1. Providing food, breeding, nesting and/or rearing habitat for fish and other wildlife.

2. Recharging and discharging ground water.

3. Contributing to stream flow during low flow periods.

4. Stabilizing stream banks and shorelines.

5. Storing storm and floodwaters to reduce flooding and erosion.

1. Be consistent with the relevant policies of the City of Snohomish Comprehensive Plan.

2. Be consistent with the goals and policies of the Washington State Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW).

3. Regulate land use to avoid adverse effects on wetlands and maintain the functions and values of wetlands throughout the City of Snohomish.

4. Establish review procedures for development proposals that have the potential for negatively impacting the functionality of wetlands due to their close proximity to wetlands.

1. Category I wetlands are:

2. Category II wetlands are wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring 20 to 22 points).

3. Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring 16 to 19 points) that generally have been disturbed in some way and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. Category III wetlands can often be adequately replaced with a well-planned mitigation project but replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case.

4. Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that can be replaced or in some cases improved. However, replacement cannot be guaranteed in any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions and should be protected to some degree.

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

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

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

4. Pile driving.

5. The placing of obstructions.

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

7. The destruction or alteration of wetland vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland except as allowed by SMC 14.260.050.

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

9. Activities that result in:

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

2. Land that is located partially within a wetland or its buffer may be subdivided provided:

1. Are not associated with riparian areas or their buffers;

2. Are not associated with shorelines of the State or their associated buffers;

3. Are not part of a wetland mosaic;

4. Do not score six or more points for habitat function based on the 2014 update to the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014, Version 2 Update (Ecology Publication No. 23-06-009); and

5. Do not contain a priority habitat or a priority area for a priority species identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or do not contain Federally listed species or their critical habitat.

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

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

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

4. The hydrologic functions of the wetland can be improved as outlined in questions 3, 4, 5 of Chart 4 and questions 2, 3, 4 of Chart 5 in the Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-32, December 2009); or the wetland is part of a priority restoration plan that achieves restoration goals identified in the City of Snohomish Shoreline Master Program or other local or regional watershed plan.

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

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

7. Modifications that alter the structure of a wetland or its soils shall require appropriate permits. Existing functions and values that are lost shall be compensated/replaced pursuant to a plan approved by the Planning Director.

1. Necessary to connect existing trails outside of the wetland or necessary to accommodate a new trail in the buffer area that must be diverted due to terrain or dense vegetation.

2. Limited to crossings that have no adverse impact on water quality.

3. Located to avoid removal of significant trees.

4. Limited to pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width for pedestrian use only. Raised boardwalks utilizing nontreated pilings may be acceptable but shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. (Ord. 2533, 2025)

1. All development shall be designed to implement the impact minimization measures of Table 2 below to ensure the standard buffer width will be effective in minimizing the impact of the development on wetland function.

2. The following criteria shall be required when a wetland receives a habitat score of six points or more and a stream or lake is present on or adjacent to the site:

3. Habitat corridors must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. Habitat corridors shall meet the provisions of SMC 14.280.060(B) and shall connect the wetland to any of the following:

1. The wetland is used by a State or Federally listed plant or animal species or has essential or outstanding habitat for those species, or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or

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

3. The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent.

1. When existing, legally established impervious surfaces or other built structures functionally or physically isolate the wetland buffer from the wetland boundary, the regulated wetland buffer measurement stops at the edge of the impervious surface or manmade structure. Where questions exist regarding whether a development functionally disconnects the buffer, or the extent of that impact, the Director may require a critical area report to analyze and document the buffer functionality.

2. The buffer for a wetland created, restored, or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall be the same as the standard buffer width required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.

3. Buffer areas added through buffer averaging must be fully vegetated to be included in buffer area calculations.

4. Impervious surfaces areas shall not be considered buffers or included in buffer area calculations.

1. Conservation or restoration activities aimed at protecting the soil, water, vegetation, or wildlife.

2. Passive recreation facilities designed and in accordance with an approved critical area report, including:

3. Stormwater Management Facilities.

1. There is no practical alternative site design that would allow reasonable development of the site that completely avoids the need to reduce the buffer.

