A. City Thresholds Established. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions:

A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including:

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

197-11-030 Policy. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Definitions Adopted By Reference. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Additional Definitions. In addition to those definitions contained within Chapter 197-11 WAC, when used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

“City” means the City of Moses Lake, Washington.

“Permit” or “Permit application” means any land use or environmental permit or license required from the City for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site specific rezones authorized by the comprehensive plan or a special planning area plan or other subarea plan, unless excluded by this Chapter.

“SEPA rules” means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the Department of Ecology. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Determination of Lead Agency. When the City receives an application for or initiates a proposal that involves a nonexempt action, the responsible official shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under WAC 197-11-050 and WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, incorporated herein. This determination shall be made for each proposal involving a nonexempt action unless the lead agency has been previously determined or the responsible official is aware that another agency is in the process of determining the lead agency.

B. Transfer of Lead Agency Status to a State Agency. For any proposal for a private project where the City would be the lead agency and for which one or more state agencies have jurisdiction, the responsible official may elect to transfer the lead agency duties to a state agency. The state agency with jurisdiction appearing first on the priority listing in WAC 197-11-936 shall be the lead agency and the City shall be an agency with jurisdiction. To transfer lead agency duties, the responsible official must transmit a notice of the transfer together with any relevant information available on the proposal to the appropriate state agency with jurisdiction. The responsible official shall also give notice of the transfer to the Applicant and any other agencies with jurisdiction over the proposal.

C. Responsibilities of City as Lead Agency. For all proposals for which the City is the lead agency, the responsible official shall make the threshold determination, supervise scoping and preparation of any required environmental impact statement (EIS), and perform any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible official by those sections of the SEPA rules that are adopted by reference in this Chapter, or otherwise assigned by the supplemental provisions of this Chapter.

D. Responsibilities of City When Not Lead Agency. When the City is not the lead agency for a proposal, all Departments of the City shall use and consider, as appropriate, either the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on the proposal. The City shall not prepare or require preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the lead agency, unless required under WAC 197-11-600. In some cases, the City may require or conduct supplemental environmental review under WAC 197-11-600.

E. Objection to Lead Agency Determination. If the City receives a lead agency determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent with the criteria of WAC 197-11-922 through 197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any objection must be made to the agency originally making the determination and resolved within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the determination, or the City must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the fifteen-day time period. Any such petition on behalf of the City may be initiated by the responsible official.

F. Lead Agency Agreements. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties for a proposal under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944.

G. Determination of Other Agencies. In making a lead agency determination for a private project, the responsible official shall require sufficient information from the Applicant to identify which other agencies have jurisdiction over the proposal.

H. Assumption of Lead Agency Status. The City may assume lead agency status pursuant to WAC 197-11-948, incorporated herein. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Categorical Exemptions. The City will typically identify whether an action is categorically exempt within seven (7) days of receiving a completed application.

C. Threshold Determinations. When the City is lead agency for a proposal, the following threshold determination timing requirements apply:

D. Early Review. If the City’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a building permit or other permit that requires detailed project plans and specifications, the Applicant may request in writing that the City conduct environmental review prior to submission of the detailed plans and specifications.

A. Application. Department review of the application under City codes and regulations, and the environmental review and determination thereon.

B. Staff Report. The staff report on the application, and the report or documentation concerning environmental review.

C. Hearing and Public Notices. Hearings and other public processes, including required public notices, required by City codes or regulations, and hearings and other public processes, including public notices, required, or conducted under SEPA.

D. Additional Processes. Such other review processes as the responsible official shall determine. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.

197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.

197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures.

197-11-230 Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.

197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary planning, environmental analysis, and expanded scoping.

197-11-235 SEPA/GMA integration documents. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

197-11-250 SEPA/Model Toxics Control Act integration.

197-11-253 SEPA lead agency for MTCA actions.

197-11-256 Preliminary evaluation.

197-11-259 Determination of nonsignificance for MTCA remedial action.

197-11-262 Determination of significance and EIS for MTCA remedial actions.

197-11-265 Early scoping for MTCA remedial actions.

197-11-268 MTCA interim actions. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.

197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.

197-11-880 Emergencies.

197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. City Thresholds Established. The City establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction based on local conditions:

A. Determination. When the City receives an application for a project or proposal or, in the case of City proposals, a department initiates a project or proposal, the responsible official shall determine whether the project or the proposal is exempt under this Chapter, SEPA, or the SEPA rules. The determination that a project or proposal is exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this Chapter shall apply to the proposal. The City shall not require completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.

B. Review of Proposal Information. In determining whether a project or proposal is exempt, the responsible official shall make certain the proposal is properly defined and shall identify the specific permits and approvals required.

C. Proposals with Exempt and Nonexempt Actions. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions, the City may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the procedural requirements of this Chapter, except that as authorized in WAC 197-11-070:

D. Documentation of Categorical Exemption. The City may note on an application that a proposal is categorically exempt or place such a determination in City files, but the City is not required to document that a proposal is categorically exempt. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Environmental Checklist. All applications subject to this Chapter shall include a completed SEPA Checklist in such form as provided by the City.

C. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. The responsible official shall require sufficient information from the Applicant to identify other Agencies with jurisdiction. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Review of Responsible Official. The responsible official, in reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making the threshold determination, shall determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the City’s comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. In conducting this review the responsible official shall:

C. Project Review under the GMA. In its review of a project permit application, the City may determine, pursuant to the criteria of RCW 43.21C.240(1) and (2), the requirements for environmental analysis, protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local, state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for the specific adverse environmental impacts of the application.

