1. Findings of Fact.

2. Statement of Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed:

3. Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter includes methods and provisions for:

1. Considered as minimum requirements;

2. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and

3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.

1. Development Permit Required. A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in AMC 19.74.030(B). The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the AMC 19.74.020, Definitions, and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in AMC 19.74.020, Definitions.

2. Application for Development Permit. Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the city of Anacortes and may include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:

1. Permit Review.

2. Use of Other Base Flood Data (In A and V Zones). When base flood elevation data has not been provided (A and V Zones) in accordance with AMC 19.74.030(B), Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard, the Administrator shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer AMC 19.74.050(B), Specific Standards, and 19.74.050(D), Critical Facility.

3. Information to Be Obtained and Maintained.

4. Alteration of Watercourses.

5. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries. Make interpretations where needed as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person contesting the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in AMC Table 19.20.030-1, Type I Administrative Ministerial Actions, and AMC 19.20.180.

1. Variances to this chapter must be processed according to the procedures in this title.

2. Conditions for Variances.

3. Variance Review Criteria.

1. Anchoring.

2. Construction Materials and Methods.

3. Utilities.

4. Subdivision Proposals.

5. Review of Building Permits. Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (AMC 19.74.040(C)(2)), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.

1. Residential Construction.

2. Nonresidential Construction. Nonresidential construction or substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or other nonresidential structure must meet the requirements of subsection (B)(2)(a) or (b) below.

3. Manufactured Homes.

4. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either:

5. Enclosed Area Below the Lowest Floor. If buildings or manufactured homes are constructed or substantially improved with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor, the areas must be used for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

6. Appurtenant Structures (Detached Garages and Small Storage Structures).

7. AE and A1-30 Zones With Base Flood Elevations but No Floodways. In areas with BFEs (when a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones A1-30 and AE on the community’s FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within community.

1. All new construction and substantial improvements in Zones V1-30 and VE (V if base flood elevation is available) on the community’s FIRM must be elevated on pilings and columns so that:

2. The elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the bottom of the lowest structural member of the lowest floor (excluding pilings and columns) of all new and substantially improved structures in Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM and whether or not such structures contain a basement shall be provided to the Administrator. The Administrator shall maintain a record of all such information;

3. All new construction within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM shall be located landward of the reach of mean high tide;

4. All new construction and substantial improvements within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM must have the space below the lowest floor either free of obstruction or constructed with nonsupporting breakaway walls, open wood latticework, or insect screening intended to collapse under wind and water loads without causing collapse, displacement, or other structural damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. For the purposes of this section, a breakaway wall shall have a design safe loading resistance of not less than 10 and no more than 20 pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls which exceed a design safe loading resistance of 20 pounds per square foot (either by design or when so required by local or state codes) may be permitted only if a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that the designs proposed meet the following conditions:

If breakaway walls are utilized, such enclosed space shall be useable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage. Such space shall not be used for human habitation;

5. The use of fill for structural support of buildings within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM is prohibited;

6. Human-caused alteration of sand dunes within Zones V1-30, VE, and V on the community’s FIRM which would increase potential flood damage is prohibited;

7. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community’s FIRM on sites:

shall meet the standards of subsections (C)(1) through (C)(6) of this section and manufactured homes placed or substantially improved on other sites in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the FIRM meet the requirements of subsection (B)(3) of this section;

8. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within Zones V1-30, V, and VE on the community’s FIRM must either:

1. Manage stormwater through a land development strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of on-site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrologic controls to mimic predevelopment hydrologic conditions;

2. Encourage creative and coordinated site planning, the conservation of natural conditions and features, the use of appropriate technologies and techniques, and the efficient layout of streets, utility networks and other public improvements;

3. Reduce impervious surfaces; and

4. Preserve or restore native vegetation. (Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. Landscape maintenance activities and gardening that does not adversely impact stormwater facilities or raingardens.

