Chapter 17.14
CRITICAL AREAS/SHORELINE OVERLAYS

Sections:

17.14.010    Purpose.

17.14.020    Applicability.

17.14.030    Exemptions.

17.14.035    Public agency and utility exception.

17.14.040    Reasonable use exemption.

17.14.050    General provisions.

17.14.060    Critical areas report.

17.14.070    Mitigation requirements.

17.14.075    Agency review.

17.14.080    Surety/bonding.

17.14.090    Permit conditions.

17.14.100    Aquifer recharge areas.

17.14.120    Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

17.14.130    Wetlands.

17.14.140    Frequently flooded areas.

17.14.150    Geologically hazardous areas.

17.14.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to regulate development in critical areas as required by the Growth Management Act as it now exists or hereinafter amended to protect these areas and their functions and values in a manner that also allows reasonable use of private property. This chapter also provides for the reasonable protection of the natural environment, resource lands and the general public health, safety and welfare, and satisfies the requirements of RCW 36.70A.060 by:

A.    Implementing the Pateros comprehensive plan and the requirements of the Growth Management Act;

B.    Protecting critical areas, in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925, and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified professionals;

C.    Establishing standards to protect critical areas that lie outside the jurisdiction of the Pateros shoreline master program;

D.    Protecting the general public, resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, property damage or financial loss due to flooding, landslides, or steep slopes failure;

E.    Protecting unique, fragile and valuable elements of the environment, including without limitation wildlife and its habitat;

F.    Meeting the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and maintaining Pateros as an eligible community for federal flood insurance benefits;

G.    Preventing cumulative adverse environmental impacts on water quality and availability, ground water, wetlands, rivers, streams and fish and wildlife habitat;

H.    Providing appropriate guidance and protection measures for addressing the needs and concerns associated with resource lands and critical areas that help define the quality of life in Pateros;

I.    Encouraging the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserving fish and wildlife habitat, and increasing access to natural resource lands and water; and

J.    Implementing applicable mandated federal and state regulations.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.020 Applicability.

These critical area regulations shall apply as an overlay to zoning and other land use regulations established by the city. Critical areas lying within the jurisdiction of the city of Pateros shoreline master program shall be regulated under the provisions of said SMP.

A.    All land uses and/or development permit applications on all lots or parcels within the city that lie within critical areas as identified in the city of Pateros comprehensive plan, Maps II-4 through II-11, shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. No action shall be taken by any person that results in any alteration of any critical area except as consistent with the purposes, objectives and intent of this chapter.

B.    Where two or more types of critical areas overlap, requirements for development shall be consistent with the standards for each critical area. Where it is determined that a designated critical area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Pateros shoreline master program, the provisions of the SMP will be used to provide protection to that particular critical area(s). However, any standards found in this chapter may also be applied to a proposal as optional and/or supplemental items to the provisions of the shoreline master program. For designated critical areas outside of the shoreline jurisdiction, the provisions of this chapter shall apply.

C.    These critical areas regulations shall apply concurrently with review conducted under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), as locally adopted. Any conditions required pursuant to this chapter shall be included in the SEPA review and threshold determination.

D.    The city shall maintain reference maps that provide information on the general locations of critical areas, alerting the public and city officials of the potential presence of critical areas. Since boundaries are generalized, the application of this chapter and the actual type, extent and boundaries of critical areas shall be determined and governed by the classification section established for each critical area. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location or designation shown on the city’s maps and the criteria and standards established in this chapter, or the site-specific conditions, the criteria, standards and/or site-specific conditions shall prevail.

E.    If a permit approval is requested for a development proposal that is located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of a critical area designated on the generalized reference maps (see comprehensive plan, Maps II-4 through II-11), the city shall review said proposal to determine the applicability of this chapter. The city may require additional analysis be provided by the applicant to assist in making this determination.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.030 Exemptions.

The activities listed below are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. Exempt activities shall be conducted using all reasonable methods to avoid impacts to critical areas. Exemption from the regulations herein shall not be considered permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risks from natural hazards. Incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored and/or rehabilitated at the responsible party’s expense.

A.    Existing and ongoing agricultural activities. The activities cease to be existing when the area on which they were conducted has been converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not considered part of an ongoing activity;

B.    Maintenance, operation and reconstruction of existing roads, streets, utilities and associated structures;

C.    Passive outdoor recreational activities, including fishing, hunting, bird watching or walking/hiking, nonmotorized boating and canoeing;

D.    Education, scientific research and the development of nature trails;

E.    Site investigation work necessary for initial land use applications such as surveys, soil logs and percolation tests, and special studies as required by this chapter;

F.    Emergency activities necessary to prevent an imminent threat or danger to public health or safety, or property. Any emergency action shall be undertaken only after inquiry and approval from the city and does not eliminate the need for later mitigation to offset the impact of the emergency activity. Once the immediate threat has been addressed, any adverse impacts on critical areas should be minimized and mitigated;

G.    Reconstruction, remodeling or maintenance of existing structures, including new accessory structures and additions to structures that do not exceed a cumulative additional five hundred (500) square feet of impervious surface; provided, that any such activities do not further intrude into the critical area or associated buffer;

H.    Routine maintenance of existing landscaping, within a resident’s lot boundaries, including pruning, mowing, removal of diseased trees or other diseased vegetation and replacement of individual plants when necessary to maintain a unified landscape theme; and

I.    Control of noxious weeds that are included on the state noxious weed list (Chapter 16-750 WAC) by the recommended methods of the county agricultural extension agent.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.035 Public agency and utility exception.

A.    If application of this chapter would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section. To qualify for an exception the agency or utility must demonstrate the following:

1.    That there is no other practical alternative to the proposed development which has less impact on critical areas;

2.    The application of this chapter would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public;

3.     That the proposed use does not pose a threat to the public health, safety or welfare;

4.    That the proposal protects critical areas functions and values to the extent possible and provides for mitigation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and

5.    The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.

B.    A request for exception shall be submitted to the city with the application materials for the particular development proposal. The application shall be supplemented with an explanation as to how the public agency and utility exception criteria are satisfied. The administrator may require additional information or studies to supplement the exception request.

C.    A reasonable use exception shall be processed according to the provisions of Title 18, governing a Type II permit process.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.040 Reasonable use exemption.

A.    The city may modify the requirements of this chapter in specific cases when necessary to allow reasonable use of an applicant’s property. To qualify for such relief the applicant must demonstrate all of the following:

1.    There is no reasonable use with less impact that can be made of the property that will have a lesser adverse impact on the critical area and adjoining lands;

2.    That the proposed use does not pose a threat to the public health, safety or welfare;

3.    Any alteration is the minimum necessary to allow reasonable use of the property;

4.    There are no feasible on-site alternatives to the proposed activities that would allow reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts;

5.    The proposed activity or use will be mitigated, under an approved mitigation plan, to the maximum extent possible and result in minimum alteration or damage to the functions and/or quality of the critical area(s);

6.    The proposed activity or use will comply with all local, state and federal laws and will not jeopardize the continued existence of the critical area(s); and

7.    The inability to have reasonable economic use is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property in a way that creates an undevelopable condition after the effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter.

B.    A request for a reasonable use exception shall be submitted to the city with the application materials for the particular development proposal. The application shall be supplemented with an explanation as to how the reasonable use exception criteria are satisfied. The city may require additional information or studies to supplement the reasonable use exception request.

C.    A reasonable use exception shall be processed according to the provisions of Title 18, governing a Type II permit process.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.050 General provisions.

A.    In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations which provide greater protection to the critical area(s), the regulations which provide the greater protection shall apply. The provisions contained herein shall be the minimum requirements and shall be liberally interpreted to serve the purposes of this chapter. The presence of any known critical areas on or within two hundred fifty (250) feet of property that is the subject of a development permit shall be identified by the applicant in the application materials submitted to the city.

