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

The application of this title would unreasonably restrict the ability to provide utility services to the public;

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

That the proposal protects critical areas functions and values to the extent possible and provides for mitigation in accord with the provisions of this title; and

The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.

That no other reasonable use can be made of the property that will have a lesser adverse impact on the critical area and adjoining and neighboring lands;

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

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

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

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);

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

The inability of the proponent to derive reasonable use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant after the effective date of this chapter.

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

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

The minimum standards of this chapter will be met.

Applicant's name and contact information; permits being sought, and description of the proposal;

A copy of the site plan for the development proposal, drawn to scale and showing:

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

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

An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to critical areas resulting from the proposed development of the site and noxious weed management;

An analysis of site development alternatives;

A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas;

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

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

Financial guarantees to ensure compliance; and

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

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

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

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

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

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or

Monitoring the impacts and compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures.

Soils with high permeability ratings according to NRCS Soil Survey have high vulnerability.

The following aquifers used for drinking water have a known risk for contamination:

Development activities within an aquifer recharge area shall be designed, developed and operated in a manner that will not potentially degrade groundwater resources nor adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer.

A hydrogeologic study and/or ongoing monitoring may be required to assess impacts of development activities on groundwater resources.

All proposed activities within aquifer recharge areas must comply with the source water protection requirements of the federal Environmental Protection Agency, state Department of Health, and the Okanogan County Public Health.

Site plans for development projects shall minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the amount of impervious surfaces associated with the project in order to reduce stormwater runoff.

All development occurring within critical aquifer recharge areas shall be required to connect to city sewer and water and on-site sewage disposal shall be prohibited. Newly annexed areas shall be exempt from this requirement until city water and sewer services are available.

On-site stormwater facilities shall be designed and installed in all critical aquifer recharge areas as to provide both detention and treatment of all runoff associated with the development. All projects shall comply with best management practices described in Ecology's Eastern Washington Storm Water Management Manual.

In areas with high or moderate recharge potential, activities such as landfills, junkyards/salvage yards, mining, wood treatment facilities, or any other activity that could impair the recharge of critical aquifer recharge areas may be permitted in accord with applicable zoning regulations, providing the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate, through a critical areas report, that potential negative impacts to groundwater can be prevented.

All storage tanks, whether above- or underground, shall be required to be constructed so as to protect against corrosion for the operational life of the tank, to prevent any release of hazardous substances to the ground, groundwaters, or surface waters, and to utilize appropriate containment methods.

Any agricultural activities conducted within critical aquifer recharge areas shall incorporate best management practices concerning waste disposal, fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide use, and stream corridor management. If needed to document potential impacts, applicants shall seek technical assistance from the Okanogan County Conservation District or the WSU Cooperative Extension Office.

Application of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers within aquifer recharge areas shall comply with timing and rates specified on product packaging.

Vehicle repair and servicing activities must be conducted over impermeable pads and within a covered structure capable of withstanding normally expected weather conditions. Chemicals used in the process of vehicle repair and servicing must be stored in a manner that protects them from weather and provides containment should leaks occur.

Car washes may be permitted inside critical aquifer recharge areas provided they comply with the Department of Ecology's Best Management Standards for Vehicle and Equipment Washwater Discharges/Best Management Practices Manual (as hereinafter amended).

Priority Habitats. Priority habitats are those with unique or significant value to many fish or wildlife species.

Priority Species. Priority species are those which require special efforts to ensure their perpetuation because of their low numbers, sensitivity to habitat alteration, tendency to form vulnerable aggregations or because they hold commercial, recreational, or tribal importance.

Proposals to Designate Local Additions. The city may designate additional species, habitats of local importance, and/or wildlife corridors as follows:

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;

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;

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

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 17.30.110;

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

Habitat Assessment. Critical area reports for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall include a habitat assessment to evaluate the presence or absence of a critical species or habitat;

All projects shall comply with the applicable federal, state and local regulations regarding the species and habitats identified upon a site;

When needed to protect the functions and values of habitat conservation areas, the administrator shall require the establishment of buffer areas for activities in or adjacent to such areas. Buffers shall consist of an undisturbed area of native vegetation, or areas identified for restoration. Buffer widths shall reflect the classification and sensitivity of the habitat and the intensity of activity proposed, and shall be consistent with the management recommendations issued by WDFW and other management recommendations that meet the criteria of best available science;

Any approved alteration or development shall be required to minimize impacts to native vegetation. Where disturbance is unavoidable, the applicant shall restore the area to the extent possible using native plants appropriate to the site. New plantings shall be monitored and maintained in good growing condition and kept free of invasive weeds until well established upon the site;

Within riparian habitat conservation areas, vegetation shall not be removed unless no other alternative exists. In such cases clearing shall be limited to those areas necessary and disturbed areas shall be replanted with site-appropriate native riparian vegetation;

Access to habitat conservation areas or buffers may be restricted in accord with the findings of a critical areas report, mitigation report, PHS management recommendations or other best available science. Access restrictions may include fencing and signs, as needed, to ensure protection of habitat functions and values. Restrictions may be seasonal in nature;

All activities, uses and alterations proposed to be located in or adjacent to water bodies used by anadromous fish shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of associated habitats;

Mitigation Plans Required.