2. The activities described in Appendix 1, Section 1 of the city’s NPDES permit, including qualifying pavement maintenance and underground utility projects. (Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. The Director may determine infiltration is infeasible without the infiltration testing required by the stormwater management manual stormwater BMPs when infiltration is known to the city to be infeasible due to any of the following:

1. The Director may grant an adjustment to the application of the stormwater management manual and its minimum requirements prior to permit approval and construction consistent with the criteria in the city’s NPDES permit Appendix 1, Section 5, Adjustments.

2. The Director may grant an exception/variance from this chapter or the application of the stormwater management manual and its minimum requirements prior to permit approval and construction when consistent with the criteria in the city’s NPDES permit Appendix 1, Section 6, Exceptions and Variances.

3. The Director shall keep records, including the written findings of fact, of all local exceptions to the minimum requirements.

4. Exceptions/variances (exceptions) to the minimum requirements may be granted by the city following legal public notice of an application for an exception or variance, legal public notice of the city’s decision on the application, and written findings of fact that document the city’s determination to grant an exception. Project-specific design exceptions based on site-specific conditions do not require prior approval of Ecology. The city must seek prior approval by Ecology for any jurisdiction-wide exception.

5. A request for an adjustment or exception must meet the criteria in the city’s NPDES permit (Appendix 1) and be submitted on a form provided by the Department. The city may grant an exception to the minimum requirements if such application imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the application imposes a severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the Director must consider and document with written findings of fact the following:

1. Applicants must limit clearing and grading to the minimum necessary for construction of permitted uses and associated utilities.

2. Applicants must consider limiting lawn areas, driveways, and roads and locate them in a manner that results in the least disruption to the topography and native vegetation on the site.

3. Applicants must consider clustering lots, dwelling units, or building structures during the conceptual planning stage to preserve open space, reduce total impervious surface area, and minimize development impacts on adjacent critical areas and associated buffers.

1. After the project is complete, there may not be a net increase in impervious surface above the limit on the permit, plat, or site plan without approval from the director.

2. For subdivisions, the maximum impervious surfaces allowed for each lot must be added to the face of the plat.

3. For all other development, the maximum impervious surface allowed for the development must be added to the face of the final, approved site plan.

1. A protective easement dedicated to the City on a form provided by the department;

2. A separate nonbuilding tract owned in common by all lots within the subdivision;

3. Restrictions on the future use of the area recorded on the face of the final plat;

4. An alternative permanent protective mechanism approved by the director.

1. A stormwater facility necessary for compliance with this chapter must be located abutting a right of way. When the site is constrained by topography, soils, hydrology, or other factors, the director may approve an alternative location that facilitates access by the city for inspection and maintenance.

2. A stormwater facility may be located within a right of way at the discretion of the director.

1. That the applicant dedicate an easement to the city for access and inspection of the stormwater facility. The director may waive this requirement for small facilities that do not require inspection or can be effectively inspected without an access easement.

2. That the stormwater facility be dedicated to the city, which the city may accept if:

1. Prior to the use of a stormwater facility required by this chapter, the owner must:

2. The maintenance plan must:

3. The maintenance plan remains in force for the life of the development or until the city approves a new or amended maintenance plan for the development’s stormwater facilities.

1. In the event that public benefits would accrue due to modification of the stormwater plan for the subject property to better implement the recommendations of the city’s surface water quality management plan, the director may recommend that the city should assume some responsibility for the further design, construction, operation and maintenance of drainage facilities receiving runoff from the subject property. Such decision shall be made concurrently with review and approval of the stormwater plan as specified in this chapter.

2. In the event the city decides to assume some responsibility for design, construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities, the developer will be required to contribute a pro rata share to the construction cost of the facilities. The applicant may be required to supply additional information at the request of the official to aid in the determination by the city. Guidelines for implementing this section will be defined by the official. (Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. All proposed development requiring stormwater conveyance must provide sufficient capacity to convey stormwater without flooding or otherwise damaging existing or proposed structures in a manner consistent with the city’s engineering standards.

2. Estimation of peak stormwater runoff rates used in the design of stormwater conveyance facilities must use the rational method for estimating a hydrograph using a mathematical simulation.

