nQt6t,it+c -<

CITY OF SAMMAMISH

Shoreline Master Program UPdate

SEPA Environmental Checklist

Prepared for:

City of sammamish

Ecology Grant #G0600310

August 2009

City ofsannamish Shoreline Master Program Updote

SEPA E Yironnental Checklist

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS................ ..'............ " """ "" "IA. BACKGROUND.........."'....'..........'...'. """" 1

B. ENVIRONMI]NTAL ILEMENTS.. """"""""'5

2 An.................... 7

6. Energ) an.l Natwal Resaulces. 14

7 Environnental Hedlth . .. . 15

8 Land dnd Shareline Use .. .. . ' " /J

9. Housins. - 17

tl Light and Gtare.... 18

13. Historic and Cuttural Presenatian . . 21

11. Transportation.. 22

15 Pubhc Senices 23

c. SIGNATURE. .......'.'." "23

D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHf,rlT FOR NOIIPROJECT ACTIONS..'.....'............'...'.................... .25

A.

City ofsanndmkh Shoreline Master Ptugrdm UpdateSEP A En! ironnental C hecklis I

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

BACKGROUND

l. Name ofthe proposed projectl

City of Sammamish Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update and related

SMC21A.50 amendments

2. Name ofApplicant:

City of Sammamish

3. Address and telephone number of applicant and contact person:

Maren Van Noshand, Environmental PlaDner

City of Samrnamish, Community Development801 228th Ave SESammamish, WA 98075Phone: (425) 295-0538

4, Date checklist prepared:

August 24, 2009

5. Agency requesting checklist:

City of Sammamish

6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, ifapplicable):

City Council action expected September, 2009

7. Plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to orconnected with this proposal:

The SMP Update project is considered a comprehensive update ofthe City'sexisting shoreline policies and regr-rlations The City is required by law tocomplete the update by December 2009 and every seven years thereafter. The

next comprehensive SMP Update for Sammamish is scheduled for 2016 Minoramendments may be adopted at any time in accordance with procedures identifiedin WAC 173-26. The Sammamish Municipal Code (SMC) Title 25 will be

amended to incorporate the updated SMP regulations

8. Enviroomental information that has beetr prepared, or will be prepared,directly relared lo this projcct:

. City of Sammamish Shoreline Master Program Update, Cumulative Impacts

Analysis, August 2009;

City ofsdnnamtsh Shorclike Master ProYan Update

S E PA En|ircnnentaL Checkl ist

. City of Sammamish City Council Review Draft Shoreline Master Program'

August 2009;

. City of Sammamish Shoreline Restoration Plan' January 2008'

. City of Sammamish Shoreline Inventory and Chatacterization, June 2007; and

. City of Sammamish Master Ptogram Update, Dmft Gap Analysis and sMP

Consistency Revieu November 2006.

These previously prepared reports, plans, and programs collectively conlain

detailei information regarding environmental conditions and land use along the

City's shorelines. Responses offered in this checklist are largely suppo(ed by the

information made available by these materials ln particular, the Shoreline

lnventory and Characterization report and Appendix A (Map Folio) provides

more details ofthe information summa zed in this checklist All SMP Update

matedals can be accessed at the City's website:

http://www.ci.sammamish.wa.us/SMP.asDx

9. Applications that ar€ pending for governmental approvals or other proposals

directly affecting the property covered by the proposal:

Applications for permits or approvals deemed complete prior to the effective date

ofthi. SMP Updut" *ill be subject to the existing SMP. Once adoPted and

approved by the Department ofEcology, the updated SMP would affect new

development projects or activities located within theju sdiction ofthe SMP, as

detailei by reiponses A.l2 ofthis checklistr.

10. List of govemmenttl approvals or permits that will be Deeded for theproposal:

The proposed SMP Update will need the following approvals:

. Review and threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Actfor Non-project actions;

. Adoption by the Sammamish City Council;

. Review of Comprehensive Plan, SMC 2l A 50, and SMC Title 25

amendments by the Washington State Department ofCommunity' Tlade and

Economic Development; and

. Approval by the Washington State Department ofEcology (RCw 90.58.090)

11. Brief, complete dcscription ofthe proposal, including the proposed uses andthe size of the project and site:

I Sammamish's sMP-l€gz[dre.J /dles, as specified by thejurisdictional requirements ofthe State ShoreUn€

Management Act (RCW90.58), include the portioD ofLake Sammamish wiihin Citv linits, Pine Lake. aDd Beaver

Lake.

ti^ .fsannan^h Shorchne Vosrc' P'rC'ah UpJate' SL?A Fntronn,nel Che' Alnt

The DroDosal is to replace the King CoLlnly SMP {Cil) ol Sammamish SMP SMC

firle 251 wirh a ner, SMP preparerJ according to the 2001 shoreline guideltnes

Ovec if:-zO;. The proposed SMP is a cit)'wide, non-project action that affects

activities. uses, and ievelopments along shorelines of the state within the City

limits. It'is considered a iomprehensive update of the SMP according to the

guidelines (WAC 173-26).

Areas subject to State Shoreline Management Act or SMA (RCW 90'58)jurisdiction in Sammamish include lakes greater than 20 acres in area and their

teds, associated wetlands, ard adjacent uplands within 200 feet ofthe otdinary

high water mark (OHWM) of regulated lakes Specifically' this includes

aplroximately 7 miles of Lake Sammamish shoreline in the City limits, 2 2 lineat

miles ofPine Lake shoreline (entirely within the City), and 2 6 linear miles ofBeaver Lake shorelirle (encompassing three connected bodies ofwater that

collectively form Beaver Lake, also entirely in the City) (!'igures I and 2)'

Upon incorpoEtion in 1999, the King County SMP became the City's SMP The

County's SMP regulations were incolporated into the City's municipal code

(SMC Title 25) and the County's Goals, Objectives and Policies were adopted by

ieference (Ordinance 099-29 $l) but not specifically integrated or incorporated

into the Sammamish Comprehensive Plan.

The process ofupdating the City's SMP included the following components:

o Watershed and basin scale inventories of conditions on and affecting the

City's shorelines;

. A detailed characterization for all SMP-regulated shoreline areas;

. A gap analysis identilying data needs as well as policy and regulatory

deficiencies of the existing program;

. A programmatic restoration plan with City-wide and shoreline reach

specific recommendations and actions, and

. Shoreline goals, policies, and regulations to be implemented during Citylong-range planning efforts and enforced during all shoreline

development activities.

The proposed SMP Update is stuctured similar to the City's Comprehensive Plan

in that it contains general goals for sevetal elements. The elements are:

Archeological, Historic and Cultural Resources, Conservation, Public Access and

Recreation, Shoreline Use, Shoreline Restoration and Enhancement,

Transportation and Essential Public Facilities. Economic development is

embedded within the Shoreline Use element, and critical areas components are

embedded within the Conservation, Shoreline Restoration and Enhancemcnt, and

Shoreline Use elements. Policies have been developed that corespond to the goal

elements. Policy arcas cover a greater variety oftopics - divided between General

Citt ofsammanish Shoreline Master Prcgrdm Update

SEP A ENironnental Checklisl

Shoreline Management Policies, Shoreline Modification Policies' and Shoreline

Use-specific Policies (Residential, Recreational, Transportation, and Utility uses)

however all corespond to goals from one or more ofthe goal elements.

The proposed SMP Update contains two different shoreline environrnent

desienations Shoreline Residential (SR) and Urban Conservancy (UC) (Figure

J2). ihe shoreline enrironment designalions are applied to differenl ponions ofthe Lake Sammamish, Pine Lake, and Beaver Lake shorelines based on

charactedstics ofthe natural and built environments Shoreline environmentdesignations function as an overlay, which allow the SMP 10 be tailored to the

shoreline conditions consistent within each shoreline environment. The UC

designation is applied to shorelines that retain important ecological ftlnctions' even

ifpartially altered; UC shoreline reaches are primarily located within City parks and

open spaces on the three lakes. The SR designation is applied to shorelines that do

not meet the criteria for UC and that are chataqterized by single_family or

multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential

development; SR is the predominant designation along the City's single-family

residential shorelines. SMP provides regulations, development standards and

protections for the shoreline enviroiments based on existing and planned land

uses. These standards will apply in addition to the regulations and standards oftheundcrlying zoning classifi cations.

Generally, land use "standards" refer to setbacks, height limitations, buffers, and

design guidelines or preferences. The development standards also address

management and protection ofcritical areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.) located

in the shoreline. "Use regulations" refer to the allowance or prohibition ofspecificuses (such as recreational, commercial, or residential development) in each

shoreline environment. The use regulations also address shoreline modifications(such as bulkheads and shoreline stabilization structures, piers and docks, land

clearing and grading, etc.). Many ofthe development standards and use

regulations have been carried forward from the existing SMP Some are slightlyaltered and others are newly created to address a specific shoreline m,magement

need or ensure compliance with state guidelines. In some cases, developmentstandards and regulations that occur in other sections ofthe City's municipal code

have been directly integrated into the SMP.

Finally, the proposed SMP Update contains administrative procedures such as

permit submittal requirements and review procedures for exemptions, ShorelineSubstantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Pemits, and

Shoreline Variance Permits. These elements have been updated from the existingSMP to clarify procedural requirements and reflect current practice.

As part ofthe City's SMP Update, the City prepared a separate shorelinerestoration plan that contains restoration goals, objectives, and opportunities.

'zThe shoreline environn€nt designations shoM in Figure 3 are consistent lvith designations as ofthe August 2009

City Council Review draft SMP.

B.

ctu ot sannan^h shorctne L4a1?r Pt.8r)n I pdat?\F P A Fhv n, )nnehtat C hecAl Lt

PartnershiP and funding opportunities are identified and potential site-specific

projects are discussed.

