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

The application of this chapter 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 accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and

The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.

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

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

Pateros generalized critical area maps;

Pateros shoreline master program maps;

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

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

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

Aerial photos;

Approved special reports previously completed for a subject property;

City of Pateros comprehensive plan;

City of Pateros shoreline master program;

Okanogan County soils survey (2009);

Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987);

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

Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats and Species, May 1991, as amended;

Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats—Riparian, December 1997, as amended;

Priority Habitats and Species List, as amended;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will be little or 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, with a description of the proposal;

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

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

An analysis of site development alternatives;

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

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

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 an action;

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;

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

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

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

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

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

A written report identifying mitigation objectives, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Habitats and species of local importance;

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

Waters of the state;

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

State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas;

Riparian areas;

Intermittent and perennial streams;

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

Demonstrate a need for special consideration based on:

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

Identify effects on property ownership and use; and

Provide a map.

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

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

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

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 boundary 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 subbasin; the individual and cumulative effects of the action upon the functions of the critical area and associated watershed; and note observed or predicted trends regarding specific wetland types in the watershed, in light of natural and human processes.

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.

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

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.

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;

Habitat Conservation Areas.

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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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:

Buffer averaging to improve wetland protection may be permitted 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 preassess wetlands using the rating system and establish appropriate wetland buffer widths for such wetlands. The administrator will prepare maps of wetlands that have been preassessed in this manner.

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

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

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. 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).

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

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 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.

Restoration (reestablishment and rehabilitation) of wetlands:

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

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

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

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

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 subdrainage basin unless:

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

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

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

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 (100) percent for the first year and eighty (80) percent 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 that a permanent means of irrigation be installed for mitigation plantings within the wetland buffer, given the arid conditions of the region. The design shall meet the specific needs of the wetland, riparian and shrub steppe vegetation, as may be applicable.

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

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

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 section.

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

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 17.14.130(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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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;

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;

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;

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

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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.