Fifty-Foot Buffer. Cliff, cave and talus slope habitats shall have at least a fifty-foot buffer for safety and resource protection.

Aquatic and Vegetation Conservation Protection Standards.

A wildlife habitat boundary survey and evaluation, if required, 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.

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

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

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

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.

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 sub-basin; the individual and cumulative impacts 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. The FWHCA must also assess various site development alternatives and to show it selected the least impactful option.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Where necessary, a permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings that are 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.

Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than twenty 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 be considered a noxious or problem weed by the Natural Conservation Services Department or local conservation districts.

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 a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 groundwater; 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.

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

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

Identification and Delineation. 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 US Army Corps of Engineers (2006) Regional Supplement to the 1987 Delineation Manual: Arid West Region; after such date, Brewster shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. 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:

Rating. 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. 14-06-030, or as revised and approved by Ecology). Wetlands in Brewster shall be classified into the four categories in accordance to the system established in the Growth Management Element of the city of Brewster comprehensive plan.

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

For any regulated activity, a critical areas report or wetland critical areas report (see Section 17.30.080) may be required to support the requested activity.

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

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

Exemptions include activities that will have little or no short-term environmental effect or long-term cumulative impact on a wetland's structure and function (water, soil, or vegetation) or are an emergency that threatens public health or safety. In the case of emergency response activities that affect wetlands and buffers, an after-the-fact permit is required and rectifying impacts.

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 area report for wetlands meeting the requirements in Section 17.30.080 must be submitted.

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 area report, except where such activities result in a loss of the functions and values of a wetland or wetland buffer. These activities include:

Buffer Requirements. The standard buffer widths in Table 17.30.160(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: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No. 14-06-030, or as revised and approved by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high.

Wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbances are unavoidable during adjacent construction, revegetation with native plant materials will be required.

The standard buffer widths shall be applied unless the administrator and/or applicant determines through a scientifically supportable method that a greater or lesser buffer width would serve to protect the functions and values of a particular wetland. The standard buffer widths may not be reduced by more than fifty percent. Greater buffer widths or rehabilitation of an inadequate plant community may be required where necessary to ensure development does not result in adverse impacts to wetlands.

The use of the standard buffer widths requires the implementation of the measures in Table 17.30.160(2), where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses.

If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in Table 17.30.160(2) then a thirty-three percent increase in the width of all buffers is required. For example, a seventy-five-foot buffer with the mitigation measures would be a one-hundred-foot buffer without them.

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.

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

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:

Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The administrator may allow averaging of wetland buffer widths to improve wetland protection in accordance with an approved critical areas report, when all of the following conditions are met:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Overlapping Critical Area Buffers. Where other critical areas coincide with wetlands, buffers shall be configured so as to protect aggregate functions and values. Particular consideration shall be given to habitat connectivity and the wider buffer applies.

Allowed Buffer Uses. The following uses may be allowed within wetland buffers 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.

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.

Signs and Fencing of Wetlands and Buffers.

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 as existed in the wetland prior to mitigation. 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).

When possible, mitigation shall be on site and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the wetland and buffer areas. If on-site mitigation is not feasible, then the applicant shall demonstrate that the site is the nearest that can reasonably achieve the goals of mitigation with a high likelihood of success.

Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with Table 17.30.160(3) and subsection K of this section and shall apply to the creation, restoration or preservation of wetlands that is in-kind, on site, the same category, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success.

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.

The mitigation ratio may be increased if the administrator identifies that:

The administrator may decrease the mitigation ratio where:

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

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.

Restoring (Reestablishing), Replacing or Enhancing the Wetland on the Site of the Project.

Restoring, replacing or enhancing degraded wetlands in the same sub-basin.

Creating Wetlands on Upland Sites That Were Former Wetlands or That Are 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.

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 at replacing the functions lost. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or associated buffers shall demonstrate:

Preservation. Preserving high quality wetlands that are under imminent threat 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. Ratios for preservation in combination with other forms of mitigation generally range from ten to one to twenty to one, 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:

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

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

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

Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless:

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.

Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area 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 17.30.080) of this chapter.

The written report must contain, at a minimum:

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 percent for the first year and eighty percent plant survival for each of the four years following initial planting.

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

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 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.

Monitoring reports by the biologist must include verification that the planting areas have less than twenty 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 local conservation district.

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.

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.

Prior to site development and/or building permit issuance, a performance surety agreement in conformance with Section 17.30.110 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.

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.

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 chapter.

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 17.30.160(1).

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

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

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.

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.

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

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:

Stormwater management facilities shall be allowed within the outer twenty-five percent of a wetland buffer; provided, there is no other feasible location and that the location of such facilities will not adversely impact the functions and values of the wetland.