12. Location ofthe proposal' including street address, if any, and section,

township, and range; Iegal description; site plan; Yicinity map; and

topographical map, if reasonably available:

The proposed SMP Update is a cit)'wide, non-project action that affects activities,

uses and developments in the City's SMPjurisdiction

The Lake Sammamish shoreline axea stetches north to south along the westem

edge ofthe City limits (generally along and to the west of East Sammamish

Paikway) liom 187th Avenue NE on the north, to Pereg ne Point Way SE on the

south. The Lake Sammamish area subject to the SMP includes about 194 acres ofland. Pine Lake is located in south-central Sammamish' bounded by 212th

Avenue SE on the west and 228th Alenue SE on the east and b) SE 20"' Stleet to

the north and SE 28th Street222nd Place SE/224rh Place SE to the south The Pine

Lake shoreline area includes approximately 130 acres ofland Beaver Lake is

located in the southeast comer ofthe City and bordered by Beaver Lake Drive SE.

There are approximately 53 acres ofland at Beaver Lake subject to the SMP.

The SMP regulates activities, uses and development within these waters and on

the adjacent shorelands (or uplands) within 200 feet ofthe ordinary high water

mark (OHWM) including associated wetlands.

ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

1. Earth

a. General description ofthe site (underline):

The shoreline jurisdiction in Sammamish includes approximately 7 milesofLake Sammamish shoreline in the City limits, 2.2 linear miles ofPineLake shoreline (entirely within the City), and 2 6 linear miles ofBeaverLake shoreline (encompassing three connected bodies ofwater that

collectively form Beaver Lake, also entirely in the City)

b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?

Steep slope areas ofup to 20 to 30 percent slope are mapped in areas

adjacent and parallel to the Lake Sammamish shoreline. Outside oftheWeber Point area, the northem ard cenlml pofiions ofthe Lake

Sammamish shoreline area more frequently overlap with steep

slope/erosion hazard areas.

The Pine and Beaver Lake shoreline areas are generally relatively flat. The

steepest slopes include the banks ofthe lakeshore, which generalll incur a

rise ofno more than 5l'eet immediately landward ofthe lakeshores and

City olsannambh Shoreline Master Prcqrum Up'late

S E P A EN irann ent a I C he c kl is I

d.

some areas ofmoderate relief -20 percent slope) on the southeast shore of

Beaver Lake

c, What general types of soils are found on the site (for exarnple clay'

sana, iravel, peat, -uck)? Specify the classification of agricultural

soils and note any Prime farmland.

According to the Natural Resouce Conservation SeNice 2004 soil survey

lor King -ounty, soils in the East Lake Sammamish basin are p marily

Alderw-ood and Everett gravelly sandy loams and Kitsap silt loam These

soil types are interspersed with pockets ofhydric mineral soil lNormaloarn)ind various organic soils (e.g , Shalcar muck, Tukwila muck'

.

Seanie muck, Orcas peat). Lake Sammamish has areas ofAlluvium soils

along the eastem shoie ofthe lake Wetlands occur primarily on these

org;ic and hydric mineral deposits. Soils within the three lake shoreline

plinning areas are consistent with soil mapping thoughout the East Lake

Sammamish basin.

There are no prime farmlands or designated ag cultural lands on any

portion ofthe City's lake shorelines (there is a small u-pick bluebeny lbtm

at the southeast comer ofPine Lake).

Are there any surface indicotions or a history ofunstable soils in the

immediate vicinity? If so, describe.

According to City maps, erosion and steep slope hazard areas occur almost

continuously along the Lake Sammamish sholeline; landslide hazard

areas, however, are generally somewhat set-back from the shoreline lnaddition, seismic hazard areas are mapped intemittently along the Lake

Sammamish shoreline in areas oforganic and hyd c mineral deposits

A small area to the northeast ofPine Lake appears to fall within an erosion

hazard area, however no other geologic hazards or history ofunstable soils

are kno\4'n to occur in the Pine or Beaver Lake shoreline arcas

For more detailed mapping and information on the City's geologic

hazards, see the environmentally critical areas maps, available at:

httD://www.ci.sammamish.wa.us/MaDs.asDx

Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any fillingor grading proposed. Indicate the source ofthe lill.

The proposed SMP Update generally stengthens protection oftheshoreline though new provisions for vegetation conseNation and limits

on the extent ofclearing and grading activities (proposed SMC25.06.020). All filling and grading activities would also be subject to the

existing provisions ofthe SMC including the Cleaing and Grading

Requirements in SMC Chapter 16.15

City ofsannanish Shoreline lt4asler Prcgam Update

S E P A Env i onnental C heckl is I

2.

f.

g.

h.

Air

a.

Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?

No specific construction activity is proposed as part ofthe SMP Update

Erosion control associated with future shoreline developments would be

addressed on a project level basis through the City's surface water design

and management requirements (SMC Chapter 15.05), the clearing and

grading requirements (SMC Chapter 16 15) and provisions ofthe SMP(proposed SMC 25.06.020 and 25.06.050) Erosion control provisions

included within the proposed SMP Update include implementation ofallerosion contrcl best management practices for all new uses and

development.

About what percent ofthe site will be covered with impervioussurfaces after project construction (for exarnple buildings or asphalt)?

No new impervious area is proposed as part ofthe SMP Update.

Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or otherimpacts to the earth, if any.

The proposed SMP Update strengthens erosion control provisions byrequiring conseNation ofnative vegetation in the shoreline. The proposed

SMP Update contains new policies and regulations related to preservation

and restoration ofvegetation to benefit both habitat and slope stability inerosion prone areas (proposed SMC 25.04.01 sections (2), (7) and (8), and

proposed SMC 25.06.020).

Development standards for shoreline setbacks and shoreline enhancement

areas in the proposed SMP Update also reduce potential impacts to earth

resources because they limit clearing, gmding, and related constructionacrivities in areas closes lo the shoreline.

What types ofemissions to the air would result from the proposal (e.g.

dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during constructionand when the project is completed? Ifany, generally describe and giveapproximate quantities, if known.

None.

Are there any off-site sources ofemissions or odors that may affectyour proposal? Ifso, gen€rally describe.

No.

Describe proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or otherimpacts to air, if aDy.

Not applicable.

b.

Cit, ofsannamish Shorcline Mastet Plogam Update

S EP A Enr ircnn ent a I C hec Ll is I

3. Water

Surfacei

1, Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate viciDifyofthe site (including year-round and seasonal streams'saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? Ifyes' describe typeand provide names. If approPriate' state what stream or riverit flows into.

There are a number ofstreams and significant wetlands in the

vicinity of Lake Sammamish, Pine Lake and Beaver Lake. The

East Lake Sammamish Basin consists ofapproximately l6 square

miles on the eastem shoreline ofLake Sammamish and is

composed of six individual subbasins Inglewood, Panhandle,

Monohan. Ihompson. Pine Lake. and Laughing Jacob lCH2MHill.2001) (Figue l,).' fhese basins drain lo Lake Sammamish via

several surface streams. The major stleams in the area are, fromnorth to south, George Davis Creek (WRIA 0144), Zaccuse Creek(0145), Ebright Creek (0149), and Pine Lake Creek (0152) Majortributaries to Pine Lake Creek, which is the outlet stream ofPineLake, include Kanim Creek (0153) and Many Springs Creek(0164). Laughing Jacobs Creek (0166), located at the southeastem

end oflake Sammamish, is also part ofthe East Lake Sammamish

Basin and is the outlet strcam ofBeaver Lake. The mouth ofLaughing Jacobs Creek, and a significant percentage ofitsdrainage area, is located within the City oflssaquah. About a

dozen very small, narned and unnamed streams and seeps also

drain the westem Sammamish Plateau to Lake Sammamish (ligurc2).

A large, high quality wetland is located on the southlvesten shore

ofPine Lake,just south ofthe outlet to Pine Lake Creek (54 acres

in size, documented as Wetland ELS 30 by King County, 1994)

Several narrow wetlands are also present along the northern and

southeastem shoaelines; these wetlands are connected to the

regulated shoreline and are therefore assumed to be "associated"wetlands. In the Beaver Lake vicinity, the Hazel Wolf WetlandPreserve, located to the north ofthe lake, and the adjoining BeaverLake Preserve provide additional aquatic habitat for a variety ofmammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The Preserve, as well as

some adjoining areas to the northeast ofthe lake, contain severallarge, high value wetlands that drain to Beaver Lake.

I The City's other subbasins drain to the Evans creek and Patterson Cre€k basins. A small portion ofthe ELS basin

ar ibe nonh end ofthe lake is in Redmond and unincorpotated King Counly.

Cii, ofSanmdntsh Shareline Mastet Prcgrdn Up.lateS EPA EDilannental C heckl isl

2. Will the project require any work over' in' or adjacent to(within 200 feet) the described waters? Ifyes, please describeand attach available plans.

No.

3. Estimat€ the amount of Iill and dredge material that could beplaced in or removed from surface water or wetlands andindicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate thesource of Iill materials.

No filling or dredging is proposed as part ofthe SMP Update.

4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals ordiversion? Give general description' purpose' and approximatequantities, ifknown.

No.

5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? lfso, notelocotion on lhe site plan,

According to Federal Emergeocy Management Agency (FEMA)Flood Insurance Rate Mapping, the only portion ofthe City'sshoreline areas within the 100 year floodplain is along thesouthemmost reach ofLake Sammamish (Figure 2). FEMA has

established a base flood elevation of33 feet above see level forLake Sammamish (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).

6, Does the proposal involve discharges ofwaste materials tosurfac€ waters? Ifso, describe the type ofwaste aodanticipated volum€ of discharge.

No.

b. Ground

1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be dischargedto ground water? Give general description, purposc, andapproximate quantities if known.

