This document summarizes a professional project completed by Colleen Whitten Sax towards a Master's degree in urban planning. The project involved developing a model critical area ordinance for four cities in the Snoqualmie Watershed to consistently protect salmon habitat and watershed processes. Key aspects included coordinating planning staff from the cities and consultants, facilitating workshops, and presenting recommendations. The document provides background on literature related to environmental planning, watershed analysis, and conferences attended to inform the project.

1. Developing a Model
Critical Area Ordinance
for
Snoqualmie Watershed
Communities
Cities collaborate to protect salmonid populations,
watershed processes and city residents
FINAL PROJECT
Colleen Whitten Srull
(then, currently Colleen Whitten Sax)
A Professional Project towards completion of
Master Degree in Urban Design and Planning
Department of Urban Design and Planning
University of Washington
June 8, 2005

2. Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge the contributions of my team members on the Snoqualmie
Watershed staff: Larry Stockton, Community Services Director for the City of North
Bend; Mike McCarty, Assistant Planner with the City of Snoqualmie; Steve Munson,
(formerly) Planning Director and Jamie Burrell, (formerly) City Planner with the City of
Carnation; Doreen Booth, City Manager, Lara Thomas and George Steirer (formerly),
Assistant Planners with the City of Duvall. Our consultant team at Adolfson Associates,
Inc. of Seattle included Ikuno Masterson, David Wortman, Karmen Martin, Benn Burke,
Nancy Job and others. And thanks to the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum members and
King Conservation District for valuing and funding the project; Sandra Kilroy,
Snoqualmie Watershed Coordinator and Mark Sollitto, Snoqualmie Watershed Forum
Chair, and for their leadership and support.
I wish to express special thanks to Committee Chair and Professor Hilda Blanco, for her
guidance, support, and patience; Committee Member and Professor Frank Westerlund, for
his guidance and interest in the project; Jan Brooks, for her ongoing assistance
throughout my time in the program; and the many excellent faculty in the Urban Design
and Planning Department who have inspired and informed me in my studies and quest to
acquire an integrated understanding of sustainable development issues and approaches.
I want to express my gratitude to my husband, Steve Sax, for his enthusiasm and loving
partnership, my babysitter for enabling me to focus, and my dear friend and confidante
Linn Bekins, who empowered me to pursue this degree.
I also want to thank the salmon and the watershed ecosystems themselves for all they
provide for us – good health, clean water, beautiful valleys, fertile soils and cool streams.
I dedicate this project to my daughter Eloise and her generation – may they inherit a truly
sustainable culture.

3. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction 4
Chapter 2 Literature review and conferences 5
Chapter 3 Methods 11
Chapter 4 Snoqualmie Watershed Model CAO Project
Context 14
Drivers for development and regulatory context 16
Rational planning process 19
Relationship to planning profession 21
Products 21
Chapter 5 Evaluating the work
Further thinking 26
Relationship to courses 32
What I learned 34
Comparison with other cases 37
Bibliography 41

4. CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Urbanization physically disconnects the natural processes of the hydrologic cycle by
converting previously vegetated land cover to paved -- contributing to flood hazard
events, habitat fragmentation, and polluted runoff, degrading water quality for humans,
fish and wildlife. In Washington State, city planners may be disconnected from
considering the larger landscape context when their focus is on land area within urban
growth boundaries. While this context is traditionally the approach used by natural
resource professionals, city planners should be encouraged to expand their view, and
work collaboratively on ecosystem-based policies potentially impacted by their
cumulative land use decisions. They are the actors applying science to the Growth
Management Act (GMA) process, using the tools of the critical area ordinance (CAO),
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and open space
plans, to name a few.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the federal listing of several species of salmonids
as threatened in 1999, have created great challenges to jurisdictions in protecting
valuable habitat for these species. The Snoqualmie Watershed is King County’s least
degraded watershed and has the best hope for restoring ecological function for salmon.
As called for in the Snohomish Basin Chinook Salmon Near Term Action Agenda
(NTAA, 2001), the cities of North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation and Duvall and King
County reviewed their current and proposed policies, regulations and programs to ensure
long-term conservation of salmonid habitat and watershed processes throughout the
basin. One of the recommendations from the regulatory review process was to develop
model critical area ordinance language for the four cities, and through this, ensure
consistent protection throughout the watershed. It was also anticipated that this joint
project would assist cities in meeting their requirements under the GMA, to develop and
update their critical area regulations by December 2004.
Hired by King County’s Department of Natural Resources and Parks, in the Water and
Land Division, to serve as the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) project manager and staff to
the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum, I lead both the regulatory review and model ordinance
processes. Briefly, this included coordinating the work of the watershed team (comprised
of planners from each of the cities and consultants), setting meeting agendas, facilitating
workshops, and developing and presenting final recommendations to the multi-
jurisdictional group of decision-makers on the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum. In addition
to handling my project manager responsibilities, it was my intent to uphold a watershed-
wide vision and values for the larger ecosystem – to focus the group on a landscape-level
perspective.
Overall, watershed cities benefited from this coordinated effort. Leveraging multiple
jurisdictions’ involvement builds support towards a common vision and implementation,

5. makes the most of limited resources, and in its cooperative nature, offer opportunities for
cross-jurisdictional learning and sharing.
CHAPTER 2
Literature review
The literature that informed work on this project includes readings in environmental
planning, watershed analysis, landscape and urban ecology, and King County DNRP
agency documents. Several conferences are discussed in the next section and address the
most current and relevant issues, research and findings.
Environmental planning and critical areas
Critical area concepts originated with the environmental quality movement of 1970s
(Kaiser, Godschalk and Chapin, 1995), and as an outgrowth of understanding interactions
between development and natural systems. The rationale is that such areas require special
protection to make development and resource conservation compatible land uses. Unlike
impact analysis, which is a responsive technique, critical area analysis is a pro-active
technique. The land use planner can use critical area analysis to identify areas that need
special management, i.e., regulations and performance standards for limiting impervious
surface, stormwater runoff, vegetation clearing and development density. Inventories of
natural systems need to be updated regularly, and reevaluated whenever classification
schemes change. Land classification plans are the format most commonly used for
locating areas where natural resources need to be protected.
Watershed analysis and links to planning
The philosophy and principles that underlie watershed analysis define the essential
components and general approach, and key linkages to the planning process
(Montgomery and others, 1996). Implementing ecosystem approaches in land use
decision-making requires new methods of linking science and planning, and that greater
integration is crucial because sustainable levels of resource use are determined by
coupling management objectives to landscape capabilities and capacities.
The distinctions between science and policy, on the one hand, and analysis and
planning, on the other are crucial: land owners and the public provide societal
objectives, scientists provide knowledge and understanding of the system under
consideration, and planners decide how to balance social objectives and
constraints against intrinsic landscape capabilities. Planning is the forum within

6. which management options are identified and developed based on coupling
knowledge with objectives.
Interactions between humans and ecological processes in urbanizing regions generate
complex landscapes that significantly influence the functioning of earth’s ecosystems.
(Alberti, 2003) Although scholars in landscape ecology are increasingly studying the
relationship between urban development and ecological conditions, few have directly
addressed the question of how patterns of urbanization affect landscape dynamics. She
proposes that distinct landscape signatures can be identified for different urban
development patterns. Using landscape metrics, landscape change was described in the
central Puget Sound region between 1991 and 1999. The findings indicate two
simultaneous key trends: the loss of forested land and the intensification of urban areas.
Land conversion and increase in population density have been accompanied by an
increase in dispersion of urban development and forest fragmentation. Identified trends
have significant consequences for the response of aquatic systems to human-induced
landscape alterations.
Urban fringe issues
The emergence of the rural-urban fringe is a relatively recent phenomenon where
booming residential and commercial developments encroaches upon the rural landscape.
(Daniels, 1999) As cities grow beyond where suburban settlements lie they transform
resource lands such as mining, agriculture, forestry and prime wildlife habitat into
fragmented places, creating conflicting land uses.
Regulatory tools for planners and incentives for landowners are recommended. For
example, the Purchase or Transfer of Development Rights (PDR or TDR) has been used
to preserve 800,000 acres of farmland nationwide, while paying landowners $1.25
billion. This approach keeps property in private ownership, maintains rural quality of life,
protects environmentally sensitive areas, and protects from unwanted encroachment of
neighboring cities. It works in part because the amount paid for development rights is
substantial. The amount is figured as the difference between appraised fair market value
if fully developed, and the value if restricted to farming or open space.
Interlocal Agreements and revenue sharing
Interlocal agreements (ILAs) have the benefit of metropolitan governance in the absence
of metropolitan government. (Aronson and others, 1996) There is a growing interest in
developing interlocal agreements that would improve services through cooperation, while
still preserving the independence of participating governments. With many purposes and
applications, products produced under the ILA umbrella have the potential to be received
by the public in a way that appeals to their common interest and higher values. Work
done using voluntary agreements rather than through a top-down governmental structure