D. Agency Consultation. In its decision whether a specific adverse environmental impact has been addressed by an existing rule or law of another agency with jurisdiction with environmental expertise with regard to a specific environmental impact, the City shall consult orally or in writing with that agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this deferral, the City shall base or condition its project approval on compliance with these other existing rules or laws. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Mitigated DNS. The responsible official may issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or clarifications of, the proposal made by the Applicant.

B. Early Review – Revised Proposal. When an Applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal, along with a revised environmental checklist, pursuant to the City’s response to a request for early review, the City shall base its threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal.

C. Timing. The City shall not act upon a proposal for which a mitigated DNS has been issued for fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of issuance; provided, that the requirements of this section shall not apply to an mitigated DNS issued pursuant to the optional DNS process described in MLUDC 15.510.160.

D. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS shall be deemed conditions of approval of the underlying permit or action and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or condition of the permit or enforced in any matter specifically prescribed by the City. Failure to comply with the designated mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of any permit issued.

E. Withdrawal of DNS. If the City’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a mitigated DNS for the proposal, the City should evaluate the threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-340(3)(a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Eligibility. When the responsible official has a reasonable basis for determining significant adverse environmental impacts are unlikely for a proposal, the City may use a single integrated comment period to obtain comments on the notice of application and the likely threshold determination for the proposal. If the process is used, a second comment period will typically not be required when the DNS is issued. The Optional DNS Process should only be used on minor projects that can be fully reviewed prior to issuing a Notice of Application under MLUDC 15.210.050.

B. Optional DNS Notice. If the City uses the optional process, the responsible official shall comply with the requirements of WAC 179-11-355, combining the SEPA notice with the notice of application and providing on 14-day comment period for the application and SEPA determination. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Preparation of EIS.

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Mitigation Conditions. The City may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a proposal so long as:

C. Denial of Permit or Approval. The City may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on the basis of SEPA so long as:

D. Criteria for Exercise of Substantive Authority. The City designates and adopts by reference the following policies as the basis for the City’s exercise of authority pursuant to this section:

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Public Notice. Whenever the City issues a DNS under WAC 197-11-340(2), an Optional DNS under WAC 197-11-355, or a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3) the City shall give public notice as follows:

C. Notice of Public Hearings. Notice of public hearings shall be published, posted, and mailed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days before the hearing.

D. Cost of Public Notice. The City shall require an Applicant to complete the public notice requirements for the Applicant’s proposal at the Applicant’s expense, compensate the City for costs of carrying out the public notice requirements on behalf of the Applicant, or provide services or materials to assist the City in carrying out the public notice requirements.

E. Notice of Appeal. The notice of decision shall include notice of:

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

B. Administrative Appeals. The City establishes the following administrative appeal procedures under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-680:

C. Judicial Appeals.

D. Record on Appeal.

A. SEPA Rules. The following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC are incorporated by reference:

197-11-914 SEPA fees and costs.

B. Threshold Determination. For every environmental checklist the City will review when it is lead agency, the City shall collect a fee from the proponent of the proposal prior to undertaking the threshold determination.

C. Environmental Impact Statement.

D. Appeals. All appeals shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable appeal fee.

E. Public Records Act Copies. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this Chapter, and for mailing the document in a manner provided by the Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW and the City Public Records Policy. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

197-11-960 Environmental checklist.

197-11-965 Adoption notice.

197-11-970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).

197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice (DS).

197-11-985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status.

197-11-990 Notice of action. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Unless exempted as provided herein, the provisions of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 shall apply to all lands, all land uses, clearing and development activity, and all structures and facilities in the City located within a critical area or buffer or on a site containing a critical area or buffer. No person, company, agency, or Applicant shall alter a critical area or buffer except as consistent with the purposes and requirements of these Chapters.

B. The provisions of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 shall apply whether or not a permit or authorization is required.

C. The City shall not approve any permit or otherwise issue any authorization to alter the condition of any land, water, or vegetation, or to construct or alter any structure or improvement in, over, or on a critical area or associated buffer, without first ensuring compliance with the requirements of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Critical Area Review Application Required. A critical area review application shall be submitted for all development in any identified critical area to determine exemption applicability. Pursuant to FEMA regulations, exemption for the activities described in subsections (D)(2), (D)(3) and (D)(4) of this section is not applicable to development located within the floodplain.

B. Exemption Request and Review Process. An Applicant may submit a written request for exemption to the Director that describes the activity and states the exemption listed in this section that applies. The Director shall review the exemption request as a Type I permit review process. If the exemption is approved, it shall be placed on file with the Department and the Applicant may continue through the review process for any underlying permit. If the exemption is denied, the Applicant may continue in the critical area review process and shall be subject to the requirements of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545.

C. Exempt Activities and Impacts to Critical Areas. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. To be exempt from this critical areas regulations does not give permission to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the responsible party’s sole expense.

D. Exempt Activities. The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the provisions of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545; provided, that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements:

A. Allowed Activities. Certain activities as set forth below are allowed activities. The Applicant for an allowed activity must submit a critical area review form. In making the decision whether a proposed activity is an allowed activity for purposes of this Chapter, the Director shall follow the permit review process set forth for a Type I permit.

B. Approval. Activities allowed under this Chapter shall have been reviewed and permitted or approved by the City or other agency with jurisdiction, but do not require submittal of a separate critical area report, unless such submittal was previously required for the underlying permit. The Director may apply conditions to the underlying permit or approval to ensure that the allowed activity is consistent with the provisions of this Chapter to protect critical areas.