2. The averaged buffer will not result in degradation of the wetland’s functions and values as demonstrated by a critical areas report from a qualified wetland professional.

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

4. Invasive species are removed from the areas where the buffer width is reduced and the areas are replanted to create the appropriate plant community for the ecoregion.

5. A temporary irrigation system is operated in the areas that are replanted for a minimum of the first three years following the planting.

6. The wetland and buffer are legally protected by a conservation easement and designated as a native growth protection area pursuant to the provisions of SMC 14.255.140.

7. The buffer at its narrowest point is never less than 75 percent of the standard width for any wetland type as defined in Table 1. Reductions of up to 50 percent of the standard width may be considered when all of the following additional conditions are met:

1. The Director may approve a reduction in a Category II, III, or IV wetland buffer if the applicant demonstrates the following:

2. Any buffer reduction authorized by an administrative variance pursuant to this section shall require all of the following:

3. The administrative variance under this subsection shall be processed as a minor variance Type 2 land use application, per Chapter 14.20 SMC. (Ord. 2533, 2025)

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

2. Permanent Signs. As a condition of any permit or authorization issued pursuant to this chapter the applicant shall install permanent signs along the boundary of a wetland or buffer pursuant to the requirements of SMC 14.255.140(A)(1) through (A)(6).

3. Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be installed around or on the outer edge of the buffer to delineate the edge of the protected area. The fence shall be consistent with the requirements of SMC 14.255.130(B)(1) through (B)(4). (Ord. 2533, 2025)

1. Include a description of the field activity the qualified wetland professional performed when visiting the site;

2. Include a statement as to the likelihood of a wetland located on the site or near enough to be impacted by the proposed development and the basis for that statement; and

3. If there is uncertainty in the conclusion whether there is a likelihood of a wetland being on the site or within 150 feet of the site, then a full written wetland report shall be required.

1. A written assessment, data sheets, and accompanying maps of any wetlands and/or buffers on the site, including the following information:

2. The accompanying site plan sheet(s) for the project shall include, at a minimum:

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

2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts.

3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations.

5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments.

6. Monitor the required compensation and take remedial or corrective measures when necessary.

1. Compensatory mitigation for alterations to wetlands shall be used 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 1: Agency Policies and Guidance – Version 2 (Ecology Publication No. 21-06-003), and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication No. 09-06-32, December 2009).

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

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

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

1. Wetland Mitigation Banks. Credits from a certified wetland mitigation bank may be used to compensate for impacts located within the service area specified in the mitigation bank instrument. Use of credits from a wetland mitigation bank certified under Chapter 173-700 WAC is allowed if:

2. Permittee-Responsible Advance Mitigation. Advance mitigation is a form of permittee-responsible mitigation implemented before a permitted impact takes place. It is designed to compensate for impacts expected to occur in the future. The applicant proposing the advance mitigation is the only one who can use the credits generated. Credits cannot be sold or transferred to another applicant. Advance mitigation proposals should be developed in accordance with State and Federal rules and guidance on advance mitigation (Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation, Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015, and Chapter 4.2 of Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1: Policies and Guidance – Version 2, Ecology Publication No. 21-06-003, or as revised). The permittee performs the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site location within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible mitigation shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the Planning Director’s satisfaction that the proposed approach is consistent with the criteria in this section.

3. Permittee-Responsible, Concurrent Mitigation. Concurrent mitigation is a form of permittee-responsible mitigation implemented at the same time permitted impacts are occurring. The permittee is responsible for implementation and success of the compensation. Concurrent mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site location, usually within the same watershed. Permittee-responsible, concurrent mitigation shall be used only if the applicant’s qualified wetland professional demonstrates to the Planning Director’s satisfaction that the proposed approach is ecologically preferable to use of a bank, consistent with the criteria in this section.

1. Restoration. Restoration is achieved through the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland or buffer. Restoration actions are either “reestablishment” or “rehabilitation” activities as defined in Chapter 14.25 SMC.