3. Runoff may not discharge directly onto the surface of a public street or road.

4. Runoff and infiltration must be directed away from septic drain fields.

5. Runoff from impervious surfaces, roof drains, and yard drains must be directed so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.

6. Runoff from development may not cause a significant adverse impact to down-gradient properties.

1. All proposed development must provide easements for all stormwater conveyance systems that are not located in public rights-of-way or tracts and must be granted to the parties responsible for providing ongoing maintenance of the systems. Drainage easements through non-drainage structures are prohibited.

2. Wording to this effect must appear on the face of all final plats, and must be contained in any covenants required for a development. (Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. Construction Bond. A bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of conforming the construction with the approved stormwater management plans. After determination by the director that all facilities are constructed in compliance with the approved plans, the director must release the construction bond. Alternatively, the director could require an equivalent cash deposit to an escrow account administered by a local bank designated by the city.

2. Performance Bond. A bond to cover the cost of design defects or failures in workmanship of the facilities to be posted and maintained throughout the two-year maintenance period. Alternatively, an equivalent cash deposit to an escrow account administered by a local bank designated by the city could be required at city option.

3. Liability Bond. A liability policy in an amount established by the director that names the city as an additional insured and which protects the city from any liability up to those amounts for any accident, negligence, failure of the facility, or any other liability whatsoever, relating to the construction or maintenance of the facility. The liability policy must be maintained for the duration of the facility by the owner of the facility; except in the case of facilities formally assumed by the city for maintenance per this chapter, the liability policy may be terminated when and if the city maintenance responsibility commences.

1. The installation and maintenance of fire hydrants, water meters, pumping stations, and street furniture by the city or its contractors;

2. Removal of trees and ground cover in emergency situations involving immediate danger to life or property or substantial fire hazards;

3. Removal of dead or diseased trees or ground cover;

4. Removal of 6,000 square feet or less of trees or ground cover on a lot that contains an existing permitted building and is capable of being divided into two or more lots, for purposes of general property and utility maintenance or landscaping except that:

5. Clearing, grubbing, and grading activities described herein including any level of vegetation or ground-disturbing action within a critical area or buffer is subject to AMC Chapter 19.70, Critical Areas. If a proposed activity is exempt from critical area permit requirements, the Director has the discretion to require a clearing and grading permit even if the proposed activity is exempted in this section. (Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. A site plan showing location, type, and size of existing significant trees and native vegetation; designation of clearing limits; and other requirements identified by the director;

2. If excavated material is to be wasted off-site, a description of the location and the route to the disposal site;

3. Demonstration of compliance with AMC Chapter 19.76, Stormwater Management;

4. A construction site sediment transport potential worksheet which will guide city staff on the need for a site inspection prior to permit issuance. (Ord. 2991 § 1 (Att. A), 2016)

1. AMC Chapter 19.70, Critical Areas Regulations;

2. AMC Chapter 18.04, State Environmental Policy Act;

3. AMC Chapter 19.76, Stormwater;

4. The Anacortes Shoreline Master Program;

5. The International Building Code provisions for “Excavation and Grading.”

1. Protect members of the public and public resources and facilities from injury, loss of life, or property damage due to landslides and steep slope failures, erosion, seismic events, or flooding;

2. Protect, maintain and restore healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including, but not limited to, ground and surface waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife and their habitats, and to conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species;

3. Direct activities not dependent on critical area resources to less environmentally sensitive sites and mitigate unavoidable impacts to critical areas by regulating alterations in and adjacent to critical areas;

4. Prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water quality, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat, and the overall net loss of wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas;

5. Alert owners, potential purchasers, real estate agents, appraisers, lenders, builders, developers and other members of the public to natural conditions that pose a hazard or may otherwise limit development;

6. Serve as a basis for exercise of the city’s substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

1. Shorelines of the state and shorelands as defined in RCW 90.58.030, and critical areas occurring within the jurisdiction of shorelines of the state and shorelands (“shoreline jurisdiction”), are regulated and protected through the Anacortes Shoreline Master Program (AMC Chapter 19.72), as amended. Activities occurring within shoreline jurisdiction are reviewed through the shoreline permit review and issuance process; a separate critical areas permit is not required. The Shoreline Master Program incorporates by reference portions of this chapter; however, certain provisions of this chapter that are not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.85 RCW, and supporting Washington Administrative Code chapters do not apply in shoreline jurisdiction.