C. Required Use of Best Management Practices. All allowed activities shall be conducted using the best management practices pursuant to the City’s Public Works Standards, that result in the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Best management practices shall be used for tree and vegetation protection, construction management, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality protection, and regulation of chemical applications. The City shall observe the use of best management practices to ensure that the activity does not result in degradation to the critical area. Any incidental damage to, or alteration of, a critical area shall be restored, rehabilitated, or replaced at the Applicant’s expense.

D. Allowed Activities. The following activities are allowed:

A. Applicability. If the application of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 would prohibit a development proposal by a public agency or public utility, the agency or utility may apply for an exception pursuant to this section.

B. Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a public agency and utility exception shall be made to the City and shall include a critical area information form; and if necessary a critical area report, including mitigation plan; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW).

C. Public Agency and Utility Review Criteria. The criteria for review and approval of public agency and utility exceptions are as follows:

A. Applicability. If the application of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 would deny all reasonable economic use of the subject property, the City shall determine if compensation is an appropriate action, or the property owner may apply for an exception pursuant to this section. However, this section is not applicable to development in the floodplain. The requirements and criteria for variances within frequently flooded areas are applicable.

B. Exception Request and Review Process. An application for a reasonable use exception shall be made to the City and shall include a critical area review form; and if necessary a critical area report, including mitigation plan; and any other related project documents, such as permit applications to other agencies, special studies, and environmental documents prepared pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW and WAC 197-11-158).

C. Reasonable Use Review Criteria. Criteria for review and approval of reasonable use exceptions follow; one or more may apply:

A. Submittal. Prior to the City’s consideration of any proposed activity not found to be exempt or allowed, the Applicant shall submit to the Department complete information regarding the critical area on the application for the underlying development on forms provided by the City.

B. Critical Area Review Process. As part of a critical area review, the City shall:

C. Effect of Director’s Determination. A determination regarding the apparent absence of one or more critical areas by the Director is not an expert certification regarding the presence of critical areas and the determination is subject to possible reconsideration and reopening if new information is received. If the Applicant wants greater assurance of the accuracy of the critical area review determination, the Applicant may choose to hire a qualified professional to provide such assurances. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. No Critical Area Report Necessary. If the Director determines that no critical area report is necessary, the City shall state the reasons for this determination in the notice of application issued by the City for the proposal.

B. Unlikely to Impact Critical Areas. If the Director determines that there are critical areas on the site that the proposed project is unlikely to impact and the project meets the requirements for and has been granted a waiver from the requirement to complete a critical area report, a summary of the analysis and findings for this decision shall be stated in the notice of application for the proposal.

C. Critical Areas May Be Effected. If the Director determines that critical areas may be affected by the proposal and a critical area report is required, public notice of the application shall include a description of the critical area that might be affected and state that a critical area report(s) is required. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Preparation by Qualified Professional. The Applicant shall submit a critical area report prepared by a qualified professional. Whether a person is a qualified professional is determined by the person’s professional credentials ‘or certification, any advanced degrees earned in the pertinent scientific discipline from a recognized university, the number of years of experience in the pertinent scientific discipline, recognized leadership in the discipline of interest, formal training in the specific area of expertise, and field ‘or laboratory experience with evidence of the ability to produce peer-reviewed publications or other professional literature. No one factor is determinative in deciding whether a person is a qualified scientific expert. Where pertinent scientific information implicates multiple scientific disciplines a team of scientific experts may be required representing various disciplines to ensure the identification and inclusion of the best available science. The qualifications of the professional who prepared the plan shall be included in the report.

B. Incorporation of Best Available Science. The critical area report shall use scientifically valid methods and studies in the analysis of critical area data and field reconnaissance and reference the source of science used. The critical area report shall evaluate the proposal and all probable impacts to critical areas in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

C. Minimum Report Contents. At a minimum, the report shall contain the following:

D. Use of Existing Reports and Studies. Unless otherwise provided, a critical area report may be supplemented by or composed, in whole or in part, of any reports or studies required by other laws and regulations or previously prepared for and applicable to the development proposal site, as approved by the Director. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

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

B. Modifications to Required Contents. The Applicant may consult with the Director prior to or during preparation of the critical area report to obtain City approval of modifications to the required contents of the report where, in the judgment of a qualified professional, more or less information is required to adequately address the potential critical area impacts and required mitigation.

C. Additional Information Requirements. The Director may require additional information to be included in the critical area report when determined to be necessary to the review of the proposed activity in accordance with this Chapter. Additional information that may be required, includes, but is not limited to:

A. The Applicant shall avoid all impacts that degrade the functions and values of a critical area or areas when possible. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter, if alteration to the critical area is unavoidable, all adverse impacts to or from critical areas and buffers resulting from a development proposal or alteration shall be mitigated using the best available science in accordance with an approved critical area report and SEPA documents, so as to result in no net loss of critical area functions and values.

B. Mitigation shall be in-kind and on-site, when possible, and sufficient to maintain the functions and values of the critical area, and to prevent risk from a hazard posed by a critical area.

C. Mitigation shall not be implemented until after the Director’s approval of a critical area report that includes a mitigation plan, and mitigation shall be in accordance with the provisions of the approved critical area report. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

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

B. 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;

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

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

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

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

G. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Environmental Goals and Objectives. The mitigation plan shall include a written report identifying environmental goals and objectives of the compensation proposed and including:

B. Performance Standards. The mitigation plan shall include measurable specific criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this Chapter have been met.

C. Detailed Construction Plans. The mitigation plan shall include written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation proposed, such as:

These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome.

D. Monitoring Program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring (for example, monitoring shall occur in years one, three, five, and seven after site construction), and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years.