7. may be easier to accomplish as a group, with the same results. While there is some
uncertainty in the outcome, there may be a more personal sense of responsibility among
participants.
A prerequisite to successful growth management is using a multi-jurisdictional approach.
(Piro, 1999) When local governments in an urban region work together with regional and
state agencies, they recognize their interdependencies and develop collaborative
approaches to managing urban development. Indeed, the Snoqualmie Forum and
watershed staff experienced this throughout the process of developing the model CAO
project.
Conferences
One of the key gatherings of the watershed science and landscape ecology experts is the
University of Washington’s “Center for Water and Watershed Studies’Annual Science
Review.” I attended the 2003 and 2004 sessions focused on urban ecology research and
landscape analysis. This is the framework that deals with natural and manmade systems
and processes, and drivers and actors that effect:
land cover change
habitat fragmentation
landscapes and basins
and impervious area
Most relevant to the project was the finding that research lags behind in our
understanding human and social aspects of watersheds (Ryan, 2004). Different scales
were addressed, including individual, community and institutional levels. At the
institutional level, the watershed is asserted to be the unit for planning. A need for new
approaches that better integrate social and ecological sciences, that watershed scientists
tend to look at problems as technical problems, and separate the people issues. Ryan
advocates focusing on the pragmatic, building bridges between public and community
and social systems, between agencies, between ecological and social sciences.
At an annual conference hosted by the AWRA Washington chapter, American Water
Resources Association - Annual Fall Conference “Water’s Woven Web: Land Use
Planning and Water Resource Management in Washington.”(Washington Section AWRA,
2003) gaps in regulatory language, agency roles/authority clarification, and refinement
were highlighted, by introducing and discussing several case studies.
Two goals of the GMA are particularly difficult to balance: concentrating growth within
an Urban Growth Boundary (including encouraging infill development), while protecting
critical areas. What is difficult to gauge is what is the upper limit of critical
(Trohimovich, 1000 Friends of Washington). When impervious surfaces such as
pavement and buildings cover between 5 and 8 percent of an urban watershed, the health
of streams and fish in them declines, despite storm-water controls. With an increased
understanding of watershed ecosystems, and the complex land use relationships that

8. factor into habitat quality, it seems we must address more thoroughly and systematically
the need for open space planning and “green infrastructure.”
GMA’s Goals related to water:
Urban Growth goal. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. RCW 36.70A.020
(1)
Environment protection goal. Protect the environment and enhance the state’s high
quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water. RCW
36.70A.020 (10)
Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards. RCW 36.70A.020 (12)
Must balance goals and requirements – some goals, such as the environmental protection
goal, are more directive than others.
Tools planners can use, related to water are quite limited:
Critical area regulations: CARAs (Critical Aquifer Recharge Area) – must adopt regs to
maintain the functions and values of CARAs (Quantity, quality, salt water intrusion)
An appeal for more stories of cooperation was made in the keynote presentation, “Water
and the Public Discourse” (Trahant, Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
Convened by EPA Region X’s Office of Ecosystems and Communities, Best Available
Watershed Science conference, (US EPA, 2003), and sponsored by the federal Watershed
Initiative, the program’s goal is to encourage successful watershed partnerships to protect
and restore the nation’s water resources. A budget of $21 million of grant money was
available for appropriation in 2003, for 20 watershed proposals for clean water.
Presentations covered watershed restoration, the role of watershed assessment in salmon
recovery planning, strategies for prioritizing restoration, monitoring, importance of
wetlands to salmon, effects of impervious surface on watershed hydrology, and mitigation
approaches.
Richard Horner spoke on effects of impervious surface on watershed hydrology. Most
important research finding: as total impervious area (TIA) increases, B-IBI (benthic
invertebrate biological integrity, a positive indicator of watershed health) declines.
Biological health of streams declined rapidly with low urbanization, slower decline at
higher urbanization. He mentioned he didn’t see a “threshold”. Derek Booth responded
that the world is a continuum, thresholds generally don’t exist in physical world, but
regulations do have thresholds – their foundations may be “reasonable” but rarely are
they true. All degrade >= 10% effective impervious area.
How can a region regulate its watersheds? King County’s “65/10 rule” where 65%
minimum forest cover and 10% maximum impervious surface is called for. As % forested

9. increases, B-IBI increases. The schematic of “protection, rehabilitation, and stewardship”
goals apply to different landscapes, depending on stream health (B-IBI). The higher the
B-IBI, protect what you have; rehabilitate the middle ground; and in the low B-IBI, rely
on volunteerism or stewardship.
At the conference, Grow Smart Washington – A Call to Action (1000 Friends of
Washington and National Wildlife Federation (NWF), October 2001) attendees learned
about NWF’s Smart Growth and Wildlife Program. The program is carrying out
nationwide education and advocacy in three regions of the country where they claim that
fish and wildlife are greatly imperiled due to sprawl: southern Florida, southern
California, and the Pacific Northwest. Impacts of sprawl on wildlife, issues of
biodiversity, and carrying capacity (John Kostyack, NWF):
The causes of habitat loss are:
Urbanization and agriculture -- Land consumption rates are a major factor.
!Increasing housing density would fix this.
Habitat fragmentation – leap frog effect is most serious. Most animals need significant
patches and corridors to move.
! include in early stages of planning
Polluted runoff – amount of impervious surface
! create more pervious surfaces
Impacts of cars – emissions, water and oil, direct mortality of wildlife, some populations
can be wiped out, i.e. turtles.
NWF believes that wildlife advocates are missing links with land use planning. Critical
area ordinances could be the vanguard. Recommends policy solutions:
Protect natural resources
Develop green infrastructure: parks and green ways in cities
Raise funds to restore, protect lands, streambeds
Make coalitions effective – a suggestion added by Richard Conlin is that this takes
respect and listening, and a wide variety of coalition members to influence government,
and sometimes means giving up some things you want
National Wildlife Federation outreach staff distributed a white paper on “Green
Infrastructure.” Ten guiding principles are listed below. Many of these are consistent with
the goals of the Snoqualmie NTAA and were incorporated into the Snoqualmie Watershed
model CAO.
Protect, restore and maintain natural resources and ecosystem function both in developed
and undeveloped areas.
Use best available science to assess natural resources and rank areas of environmental
importance as the first step to land use planning.
Target for conservation areas of important ecological function, critical habitat, and
corridors to connect such areas with already protected land.
Reduce the need for expensive storm-water management, flood control and restoration

10. projects by protecting water resources, flood plains, wetlands and other buffers.
Limit the negative effects of development on habitat, air and water quality by providing
vegetative cover and reducing paved surfaces.
Enhance stewardship of open space and natural areas by increasing environmental
education opportunities.
Engage citizens, organizations and agencies of the region to conserve biodiversity, and
foster a sustainable relationship between society and nature in the region.
Enrich the quality of life for the region’s citizenry, and support tourist and natural
resource-based industries through increased access to open space.
Protect environmental quality by integrating green infrastructure with land use,
transportation and water/sewer planning.
Create wildlife-friendly and environmentally-sensitive regulations and incentive
programs.
Green infrastructure is defined as the “network of natural areas, open space, water ways,
and ecologically-based design measures that protect native species and ecological
processes, maintain clean air and water, reduce habitat fragmentation, pollution, and other
threats to biodiversity, and improve the health and quality of life for people.”
To summarize points made in the literature and conferences that informed this project:
Land cover change and land use conflicts in the urban fringe threaten environmentally
sensitive areas.
Science supports that urbanization has impacts on wildlife habitat, water quality and
flood hazards for humans. In basins with >10% impervious surface, stream health
indicators decline rapidly.
Planning is the forum where natural resource limits such as capacity can be balanced with
other goals, but complex interactions of land use and water are inadequately addressed by
the GMA.
Critical area regulations are planner’s primary tool for protecting salmon habitat,
watershed processes, and flood hazard reduction, but doesn’t thoroughly address
ecosystem values needed by wildlife and people. “Green infrastructure” is recommended
for integrating wildlife habitat needs with urban residents’ needs.
The watershed is the unit for planning in the future; people and social aspects are
inadequately factored into research and understanding of watersheds. Stories of
collaboration are needed.
Interlocal agreements managed by an inter-jurisdictional Watershed Forum are an
effective means for implementing an ecosystem approach to regulation, policies and
programs.

11. CHAPTER 3
Methods
As an employee of King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks’ Water and
Land Division, I was hired to implement the Snoqualmie Watershed Near-Term Action
Agenda. As my funding was provided through the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum Inter-
local Agreement (ILA), my role was to represent the ILA members’ interests: four
Snoqualmie Valley cities and King County.
The methods employed in producing this work involved an inter-jurisdictional,
collaborative planning process, resulting in science-based model regulations and
recommendations that were produced in conjunction with a consultant team.
This coordinated process was unique in its collaborative nature, supported by the high
level of commitment demonstrated by each of the jurisdictions’ staff. The process
afforded opportunities for cross-jurisdictional learning, building support for
implementation and sharing.
The Snoqualmie Watershed NTAA Policy-option Matrix
The bulk of the analysis for this project was developed and tracked within a 40-page
tabloid matrix document, the NTAA Policy-option Matrix. Along the y-axis were a series
of critical area categories, as well as other themes included in the NTAA’s guiding
principles. Specific goals for protection as stated in the NTAA or as required in the CAO
by the state, included:
land use
stormwater
water quality
floodplain alterations
wetlands
channel migration zones
streams and their buffers
shoreline modification
large woody debris
fish and wildlife conservation areas
geologic hazardous areas
clearing and grading
Along the x-axis was a sequence of analytical steps in the process of developing the
specific language used in the model ordinance. Briefly, this included:

12. results from the joint regulatory review process (a project that preceded this one), where
gaps were identified in each of the cities’ current and proposed regulations, policies and
programs
applicable findings from the best available science paper
policy options research presented for discussion
discussion notes from the workshops
decisions by the workshop participants for specific language for the Model
notes for tailoring language for individual cities
The strength in this large, rather cumbersome, shared document “workspace” was in
jointly reviewing the science (both watershed-wide and local issues, extracted from the
BAS Issues paper), linking that to gaps in regulation, policy and programs and discussing
options for addressing the needs and gaps with new language, appropriate for the model.
The policy-option matrix became part of the official record, as required by the state for
the CAO update process.
The team used this document over several project stages, spanning the NTAA guidance,
joint regulatory review, BAS findings, policy option research, workshop discussion and
group decisions. Either the ILA project manager or the consultant filled in the matrix
from left to right as the outcomes of each stage was completed.
The WRIA process in Washington State
This project’s format was made possible due to the larger WRIA process precedent
established in Washington State. A WRIA is a Water Resource Inventory Area;
Washington State is divided into 62 WRIAs for water and aquatic-resource management
issues. The terms "WRIA" and "watershed" are frequently used interchangeably. For
example, Water Resource Inventory Area 7 is also called the "Snohomish Basin
Watershed."
Successful planning for habitat needs of salmon requires a collaborative effort from a
wide variety of people. In each of the Water Resource Inventory Areas, watershed-based
habitat plans are being developed by committees that include local elected officials,
concerned citizens, representatives of environmental and business interests, and staff
from state and federal agencies. In some WRIAs, Indian tribes and nonprofit groups are
also participating.