2. These critical areas regulations apply in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the city. Notwithstanding AMC 19.12.040(E), in the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other regulations of the city, the regulations apply that provide greater protection to the critical areas’ functions and values, as determined by the Director.

3. When any provision of this chapter or any existing easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with this chapter, that which provides more protection to the critical areas applies.

4. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, or local regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for complying with other agency requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Classification of critical areas will be determined by the city using the following tools:

2. Rating categories will not change due to illegal modifications. If the development proposal site contains or is within a critical area suspected of illegal modifications the rating will be based on premodification conditions of the critical area. Abatement of the unauthorized modification will be required prior to authorization of the current development proposal being processed for the subject site. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant;

2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas;

3. Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and

4. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses the impacts and avoids impacts to the critical area associated with the project.

1. Require a critical area report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional, to be reviewed and evaluated;

2. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this chapter, including the criteria in AMC 19.70.035, Critical areas review;

3. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and

4. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this chapter.

1. Routine maintenance and repairs;

2. Structural modifications or additions that do not intensify the nonconformity of the structure or increase the area of hardscape lying within the critical area or buffer. The Director may require an updated critical area report to confirm location of buffers and that the addition is located entirely outside the critical area or buffer;

3. Vertical additions above the ground floor that do not encroach further into the critical area or buffer beyond the existing exterior walls, except that critical areas review is required for additions in landslide hazard areas or buffers;

4. Restoration or replacement of a structure that is damaged by fire, natural disaster or other calamity when:

5. State Ferry Terminal. The existing developed footprint, except for infill between the toll booth area in the lowest parking lot, hillside walking paths, and a hillside side slope along the western side of the main terminal parking lot, and including all associated parking, at the Washington State Ferry terminal facility must not be increased. Redevelopment may occur within the existing footprint only, provided there is no net loss of ecological function and value in the adjacent buffer areas for Cannery Pond and Ship Harbor Interpretive Preserve wetlands.

1. A critical area permit must be required for all permitted alterations. Requests for such permits must be reviewed using the procedures outlined in AMC Chapter 19.20, Table 19.20.030-1, Review classification and process matrix. No permit must be issued unless it can be shown that the proposed development is fully consistent with the requirements of this chapter.

2. In addition to other project-related documents, all permitted alterations must require a critical area assessment report per AMC 19.70.115, Critical area report, to evaluate the permitted alteration. The report must include:

3. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application.

4. Public Comment. Consistent with AMC 19.20.030, Types of review, the city must ensure the opportunity for public comment, including that from appropriate federal, state, and tribal natural resource agencies, to ensure the use of best available science before deciding on approval.

1. Special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, or topography, and the strict application of this chapter is found to deprive the subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity; provided, however, that the fact that those surrounding properties have been developed under regulations in force prior to the adoption of this chapter may not be the sole basis for granting approval;

2. The issuance of a variance to zoning requirements (setback, height, coverage, etc.) by itself will not provide sufficient relief to avoid the need for a permitted alteration to the critical area and/or buffer and other requirements for the critical areas regulated by this chapter;

3. Mitigation sequencing per AMC 19.70.125(A), Mitigation Sequencing, has been applied;

4. The proposed alteration is supported by best available science; and

5. The proposed alteration allows for development of the subject parcel with the least impact on critical areas while providing a reasonable use of the property.

1. A variance permit must be required for all reasonable use exceptions. Requests for such permits must be reviewed using the procedures applicable to Type 3 Hearing Examiner decisions outlined in AMC 19.20.030. A permit may not be issued unless it can be shown that the proposed development is fully consistent with the variance approval criteria enumerated in AMC 19.38.040 (variance criteria) as well as all of the requirements of this chapter.