E. Contingency Plan. The mitigation plan shall 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.

F. Estimates of Cost. The mitigation plan shall include an estimate of the costs to implement the required activities under the proposed plan to include both labor and materials. Any required financial guarantees shall be posted in accordance with MLUDC 15.515.260 to ensure mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The City should encourage, facilitate, and approve innovative mitigation projects that are based on the best available science. Advance mitigation and mitigation banking are examples of alternative mitigation projects allowed under the provisions of this section wherein one or more Applicants, or an organization with demonstrated capability, may undertake a mitigation project together if it is demonstrated that all of the following circumstances exist:

B. Conducting mitigation as part of a cooperative process does not reduce or eliminate the required replacement ratios. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Review Criteria. Any alteration to a critical area, unless otherwise provided for in this Chapter, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the following criteria:

B. Conditions. The City may condition the proposed activity as necessary to mitigate impacts to critical areas and to conform to the standards required by this Chapter.

C. Buffer Widths Alteration. Standard buffer widths on legal lots or parcels recorded prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be reduced by the Director upon the receipt and consideration of a critical area report. In addition to the requirements of such critical area report, the report shall include recommendations for the buffer width and mitigation from the experienced, qualified professional who produced the critical area report, provided the Applicant for a development permit or other City approval demonstrates:

D. Denial. Except as provided for by this Chapter, any project that cannot adequately mitigate its impacts to critical areas in the sequencing order of preferences shall be denied. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Frequently Flooded Areas Variance. It is the duty of the City to help protect its citizens from flooding. This need is so compelling and the implications of the cost of ensuring a structure built below the base flood elevation are so serious that variances from the flood elevation or from other requirements in MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 are quite rare. The long-term goal of preventing and reducing flood loss and damage can only be met if variances are strictly limited. Therefore, the variance guidelines provided in this Chapter are more detailed and contain multiple provisions that must be met before a variance can be properly granted. The criteria are designed to screen out those situations in which alternatives other than a variance are more appropriate.

B. Variance Procedure. Variances from the standards of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 for frequently flooded areas may be authorized by the City in accordance with the procedures for a Type III permit. The Hearing Examiner shall review the request and make a written finding that the request meets or fails to meet the variance criteria.

C. Requirements for Variances.

D. Variance Criteria. In considering variance applications, the City shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, all standards specified in MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545, and:

E. Additional Requirements for the Issuance of a Variance.

F. Time Limit. The City shall prescribe a time limit within which the action for which the variance is required shall be commenced, completed, or both. Failure to begin or complete such action within the established time limit shall terminate the variance.

G. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof shall be on the Applicant to bring forth evidence in support of the variance application and upon which any decision has to be made on the application. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Stop Work. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The City shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner’s or other responsible party’s expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this Chapter.

B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared. The plan is subject to approval by the City. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsection (C) of this section. The Director shall, at the violator’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the Applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal.

C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration.

A. Markers. The boundary at the outer edge of critical area tracts, associated buffers and easements shall be delineated with permanent survey stakes, using iron or concrete markers as established by local survey standards.

B. Modifications. These provisions may be modified by the Director as necessary to ensure protection of sensitive features or wildlife needs. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Notice. In order to inform subsequent purchasers of real property of the existence of critical areas, the Applicant of any property containing a critical area or buffer on which a development proposal is submitted shall record a notice with the county auditor. The notice shall state the presence of the critical area or buffer on the property, the application of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 to the property, and the fact that limitations on actions in or affecting the critical area or buffer may exist. The notice shall “run with the land.”

B. Proof of Notice. The Applicant shall submit proof that the notice has been filed for public record before the City approves any site development or construction for the property or, in the case of subdivisions, short subdivisions, planned unit developments, and binding site plans, at or before recording. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Critical Area Tracts. Critical area tracts shall be used in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, and binding site plans to delineate and protect those contiguous critical areas and buffers:

B. Recording. Critical area tracts shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots.

C. Plat or Recorded Drawing. Critical area tracts shall be designated on the face of the plat or recorded drawing in a format approved by the City Attorney. The designation shall include the following restriction:

D. Dedication. The City may require that any required critical area tract be dedicated to the City, held in an undivided interest by each owner of a building lot within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowners’ association or land trust (which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract). (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. When mitigation required pursuant to a development proposal is not completed prior to the final permit approval, such as final plat approval or final building inspection, the City shall require the Applicant to post a performance bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the City. If the development proposal is subject to mitigation, the Applicant shall post a mitigation bond or other security in a form and amount deemed acceptable by the City to ensure mitigation is fully functional.

B. The bond shall be in the amount of one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated cost of the uncompleted actions or the estimated cost of restoring the functions and values of the critical area that are at risk, whichever is greater.

C. The bond shall be in the form of a surety bond, performance bond, assignment of savings account, or an irrevocable letter of credit guaranteed by an acceptable financial institution, with terms and conditions acceptable to the City Attorney and with a company authorized to do business in the State of Washington.

D. Bonds or other security authorized by this section shall remain in effect until the City determines, in writing, that the standards bonded for have been met. Bonds or other security shall be held by the City for a minimum of five years to ensure that the required mitigation has been fully implemented and demonstrated to function, and may be held for longer periods when necessary.

E. Depletion, failure, or collection of bond funds shall not discharge the obligation of an Applicant or violator to complete required mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.

F. Public development proposals shall be relieved from having to comply with the bonding requirements of this section if public funds have previously been committed for mitigation, maintenance, monitoring, or restoration.