No.

2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into theground from septic tanks or other sources, ifany. Describe thegeneral size ofthe system, the number ofsuch systems, thenumber of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number ofanimals or humans the system(s) is expect€d to serve.

Citr ofsannamish Shorcline Master PrcEran Update

S E P A En|nonmental Checkusl

As a non-project action, the SMP Update does l9t ln luqedischarge ofiny waste material The proposed SMP Update would

reduce the minimum lot width requiled for sr'rbdivisions from the

current 80 feet to 50 feet, which could increase the number ofresidential parcels on Pine and Beaver Lakes possibly using on-site

septic systems in the short-term until municipal sewer becomes

availabie. Septic permits must be obtained through the King

County Department ofHealth and all standards for maintenance ofon-site sewage systems will continue to be required' lmpacts are

not expected to be significant'

c. Water Runoff(including storm water)

l. Describe the source of runoff (including storm wat€r) and

method of collection and disposal, ifany (including quantities

if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow intoother waters? If so, dcscribe'

The SMP Update would not genente any runofi All new

development in the shoreline areas will be required to comply withthe provisions ofthe new SMP Update and the City's existing

surface water requirements.

2, Could waste materials enter grouDd or surface waters? lfso'g€nerally describe.

No.

d. Describe proposed metsures to reduce or control surface, ground, and

runoff water impacts, if any.

Generally, the proposed SMP Update strengthens goals and policies

related to the conservation and restoration of water quality. Policies

supportt the expansion ofthe City's water quality monitoring and basin

programs; implementation oflow impact development techniques; and

minimization ofsediment and pollutant discharges in all SMP regulated

shorelines. Development and perfomance standards (e.g '

shoreline

setbacks and vegetation enhancement / conservation) are proposed for the

lakes as well as wetlands and streams. Mitigation requirements forpotential impacts are also contained in the proposed SMP Update'

4. Plants

Types ofvegetation found on-site:

Undeveloped parcels surrounding Lake Sammamish and Pine and Beaver

Lakes:

Dcciduous trees: Big lcafmaple, and alder

aN atsannrntsh Shurchne vdste' Ptuerah UPJdtesI PA Fnvionnlntat Che,At^t

Evergre€n trees: Pacific madlone, Douglas fir, Westem red cedar'

Westem hemlockShrubs: Indian plurn, salal, Oregon grape, elderberry' oceanspray' and

salmonberryHerbs: fems, groundcover' and omamental herbs

Grass: maintained lawnsPasture: noneWet Soil Plants: salmonbeny, willow, water lilyWater Phnts: water milfoil, yellow flag iris

Developed portions ofthe Sammamish shorelines are genemlly

characterized by omarnental laildscaping and maintained lawns'

b. What kind and amount ofvegetation will be removed or altered?

None. The SMP Update would not remove or alter vegetation but policies

and regulations are incorporated into the Update to maintain and restore

native vegetation where leasible (proposed SMC 25 04 010 scctions (2),

(5), (7), (S), and (10) lpoliciesl, SMC 25 06 020 [EnvironmentalProtection and Conservation Regulations])

c. List thr€atened or €ndangered species or critical habitat known to be

on or near the site.

According to WDNR Natural Hedtage mapping, no rare plant species are

documented in the Sammamish shoreline areas

d. Describ€ proposed landscaping, use ofnative plants' or othermeosures to prcserve or enhance vegetation on-site'

The SMP Update does not involve any landscaping Generally, the

proposed SMP Update strengthens the requirement for new development

io conserve native shoreline vegetation The SMP contains new goals and

policies for the conservation and restomtion ofnative vegetation New

developments on the Pine and Beaver Lake shorelines would be required

to retain matue trees, all new developments would be required to limitclearing and grading to the minimum necessary to accommodate the

allowed use / development, and all new development would be required to

maintain a shoreline setback and (in many cases) enhance vegetation

adjacent to the shoreline.

The shoreline restoration plan encourages and promotes rcstoration ofriparian vegetation along lake shorelines, stream mouths and streams' and

other shoreline arcas where natual vegetation has been denuded or

degraded.

5. Animals

a. Underline any birds and animals, which havc been observed on orn€ar the site or are known to be on or near the site:

City afsannanish Shorcline Master Proarcn Update

SEP A Efl i r onh ent a I C he c kt is I

Sammamish shorelines provide habitat for a number of aquatic and

tenestrial species. Detailed discussion is included in the Shoreline

lnventory and Characte zation reporl.

SDecies lhdt have been documenled in the Lake Sammamish Pine Lake

uid Beaver I ale shoreline areas include. bul are not limiled lo:

Fish: Chinook, coho, cutthoat, pink, and sockeye/kokanec salmon are

known or expected to use the Lake Sammamish nearshore environment

and the lowei portion of some streams in Sammamish lnvasive fish

species includi both large and smallmouth bass' yellow perch, black

ciappie, pumpkinseed sunfish, and brown bullhead'

There is no anadromous fish usage ofPine and Beaver Lakes Pine and

Beaver Lakes contain several non-native species offish including

largemouth bass, yellow perch, blo$n trout, and black crappie Both oftheie small lakes are stocked with rainbow trout (WDIW' 2006) Pine

Lake is likely to support a population ofnative coastal cutthroat trout and

Beaver Lake is documented as supporting a small population ofthese

native fish.

Shellfish and Invertebrates: Numerous fieshwater shellfish and

inveftebmte species.

Amphibiansi Frogs and salamanders

Reptiles: None specifi cally documented

Birds: Bald eagles are knou'n to forage along Lake Sammamish and perch

in large cottonwoods on the shoreline (Parametrix' 2000) Great blue

heroni breed in rookeries at Lake Sammamish State Park, and some ofthese birds use the nearuhore areas for foraging and rearing An osprey

nest is mapped several miles south ofthe Sammamish Town Center Sub-

area. In addition, Lake Sammamish State Park (outside the City) is a

designated watefowl concentration area Piliated woodpeckers are present

on all three lakes.

In addition to supporting these species, the Lake Sammamish shoreline

provides quality habitat for numerous other species ofwildlife Other

;vian predators, such as osprey and red-tailed hawks are frequently

observed near the lakeshore and mergansers, cormorants, mallards, grebes'

American coots, Canadian geese, gulls, swifts, green herons, and other

waterfowl occupy open water areas. Some ofthe best habitat areas are at

the north end of Lake Sammamish where the shoreline is less heavily

developed and relatively large patches ofnative vegetation still remain in

tact (WateNhed Company, 2000).

Pine and Beaver Lakes support significant concentrations ofwaterfowl,including Canadian geese, ruddy ducks and mallards ln addition, the

small lakes suppon raptors such as bald eagles, ospreys and red-tailed

hawks. Great Blue Herons have been sighted in the vicinity ofPine Lake

Mammals: Deer, bear, beaver, raccoon, and other unlisted small mammal

City of Sannam hh Shoreline Master Progran UpdateSEPA E lrohnental Checklisl

b.

specres,

List any thr€atened or endangered species or critical habitat near thesite.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintainspdoity habitat and species (PHS) infomation for Washington State,

including the status ofspecies as threatened or endangered. Prio tyhabitats occuning within the City include tiparian areas, old-gro$th,/mature forests, and urban open spaces.

Species that are federally listed threatened or endangered include: coho

salmon (Species ofConcern) and Chinook salmon (Threatened). LakeSammamish is also designated as critical habitat for Chinook salmon(Federal Register, 2005). In addition, the lake's resident kokaneepopulation has been determined to be genctically distinct. In 2007, TroutUnlimited and other groups and agencies petitioned the US Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) to review the listing status for the kokaneepopulation. USFWS review was expected to be complete by early 2009however is still pending as of August 2009. Affer the USFWS review iscomplete, the Lake Sammamish kokanee population Federal listing statuscould change.

Priority species in the Sammamish area include great blue heron, greenheron and puple martin. Great blue heron (lrdea herodils) nestingcolonies have been identified in Lake Sammamish State Park, to the southof Sammamish in the Ciry oflssaquah (WDFW, 2008). In addition, purplemartins are documented as nesting along the north end ofthe LakeSammamish shoreline.

Is the site part ofa migratory route? Ifso, explain,

The City's Lake Sammamish shoreline jurisdiction is known or expectedto containjuvenile migratory salmonids including Chinook, coho,cutthroat, and sockeye based on the knowledge ofspecies life histories(KCDNR, 2001).

Sammamish is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a Ilight corridorfor migEting waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyuayextends south from Alaska to Mexico and South America.

Proposed measurcs to preserve or enhance wildlife, ifany.

The proposed SMP Update contains goals, policies, and developmentstandards for the conservation and restoration ofnatural vegetation in theshoreline.

Existing provisions of the City's Environmentally Critical Areas code(SMC 21A.50), which protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas

d.

Ciy oj Sa\hontsh Shoh Ine Vastcr lnqrdn UpdatP

SEPA Enrrcnnental Checklist

b.

(and require mitigation for any impacts to those areas) have been

incorporated into the SMP

The City's SMP is meant to be consistent with and work in conjunction

*ittr seueral C;ty, State and fedenl programs to protect flsh and wildlife

habitat and other functions and values ofthe shoreline These programs

include, but are not limited to, the following:

. Zoning and environmentally critical areas regulations (City);

. Surface water management regulations (City);

. Federal Endangered Species Act compliance (NOAA and USFWS);

. Federal Clean Water Act compliarce (U S Army Corps ofEngineers

and Washington Department of Ecology);

. State Hydraulic Project Approval (Washington Department ofFish and

Wildlife): and

. National Pollutant Dischaxge Elimination System (Washington

Department of Ecology).