2. In addition to other project related documents, all critical area variances must require a critical area report per AMC 19.70.115 to evaluate the proposed disturbance. The report must include:

3. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is on the applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application.

4. Public Comment. Consistent with AMC 19.20.030, the city must ensure the opportunity for public comment, including that from appropriate federal, state, and tribal natural resource agencies, to ensure the use of best available science before a decision is made.

1. The application of this chapter would deny all reasonable economic use of the property and that there is no reasonable economically viable use with a lesser impact on the critical area than that proposed; and

2. Special conditions and circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, the lot, or something inherent in the land, and that are not applicable to other lands subject to the provisions of this chapter; and

3. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the current or previous owner in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line, thereby creating the undevelopable condition, after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; and

4. Any proposed modification to a critical area will be evaluated through consideration of a critical area report and mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional pursuant to the requirements of this chapter, and will be the minimum necessary to allow reasonable and economically viable use of the property. The critical area report and mitigation plan must be prepared utilizing best available science; and

5. Mitigation sequencing per AMC 19.70.125(A) has been applied, and the proposal mitigates impacts to the critical area on site to the maximum extent possible, while still allowing reasonable use of the lot; off-site mitigation may be utilized to the extent necessary to achieve no net loss ecological functions; and

6. The proposed development does not pose a threat to adjacent property or to the public health and safety; and

7. The applicant has demonstrated that the criteria in AMC 19.38.040, Criteria, are met; and

8. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings under similar circumstances; and

9. The granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the Anacortes Comprehensive Plan, and planning policies.

1. The project requires a critical area permit, or critical area variance; or

2. Third party review is specifically required by the provisions of this chapter for the critical area(s) or critical area buffer(s) potentially being impacted; or

3. When the Director determines that such services are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards and guidelines of this chapter or other appropriate regulations.

1. Reconnaissance. The existence, general location, and type of critical areas on, adjacent to, or likely to be impacted by activities on a project site. Determination of whether the project will adversely impact or be at risk from the potential critical areas based on maximum potential buffers for the particular critical area type. Possible application of exemptions should also be addressed;

2. Delineation. The extent, boundaries, rating or classification, and applicable standard buffers of critical areas where the project area could potentially impact the critical area or its buffer including an assessment of the characteristics of or functions and values of the critical area and buffers identified;

3. Analysis. The proposal and impact assessment report documenting the potential project impacts to the critical area and buffers including a discussion of the efforts taken to avoid, minimize, and reduce potential impacts to those areas per AMC 19.70.125(A);

4. Mitigation. The measures that prevent or compensate for the potential impacts of the project designed to meet the requirements of this chapter, AMC 19.70.130, Mitigation plan requirements, and the standards for the specific critical areas impacted. Mitigation includes, but is not limited to, adjustments to required buffer sizes, best practices to minimize impacts, and critical area or buffer enhancement, restoration, or preservation plans. Mitigation plans include, but are not limited to, habitat management plans, revegetation or replanting plans, and restoration plans;

5. Maintenance and Monitoring. The goals of the mitigation proposed, performance standards for success, monitoring methods and reporting schedule, and contingency actions. Maintenance and monitoring plans must be consistent with the mitigation performance standards and requirements of this chapter, including the specific mitigation plan requirements outlined in each critical area type section.

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

2. A description of the proposal, proposal location including address and parcel number(s), and a vicinity map for the project;

3. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, water bodies, shorelines, and buffers on or within 300 feet of the proposed project area. The Director may require critical area and buffer dimensions be accurately surveyed, depending on the scope of the project;

4. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets, for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, site photos, etc.;

5. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon;

6. A description of methodologies used to conduct the critical areas investigation, including references;

7. A scaled drawing of critical areas and buffers identified in the report including buffers for off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site.