G. Any failure to satisfy critical area requirements established by law or condition including, but not limited to, the failure to provide a monitoring report within thirty (30) calendar days after it is due or comply with other provisions of an approved mitigation plan shall constitute a default, and the City may demand payment of any financial guarantees or require other action authorized by the municipal code or any other law.

H. Any funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be used to complete the required mitigation and reimburse the City for its costs relating to the enforcement action. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Rights of Entry.

B. Stop Work Orders.

C. An explanation of, and opportunity to ask questions about, the reasons for and evidence supporting issuance of the stop work order;

D. Remedies Not Exclusive – Nuisance.

B. The City may withhold, condition, or deny development permits or activity approvals to ensure that the proposed action is consistent with this Chapter. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the City.

B. Any individual critical area adjoined by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this Chapter or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with this Chapter, that which provides more protection to the critical areas shall apply.

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

D. Compliance with the provisions of this Chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Hydraulic Permit Act (HPA) permits, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits). The Applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this Chapter. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The City Council shall establish fees for filing of a critical area information form, critical area review processing, and other services provided by the City as required by this Chapter. These fees shall be based on the anticipated sum of direct costs incurred by the City for any individual development or action and may be established as a sliding scale that will recover all of the City costs including the enforcement of these code provisions. The bases for these fees shall include, but not be limited to, the cost of engineering and planning review time, cost of inspection time, costs for administration, and any other special costs attributable to the critical area review process.

B. Unless otherwise indicated in this Chapter, the Applicant shall be responsible for the initiation, preparation, submission, and expense of all required reports, assessment(s), studies, plans, reconnaissance(s), peer review(s) by qualified professionals, and other work prepared in support of or necessary to review the application. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The City shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect, one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein.

B. Critical areas regulated by MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 include:

C. All areas within the City meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Any action taken pursuant to MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 shall result in at least equivalent functions and values of the critical areas associated with the proposed action, as determined by the best available science. All actions and developments shall be designed and constructed in accordance with MLUDC 15.515.120. Applicants must first demonstrate an inability to avoid impacts before restoration and compensation of impacts will be allowed. No activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas.

B. MLUDC Chapters 15.515 through 15.545 shall be interpreted to ensure, among other things, that no harm shall occur in critical areas as a result of activities and developments, but it shall not require enhancement of critical areas where such critical areas were degraded prior to the proposed land use activity or development, or where previously existing critical areas no longer exist. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas with Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical area reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat.

B. Best Available Science to Be Consistent with Criteria in WACs. The best available science is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or team of qualified scientific professionals, that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

B. Identification and Delineation. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this Chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. All areas within the City meeting the wetland designation criteria in that procedure are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter.

C. Wetland Ratings. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington State Department of Ecology wetland rating system found in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern Washington (Publication No. 14-06-030, Hruby, T., 2014, or as may be subsequently revised by Ecology). These documents contain the definitions and methods for determining if the criteria below are met.

D. Mapping. The National Wetland Inventory provides the approximate location and extent of potential wetlands as shown in the City’s geographic system data. Other maps may also be used as they are developed and subsequently adopted by the City. Soil maps produced by U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service may be useful in helping to identify potential wetland areas. These maps are to be used as a guide for the City, Applicants, or property owners, and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation.

E. Identification of Boundaries. The exact location of a wetland shall be determined through site visits and identified wetlands shall have their boundaries delineated for regulation consistent with the requirements of this section. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Except when located within the Shoreline Jurisdiction, all critical areas located within 300 feet of the project area that have been designated by the City and are shown on City, state, or federal government agency maps or reports shall be addressed in a critical area report for wetlands. Wetlands within the Shoreline Jurisdiction that are located within the first 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark shall meet the Shoreline Master Program standards, and are exempt from this Chapter.

B. Wetland Analysis. A written assessment of the wetland, the appropriate wetland type, and required buffer under the provisions of this Chapter.

C. Critical Area Report Information. The Director may require additional information to be included in the critical area report when determined to be necessary for the review of the proposed activity. Additional information for wetlands that may be required includes, but is not limited to, the following:

A. Permitted Activities. Activities may only be permitted in a wetland or wetland buffer if the Applicant can show that the proposed activity will not degrade the functions and functional performance of the wetland and other critical areas.

B. Prohibited Activities. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in wetlands and wetland buffers, except as provided for in this Chapter.

C. Category I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited from Category I, except as provided for in the public agency and utility exception, reasonable use exception, and variance sections of this Chapter.

D. Category II, III, and IV Wetlands. Activities and uses that result in unavoidable and necessary impacts may be permitted in Category II, III, and IV wetlands and associated buffers in accordance with an approved critical area report and mitigation plan, but only if the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative that will accomplish the Applicant’s objectives. Full compensation for the acreage and loss functions will be provided under the terms established under MLUDC 15.525.040(F) and (G).

E. Wetland Buffers. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and 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, Hruby, T., or as may subsequently be revised by Ecology). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high or moderate, see Table Wetland Buffer Requirements.

5. Wetland Buffer Width Averaging. The Director may allow modification of the standard wetland buffer width in accordance with an approved critical area report and the best available science on a case-by-case basis by averaging buffer widths. Averaging of buffer widths may only be allowed where a qualified professional wetland scientist demonstrates that:

a. It will not reduce wetland functions or functional performance;

b. The wetland contains variations 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 narrower buffer in other places;

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

d. The buffer width is not reduced to less than 50 percent of the standard width.