The shoreline restoration plan contains goals' policies, and discussion ofoppo(unities for shoreline restoration The restoration plail is being

riviewed under RCW 89.08.460(2) and the proposed SMP shoreline

setback requirements (proposed SMC 25 06 020) as implementation ofWRIA-S recommendations. Potential opportuiities include restoration ofiparian vegetation, replacement ofhard shoreline axmo ng with "sofl-shore" altemative designs, restoration ofwetlands associated with

shorelines, and restoration of stream inlet and outlet areas, especially the

mouths of streams along the Lake Sammamish shoreline Stream mouth

restoration, along with restomtion efforts targeted at known fish-passage

batriers within the lower East Lake Sammamish Basin drainages, would

improve habitat for salmonid species Restoration activities, ifimplemented would have a beneficial effect on fish and wildlife habitat

over time.

Energy and Natural Resources

a. What kinds ofener$r (electric, natural gas, oil' wood, solar) will be

useal to meet the completed proiect's energy needs? Describe whether

it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.

Not applicable.

b. Would the proj€ct affect the potential use ofsolar energy by adiacentproperties? If so, explain'

No.

City ofSannamkh Shoruline lvlaster ProEran UpdateS E P A Env ironne nt al C he c kl i s t

c. What kinds of encrgr conservation features are included in the plansofthis proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or controleners/ impacts, ifany.

Not applicable.

7. EnvironmentalHealth

a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure totoxic chemicals, risk offire and explosion' spills, or hazardous wastethat could occur as a r€s[lt of this proposal? lf so, describc.

Not applicable.

l. Describe special emergency services that might bc requircd.

Not applicable.

2, Describe proposed measures to reduce or controlenvironmcntal health hazards.

The potential for an increased number ofresidential septic systems,and the associated environmental health risk, will be controlled bythe septic design and siting standaxds ofthe State and the KingCounty Health Department, as well as surface water and wetlandprotection policies and standards ofthe SMP Update (proposedSMC 25.04.030 and 25.07.080(6).

b, Noise

l. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect yourproject (for exarnple: tralfic, equipment operation, other)?

Not applicable.

2. What types and levels ofnoise would be created by orassociated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis(for example: tralfic, construction, op€ration, other)?

Not applicable.

3, Describe proposed measures to reduce or control noiseimpacts, if any.

Not applicable.

8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use ofthe site and adiacent prope ies?

Cit, ofSammuntsh Shateline Master Prcgrun Update

SEPA En! ironnental C hec*lisl

b.

Within the shoreline areas ofall thrce SMA-regulated lakes, land use is

primarily single-family residential (87% for Lake Sammamish, 96% forPine Lake, and 85% for Beaver Lake). The remaining portion ofexistingland use at all three lakes is public park and open space.

Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.

There are no known or recorded agricultural uses ofthe City's shorelinearea, with the exception ofa small u-pick blueberry faIm located near the

southwest comer ofPine Lake. Some properties may have been used foror agdculture prior to incorporation.

Dcscribe any structures on the site.

Not Applicable.

Will any structures be demolished? Ifso, what?

None.

What is the current zoning classification ofthe sitc?

Within the City's shoreline jurisdiction, zoning is exclusively single-lamily residential, with all areas along the City's shorelines zoned R-4(allowing a maximum offour residential dwelling units per acre), and a

small, potentially jurisdictional (dependant on wetland association) area tothe west olPine Lake zoned R-l (ma,\imum ofone residential dwcllingunit per acre).

What is the current comprehensive plan designation ofthe site?

Comprehensive Plal land use designations in the City of Sammamish are

used to establish the zoning designations. As such, Comprehensive Plandesignation within the City's shoreline judsdiction is exclusively single-family residential, with all areas along the City's shorelines designatedRl -4- R-4 and Public.

lfapplicable, what is the current shor€lin€ master programdesignation of the sitc?

Under the existing SMP, the shorelines are designated Conservancy orRural. In general, the Conservancy designation is applied to the north endofLake Sammamish and a few scattered areas on the no heast end ofBeaver Lake. The remaining areas ofthe lake shores are designated Rural.

Has any part of the site been classilied as an "environmentallysensitive" area? If so, speciff.

Not Applicable. 't'itle 21A, Chapter 2lA.50 ofthe Sammamish MunicipalCode establishes critical areas (geologic hazard areas, wetlands, aquiferrecharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat protection areas, streams, lakes

d.

f.

c.

h.

r'tr' rt \ann)n^h Jhureline Mrve, Prc{an L fJde' srPA Enwrcnneatrl r'he.klt,l

and ponds - including all SMA jurisdictional lakes) and associated

buffirs. SMC 21A.50 (the Environmentally Critical Areas code)

establishes regulatory requirements associated with each ofthese critical

areas. The proposed SMP Update incorporates the majoity ofthese

regulations and includes a new system for the tbree jurisdictional lakes

that creates greater uniformity between the lake setback ald enhancement

standards between all lakes (see the City's Environmentally Cdtical Areas

Maps for detailed inventories ofall environmentally critical areas;

available: http://www.ci.sammamish wa.us,4\,4aDs.aspx)

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in thccompleted project?

Not applicable

j. Approximately how rnany people would the completed projectdisplace?

None

k. Describe proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts'if any.

Not applicable.

l. Describe proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible withexisting and projected land uses and plans' ifany.

Not applicable.

9. Housing

a. Approximately how many units would b€ provided, ifany? Indicatewhether high, middle, or low-income housing.

None. The proposed SMP Update would not provide any housing orchange the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use or zoning

designations. Changes to the subdivision standards for all shoreline

environments allows for potential creation ofadditional parcels over what

would be allowed via subdivision standards under the existing SMP Thepotential for creation ofadditional lots via subdivision has been

detemined to be limited (see the Cunulative Impacts Analysis for furtherdetail).

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicatewhether high, middle, or low-income housing.

None. The proposed SMP Update would not change the underlyingComprehensive Plan land use or zoning designations

Clty ofsannamish Shoreline Master Proqran Update

SEP A Ent tonn eht u I Ch! ckl isl

c. Des€ribe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts' ifany.

Not applicable

10. Aesthetics

a, What is the tallest height of any ofthe proposed structure(s)' not

including antennas? What is the principal exterior buildingmaterial(s) proPosed?

No specific structures ale proposed The proposed SMP Update maintains

a marimum building height limitation of35-feet above average grade

level for properties in the shoreline jurisdiction'

b, What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

Redevelopment, development, and subdivision allowed by the proposed

SMP hav; the potential to alter or obstruct view conidors to the lake

shorelines.

c. Describ€ proposed measurcs to reduce aesthetic impacts, if any'

The proposed SMP Update strengthens protection ofviews and aesthetic

visual quality in the shoreline The proposed SMP provides goals' policies'

and regulations intended to ensure that public view corridors and

aestheiics are considered in planning and development activities within the

shoreline planning area (Foposed SMC 25.04 010 sections (4), (8) and

(9), proposed SMC 25.06.030, 25.07.080, 25 07.090, 25.07 100(8),

25.07.110(9).

Light and Glare

a. What type of light and glare will the proposal produce? What time ofday would it mainly occur?

Not applicable.

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safoty hazard orinterfer€ with views?

Not applicable.

What existing off-sitc sources of light or glare may affect yourproposal?

Not applicable.

Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare

impacts, if any.

1'.l .

d.

C at Sannrnsh Shorct'n? Ma't'r Prc+rtfl UrdrteS L P A fNi'rnnentat r' hecll isl

The proposed SMP Update strengthens protection from- light.and glare

impacts, as well as generalll promoting aesthetic visual qualilies in the

shoreline. The proposed SMP provides goals and policies intended to

ensure lhat lighl and glare impacls and orher aesLhelic .impacts

are

considered in planning and development activities within the shoreline

planning area (proposid SMC 25.04.010(9) ln addition, regulations

within tire proposed SMP would require that exte or lighting be- designed

to minimize giare and other adverse affects (proposed SMC 25 06 020(4))'

'12. Recreation

a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the

immediate Yicinity?

Although the large majority ofthe City's shoreline supports p vate

resideniial uses, each ofthe three lakes are bordered by publicly owned

parks and/or open spaces. Existing Parks, open space, and public facilities

in the City's shoreline planning area include the following:

East Lake Sammamish 'I'rail The City's main public access on the l,ake

Sammamish shoreline is the interim East Lake Sammamish Tlail This

recently completed interim trail runs notth to south along the entire east

shoreline in an abandoned railroad right-of-way. The trail surface

generally lies between 50 and 300 feet east ofthe lake edge. lt offelsviews ofthe water, but no physical water access The tail links Marymoor

Park in Redmond with Lake Sammamish State Park in Issaquah and is part

ofa larger traiVtranspofiation system linking Lake Sammamish to Lake

Washington via the Burke Gilman Trail. The trail is owned and

maintained by King County Department ofNatural Resources and Parks

King County has plans to pave and expand use ofthe hail.

Lake Sammamish waterfront Park (in planning stages) There is

cunently one opportunity for future public access to the Lake Sammamish

shoreline located at the northem City boundary lt encompasses a natrow

strip of undeveloped land consisting of two City-owned parcels situated

between the East Lake Sammamish Trail and the Lake, covering 0 6 acre

and including 300 feet of wooded shoreline The City of Redmond owns

the adjoining parcel to the north, with additional shoreline ftontage

According to the City of Sammamish and the City ofRedmond, the

contiguous propedies could include a swimming beach, picnic area,

fishing access, restrooms, parking, and access to the East Lake

Sammamish Trail. All ofthe contiguous properties are not currently open

to the public.