1. In some cases, such as when it is determined that no specific critical area is present, a full report may not be necessary to determine compliance with the critical area regulations, and in those cases a letter or reconnaissance-only report may be required.

2. Limitations to Study Area. The Director may limit the required geographic area of the critical area report as appropriate if:

1. The name and contact information of the applicant;

2. Adequate information to determine compliance with the requirements of the critical area regulations, including a critical area report, impact and hazard assessment, and mitigation requirements specific to each critical area type, as indicated in the corresponding sections of this chapter;

3. Identification of the development permit(s) requested and all other local, state, and/or federal critical area-related permits required for the project;

4. Site plan, a scaled drawing of the development proposal including:

1. Historical data, including original and subsequent mapping, historical aerial photographs, data compilations and summaries, and available reports and records relating to the site or past operations at the site;

2. Grading and stormwater management plans; and

3. Information specific to the type, location, and nature of the critical area. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

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

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 by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment or by restoring or stabilizing the critical area through natural, engineering, or other methods;

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

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or

6. Monitoring, measuring and reporting the impact to the decision-maker and taking appropriate corrective measures.

1. The decision-maker may authorize a one-time temporary delay in completing construction or installation of the mitigation when the applicant provides a written explanation from a qualified professional as to the rationale for the delay and satisfactory financial guarantee that the installation will occur. 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 must not create or perpetuate hazardous conditions or environmental damage or degradation, and the delay must not be injurious to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public.

2. Alternative Mitigation Approaches. If the applicant can demonstrate that off-site concurrent or advance mitigation would provide a higher level of ecological function or a greater reduction of hazard risk, off-site mitigation that occurs on Fidalgo Island will be considered by the decision-maker. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. A description of the anticipated impacts to the critical areas, the mitigating actions proposed, and the purposes of the compensation measures, including the site selection criteria; identification of compensation goals; identification of resource functions; and dates for beginning and completion of site compensation construction activities. The goals and objectives must be related to the functions and values of the impacted critical area; and

2. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author’s experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed.

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

2. Best management practices including erosion and sediment control features to be implemented;

3. Site plans showing grading and excavation details, slope gradient, and final grade elevations with minimum two-foot contour intervals;

4. Cross-sectional drawings;

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

6. Measures to protect and maintain plants until established.

1. The mitigation plan must include a monitoring program to be implemented by the applicant to determine the success of the mitigation project and any necessary corrective actions. This program must determine if the original goals and objectives of the mitigation plan are being met.

2. A contingency plan must be established for indemnity in the event that the mitigation project is inadequate or fails. Contingency plans include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. Corrective measures must be taken when the qualified professional indicates, in a monitoring report, that the contingency actions are needed to ensure project success by the end of the monitoring period. A performance and maintenance bond, or other acceptable financial guarantee, is required to ensure the applicant’s compliance with the terms of the mitigation agreement consistent with AMC 19.70.150, Financial guarantee requirements.

3. Monitoring programs prepared to comply with this section must include the following requirements:

1. The as-built report, required prior to final inspection, must, at a minimum, include documentation of the following:

2. Subsequent monitoring reports must, at a minimum, include:

3. The applicant is responsible for reimbursement of the cost of review of monitoring reports and site inspections during the monitoring period which are completed by the city or a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the city.

1. The title notice requirement can be met through recording of a title notice on forms prepared by the city, establishment of a critical area tract, or recording of a native growth protection area easement, consistent with subsections (B) through (D) of this section, as applicable.

2. The following must be noted on all critical area title notice documents:

1. Signs. All critical areas, tracts, easements, and dedications should be clearly marked on the site using permanent markings, as follows:

2. Fencing. Permanent fencing should be designed so as not to interfere with species migration or wildlife movement, unless exclusion fencing is more pertinent, and constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the critical areas and buffers. Proposed fencing type and materials will be determined on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the decision-maker prior to installation.

1. All work must remain stopped until a restoration plan is provided by the responsible party and approved by the city. Such a plan must be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and must describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection (C) of this section.

