be a Category I based on functions. The 100-year floodplain is mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Generally, local planning departments or departments of public works have this information available. YES – Category II NO – Not a forested wetland with special characteristics If only part of the wetland is forested, and the category based on functions is II or III, the wetland may be assigned a dual rating as described in Section 4.7. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 118 Effective January 1, 2015 Table 7. List of slow growing and fast growing native trees found in eastern Washington wetlands. SLOW-GROWING WETLAND TREES FAST-GROWING WETLAND TREES Cedar: western red (Thuja plicata), Alaska yellow (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) Alders: red (Alnus rubra), thinleaf (A. tenuifolia) Pine spp. (mostly western white pine, Pinus monticola) Cottonwoods: narrowleaf (Populus angustifolia), black (P. balsamifera) Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) Willows: peach-leaf (Salix amygdaloides), Sitka (S. sitchensis), Pacific (S. lasiandra) Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) Water birch (Betula occidentalis) Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 119 Effective January 1, 2015 References Cited In compliance with RCW 34.05.272, each reference is followed by a bracketed number, which indicates the type of the information source. The types of sources are listed below by number. 1. Peer review is overseen by an independent third party. 2. Review is by staff internal to Department of Ecology. 3. Review is by persons that are external to and selected by the Department of Ecology. 4. Documented open public review process that is not limited to invited organizations or individuals. 5. Federal and state statutes. 6. Court and hearings board decisions. 7. Federal and state administrative rules and regulations 8. Policy and regulatory documents adopted by local governments. 9. Data from primary research, monitoring activities, or other sources, but that has not been incorporated as part of documents reviewed under other processes. 10. Records of best professional judgment of Department of Ecology employees or other individuals. 11. Sources of information that do not fit into one of the other categories listed. Adamus, P. R., Stockwell, L. T., Clarain, E. J., Morrow, M. E., Rozas, L. P., & Smith, R. D. (1991). Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) Volume 1: Literature review and evaluation rationale. (Technical Report WRP-DE-2). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. [4] Adamus, P. R., Morlan, J., & Verble, K. (2010). Manual for the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol (ORWAP). Version 2.0.2. Salem, OR: Oregon Dept. of State Lands. [4] Aravena, R., Evans, M. L., & Cherry, J. A. (1993). Stable isotopes of oxygen and nitrogen in source identification of nitrate from septic systems. Ground Water, 31, 180-186. [1] Asplund, T. R. (2000). The Effects of Motorized Watercraft on Aquatic Ecosystems. (PUBL-SS-948-00). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. [9] Azous, A., & Horner, R. R. (Eds.). (1997). Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. Final Report of the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology, King County Water and Land Resources Division, and the University of Washington, Seattle, WA. [1] Bailey, R. G. (1995). Description of the Ecoregions on the United States. (Miscellaneous Publication 1391). Washington D.C.: U.S. Forest Service. [1] Bendor, T. (2009). A dynamic analysis of the wetland mitigation process and its effects on no net loss policy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 89(1-2), 17-27. [1] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 120 Effective January 1, 2015 Brassard, P., Waddington, J. M., Hill, A. R., & Roulet, N. T. (2000). Modelling groundwater–surface water mixing in a headwater wetland: implications for hydrograph separation. Hydrological Processes, 14(15), 2697-2710. [1] Brinson, M. M. (1993). A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. (Technical Report: WRP-DE- 4). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. [4] Brinson, M. (1995). The HGM approach explained. National Wetlands Newsletter, Nov-Dec 1995, 7- 13. [1] Brinson, M. M., Hauer, R., Lee, L., Nutter, W., Rheinhardt, R., Smith, D., & Whigham, D. (1995). A Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. (Technical report: WRP-DE-11). Vicksburg, MS: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. [4] Bullock, A., & Acreman, M. (2003). The role of wetlands in the hydrologic cycle. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, 7, 358-389. [1] Calcareous Fen Technical Committee. (1994). Technical Criteria for Identifying and Delineating Calcareous Fens in Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. [11] Chapman, D. W. (1966). The relative contributions of aquatic and terrestrial primary producers to the trophic relations of stream organisms. The Pymatuning Symposia in Ecology: Organism- Substrate Relationships in Streams (pp. 116-130). Pymantuning Laboratory of Ecology (Special Pub. Number 4). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. [11] Cole, A. C., Cirmo, C. P., Wardrop, D. H., Brooks, R. P., & Peterson-Smith, J. (2008). Transferability of an HGM wetland classification scheme to a longitudinal gradient of the central Appalachian Mountains: initial hydrological results. Wetlands, 28(2), 439-449. [1] Cowardin, L. M., Carter, V., Golet, F. C., & LaRoe, E. T. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. (Report No. FWS/OBS/-79/31). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [4] Crowley, J. M. (1967). Biogeography. Canadian Geographer, 11(4), 312-326. [1] Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R. A., Hobbs, N. T., Huntly, N., Naiman, R. J., . . . Valone, T. J. (2000). Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications, 10(3), 639-670. [1] Delaplane, K. S., Mayer, D. R., & Mayer, D. F. (2000). Crop Pollination by Bees. New York: CABI Publishing. [1] Dent, L., Salwasser, H., & Achterman, G. (2005). Environmental Indicators for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. [11] Donaldson, S., & Hefner, M. (2005). Impacts of Urbanization on Waterways [Audiovisual-05-14]. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. http://www.unce.unr.edu/publications/files/ho/2005/av0514.pdf. [11] Drolet, B., & Naiman, R. J. (1998). Biotic stream classification. In R. J. Naiman & R. E. Bilby (Eds.), River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coast Ecoregion (pp. 97-119). New York: Springer-Verlag. [1] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 121 Effective January 1, 2015 Dvořak, J., & Best, E. P. H. (1982). Macro-invertebrate communities associated with the macrophytes of Lake Vechten: structural and functional relationships. Hydrobiologia, 95(1), 115-126. [1] Eigenbrod, F., Hecnar, S., & Fahrig, L. (2008). Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology, 23, 159-168. [1] Eggers, S. D., & Reed, D. M. (1997). Wetland plants and communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/mnplant/index.htm (Version 03SEP1998). [11] Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34:487-515. [1] Farina, A. (2006). Principles and Methods in Landcape Ecology: Towards a Science of Landscape. New York: Springer. [1] Fennessy, M. S., Brueske, C. C., & Mitsch, W. J. (1994). Sediment deposition patterns in restored freshwater wetlands using sediment traps. Ecological Engineering, 3(4), 409-428. [1] Ferguson, C. A., Bowman, A. W., Scott, E. M., & Carvalho, L. (2007). Model comparison for a complex ecological system. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 170(3), 691-711. [1] Frissell, C., Liss, W., Warren, C., & Hurley, M. (1986). A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management, 10(2), 199-214. [1] Fuller, M. M., Gross, L. J., DukeSylvester, S. M., & Palmer, M. (2008). Testing the robustness of management decisions to uncertainty: Everglades restoration scenarios. Ecological Applications, 18(3), 711-723. [1] Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2006). Black's Law Dictionary (3rd Pocket ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson West. [11] Granger, T., Hruby, T., McMillan, A., Peters, D., Rubey, J., Sheldon, D., . . . Stockdale, E. (2005). Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. (Publication #05-06-008). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/bas/volume2final.html. [4] Grigal, D. F., & Brooks, K. N. (1997). Forest management impacts on undrained peatlands in North America Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management (pp. 369-384). New York: Lewis Publisher. [1] Groffman, P. M., Boulware, N. J., Zipperer, W. C., Pouyat, R. V., Band, L. E., & Colosimo, M. F. (2002). Soil nitrogen cycle processes in urban riparian zones. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(21), 4547-4552. [1] Grootjans, A. P., & van Diggelen, R. (1995). Assessing the restoration prospects of degraded fens. In B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W. J. Fojt & R. A. Robertson (Eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands (pp. 73-90). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [1] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 122 Effective January 1, 2015 Grosvernier, P. H., Matthey, Y., & Buttler, A. (1995). Microclimate and physical properties of peat: New clues to the understanding of bog restoration processes. In B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W. J. Fojt & R. A. Robertson (Eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands (pp. 435-450). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [1] Gutrich, J. J., Taylor, K. J., & Fennessy, M. S. (2009). Restoration of vegetation communities of created depressional marshes in Ohio and Colorado (USA): The importance of initial effort for mitigation success. Ecological Engineering, 35(3), 351-368. [1] Hadfield, J., & Magelssen, R. (2004). Assessment of Aspen Condition on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Wenatchee, WA: U.S. Forest Service. [4] Hammer, D. A. (1989). Protecting water quality with wetlands in river corridors. In J. A. Kusler & S. Daly (Eds.), Proceedings of an International Symposium: Wetlands and River Corridor Management. Berne, NY: Association of Wetland Managers. [4] Hartman, G. F., Scrivener, J. C., & Miles, M. J. (1996). Impacts of logging in Carnation Creek, a high- energy coastal stream in British Columbia, and their implication for restoring fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(Suppl. 1), 237-251. [1] Horner, R. A. (1992). Constructed Wetlands for Storm Runoff Water Quality Control [Course materials]. Seattle, WA: Center for Urban Water Resources Management, University of Washington. [11] Hruby, T. (1999). Assessments of wetland functions: What they are and what they are not. Environmental Management, 23(1), 75-85. [1] Hruby, T. (2001). Testing the basic assumption of the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessing wetland functions. Environmental Management, 27(5), 749-761. [1] Hruby, T. (2004a). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington - Revised. (Publication #04-06-015). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0406015.html. [4] Hruby, T. (2004b). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington - Revised. (Publication #04-06-025). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/summarypages/0406025.html. [4] Hruby, T. (2009). Developing rapid methods for analyzing upland riparian functions and values. Environmental Management, 43(6), 1219-1243. [1] Hruby, T., Granger, T., Brunner, K., Cooke, S., Dublonica, K., Gersib, R., . . . Weinmann, F. (1999). Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions. Volume 1: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Part 1: Assessment Methods. (Publication #99-115). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. [4] Hruby, T., Granger, T., & Teachout, E. (1999). Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions. Volume I: Riverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Part 2: Procedures for Collecting Data. (Publication #99-116). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. [4] Hruby, T., & Stanley, S. (2000). Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions, Volume II: Depressional Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington. Part 2: Procedures for Collecting Data. (Publication #00-06-48). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. [4] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 123 Effective January 1, 2015 Hruby, T., Stanley, S., Granger, T., Duebendorfer, T., Friesz, R., Lang, B., . . . Wald, A. (2000). Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions. Volume II: Depressional Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington. Part 1: Assessment Methods. (Publication #00-06-47). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. [4] Kelling, K. A., & Peterson, A. E. (1975). Urban lawn infiltration rates and fertilizer runoff losses under simulated rainfall. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 39(2), 348-352. [1] Kentula, M. E. (2007). Foreword: Monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands, 27(3), 412- 415. [1] Kettlewell, C. I., Bouchard, V., Porej, D., Micacchion, M., Mack, J., White, D., & Fay, L. (2008). An assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in the Cuyahoga River watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands, 28(1), 57-67. [1] Knops, J. M. H., Tilman, D., Haddad, N. M., Naeem, S., Mitchell, C. E., Haarstad, J., . . . Groth, J. (1999). Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecology Letters, 2(5), 286-293. [1] Kusler, J. (2004). Assessing Functions and Values. Final Report 1: Wetland Assessment for Regulatory Purposes. Berne, NY: Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy, The Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. [11] Lackey, R. T. (2001). Values, policy, and ecosystem health. Bioscience, 51(6), 437-443. [1] Lackey, R. T. (2003). Appropriate use of ecosystem health and normative science in ecological policy. In D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E. Rolston, N. O. Nielsen, C. O. Qualset & A. B. Damania (Eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems (pp. 175-186). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. [1] Lamaro, E., Stokes, R., & Taylor, M. P. (2007). Riverbanks and the law: The arbitrary nature of river boundaries in New South Wales, Australia. The Environmentalist, 27(1), 131-142. [1] Lodge, D. M. (1985). Macrophyte-gastropod associations: observations and experiments on macrophyte choice by gastropods. Freshwater Biology, 15(6), 695-708. [1] Lucchese, M., Waddington, J. M., Poulin, M., Pouliot, R., Rochefort, L., & Strack, M. (2010). Organic matter accumulation in a restored peatland: Evaluating restoration success. Ecological Engineering, 36(4), 482-488. [1] Mallin, M. A., Ensign, S. H., Wheeler, T. L., & Mayes, D. B. (2002). Pollutant removal efficacy of three wet detention ponds. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31(2), 654-660. [1] Martin, S. L., & Soranno, P. A. (2006). Lake landscape position: Relationships to hydrologic connectivity and landscape features. Limnology and Oceanography, 51(2), 801-814. [1] Mayer, F. L., Reynolds, S. K., & Canfield, T. J. (2006). Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. (EPA/600/R- 05/118). Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4] Maynord, S. T., Biedenharn, D. S., Fischenich, C. J., & Zufelt, J. E. (2008). Boat-Wave-Induced Bank Erosion on the Kenai River, Alaska. (ERDC TR-08-5). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. [11] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 124 Effective January 1, 2015 Mazerolle, M. J., Poulin, M., Lavoie, C., Rochefort, L., Desrochers, A., & Drolet, B. (2006). Animal and vegetation patterns in natural and man-made bog pools: implications for restoration. Freshwater Biology, 51(2), 333-350. [1] Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (1993). Wetlands (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. [1] Moore, B. C., Lafer, J. E., & Funk, W. H. (1994). Influence of aquatic macrophytes on phosphorus and sediment porewater chemistry in a freshwater wetland. Aquatic Botany, 49(2-3), 137-148. [1] Moore, D. R., Keddy, P. A., Gaudet, C. L., & Wisheu, I. C. (1989). Conservation of wetlands: Do infertile wetlands deserve a higher priority. Biological Conservation, 47(3), 203-218. [1] Naiman, R. J., Lonzarich, D. G., Beechie, T. J., & Ralph, S. C. (1992). General principles of classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers. In P. Boon, P. Calow & G. E. Petts (Eds.), River Conservation and Management (pp. 93-123). Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons. [1] National Research Council (NRC). (1995). Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. [1] NRC. (2002). Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. [1] NRC. (2005). The Science of Instream Flows: A Review of the Texas Instream Flow Program. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. [1] Omernik, J. M., & Gallant, A. L. (1986). Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. (EPA/600/3-86/033). Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [4] Painter, L. (2007). Growth Rates and the Definition of Old-Growth in Forested Wetlands of the Puget Sound Region. (M.E.S. Thesis), Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. [1] Perry, N. (2010). The ecological importance of species and the Noah's Ark problem. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 478-485. [1] Reinelt, L. E., & Horner, R. R. (1995). Pollutant removal from stormwater runoff by palustrine wetlands based on comprehensive budgets. Ecological Engineering, 4(2), 77-97. [1] Rheinhardt, R., Brinson, M., & Farley, P. (1997). Applying wetland reference data to functional assessment, mitigation, and restoration. Wetlands, 17(2), 195-215. [1] Rheinhardt, R., Brinson, M., Brooks, R., McKenneyEasterling, M., Rubbo, J. M., Hite, J., & Armstrong, B. (2007). Development of a reference-based method for identifying and scoring indicators of condition for coastal plain riparian reaches. Ecological Indicators, 7(2), 339-361. [1] Rigg, G. B. (1958). Peat Resources of Washington. (Bulletin No. 44). Olympia, WA: Division of Mines and Geology, Washington State Department of Conservation. [11] Rocchio, J., Crawford, R., & Niggeman, R. (2013). Freshwater Wetland Conservation Priorities for Western Washington. Phase 1 Final Report. (Natural Heritage Report 2013-01). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. [9] Rodewald, A. D., & Bakermans, M. H. (2006). What is the appropriate paradigm for riparian forest conservation? Biological Conservation, 128(2), 193-200. [1] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 125 Effective January 1, 2015 Romme, W. H., Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., Hargrove, W. W., Tuskan, G. A., Despain, D. G., & Renkin, R. A. (1997). A rare episode of secual reproduction in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx) following the 1988 Yellowstone fires. Natural Areas Journal, 17(1), 17-25. [1] Rosenblatt, A. E., Gold, A. J., Stolt, M. H., Groffman, P. M., & Kellogg, D. Q. (2001). Identifying riparian sinks for watershed nitrate using soil surveys. Journal of Environmental Quality, 30(5), 1596- 1604. [1] Schindler, D. W., & Fee, E. J. (1974). Experimental lakes area: Whole-lake experiments in eutrophication. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 31(5), 937-953. [1] Schouwenaars, J. M. (1995). The selection of internal and external water management options for bog restoration. In B. D. Wheeler, S. C. Shaw, W. J. Fojt & R. A. Roberston (Eds.), Restoration of Temperate Wetlands (pp. 331-346). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [1] Schrautzer, J., Asshoff, M., & Müller, F. (1996). Restoration strategies for wet grasslands in Northern Germany. Ecological Engineering, 7(4), 255-278. [1] Semlitsch, R. D., & Bodie, J. R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1219-1228. [1] Sheldon, D., Hruby, T., Johnson, P., Harper, K., McMillan, A., Stanley, S., & Stockdale, E. (2005). Freshwater Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. (Publication #05-06-006). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. [4] Smith, V. H., Tilman, G. D., & Nekola, J. C. (1999). Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient input on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Pollution, 100(1-3), 179-196. [1] Stander, E. K., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2009). Rapid assessment of urban wetlands: Functional assessment model development and evaluation. Wetlands, 29(1), 261-276. [1] Stein, E. D., & Ambrose, R. F. (2001). Landscape-scale analysis and management of cumulative impacts to riparian ecosystems: Past, present, and future. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(6), 1597-1614. [1] Steiner, F. (2000). The Living Landscape: An Ecological Approach to Landscape Planning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. [1] Strahler, A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63(9), 923-938. [1] Tiner, R. W., Bergquist, H. C., DeAlessio, G. P., & Starr, M. J. (2002). Geographically Isolated Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of Their Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the United States. Hadley, MA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. [4] Venterink, H. O., Pieterse, N. M., Belgers, J. D. M., Wassen, M. J., & deRuiter, O. D. (2002). N, P and K budgets along nutrient availability and productivity gradients in wetlands. Ecological Applications, 12(4), 1010-1026. [1] Ward, T. A., Tate, K. W., & Atwill, E. R. (2003). Visual Assessment of Riparian Health. (Rangeland Monitoring Series Publication 8089). Oakland, CA: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California. [11] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 126 Effective January 1, 2015 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). (2013). Task 2 high Resolution Change Summary. Report for Washington Department of Ecology Wetland Program Development Grant (I-00J33801). Olympia, WA. [9] Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). (1999). ESSB 6061 Wetland Pilot Project. Mitigation Tools for Special Circumstances: Preservation of High Quality Wetlands. Olympia, WA: Wetland Strategic Plan Implementation Project, Washington Department of Transportation. [11] Wilcox, J. C., Healy, M. T., & Zedler, J. B. (2007). Restoring native vegetation to an urban wet meadow dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) in Wisconsin. Natural Areas Journal, 27(4), 354-365. [1] Wind-Mulder, H. L., & Vitt, D. H. (2000). Comparisons of water and peat chemistries of a post- harvested and undisturbed peatland with relevance to restoration. Wetlands, 20(4), 616- 628. [1] Zedler, P. H. (1987). The Ecology of Southern California Vernal Pools: A Community Profile. [Biological Report 85(7.11)]. Washington, D.C.: National Wetlands Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [11] Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix A. Rating Form Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update Effective January 1, 2015 This page left blank intentionally Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 1 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L RATING SUMMARY – Eastern Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____ Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology? __ Yes ___ No Date of training______ HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?____Y ____N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________ OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS _______Category I – Total score = 22-27 _______Category II – Total score = 19-21 _______Category III – Total score = 16-18 _______Category IV – Total score = 9-15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Circle the appropriate category Vernal Pools II III Alkali I Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog and Calcareous Fens I Old Growth or Mature Forest – slow growing I Aspen Forest I Old Growth or Mature Forest – fast growing II Floodplain forest II None of the above Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 2 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Eastern Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes and classes of emergents D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.5 Hydroperiods (including area of open water for H 1.3) D 1.4, H 1.2, H 1.3 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 Map of the contributing basin D 5.3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which wetland is found (website) D 3.3 Riverine Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes and classes of emergents H 1.1, H 1.5 Hydroperiods H 1.2, H 1.3 Ponded depressions R 1.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) R 2.4 Map of the contributing basin R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants R 1.2, R 4.2 Width of wetland vs. width of stream (can be added to another figure) R 4.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) R 3.1 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which wetland is found (website) R 3.2, R 3.3 Lake Fringe Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes and classes of emergents L 1.1, L 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.5 Plant cover of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants L 1.2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) L 2.2 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) L 3.1, L 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which wetland is found (website) L 3.3 Slope Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes and classes of emergents H 1.1, H 1.5 Hydroperiods H 1.2, H 1.3 Plant cover of dense trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants S 1.3 Plant cover of dense, rigid trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants (can be added to figure above) S 4.1 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) S 2.1, S 5.1 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) S 3.1, S 3.2 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which wetland is found (website) S 3.3 Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 3 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 HGM Classification of Wetland in Eastern Washington 1. Does the entire unit meet both of the following criteria? ____The vegetated part of the wetland is on the water side of the Ordinary High Water Mark of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface) that is at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size ____At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 10 ft (3 m) NO – go to 2 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 2. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks; ____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. NO - go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ____ The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river; ____ The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 10 years. NO - go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine wetland can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. 4. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Depressional 5. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-4 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE WETLAND UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. For questions 1-4, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-4 apply, and go to Question 5. Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 4 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the wetland unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM Class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine (the riverine portion is within the boundary of depression) Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 5 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality Points (only 1 score per box) D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 5 Wetland has an intermittently flowing outlet points = 3 Wetland has a highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 3 Wetland has a permanently flowing, unconstricted, surface outlet points = 1 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions of soils) YES = 3 NO = 0 D 1.3. Characteristics of persistent vegetation (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes) Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation for > 2/3 of area points = 5 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation from 1/3 to 2/3 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation from 1/10 to < 1/3 of area points = 1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation < 1/10 of area points = 0 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation : This is the area of ponding that fluctuates every year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded. Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 3 Area seasonally ponded is ¼ - ½ total area of wetland points = 1 Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12- 16 = H 6- 11 = M 0- 5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1- D 2.3? Source___________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 or 4 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, or lake that is on the 303(d) list? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue in some aquatic resource [303(d) list, eutrophic lakes, problems with nuisance and toxic algae]? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage or basin in which the wetland is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 6 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 DEPRESSIONAL WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and erosion. Points (only 1 score per box) D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: Wetland has no surface water outlet points = 8 Wetland has an intermittently flowing outlet points = 4 Wetland has a highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 4 Wetland has a permanently flowing unconstricted surface outlet points = 0 (If outlet is a ditch and not permanently flowing treat wetland as “intermittently flowing”) D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or deepest part (if dry). Seasonal ponding: > 3 ft above the lowest point in wetland or the surface of permanent ponding points = 8 Seasonal ponding: 2 ft - < 3 ft above the lowest point in wetland or the surface of permanent pondingpoints = 6 The wetland is a headwater wetland points = 4 Seasonal ponding: 1 ft - < 2 ft points = 4 Seasonal ponding: 6 in - < 1 ft points = 2 Seasonal ponding: < 6 in or wetland has only saturated soils points = 0 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in a land use that generates runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The wetland is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down -gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds), AND Flooding occurs in sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of wetland points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why ______________________________________ points = 0 There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland points = 0 D 6.2. Has the site has been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 7 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality Points (only 1 score per box) R 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? R 1.1. Area of surface depressions within the Riverine wetland that can trap sediments during a flooding event: Depressions cover >1/3 area of wetland points = 6 Depressions cover > 1/10 area of wetland points = 3 Depressions present but cover < 1/10 area of wetland points = 1 No depressions present points = 0 R 1.2. Structure of plants in the wetland (areas with >90% cover at person height; not Cowardin classes): Forest or shrub > 2/3 the area of the wetland points = 10 Forest or shrub 1/3 – 2/3 area of the wetland points = 5 Ungrazed, herbaceous plants > 2/3 area of wetland points = 5 Ungrazed herbaceous plants 1/3 – 2/3 area of wetland points = 2 Forest, shrub, and ungrazed herbaceous < 1/3 area of wetland points = 0 Total for R 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? R 2.1. Is the wetland within an incorporated city or within its UGA? Yes = 2 No = 0 R 2.2. Does the contributing basin include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.3. Does at least 10% of the contributing basin contain tilled fields, pastures, or forests that have been clearcut within the last 5 years? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.4. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland in land uses that generate pollutants Yes = 1 No = 0 R 2.5. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions R 2.1-R 2.4? Source_____________________ Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for R 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3-6 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? R 3.1. Is the wetland along a stream or river that is on the 303(d) list or on a tributary that drains to one within 1 mi? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.2. Does the river or stream have TMDL limits for nutrients, toxics, or pathogens? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage in which wetland is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 8 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 RIVERINE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that site functions to reduce flooding and stream erosion Points (only 1 score per box) R 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? R 4.1. Characteristics of the overbank storage the wetland provides: Estimate the average width of the wetland perpendicular to the direction of the flow and the width of the stream or river channel (distance between banks). Calculate the ratio: (average width o f wetland)/(average width of stream between banks). If the ratio is more than 2 points = 10 If the ratio is 1-2 points = 8 If the ratio is ½-<1 points = 4 If the ratio is ¼-< ½ points = 2 If the ratio is < ¼ points = 1 R 4.2. Characteristics of plants that slow down water velocities during floods: Treat large woody debris as forest or shrub. Choose the points appropriate for the best description (polygons need to have > 90% cover at person height. These are NOT Cowardin classes). Forest or shrub for more than 2/3 the area of the wetland points = 6 Forest or shrub for >1/3 area OR emergent plants > 2/3 area points = 4 Forest or shrub for > 1/10 area OR emergent plants > 1/3 area points = 2 Plants do not meet above criteria points = 0 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12-16 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page R 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? R 5.1. Is the stream or river adjacent to the wetland downcut? Yes = 0 No = 1 R 5.2. Does the up-gradient watershed include a UGA or incorporated area? Yes = 1 No = 0 R 5.3. Is the up-gradient stream or river controlled by dams? Yes = 0 No = 1 Total for R 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 3 = H 1 or 2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page R 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? R 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems? Choose the description that best fits the site. The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has surface flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 R 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for R 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 9 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality. Points (only 1 score per box) L 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? L 1.1. Average width of plants along the lakeshore (use polygons of Cowardin classes): Plants are more than 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 Plants are more than 16 ft (5 m) and < 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 3 Plants are more than 6 ft (2 m) and < 16 ft (5 m) wide points = 1 Plants are less than 6 ft wide points = 0 L 1.2. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland: Choose the appropriate description that results in the highest points, and do not include any open water in your estimate of coverage. The herbaceous plants can be either the dominant form or as an understory in a shrub or forest community. These are not Cowardin classes. Area of cover is total cover in the wetland, but it can be in patches. Herbaceous does not include aquatic bed. Cover of herbaceous plants is > 90% of the vegetated area points = 6 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 2/3 of the vegetated area points = 4 Cover of herbaceous plants is > 1/3 of the vegetated area points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed > 2/3 wetland points = 3 Other plants that are not aquatic bed in > 1/3 vegetated area points = 1 Aquatic bed plants and open water cover > 2/3 of the wetland points = 0 Total for L 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 8-12 = H 4-7 = M 0-3 = L Record the rating on the first page L 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? L 2.1. Is the lake used by power boats? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of wetland on the upland side in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 2.3. Does the lake have problems with algal blooms or excessive plants such as milfoil? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 2 or 3 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? L 3.1. Is the lake on the 303(d) list of degraded aquatic resources? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 3.2. Is the lake in a sub-basin where water quality is an issue (at least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list)? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality? Answer YES if there is a TMDL for the lake or basin in which wetland is found. Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for L 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 10 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 LAKE FRINGE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to reduce shoreline erosion Points (only 1 score per box) L 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce shoreline erosion? L 4.1. Distance along shore and average width of Cowardin classes along the lakeshore (do not include Aquatic Bed): Choose the highest scoring description that matches conditions in the wetland. > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 6 > ¾ of distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 6 ft (2 m) wide points = 4 > ¼ distance is Scrub-shrub or Forested at least 33 ft (10 m) wide points = 4 Plants are at least 6 ft (2 m) wide (do not include Aquatic Bed) points = 2 Plants are less than 6 ft (2 m) wide (do not include Aquatic Bed) points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 6 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page L 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? L 5.1. Is the lake used by power boats with more than 10 hp? Yes = 1 No = 0 L 5.2. Is the fetch on the lake side of the wetland at least 1 mile in distance? Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for L 5 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page L 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? L 6.1. Are there resources, both human and natural, along the shore that can be impacted by erosion? If more than one resource is present, choose the one with the highest score. There are human structures or old growth/mature forests within 25 ft of OHWM of the shore in the wetland points = 2 There are nature trails or other paths and recreational activities within 25 ft of OHWM points = 1 Other resources that could be impacted by erosion points = 1 There are no resources that can be impacted by erosion along the shores of the wetland points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 11 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality Points (only 1 score per box) S 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? S 1.1. Characteristics of average slope of wetland: (a 1% slope has a 1 ft vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal distance) Slope is 1% or less points = 3 Slope is > 1% - 2% points = 2 Slope is > 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 S 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or tureorganic (use NRCS definitions): Yes = 3 No = 0 S 1.3. Characteristics of the plants in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the plants in the wetland. Dense means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (>75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 in. Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ½ of area points = 3 Dense, woody, plants > ½ of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous plants > ¼ of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for plants points = 0 Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 12 = H 6-11 = M 0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page S 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function at the site? S 2.1. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft on the uphill side of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 2.2. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in question S 2.1? Other sources Yes = 1 No = 0 Total for S 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1-2 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? S 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly to a stream, river, or lake that is on the 303(d) list (within 1 mi)? Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where water quality is an issue? At least one aquatic resource in the basin is on the 303(d) list. Yes = 1 No = 0 S 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the drainage or basin in which wetland is found)? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 3 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 12 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SLOPE WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and erosion Points (only 1 score per box) S 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? S 4.1. Characteristics of plants that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits conditions in the wetland. Stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1/8 in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows. Dense, uncut, rigid plants cover > 90% of the area of the wetland points = 1 All other conditions points = 0 Rating of Site Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the hydrologic functions of the site? S 5.1. Is more than 25% of the area within 150 ft upslope of wetland in land uses that generate excess surface runoff? Yes = 1 No = 0 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page S 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? S 6.1. Distance to the nearest areas downstream that have flooding problems: The sub-basin immediately down-gradient of site has surface flooding problems that result in damage to human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds) points = 2 Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient points = 1 No flooding problems anywhere downstream points = 0 S 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage and flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? Yes = 2 No = 0 Total for S 6 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Value If score is: 2-4 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page NOTES and FIELD OBSERVATIONS: Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 13 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat (only 1 score per box) H 1.0. Does the wetland have the potential to provide habitat for many species? H 1.1. Structure of the plant community: Check the Cowardin vegetation classes present and categories of emergent plants. Size threshold for each category is >= ¼ ac or >= 10% of the wetland if wetland is < 2.5 ac. ____Aquatic bed ____Emergent plants 0-12 in (0-30 cm) high are the highest layer and have > 30% cover ____Emergent plants >12-40 in (>30-100 cm) high are the highest layer with >30% cover ____Emergent plants > 40 in (> 100 cm) high are the highest layer with >30% cover ____Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) 4 or more checks: points = 3 ____Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) 3 checks: points = 2 2 checks: points = 1 1 check: points = 0 H 1.2. Is one of the vegetation types Aquatic Bed? Yes = 1 No = 0 H 1.3. Surface water H 1.3.1. Does the wetland have areas of open water (without emergent or shrub plants) over at least ¼ ac OR 10% of its area during the March to early June OR in August to the end of September? Answer YES for Lake Fringe wetlands. Yes = 3 points & go to H 1.4 No = go to H 1.3.2 H 1.3.2. Does the wetland have an intermittent or permanent, and unvegetated stream within its boundaries, or along one side, over at least ¼ ac or 10% of its area? Answer yes only if H 1.3.1 is No. Yes = 3 No = 0 H 1.4. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft 2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold. You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Russian olive, Phragmites, Canadian thistle, yellow-flag iris, and saltcedar (Tamarisk) # of species ____ Scoring: > 9 species: points = 2 4-9 species: points = 1 < 4 species: points = 0 H 1.5. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among types of plant structures (described in H 1.1), and unvegetated areas (open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. Use map of Cowardin and emergent plant classes prepared for questions H 1.1 and map of open water from H 1.3. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are High = 3 points Riparian braided channels with 2 classes Figure__ Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 14 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 H 1.6. Special habitat features Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ____Loose rocks larger than 4 in OR large, downed, woody debris (> 4 in diameter) within the area of surface ponding or in stream. ____Cattails or bulrushes are present within the wetland. ____Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 in) in the wetland or within 30 m (100 ft) of the edge. ____Emergent or shrub vegetation in areas that are permanently inundated/ponded. ____Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 45 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity ____ Invasive species cover less than 20% in each stratum of vegetation (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground cover) Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Site Potential If score is: 15-18 = H 7-14 = M 0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (only area of habitat abutting wetland). If total accessible habitat is: Calculate: % undisturbed habitat _____ + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] ____ =______% > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 20-33% of 1km Polygon points = 2 10-19% of 1km Polygon points = 1 <10% of 1km Polygon points = 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat _____ + [(% moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] ____ =______% Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 Undisturbed habitat 10 - 50% and > 3 patches points = 1 Undisturbed habitat < 10% of Polygon points = 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: > 50% of Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) Does not meet criterion above points = 0 H 2.4. The wetland is in an area where annual rainfall is less than 12 in, and its water regime is not influenced by irrigation practices, dams, or water control structures. Generally, this means outside boundaries of reclamation areas, irrigation districts, or reservoirs Yes = 3 No = 0 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: 4-9 = H 1-3 = M < 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see Appendix B) It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on state or federal lists) It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW species It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats within 100 m (see Appendix B) points = 1 Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 Rating of Value If score is: 2 = H 1 = M 0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 15 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate category. NOTE: A wetland may meet the criteria for more than one set of special characteristics. Record all those that apply. NOTE: All wetlands should also be characterized based on their functions. Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Vernal pools Is the wetland less than 4000 ft2, and does it meet at least two of the following criteria? Its only source of water is rainfall or snowmelt from a small contributing basin and has no groundwater input. Wetland plants are typically present only in the spring; the summer vegetation is typically upland annuals. If you find perennial, obligate, wetland plants, the wetland is probably NOT a vernal pool. The soil in the wetland is shallow [< 1 ft (30 cm)deep] and is underlain by an impermeable layer such as basalt or clay. Surface water is present for less than 120 days during the wet season. Yes – Go to SC 1.1 No = Not a vernal pool SC 1.1. Is the vernal pool relatively undisturbed in February and March? Yes – Go to SC 1.2 No = Not a vernal pool with special characteristics SC 1.2. Is the vernal pool in an area where there are at least 3 separate aquatic resources within 0.5 mi (other wetlands, rivers, lakes etc.)? Yes = Category II No = Category III Cat. II Cat. III SC 2.0. Alkali wetlands Does the wetland meet one of the following criteria? The wetland has a conductivity > 3.0 mS/cm. The wetland has a conductivity between 2.0 and 3.0 mS, and more than 50% of the plant cover in the wetland can be classified as “alkali” species (see Table 4 for list of plants found in alkali systems). If the wetland is dry at the time of your field visit, the central part of the area is covered with a layer of salt. OR does the wetland unit meet two of the following three sub -criteria? Salt encrustations around more than 75% of the edge of the wetland More than ¾ of the plant cover consists of species listed on Table 4 A pH above 9.0. All alkali wetlands have a high pH, but please note that some freshwater wetlands may also have a high pH. Thus, pH alone is not a good indicator of alkali wetlands. Yes = Category I No= Not an alkali wetland Cat. I SC 3.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 3.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 3.2 No – Go to SC 3.3 SC 3.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV SC 3.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 3.4 No = Not a WHCV SC 3.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and it is listed on their website? Yes = Category I No =Not a WHCV Cat. I Wetland name or number______________ Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 16 Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 SC 4.0 Bogs and Calcareous Fens Does the wetland (or any part of the wetland unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs or calcareous fens? Use the key below to identify if the wetland is a bog or calcareous fen. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 4.1. Does an area within the wetland have organic soil horizons (i.e., layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? See Appendix C for a field key to identify organic soils. Yes – Go to SC 4.3 No – Go to SC 4.2 SC 4.2. Does an area within the wetland have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? Yes – Go to SC 4.3 No = Is not a bog for rating SC 4.3. Does an area within the wetland have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level AND at least 30% of the total plant cover consists of species in Table 5? Yes = Category I bog No – Go to SC 4.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 5 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 4.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 5 provide more than 30% of the cover unde r the canopy? Yes = Category I bog No – Go to SC 4.5 SC 4.5. Do the species listed in Table 6 comprise at least 20% of the total plant cover within an area of peats and mucks? Yes = Is a Calcareous Fen for purpose of rating No – Go to SC 4.6 SC 4.6. Do the species listed in Table 6 comprise at least 10% of the total plant cover in an area of peats and mucks, AND one of the two following conditions is met: Marl deposits [calcium carbonate (CaCO3) precipitate] occur on the soil surface or plant stems The pH of free water is ≥ 6.8 AND electrical conductivity is ≥ 200 uS/cm at multiple locations within the wetland Yes = Is a Category I calcareous fen No = Is not a calcareous fen Cat. I Cat. I SC 5.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have an area of forest rooted within its boundary that meets at least one of the following three criteria? (Continue only if you have identified that a forested class is present in question H 1.1) The wetland is within the 100 year floodplain of a river or stream Aspen (Populus tremuloides) represents at least 20% of the total cover of woody species There is at least ¼ ac of trees (even in wetlands smaller than 2.5 ac) that are “mature” or “old-growth” according to the definitions for these priority habitats developed by WDFW (see definitions in question H3.1) Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a forested wetland with special characteristics SC 5.1. Does the wetland have a forest canopy where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) are slow growing native trees (see Table 7)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 5.2 SC 5.2. Does the wetland have areas where aspen (Populus tremuloides) represents at least 20% of the total cover of woody species? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 5.3 SC 5.3. Does the wetland have at least ¼ acre with a forest canopy where more than 50% of the tree species (by cover) are fast growing species (see Table 7)? Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 5.4 SC 5.4. Is the forested component of the wetland within the 100 year floodplain of a river or stream? Yes = Category II No = Not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I Cat. I Cat. II Cat. II Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics Choose the highest rating if wetland falls into several categories If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 1 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix B Appendix B: WDFW Priority Habitats in Eastern Washington Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Ha bitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland and the priority habitat. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth east of Cascade crest – Stands are highly variable in tree species composition and structural characteristics due to the influence of fire, climate, and soils. In general, stands will be >150 years of age , with 10 trees/ac (25 trees/ha) that are > 21 in (53 cm) dbh, and 1-3 snags/ac (2.5-7.5 snags/ha) that are > 12-14 in (30-35 cm) diameter. Downed logs may vary from abundant to absent. Canopies may be single or multi -layered. Evidence of human-caused alterations to the stand will be absent or so slight as to not affect the ecosystem's essential structures and functions. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old- growth; 80-200 years old west and 80-160 years old east of the Cascade crest. Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 12 in (30 cm)in eastern Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm ) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Shrub-steppe: A nonforested vegetation type consisting of one or more layers of perennial bunchgrasses and a conspicuous but discontinuous layer of shrubs (see Eastside Steppe for sites with little or no shrub cover). Eastside Steppe: Nonforested vegetation type dominated by broadleaf herbaceous flora (i.e., forbs), perennial bunchgrasses, or a combination of both. Bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) is often the prevailing cover component along with Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), rough fescue (F. campestris), or needlegrasses (Achnatherum spp.). Juniper Savannah: All juniper woodlands. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 2 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix B This page left blank intentionally Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update Appendix C Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix C. Estimating Soil Texture Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update Appendix C Effective January 1, 2015 Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 1 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix D Appendix D Modeling Functions and Values in This Rapid Method The Structure of the Method Rapid methods for analyzing the environment often use data that are both qualitative and quantitative. The analyses may also involve numeric models that in themselves represent qualitative, multi-criteria decision tools (Hruby, 1999). As a result, generating a single score or index for a wetland function requires algorithms (rules that are similar to equations) for combining different characteristics that may not be mathematically compatible. Qualitative data and quantitative data both have to be transformed into ordinal numbers so they can be combined. In the method described here, wetland functions are first scored using ordinal numbers based on three separate aspects of a function (Site Potential, Landscape Potential, and Value). Each aspect is then rated as [H]igh, [M]edium, and [L]ow based on the sum of the ordinal numbers. The ratings are combined using a decision matrix that assigns final scores to each function (see first page of the rating form in Appendix A). The three aspects of functions used to rate them are: 1) the potential of the site to provide each function, 2) the potential the landscape has to maintain the function at the site scale, and 3) the value each function may have for society at that location. Each aspect of a function is scored, but the score is transformed to a qualitative rating of high, medium, or low. The rating of each aspect is then given equal weight in the final score for that function. The questions and scoring of the site potential used in this method are the same as the Potential used in the 2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Hruby, 2004a). The Opportunity score from the 2004 rating system, however, is not used. Rather, the information once provided by the Opportunity score is expanded into two categories. Functions are rated based on their landscape potential and values instead of opportunity. These changes provide better information to meet the objectives of this method. The numeric models used to characterize functions in rapid methods do not model actual environmental processes but rather are multi-criteria decision models where each indicator represents a decision criterion to describe the level of function (Hruby, 1999). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 2 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix D Wetland Functions and Their Indicators The functions provided by wetlands derive from the interactions among different components of the ecosystem and the landscape. These interactions are called environmental processes. Processes are dynamic and can occur at all geographic scales. Thus the functions performed by a wetland can be influenced by events occurring within the wetland unit as well as in the watershed. For example, the river adjacent to a wetland may be deepened (downcut) as a result of increased runoff from up-gradient development. This changes the effectiveness of the wetland at storing overbank flood waters (a hydrologic function). Any factor that changes how well, or how much, a function is performed by a wetland can be considered a control of that function. Another term often used in the scientific literature is driver. The drivers of functions in wetlands determine how well the functions are performed. An event that affects a driver is called a disturbance by ecologists (Dale et al., 2000). The type, intensity, and duration of disturbances can significantly change environmental processes (Dale et al., 2000), and thereby wetland functions. Climate, geology, and topography are major processes in a watershed that control how water, sediment, and nutrients move. These processes, along with factors that occur within the boundary of a wetland, control the functions performed by the wetland. If human activities change these processes in a watershed, then the functions in a wetland will also change (Sheldon et al., 2005). Any rating of functions at a site, therefore, also requires information about the watershed in which it lies. The ecological functions that provide value to society fall into three major groups: 1) hydrologic [e.g., flood storage], 2) improving water quality, and 3) habitat and maintaining food webs. Each of these can be sub-divided into separate functions. For example, hydrologic functions may include flood storage, velocity reduction, groundwater recharge, and de-synchronization of flood-flows (Hruby, 2001). The rating system characterizes only the three major groups of functions to meet the need for being rapid. In rapid methods such as this one, functions and values are analyzed by answering a series of questions that note the presence, or make simple measurements, of environmental indicators. Indicators are easily observable characteristics that are correlated with quantitative or qualitative observations of the performance of a function (Hruby, 1999; National Research Council [NRC], 2002). Most indicators represent relatively stable characteristics that describe the structure of the ecosystem or its physical or geologic properties (Brinson et al., 1995). Indicators, unfortunately, cannot reflect actual rates at which functions are performed because rates can change in time. Our knowledge however, “is sufficiently well developed such that indicators can be used as shortcuts to judge whether functions are occurring at appropriate levels” (NRC, 2002, p. 120). Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 3 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix D The Values of Functions The three basic functions rated in this method are all considered to be valuable and need to be replaced if lost. The wetland functions that are addressed in the tools developed by Ecology for Washington State are defined as the ecological processes that provide services/values to society (Hruby, 2001). This is a subset of the possible functions wetlands perform. There are many ecological processes that are not usually considered of any significant value to society (e.g., providing habitat for Nematode worms or mosquitoes; taking up nitrogen from surface waters but then releasing it back into the surface water when plants decompose). Since all three functions are considered to be valuable, the approach used in the value sub- unit of the method is to rate the values relative to other wetlands in the landscape. The value part of the score is intended to highlight those wetlands where a function is more valuable to society because of factors in the surrounding landscape. For example, flood storage is more valuable in a watershed where flooding causes major damage than in a watershed without flooding. A wetland that is moderately effective at cleaning up pollutants is assigned a higher value if it is in a watershed that already does not meet water quality standards. In this case, the wetland removes pollutants that would otherwise further degrade water quality. A wetland that provides habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species (T/E species) is more valuable than one that provides habitat for other wetland-dependent species since society has passed laws that give preference and added value to T/E species. Calibrating the Indicators An initial list of indicators identified from a review of the literature was used to develop protocols and data sheets for sampling reference sites. Indicators were divided into three types: Those present at the site itself (indicators of site potential). Those found in the surrounding landscape (indicators of landscape potential). Those that indicate the function performed is providing some value to society (indicators of value). Data on each indicator were collected at a minimum of 20 sites for each hydrogeomorphic class of wetlands in eastern Washington. Sites were chosen to represent the widest possible range of environmental conditions found in the class. Data on some of the indicators could be collected from aerial color photographs, but all of this information was verified by at least one visit to each site. The calibration process involved the following steps: 1. Deletion of indicators that could not be readily estimated from aerial photographs or during a brief field visit (< 3hrs). This represents a compromise between the science and the needs of the user. Some important indicators of function could not be used because they could not be measured within the time allocated, or could not be Table 2-3: Wetland Rating System for Eastern WA: 2014 Update 4 Effective January 1, 2015 Appendix D collected with reproducible results by the majority of environmental scientists. For example, the organic or clay contents of wetland soils are an important indicator of chemical processes that improve water quality (Rosenblatt et al., 2001; NRC, 2002), but these cannot be readily measured in the field. The indicators of organic and clay soils therefore had to be simplified. Users are asked to determine if organic or clay soils are present in the unit based on the mapping done by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). If it is not mapped, users are asked to perform one simple field test to determine if the soil meets the NRCS criteria. If the organic or clay content does not meet the percent needed to classify it as an organic soil or clay soil, the unit is considered not to have the indicator. In this case, the reproducibility of the data collection among different users was judged to be more important than achieving additional scientific rigor by scaling the amount of organic or clay material in the soil. 2. The indicators for Site Potential were calibrated to the data collected for the Washington State Function Assessment Methods (Hruby et al., 2000; Hruby & Stanley, 2000) and as described in Hruby (1999) and Hruby (2009). This involved developing an independent and qualitative assessment of how well a wetland performs a function and then calibrating the scores of the indicators to get the best fit to the independent assessment. The calibration involved alternatively changing the scoring for each indicator and the scaling within an indicator to get the best fit to the independent assessment. 3. Indicators for the Landscape Potential were calibrated by reviewing the literature on wetland indicators, and determining what aspect of the indicators represent the high and low levels of functioning. The data for each indicator collected at the reference sites are then sorted based on the values representing the highest level of function to the lowest in the reference wetlands. This ranking of data generates a distribution that is used to help determine where the breaks in the scoring should occur. The final decisions on scoring, however, were developed from graphical analyses of the distribution of scores of all sites. The goal was to ensure a relatively even distribution of ratings among the calibration sites. Although statistical methods are being developed for multi-criteria decision models (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2008), these methods are not yet applicable to a categorization that incorporates values, special characteristics, as well as quantitative indicators. Further details on the approach used to calibrate the rapid assessment methods developed by Ecology can be found in Hruby et al. (1999), Hruby (2001), and Hruby (2009). PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 1 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Title 28 CRITICAL AREAS Chapters: 28.04 Title – Citation – Purpose 28.08 Definitions 28.12 General Provisions 28.16 Wetlands 28.20 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 28.24 Aquifer Recharge Areas 28.28 Flood Hazard Areas 28.32 Geologic Hazard Areas Chapter 28.04 TITLE – CITATION – PURPOSE Sections: 28.04.010 Title. 28.04.020 Authority and purpose of title. 28.04.030 Critical areas. 28.04.040 Intent of critical area regulation. 28.04.050 Interpretation. 28.04.060 Relationship to other regulations. 28.04.070 Best available science. 28.04.010 Title. This title shall be known as the critical areas regulations of the City of Pasco, Washington. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.010.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 2 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.04.020 Authority and purpose of title. This title is adopted under the authority of Chapters 36.70 and 36.70A RCW and Article 11 of the Washington State Constitution. Its purpose is to conserve and protect the values and functions of environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas, which contribute to public health, safety, and welfare of the community without violating any citizen’s constitutional rights to the use of property as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.020.] 28.04.030 Critical areas. Critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(12)36.70A.030(6), and of concern to the City of Pasco include: (1) Wetlands; (2) Fish and wildlife habitats; (3) Aquifer recharge areas; (4) Flood hazard areas; and (5) Geologically hazardous areas such as those subject to landslide and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, mine collapse, and volcanic hazards. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.030.] 28.04.040 Intent of critical area regulation. The intent of this title is to implement the provisions of Chapter 36.70A RCW and the Pasco Comprehensive Plan by managing development in harmony with critical areas. This title seeks to: (1) Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, volcanic eruptions, or flooding; PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 3 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (2) Protect unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment, including fish and wildlife and their habitats; (3) Mitigate unavoidable, significant impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to such areas; (4) Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality and wetlands; (5) Utilize “best available science” in the development of local policies and regulations for critical areas including special considerations for preserving or enhancing anadromous fisheries, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172(1); and (6) Coordinate environmental review and permitting of proposals to avoid duplication and delay of desirable actions. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.050. Formerly 28.04.050.] 28.04.050 Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this title, all provisions shall be: (1) Considered the minimum necessary; (2) Liberally construed to serve the purposes of this title; and (3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers under state statute. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.070. Formerly 28.04.070.] 28.04.060 Relationship to other regulations. The regulations of this title shall apply as an overlay and shall be used in addition to zoning and other regulations established by the City of Pasco. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the City, the regulations that provide greater protection to critical areas or greater protection from environmental hazards shall apply. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 4 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. It is recognized that many City, county, state, and federal permit conditions may be applied to a proposed action, and that compliance with the provisions of this title does not constitute compliance with other such requirements. Satisfaction of the requirements of this title shall also be sufficient to satisfy the requirement for critical areas analysis and mitigation pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and PMC Title 23. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.080. Formerly 28.04.080.] 28.04.070 Best available science. A listing of document sources used in the development of this title is maintained on file in the City’s Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division. (1) Chapter 36.70A RCW requires jurisdictions to include the best available science when designating and protecting critical areas; and the implementation of conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish and their habitat (Chapter 365-195 WAC). (2) Best available science, as defined in PMC 28.08.030, shall be used in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. Critical area reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas. (3) Critical area reports, mitigation plans, and decisions to permit the alteration of critical areas shall rely on the best available science to ensure the protection of the ecological functions and values of critical areas, and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish and their habitat. (4) Best available science sources, at a minimum, have included the following: (a) Critical area maps; (b) Maps and reference documents in the City of Pasco’s SMP Inventory, Characterization, and Analysis Report, as applicable; (c) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps; PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 5 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (d) Aerial photographs; (e) Soil Survey of Franklin County, Washington, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; (f) National Wetland Inventory maps; and (g) WDFW Priority Habitats and Species maps. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.04.090. Formerly 28.04.090.] Chapter 28.08 DEFINITIONS Sections: 28.08.010 Definition interpretation. 28.08.020 A definitions. 28.08.030 B definitions. 28.08.040 C definitions. 28.08.050 D definitions. 28.08.060 E definitions. 28.08.070 F definitions. 28.08.080 G definitions. 28.08.090 H definitions. 28.08.100 I definitions. 28.08.110 J definitions. 28.08.120 K definitions. 28.08.130 L definitions. 28.08.140 M definitions. 28.08.150 N definitions. 28.08.160 O definitions. 28.08.170 P definitions. 28.08.180 Q definitions. 28.08.190 R definitions. 28.08.200 S definitions. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 6 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.210 T definitions. 28.08.220 U definitions. 28.08.230 V definitions. 28.08.240 W definitions. 28.08.250 X definitions. 28.08.260 Y definitions. 28.08.270 Z definitions. 28.08.010 Definition interpretation. Unless otherwise provided for in this title, all words and phrases shall be interpreted to have their customary meanings and usages. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.08.010.] 28.08.020 A definitions. “Activity” means any development or land use action, or composite of such actions, which falls under the jurisdiction of this title. “Administrative official, administrator” means the Director of Community and Economic Development, who shall be responsible for administering the provisions of this title, or designee. “Alteration” means any human-induced activity that changes the existing condition of a critical area. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; clearing or removing vegetation; applying herbicides, pesticides or any hazardous substance; discharging pollutants; modifying for surface water management purposes, cutting, pruning or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; paving; construction; applying gravel; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife, or wildlife habitat of a critical area. Alterations do not include walking, fishing, or any other passive recreation or other similar activity. “Anadromous fish” means species, such as salmon, which are born in fresh water, spend a large part of their lives in the sea, and return to fresh water rivers and streams to procreate. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 7 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “Applicant” means the person, party, firm, corporation, or other entity that proposes any activity that could affect a critical area. “Aquifer recharge area” means areas with a critical recharging effect on potable water resources. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.015 – 28.08.035.] 28.08.030 B definitions. “Best available science (BAS)” means current and scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas that is derived from a valid scientific process as defined by Chapter 365-195 WAC. Sources of best available science are included in “Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas” published by the State Department of Commerce. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Best management practices are accepted, state-of-the-art measures for obtaining the highest quality mitigation possible in a given situation. BMPs encompass a variety of behavioral, procedural, and structural measures. “Buffer or buffer area” means a naturally vegetated and undisturbed or revegetated zone surrounding a critical area that protects the critical area from adverse impacts to its integrity and value, or is an integral part of the resource’s ecosystem. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.040 – 28.08.050.] 28.08.040 C definitions. “Compensatory mitigation” means the process or action of replacing project-induced wetland and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas losses or impacts, including but not limited to restoration, creation, and enhancement. “Confined aquifer” means any aquifer bounded above and below by impermeable or relatively impermeable layers. “Conservation easement” means an agreement between a landowner and a land trust organization whereby the landowner forms a perpetual legal agreement to permanently restrict harmful uses and development of a property. The land stays in private ownership and PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 8 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. use, and the land trust sees that the restrictions are carried out. Land trusts are local, regional or statewide nonprofit organizations directly involved in protecting important land resources for public benefit. "Compensatory mitigation" means types of mitigation used to replace project induced critical areas and buffer losses or impacts. “Critical area designation” means the legal identification and specification for regulatory purposes of critical areas. “Critical area detailed study” means a thorough investigation of an activity and the critical area(s) it may impact as required by this title. “Critical areas” includes wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, flood hazard areas and aquifer recharge areas . “Cumulative Impacts” means the combined, incremental effects of human activity on ecological or critical area functions and values. Cumulative impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with the effects of other actions in a particular place and within a particular time. It is the combination of these effects, and any resulting environmental degradation, that should be the focus of cumulative impact analysis and changes to policies and permitting decisions. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.055 – 28.08.080.] 28.08.050 D definitions. “Development” means any construction or exterior alteration of structures, dredging, drilling, dumping, filling, earth movement, clearing or removal of vegetation, or other site disturbance which either requires a permit, approval or authorization from the City or is proposed by a public agency. “Development proposal” means any of the activities relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the City of Pasco. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.085 – 28.08.090.] Commented [HH1]: Per Gap section 3.2 - definition taken from the SMP for consistency Commented [HH2]: Per Gap section 3.3 - Add definition from Ecology PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 9 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.060 E definitions. “Emergent wetland” means a wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative stratum. “Emergency” means those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventive action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of the critical areas regulations. “Endangered species” means a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. “Enhancement” means, for the purposes of critical areas regulations, an action that improves the functions or values of a sensitive area or buffer. Enhancement may or may not be mitigation. “Environmentally sensitive area” means any area whose functions and values are subject to disruption by any regulated activity. “Exemption” means release from the liability or requirement of a regulation as a result of meeting the specific identified criteria. “Existing and ongoing agriculture” means those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.080(2), and those existing activities involved in the production of crops or livestock. Activities may include the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches; operation and maintenance of existing ditches or irrigation systems; changes from one type of agricultural activity to another agricultural activity; normal maintenance, repair, and operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities or improved areas. Activities that bring a nonagricultural area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years. “Exotic” means any species of plant(s) or animal(s) that is foreign to the planning area. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.095 – 28.08.120.] 28.08.070 F definitions. Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt Commented [HH3]: Per Gap section 3.3 - add definition from Ecology PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 10 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “Facility” means any structure, contiguous land, appurtenances, and other improvements on the land used for recycling, reusing, reclaiming, transferring, storing, treating, disposing, or otherwise handling a hazardous substance. Use of the term “facility” includes underground and aboveground tanks and operations that handle, use, dispose of or store hazardous substances. “Favorable determination” means the determination by the Department of Community and Economic Development that the activity will adequately mitigate its impact upon the critical area(s) and comply with performance standards of this title and is authorized. “Final determination” means the determination by the Department of Community and Economic Development of the adequacy of the project, as proposed, to mitigate any effects it may have on critical areas that are included within or adjacent to the project site. In addition, the Department of Community and Economic Development will assess the adequacy of the project proposal’s compliance with the applicable performance standards. The determination will be either favorable or unfavorable, indicating that the activity is or is not, respectively, authorized. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" means areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so isolated subpopulations are not created as designated by WAC 365-190-080(5). These areas include: (a) Areas within which state and federal endangered and threatened species exist, or state sensitive, candidate, and monitor species have a primary association; (b) Priority Habitat and Species Areas identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW); (c) Habitats and species of local importance that have been designated by the City at the time of application; (d) Naturally occurring ponds less than 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat. These do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds of less than 3 years duration, and landscape amenities. Naturally occurring ponds may include those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate conversion of ponds, if permitted by a regulatory authority; Commented [HH4]: Per Gap section 3.4 - Add FWHCA definition. Taken from SMP Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 11 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (e) Waters of the state as defined by WAC 222-16; (a) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; “Function” means the natural processes performed by a critical area and its components. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.125 – 28.08.140.] “Functions" and "values," for purposes of applying Article V – Critical Areas, mean the beneficial roles served by critical areas, including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, and recreation. Functions and values may be considered independently, with functions being measured indicators such as water quality, hydrologic functions, and habitat functions and values being non-measured indicators such as local importance, potential qualities, or recreational benefits. 28.08.080 G definitions. “Geologic hazard areas” means lands or areas characterized by geologic, hydrologic and topographic conditions that render them susceptible to potentially significant or severe risk of landslides, erosion, or volcanic or seismic activity or that are susceptible to liquefaction. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.08.145.] 28.08.090 H definitions. “Habitat conservation areas of local importance” means a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as wetlands. Commented [HH5]: Remove separate functions and value definitions and combine Commented [HH6]: Per Gap Section 3.4 - Add definition. Taken from SMP PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 12 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “Hazardous substance(s)” means any liquid, solid, gas or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits any of the characteristics of hazardous waste, including waste oil and petroleum products. “Hazardous substance processing or handling” means the use, storage, manufacture or other land use activity involving hazardous substances, but does not include individually packaged household consumer products or quantities of hazardous substances of less than five gallons in volume per container. “Hazardous waste” means all dangerous waste and extremely hazardous waste as designated pursuant to Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC. (a) Dangerous Waste. “Dangerous waste” means any discarded, useless, unwanted, or abandoned substances including, but not limited to, certain pesticides, or any residues or containers of such substances which are disposed of in such quantity or concentration as to pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, wildlife, or the environment because such wastes or constituents or combinations of such wastes: (i) Have short-lived, toxic properties that may cause death, injury, or illness or have mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic properties; or (ii) Are corrosive, explosive, flammable, or may generate pressure through decomposition or other means. (b) Extremely Hazardous Waste. “Extremely hazardous waste” means any waste which: (i) Will persist in a hazardous form for several years or more at a disposal site and which in its persistent form presents a significant environmental hazard and may be concentrated by living organisms through a food chain or may affect the genetic makeup of humans or wildlife; and (ii) Is disposed of at a disposal site in such quantities as would present an extreme hazard to humans or the environment. “Hazardous waste treatment and storage facility” means a facility that treats and stores hazardous waste and is authorized pursuant to Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; including all contiguous land and structures used for recycling, reusing, reclaiming, transferring, storing, treating, or disposing of hazardous waste. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 13 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “Hydric soil” means soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper portions of the soil profile. “Hydrogeologic assessment” means a report detailing the subsurface conditions of a site and which indicates the susceptibility and potential for contamination of groundwater supplies. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.150 – 28.08.180.] 28.08.100 I definitions. “In-kind” means an action to replace a critical area with a substitute critical area whose characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.08.185.] 28.08.110 J definitions. (Reserved) 28.08.120 K definitions. (Reserved) 28.08.130 L definitions. “Lakeshore management plan” means the McNary Lakeshore Management Plan, Lake Wallula, Oregon and Washington, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, intended to manage and protect the shoreline and to promote recreation and to operate and maintain water resource projects in the public interest. “Landslide hazard areas” means areas that, due to a combination of slope inclination, relative soil permeability and hydrologic factors, are susceptible to varying risks of landsliding. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.190 – 28.08.195.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 14 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.140 M definitions. (Reserved) “Monitoring" means the collection of data by various methods for the purpose of understanding natural systems and features, evaluating the impact of development proposals on such systems, and/or assessing the performance of mitigation measures imposed as conditions of development. 28.08.150 N definitions. “Normal maintenance and repair” means normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. “Normal maintenance” includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. “Normal repair” means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to shoreline resource or environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to environment or shoreline resources. “NRCS” means the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.200 – 28.08.205.] 28.08.160 O definitions. “Off site” means action away from the site on which the critical area has been or will be impacted by a regulated activity. Commented [HH7]: Per Gap Section 3.6 - Add definition. Taken From SMP PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 15 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “On site” means action at or within 200 feet of the site on which the critical area has been or will be impacted by a regulated activity. “Out-of-kind” means an action to replace a critical area with a substitute critical area whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.210 – 28.08.220.] 28.08.170 P definitions. “Primary association” means the fundamental link between a species and land and/or aquatic area. For the purposes of this title, these areas are those where species breed or feed. “Priority habitat” means a habitat type with a unique or significant value to one or more species as identified by priority habitats and species (PHS) maintained by WDFW. “Priority habitat" means a habitat type with unique or significant value to one or more species. An area classified and mapped as priority habitat must have one or more of the following attributes: (a) Comparatively high fish or wildlife density; (b) Comparatively high fish or wildlife species diversity; (c) Fish spawning habitat; (d) Important wildlife habitat; (e) Important fish or wildlife seasonal range; (f) Important fish or wildlife movement corridor; (g) Rearing and foraging habitat; (h) Refugia habitat; (i) Limited availability; (j) High vulnerability to habitat alteration; or (k) Unique or dependent species. Commented [HH8]: Per Gap Section 3.8 - Add definition. Taken from SMP PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 16 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. A priority habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage (such as old growth and mature forests). Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element (such as caves or snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or non-priority fish and wildlife. “Priority species” means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are identified as such under priority habitats and species (PHS) maintained by WDFW. Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria listed in WAC 173-26-020(31). “Priority species" means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are those that meet any of the following criteria: (a) Criterion 1. State-listed or state-proposed species. State-listed species are those native fish and wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State-proposed species are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed by the WDFW (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297. (b) Criterion 2. Vulnerable aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination to congregate. (c) Criterion 3. Species of recreational, commercial, and/or tribal importance. Native and non-native fish and wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation. (d) Criterion 4. Species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act as either proposed, threatened, or endangered. Proposal. See “Development proposal.” [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.225 – 28.08.230.] Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" Commented [HH9]: Per Gap section 3.8 - Add definition. Taken from SMP Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 17 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.180 Q definitions. “Qualified consultant” means a person with expertise through training and/or experience in the area cited who is capable of performing the required services at a level approximating the state of the practice. “Qualified fish and wildlife biologist” means a person with expertise in habitat issues with a degree in an appropriate field and experience as a biologist. “Qualified hydrogeologist” means a professional who is a currently licensed Washington State geologist holding a current specialty license in hydrogeology. “Qualified wetlands biologist” means a qualified professional with expertise in wetland issues, and with a minimum of two years’ experience in performing delineations using state and federal manuals analyzing wetland functions and values, analyzing wetland impacts, preparing wetland reports, and developing wetland mitigation and restoration plans. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.235 – 28.08.245.] Qualified professional" means a person with experience and training in the pertinent discipline, and who is a qualified expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant critical area or shoreline subject. A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S., B.A., or equivalent degree or certification in biology, engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, landscape architecture, forestry or related field, and 2 years of related work experience. (a) A qualified professional for wildlife, habitats, or wetlands must have a degree in biology, zoology, ecology, fisheries, or related field, and professional experience in Washington State. (b) A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional engineer or geologist, licensed in the State of Washington. (c) A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydrogeologist, geologist, engineer, or other scientist with experience in preparing hydrogeologic assessments. (d) A qualified professional with flood and channel migration zone expertise must be a hydrologist or fluvial geomorphologist. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 18 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (e) A qualified professional for vegetation management must be a registered landscape architect, certified arborist, biologist, or professional forester with a corresponding degree or certification. (f) A qualified archaeologist must be a person qualified for addressing cultural and historic resources protection and preservation, with a degree in archaeology, anthropology, history, classics or other germane disciplines with a specialization in archaeology and/or historic preservation and with a minimum of 2 years of experience in preparing Cultural Resource Site Assessments reports. 28.08.190 R definitions. “Reasonable use or reasonable economic use” means a common-law principle that no one has the right to use his or her property in a way that deprives others of the lawful enjoyment of their property. A legal concept articulated by federal and state courts in regulatory takings cases. “Reasonable use exception” means an exception to the specific standards identified in this title granted to a property owner on the basis that a property owner should be allowed the reasonable use of his or her property. “Remediation” means the cleanup and restoration of groundwater to some acceptable level. “Restoration” means, for the purposes of sensitive areas regulation, an action which returns a sensitive area or buffer to a state in which its stability and functions approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. “Restore," "Restoration," or "Ecological restoration" means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired natural or enhanced ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures, including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures, and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to pre-aboriginal, or pre-European settlement conditions. Commented [HH10]: Updated definition taken from the SMP Commented [HH11]: Per Gap Section 3.10 - Added definition. Taken from SMP PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 19 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. “Riparian” is an adjective meaning alongside a water body: stream, river, lake, pond, bay, sea, and ocean. Riparian areas are sometimes referred to by different names: riparian ecosystems, riparian habitats, riparian corridors, or riparian zones. “Riparian management zone (RMZ)” means a delineable area defined in a land use regulation; often synonymous with riparian buffer. For the purposes of this document, we define the RMZ as the area that has the potential to provide full riparian functions. The RMZ is defined by the greater of the outermost point of the riparian vegetative community or the pollution removal function. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.250 – 28.08.265.] 28.08.200 S definitions. “Seismic hazard areas” means areas that, due to a combination of soil and groundwater conditions, are subject to severe risk of ground shaking, subsidence, or liquefaction of soils during earthquakes. These areas are typically underlain by soft or loose saturated soils (such as alluvium), have a shallow groundwater table and are typically located on the floors of river valleys. “Sensitive species” means species that are losing habitat or the population is declining. “Setbacks” means the required distances between every structure on a lot and the lot lines of the lot on which it is located, or from rights-of-way, access easements, or the edges of critical areas as delineated according to the standards and procedures defined in this title. “Site assessment” means a site-specific analysis which identifies the presence of critical areas, classifies and designates the critical area, documents site conditions, analyzes project-generated impacts, and identifies appropriate mitigative measures. Site assessments include wetland reports, hydrogeologic reports, and habitat management plans. “Slump” means the downward and outward movement of a mass of bedrock or regolith along a distinct surface of failure. “Surface water protection area” means an upland protective area identified as part of a watershed control program under WAC 246-290-135 for water systems using surface sources. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.270 – 28.08.290.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 20 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.210 T definitions. “Temporary erosion control” means on-site and off-site control measures that are needed to control conveyance or deposition of earth, turbidity, or pollutants during development, construction, or restoration. “Threatened species” means a species, native to the State of Washington, that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its range within the state without cooperative management or the removal of threats as designated by WAC 232-12-011. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.295 – 28.08.300.] 28.08.220 U definitions. “Unfavorable determination” means the determination by the Director of Community and Economic Development Department that the activity will not adequately mitigate its impact upon the critical area(s) and/or comply with performance standards of this title and is not authorized. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.305 – 28.08.310.] 28.08.230 V definitions. “Values” means the desirable attributes associated with a critical area and its components that contribute to public health, safety, and welfare. “Vulnerability” means the degree to which groundwater may become contaminated depending on the local hydrologic characteristics and amounts of potential groundwater contaminant present. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.315 – 28.08.325.] 28.08.240 W definitions. “Wellhead protection area” means the portion of a well’s, wellfield’s, or spring’s zone of contribution within the 10-year time of travel boundary, or boundaries established using PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 21 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. alternate criteria approved by the State Department of Health in those settings where groundwater time of travel is not a reasonable delineation criteria. “Wetland” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, shallow open waters, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands purposefully and intentionally created from nonwetland sites by human actions, including but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands include those artificial wetlands intentionally created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. Wetland Categories. (a) Category I. These wetlands are: (i) alkali wetlands; (ii) wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high quality wetlands; (iii) bogs; (iv) mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-fourth acre with slow-growing trees; (v) forests with stands of aspen; and (vi) wetlands that perform many functions very well. (b) Category II. These wetlands are those that: (i) forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers; (ii) mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-fourth acre with fast-growing trees; (iii) vernal pools; and (iv) wetlands that perform functions well. These wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. (c) Category III. These wetlands are those that: (i) forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers; (ii) mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-fourth acre with fast-growing trees; (iii) vernal pools; and (iv) wetlands that perform functions well. These wetlands are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. (d) Category IV. These wetlands have the lowest level of functions and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that could be replaced, and in some cases improved. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 22 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions and also need to be protected. “Wetland community description” means a thorough description of the wetland and any resident plant and animal species. “Wetland creation” means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site where a wetland did not previously exist. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically involve excavation of upland soils to elevations that will produce a wetland hydroperiod, create hydric soils, and support the growth of hydrophytic plant species. “Wetland delineation” means the mapping of a wetland and establishment of its boundary or edge. The method used to establish the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for purposes of federal, state, and local regulations. “Wetland enhancement” means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland site to heighten, intensify, or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a change in some wetland functions and can lead to a decline in other wetland functions, but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling nonnative or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination of these activities. “Wetland functions” means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing, and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial, or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water acting as recharge and discharge for groundwater aquifers; moderating surface water and storm water flows; and other functions including, but not limited to, those identified in 33 CFR § 320.4(b)(2). “Wetland mitigation bank” means a site or suite of sites where resources are restored, created, enhanced, and/or preserved, for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for impacts. In general, a mitigation bank sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the mitigation bank PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 23 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. sponsor. The operation and use of a mitigation bank are governed by a mitigation banking instrument. “Wetland protection/maintenance (preservation)” means removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. This includes the purchase of land or easements, repairing water control structures or fences, or structural protection, such as repairing a barrier island. This term also includes activities commonly associated with the term preservation. Preservation does not result in a gain of wetland acres, may result in a gain in functions, and will be used only in exceptional circumstances. “Wetland restoration” means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. For the purpose of tracking net gains in wetland acres, restoration is divided into: (a) Reestablishment. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Reestablishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles. (b) Rehabilitation. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland. “Wetland values” means wetland values are estimates, usually subjective, of the benefits of wetlands to society, and include aesthetics, education, scientific research, and recreation. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.08.330 – 28.08.375.] 28.08.250 X definitions. (Reserved) Commented [HH12]: Per Gap Section 3.12 - Add definition from Ecology PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 24 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.08.260 Y definitions. (Reserved) 28.08.270 Z definitions. (Reserved) Chapter 28.12 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 28.12.010 Authorizations required. 28.12.020 Jurisdiction. 28.12.030 Exemptions. 28.12.040 Reasonable use exceptions. 28.12.050 Waivers for subsequent approvals. 28.12.060 Vested development and pending development approvals. 28.12.070 Variances. 28.12.080 Critical area review. 28.12.090 Minimum standards. 28.12.100 Concurrent requirements. 28.12.110 Pre-application meeting. 28.12.120 Initial determination. 28.12.130 Waivers from critical area detailed study requirements. 28.12.140 Critical area detailed studies. 28.12.150 Final determination. 28.12.160 Completion of the critical area review. 28.12.170 Mitigation standards for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and geologic hazard areas. 28.12.180 Buffers. 28.12.190 Bonding. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 25 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.12.200 Incentives. 28.12.210 Critical areas mapping. 28.12.010 Authorizations required. Prior to fulfilling the requirements of this title, the City shall not grant any approval or permission to alter the condition of any land, water or vegetation, or to construct or alter any structure or improvement including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Building permit; (2) Conditional use permit; (3) Shoreline conditional use permit; (4) Shoreline substantial development permit; (5) Shoreline variance permit; (6) Binding site plan; (7) Short subdivision; (8) Subdivision; (9) Zoning variance permit; (10) Rezone; or (11) Any other adopted permit or required approval not expressly exempted by this title. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.010.] 28.12.020 Jurisdiction. This title shall apply to all lands, all land uses and development and all structures and facilities in the City except as exempted under PMC 28.12.030. This title shall apply to every person, PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 26 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. individual, firm, partnership, corporation, governmental agency or other entity that owns, leases, or administers land within Pasco. This title provides regulations for land use and development in and adjacent to critical areas as defined herein. These regulations are additional to, and coordinated with, the Pasco Comprehensive Plan, the Pasco Shoreline Master Program, and regulations adopted pursuant to the Pasco Urban Area Zoning Code and any other applicable regulations adopted by the City of Pasco. This title does not apply to environmentally sensitive areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark. If there are any conflicts between this title and other applicable regulations, the most restrictive requirements apply. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.020.] 28.12.030 Exemptions. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods supported by best available science or accepted BMPs with the least amount of potential impact to the critical areas. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s expense. This includes, but is not limited to, access ways or paths, vegetation removal or damage beyond a reasonable work zone, and grading and clearing not essential to the ongoing operation of the site’s use. To be exempt from this title does not give permission to destroy a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Exempted activities within critical areas and their buffers are listed below. If the proposed activity meets any of the exemptions listed below, including any BMP and/or restoration requirements, further critical area review is not required. The permit applicant shall describe the proposed project in writing and identify the criteria in this section that apply to the requested exemption and submit this to the Department of Community and Economic Development. The Department of Community and Economic Development will review the exemption request to verify that it complies with this title and certify or reject the exemption. If the project is rejected, the applicant may continue in the review process and shall submit to the requirements of the review process. (1) Emergency activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. An emergency is an unanticipated and imminent threat to the public health or safety or PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 27 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. to the environment that requires immediate action within a period of time too short to allow compliance with this title. Restoration must be initiated within one year of the date of the emergency and must be completed within six months of the initiation date. (2) Maintenance, operation, and reconstruction of existing structures, facilities, improved areas, utilities, sewage disposal systems, water systems, ponds, or public and private roads and driveways. When such structures are damaged by an act of nature, they may be reconstructed or replaced within two years of the act of nature; provided, that the new construction or related activity does not further intrude into a critical area or established buffer. Such reconstruction and replacement is subject to other applicable City regulations and permit requirements. (3) Modification of any existing structure that does not alter the structure to further intrude into a critical area or established buffer and does not increase risk to life and property. Modification includes construction of tenant improvements, fences, decks, patios, driveways, signs, and accessory structures. (4) Operation and maintenance of any system of existing dikes, levees, ditches, drains, or other facilities which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of a drainage or diking system. Operation and maintenance does not include the expansion or new construction of drainage ditches and related facilities. (5) Removal of hazardous trees and vegetation and, when necessary, measures to control or prevent a fire or halt the spread of disease or damaging insects consistent with the State Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW; provided, that no vegetation shall be removed from a critical area or its buffer without approval from the City. Removal of hazard trees shall require documentation from a qualified tree professional, such as an ISA Certified Arborist with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ), to verify that a tree meets hazard tree criteria prior to removal. . (6) Activities involving artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except those features that provide critical habitat for anadromous fish and those features that were created as mitigation for projects or alterations subject to the provisions of this title. (7) Passive recreational activities, including, but not limited to, fishing, bird-watching, boating, swimming, hiking, and use of nature trails, provided the activity does not alter the critical area or its buffer. Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: Exactly 15 pt Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, Font color: Black PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 28 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (8) 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. (9) Educational and scientific research. (10) Construction or modification of boundary markers. (11) Site investigation work necessary for land use applications such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case, disturbed areas shall be immediately restored. (12) Existing and ongoing agricultural activities and related development activities, provided no alteration of flood storage capacity or conveyance, or increase in the extent or nature of impact to a critical area or its buffer occurs, beyond that which has occurred prior to the effective date of this title. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.030.] (13) Noxious weed and vegetation removal activities that are conducted in a manner that avoids or minimizes soil disturbance and soil compaction. Activities may be timed to protect fish and wildlife during sensitive life stages. Applicators shall read and comply with all label requirements, application restrictions, and timing limitations. These conditions should apply whether the activity is exempt or permitted. Removal of noxious and invasive plants should minimize the impacts to fish, wildlife, and habitat through the use of hand removal, light equipment, or herbicides registered by the WA Dept. of Agriculture for terrestrial applications and those approved by the WA Dept. of Ecology for aquatic use or when terrestrial applications may overspray into water. 28.12.040 Reasonable use exceptions. If the application of this title would deny all reasonable use of the property, and if such viable use of the property cannot be obtained by consideration of a variance pursuant to PMC 28.12.070 to one or more individual requirements of this chapter, then a landowner may seek a reasonable use exception from the standards of this title. Reasonable use exception requests shall follow the variance procedures of Chapter 2.50 PMC, and shall only be granted if all of the following criteria are met: Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt Formatted: Font: 10.5 pt Commented [HH13]: Added per Gap Section 4.1 - add invasive and non-native vegetation removal to exemptions PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 29 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (1) The application of this title would deny all reasonable and economically viable use of the property; (2) There is no other reasonable and economically viable use with less impact on the critical area than that proposed; (3) The proposed development does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the development proposal site; (4) Any alterations permitted to these critical areas shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable and economically viable use of the property after demonstrating compliance with mitigation sequencing per PCC 28.12.170; (5) The proposal mitigates the impacts on the critical areas functions and values to the maximum extent possible, resulting in no net loss consistent with best available science, while still allowing reasonable use of the property; (6) The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line, thereby creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this title; and (7) That the granting of the exception is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. An application for a reasonable use exception shall be filed with the Department of Community and Economic Development. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. Any authorized alteration of a critical area under this section shall be subject to conditions established by the City of Pasco and shall require mitigation under an approved mitigation plan. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.040.] 28.12.050 Waivers for subsequent approvals. For development permit requests that involve both discretionary land use approvals (such as a subdivision, rezone, planned unit development, or conditional use permit) and construction Commented [HH14]: Add qualified professional - Per Gap Section 4.2 PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 30 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. permit approvals (such as a building permit), if the provisions of this title have been addressed fully as part of the initial discretionary approval and/or the permit activity is located in a previously approved subdivision not in a critical area, then subsequent construction permit requests shall not require additional critical area checklists or review; provided, that the subsequent permit requests comply with all critical areas conditions contained in the initial land use approval and no substantial changes in the nature or extent of the proposed activity have been made. If a critical area review is to be waived on the basis of the provisions of this section, the applicant shall submit a written request for the waiver including: (1) Citation of the previous approval; (2) Description of the proposed activity; (3) Documentation of compliance with or plans for compliance with any critical area conditions imposed by the previous approval; and (4) Identification of any changes in the nature or extent of the proposed activity subsequent to the previous approval. The Department of Community and Economic Development will review the waiver request to verify that it complies with this title and certify or reject the waiver. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.050.] 