F. Signs and Fencing of Wetlands.

A. Preferred Mitigation. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference:

B. Mitigation for Affected Functions or Functions Lost as a Result of the Proposed Activity. Compensatory mitigation actions shall address functions affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement and shall provide similar wetland functions as those lost by the proposed activity, except when:

C. Preference of Mitigation Actions. Mitigation actions that require compensation by replacing, enhancing, or substitution shall occur in the following order of preference:

D. Type and Location of Mitigation. Unless it is demonstrated that a higher level of ecological functioning would result from an alternate approach, compensatory mitigation for ecological functions shall be either in-kind and on-site, or in-kind and within the same stream reach, subbasin, or drift cell. Mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same subdrainage basin and on the site as the alteration except when all of the following apply:

E. Mitigation Timing. Mitigation projects shall be completed with an approved monitoring plan prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. In all other cases, mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. The Director may authorize a one-time temporary delay, up to one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, in completing minor construction and landscaping when environmental conditions could produce a high probability of failure or significant construction difficulties. 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, and general welfare of the public. The request for the temporary delay must include a written justification that documents the environmental constraints which preclude implementation of the mitigation plan. The justification must be verified and approved by the City and include a financial guarantee (bond).

F. Mitigation Ratios.

G. Wetland Mitigation Banks.

B. Designated Critical Areas. All areas within the City meeting one or more of these criteria, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Chapter and shall be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Management Recommendations for Priority Habitat and Species.

C. Mapping. The approximate location and extent of habitat conservation areas are shown on the critical area maps adopted by reference by the City, as most recently updated. The following maps and data are hereby adopted and are available from the City or the listed governmental agency:

D. Use of Maps. The above maps are to be used as a guide for the City, Applicants, or property owners and should be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. The above maps are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Critical Area Report. All critical areas located within three hundred (300) feet of the project area that have been designated by the City and are shown on City, state, or federal government agency maps or reports shall be addressed in a critical area report for habitat conservation areas.

B. Habitat Analysis. A habitat assessment to include at a minimum the following:

A. Nonindigenous Species. No plant, wildlife, or fish species not indigenous to the region shall be introduced into a habitat conservation area unless authorized by a state or federal permit or approval.

B. Mitigation and Contiguous Corridors. Mitigation sites shall be located to preserve or achieve contiguous wildlife habitat corridors in accordance with a mitigation plan that is part of an approved critical area report to minimize the isolating effects of development on habitat areas, so long as mitigation of aquatic habitat is located within the same aquatic ecosystem as the area disturbed.

C. Approvals of Activities. The Director shall condition approvals of activities allowed within or adjacent to a habitat conservation area or its buffers, as necessary to minimize or mitigate any potential adverse impacts. Conditions shall be based on the best available science and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

D. Mitigation to at Least Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to habitat conservation areas shall achieve at least equivalent biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis.

E. Approvals and the Best Available Science. Any approval of alterations or impacts to a habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations are a source of Best Available Science.

F. Restrictions.

G. Signs and Fencing of Habitat Conservation Areas.

A. Federal and State Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species and WDFW Priority Habitats and Species.

B. Wetland Habitats. All proposed activities within or adjacent to habitat conservation areas containing wetlands shall conform to the wetland development performance standards set forth in the wetlands section. If nonwetlands habitat and wetlands are present at the same location, the provisions of this Chapter or the Wetlands Chapter, whichever provides greater protection to the habitat, apply.

C. Shrubsteppe.

D. Riparian Habitat Areas. Unless otherwise allowed in this Chapter, all structures and activities shall be located outside of the stream buffers. Crab Creek has a riparian habitat and is the only riverine in the City of Moses Lake. The Stream buffers of one hundred fifty (150) feet (consistent with the Shoreline Master Program buffer) is established for habitat that includes aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that mutually benefit each other and that are located adjacent to rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, seeps, and springs. The width shall be measured outward in each direction, on the horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark, or from the top of bank if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified. Stream buffers should be sufficiently wide to achieve the full range of riparian and aquatic ecosystem functions, which include but are not limited to protection of instream fish habitat through control of temperature and sedimentation in streams; preservation of fish and wildlife habitat; and connection of riparian wildlife habitat to other habitats.

E. Aquatic Habitat. Aquatic Habitat is regulated under the shoreline master program. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Erosion hazard;

B. Landslide hazard;

C. Seismic hazard;

D. Other geological events including mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential settlement. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion hazard areas include those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a moderate to severe, severe, or very severe rill (small stream) and interrill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard also includes those areas impacted by shore land and/or stream bank erosion and those areas within a river’s channel migration zone.

B. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Examples of these may include but are not limited to the following:

C. Seismic Hazard Areas. Seismic hazard areas are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting. 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. The strength of ground shaking is primarily affected by:

D. Other Hazard Areas. Geologically hazardous areas shall also include areas determined by the Director to be susceptible to other geological events including mass wasting, debris flows, rock falls, and differential settlement. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. The approximate location and extent of geologically hazardous areas are shown on the critical area maps adopted by reference in this Chapter and listed below. The critical area maps listed below are available from the City or the listed governmental agency and include:

B. Use of Maps. These maps are to be used as a guide for the City, Applicants, or property owners and may be continuously updated as new critical areas are identified. They are a reference and do not provide a final critical area designation. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Area Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area report for geologically hazardous areas:

B. Geological Hazards Assessment. A critical area report for a geologically hazardous area shall contain an assessment of geological hazards including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:

C. Incorporation of Previous Study. Where a valid critical areas report has been prepared within the last five years for a specific site, and where the proposed land use activity and surrounding site conditions are unchanged, said report may be incorporated into the required critical area report. The Applicant shall submit a hazards assessment detailing any changed environmental conditions associated with the site.

D. Mitigation of Long-Term Impacts. When hazard mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall specifically address how the activity maintains or reduces the pre-existing level of risk to the site and adjacent properties on a long-term basis (equal to or exceeding the projected lifespan of the activity or occupation). Proposed mitigation techniques shall be considered to provide long-term hazard reduction only if they do not require regular maintenance or other actions to maintain their function. Mitigation may also be required to avoid any increase in risk above the pre-existing conditions following abandonment of the activity.

E. Additional Analysis to Be Included in a Critical Area Report for Geologically Hazardous Areas. Parameters for design of site improvements, including appropriate foundations and retaining structures, should include allowable load and resistance capacities for bearing and lateral loads, installation considerations, slope stability and estimates of settlement performance, vegetation management, erosion control, and damage control. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

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

B. Critical Facilities Prohibited. Critical facilities shall not be sited within geologically hazardous areas unless there is no other practical alternative. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Erosion and Landslide Hazard Areas. Activities on sites containing erosion or landslide hazards shall meet the standards the Performance standards – General requirements, and the specific following requirements:

B. Seismic Hazard Areas. Activities proposed to be located in seismic hazard areas shall meet the standards within the Performance standards – General requirements. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Frequently Flooded Areas. Frequently flooded areas shall include areas Identified on the Flood Insurance Map(s). Those areas of special flood hazard within the incorporated City limits of Moses Lake identified as being within the 100-year floodplain by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Grant County, Washington and Incorporated Areas,” dated February 18, 2009 (FIRM Panels: 53025C1310C), and any revisions thereto, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Chapter. The FIS and FIRMs are on file with the Department. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in subsection (D) of this section shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under subsection (D) of this section.

B. Use of Additional Information. The Director may use additional flood information that is more restrictive or detailed than that provided in the flood insurance study conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate frequently flooded areas, including data on channel migration, historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, location of restrictive floodways, maps showing future build-out conditions, maps that show riparian habitat areas, or similar information.

C. Compliance. All development within special flood hazard areas is subject to terms of this Chapter and other applicable regulations.

D. Flood Elevation Data. When base flood elevation data is not available (A and V zones designated under subsection (A) of this section), the Director shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state, county or other source, in order to administer this section.

E. Designation Made by Director. The flood insurance maps are to be used as a guide for the City, Applicants, Property Owners, and the public, and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. Because flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, the best available information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation.

F. Supplemental Documentation. Any areas identified by the Director in this section shall be supported by professional scientific information.

G. Maintenance of Records. The Director shall maintain for public inspection all records of floodplain hazards, certificates of floodproofing, and flood elevation data.

H. Mapping. The location and extent of frequently flooded areas are shown on the critical area maps adopted with the ordinance codified in this Chapter by the City. The following maps and data are hereby adopted and are available from the City or the listed governmental agency: Federal Emergency Management Administration flood insurance rate maps; Community Panels: “The Flood Insurance Study for Grant County, Washington and Incorporated Areas” dated February 18, 2009 and any revisions thereto, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps (FIRM) and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance.

I. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. This Chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Chapter and another section of the municipal code, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.

J. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this Chapter, all provisions shall be:

A. Floodplain Administrator. The Director is hereby appointed as the floodplain administrator to administer, implement, and enforce this Chapter by granting or denying development permits in accordance with its provisions. The floodplain administrator may delegate authority to implement these provisions. The duties of the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to:

B. Permit Review. Review all development permits to determine that:

C. Information to Be Obtained and Maintained.

D. Alteration or Relocation of a Watercourse. Whenever a watercourse is to be altered or relocated:

E. Interpretation of FIRM Boundaries. Make interpretations where needed, as to exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazards (e.g., 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. Such appeals shall be granted consistent with the standards of Section 60.6 of the Rules and Regulations of the NFIP (44 CFR 59-76). (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Prepared by a Qualified Professional. A frequently flooded areas report shall be prepared for development within floodplains. Such report shall be required to be prepared by a qualified professional who is a hydrologist or engineer, and who is licensed in the State of Washington with experience in preparing flood hazard assessments.

B. Areas Addressed in Critical Area Report. The following areas shall be addressed in a critical area report for frequently flooded areas:

C. Flood Hazard Assessment Required. A critical area report for a proposed activity within a frequently flooded area shall contain a flood hazard assessment including the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:

A. Permit(s) Required. The permit required by this section shall be incorporated into the basic underlying permits necessary for the project or activity to proceed within a frequently flooded area, e.g., building permit, short plat, public works permits, State Environmental Policy Act and City critical areas reviews, and similar permits and development reviews. Completion of and compliance with the necessary review processes and permits listed above shall satisfy the requirement of issuance of a development permit for any activity that would alter land or commence a new use within a frequently flooded area. The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes as defined by the MLUDC, and for all development including fill and other activities.

B. All necessary permits shall be obtained. The Director shall verify that all necessary permits have been obtained from those governmental agencies from which prior approval is required by federal, state, or local law, including but not limited to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

C. Effective Base Flood Storage Volume. Development proposals must not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of a floodplain. Grading or other activity that would reduce the effective storage volume must be mitigated by creating compensatory storage on the site. The compensatory storage must provide equivalent volume at equivalent elevations to that being displaced, be hydraulically connected to the source of the flooding, be provided in the same construction season, and occur on site or off site, if legal arrangements can be made to assure that the effective compensatory storage will be preserved over time.

D. Areas without Base Flood Elevation Data. Where base flood elevation data is not available (A and V zones, and there is insufficient data available from federal, state, county, or other sources, the Director shall determine the base flood elevation using historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, and other available information. If there is insufficient data available for the Director to make a determination of the base flood elevation, and standards requiring a base flood elevation cannot be implemented, the Director shall require measures that assure the proposed structures will be reasonably safe from flooding. At a minimum, the base flood elevation shall be set at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade. The Director shall have the authority to set an average base flood elevation if there are sufficient grade deficiencies in elevation around the development area.

E. AE 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 zone AE on the City’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 the City.

F. Construction Materials and Methods.

G. Elevation Certificate Required Following Construction. Following construction or substantial improvement of a structure within the floodplain where the base flood elevation is provided, the Applicant shall be required to submit to the Director an as-built elevation certificate from a licensed professional land surveyor that records the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement), and whether or not the structure contains a basement. The Director shall obtain said as-built elevation certificate and maintain for public inspection said certificates in its official records.

H. Floodproofing.

I. Anchoring.

J. Fill and Grading. Fill and grading within the floodplain shall only occur after the review and approval by the City of the clearing, grading, and fill proposal. Such proposal shall require a determination from a licensed professional engineer that the fill or grading will not block side channels, inhibit channel migration, increase flood hazards to others, or be placed within a channel migration zone, whether or not the City delineated such zones as of the time of the application.

K. Storage of Materials and Equipment.

A. Residential Construction.

B. Manufactured Homes Must Be Elevated. All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement.

C. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles are required to either:

D. Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall meet the requirements of subsection (D)(1) or (2) of this section.

E. Utilities.

F. Subdivision Proposals.

G. Alteration of Watercourses.

H. Crawlspaces. Crawlspaces are commonly used as a method of elevating buildings to or above the base flood elevation or providing area for easier access to utilities and other building facilities. The following requirements apply to all crawlspaces that have enclosed areas or floors below the base flood elevation:

I. 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 shall be used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage.

J. Appurtenant Structures (Detached Garages and Small Storage Structures) in A Zones (A, AE, AH, AO).

A. Residential Structures. New construction and substantial improvements of residential structures and manufactured homes within AO zones identified in the flood insurance study and maps referenced in MLUDC 15.540.010(A) shall have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade of the building site to one foot above the depth number specified in feet on the flood insurance map or at least two feet if no depth number is specified.

B. Nonresidential Structures. New construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures within such AO zones shall either:

C. Drainage Paths. All development shall include adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.

D. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites within AO zones on the flood insurance map(s) shall either:

A. Critical Facilities. Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within frequently flooded areas if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within frequently flooded areas shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet or more above the level of the base flood elevation (100-year flood) or to the height of the 500-year flood, whichever is higher. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. SEPA Review. If not otherwise required by the City, locating of critical facilities within a frequently flooded area shall be subject to SEPA review and action.

B. Construction in Floodways. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in MLUDC 15.540.010(A) are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following provisions apply:

A. Wellhead Protection Areas. Wellhead protection areas may be defined by the boundaries of the 10-year time of ground water travel or boundaries established using alternate criteria approved by the Washington State Department of Health in those settings where ground water time of travel is not a reasonable delineation criterion, in accordance with WAC 246-290-135.

B. Sole Source Aquifers. Sole source aquifers are areas that have been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Safe Water Drinking Act.

C. Susceptible Ground Water Management Areas. Susceptible ground water management areas are areas that have been designated as moderately or highly vulnerable or susceptible in an adopted ground water management program developed pursuant to Chapter 173-100 WAC.

D. Moderately or Highly Vulnerable Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas that are moderately or highly vulnerable to degradation or depletion because of hydrogeologic characteristics are those areas delineated by a hydrogeologic study prepared in accordance with the State Department of Ecology guidelines.

E. Moderately or Highly Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas. Aquifer recharge areas moderately or highly susceptible to degradation or depletion because of hydrogeologic characteristics are those areas meeting the criteria established by the State Department of Ecology. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Construction of structures and improvements, including additions, resulting in less than five percent or 2,500 square feet (whichever is greater) total site impervious surface area that does not result in a change of use or increase the use of a hazardous substance.

B. Development and improvement of parks, recreation facilities, open space or conservation areas resulting in less than five percent total site impervious surface area that do not increase the use of a hazardous substance.

C. On-site domestic septic systems releasing less than 14,500 gallons of effluent per day and that are limited to a maximum density of one system per one acre. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Hydrogeologic Assessment. For all proposed activities to be located in a critical aquifer recharge area, a critical area report shall contain a Level One hydrogeological assessment. A Level Two hydrogeologic assessment shall be required for any of the following proposed activities:

B. Level 1 Hydrogeologic Assessment. A level 1 hydrogeologic assessment shall include the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum:

C. Level Two Hydrogeologic Assessment. A Level Two hydrogeologic assessment shall include the following site- and proposal-related information at a minimum, in addition to the requirements for a Level One hydrogeological assessment:

A. Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the Applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer and that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the recharging of the aquifer.

B. The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Health and the City of Moses Lake wellhead protection plan.

C. The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in accordance with the locally adopted surface water management or water quality regulations. (Ord. 3051, 9/24/24)

A. Storage Tanks. All storage tanks proposed to be located in a critical aquifer recharge area must comply with local building code requirements and must conform to the following requirements:

B. Vehicle Repair and Servicing.

C. Residential Use of Pesticides and Nutrients. Application of household pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers shall not exceed times and rates specified in the packaging.

D. Use of Reclaimed Water for Surface Percolation or Direct Recharge. Water reuse projects for reclaimed water must be in accordance with the adopted water or sewer comprehensive plans that have been approved by the State Departments of Ecology or Health.

E. State and Federal Regulations. The uses listed below shall be conditioned as necessary to protect critical aquifer recharge areas in accordance with the applicable state and federal regulations.