Pine Lake Park - One park, Pine Lake Park, provides public access to Pine

Lake. It occupies a 19-acre site on the eastem side ofthe lake. Pine l-ake

Park is owned and operated by the City of Sammamish and has

approximately 550 feet ofshoreline. Amenities at Pine Lake Park include

City ol Sannanish Sharcline Master Ptugran Update

SEPA ENircnnenta! Checklisl

b.

barbecue grills, picnic tables, a swimming beach, a heavily used large

dock with tables and benches, covered group picnic areas. nature trails, a

Kiosk building with restroom and shower facilities, two play structures,

soccer fields and soffball,baseball fields. The swimming beach and a large

public dock also has scheduled lifeguards on duty No combustion engines

are permitted on Pine Lake per City ordinance # 0-2003-124.

Additional Pine Lake public access Access to the shorcline is also

potentially available via a public street end along the southem lobe ofPineLake, however it's currently not in use.

Beaver Lake Park Beaver Lake Park borders the shoreline planning area

to the southwest. It is owned and operated by the City of Sammamish.Beaver Lake Park is approximately 83 acres in size and has approximately2,000 feet ofshoreline. Amenities at Beaver Lake Park include barbecue

grills, covered group picnic areas, play sfuctures, and softball/baseballfield (City of Sammamish 2004, 2006b). In addition, the park featues the

Beaver Lake Lodge, a 2,500-squarc-foot lodge which has capacity for up

to 260 people.

Beaver Lake PreseNe - Beaver Lake Pteserve is located on the northeast

side of Beaver Lake. The City acquired the 54-acre property with theintent that it be maintained in a natural undeveloped state (City ofSammamish, 2006b). The Preserve provides opportunities for passive

recreation such as hiking and bird watching, but preseNation ofnativeplants and animals is the highest priority. Cunently, the City is partnering

with Washington Trails Association (WTA) to build a L25-mile loop trailfor visitors to explore the undeveloped forested wetland preserve (City ofSammamish 2006b).

WDFW Boat Launch WDFW manages a public boat launch arca

directly across the lake ftom Beaver Lake Park. Only non-motorized boats

or those with elect c motors are allowed.

Would the propos€d project displace any existing recreational uses? lfso, describe,

No.

Dcscribe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts onrecreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by theproject or applicant,

One goal ofthe Shoreline Management Act is to provide and enhancepublic access and recreational opportunities in the shorelines olthe state.

The Sammamish proposed SMP Update implements this goal in severalways. First, the proposed amendment contains general goals and policiesrelated to public access and recreation. Second, the purpose statement andmanagement policies for two shoreline envitonment designations (Urban

t ^ ut Sannam^h Shaftliae Ma'te' PtoC'an Upddlc' S:PA La onneatalt he'Ili!

13.

Conservancy and Shoreline Residential) include provisions for public

access and rccreation.

Historic and Cultural Preservation

a. Are there any places or obiects listed on or eligible for national' state'

or local prescrvation registers known to be on or next to the site? Ifso, generally describe.

Lake Sammamish is paxt ofthe usual and accustomed fishing area ofthe

Muckleshoot lndian iribe and the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe per the Treaty

c.

ofPoint Elliot. The lake has served as a cultural resouce for the

Muckleshoot, Snoqualmie and other t bes who have harvested fish,

wildlife, and plant species in this area for generations. Tribal members

historically and currently use the shorelines in Sammamish for travel,

fishing, hunting, gathering, as well as other economic ard cultural

activities. The Lake Sammamish area was once a gatheting place for

Native Americans, where they prepared for winter and celebrated their

potlatch (winter festival) at the south end ofthe lake Curently,Sammamish shorelines play an importailt part in the Snoqualmie Tribe's

Canoe Family Joumey. Snoqualmie village and camp sites are located

within the City limits.

According to the washington State Department ofHistotic Preservation

and the King Coturty Cultual Resources Database, seveml recorded

prehistoric and historic sitcs are located in the vicinity ofthe Lake

Sammamish shoreline planning area. Many ofthese sites are located to the

nonh and the south ofthe City's shoreline planning area, in the vicinity ofMarymoor Park and Lake Sammamish State Park, respectively. Several

sites have been identified within City limits, ofwhich three are known to

have been previously destroyed. While these potential resources have not

been formally recorded, they do provide insight into the t)?es ofresources

that may be present within and adjacent to the shoreline planning area.

Generally describe any landmarks or evidence ofhistoric'archeological, sci€ntilicr or cultural importance known to be on ornext to the site,

See discussion above in 13.a.

Doscribe proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.

The proposed goals and policies ofthe SMP Update expand existing goals

and policies for the preseruation and restoration ofarcheologica) and

historic resources. Policies also promote public education about

Sarnmamish historic and cultural resoulces.

Additionally, the proposed regulations ofthe SMP Update expand existing

SMP regulations to ensue protection ofcultural resources within th€

b.

City ofsannamish Shoreline Master Progam Update

SEP A Entircnmental Checklisl

shoreline environment. The proposed SMP will require development

activities on or adjacent to known resources to be reviewed pursuant to the

requirements ofSMC 21 10.120 (Histo c Prcservation- Protection and

Preservation of Landmarks

14. Transportation

a. Identiry public streets and highways serving the site, aod describeproposed access to the existing strect system. Show on-sitc plans, ifany.

Not applicable.

The East Lake Sammamish Parkway runs along the eastem shoreline ofLake Sammamish across the entire City generally from north to south The

majority ofthe arterial is outside of shoreline j urisdiction; howeversignificant portions pass within 200 feet ofthe lake's ordinary high water

line. The arterial provides significant tansportation access to the City,though the City, and out ofthe City to Redmond to the north and

Issaquah to the south.

The East Lake Sammamish Trail provides non-motodzed tEnsportationinfrastructure- and is located almost entirelv in the Lake Sammamish

shoreline planning axea.

b. Is the site currently served by public transit? lfnot' what is theapproximate distance to the nearest transit stop?

Not applicable.

c. How many parking spaces would the completed project havc? Howmany would th€ project eliminate?

Not applicable.

d. Will the proposal require any ncw roads or streetst or improvementsto existing roads or streets' not including driveways? Ifso, generallydescribe.

No.

e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water' rail,or air transportation? Ifso, generally describe'

Not applicable.

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by thecornpleted project? If known, indicate when peak Yolumes wouldoccur.

Ci.t ofsamnanxh Sharcline Mdster Progrun Up.lateSEPA ENironnental C hec kl tsl

c.

None.

g. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control transportationimpacts, ifany.

Not applicable.

15. Public Services

16.

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (forexamPle: fire protection, Police protection' health care, schools,

(|lher)? lf so, generally exPlain.

No.

b. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on

public services.

Not applicable.

Utilities

a. Underline utilities curr€ntly available at the site:

Not applicable.

b. Describe ihe utiliti€s that are proposed for the proiect, tbe utilityproviding the service, and the general construction activities on the

site or in the immcdiate vicinity whicb might be needed.

None.

SIGNATURE

The above answers are true and complete to the best ofmy knowledge l understand that

the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.

Signature:

Name (ptint):

Title:

Dare Submined. 8l=t lg7

Citt ofsammanish Shoreline Mastet Progran Update

SE PA EnY iro nm ental C he.kl is I

D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS

Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the

list ofthe elements ofthe environment.

When answering these questions, be aware ofthe extent the proposal, or the types ofactivities

likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity ol at a fasler rate

than il the proposal were not implemented Respond briefly and in general terms'

1. How would tbe proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;

production, stoiage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production ofnoise?

The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissioDs to ajr: Production,storage,_or release oftoxic or hazardous substances; ot production ofnoise However, changes to

the piogram could indirectly increase the number ofresidences allowed in the Beaver and Pine

Lakis Joreline areas which could result in minor discharges, emissions, releases or production

of pollutants, common with residenlial development.

Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increase are:

The proposed SMP Update includes policies and regulations for the protection ofshor;lines, addressing impacts ofspecific uses and shoreline modifications Generally,

the proposed SMP provides a new system ofshoreline environment designations that

esttblishes more uniform management ofthe City's shoreline. The updated development

standards and regulation ofshoreline uses and modifications provides more protection for

shoreline ecological processes and functions. The updated standards and regulations limitactivities that could result in adverse impacts to the shoreline environment'

All development and redevelopment in the shoreline j uri sdiction would be subject to

applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requitements, including building code, firec;de, and surface water design staodards, in addition to the provisions ofthe proposed

SMP Update.

2. How would th€ proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish' or marin€ life?

'Lhe proposed SMP Update has been developed, in part, to meet the goal of"no net loss" ofshoreline ecological functions. That is, as development occtrs in accordance with the SMP,

degradation ofthe natwal environment and shoreline ecological functions will be avoided,

mi;imized, or mitigated. Additionally, SMP restoration planning addresses the goal ofimprovingshoreline ecological functions that have been degraded over time from past development

activities. Through goals, policies, development standards, use regulations, and mitigation

requirements, the proposed SMP Update protects and enhances fish and wildlife habitat, natural

vegetation, and management ofcritical areas, (streams, wetlands, etc ). These elements are

discussed above in Section B ofthis checklist. as well as below.

Ci\, o.lSdnnanish Sharcline Mastet Ptuglan Upd,teSE?A Enr ircnnental Checkl isl

Proposed measures to protect or coDser've plants, animals' Iish, or marine life are:

. Chanees to Shoreline Environment Desienations

The proposed SMP environment designations include: Shoreline Residential aldUrban Conservancy. Goals and policies have been updated in each ofthesedesignations to betler achieve a "no net loss" in ecological shoreline function as

development occuls- Proposed SMP regulations, based on underlying land usc,

implement these goals and policies.

. Changes to Development Standards and Use Requlations

The proposed SMP offers several changes to the development regulations thatencourage shoreline conse ation and restoration, and prohibit activities that wouldcause adverse impact to shoreline functions and processes. Many ofthese changes

deal with shoreline modifications such as bulkheads and docks. These shorelinemodifications have altered the natural hydrologic, sediment supply, and habitat linksbetween the aquatic and upland environments. Other changes related to specific uses

in the shoreline are also designed to protect shoreline ecological functions andprccesses, while continuing to allow legal uses, access, and development. Changes

include new shoreline setback and shoreline eniancement standards for LakeSammamish, Pine Lake and Beaver Lakes, tlee retention requirements, and shorelineuse limitations and permit crite a. These proposed changes to development standards

and use regulations are, in geneml, more protective than the existing SMP. Policiesand development standards establish a preference for "bio-engineered" or "soff-shore" erosion control or stabilization designs over hatd bulkheads. Projectproponents would be required to demonstrate why a bio-engineered design would notadequately protect existing development. In addition, shoreline setback standards are

designed to encourage removal of hard shoreline armoring and replacement with bio-engineered altematives on the Lake Sammamish shoreline. Over time these changeswill likely have a net beneficial effect on shoreline ecological processes as propertiesare redeveloped.

. Rcstoration Planninq

Consistent with state guidelines (173-26-186), the proposed SMP includes new goals

and policies addressing shoreline restoration. The Master Program Goal has also beenmodified to acknowledge that the City's intent is not simply to meet the "no net loss"standard, but that the proposed SMP should serve to improve the overall condition ofthe habitat and resources within the shoreline j urisdiction ofthe City.

The Shoreline Restoration Plan identifies restoration opportunities that includeprogrammatic opportunities (e.g. surface water management; water qualityimprovement; public education), site-specific opportunities (e.9. restoration of streammouths), goals and policies for coordinating restoration at a wate6hed-wide andregional level, and potential frurding and partnership opportunities. l'he SMP'srestoration planning is focused on areas where shoreline functions have beendegraded by past development activities, especially in situations where opportunity is

available to improve said degraded functions. Over time implementation ofthese

Citt ofSammanish Shareline Mastet Prcgron UpddteSEPA ENnonmental Checklist

restoration opportunities will have the effect ofimproving shoreline ecologicalfunctions within the City.

3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete enersr or natural resources?

The proposed SMP Update would not deplete energy or natural resources. Extraclive or resource

based industries, such as mining, forestry, agriculture, and aquacultuie, arc not expected to occurin any ofthe shoreline environmenls under the proposed SMP Update except for an existingsmall u-pick blueberry farm near the southwest comer ofPine Lake.

Proposed measures to protect or conser've energy and natural resources are:

Although the proposed SMP Update would not directly deplete energy or naturalresources, future land use and development within the City's shoreline area could impactnatural resources. Curlently, the shorelines are largely developed in residential uses.

There are limited opportunities for new development within shoreline j urisdiction.Therefore, maior changes in development pattems or use are unlikely. Much oftheforeseeable development activity will be redevelopment ofexisting structues. Theproposed development standards and mitigation requirements will ensure that newrcsidential structures and appurtenances will not cumulatively affect shoreline ecologyand natulal rcsources. The SMP protections will be enhanced and strengthened as a resultofthe other local, state and federal regulations that apply to shoreline use anddevelopment. The City will seek to implement the Shoreline Restoration Plan, whichidentilies opportunities to protect and improve natural resouces that have been impaireda. a result ofpast developmcnt actir ities.

Additional development will occur, but over time the net effect ofthe proposed SMPUpdate, other regulations, and voltntary restoration efforts will be to prevent a net loss ofshoreline ecological functions from existing baseline conditions.

4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas orareas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as

parks, wilderDess, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands?

Generally, the proposed SMP Update establishes policies and regulations protecting andconseNing environmentally critical areas and public access recreational sites. The restomtionplanning effort outlined in the proposed SMP provides the City with opportuoities to improve orrestore ecological functions that have been impaired as a result ofpast development activities. Inaddition, the proposed SMP is meant to complement several City, state and federal efforts toprotect shoreline functions and values.

Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are:

l'itle 21A, Chapter 21A.50 ofthe Sammamish Municipal Code establishes critical areas

and/or their buffers (i.e., geologic hazard areas, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, steamareas, as well as lake areas) and associated regulatory requirements. The proposed SMPUpdate incorporates these regulations except for lake shoreline protection regulations,

City ol Sannantsh Shoreline Master Ptugram UP'late

SEPA ENircnmental Checklisl

which are established within the proposed SMP to create consistency between the City's

jurisdictional lakes. As part ofthe uldate amendments will be-made to SMC2lA 50 for

consistency with the updated SMP. As part ofincorporation ofthese requiremcnts, the

propored dMP Update will require mitigation for any necessary and-p€tmitted impacts to

enviror,mentally sensitive areas and their buffers. The proposed SMP Update establishes

aclditional standards for mitigation, including a requirement that any proposed

development will not lead to a net loss of ecological functions ln addition, the proposed

SMP Update provides policies and standards for retention ofvegetation and significant

hees, piotection ofcultural resources, and for development and land use occuning within

floodplains.

5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether itwould allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?

The City ofsammamish has an established land use pattem in the shoreline jurisdiction that

predatei the cunent regulatory regime The pattem generally includes.public palks and single-

iamily developments. The limited amount of vacant land in the shoreline jurisdiction is all

located in residential zones. This land use pattem is consistent with both the City's cuoent

zoning and vision of future land use as established by the City's Comprehensive Plan land use

designations.

The City's existing Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2003. The Comprehensive Plan

establisires goals and policies that define the community's vision for the physical, economic, and

social development ofthe City for the next 20 years The Comprehensive Plan land use

designations near all city shorelines includes Parks and open space and ulban Residential land

use ilasses. The proposed SMp shoreline environment designations are consistent with the land

use vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plans Following adoption, the City anticipates

incorporating the proposed SMP policies in to the Comprehensive Plan

Title 2lA ofthe Sammamish Municipal Code establishes zoning designations Zoning

implements the Comprehensive Plan's vision for future land use. Zoning designations near the

Ciiy's shorelines are previously documented in the Land Use section ofthis Checklist (Section

B.8.), and reflect the land use classifications designated in the Comprehensive Plan'

Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and laDd use impacts are:

Based on the developed nature ofthe City's shoreline, the lack ofextensive vacant

developable land, and consistency among land use rcgulations and long-range plans'

reasonible foreseeable development will likely be redevelopment ofproperty rather than

new development. Redevelopment will not likely result in significant changes in land use

(e.g. single-family to multifamily).

6, How {ould the proposal be likely to increase demands on traDsportation or Publicsenices and utilities?

The proposed SMP Update does not establish new pattems of land use' Likewise, the proposed

SMi Uidate would not increase density ofexisting land use pattems. fhere is Potential for

subdiviiion within the shoreline planning areas ofPine and Beaver Lakes. Increased densities

that could occur under subdivision. however, are anticipated to be minimal and not require

significant increases in public services (see responses to questions in sections.B .1

4' B l 5 , and

8:16 ofthis checklist for more detail) As described above, all other reasonable foreseeable

developmeot will likely be redevelopment ofproperty mther than new development'

Redev;lopment will not likely result in significant changes to or increased demand for public

services or infrastructue.

Proposed measur€s to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are:

Since increased demands are not anticipated, no specific measures tlre proposed

7. Identiry, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws

or requirements ofthe protection ofthe environment'

The City's SMP willnot conflict with other local, state or federal laws The SMP is meant to be

consistent with and work in conjunction with several City, State and federal prcgEms to protect

the functions and values ofshoreline resources and protect the health and safety of Cityresidents. These programs include, but are not limited to, the follovr'ingl

City ofsanmanish Shorcline Master Prosran UpddtesEPA ENircnnentdl Checklisl

City Programs

Citv ofsammamish Mukicipal Code. Tille 2lA. Chapter 2lA.50 EnvironmenllllvCritical Areas. The Environmentally Critical Areas portion ofthe City's DeveloPment

Code establishes critical areas and/or their bulfers (i.e., geologic hazard areas' wetlands'

aquifer recharge areas, and stream areas, as well as lakes) and associated regulatory

requirements. Consistent with state guidelines, development standards for critical areas

that are physically located in the shoreline j uri sdiction have been incorpomted as

regulations within the proposed SMP and will be removed from SMC2lA 50 (Critical

Areas). Further, the proposed SMP standardizes shoreline setbacks and enhancement

standards within the SMP.

State and Federal Regulations

A number of state and federal agencies may have juisdiction over land or natualelements in the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The state and federal regulations affectingshoreline-related resources include, but are not limited to:

Endansered Species Acl: The federal ESA addresses the protection and recovery offederally listed species. The ESA isjointly administered by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric AdministEtion (NOAA) Fisheries (fomerly referred to as the NationalMarine Fisheries Service), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Clean llaler Act (CltrA): The lederal CWA requires states to set standards for the

protection ofwater quality for various parameters, and it regulates excavation and

dredging in waters ofthe U.S., including wetlands. Certain activities affecting wetlands

in the Cily's shorelineju sdiction or work in the adjacent rivers may require a permitfrom the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and/or Washington State Department ofEcologyunder Section 404 and Section 401 ofthe CWA, respectively

City afsanndmish Sholeline Master Prcgrun Upddte

SEPA Ewironnental Checklist

Il|drcutic Project Approwt GIPA: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW) regulates activities that use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow ofthe

beds or banks ofwaters ofthe state and may affect fish habitat Projects in the shoreline

jurisdiction rcquidng construction below the ordinary high water mark ofPuget Sound or

itreams in the iity could require an HPA from WDFW. Plojects creating new impervious

surface that could substantially increase stomwater runoffto waters ofthe state may also

require approval.

Nalional Pollutanl Discharse Eli inalion Svstem (NPDE$: Ecology regulates activities

that result in wastewater discharges to sudace water from industrial facilities or

municipal wastewater treatment plants. NPDES permits ale also requiled for stormwater

discharges from industrial facilities, construction sites offive or more acres, and

municipal stomwater systems that serve populations of 100,000 or more

Washington State Shorcline Management Act (SMA). The Washington State Department

ofEcology will review the proposed Sammamish SMP for consistency with the SMA and

state guidelines.

page 3A

CiD, olSammanish Shateline Master Progrun UpdateSEPA EDirannentdl C hec klisl

References

Bemhardt, E. S., M. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Bamas, S. Brooks, J. Can, S. Clayton, C.

Dahm. J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. G,oss, P. Coodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S.

Katz, G. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell,and E. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science. 308(5722) 636-631.

Brinson, M.M., 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-'{, U S

Army waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD ,A270053.

Caims, J. Jr. 1998. Replacing targeted compassion with multidimensional compassion: an €ssentialparadigm shiftto achieve sustainability. Spec Sci Tech 2l:45-51.

CH2M Hill. 2001. City of Sammamish Stormwater Managem€nt Comprehensive Plan. Prepared for theCily of Sammamish. Seattle, Washington.

City of Sammamish. 2002. Sammamish Municipal Code. Available:httpJ/www.ci.sammamish.wa.us/Municipalcode.aspx

City of Sammamish. 2003 (Updated 2006). City of Sammamish Comprehensive Plan. Availablelhltp://wl'w.ci.sammamish.wa.us/ComprehersivePlan.aspx

City of Samnamish. 2004. Sammamish Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan.

Entranco, King County Water and Land Resources Division. 1996. Bear, Evans, Cottage Lake, and

Mackey Creeks, Habitat Problems, Prioritization, and Solution Development, TechnicalMemorandum. King County, washington.

ESA Adolfson. 2007. Final City of Sammamish Shoreline Master Plan Inventory and Characterization.Prepared for th€ City ofSammamish, Washinglon, June 2007.

Feist, B. E., J. J. Ande$on, and R. Miyamoto. 1996. Potential impacts ofpile driving onjuvenilepink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (O. keta) salmon behavior and distibution.Report No. Fzu-UW-9603. Fisheries Research Institute, School of Fisheries, Univ. ofWashington, Seattle, WA. 58 p.

Kahler, T. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial Shucturesand Shorezone Development on EsAlisted Salmonids in Lakes. Prepared for the City ofBellevue. Prepared by the Watershed Company. July, 2000

Kahler, T.H., P. Roni, and T.P. Quinn. 2001. Summer movement and growth of juvenileanadromous salmonids in small westem Washington steams. Canadian Joumal ofFishe es and Aquatic Sciences 58:1947-2637

Kerwin, John. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Facton Report for the Cedar/SammamishWatershed. Washington Conservation Commission. Olyrnpia, Washington.

City oJ Sannamish Shorcline Master Ptugrum Upddte

S E P /l Env iranme nt al C he c kl is I

King County. 1994. East Lake Sammamish Basin and Non-point Action Plan (Final) Seattle,

Washington.

King County. 2000. Beaver Lake Management Plan Update: A Report on the Quality ofBeaver Lake for1996-2000. seattle, washington.

King County. 2005. 2004 King County Lake Monitoring Report Prepared by the Lake Stewardship

Monitoring Program. Availablel http://dnr.metrokc gov/wlr/waterres/smlakes/

Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restolation. Restoration Ecology

3(2):133- 136.

l,ewis. R. R. III. 1989. Wetland restoratiodcreatio enhancement terminology: Suggestions forstandardization. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Vol II. EPA

600/3/89/03s8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

NMFS (Nationat Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Supplement to the Puget Sound Salmon Recovery

Plan. Prepared by NMFS Northwest Region.

National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public

Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C

MagnusoD, J., Jr., H.A. Regier, W.J. Christie, and W.C Sonzogi. 1980. To rehabilitate and restore Great

Lakes ecosystems. Pages 95-112 in J. Caims, Jr'ed The recovery process in damaged

ecosystems.Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI

Palmer, M.A., E.S. Bemhardt, J.D. Allan, P.S. Lake, G. Alexander, S Brooks, J Carr, S, Clayton, C.N

Dahm, J. Follstad Shah, D.L. Galaq S.G. Loss, P. Goodwin, D D Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson'

G.M. Kondolf. R. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O'Donn€ll, L Pagano, and E Sudduth Standards forecologically successful river restoration. Journal ofApplied Ecology 42,208-217

Parametrix. Inc. 2006- East Lake Sammamish Master PIan Trail, Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Report,

Appendix D ofthe DEIS.

Puget Sound Near-shore Project (PSNP).2004. Guiding Restoration Principles. Technical Report 2004-

03 available online: yy!+ugqlsouruhqaobqgltg

Save Lake Sammamish. 2006. Save Lake Sammamish webpage. Available:http://www-scn.org/earth/savelake/About.htm

Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy).2005. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan.

Submitted by Shared Strategy Development Committe€. Seattle, Washington.

fetra T€ch, lnc. 2006. Draft Management of Pine Lake Water Quality Sammamish, WA Prepared for theCity of Sammamish. Seattl€, Washington.

Thom et al. 2005. Balancing the need to develop coastal areas with the desire for ecologically functioningcoastalenvironment. I s net ecosyslem im provement poss ible? Restoration Ecology v l3, No. 1.

page 32

Cit! ofSdmmanish Shareline Master Proerun UpdateSEP A Ehr ircnmental Checkl ist

U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and King County Department ofNatural Resources and Parks, Water and

Land Resources Division. Seattle District. 2002. Sammamish River Corridor Action Plan FinalReport. Prepared by Tetra tech, lnc. Seattle, Washinglon-

washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Restoration Planning and the 2003 Shoreline

Managemenl Guidelines. Ecology Publication No. 04-06-022. Olynpia, Washington

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2005. Prolecling Aquatic Ecosystems: A Cuide forPuget Sound Planners to Understand watershed Process. Final December 2005, version l-Ecology Publication #05-06-013. Olympia, Washington.

Watershed Company. 2000. Lake Sammamish Natural Shoreline Surv€y. Prepared for King CountyAugust, 2000.

City ofSannamish Sholeline Masler Program UpdateS E P A Ehtinknental C heckli.n

FIGURES

Figure I City ofSammamish - Regional Context and Vicinity Map

Figure 2. Cify of Sammamish SMP - Shoreline Jurisdiction

Figure 3, City of Sammamish SMP - Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations (Partsr-4)

SSeattleattleBellevevueue

SeattleBellevue

L:\N

ATU

RA

LS

CIE

NC

ES\

2006

\260

78_S

amm

amis

hSM

P\G

IS\w

orki

ng_w

ater

shed

.mxd

WRIA -7Snohomish

WRIA -8Cedar-Sammamish

Sammamish

KING COUNTY

SNOHOMISH COUNTY

City Limits

WRIA Boundaries

Waterbodies

Streams

Drainage BasinWATERSHED

Sammamish River

Snoqualmie River

BASIN NAMEEast Lake Sammamish

Evans Creek

Patterson Creek004,81002,90 4,600

Feet

0 120,000 240,00060,000Feet

0 62,000 124,00031,000Feet

County Boundary

City Limits

WRIA 7 & 8

Waterbodies

Drainage BasinWATERSHED

Cedar River / Lake Washington

Central Puget Sound

Everett Drainages

Sammamish River

Skykomish

Snohomish

Snoqualmie River

Tulalip Creek

WRIAWRIA 7Snohnohomomishish

WRIA 7Snohomish

WRIA 8Cedar-Sammamish

Sammamish

SammamishSammamish

N

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2005.

Ecology Grant #G0600310

Sammamish SMP . 206078Figure 1

City of Sammamish Regional Context and Vicinity MapSammamish SMP Update—SEPA Environmental Checklist

Sammamish, Washington

FIL

E N

AM

E: F

ig01_V

icin

ity.

ai

CR

EA

TE

D/E

DIT

ED

BY

: A

B/J

AB

/ D

AT

E L

AS

T U

PD

AT

ED

: 10/1

4/0

8

Lake Sammamish

Pine Lake

Snoqualmie River

Ames Lake

Beaver Lake

Phantom Lake

Sammamish River

PattersonCreek

Evans Creek

BearCree

k

IssaquahCreek

iTsttebb

keerC

Snoqualmie River

LaughingJacobsCreek

Ames Creek

Pine Lake Creek

0160

keerCsi

weL

0161

East Fork Issaquah Creek

keerClao

C

Mackey Creek

0162D

0151

NorthFork IssaquahCreek

Perigo

0162B

IdylwoodCreek

0162K

0151A

0162D-2

0162I

Wilkins Creek

L:\N

ATU

RA

LS

CIE

NC

ES

\200

6\26

078_

Sam

mam

ishS

MP

\GIS

\wor

king

_SM

Par

eas.

mxd

FEMA 100 Year FloodplainSammamish City LimitsKing County Urban Growth BoundaryStreamsWaterbodiesNWI WetlandsShoreline Planning AreaPotential Annexation Area

ADDITIONAL WETLANDS PRESENTALONG LAKE SAMMAMISHSHORELINE (SEE INTERIM EASTLAKE SAMMAMISH TRAIL EIS)

WetlandWetlandELS 30ELS 30

WetlandELS 30

WetlandELS 21

WetlandELS 10

George Davis Creek

Zaccuse CreekEbright Creek

KanimCreek

0 2,250 4,5001,125Feet

1:55,000N

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2005.

Ecology Grant #G0600310

Sammamish SMP . 206078Figure 2

City of Sammamish Shoreline Planning AreaSammamish SMP Update—SEPA Environmental Checklist

Sammamish, Washington

FIL

E N

AM

E: F

ig02_S

ho

relin

eP

lannin

gA

rea.a

i

CR

EA

TE

D/E

DIT

ED

BY

: A

B/J

AB

/ D

AT

E L

AS

T U

PD

AT

ED

: 10/1

4/0

8

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2007; ESA Adolfson, 2008

G:\N

ATUR

AL SC

IENCE

S\200

6\260

78_S

amma

mish

SMP\G

IS\Of

ficial

Shore

lineM

aps\O

fficial

Shore

lineM

ap_1

.mxd

(MJL

; 03/2

2/09)

Sammamish SMP . 206078Official Shoreline Designation Map, Part 1 of 4: Northern Lake Sammamish

SMC Title 25Sammamish, WA

Ecology Grant #G0600310Subject to Final City Approval

Prepared March 2009

Lake Sammamish

This map is intended for planning purposes only.This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP and official shorelinedesignations pursuant to SMC Title 25. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site-specificevaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. The map does not display the 100-yr floodplain around the three jurisdictional lakes. The floodplain around Lake Sammamish is at a standard elevation of 33 feet NGVD29.Shoreline environment designations depicted in this map shall apply tothe land and water areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction as defined in the Program and RCW 90.58. Usesand developments that occur waterward of the OHWM shall be governed by the regulations pertaining to theadjoining shoreland area and all such uses shall be considered accessory to the adjacent primary use.All ‘associated wetlands’ are regulated as Shorelands per RCW 90.58.030. Wetlands immediately adjacentor physically connected to the lakes are assumed to be associated with the lakes, but wetlands depicted onthis map have not been field-verified. Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing inventorydata; additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the maps and some of the areas shown aswetland or portions of areas shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria. Wetland presence,location, extent and degree of association with the lakeshores must be determined through site-specificinvestigation. This map does not provide a definitive determination as to whether wetlands are associatedwith the shoreline or not. The definition of ‘associated wetland’ is included in the Program.When site-specific investigation determines that a wetland is associated with the lake shoreline, the shorelinedesignation that applies to the parcel on which the wetland is located shall apply to the associated wetland. Ifthere is no designation applied to the parcel on which the wetland is located, the associated wetland shall bedesignated Urban Conservancy.

0 1,750

Feet

¯

Inglewood Hill Road

George Davis Creek

Zaccuse CreekEbright Creek

East Lake Sammamish Parkway

City BoundaryParcels

Legend

East Lake Sammamish TrailOther Features

Official Shoreline Designations

WetlandsStreamsPublicly Owned Parcels

Urban Conservancy Shoreline Residential

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2007; ESA Adolfson, 2008

G:\N

ATUR

AL SC

IENCE

S\200

6\260

78_S

amma

mish

SMP\G

IS\Of

ficial

Shore

lineM

aps\O

fficial

Shore

lineM

ap_2

.mxd

(MJL

; 03/2

2/09)

Sammamish SMP . 206078Official Shoreline Designation Map, Part 2 of 4: Southern Lake Sammamish

SMC Title 25Sammamish, WA

Ecology Grant #G0600310Subject to Final City Approval

Prepared March 2009

Lake Sammamish

This map is intended for planning purposes only.This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP and official shorelinedesignations pursuant to SMC Title 25. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site-specificevaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. The mapdoes not display the 100-yr floodplain around the three jurisdictional lakes. The floodplain around LakeSammamish is at a standard elevation of 33 feet NGVD29.Shoreline environment designations depicted in this map shall apply tothe land and water areas subject to shoreline jurisdiction as defined in the Program and RCW 90.58. Usesand developments that occur waterward of the OHWM shall be governed by the regulations pertaining to theadjoining shoreland area and all such uses shall be considered accessory to the adjacent primary use.All ‘associated wetlands’ are regulated as Shorelands per RCW 90.58.030. Wetlands immediately adjacentor physically connected to the lakes are assumed to be associated with the lakes, but wetlands depicted onthis map have not been field-verified. Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing inventorydata; additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the maps and some of the areas shown aswetland or portions of areas shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria. Wetland presence,location, extent and degree of association with the lakeshores must be determined through site-specificinvestigation. This map does not provide a definitive determination as to whether wetlands are associatedwith the shoreline or not. The definition of ‘associated wetland’ is included in the Program.When site-specific investigation determines that a wetland is associated with the lake shoreline, the shorelinedesignation that applies to the parcel on which the wetland is located shall apply to the associated wetland. Ifthere is no designation applied to the parcel on which the wetland is located, the associated wetland shall bedesignated Urban Conservancy.

0 1,750

Feet

¯

George Davis Creek

Zaccuse CreekEbright Creek

East L

ake Sa

mmamish

Parkw

ay

Pine Lake Creek

East Lake

0613Sammamish Parkway

City BoundaryParcels

Legend

East Lake Sammamish Trail

Other Features

Official Shoreline Designations

WetlandsStreamsPublicly Owned Parcels

Urban ConservancyShoreline Residential

Pine Lake Creek

Sammamish SMP . 206078Official Shoreline Designation Map, Part 3 of 4: Pine Lake

SMC Title 25Sammamish, WA

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2007; ESA Adolfson 2008 Subject to Final City ApprovalPrepared March 2009

G:\N

ATUR

AL SC

IENCE

S\200

6\260

78_S

amma

mish

SMP\G

IS\Of

ficial

Shore

lineM

aps\O

fficial

Shore

lineM

ap4.m

xd (M

JL; 0

3/22/0

9)

Ecology Grant #G0600310

Pine Lake

This map is intended for planning purposes only.This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP and official shorelinedesignations pursuant to SMC Title 25. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site-specificevaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. The mapdoes not display the 100-yr floodplain around the three jurisdictional lakes. The floodplain around LakeSammamish is at a standard elevation of 33 feet NGVD29.Shoreline environment designations depicted in this map shall apply to the land and water areas subjectto shoreline jurisdiction as defined in the Programs and RCW 90.58. Uses and developments that occurwaterward of the OHWM shall be governed by the regulations pertaining to the adjoining shoreland areaand all such uses shall be considered accessory to the adjacent primary use.All ‘associated wetlands’ are regulated as Shorelands per RCW 90.58.030. Wetlands immediately adjacentor physically connected to the lakes are assumed to be associated with the lakes, but wetlands depicted onthis map have not been field-verified. Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing inventorydata; additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the maps and some of the areas shown aswetland or portions of areas shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria. Wetland presence,location, extent and degree of association with the lakeshores must be determined through site-specificinvestigation. This map does not provide a definitive determination as to whether wetlands are associatedwith the shoreline or not. The definition of ‘associated wetland’ is included in the Program.When site-specific investigation determines that a wetland is associated with the lake shoreline, the shorelinedesignation that applies to the parcel on which the wetland is located shall apply to the associated wetland. Ifthere is no designation applied to the parcel on which the wetland is located, the associated wetland shall bedesignated Urban Conservancy.

0 500

Feet

¯

Pine LakePark

Pine Lake Creek

SE 20th St

224th P

l

228th Ave SE

SE 28th St

212th Ave SE

City BoundaryParcels

LegendOfficial Shoreline Designations

WetlandsStreams

Other Features

Publicly Owned Parcels

Urban Conservancy Shoreline Residential

Laughing Jacobs Creek

Laughing Jacobs Creek

Sammamish SMP . 206078Official Shoreline Designation Map, Part 4 of 4: Beaver Lake

SMC Title 25Sammamish, WA

SOURCE: King County, 2006; City of Sammamish, 2007; ESA Adolfson 2008 Subject to Final City ApprovalPrepared March 2009

G:\N

ATUR

AL SC

IENCE

S\200

6\260

78_S

amma

mish

SMP\G

IS\Of

ficial

Shore

lineM

aps\O

fficial

Shore

lineM

ap3.m

xd (M

JL; 0

3/22/0

9)

Ecology Grant #G0600310

Beaver Lake

This map is intended for planning purposes only.This map depicts the approximate location and extent of areas subject to the SMP and official shorelinedesignations pursuant to SMC Title 25. The actual extent of shoreline jurisdiction requires a site-specificevaluation to identify the location of the ordinary high water mark and any associated wetlands. The mapdoes not display the 100-yr floodplain around the three jurisdictional lakes. The floodplain around Lake Sammamish is at a standard elevation of 33 feet NGVD29.Shoreline environment designations depicted in this mapshall apply to the land and water areas subjectto shoreline jurisdiction as defined in the Program and RCW 90.58. Uses and developments that occurwaterward of the OHWM shall be governed by the regulations pertaining to the adjoining shoreland areaand all such uses shall be considered accessory to the adjacent primary use.All ‘associated wetlands’ are regulated as Shorelands per RCW 90.58.030. Wetlands immediately adjacentor physically connected to the lakes are assumed to be associated with the lakes, but wetlands depicted onthis map have not been field-verified. Wetland locations are approximate and based on existing inventorydata; additional wetlands may be present that are not shown on the maps and some of the areas shown aswetland or portions of areas shown as wetlands may not meet the wetland criteria. Wetland presence,location, extent and degree of association with the lakeshores must be determined through site-specificinvestigation. This map does not provide a definitive determination as to whether wetlands are associatedwith the shoreline or not. The definition of ‘associated wetland’ is included in the Program.When site-specific investigation determines that a wetland is associated with the lake shoreline, the shorelinedesignation that applies to the parcel on which the wetland is located shall apply to the associated wetland. Ifthere is no designation applied to the parcel on which the wetland is located, the associated wetland shall bedesignated Urban Conservancy.

0 500

Feet

¯

Beaver Lake Park

Beaver Lake Preserve

SE 24th St

Beaver La

ke Way S

E

E.Beaver Lake Drive

W Beaver Lake Dr

City BoundaryParcels

LegendOfficial Shoreline Designations

WetlandsStreams

Other Features

Publicly Owned Parcels

Urban Conservancy Shoreline Residential