As a condition of any permit or authorization pursuant to this chapter, the administrator may require temporary or permanent signs and/or fencing along the perimeter of a wetland or buffer in order to protect the functions and values of the wetland, or to minimize future impacts or encroachment upon the wetland or buffer.

Wetland alteration proposals shall be approved only if no alternative is available. If alteration is unavoidable, all adverse impacts shall be mitigated as set forth in an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan.

The administrator may allow greater density of development outside of wetland areas and associated buffers as an incentive; provided, the ability to ensure a high level of protection for on-site resources is demonstrated in an approved critical areas report and mitigation plan.

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

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

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 17.30.160(1) and (2).

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.

Land Subject to One-Hundred-Year Flood. Land subject to one-hundred-year-floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Areas Identified on the Flood Insurance Map(s). Land identified on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps.

Additional Areas. Other areas designated by the city pursuant to this section.

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.

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.

Development, uses and activities within identified frequently flooded areas (see Map VII-5 in the Brewster comprehensive plan) shall comply with the regulations contained in Chapter 18.02 of this code. When a project location includes one or more other designated critical areas the following regulations apply in addition to Chapter 18.02 of this code:

Subdivision in frequently flooded areas is subject to the following:

Erosion hazard;

Landslide hazard;

Seismic hazard; or

Areas subject to other geological events such as coal mine hazards and volcanic hazards including mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential settlement.

Map VII-6 in the Brewster comprehensive plan;

U.S. Geological Survey landslide hazard, seismic hazard, and volcanic hazard maps;

Department of Natural Resources seismic hazard maps of Eastern Washington, as available;

Department of Natural Resources slope stability maps, as available;

Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance maps; and

Locally adopted maps.

Erosion hazard areas include areas likely to become unstable, such as bluffs, steep slopes, and areas with unconsolidated soils. Erosion hazard areas contain all three of the following characteristics:

Landslide hazard areas include areas subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas susceptible to landslide because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors, and include, at a minimum, the following:

Seismic hazard areas must include areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or subsidence, soil liquefaction, surface faulting, or tsunamis. Settlement and soil liquefaction conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density, typically in association with a shallow groundwater table. One indicator of potential for future earthquake damage is a record of earthquake damage in the past. Ground shaking is the primary cause of earthquake damage in Washington, and ground settlement may occur with shaking. The strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by:

Volcanic hazard areas must include areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava flows, debris avalanche, or inundation by debris flows, lahars, mudflows, or related flooding resulting from volcanic activity.

Mine hazard areas are those areas underlain by, adjacent to, or affected by mine workings such as adits, gangways, tunnels, drifts, or air shafts. Factors which should be considered include: proximity to development, depth from ground surface to the mine working, and geologic material.

Step One—Risk Assessment. City staff shall make a preliminary determination whether there is a known or suspected risk, no risk, or an unknown risk. Staff will review any designations in the comprehensive plan, review readily available information, and conduct 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.

Step Two—Initial Geotechnical Report and Contents. If it is determined that a geologically hazardous area may be present, the applicant shall submit to the city a geologic hazard area risk assessment (geotechnical report). The geotechnical report shall be prepared, stamped, signed, and certified in the state of Washington by a licensed engineer or geologist and contain the following information:

Step Three—Further Analysis, Secondary Geotechnical Report and Additional Contents. If the professional preparing the risk assessment in step two concludes that further analysis is necessary, the applicant shall submit to the city a secondary geotechnical report.

Alterations. Alterations of geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:

Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations of impacts to a geologically hazardous area or any associated buffers shall be supported by the best available science.

Buffers Required. Critical areas reports and mitigation plans for geologically hazardous areas shall establish buffer widths as needed to eliminate or minimize risks of property damage, death, or injury resulting from development of the hazard area. Where established, buffers shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and the designated geologically hazardous area(s).

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.

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.

Clusters. Structures and improvements shall be clustered to avoid geologically hazardous areas and other critical areas.

Slope Stability. Development and activities located within landslide or erosion hazard areas shall provide for long-term slope stability, and design shall incorporate the following standards:

Land that is located wholly within an erosion, landslide or mine hazard area or its buffer may not be subdivided. Land that is located partially within an erosion, landslide or mine hazard area or its buffer may be divided; provided, that each resulting lot has sufficient buildable area outside of, and will not affect, the geologic hazard area.

Access roads and utilities may be permitted within the erosion, landslide or mine hazard area and associated buffers only if no other feasible alternative exists.

Appropriate buffers shall be maintained between all permitted uses and activities and the designated geologically hazardous area(s);

Appropriate drainage, grading, excavation and erosion control measures shall be implemented in the geologically hazardous area(s);

Mitigation measures shall be implemented that maintain the integrity of the geologically hazardous area(s);

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 17.30.110; and

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.

No Mitigation Measures Available. 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.

Foreseeable Risk. 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.

Structural Stabilization Required. New development that would require structural stabilization over the life of the development shall be prohibited.