13. CHAPTER 4
The Snoqualmie Watershed Model CAO Project
A. Context
In 1999, chinook salmon and bull trout were listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in Puget Sound. This federal law protects not only the fish themselves,
but also the habitat the fish need to survive and prosper. From 1998 to 2001, the Tri-
County Response Coalition brought together local governments, environmental groups,
and businesses in Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties to address the habitat-related
factors of salmonid decline. Watershed (WRIA-) based habitat plans were among the six
“planks” identified as part of the habitat-based recovery efforts. Planning by watershed or
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) is increasingly understood to be an effective
way to account for the specific needs of the different fish populations and habitats found
in different parts of the county.
In King County, nearly all local governments chose to support the watershed-planning
process, contributed funds and participating in planning activities. Although the Tri-
County Coalition is no longer active, the watershed-based planning efforts it championed
have continued to move forward. The larger WRIA 7, including both King and
Snohomish County land areas is represented by Snohomish Basin Salmon Recovery
Forum, who oversees the development of a salmon conservation plan for the Snohomish
River Basin. The Forum is comprised of local governments, the Tulalip Tribes, water
districts, and interest groups from throughout the Snohomish River Basin. The other role
of the Forum is prioritizing proposals for State Salmon Recovery Funding Board funds.
The Snoqualmie Watershed Forum is comprised of elected official and citizen
representatives from the King County portion of WRIA 7. This smaller Forum seems to
be more nimble and productive, with a strong majority of members in agreement about
the needs and means for coordinating actions of local governments on fish habitat,
flooding, and water quality issues in the Snoqualmie Watershed. It also helps to
coordinate local participation in the development of a salmon conservation plan for the
larger Snohomish River Basin. The staff to the Forum is composed of city planners from
each of the four cities: Carnation, Duvall, Snoqualmie and North Bend. My role was to
coordinate the joint work products of the Forum staff.
The Snoqualmie Watershed ILA is an example of a revenue sharing program with a
discrete purpose: to implement the Near Term Action Agenda, published by the
Snoqualmie Watershed Forum. Each jurisdiction pays into the shared fund, based on a
formula of land area (% of total watershed area), population (% of total watershed
population), and median assessed home value. The ILA expires after several years, with
the option of renewing, based on an agreed-upon workplan. Interlocal revenue sharing is

14. discussed as a significant means to reduce fiscal constraints for local governments facing
cuts in federal grant programs and strained state budgets, while retaining control over tax
rates applied within their jurisdictions.
A product of the WRIA 7 Forum, the Snohomish Basin Chinook Salmon Near Term
Action Agenda (NTAA) is intended to guide salmon conservation actions in the
Snohomish Basin for the next 2 to 5 years while a detailed salmon conservation plan is
developed. The NTAA includes guidance for local regulations, policies, programs and
capital projects. King County and the cities of Carnation, Duvall, North Bend, and
Snoqualmie are working cooperatively to implement the NTAA.
The Snoqualmie Watershed Model CAO fulfills many of the recommendations of the
NTAA, and assists the cities in meeting their state obligations to protect critical areas.
Under Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA), local governments must
develop regulations that protect critical areas, “which include wetlands, wildlife habitat,
aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas.” In
1995, the legislature amended GMA’s environmental protection goal to require that
regulations use Best Available Science (BAS) to designate and protect critical areas. The
new section, RCW 36.70A.172, requires all counties and cities to “include the best
available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the
functions and values of critical areas.” It is important that local governments understand
where critical areas occur, how they naturally function, and how best to regulate land
uses that may impact their natural processes -- to ensure that zoning and project permit
decisions can be made without expensive environmental review and new studies at the
permit level.
The agency responsible for coordinating watershed activities is King County’s
Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP), specifically its Water and Land
Resources Division (WLRD) -- from within the Interlocal Agreement group of the
Strategic Initiatives Section. King County DNRP’s mission for WLRD is broad and
inclusive, seeking to “sustain healthy watersheds, protect wastewater systems, minimize
flood hazards, protect public health and water quality, preserve open space, working
farms and forests, ensure adequate water for people and fish, manage public drainage
systems, and protect and restore habitats.” The County’s WLRD programs meet or
exceed federal, state and local regulatory requirements for public safety, water quality
and ecosystem integrity. As a high-performance regional environmental and resource
management agency, its staff provides high quality services, coordinates partnerships, and
leads by example.

15. Geographic context
The Snohomish-Snoqualmie Watershed is located in rural eastern King County and
Snohomish County to the north, a forested basin with an area of nearly 700 square miles;
with a population of approximately 45,000 people. While the Snoqualmie River is in
King County, it is part of the larger Snohomish River Watershed that flows into Puget
Sound at Everett.
The Snoqualmie Valley is located along the urban fringe, home to several small cities
located along the river: North Bend, Snoqualmie, Carnation and Duvall. The least
urbanized of King County’s watersheds, the Snoqualmie ecosystem is relatively intact,
but developed areas fragment the landscape and are interspersed with a variety of
sensitive ecological lands: steep slopes, wetlands, frequently flooded areas, sensitive
habitat and wildlife corridors, geological hazards, critical aquifer recharge areas and
channel migration zones.
Historically, the basin was heavily forested; today it is significantly less so, due to land
cover changes occurring over the previous 100 or so years of (white migrant) settlement.
Its fertile valley and riparian corridors were logged and converted to farmland. Urban
development was first concentrated in tight grids located in the natural floodplain, has
since spread into suburban development patterns, large roadways dividing and
fragmenting the natural landscape.
These more recent urban land conversions were greatly catalyzed by three factors: the
construction of the Interstate-90 highway in the 1970s, the high tech employment boom
starting in the late 1980s, and the sell-off of forest production land after harvest, for
residential development. This resulted in an influx of new residents, enabled by the new
access and employment opportunities. Alteration of resource lands occurred as well, as
forest production harvests resulted in large clear cuts. All of these alterations combined
have degraded habitat and stream quality and connectivity used by salmon and other
wildlife, as well as exacerbated flood hazards for humans.
Drivers for Development and Regulatory Context
The Snoqualmie Valley cities, while similar in population size, small town politics,
history and general physical plans, vary in their development drivers and regulatory
context. It is interesting to compare how these cities’ capacity for growth, while
dependent on infrastructure such as sewer treatment, is also related to critical area issues,
such as frequent flooding, channel migration and critical aquifer recharge limitations.
Economic development goals, attitudes of current residents, and awareness of the salmon
habitat crisis all factor into the landscape, but were beyond the scope of this study. What
follows is a summary of development drivers and regulatory context.

16. City of North Bend
North Bend has been in a development moratorium for at least 3 years, due to a shortage
of water supply. City administrators have become aware that their “urban footprint”
covers over the city’s critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) with impervious surface. The
sewer plan is at capacity. The City is pumping more water than its water rights permit,
but the State (Ecology) is allowing it until a solution can be found. As such, there is little
development activity. Water quality reports also show silver contaminants originating
from a North Bend source.
Comp Plan: 2000, amended June ‘02 to protect Sensitive Areas, Natural Resource and
Agricultural Lands, address incompatible land uses. Working on ordinances to implement
comprehensive plan.
Updates include: LU and Sensitive Areas, Parks plan, Transportation and Capital
Facilities in progress, new chapter on Natural Resource Lands.
Established a Right to Farm and Right to Forest, 150’ buffers around Agricultural
Lands. Established TDR Program. Created transitional area zoning district with
enhanced performance stds between residential and commercial/industrial.
Revising zoning map. Established urban separator.
SAO: 1993. Since then, adopted KC’s code for presumption of salmonids, and to regulate
channel migration.
Shoreline Master Program: 1990. Hired consultant to revise.
Stormwater Regs: Adopted by reference KC Surface Water Design Manual 2001.
Flood Hazard Reduction Plan: hasn’t been reworked since 1988, some updates 1998.
Debbie Heiden has been working on Flood Plan.
Development & Design Regs: Updating zoning for transitional areas and overlay
districts, more landscaping to buffer incompatible uses. Amended SEPA process,
eliminated appeal to City Council. Rewriting subdivision regulations to be consistent
with KC, so if/when out of moratorium will have same standards, character.
City of Snoqualmie
Snoqualmie’s historic downtown area is located along the Snoqualmie River, in the
floodplain. Residents and businesses have experienced several serious floods, with an
increase in event frequency over the past ten years. King County DNRP recently
undertook a river-widening project to increase channel capacity and reduce flooding
impacts to the downtown. Residents have also participated in the FEMA-sponsored
hazard mitigation program to elevate about 10% of the housing stock in the downtown
area. City administrators concerned about public safety, have focused on flood policy and
regulation, and a new Shoreline Master Program. Concurrently with this, ambitious new
residential developments have been built on Snoqualmie Ridge, former Plum Creek
Timberland that was logged and then sold and annexed to the City.
Comp Plan: current is ’94 with ’01 Amendments
LU Element: did substantial update last year on Flood Zone. Down-zoned all
residential to 1du/5acres
Enviro Element: written in ’94, working on big changes this year to align with BAS
guidance. Will follow DOE’s model ordinances, i.e. wetlands
SAO: current one was written in ’91 based on KC’s SAO. Looking to update this year for

17. BAS, with DOE sources and other literature. Big task for salmon planning.
Shoreline Master Program: proposed element of Comp Plan. Soon to be adopted. Wrote
to conform with DOE’s Guidelines that were recalled. Waiting on BAS, will rely on SAO
regs that don’t relate directly to Shorelines.
Stormwater Regs: Adopted KC Surface Water Manual by reference.
Flood Hazard Reduction Plan: has own Flood Hazard Ordinance and policies in Comp
Plan, SMP.
Development Regs: current is ’94. Looking to add max impervious surface limits.
City of Carnation
Carnation has had little opportunity for new development, pending installation of a public
sewer system. Although sewer plans are now in the works, and resulting development
pressures soon to emerge, policy and program updates have been postponed and much of
existing regulations have yet to be applied. Some proposed policies, regulations and
programs have been in limbo with changes in City Attorneys and Council Members.
Current residents express sentiment to avoid becoming “like Duvall,” and voice concern
for economic development opportunities, and yet have little understanding that a
coordinated planning effort and regulations can be helpful to guide and control their
future.
Comp Plan: current is 1997
Comprehensive Sewer and Facilities Plan: Being proposed, hasn’t been reviewed
by Ecology yet b/c format. Has site selected, and KC Wastewater commitment for 2008
installation.
SAO: current version ’92
Shoreline Master Program: operating under 1974 plan. Had ’92 version, but wasn’t
reviewed by Ecology. Has ’97 Draft (274 pages) but is in limbo with Council.
80% of city under old program, 20% of city under KC’s newer SMP since its
annexation
Stormwater Regulations: uses State DOE Manual
Flood Hazard Management Program: adopted by reference – FEMA and KC guidance
Design and Construction Regs: current ’89. Looking to update/combine with
Development Regs., Development Regs: current ’97
City of Duvall
Duvall has seen significant new residential development in the last ten years, primarily
driven by high tech job growth in eastern King County. New residents have brought an
influx of new money and influence, seeking changes to the town. Its proximity to
Redmond, home to the Microsoft campus, its charming downtown with antique shops,
restaurants and cafes, and rural setting have attracted residents seeking convenience and
some a small town lifestyle. Commercial development has been temporarily halted until
sewer capacity can be increased; an upgrade is in progress with the City.

18. CHAPTER 4
B. The rational planning process
The approach and steps taken have some similarities to the rational planning method, but
are closer to a science-to-policy methodology used for classifying critical areas. What
follows is the rationale we used in developing the Model CAO:
1. Policy guidance was established in the Snohomish Basin (WRIA 7) Near Term Action
Agenda, to guide regulatory updates and actions in the two to five year time frame, while
the longer term Habitat Conservation Plan is being developed. These are a set of goals
identified by community leaders and citizens, that are consistent with the TriCounty
Biological Assessment, for making improvements to habitat conditions, water quality and
flood hazard reduction in the watershed. The overall NTAA implementation effort is
considered a type of development management plan, serving longer range planning goals
by identifying specific actions the community can take.
The NTAA’s 51 recommended policies cover twelve topical areas, including: land use,
wetlands, stream buffers, floodplain alterations, channel migration zones, clearing and
grading, stormwater and water quality.
2. With the overarching goal of achieving consistent protections across the watershed,
the multi-jurisdictional planning staff participated in a joint regulatory review process, to
assess their existing and proposed comprehensive plans, regulations and programs,
together with the NTAA policy guidance, to see where gaps exist and identify areas for
improvement. Priorities were identified and types of actions recommended, highlighting
those that could benefit from a coordinated, watershed-wide approach.
3. The findings of the regulatory review revealed that the watershed jurisdictions are in
good shape for about 45% of the guidance policies. Good shape means that all or a
majority of the jurisdictions have policies, regulations or programs in place that meet the
intent of the guidance. Out of the 28 policies that needed improvement, 12 would be
addressed using a Model Critical Area Ordinance for the watershed. This
recommendation was unanimously approved for funding by the Watershed Forum, the
decision-making body of elected officials and citizen representatives from the various
jurisdictions.
4. The development of the Model CAO began with the selection, hiring and contracting
of a consultant completed, facilitated by ILA-funded staff, and with consensus agreement
from watershed planning staff.
5. A watershed-wide scientific issue paper was produced by the consultant, and was
intended to serve as the basis for the State GMA’s requirement to consider Best Available
Science in updating Critical Area regulations. This paper was presented to the

19. Snoqualmie Watershed Forum and invited public, along with an explanation of how it
would serve our final product.
6. A series of staff workshops were held, to facilitate NTAA and CAO regulatory
guidance updates, consider BAS, and discuss policy options for the Joint Model
Ordinance. When consensus was reached among the watershed planning staff, a set of
science-based recommendations for specific regulatory updates was presented to the
Snoqualmie Watershed Forum. Questions and discussion followed, then unanimous
support was expressed by the Forum to support the transmittal of the recommendations to
the individual cities for consideration.
7. Implementation started with the transmittal of the Model CAO to the individual cities
in the watershed, for local public comment and subsequent modifications as desired by
the communities, and finally adoption, by the State’s December 2004 deadline. Any
modifications to the code that depart from standards recommended by the science, will
require a risk assessment that documents expected losses to functions and values of
critical areas and their natural processes. The risk assessment is the responsibility of the
local jurisdiction and must be made available to the public when the code is up for
adoption.
8. A 60-day state agency review and comment period was required before adoption, and
may suggest changes as well. In addition, regular updates to local CAOs are required
every five years, and serve to incorporate improvements to BAS.

20. CHAPTER 4
C. Relationship to Planning Profession
This project and its multi-jurisdictional approach falls within the environmental planning
profession, but assumes a larger landscape scale traditionally addressed by natural
resource and conservation professionals, and more recently influenced by
interdisciplinary research perspectives. It is where urban planning and natural resource
planning overlap. Because the project area is defined by natural geographic boundaries in
addition to political boundaries, the framework for analysis adds scientific and ecological
systems and processes.
Environmental planners working on watershed scale problems may interact with
specialists with (or themselves have) expertise in water quality, forestry or conservation
planning. They may work closely with ecologists and modelers, hydrologists, wildlife
biologists, wetland scientists, etc. In a county organization, plans mainly focus on
unincorporated areas, or land between the Urban Growth Areas of cities within the
county. But the WRIA processes are designed to include all watershed jurisdictions,
inside UGAs and between them.
In my role as a regional service provider at the county, funded through an interlocal
agreement, the professional experience most valuable was experience managing
interdisciplinary processes, knowledge of growth management planning, urban ecology
research and knowledge of land use and water interdependencies. Having access to
ecologists and other watershed scientists on the team was very valuable to understanding
problems and choosing appropriate planning tools to address them.
A regional service provider seems relatively uncommon in the planning profession. This
type of coordinated, collaborative planning shows great potential because it makes
efficient use of limited resources and taxpayers’ dollars, it encourages learning in the
group, and it was enjoyable to the parties involved. A valuable outcomes of our
collaborative process was the collegial sharing and cross-training that empowers staff
with knowledge and tools, bringing them together in a supportive environment to co-
produce work products.
Another attribute was a strong working relationship between staff and elected officials.
Staff recommendations were valued by decision-makers on the Snoqualmie Watershed
Forum, due to a common appreciation for local watershed processes and the environment.
D. Products
Many of the products were referred to in the rational process discussion. What follows
here are the products I was primarily responsible for producing:

21. Snoqualmie Watershed NTAA Regulatory Review process and findings: “Thinking Like a
Watershed”
Scope of Work
Workshop Agendas and Policy Options Matrix (working document incorporating input
from all cities, and consultant research)
Presentation of Staff Recommendations to the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum
Joint Model Critical Area Ordinance code document
1. Snoqualmie Watershed NTAA Regulatory Review process and findings
To meet the guidance set forth in the Snohomish Basin Near Term Action Agenda
(NTAA), and in the months leading up to the launch of this project, I managed a joint
regulatory review process that identified areas for improvement in each of the watershed
jurisdictions’ comprehensive plans, regulations and programs. The NTAA addresses
salmon habitat, water quality, and flood hazard reduction measures recommended for the
watershed in the TriCounty Biological Assessment, that can be undertaken in a two- to
five-year timeframe. The regulatory review involved analyzing existing and proposed
policies, code and programs to assign a value of “meets,” “exceeds,” “needs upgrade,” or
“doesn’t address” the policy intent stated in the NTAA guidance document.
When all jurisdiction results were completed, I compiled a summary report and
assessment of the overall watershed’s policy, regulatory and programmatic protections,
and developed a set of proposed staff recommendations to address areas for
improvement, titled, “Thinking Like a Watershed.” On behalf of the staff, I presented our
findings to the Watershed Forum with the outcome of four of five recommendations being
approved to move forward with future funding. One of the funded recommendations
included producing a Joint Model CAO Update, that would serve to address the majority
of watershed protection needs identified in the report.

22. 2. Scope of Work
With a funding source secured, my next task was to solicit proposals from consultants to
provide necessary technical expertise for the project team, based on selection criteria
developed with the watershed staff.
Specifically, the skills we sought for our project team included: experience and
credentials relevant for aquatic resource protection, salmon habitat conservation, and
wetlands; experience with similar issues and projects; the ability to work collaboratively
as a technical advisor to an inter-local policy team; familiarity with Snoqualmie
Watershed issues and jurisdictions; experience with local politics and small town
implementation; and the ability to address the larger ecological context and system needs
while being politically savvy. I developed a series of application questions tailored to the
needs of the project and designed to address the selection criteria, to support examples of
qualifications we requested.
As part of the RFP, I developed a Scope of Work document that served to clarify specific
deliverables, budget and schedule constraints, team roles and contract responsibilities.
The first deliverable was for a Best Available Science (BAS) compilation report of
existing scientific studies and applicable papers on each of the critical area categories
contained within the Snoqualmie Watershed. Each chapter focused on watershed-wide
issues, as well as the local level, to factor in the larger ecological system functions and
values, while addressing resource issues within the cities’ UGAs. This BAS Issues report
would serve as the basis for revising standards for critical area protections.
I coordinated several activities to prepare the BAS Issue paper for a presentation at the
July Watershed Forum meeting, including working with King County WLRD’s GIS
department on maps, posters and graphics, with the consultant on a powerpoint
presentation, with the outreach coordinator on a press release, and writing a memo to
Forum members. The memo served to introduce the legal framework and purpose of the
BAS Issue paper within the larger scope of NTAA Implementation.
3. Workshop Agendas and Policy Options Matrix (working document incorporating
input from all cities, and consultant research)
Following the BAS presentation, I began planning the watershed staff’s policy
workshops’ content and format. We decided on a decision tool matrix, that would be
approximately 40 pages long and tabloid-sized – a format that was effective in allowing
us to track a very broad set of issues and steps at a detailed level. Organized by each
critical area category; the y-axis included the original NTAA policy guidance and specific
State GMA requirements for CAO regulations. Along the x-axis, each subsequent step
and analysis in the process was dealt with -- aggregating findings from our joint
regulatory review, linkages to the Best Available Science issues paper, the consultant’s
researched policy options, staff workshop discussion notes, and finally, the group’s
recommendations for what to include in the model code. As the project team progressed

23. through our tasks, the matrix would be filled in from left to right.
The policy option matrix was a living document and shared workspace that evolved over
several months. Ultimately, the watershed staff declared it complete for use by the
consultant to translate into the final code document. It became part of the public record,
and is the source that best reflects how BAS was considered in the updating of the critical
area standards and code.
The workshops were productive, but very time-consuming. We ended up needing two
additional workshops to thoroughly consider the breadth and depth of our options. Their
effectiveness was largely dependent upon staff’s continuing dedication and commitment
to the project and the process, and the experience level of the consultant. Also key were
special guests who I invited to advise the staff on technical and regulatory aspects of a
critical area type, such as wetlands or floodplains. Indeed, the joint process made for a
supportive work environment, where watershed staff’s technical capacity was expanded,
and the challenges of complex subject matter was greatly enhanced by the thoughtfulness
(and humor) of the group.
Presentation to the Watershed Forum
With the workshops completed, I developed a PowerPoint presentation to communicate
the direction and staff recommendations, with special emphasis on what code revisions
would be involved. With local elections resulting in some changes in Mayors and city
representatives on the Watershed Forum, our presentation was delayed until the group
could get reestablished.
Finally, I setup the room in North Bend’s Senior Center, and delivered the presentation to
the Snoqualmie Watershed Forum members. I heard and responded to several questions
from the Forum and the audience. They unanimously endorsed our recommendations for
transmittal to the individual cities for consideration in local CAO adoption processes.
A series of repeat presentations to the individual cities’ planning commissions was
planned to follow, but several factors conspired to delay this past the contract end date.
With King County’s CAO entering the political process, the climate in the Snoqualmie
Valley was less than ideal for engaging productive public involvement on our proposal,
and city staff expressed sensitivity to timing. And, on a personal note, two team members’
babies were due in late May and early June (including mine), so available staff time was
disappearing quickly. The watershed staff decided to coordinate their own local
presentations, calling upon technical advisors already on retainer, or hire our consultant
team on an ad hoc basis.
The Model Critical Area Ordinance
Our project’s final code product contains specific regulatory language, based on the

24. group’s workshop decisions conveyed in the policy matrix, and further developed by the
consultant team using examples discussed in the group, and suggested by their
researchers. After a final draft was distributed, watershed staff from each of the cities
provided one round of comments. These were addressed by the consultant, and another
review was conducted. Some of the team elected to continue revisions, volunteering their
own time, with the understanding that the budget had run out for ILA staff coordination
or consultant input.
I drafted a cover letter to be sent from the Forum Chair to the City Mayors, officially
transmitting our proposed Joint Model code and associated BAS Issue paper to the cities
for their local consideration and adoption process.
Working with Growth Management Services advisors in the State’s CTED office, I
assembled review materials and contact lists for the required 60-day state agency review.
Agencies were provided an opportunity to comment, including the Department of
Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team,
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, and many others with
less connection to critical area regulations. If the Joint Model Code review is received
favorably by the agencies, it could potentially benefit and streamline the cities’ separate
review process requirement.

25. CHAPTER 5
Evaluating the Work
There are several levels to consider when evaluating this project. What further thinking
has enlightened my perspective? How well did the project deliverables fulfill its legal
obligations under GMA? How well did it meet the watershed jurisdictions’ aim for
consistent protections? How effective was my role and personal contribution on the
watershed team?
Further thinking
For the duration of my graduate school experience, it has been my passion to investigate
a wide array of planning approaches relating to sustainable development. Fortunate to be
living and studying in a location with statewide growth management, I recognize that in
terms of the regulatory environment, we are far ahead of other regions. However, the
more that I learned about the landscape ecology framework, and how an urbanized
environment can be viewed as a sometimes-sprawling impervious footprint on an
otherwise pervious basin, the more I questioned how “comprehensive” a comprehensive
plan could truly be.
The GMA asks for cities and counties to balance a broad list of often competing
objectives. While it has done much good in first calling for protection of critical areas and
containing growth within boundaries, its allegiance to concentrating growth near existing
infrastructure, is not enough in my view, to address the interconnectedness of natural
systems, topography, and the interdependencies of land use and water. Should we just
“write off” whole cities as paved?
I began to see this “disconnect” on the landscape as representative of the gaps between
urban planning and natural resource management. While a well-planned city makes
manifest a web of convenience for its residents’ activities, it is often the tree canopies that
bring beauty and livability. Three years ago, I sought out work from a watershed
perspective, within a natural resource agency, where established inter-local agreements
formalized cooperative, inter-jurisdictional work groups who meet to advance protections
for salmon habitat, water quality and flood hazard reduction. I felt I could make a
difference by marrying the land use tools of city and county planners with the landscape
perspective of scientists at the county’s DNRP and on the consultant team.
I’ve come to find the innovative governance model of the watershed-based interlocal
agreement a shining example of how multiple cities can work together to protect the
natural systems that they enjoy and share. The valley’s beauty and sense of place, home
to forests and fish, is necessary for the spiritual and economic well-being of its watershed
residents.

27. Application of Best Available Science (BAS) requirement
In Washington State’s Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
(CTED)’s guidance document, the “Critical Areas Assistance Handbook,” science-based
recommendations cannot simply be disregarded in favor of competing considerations.
What constitutes BAS? The document says local governments must identify, collect, and
assess the available scientific information relating to the protection of critical areas within
their jurisdiction, and then determine which of that constitutes the “best available
science.” While local governments may accept or solicit information from agencies,
universities, experts and others, the burden ultimately is on the local government to
determine whether the information assembled in fact constitutes best available science.
In August of 2000, new rules took effect to clarify uncertainties in this process. WAC
365-195-915 provides criteria for demonstrating that BAS has been “included” in
developing critical areas policies and regulations, by addressing each of the following on
the record:
Specific policies and development regulations adopted to protect the functions and values
of the critical areas at issue.
The relevant sources of best available scientific information included in the decision-
making.
Any nonscientific information – including legal, social, cultural, economic, and political
information – used as a basis for critical area policies and regulation that depart from
recommendations derived from the best available science. A county or city departing
from science-based recommendations should: (i) identify information in the record that
supports its decision to depart from it, (ii) explain its rationale for departing from the
science-based recommendations, and (iii) identify potential risks to the functions and
values of the critical areas at issue and any additional measures chosen to limit such risks.
SEPA review often provides an opportunity to establish and publish the record of this
assessment.
It is my opinion that the watershed team’s model CAO fulfilled the BAS requirement
quite well, but since it is not in the scope of this project to track adoption and
implementation at the local level, departures from the science-based recommendations
could have occurred after transmittal to the cities. One area in the model that departed
from the science, was in handling non-conforming uses located in a critical area. An
example of this is City of Snoqualmie’s historic downtown and commercial district Main
Street is located within the floodplain, vulnerable to frequent flooding events. The city
staff felt it would cause major disruption to require that this existing and new
development not be allowed in this downtown area. Allowing this is somewhat justifiable,
however, when balancing another GMA goal to locate development near existing
infrastructure. If and when the City of Snoqualmie chooses the option to allow non-
conforming uses inconsistent with BAS, it will be required to produce a risk assessment.

28. Consistency requirement for local and regional planning
With the adoption of the Washington State Growth Management Act in 1990, consistency
is now required where there are “common borders or related regional issues’ (RCW
36.70A.100). The Act identifies three areas of consistency, the third being focused on
here: intergovernmental consistency among the plans adopted by various jurisdictions
and planning agencies.
Consistent protections within the watershed are realizable depending on how completely
each of the jurisdictions adopts and implements the Model. A follow-up report would be
needed to track the adoption of the model – could it be implemented? Why or why not?
Consistency with King County’s CAO
The cities are governed under urban standards, while unincorporated county land is
governed under rural standards. One of the success criteria for the Snoqualmie Watershed
model critical area ordinance was to ensure consistent protections within the watershed.
Assuming the model was to be adopted by the individual cities, the regulations would
apply only within the four Urban Growth Boundaries of the Snoqualmie Valley cities.
The remaining area in the watershed is in unincorporated land, under the jurisdiction of
King County’s CAO.
To ensure consistency, it was one of my tasks to present updates on the latest discussions
I with King County science and policy leads to the watershed group to inform our
process. Throughout its development, though, theirs was a moving target. So while the
county’s project was in flux, we chose to move ahead with developing the watershed
regulations, with the understanding that we would revisit the county’s standards, such as
wetland buffers, when they were more able to formalize them. While we attempted to
synch up our schedules after a 6-month delay at the county, key items changed at the final
hour, particularly those affecting wetland buffers.
As required by the state, the county produced risk assessment documentation, since the
new standards deviated much from what the science recommended. The watershed staff,
recognizing the political pressures on the county to appease stakeholders, make
compromises and thus reduce protections, decided our model should align with the
stricter urban standards -- setting intentions to uphold pure, science-based standards
without “balancing” regulatory language with socioeconomic objectives, for example.
Benefits to the cities
There are many references to the experienced benefits throughout the paper. The positive
experiences of the participants provide valuable lessons for other communities who wish
to undertake a similar approach in protecting critical areas, or address other issues at the
landscape level.

29. Keeping the workgroups small makes them more likely to succeed. In watersheds with a
more complex stakeholder mix, perhaps grouping them by subbasins and/or common
interests would encourage constructive dialog and sharing, rather than grandstanding and
positioning.
Rural/Urban equity issues
This was more an issue with King County’s CAO than our project, since it applies to
rural residents in unincorporated areas rather than within the cities. Having two sets of
standards for rural and urban areas sets up equity arguments, with the perception that the
county “lets urban residents get away with it and rural residents pay for it.” The reason
for the two standards is that scientists recommend protecting high quality streams and
wetlands, usually located upstream in rural areas, rather than restoring already degraded
ones, usually located in the urban areas. Wetlands and streams in urban areas are
generally already degraded, or in a pipe underground, since existing development has
already encroached on them. So, lesser standards were developed, and people rightly
question that these were based on Best Available Science.
Science and opportunities for public comment
Opportunity for public comment was provided in the development of the NTAA in 2001,
at the presentation of the Best Available Science Issue Paper in the Fall of 2003, and
again within the individual cities, as proposed CAO regulations were presented in the Fall
of 2004. In the interim, after the science was aggregated and before the model regulations
were created, it seemed public involvement was missing, and that we may be setting the
stage for a backlash of perceived top-down regulation, as was expressed by rural King
County residents’ private-property rights outcry. More specific to the County’s own CAO
process happening concurrently with our project, but nonetheless their process influenced
perceptions of residents living inside the watershed cities’ UGAs. I noticed that an agency
division’s culture of scientific objectivity seemed uncomfortable opening up their process
to public’s view, before they could reach some consensus in peer review. There was also
great expectation of lawsuits from the development community, so policy staff were quite
protective of when documents were available for review. After King County’s
regulations were drafted, community outreach staff brought materials to residents and
stakeholders for Q&A, and were invited to fill out hardcopy or online comment forms.
One of the difficulties they face is how unpopular regulation is, with the county’s history
of adversarial relationships, stemming from county permit office and enforcement
situations.
I also learned that the resource agency arm, while serving the legal obligation under
GMA to consider Best Available Science, has the luxury of producing studies that set
standards that permit officers from the development review arm, must represent and
defend to the public, often face-to-face. The resource agency is thus distanced from the

30. personal and economic consequences of their standards. This sets up a cycle of bad
feelings about county government, and lawsuits to challenge the application of the
science. And, the building industry opportunistically joins suit to gain more private
control of land.
I also learned, but not surprisingly, that it is challenging to get public attendance at early,
more informational meetings, before there’s a crisis. For the Snoqualmie Model CAO, we
distributed a press release to several local newspapers to invite the public to a
presentation on our scientific findings in the Snoqualmie Watershed ecosystem, that
would be used as the basis for revising CAO regulations. Very few additional visitors
attended, aside from the usual Forum members and staff. But when another county
meeting introduced new rules that were rumored to take away property rights, 300 people
showed up! Stories of stewardship need to be highlighted, and partnerships with neutral
entities like the University of Washington or Washington State University Extension may
help.
We cannot continue to host non-constructive battles between preserving environmental
quality and protecting private property interests. The watershed and its ecosystem of
functions and values are the source of life for people, as well as fish and wildlife.
My role as project manager
In an evaluation titled “King County Department of Natural Resources as Service
Provider under Snoqualmie/Skykomish Watershed Interlocal Agreement,” I received very
positive feedback from survey responders, that included the cities’ Watershed Forum and
staff members. The comments were: that the staff is doing an excellent job, representing
their interests, being prepared and responsive, providing valuable insight, working to find
constructive solutions in a timely manner, providing agendas and info for meetings that
are understandable and timely. My manager, Watershed Coordinator Sandra Kilroy, also
expressed very positive comments in a one-on-one review meeting, saying that I
embodied the role as best as anyone could.
My self-evaluation of how I handled my various responsibilities is generally positive,
although with some matters of imperfection. In terms of overseeing the schedule, scope
and budget, I felt I did the best job I could with changing circumstances. King County’s
own CAO, a key dependency and parallel process outside of our control, was
experiencing schedule delays, and to accommodate concerns of the watershed cities’ staff
to allow the county’s process to be complete first, I made necessary changes to synch up
with their schedule. This meant our schedule and resources (including my time) were
stretched another six months, and the budget increased accordingly. Together with my
manager, I obtained a contract extension for the consultant and resorted to tapping a
budget contingency fund.
In terms of managing the consultant selection process and contracts, I felt I provided a
very equitable, professional and insightful process in securing an appropriate consultant

31. team with skills that fit the project needs and complemented the watershed staff’s. In
administering the contract paperwork, while I didn’t enjoy it, I met the obligations set
forth by county internal processes.
In terms of setting agendas for staff meetings and workshops, I did a good job here, but
needed to schedule two additional workshops in the series to accommodate the
remarkable depth of issues and discussion. On jointly facilitating discussion and
recommendations among the watershed planning staff with the consultant, I did a good
job, and proactively brought in experts and materials when needed to address complex
issues. On coordinating our product to be consistent with the County’s parallel CAO
update process, I met with many functional and policy leads within DNRP and DDES to
target where we needed to build in consistency in our watershed-based CAO, as well as
to clarify our legal and process obligations.
On preparing and giving progress reports and final presentations to the Watershed Forum,
I was successful in communicating workshop outcomes and staff recommendations --
obtaining unanimous Forum support, although I made an error on a slide when a last-
minute revision couldn’t be proofread in time. I also presented an in-person briefing on
our project to an elected official, Councilwoman Kathy Lambert, which I prepared well
for, and received very positive feedback from my manager, who also attended.

32. CHAPTER 5
Relationship to courses
Many University of Washington courses informed my work on this project, the primary
ones include (1) the Urban Ecology Problem Analysis series, involving interdisciplinary
research on urban fringe issues, and its landscape ecology method of analysis; (2) Land
Use and Water that introduced the WRIA process, and new thinking around land use as
water-dependent and water-impacting; (3) Regional Landscape Studio, where I developed
“green infrastructure” prototypes and policy recommendations, and (4) Introduction to
GIS and GIS research in the urban ecology lab, that provided hundreds of hours of
experience developing spatial analyses and maps.
Urban Ecology Problem Analysis and Research
As a research team member and student of the urban ecology problem analysis series of
courses, I learned much about urban fringe issues that arise where an urbanizing area
interfaces with rural and wildland areas. That team’s research focused on characterizing
land cover change at the urban fringe, and coincidentally, our study area included the
Snoqualmie Valley. We worked together to develop a unique, heirarchical classification
system that incorporated land use, land cover, dominant landscape type, and amount and
distribution patterns of vegetation, then spent hundreds of hours interpreting and
digitizing orthophotos of the study area, assigning values from the classification system.
This background was highly relevant in my role on the Snoqualmie Model CAO project,
in that it gave me expertise in understanding the link between land use and land cover,
close familiarity with the study area, that together with background in GMA and land use
regulations, suggested directions and options for regulatory remedies.
The urban ecology courses taught me to take a landscape or basin perspective of an
urbanizing region, and how to interpret the changes along the urban to rural to wildland
gradient. Each shaded area along that continuum suggests different tools for a planner
seeking to balance human needs with ecological functions. For example, habitat quality
can be enhanced within residential areas, using urban forestry planning and landscape
covenants.
Introduction to Land Use, Growth Management and Environmental Planning
Environmental issues covered in this class, taught by Prof. Christine Bae, introduced the
concept of urbanization impacts – including fragmentation of wildlife habitat, guidance
for community planners, as well as institutional problems and approaches to reducing
flood damage impacts, introducing a watershed perspective.

34. Land Use and Water
Taught by Washington State Department of Ecology Watershed Lead, Rodney Sakrison,
PhD, the theory presented in this class that was most helpful to me is that land use is
water-dependent and water-impacting. It was probably one of the best introductions I’ve
had to systems thinking in the planning profession, along with the course, Land Use and
Transportation. I had some great assignments that challenged me to apply analytical
methods to the hydrological cycle, covering issues related to watershed management,
ecological protection and restoration, availability of surface and groundwater, competing
demands, and quantity/quality relationships. I learned much about the functions and
regulations concerning wetlands and flooding, both critical area issues, and was
introduced to the WRIA process and regulatory implications that informed my work on
this project.
Regional Landscape Planning Studio
Many of the ideas I developed in this class I brought to the watershed team for
discussion, and integrated into the Snoqualmie Watershed Model CAO section on
stormwater mitigation. Having an interest in neighborhood-scale and larger applications
of “green infrastructure” concepts, I took this course to gain insights in mitigating surface
water impacts, using the case of Seattle’s Highpoint Community Redevelopment Project,
a neighborhood that drains to salmon-bearing Fauntleroy Creek.
Taught by Assistant Professor Kristina Hill, this was a studio in applied regional
landscape planning in metropolitan regions to examine the role of ecological
infrastructure on a regional level. Its ecosystematic approach emphasized maintenance of
landscape quality.
The project was to be razed and redeveloped, adding 800 housing units, a complex of
neighborhood amenities, and a new street grid. Overall, the development would cover
11% of the basin area.
My focus was to work with the public right-of-way and develop prototypes of green
infrastructure solutions, or ways to slow down stormwater runoff, filter and detain it
through landscaped bulb-outs, also serving as “pocket parks” for the neighborhood. The
aim was to improve water quality while reducing “flashiness” of runoff water discharging
into the stream. I participated in a presentation of the prototypes to several drainage
professionals at Seattle’s Public Utility offices, and recommended draft policies for
furthering the prototype concepts. Ultimately, I learned that providing affordable housing
while reducing stormwater impacts to salmon habitat downstream can be compatible
goals, using “green infrastructure” design approaches in the public right-of-way.
Introduction to GIS, and Research GIS for Urban Ecology Problem Analysis
My coursework and assignments in the Introduction to GIS class, plus GIS applications
on the Urban Ecology research project (mentioned earlier), was helpful background for

35. working in the Snoqualmie Watershed. These courses gave me the knowledge and
appreciation for the geographic, land use and land cover characteristics of the study area,
data layers available, capabilities of the software, and the knowledge necessary to do
spatial analysis.
What I’ve learned
Land use planners working on strategic long-range planning within city UGBs should be
considering the larger context of the watershed and its subbasins. Issues of critical area
designations, wildlife corridors, stormwater and hazard mitigation plans are all potential
multi-jurisdictional issues best addressed at the landscape level, incorporating the best
science available. Without a collaborative landscape approach, the cumulative effects of
thousands of incremental land use decisions by local governments can result in net
impacts that compromise watershed processes. Great problem-solving and resource
sharing can occur in cooperation with other cities and counties as needed, preferably via
an established WRIA group.
“Connecting the dots” between salmon habitat protection, GMA and other
planning tools
Following a briefing on recent GMHB Decisions, Joe Tovar, then Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board member advised me of the need to “connect the
dots” between salmon habitat conservation efforts and the GMA. Agencies leading the
salmon recovery effort rarely discuss the linkage to implementation as it relates to the
growth management tools at a planner’s disposal. Indeed, resource agencies and local
jurisdictions have different missions and objectives, but can compliment one another
when focused on the watershed as the organizing unit -- for inter-jurisdictional policy
making and problem solving when it comes to natural resources and water.
The GMA and its required critical area regulations are the primary means for city
planners to protect habitat and its quality. The watershed unit is a sensible context for
science-based decision-making. But for these regulations to be accepted by its residents,
public comment should occur early in the process, before the science is complete.
Longer-term salmon habitat conservation plans produced through the WRIA process
should be “integrated” into cities’ and counties’ comprehensive plan updates. Priority
sub-basins identified in these habitat plans should advise and inform comprehensive
plans. Conservation plans should include links to the planner’s toolbox -- by
recommending specific policy, regulatory and programmatic tools; encouraging inter-
jurisdictional, collaborative planning processes; recommending funding mechanisms for
implementation; and providing a framework for decision-makers on regional
conservation actions and tradeoffs – particularly those land use actions and activities that

36. are habitat-impacting. One major piece that can serve this function is a model CAO that
may be adopted by multiple jurisdictions across a watershed system.
Some of the tools I have discussed in addition to the model CAO are conservation
easements, Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, property tax incentives for
landowners through the Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS), urban forestry plans,
Washington State University (WSU) Extension-King County Forestry Stewardship
Program, Low Impact Development (LID), and “green infrastructure.”
Environmental planners are beginning to question land consumption, in the broader
context of sustainable development. Will this effect how we determine critical areas in
the future, and what is “buildable land?” Should we consider slowing or capping the rate
of land consumption in priority basins or subbasins?
Balancing public input with science-based policy-making
While the watershed staff provided an open process with project updates at the bi-
monthly Watershed Forum meetings, public review and opportunity for comment was to
be addressed at a later stage by the individual cities, after the model was handed off to the
local jurisdictions. This was the decision of the watershed team; however, I would have
preferred having more involvement from community members earlier and more often in
the process. It is critical that residents understand the importance of protecting salmon
habitat, as well as the functions and values of a healthy watershed that support it.
Fortunately, several excellent King County programs address this need – building public
awareness, providing tax incentives and forestry stewardship education to landowners,
coordinating capital improvement projects to acquire land, providing volunteer
opportunities for habitat restoration, native plant salvage, etc.
Benefits of collaborative process
The commitment and sharing between jurisdictions’ staff members and council members
was quite positive and a promising step towards salmon habitat conservation.
Collaborative work benefits smaller cities with similar issues and challenges, and builds
appreciation for differences and understanding of impacts downstream. Transferability of
this process may be dependent on keeping groups small and/or dealing with similar
issues. Would have to be modified to work with larger stakeholders and larger cities.
Flexibility and incentives are valuable strategies, but outcomes may be less certain.
Providing more customer service in permit review requires more staff time. Enforcement
of existing regulations are still an issue, according to planning staff in the Snoqualmie
Valley cities.

37. CHAPTER 5
Comparison with other cases
I could find no other directly-comparable cases to this project. Instead, I chose to look at
two cases of watershed planning that took different approaches: Kitsap County’s Chico
Creek Alternative Futures Project, and WRIA 8’s Conservation Plan Land Use committee
work.
I was impressed with some elements of the below multi-agency pilot project, involving
citizens in weighing options and choosing a future direction for their watershed, and
thought their approach may have complemented our project. Planners, educators and
resource agencies worked at the grassroots level, building an understanding of watershed
processes within the citizenry, fostering stewardship and assisting them in developing
alternatives for their future, considering tradeoffs in providing for ecological function and
community development – ingredients for “reinhabitting” their watershed.
Reinhabitation, a concept first coined by the poet and environmentalist Gary Snyder,
refers to recreating a relationship with one’s “bioregion,” whether on an individual or
community level.
Kitsap County’s Chico Creek Watershed – Alternative Futures Project
In January 2001, the Kitsap County DNR began a pilot project in the Chico Creek
Watershed that was designed to change the way the county works with local
residents to plan for development in their watersheds. The Chico Watershed
“Alternative Futures” analysis is a natural resource assessment approach for
guiding community planning and natural resource protection. This watershed was
selected due to its healthy salmon runs, large tracts of forestland, two large lakes,
and increasing demands of development within its boundaries.
A multi-agency effort, involving Washington SeaGrant, WSU Extension - Kitsap
County, Department of Ecology and others, and lead by Kitsap County’s
Department of Natural Resources, this project involved an innovative program
and group process. While the planning roles were largely delegated to watershed
residents, a Chico advisory team of agency representatives guided them, and
coordinated the project, assisting the Watershed Advisory Committee in
developing their documents. Scientists and educators sat on each of the working
groups.
Working groups addressed elements of watershed planning:
Education Working Group – created the Watershed Academy, designed to

38. educate the Chico Watershed Advisory Committee with a baseline
understanding for their role in Alternative Futures planning. The Watershed
Academy is a 27-hour curriculum that took place in the summer of 2002.
Courses included hydrology, soils and vegetation, surface water and
groundwater, water quantity and quality, wildlife, forest ecology and ESA, and
a short course in local planning, the GMA and land use planning processes.
Public Involvement Working Group – provided residents with a forum to
participate in the planning of their watershed, facilitated the development and
review of the alternatives
Technical Working Group –identify and complete technical tasks for
watershed assessment, provide advice and products, run analyses of proposed
alternative scenarios, incorporate monitoring program
Restoration Working Group – developed a plan to restore the lower creek to
sustainable spawning habitat.
An Alternative Futures planning process was undertaken for citizens to assess
the relationships between human activities and changes that occur in the
natural environment.
The WAC assessed four potential watershed alternatives:
Planned Trend: builds on present development patterns and existing regulations,
assumes “full build-out” in allowed areas under current regulations and
existing zoning.
Development: most aggressive in terms of urban and rural growth. Assumed UGA
would expand to include a highway corridor, all forest resource lands would
be rezoned as rural residential. Assumed both urban and rural zoning densities
would increase to the maximum levels allowed by GMA. Assumed
Bremerton’s UGA would expand and their minimum buffer widths, less strict
than county’s requirement, would apply near critical areas. TDRs would not
be allowed, conservation incentives would be rolled back, etc.
Conservation: seeks to minimize impacts on natural environment by concentrating
development in areas that are least sensitive to land use change. TDR
programs would be possible, “forest land of long-term significance”
designation precludes development. Would aggregate contiguous undeveloped
lots under a single ownership. Several provisions and incentives would
promote the conservation of the watershed’s natural resources, including a
critical areas overlay that would preclude development within priority areas,
and ‘reasonable use” exceptions would be eliminated from the county CAO.
Compensation may be provided to property owners who protect critical areas.
Count has “buy-out” program.
Moderate: seeks to balance the need for protecting natural resources while
recognizing some development will occur over time. The committee felt this
was a potential reality for the watershed, although it was not the preferred

39. alternative. It was recommended as a starting point for further refinement
during subarea planning.
It is important to note that none of these scenarios as currently described are proposed as
policy. This was only the first step in a planning process that will become policy after
further study, additional public process, and the resulting completion of a plan.
While employed at King County Water and Land Resources Division, I had the
opportunity to work with and learn from other WRIA groups and their processes. While
all King County WRIAs were producing Habitat Conservation Plans, only the
Snoqualmie Watershed committed to a joint regulatory review process and model CAO
project. While WRIAs 8 and 9 did have land use components in their plans, and land use
policy committees that provided a collaborative space for their city planners, they did not
choose to create joint products outside of the conservation plans. What I learned in
comparison with the Snoqualmie staff is they seemed to have an easier time working
together, with relatively fewer cities of similar size and priorities. In contrast, more
urbanized WRIAs 8 and 9 have a more complex set of stakeholders to coordinate, large
cities with potentially duplicative coordinating services as well as creating their own
science, businesses and industry representatives, and greater development pressure on
sensitive areas.
WRIA 8 Conservation Plan – Land Use Analysis
From Sally King, Land Use Committee Coordinator. WRIA 8 is highly urbanized,
and has a growing population. The LU Committee used technical-based policy
guidance. It set general priorities based on subbasin conditions, broader with
trade-offs. Subbasin meetings were decentralized, some pluses: good dose of
reality working with locals, and minuses: the Forum was not being directive.
Jurisdictions like Bellevue and Seattle want to do their own BAS. Gave them
ideas for tools, examples and pros/cons of scientific uncertainty. Using landcover
change analysis, projected same rate of fish declination, areas of highest risk
highlighted, but revising where they think people will be located.
To summarize, engaging citizens in learning about the functions and values of their
watershed ecosystems, training them to collect scientific data on watershed health, and
inviting them to consider alternative future scenarios is a positive, non-regulatory
approach to addressing conservation goals. The Chico Creek example is an interesting
case of multiple agencies collaborating to support this process. While there is less
scientific certainty, there is no substitute for an informed citizenry.
The urban watersheds WRIAs 8 and 9 had additional challenges of coordinating larger,
more self-contained cities, a complex set of stakeholders including business and industry,
and greater development pressures. WRIA 8’s approach to evaluating conservation goals
along with current land use show that smaller, subbasin groups may provide opportunities
for valuable input and interaction, but couldn’t be as directive. In comparison with the
Snoqualmie Watershed cities, collaboration seemed to work with fewer cities of similar

40. size and priorities, mutually depending upon each other to jointly produce products
required by the state.

41. CONCLUSION
This paper documents a successful example of how five jurisdictions worked together to
develop policy and regulations to protect critical areas in the Snoqualmie Watershed.
Using watershed-based science, the model ordinance is a product that deals with large
landscape issues and yet can be applied at the local level. Enabled by an interlocal
agreement, jurisdictions and planners were effective in jointly addressing watershed and
ecosystem-based policy, regulations and programs in a cooperative way, while
maintaining independence.
Towards integrating watershed planning into Growth Management
Habitat needs of salmon exceed the scope of a Critical Area Ordinance, extending into
land use policy, water quality, erosion control, and low impact development. Growth
management in Washington State, while it has done much good is also “too little, too
late,” if declining salmon populations are an indicator, and may be in need of reform.
Land use is water-dependent and water-impacting, and thus planners’ tools should
address these interdependencies at the highest level.
Ultimately, an urban growth boundary is a “footprint” on a watershed subbasin,
disconnecting the hydrological cycle and fragmenting ecosystems that provide valuable
habitat, water quality and flood hazard reduction services to human populations and
animals. Planners and cities may be asking if Urban Growth Boundaries are best located
to protect functions and values afforded by the watershed system, and if open space
within the UGB adequately provides the connectivity and forested land cover a healthy
watershed needs.
But if growth management reform is truly necessary, nothing less than a paradigm shift
towards an ecosystem-based approach, and a willingness and openness to work
collaboratively with colleagues, stakeholders and other disciplines is needed. Out of
necessity if not by choice, the watershed will become the planning unit of the future.
Planning tools and fresh approaches are needed to adequately integrate the diverse needs
of ecology, society and economy.
Planning for “green infrastructure”
Working together in WRIA-based groups, cities in the Puget Sound can envision a future
with “green infrastructure:” a network of natural areas, open space, water ways, and
ecologically-based design measures that protect native species and ecological processes,
maintain clean air and water, reduce habitat fragmentation, pollution, and other threats to
biodiversity, and improve the health and quality of life for people.
.

42. WRIA-based salmon conservation plans, drafted in June 2004 may provide the best
guidance for longterm salmon recovery: or where to focus resources for habitat protection
and restoration, and how, by identifying priority subbasins and recommending
appropriate land use-based regulatory or programmatic tools. Cross-references between
city and county comprehensive plans, and conservation plans are vital links for
implementing subbasin priorities. Special districts may be created to ensure greater forest
cover and native vegetation, for example.
Equity issues raised by rural residents who bear the burden of natural resource
protections enjoyed by urban residents should be addressed with market-based incentives.
The Purchase or Transfer of Development Rights, and property tax incentives such as
King County’s Public Benefit Rating System show promise for addressing needs of
people and the environment, by preserving privately-owned land for conservation
purposes.
Valuing ecosystem “services” of green infrastructure
Finally, ecosystem services must be valued if we are to preserve the natural systems that
support life, and limit the conversion of forested landcover to development. If the
hydrologic functions of a forest were quantified, we would see huge savings when
compared with the alternative: multimillion-dollar engineered solutions for water storage,
treatment and filtration. Future collaborative work between environmental planners and
ecological economists is recommended as a next step in clarifying the public benefit of
natural systems afforded by healthy watersheds.

43. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alberti, Marina. “Urban patterns and landscape change in central Puget Sound,”
proceedings presented at University of Washington’s Science of Watersheds 2004 Annual
Review of Research (February 2004).
Aronson, J. Richard (Editor). Management Policies in Local Government Finance Fourth
Edition. International City/County Management Association (ICMA, 1996).
Booth, Derek and C.R. Jackson. “Urbanization of aquatic systems – degredation
thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation,” Water Resources Bulletin,
American Water Resources Association (June 1994).
Booth, Derek and L.E. Reinelt. “Consequences of urbanization on aquatic sytems –
measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies,” King County
Surface Water Management Division. Proceedings of Watershed ’93: A National
Conference on Watershed Management (Alexandria, VA, March 1993).
The Chelan Agreement. Cooperative Plan for the Management of Water Resources in
Washington State. (December 1990).
Daniels, Thomas L. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the
Metropolitan Fringe (Island Press, 1998).
Gale, Dennis E., Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs – A Comparative
Analysis Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 4. American
Planning Association (Chicago, IL, Autumn 1992).
Karr, James R., “Protecting aquatic ecosystems: Clean water is not enough,” extracted
from W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (eds.) Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for
Water Resources Planning and Decision-Making. (Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers,
1995).
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Environmental Stewardship in
King County: Annual Report 2003.
King, Sally, conversations with WRIA 8 Land Use Committee Coordinator, King County
Water and Land Division (2002-4).
Kitsap County Department of Community Development, Chico Watershed Alternatives
Analysis – Process and Technical Reports, Recommendations (March 2003).
May, Christopher, Richard Horner, James Karr, Brian Mar, and Eugene Welch. “Effects

44. of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion,” Watershed
Protection Techniques, 2(4): 483-493 (1997).
Montgomery, David, Grant, Gordon, and Sullivan, Kathleen. “Watershed Analysis as a
Framework for Implementing Ecosystem Management.” AWRA Water Resources
Bulletin, Vo. 31, No. 3 (June 1995).
Moscrip, Amy L., and David Montgomery. “Urbanization, flood frequency, and salmon
abundance in Puget lowland streams,” Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 33(6): 1289-1297 (1997).
Piro, R. “Effectiveness of interjurisdictional growth management: integrated local,
regional and state planning in Washington State” (1997).
Ryan, Clare M. 2004 “People and watersheds: Perspectives for research and
management,” conference proceedings from University of Washington’s Center for Water
and Watershed Studies’ The Science of Watersheds Annual Review of Research
(February 2004).
Stenberg, K.J., Richter, K.O., McNamara, D., and Vicknair, L. “A wildlife habitat
network for community planning using GIS technology” (1997).
Chapter 90.82 RCW. State of Washington Watershed Management Act of 1998. (May
1998).
Washington State Department of CTED Critical Areas Assistance Handbook – Protecting
Critical Areas Within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act
(November 2003).
Washington State, Office of the Governor. Extinction Is Not An Option – Statewide
Salmon Recovery Strategy. (Olympia, WA, February 1999).
Washington Department of Ecology, Guidance for comprehensive stormwater programs
under the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. (October 1997).
Westerlund, F. “Reducing flood damage impacts of urbanization: institutional problems
and approaches,” Ch. 20 in Urban Environmental Planning, D. Miller and G. de Roo
(eds.) (Avebury Press, 1997).
Western Governors Association Annual Program Report, Regional Innovations: Western
Water Management Evolves Rapidly (The Park City Principles) (1992).

45. Conferences
American Water Resources Association -Washington Section 2003 Annual Conference,
“Water’s Woven Web: Water Resource Management in Land Use Planning in Washington
State.” Seattle, 2003.
University of Washington’s “Center for Water and Watershed Studies’Annual Science
Review.” Seattle, 2003 and 2004.
US EPA Region X - Office of Ecosystems and Communities, “Best Available Watershed
Science Conference.” University of Washington, 2003.
1000 Friends of Washington and National Wildlife Federation, “Grow Smart Washington:
a Call to Action” and white paper on “Green Infrastructure,” Seattle, October 2001.
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks – Agency literature
Best Available Science Issue Paper: Snoqualmie Watershed Near-Term Action Agenda
Implementation Project
King County 1990 Sensitive Areas Map Folio
Snoqualmie Watershed Aquatic Habitat Conditions Report (Solomon, F. and M. Boles.
2002)
Snoqualmie Watershed Interlocal Agreement
Snohomish-Snoqualmie Watershed Near-Term Action Agenda
PAGE 1
Page PAGE 10