2. Creation. If a site cannot support wetland or buffer restoration to compensate for expected wetland and/or buffer impacts, the Planning Director may authorize creation of a new wetland and buffer upon demonstration by the applicant’s qualified wetland professional that:

3. Preservation (Permanent Protection/Maintenance). Preservation is achieved by removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions in or near a Category I or II wetland located within the Snohomish City limits.

4. Enhancement. If restoration or creation is not viable options for a site then enhancement shall be undertaken for specified purposes such as water quality improvement, floodwater retention, or wildlife habitat improvement. Enhancement may result in a change in some wetland functions and may lead to a decline in other wetland functions but does not result in a gain in wetland acres. Enhancement activities typically consist of planting vegetation, controlling nonnative or invasive species, modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water to influence hydroperiods, or some combination of these activities. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands or associated buffers shall demonstrate how the proposed enhancement will increase the wetland’s/buffer’s functions, how this increase in function will adequately compensate for the impacts, and how existing wetland functions at the mitigation site will be protected.

1. The following criteria shall be used to determine whether on-site or off-site compensatory mitigation is ecologically preferable. When considering the location of mitigation, preference should be given to using programmatic approaches, such as a mitigation bank.

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

3. The design for the compensatory mitigation project shall be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation shall not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland.

1. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora.

2. The Planning Director 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. Appropriate rationale would include:

1. A written report containing the name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation concept; identification of all the local, State, and/or Federal wetland-related permit(s) required for the project.

2. A description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands, including alternatives and trade-offs of the various alternatives.

3. A description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered, including acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions and impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin class, hydrogeomorphic subclassification, and wetland category.

4. A description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions:

5. Estimate of future conditions in the location if the compensation actions are not undertaken (i.e., how the site would progress through natural succession).

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

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

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

9. Performance standards (measurable standards for the years post- installation) for buffer areas and wetland communities, a monitoring schedule, and a maintenance schedule and actions proposed by each year of the monitoring period.

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

11. A surety estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including cost estimates for the following elements:

12. The mitigation plan sheets must be scaled and shall contain, at a minimum:

13. Performance and maintenance surety devices pursuant to SMC 14.255.090(G)(1) and (G)(2) may be required to ensure compliance with the requirements of the mitigation plan.

14. The wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas, shall be protected by being placed in a separate tract or with a conservation easement to create a native growth protection area pursuant to SMC 14.255.140.

1. Mitigation monitoring may be required for up to a 10-year period to establish that performance standards have been met. The project mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the project’s natural resource values and functions.

2. Monitoring reports shall be prepared by a qualified wetland professional and submitted to the City for years one, two, three, five, seven, and 10 of the monitoring period. If the mitigation goals are not obtained within that period, the applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions until the mitigation goals stipulated in the mitigation plan are achieved.

1. The Planning Director may approve alternative mitigation proposals that:

2. All alternative mitigation proposals shall:

3. Plans may propose a wetland of a different type if justified based on regional needs or functions and values as determined by the Planning Director. However, the replacement ratios may not be reduced or eliminated unless the reduction results in a preferred environmental alternative.

4. Plans shall include mitigation guarantees that meet or exceed the minimum requirements as outlined in subsection J of this section.

5. Plans shall be prepared by a qualified wetland professional. (Ord. 2533, 2025)

1. The historic structure, functions, and values of the affected wetland shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions.

2. The historic soil types and configuration shall be restored to the extent practicable.

3. The wetland and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration.

4. Information demonstrating compliance with other applicable provisions of this chapter shall be submitted to the Planning Director.

1. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 14.85 SMC, Enforcement.

2. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the State of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. The civil penalty shall be assessed consistent with the provisions of Chapter 14.85 SMC, Enforcement, and Chapter 1.14 SMC, Code Enforcement.

3. If the wetland affected cannot be restored, monies collected as penalties shall be deposited in a dedicated account for the preservation or restoration of landscape processes and functions in the watershed in which the affected wetland is located. The City may coordinate its preservation or restoration activities with other cities in the watershed to optimize the effectiveness of the restoration action. (Ord. 2533, 2025)