28.12.060 Vested development and pending development approvals. The provisions of this title shall not apply to any development permit review for which a complete application was filed prior to the effective date of this title subject to the following: (1) For preexisting legal lots of record existing on April 24, 2021, that have not previously completed a critical area review, the provisions of this title shall apply at any subsequent building or construction permit stage, subject to PMC 28.12.030, 28.12.040 and 28.12.050. (2) For development permit requests for which a complete application was filed prior to April 24, 2021, the provisions of this title shall not apply to that permit or approval; provided, however, that if the development proposal later requires a building or construction permit and PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 31 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. a complete application for that building or construction permit was not filed prior to the effective date of this title, and if the provisions of this title were not addressed in the prior development approval, then critical area review pursuant to this title shall be required as part of the later building or construction permit review, subject to PMC 28.12.030, 28.12.040 and 28.12.050. (3) Existing development and land uses lawfully in existence on April 24, 2021, are subject to the nonconforming use provisions of the Pasco Urban Area Zoning Code. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.060.] 28.12.070 Variances. Variances from the standards of this title may be authorized by the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 2.50 PMC. The Hearing Examiner shall grant the variance only if the applicant demonstrates that the requested variance conforms to all of the criteria set forth as follows: (1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, the lot, or which are not applicable to other lands in the same district; (2) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (3) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties under the terms of this title; (4) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this title to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; (5) That the granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of this title and will not create significant adverse impacts to the associated critical areas or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare; and (6) That the granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 32 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (7) In granting any variance, the Hearing Examiner may prescribe such conditions and safeguards as are necessary to secure adequate protection of critical areas from adverse impacts, and to ensure conformity with this title. (8) If the Hearing Examiner decides to grant the variance, the Examiner shall make a finding that the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum necessary that will make possible the reasonable use of land, building, or structure. (9) That the Hearing Examiner shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall begin or be completed or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the time limit set shall void the variance. An application for a variance shall be filed with the Department of Community and Economic Development. The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and to provide sufficient information on which any decision has to be made on the application. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.070.] 28.12.080 Critical area review. The City of Pasco shall complete a critical area review prior to granting any permit approval for a development or other alteration on a site that is found to likely include, or be adjacent to, or impact upon one or more critical areas functions and values, with input from other resource management agencies as applicable, unless otherwise provided in this title. As part of this review, the Department of Community and Economic Development shall verify the information submitted by the applicant, and: (1) Confirm the extent, nature, and type of any critical areas identified and evaluate any required critical area detailed study; (2) Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this title; (3) Assess impacts on the critical area from the activities and uses proposed and determine whether any proposed alterations to, or impacts upon, critical areas are necessary and unavoidable in order to meet the objectives of the proposal; and PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 33 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (4) Determine as applicable if any required mitigation plans proposed by the applicant are sufficient to protect the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this title. The applicant shall be responsible for the initiation, preparation, submission, and expense of all required assessments, studies, plans, reconnaissance, and other work in support of the application. The applicant shall provide the City with digital copies and paper copies of reports/studies and maps prepared for the reports/studies, including all geotechnical studies and mapping. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.080.] 28.12.090 Minimum standards. Any proposed activity shall be conditioned as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and conform to the performance standards required by this title. Subject to the reasonable use exception of PMC 28.12.040, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas or meet the performance standards required by Chapters 28.16 through 28.32 PMC shall be denied. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.090.] 28.12.100 Concurrent requirements. Lands characterized by one or more critical area feature may also be subject to other regulations established by this title due to overlap or multiple functions of some critical areas. In the event of conflict between regulations, the most restrictive regulations shall apply. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.100.] 28.12.110 Pre-application meeting. Any person preparing for the permitting of an activity that may be regulated by the provisions of this title may request a pre-application meeting with the City prior to the critical area review process. At this meeting, the Department of Community and Economic Development shall discuss the requirements of this title, outline the review process, and work with the activity PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 34 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. proponent to identify any potential concerns that might arise during the review process. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.110.] Where appropriate, the Department may coordinate with, or recommend early consultation with, applicable state or federal agencies, including the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington State Department of Ecology, to identify agency requirements, available technical guidance, potential permitting considerations, and opportunities to address critical area concerns early in the project planning process. 28.12.120 Initial determination. (1) If Tthe Department of Community and Economic Development shall conduct an initial review of a proposed activity to determine whether the subject property contains, determines the site potentially includes, overlays, or is adjacent to critical areas., or the proposed project could have significant adverse impacts on critical areas, the Department of Community and Economic Development shall notify the applicant that a critical area detailed study is required for each of the indicated critical area types. (2) If the Department determines that a critical area or associated buffer is known or likely to occur on or adjacent to the subject property, the Department shall notify the applicant that additional critical area review is required. Depending on the nature of the critical area, available information, site conditions, and potential for impacts, the Department may require either: (a) A preliminary reconnaissance pursuant to PMC 28.12.130 to verify the presence, absence, extent, or condition of the critical area and determine whether a detailed study is necessary; or (a)(b) A detailed study pursuant to PMC 28.12.140 when sufficient information exists to confirm the presence of a regulated critical area and additional analysis is necessary to evaluate potential impacts, establish applicable protection standards, or determine appropriate mitigation. (2) If the review of the proposed activity permit application and critical area resources does not indicate that critical areas are included or adjacent to the activity, or could suffer probable significant adverse impacts from the activity, then the Department of Community and Economic Development shall rule that the critical area review is complete. The determination shall be noted on the application. Commented [HH15]: Per Option 1 of Shrub Steppe regulation: Add WDFW consultation in pre-application Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, 10.5 pt Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, 10.5 pt Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, 10.5 pt Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, 10.5 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, After: 8 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.16 li Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro, 10.5 pt Commented [HH16]: Per Option 2 of Shrub Steppe regulation: add more critical area review options for applicants Formatted: Font: Segoe Pro Commented [HH17]: Consistency PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 35 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (3) The applicant shall acknowledge in writing that a determination regarding the apparent absence of one or more critical areas by the Department of Community and Economic Development is not intended to be an expert certification regarding the presence of critical areas and the determination is subject to possible reconsideration and reopening if new information is received. If the applicant wants greater assurance of the accuracy of the critical area review determination, the applicant may hire a qualified consultant professional to provide such assurances. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.130. Formerly 28.12.130.] 28.12.130 Waivers from critical area detailed study requirements. The Department of Community and Economic Development may waive the requirement for a critical area detailed study if there is substantial evidence that: demonstrating that the study is not warranted, provided that the applicant submits a memorandum prepared by a qualified professional documenting the basis for the determination and supporting the requested waiver. (1) Determination that no critical area exists within250) feet of the proposed activity (2)There will be no alteration of any critical area or within any required buffer; (2)(3) The development proposal will not impact the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent or requirements of this title; and (3)(4) The performance standards required by this title will be met. In making the determination, the Department of Community and Economic Development will rely on applicable best available science sources. Notice of the findings substantiating the waiver will be attached to the permit and filed with the application records. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.140. Formerly 28.12.140.] 28.12.130 Critical Area Preliminary Reconnaissance Commented [HH18]: Is this currently implemented? Commented [HH19]: This section could be combined with the preliminary reconnaissance Commented [HH20R19]: Option 2: Consolidate FWHCA preliminary reconnaissance option (PMC 28.140) with Waiver (PMC 28.12.130). Rename Section to Preliminary reconnaissance. Qualified professional needed due to the discussion of impacts in the criteria Commented [HH21]: Added from Gap Section 4.4 - a memo provided by a qualified professional Commented [HH22]: Gap analysis Section 4.4 - added proximity threshold (largest buffer is wetland 250) Commented [HH23]: Per Option 2 of Shrub Steppe regulation: expand preliminary reconnaissance from FWHCA to provide right-sized review for mapped low-quality shrub steppe. Adds local discretion to review before requiring full detailed report. Commented [DY24]: This could go into a new 28.12.130 and shift the rest of the sections. There is also mention of a prelim recon in the existing .140 that can be deleted if this is the route we go. Commented [DY25R24]: Also the name can be changed to Critical Area Preliminary Reconnaissance. This is not necessary. Just a thought. Commented [HH26R24]: Yes! That was my thought exactly. I thought we could remove it from the FWHCA and expand on it here. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 36 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (1) The Department of Community and Economic Development may require a preliminary reconnaissance when available mapping, databases, reports, site observations, or other information indicates the potential presence of a critical area or associated buffer, but sufficient information is not available to determine its presence, absence, extent, condition, classification, or applicability. (2) A preliminary reconnaissance is intended to provide a limited, site-specific evaluation of existing critical area conditions and determine whether a detailed study is necessary. A preliminary reconnaissance shall not be required to provide the level of analysis, impact assessment, mitigation planning, or other information required for a detailed study. (3) A preliminary reconnaissance shall be prepared by a qualified professional with expertise appropriate to the type of critical area being evaluated and shall include, at a minimum: (a) A review of available maps, databases, reports, aerial imagery, and other relevant information; (b) A field reconnaissance of the subject property and, where accessible and relevant, adjacent areas; (c) Identification of the presence or absence, approximate location and extent, and general condition and characteristics of the critical area, where present, sufficient to determine whether regulated critical areas exist and additional study is warranted. (d) A written summary of the findings, including supporting documentation sufficient for the Department to make a determination under subsection (4) of this section. (4) Based on the results of the preliminary reconnaissance, the Department shall determine whether: (a) No regulated critical area or associated buffer is present or affected by the proposed activity, in which case no further critical area study shall be required; (b) A regulated critical area or associated buffer is present, but sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the critical area or its functions and values, in which case the Department may determine that no detailed study is required; or A regulated critical area or associated buffer is present and additional information is necessary to determine applicable protection standards, evaluate potential impacts, or establish appropriate mitigation, in which case a detailed study pursuant to PMC 28.12.XXX shall be required. 28.12.140 Critical area detailed studies. (1) Preliminary Reconnaissance. If a critical area detailed study is determined to be necessary, then a data review and field reconnaissance shall be performed by a qualified consultant for Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 37 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. that type of critical area. If the detailed study reveals no critical area is present, then a statement of this finding along with supporting evidence shall be prepared by the consultant and submitted to the City. An approved finding of the lack of a critical area shall satisfy all of the requirements for a detailed study. (2) (1) Minimum Requirements. If the data review and field reconnaissance reveals that a critical area is present, then a complete detailed study shall be prepared by a qualified professional the applicant and submitted to the City. At a minimum, a critical area detailed study shall comply with the specific criteria in Chapters 28.16 through 28.32 PMC, and clearly document: (a) The boundary and extent of the critical area; (b) The existing function, value, and/or hazard associated with the critical area; (c) The probable impact upon the function, value, and/or hazard associated with the critical area from the project as proposed; (d) A mitigation plan including the items in PMC 28.12.170; (e) The buffers and/or riparian management zone associated with the critical area; and (f) Documentation of consultation with the agency of authority or jurisdiction over the critical area in question. (3) Limitations to Study Area. If the applicant, together with assistance from the City, cannot obtain permission for access to properties adjacent to the project area, then the critical area detailed study may be limited accordingly. (4) Preparation and Determination of Completeness. The critical area detailed study shall be prepared by a qualified professional consultant for the type of critical area or areas involved. The qualified professional consultant may consult with the Department of Community and Economic Development prior to or during preparation of the critical area detailed study to obtain City approval of modifications to the contents of the study where, in the judgment of the qualified professionalconsultant, more or less information is required to adequately address the critical area impacts and required mitigation. If the critical area detailed study is found to be incomplete, the applicant shall be notified and the critical area review process shall be suspended pending correction of the inadequacies. Commented [HH27]: Per Option 2 of Shrub Steppe regulation: this can be moved and consolidated with PMC 28.12.130. Commented [HH28]: Per Gap Section 4.3 PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 38 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Upon receipt of a complete critical area detailed study a final determination is to be rendered. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.150. Formerly 28.12.150.] 28.12.150 Final determination. Following submission of a completed detailed study, the Department of Community and Economic Development will review the detailed study and make a determination, based on the critical area detailed study and any other available and appropriate materials. The determination will address the adequacy of the project, as proposed, to mitigate any effects it may have on critical areas that are included within or adjacent to the project site. The City may elect to request assistance from state resource agency staff if necessary. In addition, the Department of Community and Economic Development will assess the adequacy of the project proposal’s compliance with the applicable performance standards. Notice of this determination shall be attached to the permit and the critical area review shall be completed. (1) A Favorable Determination. A determination that the project proposal adequately mitigates its impacts on the critical areas and complies with the applicable performance standards satisfies the provisions of this title only. It should not be construed as endorsement or approval of the original or any subsequent permit applications. (2) An Unfavorable Determination. When a project proposal is found to not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or not comply with applicable performance standards, the Department of Community and Economic Development shall prepare written notice of the reasons for the finding of noncompliance. Such notice shall identify the critical area impacted and the nature of the impact. Following notice of a determination from the critical area review that the proposed activity does not adequately mitigate its impacts on the critical areas and/or does not comply with applicable performance standards, the applicant may request consideration of a revised mitigation plan. if the revision is found to be substantial and relevant to the critical area review, the Department of Community and Economic Development may reopen the critical area review and make a new determination based on this revised mitigation plan. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.160. Formerly 28.12.160.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 39 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.12.160 Completion of the critical area review. If at any time prior to completion of the public input process on associated permits or approvals, the City receives new evidence that a critical area may be included in, adjacent to, or significantly impacted by the proposed activity, then the City shall re-open the critical area review process and shall require whatever level of critical area review and mitigation as indicated by the evidence. Once the public input process on all associated permits or approvals is completed and the record is closed, then the City’s determination regarding critical areas shall be final, unless appeal is filed as per Chapter 2.50 PMC. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.170. Formerly 28.12.170.] 28.12.170 Mitigation standards for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and geologic hazard areas. (1) All proposed critical area alterations shall include mitigation sufficient to maintain the function and values of the critical area, or to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area. Mitigation of one critical area impact should not result in unmitigated impacts to another critical area. Mitigation includes avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse impacts to critical areas or their buffers. The preferred sequence of mitigation is defined. (a) Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimize the impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. (c) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. (d) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time through use of preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 40 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (f) Monitoring the impact and taking corrective measures. Documentation of consultation with the agency of authority or jurisdiction over the critical area in question. (2) Possible mitigation techniques include, but are not limited to, buffers, setbacks, limits on clearing and grading, creation of artificial wetlands or other applicable compensation measures to mitigate impacts, streambank stabilization, modified construction methods, and BMPs for erosion control and maintenance of water quality. All proposed mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan included as an element of the critical area detailed study. Mitigation shall utilize native plant species appropriate to the affected critical area and site conditions, where revegetation or planting is proposed. The mitigation plan shall include a description of the following: (a) The proposed mitigation; (b) How the proposed mitigation will maintain the critical area function, any ongoing monitoring and/or inspection that may be required to ensure the adequacy of the proposed mitigation, and an evaluation of the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed mitigation; (c) Any remedial measures that may be required, depending on the outcome of that ongoing monitoring and/or inspection; (d) Any required critical expertise necessary to install, monitor, or inspect the proposed mitigation; and (e) Any bonding or other security required to insure performance and/or maintenance of the proposed mitigation. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.180. Formerly 28.12.180.] 28.12.180 Buffers. (1) Buffers have, in some cases, been determined to be necessary to protect critical areas and their functions. Where specific buffers are identified, those buffers are deemed “required” or “standard” buffers. See Table 28.16.080(1) for wetland buffers. Application of the standard wetland buffer widths assumes that appropriate impact minimization measures are implemented and that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate to the Commented [HH29]: Gap Analysis Section 4.5 - add native vegetation requirement to mitigation PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 41 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. ecoregion. Where these conditions are not met, the required buffer should be increased or enhanced, as appropriate. (a) Except as otherwise specified herein, required buffers shall be retained in their preexisting condition. If a project does not propose any alteration of buffers or of the associated critical area, then subject to the following provision, no additional mitigation will be required to protect the critical area. Additional mitigation beyond the required buffer shall be required if the Department of Community and Economic Development finds that, based on unique features of the critical area or its buffer or of the proposed activity, the required buffers will not adequately protect the function of the critical area or prevent risk of hazard from the critical area and that additional mitigation or buffering is required to protect the critical area function or to prevent risk of hazard from the critical area. (b) The buffer shall be marked prior to any site alteration, and boundary markers shall be visible, durable, and permanently affixed to the ground. The boundary markers shall remain until all activity is completed and a final site inspection is completed. (c) An eight-foot-minimum setback shall be required from the buffer area for any construction of impervious surface area greater than 120 square feet. Clearing, grading, and filling within this setback shall only be allowed when the applicant can demonstrate that vegetation within the buffer will not be damaged. (d) Where temporary buffer disturbance or alteration has or will occur in conjunction with regulated activities, revegetation with appropriate native vegetation shall be required and completed one month before the end of the growing season. (e) Normal nondestructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes, or thinning of limbs of individual trees to provide a view corridor, shall not be subject to these buffer requirements. Enhancement of a view corridor shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of trees or vegetation that impairs views. (2) If the applicant proposes to reduce required buffers or to alter the required buffer, then the applicant shall demonstrate why such buffer modification, together with any alternative mitigation proposed in the critical area detailed study, is sufficient to protect the critical area function or to prevent risk of hazard from the critical area. Commented [HH30]: Gap analysis Section 4.6 - provide vegetated buffer condition specification PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 42 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (3) The critical area detailed study shall make adequate provision for long-term buffer protection. Periodic inspection of the buffers may be required if deemed to ensure long-term buffer protection. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.190. Formerly 28.12.190.] (4) Disconnected Buffers. Where a required wetland or stream buffer is interrupted by an existing, legally established public or private road, structure, or other legally established developed use that substantially eliminates the buffer’s ecological functions, the Department may determine that the portion of the buffer located beyond the intervening development is functionally disconnected from the critical area and is not subject to the applicable buffer requirements. 28.12.190 Bonding. The Department of Community and Economic Development shall have the discretion to require a bond, which will ensure compliance with the mitigation plan if activity related to the protection of the critical area(s) (e.g., monitoring or maintenance) or construction is scheduled to take place after the issuance of the City’s permit. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, assignment of savings account, or an irrevocable standby letter of credit guaranteed by a financial institution with terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney. The bond shall be in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or construction or the estimated cost of restoring the function and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is higher. The term of the bond shall be two years, or until the additional activity or construction has been completed and passed the necessary inspections, whichever is longer. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.200. Formerly 28.12.200.] 28.12.200 Incentives. The following incentives are intended to minimize the burden to individual property owners from application of the provisions of this chapter: (1) Open Space. Any property owner on whose property a critical area or its associated buffer is located and who proposes to put the critical area and buffer in a separate tract may apply for PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 43 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. current use property tax assessment on that separate tract through Franklin County, pursuant to Chapter 84.34 RCW. (2) Conservation Easement. Any person whose property contains an identified critical area or its associated buffer may place a conservation easement over that portion of the property by naming a beneficiary under RCW 64.04.130 as beneficiary of the conservation easement. This conservation easement may be in lieu of a separate critical areas tract that qualifies for open space tax assessment described in subsection (1) of this section. The purpose of the easement shall be to preserve, protect, maintain, restore, and limit future use of the property affected. The terms of the conservation easement may include prohibitions or restrictions on access. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.210. Formerly 28.12.210.] 28.12.210 Critical areas mapping. The approximate location and extent of critical areas in the City of Pasco may include the following: (1) Critical areas shown on the critical areas map adopted as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) Other mapping resources available to the City. (3) Mapping resources are to be used only as guides to alert the user to the possible distribution, location, and extent of critical areas. Mapping shall be utilized as a source of generalized information and shall not be considered as regulatory standards or substitute for site-specific assessments. The actual type, extent, and boundaries of critical areas shall be determined in the field by a qualified specialist according to the procedures, definitions, and criteria established in this title. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.12.220. Formerly 28.12.220.] Chapter 28.16 WETLANDS Sections: PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 44 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.16.010 Purpose. 28.16.020 Wetland designation. 28.16.030 Wetland rating (classification). 28.16.040 Wetland indicators. 28.16.050 Wetland detailed study – Requirements. 28.16.060 Wetland detailed study exemptions. 28.16.070 Basic wetland requirement. 28.16.080 Required buffers. 28.16.090 Compensatory mitigation. 28.16.100 Innovative mitigation. 28.16.110 Mitigation exceptions. 28.16.120 Restoration. 28.16.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote public health and welfare by instituting local measures to preserve naturally occurring wetlands that exist in the City for their associated value. These areas may serve a variety of vital functions, including, but not limited to, flood storage and conveyance, water quality protection, recharge and discharge areas for groundwater, erosion control, sediment control, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, education, and scientific research. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.010.] 28.16.020 Wetland designation. Under this title, wetlands shall be designated in accordance with the definitions, methods, and standards set forth in the approved 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, as amended and its regional applicable regional supplements, as amended (the Arid West Final Regional Supplement was last updated in 2008). Wetland delineations shall be considered valid for a period of five years from the date of the field delineation, unless the Department determines that changes in site conditions, hydrology, vegetation, soils, or applicable delineation methodology warrant an updated delineation. All areas within the City of Pasco meeting the criteria identified in this delineation manual, regardless of whether or not these areas have Commented [HH31]: Gap analysis Section 5.1 - add 5 year period expiration PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 45 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. been formally identified as wetlands, are hereby designated as wetland critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.020.] 28.16.030 Wetland rating (classification). (1) The wetlands rating system is intended to differentiate between wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, rarity, irreplaceability, and the functions and values they provide. A general description of wetland categories and the rationale for each category is provided in Chapter 28.08 PMC, Definitions (see “Wetland Categories”). (2) Wetlands shall be rated (classified) as either Category I, Category II, Category III, or Category IV according to the criteria listed in this section. This rating system is based on the Washington Department of Ecology’s Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington – Ecology Publication No. 14-06-030 (October 2014), as amended. The most current copy of this document should be used in classifying wetlands and developing wetland mitigation plans. Wetland mitigation plans shall be developed consistent with the applicable guidance provided in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance, as amended, and other current applicable state guidance. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.030.] 28.16.040 Wetland indicators. The following indicators of wetland presence shall be used by the Department of Community and Economic Development to determine if a wetland detailed study is needed: (1) Listing in the City’s critical areas mapping resources as a wetland or resources listed in PMC 28.04.070; (2) Documentation, through references to state or federal handbooks and/or reports by qualified experts; (3) A finding by a qualified wetland biologist that an appropriate hydrologic, soil, and/or vegetation regime indicative of a wetland exists; or Commented [HH32]: Gap Analysis per Section 5.2 - add Ecology guidance on mitigation PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 46 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (4) A reasonable belief by the Department of Community and Economic Development that a wetland may exist, supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified wetland biologist. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.040.] 28.16.050 Wetland detailed study – Requirements. If a wetland detailed study is required, it shall meet the following requirements in addition to the basic requirements identified in PMC 28.12.140: (1) The wetland detailed study shall be completed by a qualified professionalwetlands biologist. (2) The report shall include: (a) The applicant name and contact information; the name, qualifications, and contact information of the report author(s); a description of the proposal; identification of applicable local, state, and federal permits; and a vicinity map. (b) A statement describing the accuracy of the report and any assumptions relied upon. (c) Documentation of field investigations, including delineation data sheets, wetland rating forms, and other supporting documentation. (d) documentation of compliance with the mitigation sequencing requirements of PMC 28.12.170. (3) The extent and boundaries of any wetlands shall be determined in accordance with the methodology specified under PMC 28.16.020. The boundary shall be surveyed and mapped at a scale no smaller than one inch equals 200 feet. (4) The report shall describe the methodologies used to conduct wetland delineations, ratings, functional assessments, and impact analyses, including references and supporting data. (5) The report shall identify and characterize all wetlands, buffers, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and other critical areas on the project site and, to the extent practicable, within 300 feet of the project boundary. Commented [DY33]: Gap Analysis Section 5.3 - Update term update report requirements. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 47 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (6) For each wetland identified on the site or within 300 feet of the project boundary, the report shall provide: (a) Wetland rating and category; (b) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (c) Cowardin classification; (d) Wetland acreage based on field delineation; (e) Required buffer width; (f) Habitat characteristics and functions; (g) Soil conditions; (h) Hydrologic characteristics, including water sources, hydroperiod, inlets, outlets, and other observable indicators. (3) A wetland community description and wetland classification shall be completed, consistent with the requirements of PMC 28.16.020. (4) A written values and functions assessment shall be completed and address site hydrology (source of water in the system, water quality, flood and stream flow attenuation, seasonality of presence of water, if applicable), soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. (5) The site plan for the proposed activity shall be mapped at the same scale as the wetland map and shall depict:, showing the extent of the proposed activity in relationship to the surveyed wetland, including a detailed narrative describing the project, its relationship to the wetland, and its potential impact on the wetland. (a) Delineated wetlands and required buffers; (b) Off-site wetlands and buffers extending onto the project site; (c) Other critical areas and buffers; (d) The proposed development; PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 48 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (e) Clearing, grading, and disturbance limits; (f) Areas of proposed wetland and buffer impacts, including acreage or square footage; (g) Proposed stormwater facilities, discharge locations, and any buffer intrusions. (6) The proposed mitigation plan shall follow the general mitigation plan requirements described in PMC 28.12.170, and address how the activity has been mitigated to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. The Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans, Department of Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, March 2006 (or any succeeding documents) should be used as a basis for mitigation. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.050.] 28.16.060 Wetland detailed study exemptions. In addition to activities exempted in PMC 28.12.030, the following activities shall not require a wetland detailed study, provided they are conducted using accepted BMPs as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development: (1) Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, or other wildlife. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.060.] 28.16.070 Basic wetland requirement. A regulated wetland or its required buffer can only be altered if the wetland detailed study shows that: (1) The proposed alteration does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions of the wetland; or (2) Any degradation can be adequately mitigated to protect the wetland function. Any proposed alteration approved pursuant to this section shall include mitigation necessary to mitigate the impacts of the proposed alteration on the wetland as described in this chapter and PMC 28.12.170. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.070.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 49 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.16.080 Required buffers. (1) Buffer Requirements. The following buffers shall be required for wetlands based on the rating of the wetland as outlined in PMC 28.16.030, and land use intensity described in Table 28.16.080(2). Any wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Table 28.16.080(1). Wetland Buffer Width Requirements Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Category IV Wetlands (For wetlands scoring less than 16 points for all functions) Score for all three basic functions is less than 16 points Low – 25 feet Moderate – 40 feet High – 50 feet No recommendations at this time Category III Wetlands (For wetlands scoring 16 to 18 points or more for all functions) Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 65 to 7 points) *If wetland scores 8 to 9 habitat points, use Category II buffers Low – 75 feet Moderate – 110 feet High – 150 feet No recommendations at this time Commented [DY34]: See Gap Analysis Section 5.4 for buffer alternatives. Update revised habitat score categories. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 50 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Score for habitat 3 to 5 points Low – 40 feet Moderate – 60 feet High – 80 feet No recommendations at this time Category II Wetlands (For wetlands scoring 19 to 21 points or more for all functions or having the “Special Characteristics” identified in the rating system) High level of function for habitat (score for habitat 8 to 9 points) Low – 100 feet Moderate – 150 feet High – 200 feet Maintain connections to other habitat conservation areas Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 5 to 7 points) Low – 75 feet Moderate – 110 feet High – 150 feet No recommendations at this time High level of function for water quality improvement and low for habitat (score for water quality 8 to 9 points; habitat less than 5 points) Low – 50 feet Moderate – 75 feet High – 100 feet No additional surface discharges of untreated runoff Riparian forest Buffer width to be based on score for habitat functions or water quality functions Riparian forest wetlands need to be protected at a watershed or subbasin scale Other protection based on PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 51 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection needs to protect habitat and water quality functions Not meeting above characteristic Low – 50 feet Moderate – 75 feet High – 100 feet No recommendations at this time Vernal pool Low – 100 feet Moderate – 150 feet High – 200 feet Or develop a regional plan to protect the most important vernal pool complexes; buffers of vernal pools outside protection zones can then be reduced to: Low – 40 feet Moderate – 60 feet High – 80 feet No intensive grazing or tilling of wetland Category I Wetlands (For wetlands scoring 22 points or more for all functions or having the “Special Characteristics” identified in the rating system) Wetlands of High Low – 125 feet No additional surface PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 52 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Wetland Characteristics Buffer Width by Impact of Proposed Land Use Other Measures Recommended for Protection Conservation Value Moderate – 190 feet High – 250 feet discharges to wetland or its tributaries No septic systems within 300 feet of wetland Restore degraded parts of buffer High level of function for habitat (score for habitat 8 to 9 points) Low – 100 feet Moderate – 150 feet High – 200 feet Restore degraded parts of buffer Maintain connections to other habitat conservation areas Moderate level of function for habitat (score for habitat 5 to 7 points) Low – 75 feet Moderate – 110 feet High – 150 feet No recommendations at this time High level of function for water quality improvement (8 to 9 points) and low for habitat (less than 5 points) Low – 50 feet Moderate – 75 feet High – 100 feet No additional surface discharges of untreated runoff Not meeting above characteristics Low – 50 feet Moderate – 75 feet High – 100 feet No recommendations at this time PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 53 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Note: See Table 28.16.080(2) in this section, or as amended by Ecology, for types of land uses that can result in low, moderate, and high impacts to wetlands. (2) The land use intensity table describes the types of proposed land use that can result in high, moderate, and low levels of impacts to adjacent wetlands. (3) Measuring Buffer Dimensions. Wetland buffers shall be measured horizontally in a landward direction from the delineated wetland edge. (4) Building Setback. Buildings, structures, and other developments requiring a building permit shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the outer edge of a required wetland buffer. (54) Wetlands Adjacent to Slopes. Where lands adjacent to a wetland display a continuous slope of 25 percent or greater, the buffer shall include such sloping areas. Where the horizontal distance of the sloping area is greater than the required standard buffer, the buffer shall be extended to a point 25 feet beyond the top of the bank of the sloping area. Table 28.16.020(2). Land Use Intensity Table Level of Impact from Proposed Change in Land Use Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations High • Commercial • Urban • Industrial • Institutional • Mixed-use developments • Retail sales Commented [HH35]: Gap analysis Section 5.4 - add setback Commented [DY36]: Gap analysis section 5.4 - add missing elements from land use intensity table PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 54 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Level of Impact from Proposed Change in Land Use Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations • Residential (more than one unit/acre) • Roads: federal and state highways, including on-ramps and exits, state routes, and other roads associated with high-impact land uses • Railroads • Conversion to high-intensity agriculture (dairies, nurseries, greenhouses, growing and harvesting crops requiring annual tilling and raising and maintaining animals, etc.) • High-intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields, etc.) • Solar farms (utility scale) • Small lot agricultural that are not of long-term commercial significance Moderate • Residential (one unit/acre or less) • Moderate-intensity open space (e.g., parks with playgrounds, impervious surface for biking, jogging) • Paved driveways and gravel driveways serving three or more residences PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 55 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Level of Impact from Proposed Change in Land Use Types of Land Use Based on Common Zoning Designations • Paved trails • Utility corridor or right-of-way shared by several utilities and including access/maintenance road Low • Forestry (cutting of trees only) with controlled cutting under appropriate authorization • Low-intensity open space (e.g., hiking, bird-watching, preservation of natural resources) • Unpaved trails • Utility corridor without a maintenance road and little or no vegetation management • Cell tower [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.080.] 28.16.090 Compensatory mitigation. As a condition of any development permit or approval, which results in on-site loss or degradation of regulated wetlands and/or wetland buffers, the City may require the applicant to provide compensatory mitigation to offset impacts resulting from the actions of the applicant. The following standards shall apply: PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 56 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (1) The mitigation shall be conducted on property that shall be protected and managed to avoid further loss or degradation. The applicant shall provide for long-term preservation of the mitigation area. (2) Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the following Washington State Department of Ecology manual, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1, Publication No. 06-06-011a, March 2006) and Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1, Publication No. 06-06-011b, March 2006). See Table 28.16.120(3), Wetland Mitigation Ratios (for Eastern Washington). (3) Mitigation shall follow an approved mitigation plan and reflect the restoration/creation ratios specified above. (4) The applicant shall enter into a wetland mitigation monitoring agreement with the City as a condition of approval. The monitoring program will continue for at least eight years from the date of plant installation. Monitoring will continue for 10 years where woody vegetation (forested or shrub wetlands) is the intended result. These communities take at least eight years after planting to reach 80 percent canopy closure. Reporting for a 10-year monitoring period shall occur in years one, two, three, five, seven, and 10. Monitoring in all instances shall be bonded. Reporting results of the monitoring data to the City is the responsibility of the applicant. (5) Mitigation shall be completed prior to or concurrently with wetland loss; or, in the case of an enforcement action, prior to continuation of the activity by the applicant. (6) Compensatory mitigation shall not be implemented until the applicable critical area detailed study and associated mitigation plan have been reviewed and approved by the City. (7) Compensatory mitigation projects shall incorporate adaptive management measures sufficient to ensure that the mitigation achieves the ecological functions, performance standards, and success criteria established in the approved mitigation plan. (6)(8) On-site mitigation for protection of ecological functions is generally preferred over off-site mitigation. Commented [HH37]: Gap analysis Section 5.5 - (additional mitigation) CAR and mitigation approval required before implementation PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 57 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (7)(9) Off-site mitigation allows replacement of wetlands away from the site on which the wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. Off-site mitigation will be conducted in accordance with the restoration/creation ratios above and in Table 28.16.120(3), Wetland Mitigation Ratios (for Eastern Washington). Off-site mitigation shall occur within the same drainage basin as the wetland loss occurs, provided that Category IV wetlands may be replaced outside of the watershed if there is no reasonable alternative. Off-site mitigation may be permitted where: (a) On-site mitigation is not feasible due to hydrology, soils, or other factors. (b) On-site mitigation is not practical due to probable adverse impacts from surrounding land uses or would conflict with a federal, state, or local public safety directive. (c) Potential functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are greater than the lost wetland functional values. (8)(10) When the wetland to be altered is of a limited functional value and is degraded, mitigation shall be of the wetland community types needed most in the location of mitigation and those most likely to succeed with the highest functional value possible. (9)(11) Out-of-kind mitigation can be allowed when out-of-kind replacement will best meet the provisions of this section. (10)(12) Except in the case of cooperative mitigation projects in selecting mitigation sites, applicants shall pursue locations in the following order of preference: (a) Filled, drained, or cleared sites that were formerly wetlands and where appropriate hydrology exists. (b) 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. (11)(13) Where out-of-kind replacement is accepted, greater restoration/creation ratios may be required. (12)(14) Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and plants. Construction shall be timed to ensure grading and soil movement occur during the PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 58 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. dry season, and planting of vegetation shall be specifically timed to the needs of target species. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.090.] 28.16.100 Innovative mitigation. (1) One or more applicants, or an organization may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist: (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 mitigation area will be provided; and (d) There is a clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the identified mitigation site. (2) Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required replacement ratios outlined in PMC 28.16.120(3) , except where a compensatory mitigation plan, including a five-year monitoring agreement, is included as a condition of approval, such plan shall allow for one-to-one (1:1) replacement ratios upon successful completion of the monitoring agreement. (3) Wetland mitigation and banking programs shall be consistent with the provisions outlined in the Department of Ecology’s publication Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1, Publication No. 06-06-011a, March 2006) and Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1, Publication No. 06-06-011b, March 2006). (a) Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when: (i) The bank is certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC; PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 59 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (ii) The Department of Community and Economic Development determines the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and (iii) The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the bank’s certification. (b) Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the bank’s certification. (c) Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the bank’s certification. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.100.] 28.16.110 Mitigation exceptions. Requirements for mitigation do not apply when a wetland alteration is intended exclusively for the enhancement or restoration of an existing regulated wetland, and the proposal will not result in a loss of wetland function and value, subject to the following conditions: (1) The enhancement or restoration project shall not be associated with a development activity. (2) A restoration plan shall be prepared and approved as described in PMC 28.16.120. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.110.] 28.16.120 Restoration. (1) Restoration is required when a wetland or its buffer has been altered in violation of this title. The following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a wetland, provided that if it can be demonstrated by the applicant that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 60 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (a) The original wetland configuration should be replicated, including depth, width, and length at the original location. (b) The original soil types and configuration shall be replicated. (c) The wetland, including buffer areas, shall be replanted with native vegetation, which replicates the original species, sizes, and densities. (d) The original functional values shall be restored, including water quality and wildlife habitat functions. (e) Required replacement ratios are shown in the Reestablishment or Creation column of Table 28.16.120(3), Wetland Mitigation Ratios (for Eastern Washington). (2) A restoration plan shall be prepared and approved prior to commencement of restoration work. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified wetland biologist and describe how the proposed actions meet the minimum requirements described above. The Department of Community and Economic Development shall, at the applicant’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the restoration plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant for revision and resubmittal. (3) Wetland mitigation ratios are provided in Table 28.16.120(3). Table 28.16.120(3). Wetland Mitigation Ratios (for Eastern Washington) Category and Type of Wetland Impacts Reestablishment or Creation Rehabilitation Only1 Reestablishment or Creation and Rehabilitation1 Reestablishment or Creation and Enhancement1 Enhancement Only1 All Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 1:1 R/C and 1:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 2:1 E 6:1 All 2:1 4:1 1:1 R/C and 2:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 E 8:1 PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 61 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Category and Type of Wetland Impacts Reestablishment or Creation Rehabilitation Only1 Reestablishment or Creation and Rehabilitation1 Reestablishment or Creation and Enhancement1 Enhancement Only1 Category III RH All other Category II 3:1 6:1 1:1 R/C and 4:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 8:1 E 12:1 Category I based on score for functions 4:1 8:1 1:1 R/C and 6:1 RH 1:1 R/C and 12:1 E 16:1 Category I Natural Heritage site Not considered possible2 6:1 Rehabilitation of a Natural Heritage site R/C not considered possible2 R/C not considered possible2 Case-by-case Notes: 1 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 a 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 Natural heritage sites, alkali wetland, and bogs are considered irreplaceable wetlands because they perform some functions that cannot be replaced through compensatory mitigation. Impacts to such PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 62 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. wetlands would therefore result in a net loss of some functions no matter what kind of compensation is proposed. Reference: Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, March 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Version 1). Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Olympia, Washington. E = Enhancement R/C = Re-establishment or Creation RH = Rehabilitation [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.16.120.] Chapter 28.20 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Sections: 28.20.010 Purpose. 28.20.020 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area designation and classification criteria. 28.20.030 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area rating. 28.20.040 Determination of need for fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study. 28.20.050 Fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study requirements. 28.20.060 Performance standards minimum requirements. 28.20.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework to evaluate the development, design, and location of buildings to ensure critical fish and wildlife habitat is preserved and protected, in order to avoid habitat fragmentation, and to ensure no net loss of critical area functions and values. These regulations seek to protect critical habitat areas so populations of endangered, Commented [DY38]: Gap Analysis Section 6.1- add not net loss requirement PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 63 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. threatened, and sensitive species are given consideration during the development review process. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.20.010.] 28.20.020 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area designation and classification criteria. (1) All areas within the City of Pasco meeting one or more of these criteria are hereby designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this section. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall include the following: (a.) Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; (b) State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife through its official Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) list and mapping database, as amended; (c) Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres in size and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat, including those artificial ponds intentionally created from dry areas in order to mitigate impacts to ponds. Naturally occurring ponds do not include ponds deliberately designed and created from dry sites, such as canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, temporary construction ponds, and landscape amenities, unless such artificial ponds were intentionally created for mitigation; (d) Waters of the state including lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington, as classified in WAC 222-16-030. (e) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; (f) State Natural Area Preserves and Natural Resource Conservation Areas. Natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas are defined, established, and managed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources; Commented [DY39]: Gap Analysis Section 6.2.1 - Include all FWHCA listed in WAC 365-190-130 PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 64 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (g.) Areas of Rare Plant Species and High-Quality Ecosystems. Areas of rare plant species and high-quality ecosystems are identified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources through the Natural Heritage Program and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) List; (h) Land useful or essential for preserving connections between habitat blocks and open spaces; and (j) Habitat conservation areas of local importance as determined by resolution of the City Council. Table 28.20.020(1). Criteria for Classification of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Habitat Area Characteristic/Classification Source (1) Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association WDFW, USFWS (NOAA) (2) Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres in size and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat Ecology (3) Waters of the state classified as fish and wildlife habitats under the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, and WAC 365-190-080(5)(c)(v) Columbia River Snake River WDNR, Ecology, WDFW, affected Indian tribes (4) State Natural Area Preserves and Natural WDNR Commented [DY40]: Gap Analysis Section 6.2.2 - Remove table and include sources in mapping section PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 65 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Habitat Area Characteristic/Classification Source Resource Conservation Areas (5) Habitat conservation areas of local importance as determined by resolution of the City Council WDFW (2) All areas within the City of Pasco meeting one or more of these criteria are hereby designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this section. (32) Mapping information sources for identification of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include, but are not limited to: (a) WDFW priority habitat and species maps. (b) Wetlands mapped under the National Wetland Inventory by the U.S. Department of Interior; USFWS. (c) WDFW/WDNR, Washington Rivers Inventory System maps. (d) WDNR Natural Heritage Program mapping data. (e) Anadromous and resident salmonid distribution maps contained in the Habitat Limiting Factors reports published by the Washington Conservation Commission. (df) Maps and reference documents in the City of Pasco SMP Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report, as applicable. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.20.020.] 28.20.030 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area rating. Fish and wildlife habitat areas shall be rated as primary or secondary according to the criteria in this section. Table 28.20.030. Classification by Fish and Wildlife Areas Commented [DY41]: Gap Analysis Section 6.3 - Not sure what these ratings refer to. There is no mention elsewhere in the chapter. Recommend removal PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 66 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Habitat Area Classification Source Primary Habitats Primary habitats are those areas that are valuable to fish and wildlife and support a wide variety of species due to an undisturbed nature, diversity of plant species, and structure, presence of water, or size, location or seasonal importance and which meet any of the following qualifying criteria: (1) The documented presence of species listed by the federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. WDFW, USFWS (NOAA) (2) Those rivers identified as “Shorelines of the State” under the City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program, and streams within the shoreline jurisdiction. Ecology (3) Those wetlands identified as Category I Wetlands, as defined in this title. PMC 28.16.030 Secondary Habitats Secondary habitats are those which are valuable to wildlife and support a wide variety of species due to: an undisturbed nature, diversity of plant species, structure, presence of water, or size, location or seasonal importance but do not meet any of the qualifying criteria listed in items (1) through (3) in the Primary Habitats above. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.20.030.] 28.20.0430 Determination of need for fish and wildlife habitat conservation area detailed study. Commented [DY42]: Gap Analysis Section 6.4 - This section seems redundant. There is already a section for initial determination in PCC 28.12.120. Recommend removal. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 67 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (1) A detailed study shall be required for any activity that is within 200 feet of a fish and wildlife habitat area. (2) Due to the sensitive nature of certain species, the applicant shall notify the City if the proposed activity will occur within 660 feet (one-eighth of a mile) of a fish and wildlife habitat area; the City may then contact appropriate agencies and determine if a detailed study should be prepared, based on the sensitivity of the site. (3) The Department of Community and Economic Development shall require a detailed study of a habitat area if the following indicators are present: (a) The area is listed in the City’s critical areas map as a fish and wildlife habitat area; (b) Documentation exists that shows that any of the classification criteria listed in PMC 28.20.030 are present, based on any of the references listed in this title; (c) A qualified fish and wildlife biologist finds that habitat conditions appropriate to meet one or more of the classification criteria listed in PMC 28.20.030 exist; or (d) The Department of Community and Economic Development possesses a reasonable belief that a fish and wildlife habitat may exist. Such reasonable belief shall be supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified fish and wildlife biologist. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.20.040.] 28.20.0540 Fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study requirements. If a fish and wildlife habitat area detailed study is required, it shall include and/or meet the following requirements in addition to the basic requirements identified in PMC 28.12.140. (1) The detailed study shall be completed by a qualified professional fish and wildlife biologist with expertise in assessing the relevant species and habitats. Evidence of qualifications shall be provided with the detailed study. (2) The site plan and map submitted shall be of a scale no smaller than one inch equals 200 feet. The site plan shall indicate all fish and wildlife habitat conservation critical areas, as determined by the criteria in PMC 28.20.0320, and shall include the area within 200 feet of the subject property. The applicant may prepare the site plan; however, it is subject to review by Commented [DY43]: Gap Analysis Section 6.5 - update to include additional information in CA report Commented [DY44]: Incorrect reference PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 68 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. the qualified professionalfish and wildlife biologist. The extent and boundaries of the habitat shall be determined by the qualified fish and wildlife biologist. (3) A habitat description shall be included of the project area to evaluate the potential presence or absence or absence of designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. An assessment shall include the following information: , including a habitat rating as described in PMC 28.20.030, and a statement of functions and values providing information on the species in question and the associated plant and animal communities. A complete list of species and special habitat features shall be included. (a) Detailed description of vegetation on and adjacent to the project area and its associated buffer. (b4) A regulatory analysis shall be included, including a discussion of any federal, state, tribal, and/or local requirements or special management recommendations developed specifically for species and/or habitats located on the site. (5c) The proposed mitigation plan shall address how the proposed development activity has been mitigated to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the habitat and shall follow the general mitigation plan requirements described in PMC 28.12.170. (6d) A statement of management and maintenance practices shall be included, including a discussion of ongoing maintenance practices that will ensure protection of all fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas on site after the project has been completed. (e) A detailed discussion of the direct and indirect potential impacts on habitat by the project, including potential impacts to water quality. (f) A map of the project and/or survey area, coordinates, and GIS files if available. (4) Shrub-steppe Habitat. In addition to the requirements applicable to fish and wildlife habitat detailed studies, additional evaluation shall be required for areas containing or potentially containing high-quality shrub-steppe habitat. A fish and wildlife habitat detailed study evaluating high-quality shrub-steppe habitat shall assess, at a minimum, the following criteria: (a) The extent, density, and condition of native shrub and perennial bunchgrass cover; (b) The presence, distribution, and relative abundance of invasive, nonnative, or noxious plant species; Commented [DY45]: Redundant language. Removed Commented [HH46]: Per Option 1 for shrub-steppe regulation: maintain reference to state management recommendations Commented [DY47]: A good to have for updating internal CA maps for staff Commented [HH48]: Per Option 2 of shrub steppe regulation: Adds more documentation and protection for high-quality shrub steppe habitats Commented [DY49R48]: Consider adding restoration and or enhancement potential as a standard PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 69 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (c) The extent of soil disturbance and evidence of historic or ongoing disturbance, degradation, or land alteration; (d) Habitat patch size, configuration, and degree of fragmentation; (e) Habitat connectivity to adjacent or nearby shrub-steppe, grassland, riparian areas, wildlife corridors, or other native habitat; (f) The proximity, intensity, and compatibility of surrounding land uses and their influence on habitat functions; (g) The presence and effects of existing roads, structures, utilities, agricultural activities, grading, landscaping, or other development or land disturbance; (h) Known, documented, or potential use of the habitat by priority species, including the presence of habitat features necessary to support such species; (a)(i) Any other site-specific conditions necessary to characterize existing shrub-steppe habitat functions and determine appropriate avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensatory mitigation measures. (47) Habitat and Buffer Recommendation. (a) For riparian buffers, see Shoreline Master Program, PMC Title 29. (b) Where non-fish species have been identified and classified as endangered or threatened by the federal government or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the detailed study shall identify the required habitat and recommend appropriate buffers based on the State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) management recommendations. (c) Where other fish and wildlife habitats areas have been identified, the detailed study shall identify the required habitat and recommend appropriate buffers based on the following recommendations: (i) For areas with endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, any recommended protective measures shall be consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PHS management recommendations; and (ii) For naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres, protective provisions that are consistent with the wetland performance. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 70 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (58) Habitats and species that have been identified as priority species or priority habitats by the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Program should not be reduced and shall be preserved through regulation, acquisition, incentives, and other techniques. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.20.050.] 28.20.0650 Performance standards minimum requirements. This section describes the minimum performance standard requirements for habitat areas. (1) Bald Eagle Habitat. Bald eagle habitat shall be protected pursuant to the Washington State Bald Eagle Protection Rules (WAC 220-610-100 ). A habitat management plan shall be developed by the applicant in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) whenever activities that alter habitat are proposed near a verified nest territory or communal roost. (2) Wetland Habitat. All habitat sites containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland development performance standards set forth in and shall conform to the wetland mitigation and restoration provisions set forth in PMC 28.16.080 through 28.16.120. (3) Allowed Uses in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. (a) Roads, Bridges, and Utilities. Road, bridge, and utility maintenance, repair, and construction may be permitted across a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and/or buffers under the following conditions: (i) It is demonstrated to the City that there are no alternative routes that can be reasonably used to achieve the proposed development; (ii) The activity will have minimum adverse impact to the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area; (iii) The activity will not significantly degrade surface or groundwater; and (iv) The intrusion into the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area and its buffers is mitigated to maintain ecological functions. (b) Limited park or recreational access to a fish and wildlife habitat area; provided, that all of the following are satisfied: Commented [DY50]: FOR STAFF CONSIDERATION Per Gap Analysis Section 6.6 - Consider riparian habitat buffers and additional riparian habitat performance standards. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 71 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (i) The access is part of a public park or a recreational resort development that is dependent on the access for its location and recreational function; (ii) The access is limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish the recreational function; and (iii) The intrusion is mitigated. (c) Low-impact uses and activities that are consistent with the purpose and function of the fish and wildlife habitat area and do not detract from its integrity. Examples of low-impact uses and activities include removal of noxious vegetation and storm water management facilities such as grass-lined swales. (4) Additional Protection Measures. (a) Temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation controls shall be provided to prevent the introduction of sediments or pollutants to water bodies or watercourses within the habitat area. (b) Clearing and grading shall be limited to that necessary for establishment of the use or development and shall be conducted to avoid significant adverse impacts and minimize the alteration of the volume, rate, or temperature of freshwater flows to or within the habitat area and any buffer required by this section. (c) The proposed development shall not discharge hazardous substances to the habitat area that would have significant adverse impacts on that area. (d) Stream flows shall be protected from changes to the normal flow, temperature, turbidity, and discharge to the maximum extent practicable. (e) Septic drainfields and any required replacement drainfield area shall be at least 100 feet from the edge of any aquatic habitat area. (f) Exceptions to the above protection standards may be allowed by the Department of Community and Economic Development based on a special report prepared by a qualified biological professional that demonstrates that such exception would not adversely impact the habitat system, functions, and values of the habitat area. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 72 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (g) Stream Crossings. Stream crossings shall be minimized, but when necessary, they shall conform to the applicable provisions of SMP, CAO and other laws (see WDFW or Ecology). (h) Storm Water Conveyance Facilities. Storm water conveyance facilities may be permitted; provided, that they are only located in the buffer when no practicable alternative exists outside the buffer. Storm water facilities shall be planted with native plantings where feasible to provide habitat, and/or less intrusive facilities should be used. (i) Floodway-Dependent Structures. Floodway-dependent structures or installations may be permitted within streams or their buffers if allowed or approved by other ordinances or other agencies with jurisdiction. See PMC Title 24, Floodplain, for more information on allowed uses and activities within flood hazard areas. (j) Trails. The criteria for alignment, construction, and maintenance of trails within wetlands and their buffers may not exceed 10 feet in width and may be constructed with impermeable surface materials if on-site infiltration is utilized. (k) Native vegetation landscaping schemes shall be provided that do not require application of herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizer to maintain robust growth. (l) No net-effective impervious surfaces may be created in the outer buffer area beyond what is otherwise permitted. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 §§ 28.20.060 – 28.20.080.] Chapter 28.24 AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Sections: 28.24.010 Purpose. 28.24.020 Aquifer recharge area designation criteria. 28.24.030 General regulations. 28.24.040 Determination of need for aquifer recharge area detailed study. 28.24.050 Aquifer recharge area detailed study. 28.24.060 Aquifer recharge area detailed study special exemptions. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 73 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.24.070 Performance standards basic requirements. 28.24.080 Performance standards – Storage tanks. 28.24.090 Performance standards – Other uses. 28.24.010 Purpose. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to safeguard groundwater resources from contamination by land uses or activities. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009.] 28.24.020 Aquifer recharge area designation criteria. Based on the City’s wellhead protection areas identified pursuant to Chapter 246-290 WAC, surface water protection areas established for drinking water supplies on the Columbia River, and extensive high infiltration soils underlying a large portion of the City and UGA per National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil classifications for Franklin County, the entire City limits and UGA are designated as an aquifer recharge area. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.020.] Critical Aquifer Recharge Designation Criteria Aquifer recharge areas shall be classified as the following: Aquifer Recharge Area Characteristic/Designation Source (1) Wellhead Protection Areas pursuant to WAC 246-290 WA Department of Health, US Environmental Protection Agency (2) Areas designated for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management program, RCW 90.44, 90.48, and 90.54 and WAC 173-100 and 173-200 Ecology (3) Areas overlying unprotected aquifers. Such aquifers shall be identified through any existing competent hydrogeologic study USGS, WDNR 4) Areas within identified unprotected aquifers but possessing the following characteristics: • Slopes less than 15% • Coarse alluvium or sand and gravel in the soil profile and WDFW Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: +Body (Aptos), 10 pt Formatted: Centered, Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 74 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. no known impermeable layers 28.24.030 General regulations. (1) Hazardous uses shall be regulated for protection of the aquifer recharge areas. (2) An aquifer recharge area detailed study shall be required according to PMC 28.24.050(2) and 28.24.060. (3) State and federal regulations applicable to specific uses including but not limited to those provided in PMC 28.24.080. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021.] (4) Any project area located within 200 feet of an area meeting the aquifer designation or soil classification criteria, or mapped as such, shall be treated as if it is located within the mapped area. 28.24.040 Determination of need for aquifer recharge area detailed study. (1) The following information resources shall be utilized along with other documentation where noted: (a) Studies from the USGS. (b) City of Pasco Wastewater Facility Plan. (c) City of Pasco Water System Plan. (d) City of Pasco Wellhead Protection Plan. (e) Soil Survey for Franklin County (Conservation District). PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 75 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (2) Requirements for High Significance Aquifer Recharge Area. An aquifer recharge area detailed study shall be required for any activity occurring on or adjacent to a site that is, or contains, a high significance aquifer recharge area if the activity involves one or more of the following uses: (a) Hazardous substance processing or handling; (b) Hazardous waste treatment and storage facility; (c) Disposal of on-site sewage for subdivisions, short plats, and commercial and industrial sites; or (d) Landfills. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.040.] 28.24.050 Aquifer recharge area detailed study. When required as described in PMC 28.24.040, an aquifer recharge area detailed study shall meet the following requirements: (1) The detailed study shall be prepared by a qualified hydrogeologist. Evidence of these qualifications shall be provided with the detailed study. (2) The detailed study shall contain a map, of a scale no smaller than one inch equals 200 feet, of the site and the extent of the high significance aquifer recharge area, even if it extends beyond the development site boundary, as determined by the criteria in PMC 28.24.020. (3) The detailed study shall contain a hydrogeologic assessment, including, at a minimum: (a) Information sources; (b) Geologic setting; (c) Background water quality; (d) Location of, and depth to, water tables; (e) Recharge potential of the facility site; (f) Groundwater flow direction and gradient; PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 76 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (g) Currently available data on wells within 1,000 feet of the site; (h) Currently available data on springs within 1,000 feet of the site; (i) Surface water location and recharge potential; (j) Water source supply to the activity (e.g., high capacity well); (k) Any sampling schedules necessary; (l) Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the groundwater resource; and (m) Other information as may be required by the City. (n) The Detailed Study shall include a mitigation plan detailing how the activity will offset any impact on the resource and control risk of contamination to the aquifer. (4) The detailed study shall include a plan detailing how any risk of contamination to the aquifer will be controlled. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.050.] 28.24.060 Aquifer recharge area detailed study special exemptions. In addition to the exemptions listed in PMC 28.12.030, sewer lines and appurtenances shall be exempt from the requirement to prepare an aquifer recharge area detailed study. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.060.] 28.24.070 Performance standards basic requirements. (1) Any activity listed in PMC 28.24.040(2) may only be permitted in a high significance aquifer recharge area if the detailed study documents that the activity does not pose a threat to the aquifer system and the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer. (2) All activities located in an aquifer recharge area shall minimize the creation of impervious surfaces to the extent practicable without creating a greater risk to the aquifer recharge area. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.070.] Commented [HH51]: From Gap analysis PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 77 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.24.080 Performance standards – Storage tanks. All storage tanks located in an aquifer recharge area must conform to the following requirements. The Washington Department of Ecology also regulates and authorizes permits for underground storage tanks (Chapter 173-360 WAC). (1) Underground Tanks. All new underground storage facilities used or to be used for the underground storage of hazardous substances or hazardous wastes shall be designed and constructed so as to: (a) Prevent releases due to corrosion or structural failure for the operational life of the tank; (b) Be protected against corrosion, constructed of noncorrosive material, steel clad with a noncorrosive material, or designed to include a secondary containment system to prevent the release or threatened release of any stored substances; and (c) Use material in the construction or lining of the tank that is compatible with the substance to be stored. (2) Aboveground Tanks. (a) No new aboveground storage facility or part thereof shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used, or maintained in any manner which may allow the release of a hazardous substance to the soil, groundwater, or surface waters within an aquifer recharge area. (b) No new aboveground tank or part thereof shall be fabricated, constructed, installed, used, or maintained without having constructed around or under it an impervious containment area enclosing or underlying the tank or part thereof. (c) New aboveground tanks will require a secondary containment system, either built into the tank structure or a dike system built outside the tank, for all tanks located within an aquifer recharge area. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.24.080.] 28.24.090 Performance standards – Other uses. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 78 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (1) Vehicle Repair and Servicing. Vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. Chemicals used in the process of vehicle repair and servicing must be stored in a manner that protects them from weather and provides containment should leaks occur. (2) Spreading or Injection of Reclaimed Water. Water reuse projects for reclaimed water must be in accordance with the adopted water or sewer comprehensive plans that have been approved by the Departments of Ecology and Health. (a) Surface spreading must meet the ground water recharge criteria given in RCW 90.46.080 and 90.46.010(10). (b) Direct injection must be in accordance with the standards developed by authority of RCW 90.46.042. (3) State and Federal Regulations. The uses listed below shall be conditioned as necessary to protect critical aquifer recharge areas in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations: Table 28.24.100. Statutes, Regulations, and Guidance Pertaining to Activities Impacting Ground Water Activity Statute – Regulation – Guidance Aboveground Storage Tanks WAC 173-303-640 Animal Feedlots Chapters 173-216 and 173-226 WAC Automobile Washers Chapter 173-216 WAC, Best Management Practices for Vehicle and Equipment Discharges (WDOE WQ-R-95-56) Below Ground Storage Tanks Chapter 173-360 WAC PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 79 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Activity Statute – Regulation – Guidance Chemical Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities WAC 173-303-182 Hazardous Waste Generator (Boat Repair Shops, Biological Research Facility, Dry Cleaners, Furniture Stripping, Motor Vehicle Service Garages, Photographic Processing, Printing and Publishing Shops, etc.) Chapter 173-303 WAC Injection Wells 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146, Chapter 173-218 WAC Junk Yards and Salvage Yards Chapter 173-304 WAC, Best Management Practices to Prevent Stormwater Pollution at Vehicles Recycler Facilities (WDOE 94-146) Oil and Gas Drilling WAC 332-12-450, Chapter 173-218 WAC On-Site Sewage Systems (Large Scale) Chapter 173-240 WAC On-Site Sewage Systems (< 14,500 gal/day) Chapter 246-272 WAC, Local Health Ordinances Pesticide Storage and Use Chapters 15.54 and 17.21 RCW; 7 U.S.C. §§ 135 – 136; 40 CFR Part 157 Sawmills Chapters 173-303 and 173-304 WAC, Best Management Practices to Prevent Stormwater Pollution at Log Yards (WDOE 95-53) PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 80 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Activity Statute – Regulation – Guidance Solid Waste Handling and Recycling Facilities Chapter 173-304 WAC; 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.; 40 CFR Parts 239 through 282 Surface Mining WAC 332-18-015 Waste Water Application to Land Surface Chapters 173-216 and 173-200 WAC, WDOE Land Application Guidelines, Best Management Practices for Irrigated Agriculture [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021.] Chapter 28.28 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Sections: 28.28.010 Purpose. 28.28.020 Classification. 28.28.030 Designation. 28.28.040 Management. 28.28.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community by recognizing potential hazards that may be caused by development in areas where severe flooding is anticipated to occur. The intent of this chapter is to assist with minimizing public and private losses due to flood hazards by avoiding development in hazard areas and or implementing protective measures contained in PMC Title 24. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.28.010.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 81 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.28.020 Classification. The following categories of frequently flooded areas are established for the purposes of classification: (1) Floodway. Floodways are defined as the channel of a stream and adjacent land areas, which are required to carry and discharge flood waters or flood flows of any river or stream associated with a regulatory flood. (2) Special Flood Hazard Areas. The area adjoining the floodway, which is subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year and determined by the Federal Insurance Administration. (3) Floodplain. The floodway and special flood hazard areas. These flood areas have been delineated based on studies completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the National Flood Insurance Program. The City of Pasco may use additional flood information that is more detailed than that provided in the flood insurance study conducted by FEMA to designate frequently flooded areas, as available. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.28.020.] 28.28.030 Designation. (1) All areas within the City meeting the frequently flooded designation criteria of PMC 28.28.020 are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. (2) The approximate location and extent of frequently flooded areas are shown on the flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) prepared for the City of Pasco and Franklin County by FEMA, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.28.030.] 28.28.040 Management. PMC Title 16 (Buildings and Construction) and Chapter 24.20 PMC (Flood Hazard Protection) regulate proposed activities in all areas of special flood hazards. If allowed, any structures PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 82 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. permitted in the designated flood areas are subject to the flood-proofing regulations provided in PMC Title 16 and Chapter 24.20 PMC. (1) Floodways. Special flood hazard areas established in this section are areas that are extremely hazardous areas due to the velocity of flood waters, which carry debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential. The following provisions apply to special flood hazard areas: (a) Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development unless certification by a registered engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in an increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. (b) If subsection (1)(a) of this section is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Chapter 24.20 PMC. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.28.040.] Chapter 28.32 GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS Sections: 28.32.010 Purpose. 28.32.020 Geologic hazard area designation. 28.32.030 Geologic hazard area classification and designation criteria. 28.32.040 Geologic hazard area rating criteria. 28.32.050 Uses and activities in geologically hazardous areas. 28.32.060 Determination of need for geologic hazard area detailed study. 28.32.070 Geologic hazard area detailed study requirements. 28.32.080 Performance standards – Minimum requirements. 28.32.090 Long-term mitigation and restoration standards. 28.32.010 Purpose. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 83 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. The purpose of this chapter is to reduce the threats to public health and safety posed by geologic hazards. The intent is to reduce incompatible development in areas of significant geologic hazard. Development incompatible with geologic hazards may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase the hazard to surrounding development. Some geologic hazards can be reduced or mitigated by engineering, design, or modified construction or altering mining practices so risks to health and safety are minimized. When technology cannot reduce the risks to acceptable levels, development in the hazard area is best to be avoided. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.010.] 28.32.020 Geologic hazard area designation. Geologic hazard areas within the City are those areas that are susceptible to significant erosion, landslide, flood hazards, seismic hazards, and surface mine collapse hazards. All areas within the City of Pasco meeting the criteria described in PMC 28.32.030 for known or suspected risk or unknown risk, regardless of the presence or lack of any formal identification as such, are designated as critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title. (1) Volcanic Hazards. The GMA requires that volcanic hazards be addressed in local critical area regulations. However, since no volcanic hazards exist in the City area, no volcanic hazards regulations are needed. (2) Flood Hazard Areas. Generally, areas subject to flood hazard conditions are regulated by Chapter 28.28 PMC and the City of Pasco floodplain regulations (PMC Title 24) which regulate those areas identified and classified by FEMA on their flood hazard boundary/flood insurance rate maps. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.020.] 28.32.030 Geologic hazard area classification and designation criteria. Geologic hazard area classification criteria are listed in the table below, along with the source agencies that provide the guidelines for classification and designation: Table 28.32.030. Criteria for Classification of Geologic Hazard Areas PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 84 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Hazard Area Classification and Designation Source (1) Erosion Hazard Areas (a) Areas with soil type possessing erosion hazard of “moderate to severe,” “severe,” or “very severe.” (Classification based on both soil type and slope) NRCS (2) Landslide Hazard Areas (a) Areas with slopes of 30% or greater slope and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet; NRCS (b) Areas with slopes steeper than 15% on hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock where springs or groundwater seepage is present; NRCS (c) Areas with slopes parallel or subparallel to planes of weakness in subsurface materials (e.g., bedding planes, joint systems, and fault planes); NRCS (d) Areas with slopes having gradients steeper than 80% subject to rockfall during seismic shaking; NRCS (e) Alluvial fans or canyon bottoms presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding; NRCS (f) Areas that have shown movement during the Holocene epoch or which are underlain or NRCS PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 85 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Hazard Area Classification and Designation Source covered by wastage debris of this epoch; (g) Evidence of or risk from snow avalanches; NRCS (h) A “severe” limitation for building site development due to slope conditions; NRCS (i) Areas of historic failure such as areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps or technical reports (e.g., topographic or geologic maps, or other authorized documents). USGS, WDNR; or other government agencies (3) Flood Hazard Areas (a) Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action shall be addressed as a flood hazard. PMC Title 24 (4) Seismic Hazard Areas (a) Areas subject to severe risk of damage from earthquake-induced ground shaking or soil liquefaction and soil strength loss, including lands designated as alluvium and recessional outwash, surficial geologic units and areas located on or adjacent to a Holocene fault line. USGS, Wash-DNR; or other government agencies (5) Mine Hazard Areas (a) Mine hazard areas are areas directly underlain by, adjacent to or abutting, or affected by mine workings such as adits, tunnels, drifts, or air shafts. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 86 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Hazard Area Classification and Designation Source Abbreviations: NRCS – U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service USGS – United States Geological Survey Wash-DNR – Washington Department of Natural Resources [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.030.] 28.32.040 Geologic hazard area rating criteria. All areas within the City shall be classified by the following risk categories for each geologic hazard type: Table 28.32.040. Rating of Geologic Hazard Risk Risk Classification Documentation and Data Sources Known or suspected risk Documentation or projection of the hazard by a qualified expert exists. No Risk Documentation or projection of the lack of a hazard by a qualified expert exists. Risk Unknown Data are not available to determine the presence or absence of a geologic hazard. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.040.] PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 87 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. 28.32.050 Uses and activities in geologically hazardous areas. The following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas pursuant to Chapter 28.12 PMC, and do not require submission of a critical area report; provided, that the activity will not increase the risk of the hazard: (1) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Except as otherwise provided for in this title, only those activities approved and permitted consistent with the critical area report in accordance with this title shall be allowed in erosion or landslide hazard areas. (2) Extreme Slope Hazard Areas. Installation of fences may be allowed within an extreme slope hazard area. (3) Other Hazard Areas. The following activities may be allowed within other geologically hazardous areas: (a) Construction of new buildings with less than 3,500 square feet of floor area or roof area, whichever is greater, and which are not residential structures or used as places of employment or public assembly; (b) Additions to existing residences that are 250 square feet or less; and (c) Installation of fences. (4) Prohibited Uses. Facilities such as emergency response, hospitals, hazardous materials storage, etc., shall be prohibited from geologically hazardous areas, unless a geologically hazardous areas detailed study demonstrates no risks in the area. PMC 28.12.040, Reasonable use exceptions, shall apply. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021.] 28.32.060 Determination of need for geologic hazard area detailed study. A geologic hazard area detailed study of a geologic hazard area shall be required if the following indicators are present: (1) If the project area is listed in the City of Pasco critical areas map as possessing either a known or suspected risk for erosion, landslide, flood, seismic, or mine hazard. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 88 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (2) If the project area is listed in the City of Pasco critical areas map as possessing an unknown risk for erosion, landslide, flood, seismic, or mine hazard if any of the following are identified by the applicant or City: (a) A qualified geologist finds that any of the following exist: evidence of past significant events of the hazard in question on or adjacent to the site; the presence of necessary and sufficient factors for events of the hazard in question on or adjacent to the site; or reasonable uncertainty concerning the hazard or the potential for significant risk to or from the proposed activity; or (b) The Department of Community and Economic Development possesses a reasonable belief that a geologic hazard may exist. Such reasonable belief shall be supported by a site visit and subsequent consultation with a qualified geologist. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.050. Formerly 28.32.050.] 28.32.070 Geologic hazard area detailed study requirements. The minimum requirements for a geologic hazard area detailed study include the following in addition to the basic requirements identified in PMC 28.12.140: (1) Basic Requirements. A geologic hazard area detailed study shall meet the following: (a) The detailed study shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer or geologist. Evidence of qualifications shall be provided with the detailed study. (b) A map, of a scale no smaller than one inch equals 200 feet, of the site and the extent of the geologic hazard area as determined by the criteria in PMC 28.32.030. (c) An assessment of the geologic characteristics and engineering properties of the soils, sediments, and/or rock of the subject property and potentially affected adjacent properties, and a review of the site history regarding landslides, erosion, and prior grading. The study shall include a soils analysis consistent with the accepted regional taxonomic classification system, and a description of the vulnerability of the site to seismic events. Documentation of data and methods shall be included. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 89 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (d) A geotechnical analysis, including a detailed description of the proposed project, its relationship to the geologic hazard(s), and its potential impact upon the hazard area, the subject property and affected adjacent properties shall be included. (e) A mitigation plan, if appropriate, prepared by a professional engineer or geologist under the supervision of a professional engineer qualified to prepare a detailed study. The mitigation plan shall include a discussion on how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize the impacts discussed in the geotechnical analysis (see mitigation standards provided in PMC 28.12.170). The plan shall make a recommendation for the minimum building setbacks from any geologic hazard based on the geotechnical analysis. The plan shall also address the potential benefit of mitigation on the hazard area, the subject property, and affected adjacent properties. (f) Where more than one geologic hazard exists within, adjacent to, impacts, or is impacted by the activity site, then only one detailed study is required to be completed to conduct a geologic hazard critical area review of the activity. The critical area review report shall meet all of the requirements of each critical area type, but may present a unified mitigation plan. (g) Where a valid geotechnical report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the detailed study. The applicant shall submit a geotechnical assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site. (2) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. In addition to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, an erosion hazard or landslide hazard area detailed study must also meet the following requirements: (a) The map shall depict the height of slope, slope gradient, and cross-section of the site. The site plan shall also include the location of springs, seeps, or other surface expressions of groundwater. The site plan shall also depict any evidence of surface or storm water runoff. (b) A description of load intensity, including surface and groundwater conditions, public and private sewage disposal systems, fills and excavations, and all structural development. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 90 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (c) An estimate of slope stability and the effect construction and placement of structures will have on the slope during the estimated life of the structure. (d) An estimate of the bluff retreat rate that recognizes and reflects potential catastrophic events such as seismic activity or a 100-year storm event. (e) An assessment describing the extent and type of vegetative cover. (f) The geotechnical analysis shall specifically include: (i) Slope stability studies and opinion(s) of slope stability; (ii) Proposed angles of cut and fill slopes and site grading requirements; (iii) Structural foundation requirements and estimated foundation settlements; (iv) Soil compaction criteria; (v) Proposed surface and subsurface drainage; (vi) Lateral earth pressures; (vii) Vulnerability of the site to erosion; (viii) Suitability of on-site soil for use as fill; and (ix) Building limitations. (g) Mitigation proposals shall include the location and methods of drainage, surface water management, locations, and methods of erosion control, a vegetation management and/or restoration plan, and/or other means for maintaining long-term stability of slopes. (3) Flood Hazard Areas. Flood hazard areas are addressed through Chapter 28.28 PMC, Flood Hazard Areas, and the floodplain regulations (PMC Title 24). If evidence exists that the proposed development area is subject to flood hazards that are not indicated on the City’s flood hazard boundary maps, and site characteristics do not warrant an erosion or landslide hazard detailed study, the City may require additional analysis and preparation of a mitigation plan to determine if the site is suitable for development. (4) Seismic Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic requirements in subsection (1) of this section, a detailed study for a seismic hazard critical area shall also meet the following requirements: PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 91 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (i) The site map shall show all known and mapped faults in the project vicinity. (ii) The geotechnical analysis shall include a complete discussion of the potential impacts of seismic activity reasonably probable on the site (e.g., forces generated and fault displacement). (5) Mine Hazard Areas. In addition to the basic requirements in subsection (1) of this section, a detailed study for a mine hazard critical area shall also meet the following requirements: (i) The site plan shall delineate the existence of mine workings adjacent to or abutting the site, or nearby mine workings, which may impact the site; and (ii) The geotechnical analysis shall include a discussion of the potential for subsidence on the site. (6) Volcanic Hazard Areas. The City is located in an area of minimal risk from volcanic hazard areas. [Ord. 4525A § 1, 2021; Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.060. Formerly 28.32.060.] 28.32.080 Performance standards – Minimum requirements. This section describes the minimum performance standard requirements for geologic hazard areas. (1) Basic Requirements. (a) Alteration of geologic hazard critical areas is permitted only if the development proposal can be designed so the hazard to the project and any increase of hazard to adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated, and the development proposal on the site is certified as safe by a geotechnical engineer licensed in the State of Washington. (b) All proposals involving excavations and placement of fills shall be subject to structural review under Chapter 33, Site Work, Demolition and Construction, of the most current International Building Code. (c) Essential public facilities as defined by RCW 36.70A.200 shall not be sited within designated geologic hazard areas. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 92 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (2) Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing landslide or erosion hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (a) Alterations of the buffer and/or geologic hazard area may only occur for activities meeting the following criteria: (i) No reasonable alternative exists; and (ii) A geotechnical report is submitted and certifies that: (A) The development will not significantly increase surface-water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre-development conditions; (B) The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and (C) That such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. (b) A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, prepared in accordance with the requirements of the standard specification of the City of Pasco. (c) A drainage plan for the collection, transport, treatment, discharge and/or recycle of water in accordance with the standard specification of the City of Pasco. (d) Surface drainage shall not be directed across the face of a landslide hazard area (including riverine bluffs or ravines). If drainage must be discharged from the hazard area into adjacent waters, it shall be collected above the hazard and directed to the water by a tight line drain and provided with an energy dissipating device at the point of discharge. (e) All infiltration systems, such as storm water detention and retention facilities, and curtain drains utilizing buried pipe or French drain, are prohibited in landslide hazard areas and their buffers unless a geotechnical report indicates such facilities or systems or the failure of the same will not affect slope stability and the systems are designed by a licensed civil engineer. (f) A minimum standard buffer width of 30 feet shall be established from the top, toe, and all edges of landslide and erosion hazard areas. Existing native vegetation shall be maintained. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when an applicant demonstrates the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical area. The buffer may be increased by the PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 93 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Department of Community and Economic Development for development adjacent to a river bluff or ravine, or in other areas that circumstances may warrant, where it is determined a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development as in the case where the area potentially impacted by a landslide exceeds 30 feet. (g) On-site sewage disposal systems, including drain fields, shall be prohibited within landslide and erosion hazard areas and related buffers. (h) Development designs shall meet the following basic requirements, unless it can be demonstrated that an alternative design provides greater long-term slope stability while meeting all other criteria of this section. The requirement for long-term slope stability shall exclude designs that require periodic maintenance or other actions to maintain their level of function. The basic development design standards are: (i) Structures and improvement shall be clustered to retain as much open space as possible and to preserve the natural topographic features of the site. (ii) Structures and improvements shall conform to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography. (iii) Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation. (iv) The use of retaining walls that allow the maintenance of existing natural slope area is preferred over graded artificial slopes. (v) All development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. (3) Flood Hazard Areas. Activities in flood hazard areas shall comply with Chapter 28.28 PMC, Flood Hazard Areas, and the floodplain regulations (PMC Title 24). (4) Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing seismic hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (a) Mitigation is implemented, which reduces the seismic risk to a level equivalent to that which the activity would experience if it were not located in a seismic hazard area. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 94 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. (b) Structural development proposals shall meet all applicable provisions of Chapter 16 of the most current addition of the International Building Code (Structural Forces/Structural Design Requirements). (c) No residential structures or essential public facilities shall be located on a Holocene fault line as indicated by USGS investigative maps and studies. (5) Mine Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing mine hazards shall also meet the following requirements: (a) Mitigation is implemented which reduces the risk from mine hazards to a level equivalent to that which the activity would experience if it were not located in a mine hazard area. (6) Volcanic Hazard Areas. No additional requirements. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911 § 2, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.070. Formerly 28.32.070.] 28.32.090 Long-term mitigation and restoration standards. (1) The mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the preexisting level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Mitigation techniques providing long-term hazard reduction are those that do not require periodic maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. (2) Mitigation may be required to avoid any increase in risk above the preexisting conditions following abandonment of the activity. (3) Any required restoration shall meet the long-term hazard reduction standards. In the case of restoration, “long-term” shall be defined as the equivalent of natural function. [Ord. 4525 § 1, 2021; Ord. 3911, 2009; Code 1970 § 28.32.080. Formerly 28.32.080.] The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. PMC Title 28, Critical Areas Page 95 of 95 The Pasco Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 4824, passed March 16, 2026. Disclaimer: The City Clerk’s office has the official version of the Pasco Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk’s office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.pasco-wa.gov City Telephone: (509) 544-3080 Hosted by General Code. CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS SHRUBSTEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS WDFW discussion deck City of Pasco Critical Areas Ordinance A focused walkthrough of the proposed amendments, the permitting pathway they create, and key policy choices for discussion. DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION August 2026 CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS What the amendments are trying to accomplish The edits create a more graduated review pathway and add shrub-steppe-specific standards. 1 Right-size initial review Add a preliminary reconnaissance so mapped habitat does not automatically trigger a full detailed study. 2 Define what is regulated 3 Opportunity to add classifications Consider exemptions for small, isolated, invasive-dominated habitat areas. 4 Standardize assessment Specify condition, fragmentation, connectivity, disturbance, and priority-species factors that determine quality 5 Clarify mitigation Provide a menu of mitigation approaches and flexibility for site-specific ratios and off-site mitigation. Overall policy direction: protect high-functioning shrub-steppe while creating a clearer, proportionate permitting pathway for disturbed or marginal mapped habitat. Add habitat classifications for high, moderate and low-quality habitats CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS Change 1 —Expand the preliminary reconnaissance NEW REVIEW TIER • When a critical area may be present, the City can require either a limited preliminary reconnaissance or a full detailed study. • Reconnaissance is intentionally narrower: verify presence/absence, approximate extent, condition, and whether more study is warranted. • A qualified professional provides a field-based written summary; the City then determines whether review can end or a detailed study is needed. CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS Change 2 —Create an exemption for low-quality mapped habitat New exemption / waiver language for shrub-steppe detailed studies A detailed study may be waived in favor of preliminary reconnaissance when all three criteria are met: Acreage thresholds Mapped shrub-steppe habitat area is less than a certain number of acres. Isolated Lower functional wildlife movement corridor or connection to adjacent native habitat. ≥ 50% invasive At least half of the mapped area is dominated by invasive or nonnative plant species. Important: current site conditions still must be verified through a field investigation by a qualified professional. CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS Change 3 —Habitat classifications Implement habitat classifications for quality of shrubsteppe Proposed classifications Characterize regulated shrubsteppe habitat by high, moderate or low quality through fish and wildlife detailed study based on WDFW Best Available Science High Quality Ranks A (>4.5) or B (3.5-4.4) on Form 2B Has largest mitigation ratio Moderate Ranks C (2.5-3.4) Moderate mitigation ratio Low Quality Ranks D (2.4) Minimal mitigation ratio or none CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS Change 4 —Add shrub-steppe assessment criteria PMC 28.20.040 Special Considerations —Shrubsteppe Habitat • Native shrub and perennial bunchgrass cover • Invasive, nonnative, and noxious species • Soil disturbance and historic/ongoing degradation • Patch size, configuration, and fragmentation • Connectivity to shrub-steppe, grassland, riparian areas, corridors, or other native habitat • Surrounding land uses and existing roads, structures, utilities, agriculture, grading, and landscaping • Known, documented, or potential priority-species use Goal: FWHCA detailed study with additional shrubsteppe assessment would provide further analysis specific to shrubsteppe and determine mitigation needed CITY OF PASCO | PROPOSED SHRUB-STEPPE CODE AMENDMENTS Change 5 —Clarify shrub-steppe mitigation PMC 28.20.040 Mitigation —Shrubsteppe Mitigation menu Preservation • restoration • enhancement • permanent protection • off-site mitigation • bank / in-lieu fee Ratio flexibility Mitigation ratio flexibility based on quality Goal Match mitigation to habitat value, connectivity, and long-term success