2. The Director may, at the responsible party’s expense, seek expert advice, including but not limited to third party review by a qualified professional under contract with or employed by the city, in determining if the plan meets the minimum performance standards for restoration.

3. Submittal, review, and approval of required restoration plans for remediation of violations of this chapter must be completed through a site development permit application process, either after the fact for regulated activities, or as a restoration permit for activities not allowed under these provisions.

1. For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards must be met for the restoration:

2. For alterations to special flood hazard and geologically hazardous areas, the following minimum performance standards must be met for the restoration of a critical area:

1. A square footage cost of $3.00 per square foot of impacted critical area buffer; and a square footage cost of $15.00 per square foot of impacted critical area; and

2. A per-tree penalty in the amount of $3,000 per nonsignificant tree and $9,000 per significant tree, for trees removed, or otherwise damaged, within a critical area or buffer in violation of the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Category I. Category I wetlands are those that represent unique or rare wetland types, are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands, are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime, or provide a high level of functions. The following types of wetlands are Category I:

2. Category II. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that are difficult, though not impossible, to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. The following types of wetlands are Category II:

3. Category III. Category III wetlands are those with a moderate level of functions, generally have been disturbed in some ways, can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project, and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. The following types of wetlands are Category III:

4. Category IV. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions and are often heavily disturbed, with a total score of 15 points or less in the wetland rating. The functions provided by Category IV wetlands are generally easier to replace, and in some cases can be improved. However, experience has shown that replacement of functions cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions that need to be protected.

1. Soils maps produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service; and

2. The National Wetlands Inventory, produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

2. Land that is located partially within a wetland and/or its buffer may be subdivided; provided, each lot will meet all zoning standards in AMC Chapter 19.42 without encroaching into the wetland or buffer. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Mitigation sequencing has been applied per AMC 19.70.125(A);

2. The proposed alteration will not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functioning of the wetland, or that any degradation can be adequately mitigated to protect or compensate for the wetland functions that are lost;

3. Small, Hydrologically Isolated Category IV Wetlands (Less than 1,000 Square Feet). The decision-maker may allow small, hydrologically isolated Category IV wetlands to be exempt from the requirement to avoid impacts (AMC 19.70.125(A)(1)), and allow alteration of such wetlands if all of the following conditions are met:

4. Small, Hydrologically Isolated Category IV Wetlands (Less than 1,000 Square Feet). Wetlands less than 1,000 square feet that meet the criteria in subsection (B)(3) of this section and that do not contain federally listed species or their critical habitat are exempt from the buffer provisions contained in this chapter. In order to verify that the wetland meets this exemption, a critical area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in this chapter must be submitted. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Measurement of Wetland Buffers. All buffers must be measured horizontally from the edge of the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. The width of the wetland buffer must be determined according to Tables 19.70.235(B), 19.70.235(C) and 19.70.235(D).

2. Buffer Standards. The buffer standards required by this chapter presume the existence of a dense vegetation community in the buffer adequate to protect the wetland functions and values. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the decision-maker may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or other enhancements, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging.

1. Buffer widths for wetlands that have a high level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of eight or nine points on the wetland rating form:

2. Buffer widths for wetlands that have a moderate level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of six or seven points on the wetland rating form:

3. Buffer widths for wetlands that have a low level of function for wildlife habitat as indicated by a habitat function score of three to five points on the wetland rating form:

1. For wetlands that score six points or more for habitat function, buffer widths for high intensity may be reduced to moderate intensity if both of the following criteria are met:

2. The measures in Table 19.70.235(E) are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.

3. For wetlands that score three to five habitat points, only the measures in Table 19.70.250(E) are required for the use of moderate intensity buffer widths.

4. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table 19.70.250(E), or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then high intensity buffer widths must be used.

1. 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 the wetland is essential or outstanding habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or

2. The adjacent land has slopes greater than 15 percent and is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion-control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or

3. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover on slopes greater than 30 percent. In lieu of increasing the buffer width where existing buffer vegetation is inadequate to protect the wetland functions and values, development and implementation of a wetland buffer restoration/enhancement plan in accordance with AMC 19.70.245, Compensatory mitigation performance standards and requirements, may be substituted.