B.    The presence of any known critical areas on or within two hundred fifty (250) feet of property that is the subject of a development permit shall be identified by the applicant in the application materials submitted to the city.

C.    The owner of any property with field-verified presence of critical areas or their buffers, on which a development proposal is submitted, shall file and record a notice with the Okanogan County auditor, in a form approved by the city, that runs with the land prior to the city approving the requested development. The notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a critical area and/or buffer, and shall also indicate that the property is subject to the provisions of this chapter and that limitations on actions in or affecting such areas may exist.

D.    In carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, the city may utilize any available technical resources, with any associated costs being paid for by the applicant, including experts/professionals in a particular field, and maps and/or documents, including without limitation the following:

1.    Pateros generalized critical area maps;

2.    Pateros shoreline master program maps;

3.    Okanogan County Level I, Level II and Level III habitat maps;

4.    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory;

5.    U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Maps;

6.    Aerial photos;

7.    Approved special reports previously completed for a subject property;

8.    City of Pateros comprehensive plan;

9.    City of Pateros shoreline master program;

10.    Okanogan County soils survey (2009);

11.    Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987);

12.    Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington (WDOE 04-06-015, as amended);

13.    Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species, May 1991, as amended;

14.    Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats—Riparian, December 1997, as amended;

15.    Priority Habitats and Species List, as amended;

16.    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), as amended;

17.    Wetlands in Washington State—Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science, Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 05-06-006; and

18.    Wetlands in Washington State—Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication No. 05-06-008.

E.    Trails and Trail-Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and trail-related facilities, such as picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms and campsites may be authorized within designated critical areas, subject to the following minimum standards:

1.    Trail facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas;

2.    Trail facilities shall minimize the removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important habitat features. Vegetation management performed in accordance with best management practices as part of ongoing maintenance to eliminate a hazard to trail users is considered consistent with this standard;

3.    Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, campsites, picnic areas, benches and their associated access shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife and/or critical characteristics of the affected conservation area;

4.    All facilities shall be constructed with materials complementary to the surrounding environment;

5.    Trail facilities that parallel a water course may only be located in the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the required buffer; and

a.    Commercial and public trails shall be the minimum width necessary to meet the designed need, but in no case shall they exceed ten (10) feet in width, unless required for approved fire/EMS access;

b.    Private trails shall not exceed four feet in width, unless additional width is required for ADA compliance;

6.    Private trails that provide direct water access (perpendicular) shall not exceed four feet in width and shall be kept to the minimum number necessary to serve the intended purpose. Public trail widths may be expanded in width to accommodate for necessary safety and accessibility;

7.    Review and analysis of a proposed trail facility shall demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions and values in conformance with this chapter;

8.    Trail facilities shall not be exempt from any special report requirements, as may be required by this chapter.

F.    Review Process. Anyone proposing a land use activity or development within and/or within two hundred fifty (250) feet of a designated critical area shall notify the city. Additionally, applications for all development permits will ask whether such areas are within two hundred fifty (250) feet of a critical area. The provisions of this chapter shall be applied to any such proposals. The review process shall proceed as follows:

1.    Preapplication Meeting/Site Visit. Upon receiving a land use or development proposal, the administrator shall schedule a preapplication meeting and/or site visit with the proponent for the purposes of a preliminary determination of whether the proposal is likely to result in impact on the functions and values of critical areas or pose health and safety hazards. At this meeting, the administrator shall discuss the requirements of this chapter and other applicable regulations; provide critical areas maps and other available reference materials; outline the review and permitting processes; and work with the proponent to identify any potential concerns with regard to critical areas.

2.    Application and SEPA Checklist. For all nonexempt proposals, the proponent shall submit all relevant land use/development applications, together with a SEPA checklist.

3.    Determination of Need for Critical Areas Report. Based upon the preapplication meeting, application materials, and the SEPA checklist, the administrator shall determine if there is cause to require a critical areas report. In addition, the administrator may use critical areas maps and reference materials, information and scientific opinions from appropriate agencies, or any reasonable evidence regarding the existence of critical area(s) on or adjacent to the site of the proposed activity. If no critical areas are found to exist, the administrator shall document notifying the applicant of this fact.

4.    Documentation and Notification. The administrator shall document the preapplication meeting and/or site visit, application and SEPA threshold determination, and any other steps or findings that inform the determination whether a critical areas report shall be required. The applicant shall receive notice of the determination and any findings which support it.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.060 Critical areas report.

If the administrator determines that the site of a proposed development potentially includes, or is adjacent to, a critical area(s), a critical areas report may be required. When required, the expense of preparing the critical areas report shall be borne by the applicant. The applicant’s choice of consultant or technical expert and the content, format and extent of the special study(ies) shall be approved by the administrator.

A.    The requirement for a critical areas report may be waived by the administrator if there is substantial showing that:

1.    There will be little or no alteration of the critical area(s) and/or the required buffer(s);

2.    The proposal will not impact the critical area(s) in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent and requirements of this chapter and the comprehensive plan; and

3.    The minimum standards of this chapter will be met.

B.    No critical areas report is required for proposals that are exempt from the provisions of this chapter as set forth in Section 17.14.030.

C.    Critical areas reports shall be completed by a qualified professional who is knowledgeable about the specific critical area(s) in question, and approved by the administrator.

D.    At a minimum, a required critical areas report shall contain at least the following information, in addition to any other specific information determined pertinent by city staff:

1.    Applicant’s name and contact information;

2.    Permits being sought, with a description of the proposal;

3.    A copy of the site plan for the development proposal of a scale no smaller than one inch equals two hundred (200) feet, showing the existing features on the site, such as topography, vegetation, etc., and including the extent of any critical area(s), and the plan for the proposed activity showing the relationship to the location of the critical area(s) and showing:

a.    Identified critical areas, buffers, and the development proposal with dimensions;

b.    Limits of any areas to be cleared;

c.    A description of the proposed stormwater management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations;

d.    The names and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site;

e.    Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area;

4.    A description of how the proposed development will or will not impact the function and value of the critical area(s), including an assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposed development of the site;

5.    An analysis of site development alternatives;

6.    A description (written and/or graphic) of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the critical area(s);

7.    A mitigation plan, as needed, in accordance with the mitigation requirements of this chapter, including, but not limited to:

a.    The impacts of any proposed development within or adjacent to a critical area or buffer on the critical area; and

b.    The impacts of any proposed alteration of a critical area or buffer on the development proposal, other properties and the environment;

c.    A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity;

d.    Financial guarantees to ensure compliance; and

e.    Any additional information required for specific critical areas as listed in subsequent sections of this chapter;

8.    The administrator may request any other information reasonably deemed necessary to understand impacts to critical areas.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.070 Mitigation requirements.

The applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of critical areas. If alteration is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to critical areas and buffers resulting from the proposal shall be mitigated in accordance with an approved critical areas report and SEPA documents. Mitigation shall be on site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the critical area, and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area.

A.    Mitigation Sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When an alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated for in the following order of preference:

1.    Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

2.    Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts;

3.    Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project;

4.    Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods;

5.    Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action;

6.    Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and

7.    Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary.

B.    Mitigation Plan. When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval a mitigation plan as part of the critical areas report. The mitigation plan shall include:

1.    A written report identifying mitigation objectives, including:

a.    A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas and the mitigating actions proposed and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation objectives; identification of critical area functions and values; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities;

b.    A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in critical areas mitigation; and

c.    An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project.

2.    Measurable criteria for evaluating whether or not the objectives of the mitigation plan have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this chapter have been met.

3.    Written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, including, but not limited to:

a.    The proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration;

b.    Grading and excavation details;

c.    Erosion and sediment control features;

d.    A planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and

e.    Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.

4.    A program for monitoring construction of the compensation project, and for assessing the completed project and its effectiveness over time. The program shall include a schedule for site monitoring and methods to be used in evaluating whether performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years.

5.    Identify potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.075 Agency review.

In cases where the administrator does not have adequate knowledge or training to determine the sufficiency and accuracy of information contained within a critical areas report or mitigation plan, said reports or plans shall be submitted to appropriate agencies for review and recommendations prior to acceptance by the city. (Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.080 Surety/bonding.

If a development proposal is subject to mitigation, maintenance or monitoring plans, the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, may require an assurance device or surety. (Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.090 Permit conditions.

Through the review process, the city of Pateros shall have the authority to attach such conditions to the granting of any approval under this chapter as deemed necessary to alleviate adverse impacts to critical area(s) and to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Such conditions of approval may include but are not limited to the following:

A.    Specification of allowable lot sizes;

B.    Provisions for additional buffers relative to the intensity of a use or activity;

C.    Requirements and/or restrictions on the construction, size, location, bulk and/or height, etc., of structure(s);

D.    Dedication of necessary easements for utilities, conservation, open space, etc.;

E.    Imposition of easement agreements, sureties, deed restrictions, covenants, etc., on the future use and/or division of land;

F.    Limitations on the removal of existing vegetation;

G.    Additional measures to address issues such as erosion control, storm water management, filling, grading, etc.;

H.    Development of a mitigation plan to create, enhance, or restore damaged or degraded critical area(s) on and/or off site; and

I.    Any monitoring and/or maintenance plans necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.100 Aquifer recharge areas.

A.    Development, uses and activities within identified aquifer recharge areas (see Maps II-4 and II-5 in the city’s comprehensive plan) shall comply with the regulations contained in this chapter and be subject to best management practices in compliance with the Eastern Washington Storm Water Management Manual. Any discharges that negatively affect aquifer recharge areas’ water quality are prohibited. Potential aquifer recharge areas have been classified and designated in the city’s comprehensive plan using a three-level classification scheme.

B.    Standards. For aquifer recharge areas found outside the shoreline jurisdiction of the Pateros shoreline master program (SMP), the following standards for development shall be required in addition to the general provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the underlying zone:

1.    All projects shall comply with best management practices described in the Eastern Washington Storm Water Management Manual;

2.    Projects shall be developed which utilize site plans that, to the greatest extent possible, minimize the amount of impervious surfaces associated with the project;

3.    On-site stormwater facilities shall be designed and installed that provide both detention and treatment of increased runoff associated with the development using stormwater best management practices;

4.    A hydrogeologic study may be required to assess impacts of the project on groundwater;

5.    On-site sewage systems (septic tank and drainfield systems) are prohibited within the city of Pateros;

6.    Underground storage tanks for fuel and/or hazardous materials that can contaminate the potable water resource are prohibited within any aquifer recharge area classified as “critical” in the comprehensive plan.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.120 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

Development, uses and activities within or near identified fish and wildlife conservation areas and their buffer areas as identified on Map II-6 in the comprehensive plan shall comply with the regulations contained in this chapter. The city may use the information sources in Section 17.14.050(E) as guidance in identifying the presence of potential fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and the subsequent need for a habitat boundary survey along with an on-site inspection, if necessary.

A.    Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. Fish and wildlife conservation areas include:

1.    Areas in which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association;

2.    Habitats and species of local importance;

3.    Naturally occurring ponds under twenty (20) acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat;

4.    Waters of the state;

5.    Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity;

6.    State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas;

7.    Riparian areas;

8.    Intermittent and perennial streams;

9.    Priority habitats and species as identified by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Program.

B.    Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have been classified and designated in the city of Pateros comprehensive plan. In addition, the city may designate additional species, habitats of local importance, and/or wildlife corridors as follows:

1.    Demonstrate a need for special consideration based on:

a.    Declining population;

b.    Sensitivity to habitat manipulation;

c.    Commercial, recreational, cultural, or other special value; or

d.    Maintenance of connectivity between habitat areas;

2.    Propose relevant management strategies considered effective and within the scope of this chapter;

3.    Identify effects on property ownership and use; and

4.    Provide a map.

5.    Submitted proposals shall be reviewed by the city and may be forwarded to the State Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources, and/or other local, state, federal, and/or tribal agencies or experts for comments and recommendations regarding accuracy of data and effectiveness of proposed management strategies.

6.    If the proposal is found to be complete, accurate, and consistent with the purposes and intent of this chapter and the various goals and objectives of the city’s comprehensive plan, the Growth Management Act, the Shoreline Management Act and this chapter, the city council will hold a public hearing to solicit comment. Approved nominations will then be processed as amendments to the comprehensive plan and/or the PMC in conformance with Title 19 in order to be considered as designated locally important habitats, species, or corridors and if approved will be subject to the provisions of this chapter.

C.    Habitat Boundary Survey.

1.    A wildlife habitat boundary survey and evaluation shall be conducted by a qualified professional biologist, as appropriate, who is knowledgeable of wildlife habitat within north central Washington. The wildlife habitat boundary shall be field staked by the biologist and surveyed by a land surveyor for disclosure on all final plats, maps, etc.

2.    The administrator may waive the requirement for the survey for minor development if:

a.    The proposed development is not within the extended proximity of the associated wildlife habitat;

b.    There is adequate information available on the area proposed for development to determine the impacts of the proposed development and appropriate mitigating measures; and

c.    The applicant provides voluntary deed restrictions that are approved by the administrator.

3.    The wildlife habitat boundary and any associated buffer shall be identified on all plats, maps, plans and specifications submitted for the project.

D.    Fish/Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan.

1.    The administrator may waive the requirements for a habitat management and mitigation plan if the requirement for a habitat boundary survey has been waived.

2.    A fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional biologist who is knowledgeable of fish and wildlife habitat within north central Washington.

3.    In determining the extent and type of mitigation appropriate for the development, the plan shall evaluate the ecological processes that affect and influence critical area structure and function within the watershed or subbasin; the individual and cumulative effects of the action upon the functions of the critical area and associated watershed; and note observed or predicted trends regarding specific wetland types in the watershed, in light of natural and human processes.

4.    Where compensatory mitigation is necessary, the plan should seek to implement restoration objectives identified in cooperation with the landowner, WDFW and the Okanogan County conservation district.

5.    The fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall demonstrate, when implemented, no net loss of ecological functions of the habitat conservation area and buffer.

6.    The fish/wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan shall identify how impacts from the proposed project shall be mitigated, as well as the necessary monitoring and contingency actions for the continued maintenance of the habitat conservation area and any associated buffer.

7.    Performance Standards. The following performance standards shall apply to compensatory mitigation projects:

a.    Mitigation planting survival will be one hundred (100) percent for the first year, and eighty (80) percent for each of the four years following.

b.    Mitigation must be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the administrator.

c.    Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings that is designed by a landscape architect or equivalent professional, as approved by the administrator. The design shall meet the specific needs of riparian and shrub steppe vegetation.

d.    Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than twenty (20) percent total nonnative/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species may include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or Okanogan County noxious weed board.

e.    On-site monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the administrator one year after mitigation installation; three years after mitigation installation; and five years after mitigation installation. The length of time involved in monitoring and monitoring reports may be increased by the administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when longer monitoring time is necessary to establish or reestablish functions and values of the mitigation site. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified professional biologist. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan have been satisfied.

f.    Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants, protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants.

g.    Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation and management plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of one-third for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. Verification of conformance with the provisions of the mitigation and management plan and conditions of approval after one year of mitigation installation shall also allow for the full release of funds associated with irrigation systems, clearing and grubbing and any soil amendments. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the city may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Noncompliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carryover of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the city council to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate.

8.    Prior to site development and/or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement must be entered into by the property owner and the city. The surety agreement must include the complete costs for the mitigation and monitoring which may include but not be limited to: the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and three monitoring visits and reports by a qualified professional biologist, including Washington State sales tax. The city must approve the quote for said improvements.

E.    General Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all development activities occurring within designated riparian and habitat conservation areas and their associated buffers outside of the jurisdiction of the Pateros shoreline master program. The following standards for development shall be required in addition to the general provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the underlying zone:

1.    Except as permitted by this chapter, habitat conservation areas and buffers will be left undisturbed, unless the development proposal demonstrates that impacts to the habitat conservation area and/or buffer are unavoidable, demonstrated by compliance with this chapter. Impacts must be addressed with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures as determined on a site-specific basis in conformance with this chapter;

2.    Habitat Conservation Areas.

a.    Development occurring within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius of a state or federal threatened, endangered, or sensitive species den, nesting, or breeding site, migration corridors or feeding areas of terrestrial species shall require a habitat management and mitigation plan.

b.    Cliff, cave and talus slope habitats shall have at least a fifty (50) foot buffer for safety and resource protection.

c.    Bald Eagles. An approved bald eagle management plan by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife meeting the requirement and guidelines of the Bald Eagle Protection Rules, WAC 232-12-292, as amended, satisfies the requirements of a habitat management and/or mitigation plan.

d.    Rocky Mountain Mule Deer Habitat. Habitat connectivity and migration corridors for mule deer shall be considered in habitat management and/or mitigation plans.

e.    Development in or over all surface waters shall require a habitat mitigation plan.

f.    Aquatic and vegetation conservation protection standards.

g.    Applicable Buffers. Except as provided in this chapter, the minimum buffer and setback widths found in this subsection E shall apply;

3.    The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species management recommendations shall be consulted in developing specific measures to protect a specific project site;

4.    Special consideration shall be given to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance the anadromous fishery;

5.    All projects shall comply with the applicable federal, state and local regulations regarding the species;

6.    As determined through the site-specific study, mitigation measures shall be implemented that maintain the baseline populations and reproduction rates for the particular species;

7.    As determined through the site-specific study, appropriate habitat conservation, management and monitoring plan(s) shall be developed and implemented, with any necessary surety to ensure compliance with such plan(s) being provided as described in Section 17.14.080; and

8.    Those areas within any of the established riparian habitat areas and owned by the city or Douglas County PUD shall be considered for restoration whenever projects are proposed, or as resources may become available for such work.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.130 Wetlands.

Development, uses and activities allowed within designated wetlands (see Map II-7 in comprehensive plan) or associated wetland buffers are those uses authorized by, and subject to, the provisions of this chapter in general and this section specifically.

A.    Purpose. The purposes of this section are to:

1.    Recognize and protect the beneficial functions performed by many wetlands, which include, but are not limited to, providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing habitat for fish and wildlife; recharging and discharging ground water; contributing to stream flow during low flow periods; stabilizing stream banks and shorelines; storing storm and flood waters to reduce flooding and erosion; and improving water quality through biofiltration, adsorption, and retention and transformation of sediments, nutrients, and toxicants.

2.    Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout the nonshoreline areas of the city.

3.    Establish review procedures for development proposals in and adjacent to wetlands that lie outside of shoreline jurisdiction.

B.    Classification. The city uses the 2004 Washington State Four-Tier Rating System for Eastern Washington to classify wetlands. Wetlands within the city and its UGA are identified on Map II-7 in the Pateros comprehensive plan.

C.    Identification and Rating.

1.    Wetlands shall be identified and delineated by a qualified wetland professional. Wetland delineations are valid for five years and shall be conducted using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1987, as amended); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Regional Supplement to the 1987 Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. The city may use the following information sources as guidance in identifying the presence of wetlands and the subsequent need for a wetland delineation study:

a.    Hydric soils, soils with significant soil inclusions, and “wet spots” identified within the local soil survey;

b.    National Wetlands Inventory;

c.    Previous wetland rating evaluation; and

d.    On-site inspection.

2.    Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Ecology Publication No. 04-06-015, or as revised and approved by Ecology). Wetlands in Pateros shall be classified into the following categories in accordance to the above-referenced manual:

a.    Category I wetlands are:

i.    Alkali wetlands;

ii.    Wetlands that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as high-quality wetlands;

iii.    Bogs;

iv.    Mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-fourth acre with slow-growing trees;

v.    Forests with stands of aspen; wetlands that perform many functions very well (scores of seventy (70) points or more).

These wetlands are those that:

i.    Represent a unique or rare wetland type; or

ii.    Are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; or

iii.    Are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or

iv.    Provide a high level of function.

b.    Category II wetlands are:

i.    Forested wetlands in the floodplains of rivers;

ii.    Mature and old-growth forested wetlands over one-fourth acre with fast-growing trees;

iii.    Vernal pools;

iv.    Wetlands that perform functions well (scores between fifty-one (51) and sixty-nine (69) points).

c.    Category III wetlands are:

i.    Vernal pools that are isolated;

ii.    Wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scores between thirty (30) and fifty (50) points).

    Wetlands scoring between thirty (30) and fifty (50) points generally have been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands.

d.    Category IV wetlands have the lowest level of functions (scores fewer than thirty (30) points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, and in some cases be able to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions and also need to be protected.

e.    Illegal Modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant’s knowledge.

D.    Regulated Activities.

1.    For any regulated activity, a critical areas report or wetland critical areas report (see Section 17.14.060) may be required to support the requested activity.

2.    The following activities are regulated if they occur in a regulated wetland or its buffer:

a.    The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind.

b.    The dumping of, discharging of, or filling with any material.

c.    The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table.

d.    Pile driving.

e.    The placing of obstructions.

f.    The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure.

g.    The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland.

h.    “Class IV—General Forest Practices” under the authority of the “1992 Washington State Forest Practices Act Rules and Regulations,” WAC 222-12-030, or as thereafter amended.

i.    Activities that result in:

i.    A significant change of water temperature.

ii.    A significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of the sources of water to the wetland.

iii.    A significant change in the quantity, timing or duration of the water entering the wetland.

iv.    The introduction of pollutants.

3.    Subdivisions. The subdivision and/or short subdivision of land in wetlands and associated buffers are subject to the following:

a.    Land that is located wholly within a wetland or its buffer may not be subdivided.

b.    Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, that an accessible and contiguous buildable portion of each new lot is:

i.    Located outside of the wetland and its buffer; and

ii.    Meets the minimum lot size requirements for the underlying zone.

E.    Exemptions and Allowed Uses in Wetlands.

1.    The following wetlands are exempt from the buffer provisions and mitigation sequencing process contained in this chapter. They may be filled if impacts are fully mitigated based on provisions in subsection H of this section. In order to verify the following conditions, a critical areas report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Section 17.14.060 must be submitted.

a.    All isolated Category III and IV wetlands less than one thousand (1,000) square feet that:

i.    Are not associated with riparian areas or buffer.

ii.    Are not part of a wetland mosaic.

iii.    Do not contain habitat identified as essential for local populations of priority species identified by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or species of local importance identified in the maps contained in the Pateros comprehensive plan.

iv.    Are not a vernal pool.

v.    Are not an alkali wetland.

vi.    Do not contain aspen stands.

2.    Activities Allowed in Wetlands. The activities listed below are allowed in wetlands. These activities do not require submission of a critical area or wetland critical areas report, except where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include:

a.    Those activities and uses conducted pursuant to the Washington State Forest Practices Act and its rules and regulations, WAC 222-12-030, where state law specifically exempts local authority, except those developments requiring local approval for Class 4 general forest practice permits (conversions) as defined in Chapter 76.09 RCW and Chapter 222-12 WAC.

b.    Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and/or other wildlife that does not entail changing the structure or functions of the existing wetland.

c.    The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops, and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.

d.    Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a wetland, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column will be disturbed.

e.    Enhancement of a wetland through the removal of nonnative invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal unless permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies have been obtained for approved biological or chemical treatments. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.

f.    Educational and scientific research activities.

g.    Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way; provided, that the maintenance or repair does not expand the footprint or use of the facility or right-of-way.

F.    Wetland Buffers.

1.    Buffer Requirements. The standard buffer widths in Table 17.14.130(1) have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined by a qualified wetland professional using the Washington State wetland rating system for Eastern Washington.

a.    The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in Table 17.14.130(2), where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.

b.    If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table 17.14.130(2), then a thirty-three (33) percent increase in the width of all buffers is required. For example, a seventy-five (75) foot buffer with the mitigation measures would be a one hundred (100) foot buffer without them.

c.    The standard buffer widths assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community appropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided.

d.    Additional buffer widths are added to the standard buffer widths. For example, a Category I wetland scoring thirty-two (32) points for habitat function would require a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet (seventy-five (75) plus seventy-five (75)).

2.    Increased Wetland Buffer Area Width. Buffer widths shall be increased on a case-by-case basis as determined by the administrator when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the wetland. The documentation must include but not be limited to the following criteria:

a.    The wetland is used by a plant or animal species listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitored or documented priority species or habitats, or essential or outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or

b.    The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or

c.    The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than thirty (30) percent.

3.    Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted when all of the following conditions are met:

a.    The wetland has significant differences in characteristics that affect its habitat functions, such as a wetland with a forested component adjacent to a degraded emergent component or a “dual-rated” wetland with a Category I area adjacent to a lower-rated area.

b.    The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher-functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower-functioning or less sensitive portion as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional.

c.    The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.

d.    The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either three-fourths of the required width or seventy-five (75) feet for Categories I and II, fifty (50) feet for Category III and twenty-five (25) feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.

4.    Averaging to allow reasonable use of a parcel may be permitted when all of the following are met:

a.    There are no feasible alternatives to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging.

b.    The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional. The total buffer area after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging.

c.    The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than either three-fourths of the required width or seventy-five (75) feet for Categories I and II, fifty (50) feet for Category III and twenty-five (25) feet for Category IV, whichever is greater.

5.    To facilitate long-range planning using a landscape approach, the administrator may identify and preassess wetlands using the rating system and establish appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been preassessed in this manner.

6.    Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. Only fully vegetated buffers will be considered. Lawns, walkways, driveways, and other mowed or paved areas will not be considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.

7.    Buffers on Mitigation Sites. All mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this section. Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site.

8.    Buffer Maintenance. Except as otherwise specified or allowed in accordance with this section, wetland buffers shall be retained in an undisturbed or enhanced condition. In the case of compensatory mitigation sites, removal of invasive nonnative weeds is required for the duration of the mitigation bond.

9.    Impacts to Buffers. Requirements for the compensation for impacts to buffers are provided in subsection H of this section.

 

Table 17.14.130(1) Wetland Buffer Requirements 

Wetland category	Standard buffer width	Additional buffer width if wetland scores 21—25 habitat points	Additional buffer width if wetland scores 26—29 habitat points	Additional buffer width if wetland scores 30—36 habitat points
Category I: Based on total score	75 ft	Add 15 ft	Add 45 ft	Add 75 ft
Category I: Forested	75 ft	Add 15 ft	Add 45 ft	Add 75 ft
Category I: Bogs	190 ft	NA	NA	NA
Category I: Alkali	150 ft	NA	NA	NA
Category I: Natural Heritage Wetlands	190 ft	NA	NA	NA
Category II: Based on total score	75 ft	Add 15 ft	Add 45 ft	Add 75 ft
Category II: Vernal pool	150 ft	NA	NA	NA
Category II: Forested	75 ft	Add 15 ft	Add 45 ft	Add 75 ft
Category III (all)	60 ft	Add 30 ft	Add 60 ft	NA
Category IV (all)	40 ft	NA	NA	NA

10.    Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. If buffers for two contiguous critical areas overlap (such as buffers for a stream and a wetland), the wider buffer applies.

11.    Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within a wetland buffer in accordance with the review procedures of this chapter, provided they are not prohibited by any other applicable law and they are conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the buffer and adjacent wetland:

a.    Conservation and Restoration Activities. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.

b.    Passive Recreation. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical areas report, including:

i.    Walkways and trails; provided, that those pathways are limited to minor crossings having no adverse impact on water quality. They should be generally parallel to the perimeter of the wetland, located only in the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the wetland buffer area, and located to avoid removal of significant trees. They should be limited to pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable.

ii.    Wildlife-viewing structures.

 

Table 17.14.130(2) Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands 

(Measures are required, where applicable to a specific proposal)

Disturbance	Required Measures to Minimize Impacts
Lights	Direct lights away from wetland
Noise	Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional ten (10) feet heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the outer wetland buffer
Toxic runoff	Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within one hundred fifty (150) feet of wetland Apply integrated pest management
Stormwater runoff	Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer Use low intensity development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques)
Change in water regime	Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns
Pets and human disturbance	Use privacy fencing or plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion; Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement
Dust	Use best management practices to control dust
Disruption of corridors or connections	Maintain connections to off-site areas that are undisturbed Restore corridors or connections to off-site habitats by replanting

c.    Educational and scientific research activities.

d.    Normal and routine maintenance and repair of any existing public or private facilities within an existing right-of-way; provided, that the maintenance or repair does not increase the footprint or use of the facility or right-of-way.

e.     The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops, and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, chemical applications, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions, or water sources.

f.    Drilling for utilities/utility corridors under a buffer, with entrance/exit portals located completely outside of the wetland buffer boundary; provided, that the drilling does not interrupt the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column. Specific studies by a hydrologist are necessary to determine whether the ground water connection to the wetland or percolation of surface water down through the soil column is disturbed.

g.    Enhancement of a wetland buffer through the removal of nonnative invasive plant species. Removal of invasive plant species shall be restricted to hand removal. All removed plant material shall be taken away from the site and appropriately disposed of. Plants that appear on the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board list of noxious weeds must be handled and disposed of according to a noxious weed control plan appropriate to that species. Revegetation with appropriate native species at natural densities is allowed in conjunction with removal of invasive plant species.

h.    Stormwater Management Facilities. Stormwater management facilities are limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales. They may be allowed within the outer twenty-five (25) percent of the buffer of Category III or IV wetlands only; provided, that:

i.    No other location is feasible; and

ii.    The location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland; and

iii.    Stormwater management facilities are not allowed in buffers of Category I or II wetlands.

12.    Nonconforming Uses. Repair and maintenance of nonconforming uses or structures, where legally established within the buffer, provided they do not increase the degree of nonconformity.

13.    Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers.

a.    Temporary Markers. The outer perimeter of the wetland buffer and the clearing limits identified by an approved permit or authorization shall be marked in the field with temporary “clearing limits” fencing, in such a way as to ensure that no unauthorized intrusion will occur. The marking is subject to inspection by the administrator prior to the commencement of permitted activities. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction and shall not be removed until permanent signs, if required, are in place.

b.    Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this section, the administrator may require the applicant to install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer.

i.    Permanent signs shall be made of an enamel-coated metal face and attached to a metal post or another nontreated material of equal durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every fifty (50) feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity. The signs shall be worded as follows or with alternative language approved by the administrator:

Protected Wetland Area Do Not Disturb

Contact City of Pateros Regarding Uses, Restrictions, and Opportunities for Stewardship

ii.    The provisions of subsection (F)(13)(b)(i) of this section may be modified as necessary to assure protection of sensitive features or wildlife.

c.    Fencing.

i.    The applicant shall be required to install a permanent fence around the wetland or buffer when domestic grazing animals are present or may be introduced on site.

ii.    Fencing installed as part of a proposed activity or as required in this subsection shall be designed so as to not interfere with species migration, including fish runs, and shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the wetland and associated habitat.

G.    Critical areas report requirements for wetlands are found in Section 17.14.060.

H.    Mitigation and Compensatory Mitigation Requirements.

1.    Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans—Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication No. 10-06-07, November 2010).

2.    Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with subsection K of this section.

3.    Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in “Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington: Final Report (Ecology Publication No. 11-06-015, August 2012), consistent with subsection M of this section.

I.    Compensating for Lost or Affected Functions. Compensatory mitigation shall address the functions affected by the proposed project, with an intention to achieve functional equivalency or improvement of functions. The goal shall be for the compensatory mitigation to provide similar wetland functions as those lost, except when either:

1.    The lost wetland provides minimal functions, and the proposed compensatory mitigation action(s) will provide equal or greater functions or will provide functions shown to be limiting within a watershed through a formal Washington State watershed assessment plan or protocol; or

2.    Out-of-kind replacement of wetland type or functions will best meet watershed goals formally identified by the city, such as replacement of historically diminished wetland types.

J.    Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation for lost or diminished wetland and buffer functions shall rely on the types below in the following order of preference:

1.    Restoration (reestablishment and rehabilitation) of wetlands:

a.    The goal of reestablishment is returning natural or historic functions to a former wetland. Reestablishment results in a gain in wetland acres (and functions). Activities could include removing fill material, plugging ditches, or breaking drain tiles.

b.    The goal of rehabilitation is repairing natural or historic functions of a degraded wetland. Rehabilitation results in a gain in wetland function but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Activities could involve breaching a dike to reconnect wetlands to a floodplain or return tidal influence to a wetland.

2.    Creation (establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative species. Establishment results in a gain in wetland acres. This should be attempted only when there is an adequate source of water and it can be shown that the surface and subsurface hydrologic regime is conducive to the wetland community that is anticipated in the design.

a.    If a site is not available for wetland restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the approval authority may authorize creation of a wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the applicant’s qualified wetland professional that:

i.    The hydrology and soil conditions at the proposed mitigation site are conducive to sustaining the proposed wetland and that creation of a wetland at the site will not likely cause hydrologic problems elsewhere;

ii.    The proposed mitigation site does not contain invasive plants or noxious weeds or that such vegetation will be completely eradicated at the site;

iii.    Adjacent land uses and site conditions do not jeopardize the viability of the proposed wetland and buffer (e.g., due to the presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds, stormwater runoff, noise, light, or other impacts); and

iv.    The proposed wetland and buffer will eventually be self-sustaining with little or no long-term maintenance.

3.    Enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the altered area and meeting appropriate ratio requirements. Enhancement is undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, flood water retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement alone will result in a loss of wetland acreage and is less effective in replacing the functions lost. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or associated buffers shall demonstrate:

a.    How the proposed enhancement will increase the wetland’s/buffer’s functions;

b.    How this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts; and

c.    How all other existing wetland functions at the mitigation site will be protected.

4.    Preservation. Preservation of high-quality, at-risk wetlands as compensation is generally acceptable when done in combination with restoration, creation, or enhancement; provided, that a minimum of 1:1 acreage replacement is provided by reestablishment or creation. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from 10:1 to 20:1, as determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the quality of the wetlands being altered and the quality of the wetlands being preserved. Preservation of high-quality, at-risk wetlands and habitat may be considered as the sole means of compensation for wetland impacts when the following criteria are met:

a.    The area proposed for preservation is of high quality. The following features may be indicative of high-quality sites:

i.    Category I or II wetland rating (using the wetland rating system for Eastern Washington).

ii.    Rare wetland type (for example, bogs, mature forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands).

iii.    The presence of habitat for priority or locally important wildlife species.

iv.    Priority sites in an adopted watershed plan.

b.    Wetland impacts will not have a significant adverse impact on habitat for listed fish, or other ESA-listed species.

c.    There is no net loss of habitat functions within the watershed or basin.

d.    Mitigation ratios for preservation as the sole means of mitigation shall generally start at 20:1. Specific ratios should depend upon the significance of the preservation project and the quality of the wetland resources lost.

e.    Permanent preservation of the wetland and buffer will be provided through a conservation easement or tract held by a land trust.

f.    The impact area is small (generally less than one-half acre) and/or impacts are occurring to a low-functioning system (Category III or IV wetland).

    All preservation sites shall include buffer areas adequate to protect the habitat and its functions from encroachment and degradation.

K.    Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same subdrainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when all of subsections (K)(1) through (4) of this section apply. In that case, mitigation may be allowed off site within the subwatershed of the impact site. When considering off-site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program, or advanced mitigation.

1.    There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the subdrainage basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the subdrainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity).

2.    On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland habitat.

3.    Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the altered wetland.

4.    Off-site locations shall be in the same subdrainage basin unless:

a.    Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the city and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or

b.    Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument;

c.    Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts.

5.    The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. An atypical wetland refers to a compensation wetland (e.g., created or enhanced) that does not match the type of existing wetland that would be found in the geomorphic setting of the site (i.e., the water source(s) and hydroperiod proposed for the mitigation site are not typical for the geomorphic setting). Likewise, it should not provide exaggerated morphology or require a berm or other engineered structures to hold back water. For example, excavating a permanently inundated pond in an existing seasonally saturated or inundated wetland is one example of an enhancement project that could result in an atypical wetland. Another example would be excavating depressions in an existing wetland on a slope, which would require the construction of berms to hold the water.

L.    Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.

1.    The administrator may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the compensatory mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified wetland professional as to the rationale for the delay. An appropriate rationale would include identification of the environmental conditions that could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties (e.g., project delay lapses past a fisheries window, or installing plants should be delayed until the dormant season to ensure greater survival of installed materials). The delay shall not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the delay shall not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints that preclude implementation of the compensatory mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the city.

M.    Wetland Mitigation Ratios.1

Category and Type of Wetland	Creation or Reestablishment	Rehabilitation	Enhancement
Category I: Bog, Natural Heritage site	Not considered possible	Case by case	Case by case
Category I: Mature forested	6:1	12:1	24:1
Category I: Based on functions	4:1	8:1	16:1
Category II	3:1	6:1	12:1
Category III	2:1	4:1	8:1
Category IV	1.5:1	3:1	6:1

1    Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or reestablishment. See Table 1b, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance—Version 1 (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised). See also subsection (J)(4) of this section for more information on using preservation as compensation.

N.    Credit/Debit Method. To more fully protect functions and values, and as an alternative to the mitigation ratios found in the joint guidance “Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Parts I and II” (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011a-b, Olympia, WA, March, 2006), the administrator may allow mitigation based on the “credit/debit” method developed by the Department of Ecology in “Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Eastern Washington: Final Report” (Ecology Publication No. 11-06-015, August 2012, or as revised).

O.    Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall be required, meeting the following minimum standards:

1.    Wetland Critical Areas Report. A critical areas report for wetlands must accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include the minimum parameters described in minimum standards for wetland reports (Section 17.14.060).

2.    Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report and plan sheets that must contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006, or as revised).

a.    The written report must contain, at a minimum:

i.    The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland-related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project.

ii.    Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands.

iii.    Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be impacted. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding lands uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on wetland ratings (subsection C of this section).

iv.    Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are not undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?).

v.    A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands.

vi.    A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities.

vii.    A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands).

viii.    A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five years, annual monitoring, field work and reporting, and contingency actions for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring.

ix.    Proof of establishment of recorded notice on the title to the property containing the project site for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas.

b.    The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum:

i.    Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions.

ii.    Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed to create the compensation area(s). Also, existing cross sections of on-site wetland areas that are proposed to be impacted, and cross section(s) (estimated one-foot intervals) for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer compensation.

iii.    Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Also, illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions.

iv.    Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes.

v.    Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. Also, identify any zones where buffers are proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards identified in this chapter.

vi.    A plant schedule for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation.

vii.    Performance standards (measurable standards reflective of years post-installation) for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule and actions by each biennium.

P.    Buffer Mitigation Ratios. Impacts to buffers shall be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. Compensatory buffer mitigation shall replace those buffer functions lost from development.

Q.    Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years. If a scrub-shrub or forested vegetation community is proposed, monitoring may be required for ten (10) years or more. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the project’s natural resource values and functions. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within the initial five-year period, the applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions until the mitigation goals agreed to in the mitigation plan are achieved.

R.    Wetland Mitigation Banks.

1.    Credits from a wetland mitigation bank may be approved for use as compensation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands when:

a.    The bank is certified under state rules;

b.    The administrator determines that the wetland mitigation bank provides appropriate compensation for the authorized impacts; and

c.    The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument.

2.    Replacement ratios for projects using bank credits shall be consistent with replacement ratios specified in the certified bank instrument.

3.    Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the certified bank instrument. In some cases, the service area of the bank may include portions of more than one adjacent drainage basin for specific wetland functions.

S.    In-Lieu Fee. To aid in the implementation of off-site mitigation, the city may develop an in-lieu fee program. This program shall be developed and approved through a public process and be consistent with federal rules, state policy on in-lieu fee mitigation, and state water quality regulations. An approved in-lieu fee program sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in-lieu program sponsor, a governmental or nonprofit natural resource management entity. Credits from an approved in-lieu fee program may be used when subsections (S)(1) through (6) of this section apply:

1.    The approval authority determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts.

2.    The mitigation will occur on a site identified using the site selection and prioritization process in the approved in-lieu fee program instrument.

3.    The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in-lieu fee program instrument.

4.    Land acquisition and initial physical and biological improvements of the mitigation site must be completed within three years of the credit sale.

5.    Projects using in-lieu fee credits shall have debits associated with the proposed impacts calculated by the applicant’s qualified wetland scientist using the method consistent with the credit assessment method specified in the approved instrument for the in-lieu fee program.

6.    Credits from an approved in-lieu fee program may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the approved in-lieu fee instrument.

T.    Advance Mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre-identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation and state water quality regulations.

U.    Alternative Mitigation Plans. The administrator may approve alternative critical areas mitigation plans that are based on best available science, such as priority restoration plans that achieve restoration goals identified in the SMP. Alternative mitigation proposals must provide an equivalent or better level of protection of critical area functions and values than would be provided by the strict application of this chapter. The administrator shall consider the following for approval of an alternative mitigation proposal:

1.    The proposal uses a watershed approach consistent with Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Eastern Washington) (Publication No. 10-06-07, Olympia, WA, November 2010).

    Creation or enhancement of a larger system of natural areas and open space is preferable to the preservation of many individual habitat areas.

2.    Mitigation according to subsection H of this section is not feasible due to site constraints such as parcel size, stream type, wetland category, or geologic hazards.

3.    There is clear potential for success of the proposed mitigation at the proposed mitigation site.

4.    The plan shall contain clear and measurable standards for achieving compliance with the specific provisions of the plan. A monitoring plan shall, at a minimum, meet the provisions in subsection Q of this section.

5.    The plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of overall approval of the proposed use.

6.    A wetland of a different type is justified based on regional needs or functions and values; the replacement ratios may not be reduced or eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative.

7.    Mitigation guarantees shall meet the minimum requirements as outlined in subsection N of this section.

8.    Qualified professionals in each of the critical areas addressed shall prepare the plan.

9.    The city may consult with agencies with expertise and jurisdiction over the resources during the review to assist with analysis and identification of appropriate performance measures that adequately safeguard critical areas.

V.    Performance Standards. The following performance standards shall apply to compensatory mitigation projects:

1.    Specific criteria shall be provided in the mitigation plan for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project are being met. Such criteria may include percent aerial cover and survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, water quality improvement, flood retention, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. Unless the site-specific criteria dictate otherwise, default performance standards for the site shall meet mitigation planting survival of one hundred (100) percent for the first year and eighty (80) percent for each of the four years following initial planting.

2.    Mitigation must be installed no later than the next growing season after completion of site improvements, unless otherwise approved by the administrator.

3.    Success of a mitigation site is dependent upon site selection which supports the establishment of an appropriate wetland hydroperiod that permanently maintains the mitigation site, rather than on continued irrigation. To help ensure successful wetland mitigation, where necessary, a temporary means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings within the wetland, that are designed by a landscape architect or equivalent professional, as approved by the administrator. Where necessary, the administrator may require that a permanent means of irrigation be installed for mitigation plantings within the wetland buffer, given the arid conditions of the region. The design shall meet the specific needs of the wetland, riparian and shrub steppe vegetation, as may be applicable.

4.    Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than twenty (20) percent total nonnative/invasive plant cover consisting of exotic and/or invasive species. Exotic and invasive species may include any species on the state noxious weed list, or considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service or the Okanogan County noxious weed board.

5.    On-site monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the administrator one year after mitigation installation; three years after mitigation installation; and five years after mitigation installation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified professional biologist. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the wetland management and mitigation plan have been satisfied.

6.    Mitigation sites shall be maintained to ensure that the mitigation and management plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants, protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants.

7.    Prior to site development and/or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement in conformance with Section 17.14.080 must be entered into by the property owner and the city. The surety agreement must include the complete costs for the mitigation and monitoring which may include but not be limited to: the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and three monitoring visits and reports by a qualified professional biologist, including Washington State sales tax. The administrator must approve the quote for said improvements.

8.    Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the mitigation and management plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of one-third for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. Verification of conformance with the provisions of the mitigation and management plan and conditions of approval after one year of mitigation installation shall also allow for the full release of funds associated with irrigation systems, clearing and grubbing and any soil amendments. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the city may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Noncompliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carryover of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the city’s planning agency to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate.

W.    General Standards. The following minimum standards shall apply to all development activities occurring within designated wetlands and/or their buffers:

1.    Except where permitted by this chapter, wetlands and wetland buffers will be left undisturbed, unless the development proposal demonstrates that impacts to the wetland and/or buffer are unavoidable, demonstrated by compliance with this section. Impacts must be addressed with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures as determined on a site-specific basis in conformance with this section.

2.    Wetland Buffers. Appropriate buffer areas shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and the designated wetland. Provisions to identify the type of wetland and delineate its boundary are established in this section and must be conducted by a qualified professional biologist.

a.    The width of a wetland buffer, as measured from the wetland edge established in the approved wetland boundary survey, shall be as found in Table 17.14.130(1).

b.    Where a wetland is located within a riparian buffer, the buffer width, riparian or wetland which provides the greatest degree of protection shall apply.

c.    All buffers shall be measured from the wetland edge, as established by the approved wetland boundary survey.

d.    All buffer areas shall be temporarily fenced between the construction activity and the buffer with a highly visible and durable protective barrier during construction to prevent access and protect the designated wetland and associated buffer. The administrator may waive this requirement if an alternative to fencing which achieves the same objective is proposed and approved.

e.    Except as otherwise allowed, buffers shall be retained in their natural condition. Any habitat created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall have the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored or enhanced wetland.

f.    Land divisions within designated wetland areas shall require a minimum lot frontage along the protective buffer as outlined in this chapter.

g.    The width of the buffer shall be increased by the administrator for a development project on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the designated wetland function and value. The determination shall be based on site-specific and project-related conditions which include, without limitation:

i.    The designated wetland is used for feeding, nesting and resting by species proposed or listed by the federal or state government as endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, monitor or critical; or if it is outstanding potential habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees;

ii.    The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts.

X.    Specific Standards. The following standards shall apply to the activity identified below, in addition to the general standards outlined in this chapter:

1.    Developments which contain a wetland or wetland buffer on site shall comply with the following minimum standards:

a.    All plats shall disclose the presence on each residential lot of one building site, including access, that is suitable for development and which is not within the designated wetland or its associated buffer;

b.    All designated wetland areas and their proposed buffers shall be clearly identified on all final plats, maps, documents, etc.;

c.    Designated wetlands and their associated wetland buffers shall be designated and disclosed on the final plats, maps, documents, etc., as critical area tracts, nonbuildable lots and buffer areas or common areas. Ownership and control may be transferred to a homeowners’ association or designated as an easement or covenant encumbering the property;

d.    All lots within a major subdivision, short plat, planned development or binding site plan shall have the outer edge of all required buffers clearly marked on site with permanent buffer edge markers. Buffer markers may be either buffer signs or steel posts painted with a standard color and label, as approved by the administrator. The markers shall be field verified by the surveyor or biologist of record prior to final plat approval. Each lot shall contain a minimum of three buffer area markers located at the landward edge of the buffer perimeter for each habitat type; one located at each side property line and one midway between side property lines. Covenants shall incorporate a requirement stating that buffer area markers shall not be removed, or relocated, except as may be approved by the administrator;

e.    Residential developments with the potential for two or more dwelling units shall disclose on the face of the plat whether the development will be served by joint use or community dock facilities or a combination thereof. Access easements and dock locations shall be identified by a qualified professional biologist who will address the standards of this chapter. The identification of access easements and dock locations is not a substitute for permitting required in order to develop moorage facilities and in no way guarantees such an approval.

2.    Stream Crossings. Expansion or construction of stream crossings may be authorized within a designated wetland or wetland buffer, subject to the following minimum standards:

a.    Bridges are required for streams which support salmonids;

b.    All crossings using culverts shall use superspan or oversize culverts;

c.    Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other feasible crossing site exists;

d.    Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed in either the floodway or between the ordinary high-water marks unless no other feasible alternative placement exists;

e.    Crossings shall not diminish flood carrying capacity; and

f.    Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible.

3.    Trails and Trail-Related Facilities. Construction of public and private trails and trail-related facilities, such as picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms and campsites may be authorized within designated wetlands, subject to the standards contained in Tables 17.14.130(1) and (2).

4.    A use or structure established prior to the effective date of this chapter which does not conform to standards set forth herein, is allowed to continue and be reasonably maintained; provided, that such activity or structure shall not be expanded or enlarged in any manner that increases the extent of its nonconformity.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.140 Frequently flooded areas.

Development, uses and activities within identified frequently flooded areas shall comply with the regulations contained in Chapter 15.16. When a project location includes one or more designated critical areas, the following regulations apply in addition to Chapter 15.16:

A.    Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide regulations intended to protect the functions and values of designated critical areas resulting from development in flood hazard areas.

B.    General Standards. In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required:

1.    Development in floodplains should not significantly or cumulatively increase flood hazards or be inconsistent with comprehensive flood hazard management plans adopted pursuant to Chapter 86.12 RCW.

2.    New development or new uses in critical areas, including the subdivision of land, should not be permitted when it would be reasonably foreseeable that the development or use would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the channel migration zone or floodway.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)

17.14.150 Geologically hazardous areas.

Development, uses and activities within identified geologically hazardous areas (see Maps II-8 through II-11 in the comprehensive plan) shall comply with the regulations contained in this chapter.

A.    Determination Process—Geologically Hazardous Area. The city shall review each land use permit application to determine if the provisions of this section shall be initiated. In making the determination, the city may use any resources identified in this chapter, as well as any previously completed special reports conducted in the vicinity of the subject proposal. The following progressive steps shall occur upon a determination by the city that a geologically hazardous area may exist on a site proposed for a development permit:

1.    Step One. City staff shall determine if there is any possible geologically hazardous area on site designated by the comprehensive plan. This determination shall be made following a review of information available and a site inspection if appropriate. If no hazard area is determined to be present, this chapter shall not apply to the review of the proposed development.

2.    Step Two. If it is determined that a geologically hazardous area may be present, the applicant shall submit a geologic hazard area risk assessment prepared by an engineer or a geologist. The risk assessment (geotechnical report) shall include a description of the geology of the site and the proposed development; an assessment of the potential impact the project may have on the geologic hazard; an assessment of what potential impact the geologic hazard may have on the project; appropriate mitigation measures, if any; and a conclusion as to whether further analysis is necessary. The assessment shall be signed by and bear the seal of the engineer or geologist that prepared it. No further analysis shall be required if the geologic hazard area risk assessment concludes that there is no geologic hazard present on the site, nor will the project affect or be affected by any potential geologic hazards that may be nearby.

3.    Step Three. If the professional preparing the risk assessment in step two concludes that further analysis is necessary, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report.

4.    The geotechnical report shall include a certification from the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer preparing the report, including the professional’s stamp and signature. The geotechnical report shall include the following:

a.    A description of the geology of the site;

b.    Conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development;

c.    Conclusions and recommendations on the suitability of the site to be developed;

d.    An evaluation of the actual presence of geologic conditions giving rise to the geologic hazard;

e.    An evaluation of the safety of the proposed project;

f.    Identification of construction practices, monitoring programs and other mitigation measures necessary;

g.    A bibliography of scientific citations shall be included as necessary;

h.    A statement regarding:

i.    The risk of damage from the project, both on and off site;

ii.    Whether or not the project will materially increase the risk of occurrence of the hazard;

i.    The specific measures incorporated into the design and operational plan of the project to eliminate or reduce the risk of damage due to the hazard.

B.    Standards. The following standards for development shall be required in addition to the general provisions of this chapter and the requirements of the underlying zone:

1.    All projects shall be evaluated through a geotechnical report to determine whether the project is proposed to be located in a geologically hazardous area and, if so, what is the project’s potential impact on the geologically hazardous area and the potential impact of the geologic hazard on the proposed project;

2.    All mitigation measures, construction techniques, recommendations and technical specifications provided in the geotechnical report shall be applied during the implementation of the proposal. The engineer of record shall submit sealed verification at the conclusion of construction that development occurred in conformance with the approved plans;

3.    A proposed development cannot be approved if it is determined by the geotechnical report that either the proposed development or adjacent properties will be at risk of damage from the geologic hazard, or that the project will increase the risk of occurrence of the hazard, and there are no adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the risks;

4.    New development or the creation of new lots that would cause foreseeable risk from geological conditions to people or improvements during the life of the development shall be prohibited;

5.    New development that would require structural stabilization over the life of the development shall be prohibited. Exceptions may be made for the limited instances where stabilization is necessary to protect allowed uses where no alternative locations are available and no net loss of ecological functions will result. The stabilization measures shall conform to WAC 173-26-231;

6.    Where no alternatives, including relocation or reconstruction of existing structures, are found to be feasible, and less expensive than the proposed stabilization measure, stabilization structures or measures to protect existing primary residential structures may be allowed in strict conformance with WAC 173-26-231 requirements and then only if no net loss of ecological functions will result;

7.    All projects shall comply with the applicable federal, state and local regulations, including the International Building Code;

8.    As determined through the site-specific study, appropriate buffers shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and the designated geologically hazardous area(s);

9.    The existing native vegetation within the buffer area(s) shall be maintained, except that normal, nondestructive pruning and trimming of vegetation for maintenance purposes is allowed;

10.    As determined through the site-specific study, appropriate drainage, grading, excavation and erosion control measures shall be implemented in the geologically hazardous area(s);

11.    As determined through the site-specific study, mitigation measures shall be implemented that maintain the integrity of the geologically hazardous area(s);

12.    As determined through the site-specific study, appropriate management and monitoring plan(s) shall be developed and implemented to preserve and protect both the geologically hazardous area(s) and the project, with any necessary surety to ensure compliance with such plan(s) being provided as described in Section 17.14.080; and

13.    A use or structure established prior to the effective date of this chapter, which does not conform to standards set forth herein, is allowed to continue and be reasonably maintained; provided, that such activity or structure shall not be expanded or enlarged in any manner that increases the extent of its nonconformity.

(Ord. 771 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 722 § 3 (Exh. 1 (part)), 2014)