1. There is not a feasible alternative to the site design that could be accomplished without buffer averaging;

2. The buffer averaging improves the functions or values of the wetland, either through preservation of total buffer area or enhancement of buffer areas including the creation of connectivity and corridors;

3. The total area contained in the buffer area after averaging is no less than that which would be contained within the standard buffer;

4. The wetland contains variation in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics or the character of the buffer varies in slope, soils, or vegetation, and the wetland would benefit from a wider buffer in places and would not be adversely impacted by a narrow buffer in other places;

5. The buffer width at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the standard width.

1. The wetland is classified as a Category III or a Category IV wetland with a habitat score of three to five points or less; and

2. There will be “no net loss” of functions and values of the wetlands; and

3. The wetland does not contain a breeding population of any native amphibian species; and

4. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, and 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, and 4 of Chart 5 in the “Guide for Selecting Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach” (available here: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/0906032.pdf); or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals identified in a Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional watershed plan; and

5. The wetland lies in the natural routing of the runoff, and the discharge follows the natural routing; and

6. All regulations regarding stormwater and wetland management are followed, including but not limited to local and state wetland and stormwater codes, manuals, and permits; and

7. Modifications will require permits. Existing functions and values that are lost would have to be compensated/replaced through an approved mitigation plan.

1. Landscaping;

2. Uncovered decks, roof eaves and overhangs, unroofed stairways and steps;

3. Pervious ground surfaces, such as driveways, patios, and parking may be allowed; provided, that it is engineered as a permeable pavement system as defined in this chapter. Such improvements may be subject to the requirements in AMC Chapter 19.76, Stormwater.

1. For each wetland identified on site and off site within 300 feet of the project site provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per wetland ratings (AMC 19.70.215); required buffers (AMC 19.70.235); hydrogeomorphic classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion and entire wetland area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlets/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site;

2. A discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project;

3. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no-development alternative;

4. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development;

5. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to AMC 19.70.125, Mitigation requirements, to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas and a discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity;

6. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions; and

7. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets.

1. A request for consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), local Native American tribes, and/or other appropriate agency;

2. Copies of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) and related approvals, such as a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), when applicable to the project; and

3. Detailed surface and subsurface hydrologic features both on and adjacent to the site. (Ord. 4025 § 2 (Att. A), 2022; Ord. 3064 § 2 (Att. A), 2021)

1. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be impacted. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on wetland ratings (AMC 19.70.215(B));

2. 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);

3. 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, categories of wetlands, and mitigation ratios applied (if ratio approach used);

4. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities, construction/installation notes, and timing of activities;

5. 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);

6. Proof of establishment of notice on title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas; and

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

1. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands may be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized, except as otherwise exempted in AMC 19.70.230, Specific wetland category development standards, and must achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans must be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 2 – Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b, March 2006, or as revised).

2. Mitigation ratios must be consistent with subsection (J) 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 Western Washington: Final Report, March 2012” (Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011, March 2012, or as revised) consistent with subsection (H) of this section.

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

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

1. Restoration. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. Restoration of wetlands includes reestablishment and rehabilitation.

2. Creation. Creation (establishment) of wetlands on disturbed upland sites, such as those with vegetative cover consisting primarily of nonnative species. 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.

3. Enhancement. Enhancement of significantly degraded wetlands in combination with restoration or creation. Enhancement alone will result in a loss of wetland acreage and is less effective at replacing the functions and values lost. Enhancement should be part of a mitigation package that includes replacing the impacted area and meeting appropriate ratio requirements.

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 one-to-one acreage replacement is provided by reestablishment or creation. 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:

5. Wetland Bank or Advanced Wetland Mitigation. For future use since no current banks have a service area in Anacortes.

1. The conditions in subsection (B) of this section are met.

2. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-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: